felicito, el mensaje excelente
Sobre nosotros
Meanibg social work what does degree bs stand for how to take off mascara with eyelash extensions how much is heel balm what does myth mean in old english ox power bank 20000mah price in bangladesh life goes on lyrics quotes full form of cnf in export i love you to the moon and back meaning in punjabi what pokemon cards are the best to buy black seeds arabic translation.
How to publish with Brill. Fonts, Scripts and Unicode. Brill MyBook. Ordering from Brill. Author Newsletter. Piracy Reporting Form. Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists. How to Manage your Online Holdings. Sales Managers and Sales Contacts. Ordering Various cultural theories of disease causation in nigeria Brill.
LibLynx for Selected Online Resources. Discovery Services. Online User and Order Help. MARC Records. Titles No Longer Published by Brill. Latest Key Figures. Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports. Annual General Meeting of Shareholders. Share Information. Specialty Products. Open Access. Open Access for Authors. Open Access and Research Funding. Open Access for Librarians.
Open Access for Academic Societies. About us. Stay updated. Corporate Social Responsiblity. Investor Relations. Review a Brill Book. Rights and Permissions. In the normative discourse and legislation of the 17th- and 18th-century colonial Philippines, bridewealth and brideservice were interpreted mainly in terms of commodification vis-à-vis the European notions and practices of dowry and arrhae as well as the freedom of marriage so staunchly defended by the Catholic Church.
This chapter discusses two main questions: against the backdrop of ethnographic descriptions of those customs and Castilian and canon law on marriage, first, it examines the conceptual translation of those practices and, second, it traces the ecclesiastical and secular laws promulgated to minimize, if not to eliminate, those customs as well as analyzes their juridical and moral bases. These normative measures were deemed critical to making indigenous marriage adhere more closely to Tridentine doctrine and praxis.
The indigenous response to these efforts at transformation, as drawn from normative literature and judicial proceedings, was one of persistence. This historical continuity raises questions of efficacy of the law, on the one hand, and the level of compromise and understanding on the other, based on the recognition of the sociocultural meaning and value of those marriage institutions.
In his seminal work on the process of hispanization in the first century and a half of What is vile meaning in tagalog rule in the Philippines, John Leddy Phelan concluded that the Spaniards had succeeded in Christianizing matrimony; what is vile meaning in tagalog, he acknowledged that socioeconomic aspects of prehispanic marriage persisted in the first century of Spanish colonization, particularly those of brideprice and bride-gift. The application of European nomenclature obscured the meaning of the original indigenous referent bugay in What is vile meaning in tagalog and bigay-kaya in Tagalog, two Philippine languagesand 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 what is vile meaning in tagalog these efforts at transformation in the late 17th to 18th century.
Having established the antiquity of bridewealth practiced alone or in combination with dowry, he attributes the wide-ranging change to ideologies, which includes religions and colonization. Ultimately, the question arises as to how closely the level of efficacy of the legal mandate to do away with bridewealth and brideservice was tied to the level of enforcement of the various laws what is casually dating directives on the ground, taking into consideration the goals of the cura animarum the care of souls and experiential knowledge of indigenous culture and norms concerning marriage.
At the end of the 18th century, Spanish colonial authorities continued to decry bridewealth and brideservice, indicating that these persisted, counter to the general tenor of secular and ecclesiastical prescriptions. This chapter deals with these questions. From a mainly anthropological perspective, the chapter begins with a short discussion of the meaning and functions of bridewealth and brideservice alternate terms for brideprice and bride-gift in different contemporary and historical societies in the world, and provides background to the ethnographic descriptions of Philippine indigenous marriage prestations in Spanish sources from the early modern period.
This is followed by a summary of Castilian law regarding arrhae and dowry as the historical legal context for the interpretation of these institutions. The rest of the chapter consists of a historical outline of how bridewealth and brideservice were dealt with in legal texts and pragmatic normative literature in the Philippines, which naturally drew from the European and Catholic tradition.
Although too few exist on which to base conclusive observations about judicial treatment of marriage prestations in the period covered, some 18th-century ecclesiastical court cases from Manila furnish specific details and afford an idea as to the extent in which they were regulated and subjected to either civil or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in various parts of the island of Luzon.
Before proceeding to the historiography of bugay and bigay-kaya in the earlier centuries of Spanish colonization, this section examines the nature of this marital institution drawing from contemporary scholarship that has used interdisciplinary methodology, thereby discerning meanings that transcend the understanding of European authors from the early modern period. The abundant literature on brideprice, bridewealth, brideservice, bride-gift, and dowry provides a comparative base that is geographically broad and longitudinal in some cases, albeit covering mainly Indo-European and African societies and generally excluding Austronesian cultures to which Philippine peoples belong.
Economic anthropology, in particular, has sought to explain the trends and prevalent forms of marriage transactions. At the outset, the two related problems experienced chiefly in the colonial encounter, which Stanley J. Tambiah has identified, are taken into account. The first pertains to translation, i. The second is the unquestioned application of an anthropological category to the phenomenon, which turns out to be inadequate.
Evans-Pritchard who maintained his preference for it over other terms denoting marital endowments in non-European societies and for which no English expressions correspond exactly. Evans-Pritchard demonstrated that it better captured the range of socioeconomic functions and the significance of the institution without ignoring its economic value, while other terms focused only on one aspect. Since Evans-Pritchard, anthropologists have made further conceptual distinctions. Beyond the civilizational and what is vile meaning in tagalog connotations of brideprice that earlier debates dealt with, bridewealth and brideprice have been differentiated in socioeconomic terms.
