•

ON NATIVE GROUNDS:
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF REGIONAL LITERATURE
by
Resil B. Mojares
Over the past decade ther�, h_as been a_ wideni�� eff? rt at re
luing the concept of a "national literature m �e Phil�pptnes. W va.
hile
the image of a national literature has preoccupied w_ nters and sch
Jars at various turns in Phmppine hist0ry - �unng t� e first flu:
of nationalism with Rizal an� the propa�and 1sts1 � unng the a
J a
nese Occupation with its cultivated mystique of a , Malayan" pa .
_ it can perha ps be sa id that at �o other time has the concept bp
e e�
subjected to as rigorous a scrutiny as to day.
In the current investigation of na tional literature, a s well as In
.
its formation, regional literatures have assume d.importance. B
regional literature is meant the literary trad itions, written or or ai
of the various ethno-linguistic groups in the country, communitie;
that, despite much internal migration, can still be said to hav e distinct
geographical settings or identities. Often, and legitimately so, the
concept of regional literature is opposed to that of the literatur e of
court and capital, the ruling literatures in English, Spanish and, to
an extent, Tagalog. This is a reflex of our literary history where regional
litera tures have often been consigne d to the level of subliteratures.
In practice, therefore, the concept of regional literature _in the Ph il­
ippines is often subsumed under the wid er concept of vernacular
literature, encompassing both creative and folk trad itions. In view
of the facts of Philippine literary history particularly the imbalances
caused by the colonial experience, regional analysis is necessarily
involved in a study of the opposition between center and periphery,
between dominant and minority literatures.
Various critics have asserted that today we cannot as yet speak
of a national literature. Constantino and Sikat, referring to our lite­
rature as fragmented (watak-watak), argue that we cannot as yet
formally claim that we have a "national literature" in the Philippines
(Sa Pilipinas ay hindi pa natin pormal na masasabi na mayroon ng
pambansang literatura.). They cite the fact that in view of the lack
. of sustained or systematic regional or cross-regional studies we still
have to define the total body of literary traditions in the country,
as well as bring these traclitions to the level of popular, interregional
_ _
appreaation. The need for a broadly-based, systemati c investig a-
 tion of vernacular and regional literatures is high in the agenda of
today's literary scholars. Rolando S.Tmio comments: "at the mo­
ment, it is difficult to characterize the national literary sensibility
because the great bulk of vernacular literature has remained uncol­
lected. Hence, it seems imperative that massive basic research in
vernacular literature to be undertaken." The importance of such a
study is underscored by Bienvenido Lumbera: "herein lies the
importance of research in the history of regional literatures - as
it attains thoroughness and accuracy, it is bound to assist in revising
the existing literary history of the Phillipines."
Such interest derives from the recognition of the importance
of regional literature as a component of national literature. In many
cases in the past, the national literature has been uncritically equated
with the ruling literatures, the literature of "court and capital," one
largely produced and patronized by a small cultural elite and
externally defined by its use of a foreign medium (Spanish and English)
and, to a certain extent, the literature of the primate region of the
country though this may be written in a native language (i.e. Tagalog)
as well as popular in character. Because of such uncritical equations,
judgments on Philippine literature have often been distorted by
deducing from a limited area truths which are then made to generally
apply to the total field of "Philippine literature."
Such lapses are serious when we consider that the greater bulk
of the population is in the outlying regions, and that the literary
experience of the people of these regions largely operates within
the limits of their respective traditions as expressed or transmitted
in their own Janguages. Even readership figures, though imprecise,
wi11 tell us something of what is missed. The prestigious English­
language magazine of the 1930s, Philippine Magazine, edited by
A.V.H. Hartendorp, had a registered monthly circulation of 6,500.
This easily pales in comparison with such locally circulated regional
vernacular magazines of the same period as the Cebuano Bag-ong
Kusog with a weekly circulation of 10,975 and Babye with a weekly
8,000; or the Jlonggo Ylang-Ylang with 7,795 and Banaag with 10,560,
both of weekly circulation. Yet, while Philippine magazine is well­
mined by researchers, its importance as a "high point" in Philippine
letters memorialized, the regional vernacular magazine just men­
tioned have remained in the bin of literary scholarship and of the
cultural consciousness of today's writers.
 •
Something of what is missed is also seen if w e con s·
d
l
tremendous volume of literary produ ctions to be fou nd in th: er the
b
pamphlets and periodicals which have been publishe d in th 00�,
ious regional languages. The massive work of c_oilectin g, c a a� var,
t o
ing, and indexing these widely scattered matenals has ju st b
e �
UndoubtedJy, the bulk of works to be reco�e�e� and stu died is la� n­.
One only has to note that as against 64 F11Ipm o novels in En ?e·
produced in 1921-1966, some 1,000 Tagalog novels were publ 1
i�h:�
in the first quarter of the present century alone.
Furthermore there is the matter of the rich oral tradition
the provinces, a field which literary sc_holars, to_ their loss, have lar ; ;
e:
left for the ethnologists and folklonsts to mm e. Interest in folk]
ristic studies has in recent years intensified as it has also adop
te�
and developed more sophisticated instruments of analysis. This ha
s
resulted in, among other things, the recovery of many oral texts anct
of such surrounding data as would be necessary for the full appre­
ciation of such folk creations. The importance of these effo rts can n ot
be overemphasized for we have in traditional or folk works th e
necessary foundation on which a national literature must stand and
a source from which writers can draw sustenance in the form of
subjects, insights, and styles in the light of the fact that much con­
temporary Philippine literature is pallid for having been nourished
on the thin surface soil to borrowed literary ideas. This digging into
the depths of traditional literature should augur well for the future
of Philippine writing as it situates w1iters more firmly in a more
richly defined and better-understood native cultural tradition.
The neglect of vernacular and folk literature may be due, in
large part, to a critical orientation fastidiously cultivated in the
academe since the end of the Pacific War which focuses interest on
a historica11y static order of "great works" and the analyses of for­
mal qualities, and to literature programs which accord only the most
minimal share to the study of native literatures. One consequence
of the situation has been a bias against sociolog ical studies of
literature; or, where such studies are undertaken, an incapacity to
probe deeply into the structure and meanings of the native literary
experience.
The study of the country's subliteratures' should result in a
number of consequential read
justments in our und erstandin g of

