On first glance, Vida y hechas dcl iliistrc caballera don Catrln dc la Ndc$rn& hardly seems morally ambiguous. After all, it is a novel in which priests refute heresy, crime leads to poverty, and the sinful body, even before death, becomes corrupt. I argue in this article, however, that a fundamental ambiguity lies at the core of the novel, an ambiguity reflected in the debate between traditional authority on one side and modernity (or rnJini mo if I may be allowed a useful neologism) on the other. I further contend that this debate reflects a conflict between two Lizardis, one a cauti reformer who from 1814 to 1820 survived fairly ' well in Ferdinand sttiltifying New Spain, and the other a fire- breathing militant who flirted with, but did not entirely embrace, the moral uncertainties of the modern age. But before analyzing these as- pects of the novel, first a word (longer than I would like) about the two Lizardis.
1820—the year Lizardi finished Don Cdo/n and the year ]osé de Iturbide began his successful campaign against Spain—was a water- , shed for both Lizardi and Mexico. Don Catrln lies on the cusp of that ' change. Although nor published until ten years later, in early 1820 the novel was presented in manuscript to the Inquisition's Board of Cen- ' sors who issued the following decree on February 22, 1820:
"La vida y hechos de D. Catr]n de la Fachenda con las notas del Pensador americano es un jocoserlo con que se ridiculiza a los viciosos n erecedores de este eplteto por su vida libertina, deduciendo una sana moral conque arreglen sus sentimientos y deberes a los de la religión. (cited in S]aeIl 123)"
Of course, Lizardi had not always 6otten on so well with the Church. His early enthusiasm for the 1812 Constitution of Cädiz made him suspect of “liberalism.” Early issues of his periodical, Al pensador mexicans, founded in 1812, enthusiastically defended the Constitution's key provisions constitutional monarchy, freedom of the press, repre- sentative government, and parliamentary rule. Yet, as this list suggests, Lizardi was hardly a Jacobean radical. He deplored populism and fre- quently expressed doubts concerning the potential of Mexico's lower classes for self rule. Possibly the event that most marked Lizardi's for- mative years occurred in 1810 when he and other principal citizens of Taxco feigned support of Miguel Hidalgo's insurrection to keep Hidalgo's maurauding hordes from sacking the city. The ruse worked too well, for a year later, when Captain Nicolás Cosío restored the city to Spanish rule, Lizardi was taken prisoner to Mexico City for supporting the insurgency. Lizardi eventually cleared his name, but his fear of Hidalgo- style populism earned him the distrust of radicals, while his llluminist reformist made him just as suspect to ultra-royalists (Spell 117).
Lizardi's public devotion to liberalism suffered even further with Ferdinand VI1’s rise to the Spanish throne in 1814. Indeed, the intel- lectual chill brought by Ferdinand's restoration of the Mexican Inquisi- tion no doubt contributed to Lizardi's decision virtually to abandon his newspaper and begin writing didactic novels like El periquillo Damiento, the firsr volume of which appeared in December of 1815. Ever vigilant against heresy, the Holy Office carefully scrutinized Lizardi's novels but apparently found insufficient grounds to charge him with heresy: Mexi- can conservatives, however, continued distrusting him. Except for some unpleasantness in 18 17 regarding the fourth volume of ñ/ prriqui//n sarnicnto (the censors did not like Lizardi's criticism of slavery), Lizardi had few problems with f•erdinand’s viceregal government, partly be- cause the pemndar kept his criticism unfocussed and made many moves to flatter the powerful. Indeed, Don CoJfn itself might be seen as one such move given its favorable portrait of priests, its condemnation of Rousseau (Cd/r/it 14), and its equation of“liberalisrri” with heresy (Catrln 70). In sum, as the above quotation reveals, the Church judged Don Cds/n to be what Lizardi evidently intended: a defense of the faith and a cautionary tale against immoral thought and behavior.
