Throughout the course of history, the Philippine national language changed its identity, not just once but twice. Originally, it was called “Tagalog.” Then it was renamed “Pilipino.” Now it is known as “Filipino.”
But why the name change? What was achieved by this “name game”? To answer these questions, let us explore the history of our national language.
Prior to 1935 Philippine Constitution
Prior to the promulgation of the 1935 Constitution, the official languages of the Philippines were English and Spanish (both non-Philippine languages). Quite remarkable is the fact that no Philippine language was of official standing — no legal standing in the courts, government transactions, education, commerce, and industry — during this period.
Language provision of the 1935 Philippine Constitution
Article XIII Section 3 (Pasimio, 1991:119)
The National Assembly shall take steps toward the development and adoption of a common language based on one of the existing native languages (emphasis mine). Until otherwise provided by law, English and Spanish shall continue as official languages.
In accordance with the provision on the Constitution, a body was formed “to make a general study of Philippine dialects (languages)1 for the purpose of evolving a common national language based on one of the existing native tongues and to recommend to the president of the Commonwealth (Manuel L. Quezon) its adoption as such” (SIL, 1971). This body was known as the Institute of National Language (INL).
A year after its creation, the INL recommended Tagalog as the basis of the national language from among the languages studied. This recommendation was based on (among other things) number of speakers and periodicals and the status of Tagalog as the language spoken in Manila — the most populous city in the country and the seat of government and major universities.
Studies conducted separately from, some even prior to, that of the INL showed that Tagalog had a great potential of becoming a national language. American linguist, Conant Everett Blake (Philippine literature p.457, 1908) had this to say about the Philippine languages:
Some persons, struck by the great resemblance which the various Philippine languages bear to one another, have thought that it would be possible to fuse these languages into one, but such an artificial scheme is certainly impracticable. If the Filipinos are destined ever to have a national language in which a national literature can be written, that language will most surely be Tagalog, the language of the capital city, a language admirably suited by the richness of form and its great flexibility for literary development, and needing but the master hand of some great native writer to make it realize its latent possibilities.
The Language Provision of the 1943 Philippine Constitution
Though it was claimed that Tagalog was simply the “basis” for the national language, there were manifestations that it was, indeed, the national language. Moreover, the Philippine Constitution under the Japanese government, in an attempt to erase Western influences in the country, named Tagalog as such.
Article IX Section 2 (Pasimio, 1991:156)
The government shall take steps toward the development and promotion of Tagalog which is the national language. (Translation mine. Please see the original Tagalog version in Pasimio, 1991:156 or refer to the footnote.)2
Problems with Tagalog
The choice of Tagalog as the basis of national language did not go unchallenged. In fact, this issue had divided the nation. Critics interpreted it as a form of discrimination against non-Tagalog speakers. Regional groups also contested the claim that Tagalog was the most widely spoken among the Philippine languages. They cited Cebuano as having the most number of speakers, with Tagalog coming only next.
Figures in the 1949 census showed that Cebuano indeed had more native speakers. However, Tagalog had both native and a significant number of nonnative speakers, making it the most widely spoken Philippine language.
Name Change: Tagalog to Pilipino
Realizing the division among ethnolinguistic groups caused by the adoption of Tagalog as national language, the name Tagalog was changed to Pilipino in 1959. However, this name change did not effectively eradicate the ethnolinguistic divide the choice of Tagalog as “basis” for the national language had created. To the contrary, this only heightened the tension. Different groups viewed this change as an attempt to mask the fact that both Tagalog and Pilipino referred to the same living language — Tagalog. Critics insisted that the only difference between Tagalog and Pilipino was sociological.
It then became apparent that more than just a name change was necessary.
Language Provision of the 1973 Philippine Constitution
Article XV Section 3 (Pasimio, 1991:273)
(2) The National Assembly shall take steps toward the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino.
(3) Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages.