►
 PhjJippine literature. For one thing, it will uncover the importance
of a great mass of works often derisively dismissed as "popular"
or "hack" �•riting - the fiction, verse, and other works published
in commercial vernacular periodicals. Much of this work is undoubt­
edl y subliterary. Yet, an understanding of Philippine literature in
its totality will be incomplete and flawed if due consideration is not
accorded such works as have been called "the undergrowth of
literature."
There is another value to the study of regional and vernacular
litera tures. Philippine literature in English is a literature distinctly
bourgeois in the character of its producers, consumers, styles and
preoccupations. Because of this, the reality it unfolds has its peculiar
refractions, limitations and biases. On the other hand, vernacular
literature, associated as it is with a different lower social class, lies
close to the soil, as it were, and provides us with insights into a differ­
ent order of reality with its own characteristic patterns of thinking
and feeling and modes of expression.
A study of regional and vernacular literature, therefore, should
lead us to a fuller understanding of the Philippine cultural landscape
as we cut across social classes and geographical regions. Regional
analysis should lead us to an understanding of the cultural concomi­
tants of "the areal differentiations caused by the gradual variations
in the spatial interaction of physical and human elements." At the
same time, a more democratic approach to literature will enable us
to see more fully not only a people's experience as it is revealed
in art but also the genesis and growth of ideas and forms in litera­
ture. What will emerge from all this is a more accurate estimation
of Philippine literary tradition. What need to be pursued assiduously
today are scientific regional and cross-regional literary studies. Such
studies, insofar as they relate to the existing as well as emerging
lineaments of Philippine literature or literary history, will be impor­
tant insofar as they reveal similarities or continuities among various
Philippine literary traditions, as well as variations among these
tractitions.
Constantino and Sikat believe that a basis for a common tra­
dition can be found in the similarity of the linguistic structures of
Philippine languages, of historical experience, literary development,
motifs and conventions. "In general, it can be said that it is only
•
. Sa p angkal ahatan
. ua e that our literatu res vary " ( h
': ,�i� ng�.Jamang nagkakaiba-iba an?
ating mg_a lite ra tu
ra). aJOs
. reg1 0 nal studies should d 'l'hor.
oug h o n-gom g _reg10 nal and cross- uity o f the Philip p
contin
ourund erstan dmg of the overall ine l'I tee�
r
tradWon . eary
kind of �onti uit y
On the other hand, a more dyn�c :1 can be
into the van atio ns th at d1vers1fy
appre□a 'f
• ted 1 we delv e o u r coll
e as a peop le. In_ thi s r esp ect, o ne c
a l
mon litera ry experienc n 9Uot;
Fr. H. de la Costa's observation on an impor tant asp ect of Phili
p..
pine culture:
... acculturation varied horiz ontally, from region to
region, and vertically, from class t_o class , resul ting in sigm_
ficant differences within a recogruzably c o mmon cul ture ...
The piecemeal process by which thes� islan�s wer� p eopled,
the varying patterns of our trade with ne1ghbo rmg lands,
and the greater or lesser degree of penetration affected by
the Spanish and American colonial systems - all the se as­
pects of our history suggest that while it is p ossibl e to speak
of a national culture common to the Philippin es as a whole,
we must expect significant horizontal and vertical v ariations.
The study of regional literatures - and m ore importantly, their
entry into our shared cultural consciousness as a nation - should
both define and strengthen tradition . For one, it should lead us to
a juster estimation of our cultural history. In fact, a f ew themes in
the current r eevaluation of our literary history have already been
offered. Tmio says: "The tradition of Philippine literature must be
seen as vernacular, with writings in Spanish and English by Filipinos
as minor phases within the historical continuum. In the same vein,
Lumbera remarks: "English writing and Spanish writing, for that
matter, ought to be treated as th ey sh ould, as minor branch es rafte d
onto our literature by Western col onialism." Mo re d etailed research
should show the degree to which such claims can be made.
For another, by enlarging and enriching traditio n, the study
of regional literature should enhance the va
lue of tradition for us
today. In this respect, one can p araphr
ase T.S. Elio t on the na ture
and value of tradition for the con
tem po rary wr iter.

