Building on recent scholarship that has problematized the evidentiary status of archived sources and created new methods and analytical categories for reading sex and gender in those sources, this essay considers the case of Mariano Aguilera from mid-eighteenth-century New Spain. Raised as a girl, Aguilera upon reaching adulthood petitioned ecclesiastical authorities to order a physical inspection of his body so that he could be declared a man and marry Clara Ángela López. The essay shows how both abjection and criminality—or a discourse of “queerness”—led Aguilera to be exiled from his community, denied his petition, and prohibited from having any contact with López. The essay opens further questions about the meanings of hermaphroditism and androgyny in the Atlantic world, the ways in which they shaped medical and legal discourses on sodomy in metropolitan and colonial contexts, and the role of doctors and surgeons in legal cases involving queer bodies and lives. I n the past two decades, the archive has been at the center of various academic discussions about history, methodology, and knowledge. Scholarship on the topic has flourished, and not just among historians. Scholars from various On November 16, 2014, Marı́a Elena Martı́nez died after a brief, difficult, and valiant struggle with cancer. Before she died, she asked us to shepherd some of her unpublished work into publication, in close consultation with her executor and partner of many years, Sarah Gualtieri. This essay—which she had completed and arranged to publish in Spanish as “Sexo y el archivo colonial: El caso de ‘Mariano’ Aguilera,” in El archivo y el campo: La producción de la evidencia desde miradas transdisciplinares, eds. Frida Gorbach and Mario Rufer (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, forthcoming)—represents our first effort to honor her request. In response to the generous and thoughtful comments of two anonymous readers and the editors ofHAHR, we have made a few relatively minor edits to the version that Marı́a Elena left us, in each instance indicating where we have done so with the annotation “DK/DS.” We would like to thank those readers for their input and to express our deepest gratitude to John D. French, Jocelyn Olcott, Pete Sigal, and Sean Mannion at HAHR for the sensitive manner in which they have made this publication possible. We invite the reader to visit http://hahr-online.com/ category/open-forum/maria-elena-martinez for a forum on this essay, featuring contributions by Ivonne del Valle, Marta Valentin Vicente, Zeb Tortorici, and Pamela Voekel. We should mention too that arrangements have been made with the University of Chicago to make Marı́a Elena’s papers available to the public in the near future. With heavy hearts and great respect for a life so cruelly cut short, as well as the utmost respect for an intellect that we will always hold as a model and an inspiration, we offer this essay on behalf of our dear friend, the kind and brilliant Marı́a Elena Martı́nez.