Studying the provision closely, one might say that the Filipino mentioned in the Constitution that was to become the national language was still technically nonexistent and that it was not apparent what the basis of this language would be. Moreover, one might ask what to become of Pilipino, which, from being a national language, was appointed “official language.”
What is this Filipino being referred to? How is it similar to or different from Tagalog and Pilipino?
Even the language experts themselves had opposing views on what Filipino is. Some sectors believed that the Filipino mentioned in the Constitution was the purist Tagalog/Pilipino that was already in use while others believed that this Filipino was still to be created.
Those who believed that Filipino was still nonexistent were further divided into two groups: the group of Dr. Demetrio Quirino and that of Dr. Ernesto Constantino of the University of the Philippines.
Dr. Demetrio Quirino and his group proposed that this Filipino to be created be based on all the existing Philippine languages and that the percentage of contribution from each language be based on the number of speakers. They also proposed that complete amalgamation or mixing of linguistic components—phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary—from these languages be applied and that only 30% of Tagalog elements shall make up the Filipino to be created. The remaining 70% shall come from all the other Philippine languages.
The group of Dr. Constantino, on the other hand, proposed using the universal approach. This approach means that the Filipino to be created shall be based on a national lingua franca plus other languages (multi-based). This is, in part, similar to the Filipino of Dr. Quirino except on the concept of complete amalgamation where the linguistic contribution of each language is determined by the number of speakers.
INL, however, denied the claims of different sectors that the Filipino being spoken of in the Constitution was the purist Tagalog/Pilipino or that it was still to be created. INL claimed that this Filipino was already in existence—that it was the Filipino that was based on Pilipino which, in turn, was based on Tagalog. It is “an evolution of Tagalog, a conglomeration of Philippine and nonnative languages.”
In his analysis of several issues on language development presented as appendix in the SWP 50th anniversary publication (1987), SWP Director Ponciano B.P. Pineda reiterated the institute’s stand against the Filipino proposed by Drs. Quirino and Constantino.
…the following questions arise: How much, and which parts of speech of a particular language should be taken? Must all the peculiarities of the sounds, stresses, and intonations in each language be included? Or must others be sacrificed for the preferred ones? Which of the opposing affixation systems—Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano, Pampango, for instance—should be adopted? …
Such kind of language has no root; no speech community to speak of. It has neither rhetoric (n)or idiom; no literature. Filipino born out of this system of language engineering has no culture. It is doomed to fail like Esperanto, Volapuk, and other artificial languages.
The Language Provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
Article XIV Section 6: (Pasimio, 1991:409)
The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.
Apparently, the Constitution still had not exactly defined the Filipino which is now the national language of the country. However, the language committee of the Constitutional commission, during one of their sessions (September 10, 1986), made this definition:
“…the nucleus of the Filipino will be Pilipino with the mixture of words from other dialects and said Filipino language has already been existing as lingua franca… Filipino is the expansion of Pilipino and it is the lingua franca that has naturally evolved throughout the country, based on Tagalog and other Philippine languages and foreign languages.”
So what is Filipino? It is the Philippine language whose nucleus is Tagalog, characterized by massive borrowings of lexical items from Philippine and non-Philippine languages. It is different from Tagalog in that it is permeable to foreign words and from Taglish in that it follows the structure of Tagalog, its nucleus. Taglish, according to SWP and Linguistic Society of the Philippines, is merely a “variation” of (spoken) Filipino. [seb/2003]
Footnote
1 Though the words language and dialect are technically different, these terms are used interchangeably in this paper because some of the materials I directly quoted used these terms interchangeably.
2 Ang pamahalaan ay gagawa ng mga hakbanging tungo sa ikauunlad at ikalalaganap ng Tagalog na siyang wikang pambansa. (Pasimio:1991:156)
Bibliography
Books/Published Articles
Espiritu, Clemencia. Language Policies in the Philippines.
Pasimio, Renato R. 1991. The Philippine Constitution (Its Evolution and Development) and Political Science. Metro Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1971. Fifty Most Frequently Asked Questions About the National Language.