Wha_t we know of our literature tod

ay form s an ideal
0rder which shall be mo
dified with the int ro du ction into
our consciousness of the works of our dimly explored re­
gional literatures. What will happen as a consequence is
the alteration of the existing order, the adjustment and re­
adjustment of the relations, proportions, and values of each
idea and each work to the whole. We shall, in the process,
define the frontiers of tradition, the limits of this order, more
accurately. On this basis, we shall then know the points
beyond which we should go.
From: Contemporary Philippine Literature
Edited by Isagani R. Cruz
Integrated Research Center
DLSU Taft Ave.Mia., 1983
r Region 1 - Ilocos
NAIPAY A NAMNAMA
Leona Florentino

(l) Amangan a ragsac ken talecda

dagiti adda caayanayatdata
ta adda piman mangrima
cadagiti isuamin a asugda.

(5) Ni gasatco a nababa

aoanen ngatat capadana,
ta cunac -diac agduadua
ta agdama ngarud nga innac agsagaba.

(9) Ta nupay no agayatac

iti maysa a imnas
aoan lat' pangripripiripac
nga adda pacaibatug�c.

(13) Hunodconto ti horas

nga innac pannacayanac
ta mamenribo coma a naseseat
no natayac idin ta nayanacac.

Gayagayec coma a ipalaoag,

· ngem bumdeng met toy dilac
a ta maquitac met a sababatad
nga ni paay ti calac-amac.

(21) Ngem umanayento a liolioac

ti pannacaammom itoy a panagayat,
ta icaric kenca ket isapatac
nga sica aoan sabali ti pacatay
ac.
 BIGONG PAG-ASA
sali11 11i lsngnni R. Cruz

(1) Anong saya at ginhawa

kung may nagmamahal
dahil may malcikiramay
sa lahat ng pagdurusa.

