“Que los indios no puedan vender sus hijas para contraer matrimonio”: Understanding and Regulating Bridewealth and Brideservice in the Spanish Colonial Period of the Philippines

M. Camacho
{"title":"“Que los indios no puedan vender sus hijas para contraer matrimonio”: Understanding and Regulating Bridewealth and Brideservice in the Spanish Colonial Period of the Philippines","authors":"M. Camacho","doi":"10.1163/9789004472839_006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his seminal work on the process of hispanization in the first century and a half of Spanish rule in the Philippines, John Leddy Phelan concluded that the Spaniards had succeeded in Christianizing matrimony; however, he acknowledged that socioeconomic aspects of prehispanic marriage persisted in the first century of Spanish colonization, particularly those of brideprice and bride-gift. According to Phelan, these practices “smacked of fathers selling their daughters, perhaps against the latter’s will, to the highest bidder”.1 While Phelan differentiated between dowry and brideprice as Philippine indigenous practices, an examination of Spanish sources, ethnographic and otherwise, shows that what the Spaniards called ‘dowry’ (dote) corresponds to brideprice; that is, these two marriage prestations were actually the same. The application of European nomenclature obscured the meaning of the original indigenous referent (bugay in Bisaya and bigay-kaya in Tagalog, two Philippine languages), and so, like early modern Spanish authors in the field, Phelan appears to have confused these terms. This chapter problematizes the conceptual translation of indigenous marriage prestations. It explores the perspectives of moral theologians and clergymen, and traces the normative means, both ecclesiastical and secular, and their juridical and moral underpinnings, to make native customs conform to Catholic matrimonial law and values. Likewise, it examines normative literature and judicial sources to discern the indigenous response to these efforts at transformation in the late 17th to 18th century. In sum, it traces the ways in which the institutions of bugay/bigay-kaya were practised, interpreted, contested, and integrated into the colonial matrimonial order.","PeriodicalId":102272,"journal":{"name":"Norms beyond Empire","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Norms beyond Empire","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004472839_006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In his seminal work on the process of hispanization in the first century and a half of Spanish rule in the Philippines, John Leddy Phelan concluded that the Spaniards had succeeded in Christianizing matrimony; however, he acknowledged that socioeconomic aspects of prehispanic marriage persisted in the first century of Spanish colonization, particularly those of brideprice and bride-gift. According to Phelan, these practices “smacked of fathers selling their daughters, perhaps against the latter’s will, to the highest bidder”.1 While Phelan differentiated between dowry and brideprice as Philippine indigenous practices, an examination of Spanish sources, ethnographic and otherwise, shows that what the Spaniards called ‘dowry’ (dote) corresponds to brideprice; that is, these two marriage prestations were actually the same. The application of European nomenclature obscured the meaning of the original indigenous referent (bugay in Bisaya and bigay-kaya in Tagalog, two Philippine languages), and so, like early modern Spanish authors in the field, Phelan appears to have confused these terms. This chapter problematizes the conceptual translation of indigenous marriage prestations. It explores the perspectives of moral theologians and clergymen, and traces the normative means, both ecclesiastical and secular, and their juridical and moral underpinnings, to make native customs conform to Catholic matrimonial law and values. Likewise, it examines normative literature and judicial sources to discern the indigenous response to these efforts at transformation in the late 17th to 18th century. In sum, it traces the ways in which the institutions of bugay/bigay-kaya were practised, interpreted, contested, and integrated into the colonial matrimonial order.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“印第安人不能为了结婚而出卖女儿”:菲律宾西班牙殖民时期对新娘财富和新娘服务的理解和规范
约翰·莱迪·费兰(John Leddy Phelan)在他关于西班牙统治菲律宾一个半世纪期间西班牙化进程的开创性著作中得出结论,西班牙人成功地将婚姻基督教化了;然而,他承认,在西班牙殖民统治的第一个世纪,前西班牙人婚姻的社会经济方面仍然存在,特别是聘礼和新娘礼物。根据费兰的说法,这些做法“有点像父亲把女儿卖给出价最高的人,也许是违背女儿的意愿。虽然Phelan将嫁妆和新娘的价格区分为菲律宾土著习俗,但对西班牙文献、人种学和其他方面的研究表明,西班牙人所谓的“嫁妆”(dote)对应的是新娘的价格;也就是说,这两种婚姻表现实际上是一样的。欧洲命名法的应用模糊了原始土著指称物的含义(两种菲律宾语言Bisaya中的bugay和Tagalog中的bigay-kaya),因此,就像该领域的早期现代西班牙作家一样,Phelan似乎混淆了这些术语。本章探讨了土著婚姻观念的概念翻译问题。它探讨了道德神学家和神职人员的观点,并追溯了规范手段,包括教会和世俗,以及他们的法律和道德基础,使当地习俗符合天主教婚姻法和价值观。同样地,它考察了规范性文献和司法来源,以辨别17世纪末至18世纪土著对这些转型努力的反应。总而言之,它追溯了bugay/bigay-kaya制度的实践、解释、争议和融入殖民地婚姻秩序的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Catholics and Non-Christians in the Archbishopric of Goa Village Normativities and the Portuguese Imperial Order: The Case of Early Modern Goa Time as Norm: The Ritual Dimension of the Calendar Book and the Translation of Multi-Temporality in Late Imperial China The Principales of Philip II: Vassalage, Justice, and the Making of Indigenous Jurisdiction in the Early Colonial Philippines The Janus Face of Normativities in a Global Mirror: Viewing 16th-Century Marriage Practices in Japan from Christian and Japanese Traditions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1