Surian ng Wikang Pambansa. 1987. Limampung Taon ng SWP. Manila: SWP.
Unpublished Research Work
Benosa, Sherma E. and Mary Kathleen de Fiesta. 1997. Ang Nasyonal Langgwej (A paper submitted to the Department of Linguistics, UP Diliman in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Linguistics 130)
Decrees
Executive Order No. 136. 1937. Proclaiming the National Language of the Philippines Based on the “Tagalog” Language. (Manuel L. Quezon, President of the Philippines, Dated December 30, 1937).
Philippine Commonwealth Act No. 184. 1936. An Act to Establish a National Language Institute and Define its Powers and Duties. (First National Assembly, Special Session, November 30, 1936).
Copyright 2003 Sherma E Benosa
Monday, October 23, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Standardization of Iluko Spelling
I know this entry could get me shot and lambasted, because, for some reason, the topic is quite sensitive. I had considered keeping mum about it — I had thought it’s safer that way — but I eventually decided against staying silent, for to keep quiet when there is something that needs to be said is cowardice and, in some occasions, may be dangerous. As I am not a coward and, more importantly, because zipping up my lips would be an act unbecoming of a naturally talkative and opinionated person like myself, I am finally offering my humble opinion on the subject.
The issue I’m talking about is Iluko Standardization (spelling).
In my socio-linguistics class last semester, I proposed Iluko Standardization (spelling) as the focus of my research. I wanted to evaluate the orthography of different iluko publications, determine their differences, and hopefully recommend, based on some categories I would later design, which of these spelling systems could be used as standard.
By standard, I mean, the form to be adapted in publication and formal written communications. Designating a form as standard does not in any way mean that the other forms are “substandard” or inferior. It only means that the standard form is more widely used or accepted for business transactions and formal communications.
As the issue of spelling in any language is rather “hot,” I did not have a hard time convincing my professor of the merits of the study. And having been given the go signal to work on it, I embarked on researching the existing Iluko publications, with the help of my father. I had even asked Dad to help me set up appointments with the editors, some of whom he personally knew; and I likewise made preliminary arrangements in my schedule, in anticipation of several travels I thought I was going to make (to Regions 1, 2, and CAR) to meet with the editors.
My and my father's preliminary efforts, however, yielded the following information:
· Rimat, which spelled several words differently, had already folded up, enabling Bannawag to maintain its status as the most-read Iluko publication.
· Most, if not all, books published by GUMIL follow Bannawag spelling.
· A bible using Bannawag spelling is under way.
· The papers in NV (I didn’t get to check the Iluko papers in other Iluko-speaking provinces) are published and/or edited by Bannawag-influenced editors.
With this preliminary information, I went back to my professor and told him I needed to change my topic, because it was already a non-issue. I believe that there is already an established Iluko orthography — all but needing formal recognition — and that is Bannawag’s, whether we choose to accept it or not. This is because, where orthography is concerned, it is that form used by the widest circulating publication that prevails.
And while at first I was not quite happy with the situation — quite understandably, I hope — for, after a month of working on my research design, I suddenly found myself without a research problem (as my problem seemed no longer a problem), I think this scenario is actually good for the language, because it means Iluko has come a long way.
As for me, I’ve made another proposal, which luckily was approved outright. And that is, to find how different the Iluko spoken by the NOW generation is to that spoken by their parents and by their grandparents. I’ve noticed that there are forms used by older people that the younger people don’t know about (except those who write in Iluko).*
At first I wanted to do a study of the different forms used in different provinces (dialectal differences) but that is already dialectology, not a socio-linguistic study. Besides, that’s something I can’t finish in three months. Moreover, it would require funding, a lot of help (informants), and time — all of which I don't have at the moment. Sigh!