(5) Ang masama kong kapalaran

walang kapantay -
wala akong alinlangan -
sa dinaranas sa kasalukuyan.

(9) Kahit na ako ay magmahal

sa isang musa
wala namang hinuha
na ako'y pahahalagahan.

(13) Isumpa ko kaya ang panahon

nang ako'y ipinanganak
higit na mas masarap
na mamatay bilang sanggol.

(17) Nais ko mang magpaliwanag

dila ko'y ayaw gumalaw
nakilcita kong malinaw
pagtanggi lamang ang matatanggap.

(21 ) Ligaya ko sana'y walang kapantay

sa kaalamang ikaw ay minamahal
isusumpa ko at patutunayan
para sa iyo lamang ako mamamatay.

Source: Cruz, IsaganiR. NalpatJANamnama.Apoem byLeona Florentino.

Daloy 6.1 (April 1997):18.
 What Are Filipinos Like?
Leon Ma. Guerrero
Nothing is so difficult as self-appraisal, and to answer the
question in the title of this article, I thought it best to start by asking
it. With no particular pattern in mind, I asked a number of foreign
friends to give me their impression of the Filipino.
I was told that we were friendly, good-natured, loyal,
idealistic, sentimental, socially gracious ("even the lower classes")
unwilling to accept responsibility, lacking in self-reliance, less
hardworking than the Chinese, more intelligent than the Malays,
imitative but less so than the Japanese, religious but not so mystical
as the Indians, and, in general, the most adaptable of all the races in
the Orient.
A Spaniard thought we were very like the Spaniards; an
American thought we were not American enough. A Frenchman
remarked we were the only people in Asia with a sense of humor, at
least the only ones who could laugh at themselves, which, when one
thinks of it, was probably the prettiest compliment of all.
By way of contrast, our fellow Asian had a uniform
tendency to laugh at us. A Siamese said we were pretentious. An
Indonesian, in much the same vein, deplored our tendency to accept
western standards at their face value. A Chinese thought we were
improvident. An Indian was shocked by the cheapness in which
human life was held by a people that could kill a few centavos, a
political argument, or a girl's ruffled feelings.
The history of the Philippines might well be read in these
national characteristics. There is, to start with, a relatively simple
explanation for our notorious lack of self-reliance, which means to
be the main burden of compliment against us these days. For more
than four centuries of colonial rule, we were not allowed to rely on
ourselves. Colonialism also suggests the reason for a certain
unwillingness to accept responsibility; for too long in our history, it
was not accompanied by any real authority.
During the four centuries of colonial rule in the Philippines,
the government was "foreign," the exclusive prerogative of a
superior class, the special privilege of an alien race. Obviously the
Filipinos could not consider such a government as their own; they
could not identify themselves with it; it was a thing apart, and more
than that, a thing to be regarded with suspicion, hostility, even
hatred.
The "government" did everything; it was responsible for
everything; but it was not responsible to the people. On the
contrary, the people were responsible to it, for taxes, forced labor,
conscription, and all the varied catalogue of colonial duties, with no
right to expect anything in return. The hard lessons drawn from the
experience of many generations must be unlearned, if the Filipinos
are to develop civic consciousness, a sense of participation in the
government, and a sense of responsibility for the welfare of the
country.
The establishment of an independent Filipino government
was the fundamental prerequisite for the growth of true self-
reliance. Nationalism had to be the mother of democracy.
Ironically enough, the Filipinos discovered that they could
survive on their own resources only during the extremity of the
Japanese occupation and the consequent American blockade. We
then became self-reliant because we had to, and it is possible that
the only way we shall finally achieve economic independence is to
be driven to it by stark necessity.
There is, however, another aspect of self-reliance which
has nothing to do with colonialism and its remnants. When some
Americans say that we lack it, they are thinking of our family system.
They cannot understand why grown-up sons and daughters keep
living with their parents even after they have married and begotten
children of their own, or why they should feel under obligation to
feed and house even the most distant "cousins" who find
themselves in want.
The trait is not exclusively Filipino; it is common to most of
Asia; and it is, I daresay, common to all rudimentary societies.
Modern man looks to his government for security, but where the
government, whether native or foreign, is still regarded as an alien,
selfish force, the individual prefers to trust his bloodkin for what are
in effect old age pensions or unemployment insurance. The family is
an indispensable institution in these circumstances, and one cannot
be too sure that people are happier where it has been supplanted by
the state as the center of society.
Our adaptability or imitativeness, is, like our family system,
largely self-protective. Colonial peoples quickly learn to adapt
themselves to foreign ways. The penalty is, at the very least, a kick in
the behind. The reward, on the other hand, is a little more rice on
the plate. So in the colonial Philippines, the man who could speak
Spanish or English, who knew enough not to eat with his hands, or
who could afford a foreign-cut jacket, had a reasonably better
chance to get a job or a promotion.
That the Filipinos showed a precocious ability to imitate,
and imitate to perfection, is perhaps indicated by our national male
costume, which is nothing else than a shirt won with its tail out. This
seems to have been decreed by the Spaniards to make it possible to
tell at first glance who was a Spaniard with the right to wear his
shirttails properly tucked in, and who was the inferior "indio", with
the obligation of flaunting them even when he was in full formals,
complete to cane and top hat. It is an odd turnabout, not without a
certain irony, that this badge of inferiority has been transformed
into a cherished national institution, and that the white man in the
tropics has actually followed suit by wearing his tails cut too in the
fashionable sport shirt.
Our mimetism, however, had at least one more source
other than pure self-preservation. Those Asians who complain that
the Filipinos are excessively westernized, to the point of losing their
Asian identity, forget that there was nothing else for us to be.
“I AM A FILIPINO”
BY CARLOS P. ROMULO
I am a Filipino – inheritor of a glorious past, hostage to the uncertain
future. As such, I must prove equal to a two-fold task – the task of
meeting my responsibility to the past, and the task of performing my
obligation to the future.
I am sprung from a hardy race – child many generations removed of
ancient Malayan pioneers. Across the centuries, the memory comes
rushing back to me: of brown-skinned men putting out to sea in
ships that were as frail as their hearts were stout. Over the sea I see
them come, borne upon the billowing wave and the whistling wind,
carried upon the mighty swell of hope – hope in the free abundance
of the new land that was to be their home and their children’s
forever.
What is Literature?