But suddenly Mexico changed, and apparently so did Lizardi. In March of 1820, one month after Dan Cofr/n received the Censors' imprimatur, Rafael Riego led an assault on Ferdinand VII and forced the king to swear allegiance (yet again) to the Consitution of Cadiz. News of the Riego rebellion and the King's born-again devotion to constitutionalism allowed Lizardi to found a new. newspaper, El conductar eléctrica, dedicated to promoting constitutional monarchy. In the manifest announcing the new paper Lizardi asserts, “Viva la Nación Espafiola, viva la unión, viva la constitución, y el digno Rey que la juró” (Ord/ola, 6/ conductor, n. pg.) In the first issue Lizardi painstakingly ignores the king's previous contempt for the constitution, arguing that the Monarch had mercly been led astray by “el egoísmo, la adulación, la tiranía, la barbarie, el despotismo, la hipocresía, la superstición etc. [qrie] se presentaron en la funesta escena, vestidos con los brillantes trajes de Iu lealtad, amor a Jr permite, Justicia, ilustración, i•berunl i, airnid y religión.” These evil advisors “le hicieron creer a este buen Monarca que la Nación estaba disgustada con el gobierno de las Cortes, y ansiosa de ser regida por el antiguo ..." (El c0nductar, June 1820, 2). Whether Lizardi believed such nonsense is anyone's guess; more likely than not, he fett that Fernando wouÍd continue to rule in New Spain come what may, and that Holding hÍm to t[ie constitution was the only real option for progress. These early issues of El condyctar argue persuasively Por the guarantees of the constitution and wax particularly eloquent in their defense of freedom of the press and the rights of Blacks to full citizen- ship. He also condemns the Inquisition as something alien to true Chris- tianity and further argues that religious orders should be ruled by local bishops (Spell 126). Sucli positions, of coutse, dcd not etidear him to the conservative hierarchy.
Lizardi's devotion to the Ining didn't last, Only a few months after praising Ferdinand while denouncing his evil advisors, Lizardi pro- claimed his support of José de Iturbide's campaign to separate Mexico from Spain altogether. (Iturbide, by the way, was the first insurgent Lizardi ever supported.) So taken was Lizardi with Iturbide that he es- tablished a printing operation in Tepoztlán that produced pampl lets praising the lturbide insurgency and Itur5ide’s famous Plan de Iguala of Februrary 12, 1821. He later celebrated Iturbide's victorious entrance into Mexico CÍty with these words:
"Yo espeto que en lx primera sesión del Congreso, por aclarnación se le destine el trono. iO! tenga yo el gusto de besar una vez la mano del ’ Emperador de ra América, y cierre la muerte mes ojos para siempre. (cited in Spell l2ú)"
Iturbide's preening incompetence soon dampened Lizardi's enthusiasm. On November 18, 1821, he published a famous pamphlet titled Cincuenta preguntas para quien quiera contestarlas in which he questions Iturbide's commitment to constitutional liberalism as framed in the Cádiz Constitution. The pamphlet also criticizes Iturbide's syco- phantic courtiers, among whom were several high clerics. Iturbide him- selfobjected to the pamphlet, but Lizardi did not let up. On February 13, 1822, he published an even more audacious pamphlet titled Defenza de los Francmasones in which he argues against several papal condemna- tions of Masonry, holding that "no puede menos que ser santa una religión, secta o comunidad donde el fundamento es la beneficencia, el amor al género humano, la hospitalidad y el desinterés" (Defenza 3). Lizardi further defends Masonry as an authentic religion by pointing to its scriptural base, and later dismisses papal pronouncements on the subject as acceptable "según las luces de su siglo" but hardly atuned with modern enlightment (Defenza 6). He thus not only defends a he- retical sect; he also questions the authority of not one but several papal pronouncements.