*[Case in point: My Iluko which, I think, belongs to the now generation (Manang Linda Lingbaoan calls it pop iluko). I find my Iluko very narabaw. This sometimes frustrates the struggling writer in me because I noticed that to many, the mark of a good Iluko work is the use of nauneg or old forms. Old iluko seems elegant. And while I sometimes strive to learn the old forms, the rebel in me resents it. The old form isn’t the Iluko that I grew up with. It’s not the Iluko that I speak. Hence, the moment I write using that form, my writing ceases to reflect me.]
Or may be I just don't have a good grasp of the language — that maybe I am one of those native speakers who somehow are not literate enough to write in their native language?
The issue I’m talking about is Iluko Standardization (spelling).
In my socio-linguistics class last semester, I proposed Iluko Standardization (spelling) as the focus of my research. I wanted to evaluate the orthography of different iluko publications, determine their differences, and hopefully recommend, based on some categories I would later design, which of these spelling systems could be used as standard.
By standard, I mean, the form to be adapted in publication and formal written communications. Designating a form as standard does not in any way mean that the other forms are “substandard” or inferior. It only means that the standard form is more widely used or accepted for business transactions and formal communications.
As the issue of spelling in any language is rather “hot,” I did not have a hard time convincing my professor of the merits of the study. And having been given the go signal to work on it, I embarked on researching the existing Iluko publications, with the help of my father. I had even asked Dad to help me set up appointments with the editors, some of whom he personally knew; and I likewise made preliminary arrangements in my schedule, in anticipation of several travels I thought I was going to make (to Regions 1, 2, and CAR) to meet with the editors.
My and my father's preliminary efforts, however, yielded the following information:
· Rimat, which spelled several words differently, had already folded up, enabling Bannawag to maintain its status as the most-read Iluko publication.
· Most, if not all, books published by GUMIL follow Bannawag spelling.
· A bible using Bannawag spelling is under way.
· The papers in NV (I didn’t get to check the Iluko papers in other Iluko-speaking provinces) are published and/or edited by Bannawag-influenced editors.
With this preliminary information, I went back to my professor and told him I needed to change my topic, because it was already a non-issue. I believe that there is already an established Iluko orthography — all but needing formal recognition — and that is Bannawag’s, whether we choose to accept it or not. This is because, where orthography is concerned, it is that form used by the widest circulating publication that prevails.
And while at first I was not quite happy with the situation — quite understandably, I hope — for, after a month of working on my research design, I suddenly found myself without a research problem (as my problem seemed no longer a problem), I think this scenario is actually good for the language, because it means Iluko has come a long way.
As for me, I’ve made another proposal, which luckily was approved outright. And that is, to find how different the Iluko spoken by the NOW generation is to that spoken by their parents and by their grandparents. I’ve noticed that there are forms used by older people that the younger people don’t know about (except those who write in Iluko).*
At first I wanted to do a study of the different forms used in different provinces (dialectal differences) but that is already dialectology, not a socio-linguistic study. Besides, that’s something I can’t finish in three months. Moreover, it would require funding, a lot of help (informants), and time — all of which I don't have at the moment. Sigh!
*[Case in point: My Iluko which, I think, belongs to the now generation (Manang Linda Lingbaoan calls it pop iluko). I find my Iluko very narabaw. This sometimes frustrates the struggling writer in me because I noticed that to many, the mark of a good Iluko work is the use of nauneg or old forms. Old iluko seems elegant. And while I sometimes strive to learn the old forms, the rebel in me resents it. The old form isn’t the Iluko that I grew up with. It’s not the Iluko that I speak. Hence, the moment I write using that form, my writing ceases to reflect me.]
Or may be I just don't have a good grasp of the language — that maybe I am one of those native speakers who somehow are not literate enough to write in their native language?
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
PUZZLES
PUZZLE 1
It is a six-letter English word, the first three letters of which is the present tense of the next three letters.
Clue: The whole word can be used as a noun, as a verb, or as an adjective.
PUZZLE 2
It is an 11-letter English word.
