Ascendance to the Eagle Throne

The Singularity of Sigüenza’s Arch

The arrival of the newly appointed Viceroy Tomás de la Cerda (1638–1692), Marqués de la Laguna and Conde de Paredes, to Mexico City in 1680 occasioned the erection of two of the most scrutinized triumphal arches of New Spain. Both arches have perished due to their ephemeral construction materials; however, they endure in the annals of history thanks to their creators, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (1648/51–1695) and Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora. Neptuno alegórico by Sor Juana and Teatro de virtudes by don Carlos not only document but also defend and analyze in the Baroque style the pictorial details captured in the canvases placed on their respective panels. Due to the literary artistry and eminence of the two authors, these two ephemeral arches have received considerable critical attention. Since the ekphrasis of both arches pertain to the Renaissance genre called speculum principum or mirror of princes, the natural propensity is to group them into a single semantic configuration; yet, this underestimates the unique nature of each work. The concomitance of these two arches erected for the same dedicatory reception and the emblematic art used in both invite the joint categorization of conventional allegories of the same semiotic nature. Despite the various ontological similarities, the two works diverge in their emblematic content and most notably in the res significans of the episodes portrayed.3 An appreciation of the cultural and social originality of Teatro de virtudes begins with an understanding that the twelve Mexican rulers (tlatoani, pl. tlatoque) selected by Sigüenza as models for the viceroy do not constitute mere symbolic icons. While Sor Juana adopted the chimerical figures of Neptune and Amphitrite as exemplars of virtue for the marquis, don Carlos chose the “héroes” of his “patria,” even among “las gentes que se reputan por bárbaras” (Teatro 17). Sigüenza characterizes each Mexica emperor as possessing a predominant virtue that when combined would grant immortality to the new viceroy. As Sigmund Jádmar Méndez Bañuelos notes, Sigüenza lays the foundations for what would transpire in the 18th century: the substitution of the mythical with the “sucesos verdaderos del pasado” (57). Contrary to Serge Gruzinski’s suggestion, each tlatoani was not simply a symbolic representation of a political virtue, but was in possession of a moral asset from which the viceroy could take lesson (Images at War 150).4 The veridical, patriotic, and historical depiction of the Mexica emperors appearing on the canvases designed by Sigüenza distinguish his work from that of Sor Juana who felt obliged to “dar ensanchas en lo fabuloso” (Juana, Neptuno 76). In essence, each royal representation devised by the creole intellectual synthesized emblems and symbolic objects based on his painstaking research of the Mexica codices and his knowledge of European iconography in order to accentuate the preeminent moral attribute of each emperor and stimulate a historical revaluation of the Mexica civilization. Although the triumphal arches during the first two centuries of the colonial period were intended ultimately to instill Spanish and European customs and values in the people, Sigüenza viewed his arch as a mechanism that could assist in fostering mutual understanding and building cultural bridges between discordant social sectors.

In light of the above, while the consensus of scholars relegates Teatro de virtudes to an allegorical project of patriotic fervor and creole self-promotion, coupling it with Neptuno alegórico, the present literary analysis offers a different approach. This study will establish that, instead of representing the twelve emperors as historical symbols of political virtues, Sigüenza employs the medieval notion of dynastic continuity, making the new Spanish viceroy the union and esoteric incarnation of all previous Mexica kings along with their most salient virtues, thereby vesting him with royal immortality. Sigüenza thus adds a new dimension to the viceroyalty by fusing the viceroy, his predecessors of the Mexica monarchy, and the people of New Spain in a mysterious and harmonious relationship. In this way, he forges the concept of an indigenous viceroy legitimized by virtue rather than ethnicity.