—David Kazanjian and David Sartorius. Hispanic American Historical Review 96:3 doi 10.1215/00182168-3601634 2016 by Duke University Press Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/96/3/421/421524/421Martinez.pdf by guest on 27 April 2019 disciplines (including literature, anthropology, and philosophy) and different theoretical orientations have studied and deconstructed “the archive” as a condensed site of knowledge or meaning production and power, thereby challenging its status as a repository ofobjective facts. Building on theorizations of the links between institutional archives and state projects, especially by Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, numerous recent works have called attention to the importance of treating the archive as an ethnographic subject itself and of exposing the collusion of archived sources and law/authority.1 In other words, they have problematized the evidentiary status of archived sources and turned the archive into an object of inquiry rather than treat it just as a source of information. Current studies of the archive have also been concerned with the creation of new methods for reading written sources and the development of new analytical categories. Perhaps because of the challenges of studying topics as charged and filtered as same-sex sexual practices and desires, some of the most animated and productive discussions about methodological and analytic innovation have been taking place within the rubrics of gender, queer, and transgender studies.2 Although both among and within these studies there is great variation in terms of methodological approaches and theoretical concerns, they generally share, first, an understanding of gender and sex as sociohistorical constructs and, second, an interest in developing new reading strategies for deconstructing the logics of sexuality. These strategies can include carefully scrutinizing the language in documents to reveal links between concepts and modes of discourse (narrative strategies, for example) and operations of power, refusing teleological readings of the past (that is, readings of history that assume a linear chronological progression in which one dominant sexual identity in a given period leads to another in the next), and focusing not just on what is written in sources but what is missing in them and why. Contributing to discussions about the possibilities and limitations of archived sources for studying queer lives, subjectivities, and sexuality more 1. See Derrida, Archive Fever, esp. the opening note (pp. 1–5); Foucault, Archaeology, 129–31. For an introduction to some of the literature and debates on the archive, see Hamilton et al., Refiguring the Archive; Steedman, Dust; and the essays on the topic in Hand and Velody, “Archive.” 2. The literature in this field is too extensive, but for an insightful recent discussion of debates about historicism in queer studies, see Traub, “New Unhistoricism.” And for an introduction to transgender studies, see Stryker and Whittle, Transgender Studies Reader; Stryker and Aizura, Transgender Studies Reader 2. Works by historians of sexuality who have used feminist, queer, and/or postcolonial theories and diverse sources and analytic strategies to tackle challenges of the archive include Chauncey, Gay New York; Shah, Stranger Intimacy. 422 HAHR / August / Martı́nez Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/96/3/421/421524/421Martinez.pdf by guest on 27 April 2019 generally, this essay employs some of these strategies in an analysis of a case from mid-eighteenth-century New Spain. The case involves Mariano Aguilera, who was raised as a girl but who upon reaching adulthood petitioned ecclesiastical authorities in central Mexico to order a physical inspection of his body so that he could be declared a man and be able to marry a woman.3 Before delving into the case, however, it is first