The first two letters refer to a preposition indicating inclusion, location, or position within limits.
Letters 3 to 5 refer to a three-letter preposition/conjunction.
Letters 6 to 8 refer to a piece of material placed at a door for wiping soiled shoe soles.
Letters 9 to 11 refer to a charged subatomic particle.
PUZZLE 3
It's an 11-letter compound English word.
The meaning of the first word (first five letters) is almost the opposite of that of the second word (letters 6-11). [I used the word ALMOST because the first word in the compound is a verb whereas the second is a noun].
The whole word refers to the person who does the action referred to by the first word without regard for the concept referred to by the second word.
Note: Puzzles are first posted by the author in VF's blog in iluko.com. Puzzle 1 was answered correctly by Mng. Fred Ilac; Mng. Edmund Salvador gave the correct answer for puzzle 2. No one was able to answer puzzle 3.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Iluko "works"
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew:
The economics of marriage
and the society's influence on happiness
The shrew…
She was a woman who knew her mind and enjoyed speaking it out. Meek and submissive, she was neither. Her tongue was good at stringing spiteful words; and her mind, as her tongue, was sharp and not easily matched nor bent.
The 21st century would love her and believe in her. Inspired by her, it would teach its sons to respect and admire her, and its daughters to emulate her. Independent and tough, she would be called, and both words would carry a ring of veneration and amazement to them.
But unfortunate, Katherine likewise was, for she was made to live 400 years much too early — at a time not a bit tolerant of her nature, in a story that is sympathetic of her yet intolerant of her ways.
She was an outcast of the society she despised. Everyone likeneed her to an animal to be tamed; and people referred to her as a shrew, and was invariably described as “too rough” (I.i.55) and “stark mad” (I.i.69).
Yet, in retrospect, she might simply be misunderstood by everyone around her — her father who seemed to love her sister more, and the less-witted men that surrounded her.
… and the tamer…
Had he lived today, when the two sexes are viewed as different but equal, he would be deemed egotistical and portentous. A man to be revered, he was not — now, or 400 years ago — with his crass behavior and overbearing attitude, and his not-quite-honorable intentions: first, to marry a wealthy woman to augment his inheritance:
Signor Hortensio, ‘twixt such friends as we
Few words suffice; and therefore, if thou know
One rich enough to be Petruccio’s wife—
As wealth is burden of my wooing dance—
Be she as foul as was Florentius’ love,
As old as Sibyl, and as curst and shrewd
As Socrates’ Xanthippe or a worse,
She moves me not—or not removes at least
Affection’s edge in me, were she as rough
As are the swelling Adriatic seas.
I come to wive it wealthily in Padua;
If wealthily, then happily in Padua.
(I.ii.62–73)
then, somehow challenged by reports of the rich man’s daughter’s (Katherine’s) shrewish behavior, to tame her and turn her to a suitable wife.
Katherine: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
Petruccio: My remedy is then to pluck it out.
Quick-witted he was though, and that proved to be enough to make Katherine submit to his will.
… together…
Their first meeting was hostile, as was the norm with Katherine; and soon they engaged in verbal duel:
Petruccio: Come, come, you wasp, i’faith you are too angry.
Katherine: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
Petruccio: My remedy is then to pluck it out.
Katherine: Ay, if the fool could find where it lies.
Petruccio: Who knows not where a wasp does wear his sting? In his tail.
Katherine: In his tongue.
Petruccio: Whose tongue?
Katherine: Yours, if you talk of tales, and so farewell.
Petruccio: What, with my tongue in your tail?
(II.i.207–214)
with Katherine throwing insult after insult, and Petruccio turning each of her slurs into sexual innuendo which frustrated her and, at the same time, somehow won her over; or at least, silenced her.
…in a story that made me roar with laughter…
Using a frame within a frame* that consisted of a plot (Katherine and Petruccio) and a subplot (Bianca and Lucentio), the story examines marriage, emphasizing on its economic aspects (how economic factors influences who marries whom); and on the tremendous influence the society has over one’s happiness (how happiness is dependent on everyone playing his or her prescribed role).