Unlike other works of the genre, Teatro de virtudes does not reduce the pictorial and poetic representations of the legendary figures captured on the panels of the triumphal arch to symbolic silhouettes or dehumanized metaphors for virtues. After countless hours arming a detailed investigation of the life of each Mexica monarch, Sigüenza determined to stage on the canvases of the arch the most exceptional human quality of political integrity that best characterized each of them. His scrupulous concern for accuracy in representing Mexica names and their prestigious feats reveals an intense respect for the indigenous past. At the same time, his favorable characterization of even the most idolatrous kings indicates that for Sigüenza their portraits were not lifeless metaphorical images, but realistic depictions painted by the artists José Rodríguez and Antonio de Alvarado under the direction of Sigüenza in accordance with the ancient codices (Teatro 53).

Although this mirror of princes vaguely hints at the viceroy’s subjection to King Carlos II (1661–1700), it notably excludes any direct mention of the Spanish monarch. This curious omission combined with the comparison of Viceroy Tomás de la Cerda with the autonomous monarchs of the Mexica empire warrants further scrutiny. Although Carlos de Sigüenza asserts his refusal to enter into the controversy over the divine right of kings, he cites the opinions of several scholars to attest that regal authority proceeds from the people (Teatro 93). The medieval concept that Ernst Kantorowicz develops in his book The King’s Two Bodies emerges naturally from Sigüenza’s text, perhaps most notably in his portrayal of the new viceroy as both a mortal and immortal entity. He declares the eternal nature of Tomás de la Cerda by designating him “aeternitati excelentiss. principis” (52),5 and concomitantly emphasizes his mortality, pointing out that the death of the corregidor during the construction of the arch served as a testimony to the viceroy that “hominem se esse etiam” (46).6 According to the ancient concept of the two bodies of the king, the body politic, which encompassed both a metaphysical and corporate perception of the throne, would now be transferred from the kings of the Mexica dynasty to the perishable natural body of Tomás Antonio de la Cerda. The immortal metaphysical entity migrated from one monarch to another in succession and the collective entity consisted of all the people, the people themselves comprising the body of the king. In Teatro de virtudes, Sigüenza assigned the new viceroy the possession of a body politic like the one just described. This perception of the viceroy differs from the reality of having received his authority by designation of the Spanish monarch and implies an authority that emerges from the people of New Spain and in particular from its strongest ancient empire, that governed by the Mexica sovereigns.

The following chapters will underscore several passages from Teatro de virtudes that envision the viceroyalty (and in particular don Tomás de la Cerda in his viceregal position) as the resumption and continuance of the Mexica empire. Of particular note is a Mexica prophecy applied by Sigüenza to the viceroy, several declarations of his corporeal nature and immortality, and a reference to his phoenix-like spirit that would resurrect the Mexica lineage. The first of these appears in the third prelude, in which Sigüenza declared that Neptune was the ancestor and progenitor of the Mexica and that they awaited the arrival of him that “propiamente era su rey, conque los que arbitraban en el Imperio eran solo sus substitutos, esperando con la propiedad del dominio a su legítimo dueño” (32). This reference confirms Sigüenza’s belief that the Mexica emperors acted as substitutes until the arrival of the reincarnation of Neptune, Tomás de la Cerda, the anticipated prince who would be the consummation of the prophecies and the restorer of order to a fatherland plagued by internal divisions. Other evidence of the prolongation of the Mexica lineage in the person of the viceroy appears in the prose and poetry of Teatro de virtudes, and with particular clarity in the closing panegyric. In its verses, the creole author points out the immortality of the viceroy through the revitalization of the Mexica dynasty and stages him as the incarnation of this dynasty’s body politic via the self-appropriation of political virtues. Thirdly, the text states in explicit terms that the spirit of Tomás de la Cerda would infuse the “mexicanos monarcas” with life, bringing about their rebirth from the ashes of oblivion, “como otras veces lo á hecho su real y excelentísima Casa, con los que ilustran la Europa” (4). Expressed another way, the Mexica dynasty would be revived in the person of Tomás de la Cerda, just as his royal ancestors had revived the European dynasties.