necessary to discuss how “queers” (people who are socially constructed as such because their sexual behavior, desires, or organs don’t conform to dominant definitions of the normal) are generally represented in the colonial Mexican archive.4 Sex and Sexes in the Mexican Colonial Archive It would be an exaggeration to state that colonial Mexican archives are replete with references to sexuality or that they betray an obsession with samesex sexual relations, as some historians have found in British sources for nineteenthand early twentieth-century India.5 But there is no shortage of documents with which to study discourses of nonnormative sexuality in New Spain. These documents have to be approached carefully, however, because of the strongly mediated nature of most written sources and, more generally, the power dynamics involved in the production of “queerness,” which in the early modern period was strongly related to sin and criminality and, in colonial contexts, to racialized populations as well.6 In the archives ofcolonial Latin America, for example, “queers” sometimes appear because they were the subject of theological, juridical, and medical speculations about nonnormative sexual behavior or sexual organs, or, more 3. Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico City (hereafter cited as AGN), Indiferente Virreinal, caja 1163, exp. 2, Matrimonios, 1759, fol. 6. 4. As one ofHAHR’s readers for this essay pointed out, the use of the term queer for the colonial or early modern period is one of this essay’s significant theoretical challenges. While that challenge is not explicitly theorized here, the reader can turn to two special issues ofRadical History Review edited by Daniel Marshall, Kevin P. Murphy, and Zeb Tortorici: Marshall, Murphy, and Tortorici, “Queering Archives: Intimate Tracings”; Marshall, Murphy, and Tortorici, “Queering Archives: Historical Unravelings.” See in particular Martı́nez’s essay “Archives, Bodies, and Imagination.” See also Menon, “Afterword.”—DK/DS. 5. Arondekar, For the Record. [In her work, Anjali Arondekar also brings to our attention the paucity of British archival sources on same-sex sexuality in nineteenthand twentiethcentury India. In turn, works cited in footnotes 4 and 6 show us how colonial Mexican archives could also be considered rich in such sources.—DK/DS.] 6. See Martı́nez, “Archives, Bodies, and Imagination.” On sexuality in colonial Mexico, see Tortorici, “Contra Natura”; Tortorici, Sexuality.—DK/DS. Sex and the Colonial Archive 423 Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/96/3/421/421524/421Martinez.pdf by guest on 27 April 2019 commonly, because they were tried by different courts for “deviant” sexual desires and punishable acts. Among the most prominent of these unsanctioned acts was sodomy (sodomı́a). Closely associated with the notion ofpecado nefando (abominable sin), it was treated within Spanish law as one of the gravest transgressions, akin to heresy. Indeed, as of the late fifteenth century, sodomy in Spain became punishable by burning at the stake, an a

中文翻译：

---

性与殖民档案馆：“马里亚诺”·阿奎莱拉案