Not surprisingly, given the Church's histeria on the subject, Lizardi's defense of Masons brought swift judgeinenr. Eíght days alter the pamphlet appeared, Lizardi was excommunicated, a punishrnent puticularly harsh in his society since it involved a kind of shunning that bro ugtit him to the verge of financial ruin. Nonetheless, quite un- 1i1‹e the accommodationist who wrote pdf/n, Lizardi continued his attacks on the government while also protesting his excommunication. Indeed, so consumed was he with hís ecclesiastical status 'that church- related subjects dominate most of bis late writings. When no printer would publish his work, Lizardi hought his own printlng press and continued writing for a clandestine market, albeit for very little inoney. During the constituent convention of 1823 he militated for a kind of separation of church and state, and was profoundly disappointed wheñ the constitution of 1824 legalized only the Roman Catholic Church. Only after Guadalupe Victoria's eleccion as Mexico's first constitutional president did Lizardi pull in his horus. He made peace with the Church, ' and in 1825 Victoria appointed him editor of a government newspa- per, a position he held until his death in 1827. Despide the government appointment, however, Lizardi did not die in functionary patadise, partly because his enemies missed liaving the old Lizardi to kick around. In 1826 one of these, José Marla Aza, published a pamphlet reminding Mcxicans that the Lizardi now at peace with the Church and in the employ of a revolutionary government had often been investigated for heresy, opposed Independence heroes like Hidalgo and Moreno, and supported the repressive Ferdinand VII, Not amused by Aza's accusa- tions, Lizardi lnought charges against him for defamation of character. Unfortunately for Lizardi, Aza came to court armed with such convinc- ing evidence that the court ruled in (nvor of Lizardi's accuser (Spell 127—38).
Y com this brief sketch v'e see that Dan Catrln de la hacienda indeed lies between two quite clifferent Lizardis: the accommodationist Lizardi whose novel pleased the Censors in February of 1820 and the impassioned militant who only months later supported and then op- posed Iturbide, defended Masons, and fought excommunicaüon.t didactic work blessed by the Church, the novel would seem to charac- terize tÍie earlier figure and have little to do With the later one, and indeed critics lilce Dinko Cvitanovic, Marla Rosa Palazón, and Catherine Beroud have analyzed the book primarily in terms of its didactic quali- ties.
My goal in this article, howcver, is to show that such is not the casc, that although Lizardi wrote Don Cd9fn as a cautionary tale, a moral fissure underJies the novel, a fissure that has Lizardi the accomodationist on one side and Lizardi the fiiebrand rebel on the other. Specifically, I argue that Lizardi's desire to use Don Catrfn as a bad example threatens to get away from him, and that at times Catrin and his fellow rnirinri, like Milton's disfigured angel, sound alarmingly persuasivo and not unlike the Llzardi whO would later defeiid Masons and defy church hierarchs. 1 further contend that Catrln becomes so persuasive that Lizardi the accommodatioiiist has no choice but to in- fect, mutilate, and kill him. To justify Catrln's destruction, this Lizardi reveals a moral authoritarianism that is quite at odds with the pluralis- tic spirit of the militant Lizardi who emerges later. And finally, I pro- pose that Catrfn and catrinismo ultimately resemble the modern spirit in ways that might have secretly pÍeased their author.
To begin, there is little question but that Lizardi iiitended Don Cafrfn to be a cautionary tale, a didactic Pro rlc that would teach by way ofbad example. As Catrln himself puts it, ". . . el objero que me propongo . es aumentar el número de los catrines; proponerles mi vida cOliiO modelo” (4). Nor does Dan Catrln differ in any significant ideological fashion from his earlier work. Rather, it faithfully reflects a New World enlightenment as NancyVogeley has perceptively analyzed, but departs, in significant ways from the Golden Age picaresque, as Lasarte has shown Where Don Catrin does differ from Lizardi's earlier novels is in its structure for unlike the picaros in El periquillo sarniento, the carinen Don Catrine haver a real voice and hold spirited arguments with their accusers. Consequently, we can actually speak of catrinismo as a kind of philosophy, a kind of anti-morality, whereas we would be hard pressed to identify lizardi's picarismo as a doctrine of any sort. By giving His catrinesa real voice and by following that voice wherever it might lead, Lizardi unleashes a force he later has a hard time control- ling. But I get ahead of my argument. At this point we should first examine the nature and substance of catrinismo.