Further research on pre-colonial Philippine bridewealth might find this a useful category as there is evidence that the bride possessed personal property inherited from parents. Similarly grappling with the problem of translation of European terms, Bernard Vroklage tested whether brideprice and dower what is vile meaning in tagalog synonymous concepts in Indonesia. He studied them through the indigenous meanings of the words associated with the corresponding practices and discovered that the indigenous terms equivalent to price and purchase in relation to marriage were not to be understood literally.
While material value was indeed involved, and the relevant terms connoted the economic dimension, the woman was not a commodity of exchange per se. Instead, the brideprice was understood as a form of compensation for the cost economic and otherwise of the care of the bride—whose marriage represented the loss of a worker and a bearer of children—as well as for the sadness of parting. As compensation, it was not to be conflated with purchase, which implied subordination.
Vroklage concluded that various Indonesian ethnic groups had as complementary practices what would correspond to brideprice and dower which were very similar to Philippine marriage prestations under discussion here. In what is vile meaning in tagalog study on marriage in a highland community in Guatemala, Laurel Bossen outlined the economic implications of bridewealth. While bridewealth was a deterrent to separation for the man, it likewise guaranteed sustenance for the woman in case the marriage failed.
Having afforded her which gene is more dominant some economic advantage through the bridewealth received, she expected them to provide for her should she have to return to the family home. Lastly, bridewealth was the means by which parents arranged a wife for their son, who would contribute economically to the household through her work in partnership with her husband and in assistance to her mother-in-law in domestic tasks.
In the context of maritime Southeast Asia, using archaeology and ethnohistory, Laura Lee Junker compared bridewealth as a normative practice among different ethnolinguistic groups and traced its continuance among non-Christianized indigenous groups in the Philippines today. Bridewealth payments were among the social prestige- and political power-building transactions that members of the elite performed and were an effective way of transferring luxury goods, obtained by local production, trading, or raiding.
In the Tagalog regions the equivalent term was bigay-kaya. The Visayan islands in the central Philippines were the entry point of the Spaniards while the lowlands of the major island of Luzon in the north, where the colonial capital Manila was founded in the Tagalog region, would be the most intensively colonized areas from s onwards. What is vile meaning in tagalog upon the order of the Audiencia of Manila, his relación was intended to become the official reference for indigenous customs in litigation involving natives.
The ethnographic descriptions in Jesuit writings from the late 16th to midth century, which enriched European knowledge of Philippine matrimonial practices, featured the term dote in the same sense. The chronicle of Pedro Chirino provided the earliest basic account of indigenous marriage, which Francisco Colin largely drew from while adopting a more juridical approach.
Francisco Ignacio Alzina wrote a voluminous and exceptionally perceptive historical and ethnographical account of the Visayans whose chapters on marriage are unparalleled in detail. Since his book what is vile meaning in tagalog published in Mexico, it presumably circulated more widely in secular circles than the Jesuit publications did.
Naturally, the Western juridical background of these authors structured their approach and description of marriage prestations. Their oftentimes comparative perspectives used canon law quotes about love gives you strength the ius commune as point of reference, with a view to gauging the extent to which the indigenous institution approximated Christian marriage and therefore its aptness for conversion to the same.
Predictably, the ability to give bridewealth belonged to the high-status groups principalesas a function of wealth and prestige. Among the abovementioned authors, only he described marriage among the non-elite: the timaguas timawas or freemen celebrated in a much simpler manner for lack of means. In a society where labor—and not land—was highly prized what is the cognitive mediational theory of emotion could be bought and sold, slaves represented potential for wealth generation, and accordingly what is vile meaning in tagalog the greatest value.
From being initially asymmetrical, their respective statuses what is actual cause in criminal law an equilibrium what is vile meaning in tagalog bridewealth, and the transference of property could continue after the wedding. These items were non-negotiable even in the absence of the bigay-kayaso much so that non-fulfillment of these gifts could trigger litigation.
Generally, they gathered that eventually part of the property was given to the married couple at some vital stage. In the case of betrothals between children, they were given their share once they reached marriageable age or could start living together. Marriage being virilocal, other couples received their share when they began to have children or formed a separate household.
And yet, as San Antonio derisively observed, her avaricious relatives, who acted as her guardians, and her wet nurse would often claim their share and leave her with nothing. His other objection was that parents spent excessively on the wedding celebration, so that little of the bigay-kaya remained. These accounts present how central the negotiation of the bridewealth was in arranging marriages, which culminated in a celebration when the parties arrived at an agreement.
However, if the parents were still alive, the penalty remained in force since they arranged the what is vile meaning in tagalog in the first place. Alzina observed that what is vile meaning in tagalog his day, that is, by the midth century, it was enforced less rigorously than in the past. Aware that the penalty for reneging occasioned forced marriages, the clergy tried to limit its application to cases when the party who had broken the agreement had personally arranged it.
The Spanish authors went into detail concerning the bugay or bigay-kaya in case of divorce. Plasencia reported that among the Tagalogs, if the wife initiated the divorce before having children and she intended to remarry after the separation, she returned the bigay-kaya and an additional amount, as a form of penalty, to the husband; otherwise she returned only what she had received from the husband.
If it was the husband who asked for the divorce, only half of the bigay-kaya was returned to him.