本文基于最近对已归档资料的证据地位提出质疑的奖学金，并为读取这些资料中的性别和性别创造了新的方法和分析类别，本文考虑了18世纪中叶的新西班牙的Mariano Aguilera的情况。阿奎莱拉（Aguilera）小时候长大，成年后向教会当局下令对他的身体进行身体检查，以便可以宣布他是男人，然后嫁给克拉拉·安格拉·洛佩斯（ClaraÁngelaLópez）。这篇文章显示了放荡和犯罪，或“酷儿”话语如何导致阿奎莱拉被驱逐出他的社区，拒绝了他的请愿书，并禁止与洛佩斯进行任何接触。这篇文章提出了有关大西洋世界中雌雄同体和雌雄同体意义的进一步问题，他们在大都市和殖民地背景下塑造有关鸡奸的医学和法律话语的方式，以及医生和外科医生在涉及酷儿尸体和生命的法律案件中的作用。在过去的二十年中，档案馆一直是有关历史，方法论和知识的各种学术讨论的中心。有关该主题的奖学金蓬勃发展，而不仅仅是历史学家。来自各方面的学者2014年11月16日，玛琳娜·埃琳娜·马丁内斯（MarıaEle​​naMartınez）经过短暂，艰难和英勇的癌症斗争去世。在她去世之前，她要求我们与多年的执行者和合伙人莎拉·古铁里（Sarah Gualtieri）密切协商，将一些未出版的作品放到出版物上。她完成并安排了该论文，以西班牙语出版为“ Sexo y el archivo Colonial：El caso de'Mariano'Aguilera，”在El archivo y el campo中：跨学科编纂，eds。Frida Gorbach和Mario Rufer（墨西哥城：Siglo Veintiuno编辑，即将出版）代表了我们为满足她的要求而做出的首次努力。为了回应两位匿名读者和HAHR的编辑们的慷慨和周到的评论，我们对MarıaEle​​na留下的版本进行了一些较小的编辑，在每种情况下，我们都注明了“ DK / DS” 。” 我们要感谢这些读者的投入，并衷心感谢HAHR的John D. French，Jocelyn Olcott，Pete Sigal和Sean Mannion的敏锐态度，使他们能够使本书出版。我们邀请读者访问http://hahr-online.com/ category / open-forum / maria-elena-martinez，以获取有关本文的论坛，由Ivonne del Valle，Marta Valentin Vicente，Zeb Tortorici和Pamela Voekel提供。我们还应该提到与芝加哥大学进行了安排，以便在不久的将来向公众公开玛丽娜·埃琳娜（MarıaEle​​na）的论文。凭借着沉重的胸怀和对生命的残酷尊重，以及对我们将永远作为榜样和灵感去发扬的智力的最崇高敬意，我们代表亲爱的朋友，亲切而才华横溢地向您提供这篇论文玛丽娜·埃琳娜·马丁内斯（MarıaEle​​naMartınez）。大卫·卡赞坚（David Kazanjian）和大卫·萨托里乌斯（David Sartorius）。杜克大学出版社（Duke University Press）2016年《西班牙裔美国人历史评论》 96：3 doi 10.1215 / 00182168-3601634 2016年由来宾从https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/96/3/421/421524/421Martinez.pdf下载2019年4月27日的学科（包括文学，人类学，和哲学）和不同的理论取向对“档案馆”进行了研究和解构，使其成为知识或意义生产与权力的浓缩场所，从而挑战了其作为客观事实资料库的地位。在机构档案与国家项目之间的联系的理论化基础上，尤其是由米歇尔·福柯（Michel Foucault）和雅克·德里达（Jacques Derrida）进行的研究，许多近期的著作呼吁人们注意将档案作为民族志学科本身并暴露档案来源和法律/换而言之，他们已经使存档来源的证据地位出现问题，并将存档变成查询的对象，而不是仅仅将其视为信息来源。当前对档案的研究还涉及创建阅读书面资料的新方法和新分析类别的发展。也许是由于研究同性性行为和性欲被充斥和过滤掉的话题所带来的挑战，一些关于方法论和分析创新的最活跃，最富有成果的讨论已经在性别，同性恋和跨性别研究的专栏中进行。 2尽管在这些研究之中和之内，在方法论方法和理论关注方面都存在很大差异，但它们通常首先共享对作为社会历史构造的性别的理解，其次，对开发新的阅读策略以解构小说的兴趣。性的逻辑。这些策略可以包括仔细检查文档中的语言，以揭示概念和话语模式（例如叙事策略）与权力运作之间的联系，拒绝过去的目的论读物（即假设历史按线性时间顺序进行的读物）其中在给定时期内一种主要的性认同导致下一个时期内的另一种），并且不仅关注源中所写的内容，还关注源中所缺少的内容以及原因。有助于讨论有关档案库在研究酷儿生活，主观性和性行为方面的可能性和局限性的更多讨论1.参见德里达，《档案狂热》，特别是。开幕词（第1-5页）；福柯，考古学，129–31。有关档案的一些文献和辩论的介绍，请参见Hamilton等人的《重新整理档案》。Steedman，尘土；以及“手和速度”中有关该主题的文章“存档”。2.该领域的文献太广泛了，但是对于最近关于酷儿研究中有关历史主义的辩论的有见地的讨论，请参见特劳布的“新的非历史主义”。有关跨性别研究的介绍，请参见跨性别研究读者Stryker和Whittle。斯特雷克和艾祖拉（Stryker and Aizura），变性研究者2。性史学家的作品，运用女权主义，酷儿和/或后殖民理论以及各种资料来源和分析策略来应对档案挑战，其中包括纽约盖西的昌西；莎阿，陌生人的亲密关系。422 HAHR /八月/马丁内斯一般于2019年4月27日从访客那里下载https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/96/3/421/421524/421Martinez.pdf，本文在分析18世纪中叶新西班牙的一个案例时采用了其中一些策略。该案涉及马里亚诺·阿奎莱拉（Mariano Aguilera），她小时候长大，但成年后向墨西哥中部的教会当局请愿，要求对他的尸体进行身体检查，以便可以宣布他是男人，并可以娶一个女人。3在钻研之前然而，首先，有必要讨论“同性恋者”（殖民者通常是如何表示“同性恋者”（由于其性行为，性欲或器官不符合正常人的主流定义而如此构成的）的墨西哥档案馆。4墨西哥殖民档案馆中的性与性别夸大地说墨西哥殖民档案馆充斥着性或对同性恋的痴迷，就像一些历史学家在英国资料中发现的20世纪90年代初期那样。 5印度，但是在新西班牙，不乏用于研究非规范性话题的文献。但是，由于大多数书面资料的强烈调解性质，更广泛地说，涉及“酷刑”产生的动力动态，在现代早期与罪恶和犯罪密切相关，因此必须谨慎处理这些文件。 6在殖民地拉丁美洲的档案中，有时会出现“同性恋者”，因为他们是关于非规范性行为或性器官的神学，司法和医学推测的对象，或者更多。3.墨西哥城纳奇翁将军（以下简称AGN），印第安纳州维尔雷纳尔，卡哈1163，实验。2，Matrimonios，1759年，追随。6. 4.正如HAHR的一位读者指出的那样，在殖民地或近代早期使用酷儿一词是本文的重大理论挑战之一。尽管这里没有明确提出这一挑战的理论，但读者可以阅读由Daniel Marshall，Kevin P. Murphy和Zeb Tortorici编辑的《 Radical History Review》的两个特殊问题：Marshall，Murphy和Tortorici，“ Queering档案：亲密追踪”。马歇尔（Marshall），墨菲（Murphy）和托托里奇（Tortorici），“奎克档案馆：历史解说”。”尤其请参阅马丁内斯的论文“档案，机构和想象力”。另请参见Menon的“后记”。— DK / DS。5. Arondekar，作记录。[在她的作品中，安贾利·阿隆德卡（Anjali Arondekar）也引起我们的注意，在20世纪九十年代印度，英国关于同性性行为的档案资料很少。反过来，脚注4和脚注6中引用的作品向我们展示了如何也可以将墨西哥殖民地档案馆视为此类来源丰富。—DK / DS。] 6.参见马丁内斯，“档案，机构和想象力”。关于墨西哥殖民地的性行为，请参见Tortorici，《反对自然》。Tortorici，性。－DK / DS。性别与殖民档案馆423通常由来宾于2019年4月27日从https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/96/3/421/421524/421Martinez.pdf下载，因为它们是由不同的法院审判的出于“越轨”的性欲和应受惩罚的行为。在这些未经批准的行为中最突出的是鸡奸（sodomı́a）。与pecado nefando（可恶的罪）概念紧密相关，在西班牙法律中，它被视为最严重的违法行为之一，类似于异端。的确，自15世纪后期以来，西班牙的鸡奸已被处以刑罚，