Catrinismo turns out to be a much more sophisticated philosopy than Lizardi might have intended. Allow me a couple of examples of the catrines' extraordinary view of the world. Profoundly shaken by a scolding received from his uncle, a priest, Catrín hears the following advice from his fellow catrin, Don Tremendo:
"Olvídate de esas palabras con que te espantó el viejo tonto de tu tio. Y pasa buena vida. Muerie, eternidad y honor son fantasmas, son cocos con que se asustan los mtichacl os. Muertc, dicen; pero iquién temet6 a la muerte, cuando el morir es un tributo debido a la naturaleza? Muere el hombre, lo mismo que el perro, el gato y aun el árbol, y así nada particular tiene la muerte de los hombres. 'Nrni&d,• ;quién la ha visto, quién hx hablado con un santo ni con un condenado? Esto es quirnera. ’ Hanay' esta es una palabra elñsiica que cada uno le da la extensJón que quiere. . .. Esto lo has vistoi la gracia cstfi en saber pintar las acciones y › dictar las pattes. {23)"
Don Tremendo's advice, of course, is hardly anything Lizardi wants us ' to take seriously. Yet, whatever Lizardi's intentions, Tremendo's argu- ments show considerable sophistication. For example, his words on death: “tquién temera a la muerte, cuando eI morir es un tributo debido ' a la naturaleza! Muere el hombre, lo mismo que e1 perro, el gato y aun e1 ;irbo1, y asI nada particular tiene la muerte de los hombres.” Is this not modern biology, a Description of the essental oneness of all living things? Is there not an echo here of Newtonian physics and their im- plicit determinism—a determinism quite at odds with notions of God and free will? Similarly, when Tremendo says of eternity, “¿quién la ha visto, quién ha hahlado con un santo ni con un condenado! Esto es quimera, is this not a statement of the materialist hypothesis, an idea that would place Tremendo and by extension tado el catrinaje 1n the not unenviable company of David Hume and other modern spirits! what do we say of his argument that honor “es una palabra elástica que cada uno le da la extensión que quiere Esto lo has visto, la gracia está en saber pintar las acciones y dictar las partes”? In arguing. tllát words are elastic, that meaning is unavoidably a human construct, does not Tremendo unwittingly support Plato's co ntentio n in the Crdtylw that the meaning of words is merely a matter of convention? Similarly, when today's postmodernist enthusiasts contend that apparent knowl- edge is merely discourse, and discourse masks power, are they COtlU some sense repeating Tretnendo's insight that “la gracia esta en saber pintar las acciones y dictar las partes”? In sum, sophisticated readers of many ages—and perhaps even Lizardi liimself—might be forgiven por p t (indiilg údlfinismo entirely alien.
In an another revealing passage on catrines‹jue relativism, Cattln defends his philosophy to yet another priest who insists that “estos catrines tienen mucha parte en el abandono que vemos” (63). To this accusation Catrln responds:
"Delante de un catrln verdadero nada es crirniftal, nada escandaloso, nada culpable. . Ç{¢jyp s3empre el legl timo catrín de amor hacia sus semejantes, a todos los disculpa y aun condesciende con su modo de pensar. Al que roba, lo defiende con su necesidad; Sla coquetilla, con la miseria Humana; al que desacreclita a todo el mundo, con que es su genioi al ebrio, con que es alegría; al provocativo, con que es valor, y aun al hereje lo sostiene, alegando la diferencia de opiniones qite Cáda dlR SD á laudDR dJQfC@áf1. (64)"
What Lizardi the traditional moralist wants to condemn here is relativ- ism. He would like us to conclude that theft, prostltution, drunken- ness, and aggression are always wrong. What Catflft says, however, is that certain individuals mi6ht be driven to thievery because of need, that prostitutes might rise from social Coiidltions in ivhich comen have nothing to sell but their bodies, that brave people may be justified in resorting to agression, and that in a society tolerant of different opin- ions, even heresy is permissible. In sum, despite Lizardi's eviden r desire to demonize such attitudes, those very attitudes are markers of plural- ism and the soul of intellcctual freedom. Indeed, Catrln's relativism manolo se ms closer to the modern spirit than Lizardi's apparent hunger for moral absolutes.