Performed on stage**, Petruccio’s way of taming Katherine — showing up late and horribly dressed for their wedding; turning everything against Katherine’s will, ironically, under pretense of concern for her wellbeing; making Katherine agree with everything he said even if she believed otherwise (e.g., making Katherine say that the sun was really the moon); and showing her beautiful dresses but denying her the chance to own them, telling her they weren’t good enough for her — are hilarious. So are the wooing scenes between Bianca and Lutencio.
…while being so confused…
The language of the story is such a challenge to understand, but far challenging to comprehend are some crucial points. What happened to the Christopher Sly frame? Why did Katherine, intelligent and rapier-tongued, uncharacteristically fall silent when Petruccio arrogantly forced her to give her consent to marry him? Was it because he proved he was her equal in wit and in verbal skills? Or was it for something deeper, such as, she had recognized he was her only chance of ever being married?
But if that was so, why then, after the marriage, did she allow herself be treated brutally, giving only the slightest of objections? And finally, how could she have been transformed so easily? Or had she been really?
… then, somehow a little enlightened, laughed no more.
As the story came to an end — with Katherine suddenly becoming well tamed and proper, while her sister turned into a shrew; and, more importantly, with the understanding of just how much influence the society had over one’s life and happiness coming down to mind — the laughter just died down, especially when Katherine gave her sister a piece of her mind:
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign, one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe,
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and true obedience,
Too little payment for so great a debt.
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband’s foot,
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready, may it do him ease.
Hearing her speech, I was so stunned, that soon I found myself thinking: “Poor Katherine, she did not at all have a choice." She knew she had to be transformed somehow if she wanted to gain acceptance to the society she despised.
But if indeed she was transformed, then she was a broken woman, because the very essence of who she was — intelligent, independent, and not easily swayed — was destroyed. But if she was just playing along with her husband, having realized that it was the only way she could get what she wanted, she was broken still, for she had locked away her true self, never to resurrect it again.
* Main frame is the Christopher Sly frame. Sly was a tinker who became a subject of a nobleman’s cruel joke. The second frame is the main story, which consists of a plot (Katherine and Petruccio) and a subplot (Bianca and Lucentio).
** The production of The Taming of the Shrew that I saw was that of the Repertory Philippines in 2005 at Greenbelt One.
and the society's influence on happiness
The shrew…
She was a woman who knew her mind and enjoyed speaking it out. Meek and submissive, she was neither. Her tongue was good at stringing spiteful words; and her mind, as her tongue, was sharp and not easily matched nor bent.
The 21st century would love her and believe in her. Inspired by her, it would teach its sons to respect and admire her, and its daughters to emulate her. Independent and tough, she would be called, and both words would carry a ring of veneration and amazement to them.
But unfortunate, Katherine likewise was, for she was made to live 400 years much too early — at a time not a bit tolerant of her nature, in a story that is sympathetic of her yet intolerant of her ways.
She was an outcast of the society she despised. Everyone likeneed her to an animal to be tamed; and people referred to her as a shrew, and was invariably described as “too rough” (I.i.55) and “stark mad” (I.i.69).
Yet, in retrospect, she might simply be misunderstood by everyone around her — her father who seemed to love her sister more, and the less-witted men that surrounded her.
… and the tamer…
Had he lived today, when the two sexes are viewed as different but equal, he would be deemed egotistical and portentous. A man to be revered, he was not — now, or 400 years ago — with his crass behavior and overbearing attitude, and his not-quite-honorable intentions: first, to marry a wealthy woman to augment his inheritance:
Signor Hortensio, ‘twixt such friends as we
Few words suffice; and therefore, if thou know
One rich enough to be Petruccio’s wife—
As wealth is burden of my wooing dance—
Be she as foul as was Florentius’ love,
As old as Sibyl, and as curst and shrewd
As Socrates’ Xanthippe or a worse,
She moves me not—or not removes at least
Affection’s edge in me, were she as rough
As are the swelling Adriatic seas.
