Doña Marina/La Malinche: A Historiographical Approach

Doña Marina/La Malinche was a controversial interpreter for Hernán Cortés during the Spanish Conquest of Mexico.
She has been viewed as both a traitor and a victim of her times.
Translation scholars reflect the contradictions surrounding her, using her as a metaphor to support various interpretations.
The paper proposes a historiographical approach, comparing historians' and translation scholars' perspectives using primary and secondary sources.
It aims to present a historiographical approach to the person, rather than to the fictional character.

Doña Marina/La Malinche has been stereotyped and stigmatized by some translation scholars.
Some scholars describe her as Cortés's companion, advisor, secret agent, and mother of his child, while others are critical of her.
Some scholars emphasize the sexual nature of her relationship with Cortés before mentioning her linguistic abilities.
References to Doña Marina/La Malinche often portray her as a traitor, with her name being a reminder of the Spaniards' brutal violation of Mexico.
Robinson notes that Doña Marina/La Malinche is introduced as a mistress before being mentioned as an interpreter
The discovery of the Cholulan plot is central to her "black legend," with some scholars stressing her role as a traitor.
Some translation scholars present her in a positive light, emphasizing her role as a cultural intermediary.
Von Flotow notes that feminist critics have transformed her into a gifted and intelligent woman and a neutral mediator between cultures.
Gentzler notes the transformation of the character from traitor to victim.
Alonso and Baigorri have paid more attention to the "technical component" of her activity, i. e. the difficulties posed by the translation chain in which she was involved $(2004,135)$ .
Delabastita considers her an example of the problems of interlinguistic and intercultural mediation in colonial settings. In his view, the fictionalization of the interpreters has created a number of competing narratives.

Historians have been baffled by Doña Marina/La Malinche, with little known about her.
Cortés only mentions her twice in his letters, while Díaz del Castillo provides more information about her role.
Historians rely on contemporary accounts, annals, and anthropological studies, but their narratives may diverge.
Historians also play an interpretative role with political acts of interpretation.

Díaz del Castillo presents her as a great lady and a Cacique over towns and vassals, who was given as a slave by her mother and her mother’s new husband.
Historians have echoed the story that she was a slave given to Cortés, one of the twenty girls given by the Tabascans.
Prescott recaptures her legendary origin, where her mother sold her to foreign traders to secure her inheritance to a younger brother.
Madariaga stresses that she was a present from the Tabascans, although of noble origin.
Two linguistic reasons support her noble origin: the use of Doña before her Hispanized name and her linguistic versatility.
Kartunnen claims her versatility allowed her to interpret between Cortés and Moctezuma, understanding a register of Nahuatl called "lordly speech".
Collins believes her name, “ce malinalli” or “One Grass of Penance meant trouble, giving her an unlucky association.
Barjau casts doubts over the slavery episode because in his view, there are no proven facts.
Díaz del Castillo remains the main source to evaluate her role in the conquest.

Some historians view her as Cortés's tongue, advisor, and protector, an astute intermediary between the Spanish and indigenous chiefs.
Pittaluga highlights the significant role she played in the conquest.
Russell does not mention her at all in his history of Mexico, reducing the encounter to a noble savage/evil conqueror dichotomy.
Meza creates an imaginative narrative of the translation process carried out under the vigilant eyes of the conquerors.
Medin argues that only Doña Marina/La Malinche was capable of conveying accurately the threats of the conquistadors.
Historians make reference to the role she played as an interpreter following Díaz del Castillo.
The Florentine Codex emphasized her role as a mediator, as well as illustrations of her together with Cortés interpreting.
Aztec accounts recall how the native population was conscious of the existence of a mediator.
Lanyon recreates the interpreting chain, linking Cortés to Aguilar to Malinche to Moctezuma’s emissaries.
Historians question her rendering of the speeches of the Mesoamerican chiefs, particularly the tone of those addresses.
Madariaga claims the interpreting chain, however efficient, would indubitably lose the nuances of the original speeches.

The alleged plot and subsequent massacre of the Cholulan people lies at the base of her reputation as a traitor.
Díaz del Castillo is the initial source of the allegations.
Meyer and Sherman mention that Doña Marina was informed of a plot by a friendly Cholulan woman.
Thomas accepts that she might have been sold by her mother and says that because of Marina, the Spaniards conquered New Spain.
Figueroa reproduces Díaz del Castillo’s recollections, while pointing out that the account sounds very fictionalized.
Collins also relies on Díaz del Castillo but mentions the controversy surrounding the episode, including the possibility that the Tlaxcalans deceived Cortés.
Hassig states that it likely was an unprovoked massacre, while he questions the role of the interpreter as a myth.
Kartunnen warns that the account provided by Díaz del Castillo should be reconsidered and that the question of ethnic loyalty is not applicable.
Barjau discards the argument that she betrayed her people, as there was no country or ethnic group to sell.

The ambivalent role of the interpreter has led to the term malinchismo, associated with locals who adopt the values of the dominant side.
The term was promoted in the 1950s by the urban upper-middle classes, indicating their connections with European settlers rather than native Americans.
Some historians argue that her options were non-existent, whereas Kartunnen calls her a gifted woman in impossible circumstances carving out survival one day at a time.
Barjau summarizes her role as mediator in these impossible circumstances, stating she played a key role in the administration of a new state and contributed to the spread of a new religion.
Some scholars have relied more on a fictional presentation of the interpreter than on historical facts, leading to an impressionistic view.
Recent accounts disagree with the view that she was a traitor, emphasizing her intelligence, linguistic abilities, and cultural contribution.
Historians and translation scholars should collaborate to fully understand her persona and role.