As a philosophy in its own right, catrinismo need its own commandments. To this end Lizardi has Catrin present us with a decalogue he attrióutes to Machiavello by way of Albertus Magnus—an odd aitri- bution if we consider that Albertus Magnus predated Macliiavello by nearly two and a half centuries and the commandments in question most surely did not issue from the pen of Machiavello. Of these “Ma- chiavellian” commandments Catrln underlines the fourth: “Aulla con los lobos,” which lxe explains a couple of pages later in the following fashion
". comencé a observar exacramente el decálogo, especialmente e$ cuarto precepto, haciéndome al genio de todos cuantos podían serme útiles; de manera que dentro de pocos dfas era yo cristiano con los cristianos, calvinisrii, luterano, urriano, etc., con los de aquellas sectas; ladrón con el ladrón, ebrio con el borracho, jugador con el tahtír, mentiroso con el embustero, implo con el inmoral, y mono con todos. (72—Z3)"
Obviously; Lizardi cloes not think one should be a “mono con todos.” Yet, what is wrong with a society where Calvinists and Lutlierans might have a place? How does the pluralist society that Lizardi apparently supported only two years later in his rabid opposition to officializing Roman Catholicism, not to mention his defense of Free Masonry, dif- fer from Catrln's vision of a society where even Lutherans and drunk- ards have the right to be wrong? Where do the accommodationist Lizardi and his radical other half draw the line between diversity and , unacceptability* As Catrln's faithful scribe, Lizardi allows these ques- tions to be raised, but he fails to let any of Catrfn's opponents answer them, perhaps because they have no good answers, particularly for some- one lilce Lizardi who is drawn to pluralistic relativism get nostalgic for absolute truth.
We cannot but wonder, however, why Lizardi chooses relativ- pummeling. In previous worlcs he had ridiculed cor- fion and inmoral behavior, but seldom before docs he seek out a philosophy or doctrine. Moreover, of all available coils, why dñes,he single out relativism for such harsh treatment? Of course, there isno way of lcnowing an author’s motives, and certainly no reason we shoúld, confiné our reading to seeking out the author's intentions. I would suggest, however, that Lizardi's construction of Catrln as a rela- tivíst was a ploy to ingratiate himself to the Church on chat was argu- ably the touchiest subject of the time: the question of authority: who determines truth, and who has the power to suppress “CffO£"!
To a remarkable degree much of history can be reduced to a struggle to answer these questions. In his noteworthy boolx, fnoetinng the People, Edmund Morgan carefully traces how the rule of kings slowly replaced by the notion of a soveriegn people in whích the king's loyal subjects become a collective of citizens with innate rights, one of those rights being that of self-government through the expression of individual opinion, (Morgan, /siim). Thls evolution consisted of a gradual displacement Of Ruthoríty, a displacement by which a subject people became a self-ruling people to whom the formerly sovereign king yielded autlxority. The vety notion of democratic, representational rule presupposes a variety of opinions and a relativism not unlilce the atritudes parodied in Catrln. Even worse from rhe absolutist perspec- tive, representative government in some sense replaces truth with con- scnsus, rÌght with accoinmodation of difference, déio/pfiimp with a kind of rdfrioiima.
These subtleties were not, of course, lost in debates on liberal- ism, and no doubt Lizardi knew that his defense of traditional author- ity would please the hierarcky on such a basic issuc. The Cuestion in the Church, of course, was not whether the people had rights of some sort, but whether popular sovereignty could replace tradicional social and ecclesiastical hierarchies, The Church Cottld point to a grand tradicion oY canCern for the people. Drawing from SCfipttlre, Catholic tho ught is repleto with prescriptions and proscriptions for leaders, be they mon- archs, princes, oz factory owners. Good civic leadership in CathollC thinking promotes the material and spiritual welfare of the people, and is particu[ar1y concetned with proteCting the weak from the strong, the poor from the rich, the disenfranchized the majority. Indeed, traditional Catholic thinkers, inc]c1diflg tl4C current rope, continually criti- cize liberal democracy Yo opening doors co bullies and leasing the weak unprotected.