I come to wive it wealthily in Padua;
If wealthily, then happily in Padua.
(I.ii.62–73)
then, somehow challenged by reports of the rich man’s daughter’s (Katherine’s) shrewish behavior, to tame her and turn her to a suitable wife.
Katherine: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
Petruccio: My remedy is then to pluck it out.
Quick-witted he was though, and that proved to be enough to make Katherine submit to his will.
… together…
Their first meeting was hostile, as was the norm with Katherine; and soon they engaged in verbal duel:
Petruccio: Come, come, you wasp, i’faith you are too angry.
Katherine: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
Petruccio: My remedy is then to pluck it out.
Katherine: Ay, if the fool could find where it lies.
Petruccio: Who knows not where a wasp does wear his sting? In his tail.
Katherine: In his tongue.
Petruccio: Whose tongue?
Katherine: Yours, if you talk of tales, and so farewell.
Petruccio: What, with my tongue in your tail?
(II.i.207–214)
with Katherine throwing insult after insult, and Petruccio turning each of her slurs into sexual innuendo which frustrated her and, at the same time, somehow won her over; or at least, silenced her.
…in a story that made me roar with laughter…
Using a frame within a frame* that consisted of a plot (Katherine and Petruccio) and a subplot (Bianca and Lucentio), the story examines marriage, emphasizing on its economic aspects (how economic factors influences who marries whom); and on the tremendous influence the society has over one’s happiness (how happiness is dependent on everyone playing his or her prescribed role).
Performed on stage**, Petruccio’s way of taming Katherine — showing up late and horribly dressed for their wedding; turning everything against Katherine’s will, ironically, under pretense of concern for her wellbeing; making Katherine agree with everything he said even if she believed otherwise (e.g., making Katherine say that the sun was really the moon); and showing her beautiful dresses but denying her the chance to own them, telling her they weren’t good enough for her — are hilarious. So are the wooing scenes between Bianca and Lutencio.
…while being so confused…
The language of the story is such a challenge to understand, but far challenging to comprehend are some crucial points. What happened to the Christopher Sly frame? Why did Katherine, intelligent and rapier-tongued, uncharacteristically fall silent when Petruccio arrogantly forced her to give her consent to marry him? Was it because he proved he was her equal in wit and in verbal skills? Or was it for something deeper, such as, she had recognized he was her only chance of ever being married?
But if that was so, why then, after the marriage, did she allow herself be treated brutally, giving only the slightest of objections? And finally, how could she have been transformed so easily? Or had she been really?
… then, somehow a little enlightened, laughed no more.
As the story came to an end — with Katherine suddenly becoming well tamed and proper, while her sister turned into a shrew; and, more importantly, with the understanding of just how much influence the society had over one’s life and happiness coming down to mind — the laughter just died down, especially when Katherine gave her sister a piece of her mind:
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign, one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe,
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and true obedience,
Too little payment for so great a debt.
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband’s foot,
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready, may it do him ease.
Hearing her speech, I was so stunned, that soon I found myself thinking: “Poor Katherine, she did not at all have a choice." She knew she had to be transformed somehow if she wanted to gain acceptance to the society she despised.
But if indeed she was transformed, then she was a broken woman, because the very essence of who she was — intelligent, independent, and not easily swayed — was destroyed. But if she was just playing along with her husband, having realized that it was the only way she could get what she wanted, she was broken still, for she had locked away her true self, never to resurrect it again.
* Main frame is the Christopher Sly frame. Sly was a tinker who became a subject of a nobleman’s cruel joke. The second frame is the main story, which consists of a plot (Katherine and Petruccio) and a subplot (Bianca and Lucentio).
** The production of The Taming of the Shrew that I saw was that of the Repertory Philippines in 2005 at Greenbelt One.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)