Coco Macaco

Another concept closely related to both irony and simbi is the Yoruban figure Coco Macaco. Like nganga and simbi, a key aspect of Coco Macaco is its ambiguity. In both Africa and Cuba, it is traditionally associated with two opposing identities—dreaded ghost and playful monkey—which carry negative and positive connotations respectively regarding the manner in which they are thought to interact with humans (Piedra, Monkey 376). In this sense, Coco Macaco is reminiscent of Esu and his ability to work either for or against humans. The idea of a playful monkey further suggests a connection with Esu, since the latter is often depicted in both African and Cuban folklore as having a monkey at his side. In a literary context, Coco Macaco illustrates cultural doubts or fallacies within a system, thus paralleling the skeptical explanatory tactic or cynical moral posture associated with irony (Piedra, Monkey 375; White, Tropics 73-74). Ultimately, Coco Macaco is thought to play a role in a text's interpretation. Yet, as Piedra points out, the interpretative act may at times serve to neutralize with irony the attempt to fix a message from its original source (Piedra, Monkey 376). This view of interpretation parallels the culminating role of simbi in its reversal of nkisi—the relationship between signifier and signified—and its eclipsing of nganga—the attempt to revise the discourse in keeping with traditional order. African systems emphasize restoring the discourse to traditional order after adjusting it to challenging individuals and cultural variations, a trend which seems to prioritize nganga over simbi. Coco Macaco is an important symbol in both

African and Caribbean traditions because it reflects the mimicry of discourse and the mockery of tradition with defensive purpose. In African, non-colonial discourse, it tends to be directed only against fallacies in signification. In the post-colonial discourse of Cuba, however, its application is broader. Here it addresses the enslaving sociolinguistic conditions by figuratively referring to the middle ground where "primitive" African discourse and "civilized" Western discourse meet (Piedra, Monkey 375).

Incidentally, an example of the monkey's symbolic role as a point of cultural intersection may be found in a story by Barnet, "La lechuza y el mono" (The Owl and the Monkey). According to the story, at the time of slavery, each co-protagonist possessed a unique gift which could benefit to the other. The owl possessed both diurnal and nocturnal vision while the monkey possessed the gift of fluent speech. However, its words were not those commonly understood by Spanish speakers, as one can see from the following transliteration of its song:

Diambo, malembe, diambo Cuenda endoque cuenda

cuenda endoque diambo. (Piedra, Monkey 377)

The owl and monkey became friends. Yet in their collaboration with Day to appropriate the Moon's ability to reflect light, they were circumvented by a pigeon who overheard the monkey's plans. As a result, the Moon hid its desired attributes and the Day punished the collaborators by depriving the owl of its day vision and the monkey of its voice (377). While two English translations of the song already exist, Piedra provides another one to account for the previous translations' ambiguity in a manner that does not appear to detract from their message:

Discourse, the ominous, discourse. Continue, counter-signifying, continue

continue, the counter-signifying, discourse. (Piedra, Monkey 378)

Of the four Afro-Caribbean meta-tropes, the only one referred to in this song is ndoki, via the variant spelling endoque. While the earlier translations identify it as either a witch or a fetish-maker, both of which are in keeping with its traditional definition, Piedra's translation of it here as "counter-signifying" assigns it a meaning more commonly associated with the figure of simbi.

One of Barnet's goals in including a non-translated KiKongo poem in the text could be to indicate that any sign is inherently arbitrary and that its meaning is determined by the interpreter's perspective—an observation reflected in its three different, and somewhat contradictory, translations. Reflecting the dominance of the interpreter over both the message—nkisi—and its co-creators—ndoki and nganga—is essentially what simbi does. It may be partly for this reason that Piedra identifies Barnet's use of the monkey as a parody of the concept of linguistic permanence (Piedra, Monkey 376). He acknowledges that African practices were transferred to and maintained in the New World, specifically in Cuban literature in which the BaKongo- Cuban concepts such as en-doqui, fianga, (e)nkiso and Coco or Coco-Macaco thrive (375). Piedra's identification of these four concepts in the Cuban literary context lend credence to their continued importance in African diasporic culture. His spelling and word choice reflect the very impermanence which he observes. Three of these concepts have variant spellings, and the fourth concept is expressed with a new word. Instead of listing simbi as the fourth concept, as he has done earlier in his article (Piedra, Monkey

374), he instead lists Coco Macaco. This should not be seen as an attempt on his part to revise the structure of Yoruba thought, but merely to term it in a way that expresses the significant overlap between the concepts of simbi and Coco Macaco—two figures that are revisionary, ambiguous, and trickster-like. It is important to remember that, beyond changes in the visual appearance of words, linguistic impermanence may also be found in their interpretation. This phenomenon, which is related to the functions of simbi and Coco Macaco, has important parallels in the function of Esu.