Masculinities in Conflict: Representations of the Other in Narrative during the Spanish Civil War

In this article, I analyze the representation of the Other in three texts that were published during the Spanish Civil War: El infierno azul (1938?), by Republican Isidro R. Mendieta, and two closely related works by Falangist Jacinto Miquelarena: Cómo fui ejecutado en Madrid (1937) and El otro mundo: La vida en las embajadas de Madrid (1938). Although these texts adhere to different political ideologies and are stylistically very divergent, they are similar in their constant criticisms of the enemy. Furthermore, both Republicans and rebels tend to depict the enemy as possessing an inadequate masculinity. He is described, on one hand, as a beast or an animal, unable to control his instincts, and, on the other hand, as an unmanly and effeminate coward. Thus, for the construction of the nation, the Other presents an inappropriate masculinity, which is either excessive and uncontainable, or insufficient. Therefore, national ideologies seem to propose a normative masculinity that is located in an ambiguous middle ground: a masculinity that is able to control animal instincts yet capable of heroic acts.

A Review of the Genus Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801

1. The genus Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801, is reviewed. The recorded measurements of all species are shown in tables, and their taxonomic status is discussed. 2. Three species of Echinococcus can be distinguished by morphological criteria and are considered valid: E. granulosus, E. multilocularis and E. oligarthrus. The status of E. felidis and E. patagonicus is uncertain, but both may be conspecific with E. granulosus. Six species are considered synonyms of E. granulosus: E. cameroni, E. intermedius, E. longimanubrius, E. lycaontis, E. minimus and E. ortleppi.

United States v. Steinmetz: The Legal Legacy of the Civil War, Revisited

One of the enduring and yet unresolved issues concerning the Civil War is its legal nature: Was it an insurrection or an international war? During the war and since, the United States courts have repeatedly been called upon to determine the status of property which was under the control of the Confederacy and its agents during the Civil War. In the process of making such determinations, the courts have reopened questions about the war's legal status. United States v. Steinmetz is such a case.