What is not found in tradicional Catholic thought, however, is consistent support for the notion that people should create systems of self-government, particularly when that process involves a diferencia de opiniones,” sóme of which—inevitably—must be wrong, if not licentious and sinful. Indeed, one of the central heresies of Protestantism was its location of authority in the congregation of believers. Protes- tants, or at least most Protestants, turn CathOlic polity on end by say- ing that God's will is manifest through the collective voice of the people rather than the Church's magisterium, that the people, however sinful as individuals, can, when properly constituted as a congregation of be- lievers, articulate the will of God. Calvin for example, after a lengthy disquistion on Biblical examples ofecclesiastic appointments writes thar ’We therefore hold that this call ofa minister is lawful acCording to the Word of God, when those who seemed fit are created by the consent and approval of the people” (Calvin 21—23). The central importance of governance in the Reformation is yet borne out by the names of major Protestant bodies. Congregationalists locate authority in local congre- gations to such a degree that Congregational ministers can be dismissed at any time by a majority vote. Episcopalians, in comparison, locate authority in the episcopate, the council of bishops who, although elected, have near dictatorial powers once they are in office. In contrast, from Calvin on, Presbyterians look to the presbytery, a kind of elected legis- lature with representatives from several congregations, to make their- important decisions.
Claimed by political liberalism as well as protestant polity Rome made no secret of its preference for hierarchical systems in the civic as well as the ecclesiastical sphere. On January 30, 1816, Pius VII asked that his “venerable brethren, Archbishops, Bishops and dear sons of America, subjects of the King of Spain” render “due obedience to your King” (cited in Kennedy 23—24). Eight years later, in 1824, Leo XII called on the American bishops to work for the return of the Americas to the rule of the King of Spain. It was nor until 1885 with the publica- tion of Pope Leo XIII's famous encyclical Inmortale Dci that the Vatican finally accepted democracy as are of the permissible forms of government
Thus we see that, however humorously framed, Catrln's defense of “una diferencia de opiniones” is highly relevant to the period. In- deed, by calling authority itself into question, he is touching on argu- ably the most sensitive topic of his time, a topic for which governments fell and heads rolled. Nor is it difficult to see why catrinesque relativism as particularly odious to the absolutist mind. For Catrln not only questions the existence of absolute truth; he manifests a remarkable indifference to its very existence. In sum, by refuting such attitudes, Lizardi was guaranteed to please the traditionalists.
Yet, by creating a character to express those views, he was also playing with fire, so much so that very soon in the novel Lizardi's big- gest unstated problem is how to silence his unruly cow/zi. In trying to control his creation, Lizardi may have sensed the frustration that drove Unamuno to describe novels as nion/ar, as works that somehow write themselves and reduce authors to little more than scribes for their char- acters. Had Lizardi been a less passive witness of his character's develop- ment, Catrin might have emerged as yet another fool, something lilce Periquillo, entertaining but essentially mute. Catrln and his fellow catrincs, however, develop their own vciice and proclaim their own ideas. Nonetheless, despite many priestly Culminations against them, Lizardi remains their faithful scribe.
Recognizing that Catrln is getting out of hand, Lizardi involves Catrfn in conversations with several worthy fold whose job it is to set Catrfn straight—a task of course that is also Lizardi's. And who are these worthies? For the most part they are priests: Catrln's uncle (65—66), a couple of non-specified clérigos (67), and a tediously pious § racticante who delivers the epitaph (107—09). But not only do priests admonish Catrln. On one occasion he is condemned by a count who throws him out of his house (75). And on another he is scolded by a virtuous mili- tary officer, Don Modesto, who maintains that “e1 oficial que tiene e1 honor de militar bajo las banderas del rey, debe ser atento, comedido, bien criado, humano, religioso y de una conducta de legltimo cabaI- lero” (24). Thus, by speaking through priests, aristocrats, and mi/iforri., Lizardi refutes Catrln's co/riniimo; or said differently, Lizardi's authori- ties represent the Church, the aristocracy, and the army. Is it any won- der that Lizardi begins to suspect that he needs to do more, that the voice of these secondary fgures just isn't enough to silence Catrln?
So what does Lizardi do? He intrudes in his own narrative usin g a time-honored technique beloved by scholars: he inserts footnotes. Through footnotes Lizardi identifies himself in his own voicé as Catzln's real opponent, the one who argues through the voice of priests and soldiers, and then backs them up with footno red scriptural references and commentary. Initially, Lizardi's footnotes on)y give Biblica] refer- ences to support the arguments of the priests trying so earnestly to silence the catrinesque demon (fn., 70), When Biblical references prove insuffícient, Lizardi inserta bis own commentary. For example, when Catr{n argues again that no one has seen heaven or heil, Lizardi inter- jects himself in a footnote With a curt “Asf piensan los que no saben en qué consiste e| verdadero honor” (f.n., 106). On the same page a sec- ond footnote quotes Scripttire, followed by the more trenchant, “‘La pas de los pecadores es pésima' dice el Espíritu Santo” (f.n., 106). We tan only assume that this reference to the Holy Ghost suggests that Lizardi cou1dn't find the exact Biblical quotation, so he “merely” foot- noted the alleged author of Holy Writ. Modern scholarship would, of course, demand greater specificity a Biblical referente or perhaps a dated interview.
But in the final analysis even the moral argumento of priests, aristocrats, army of{icers, Scripturc and the Holy Ghost cannot silence the catrines'iricreasing1y bothersome voice. Thus Lizardi resorte to plagues and scourges. Catrín's soulmate, Don Taravilla, is infected with syphi- lis, or as he puts it, “Venus me ha maltratado, que no Marte. Cinco veces ha visitado Mercurio las cédulas de mis htiesos, haciéndome sufrir dolores inmensos” (89). Later, wounded by a jealous husband, Catrln has a leg amputated (92). And finally his body fills with fluid from dropsy, or as he puts it, “Una anasarca o general hidropesla se apoderó de mi precioso cuerpo; me redujo a no salir de casa, me tiró en la cama” (103). Plus Lizardi shows that sin inevitahly corrupts tke body, and by implicatiori contraste Catrln's fresh that rots in life to the bodies of saints that remain incorrupt even in death. But despite such afflictions Catrln dies unrepentant (106). In the last words of the novel the practicante who cares for him to the end finally says what Lizardi wanted to say all along: “¡Pobre Catrfn! ¡Ojalfi no tenga imiradotes!” (108). ln sum, the novel that begins with Catrln's desire to replícate himself ends with Lizardi's hope that such will never happen.
At this juncture three points should be clear. First, Lizardi saw Catrln and rdJinúmo as real Rangers, so much so that discrediting him, demonizing him, and eventually killing him became rhetorical necessi- ties. Second, the novel is ultimately a dialogue between Lizardi and his own creation, a dialogue in which the creatíon occasionaly seems to out-argue his creator. And tliird, one finds in catrinismo several atti- tudes that, despite Lizardi's ironies and moralizing, seem amenable to the moderii spirit, and perhaps to the Lizardi who only weeks later would take on the Church, the ersatz emperor Agustín I (as Iturbide wanted to be called), and the Constituenr Convention. For cafrinffmo suggests a world where there is no absolute good, where no one is de- finitively right, where no authority serves for all, where individual and thereby relative perspective matters. Or said differently, cdfrizii›inn sug- gests a kind of pluralism that would have spared the militant Lizardi lot of trouble. That Lizardi demonizes SVCh pluralism in the figure of Don Catrln is obvious; less obvious is the possibility that this dialogue between the autko£ And his creation is in fact a dialogue between two sides of Lizardi's soul, one that found a niche for itself in Ferdinand VII's repressive New Spain and another that fought repression on a trul}' hetoic scale.
And it is here that we find Lizardi's ciisi s of moral authority. As a reforrner, as a liberal steeped in Illuminist reading, as a supporter of the remarkable Cadiz Constitution of 1812, Lizardi defended freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of debate as well as the liberal institutions in which such freedoms could be acted on. What he does not accept in the novel, however, is the lact rhat these freedoms, to have any meaning at all, must include a dose of cnwiaiitno that allows for a diversiry of opinions and a world where even Lutherans, Calvlnists, prostitutes and catrines have the right to be wrong. Lizardi repeatedly tried to embrace rhe world of liberal plural- ism and often carne close to doing so. Yet, he álso wanted IO bring God, absolute truth, and tcriptural authority with him. That these two worlds—liberal relativism and traditiOnal absolutism—might ultimately be incompatible wi th each other surely occurred to Lizardi. Bu when faced with true relativism in the persona of his literary creation, Don Catrln, Lizardi saw no choice but to siÍence him with priestly sermon- izing, drown him in scripture, and make him die as the result of frlOf degeneracy. I would suggest, however, that although Lízardi lcilled Catrln sometime in the early part of 1820, echoes of catrinesque pluralism, despide its demonized form, are audible in the rebel Lizardi who, prior to dying seven years later, insisted that his body haVC a public viewing so his enernies would know that he had not been taken to Heh (fipell 140)
The University of Texas at Austin
"Betoud, Catherine. ’Periquilla 5arniento / Don Catríf de Li P46I•nd•: DOS facetas de XtXe siécle. Ed. Claude Dumas. Lille: EUniversité de Lille III, 1980. 109—20. CalvÍn, jean. Institutei y t‹ cen••an Eeligian. The Libmiy •fChriiüan Claiiir . Vol. . Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. CvitA HOVlc, Dinko. “La alegorfa satfrica en Don Cetrtn dc k r•chenda.” Balev» dc /a Real Acadmiia Lya ala 70 (1990): 301—16. P ntndez dV kizar6i ].]. Defe£im d Iad rdyomdsones Mexico, DF, 1822. Dan Catrlf d€ la FaCÉendd. Edición y prólogo de ]effer••• nea 6pelL 1832; México, DF, Rditorial Porrúa, 1989. —. Prólogo y advertencias. El canductar eléctrica. June, 1820. n. pag. A}though numbered and paginated (except for the Prólogo), indivitlual issues of El conductor ellcrricn do not include exáct dates, perhaps to mask the lact that altliough the paper was intcnded to appear three times a week, Lizardi, as reporter, ediror, typesetter, and distributor, often goc behind. Casarte, Pedro. ‘Don Cairln, Dan Qitíjate f la picarmca." Hnirm de E odias Hitpdnicos 23 (1989): 101•12. Palazón, Marla Rosa. “La nobleza pIcara o Don Cauln d la Fach ndn.“N•n• Text Crítica 8 (1991): 159—72 Séiiiz de Medrano Arce, Luis. ”Historia y uropfa en Fernández de Lizardi.” Mmm rt u elXX W C"nMe*o llnstituta de Literiilura Iberoamericana.Ud. Raqpcl C] ang Rorirlguez y Gabriella de Beer. New York: Ediclones del Norte/City Univer- sity of New Yorl‹, 1989. Spell, Jefferson Rea. “The Life of Lizardi.” Bridging the Gafi: Articles on lifexicyn Lit- crdMrr. México, DF: Editorial £ibros de México, S.A., 1971. 97—292. Vogeley, Nancy. “A Latin American Enliglitenment Version of the Picaresque: Liuirdis dan Cet !n de la >achenda.“ The Picareique. A Sympysium on the Ropc'i Tale. Ed. Carmen Beniro-Ves8el8 and Michael Zappala. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1994. I 23—46."