 What is Literature?

Literature plays an important role in our lives. It helps us grow both

personally and intellectually and provides an objective base for
knowledge and understanding.

-written work
-artistic or intellectual work of writing.

Literature is the depiction of the society. It is a great tool to teach the

morality to a society.
 What is Literature?

A latin word for '' Litera'' which means letter.

It saves your time

It makes you nice
It's a cure for loneliness
It prepares your for a failure
 Types of Literature

Poetry

Fiction

Drama

Non-fiction
 Poetry

Poetry in literature is a composition of rhythm, sound, and lyrics.

The poet composes poetry in sort of a song to develop emotions and imaginations in the
listeners’ hearts and minds.

Poetry is aesthetic.

The poet chooses words carefully, so the listeners can relate themselves to it.
 Fiction

Any work of literature that includes material that is invented or imagined, that is not record of
things as they actually happened
 Drama

Drama is a play in literature, and a playwright composes it.

It portrays fictional or non-fictional stories.
To explain away certain events, characters, or stories, a drama is produced, using dialogues or
actions. It can be performed on stage, radio or on big screens as in films
Conflicts, emotions and impressive characters are required to produce a high-quality drama.

There are many forms of drama but some of the most common are: comedy, tragedy, musical
drama and melodrama. Let us have a brief explanation of these types of drama.

A story written to be acted out on stage. Drama is truly a living form of literature
 Types of Drama.

1. Comedy: Comedy is a type of drama, which is lighter in tone. Its purpose is to make the
audience laugh and amuse them. It has a happy ending. Very unusual circumstances are there
coupled with quick and witty remarks. People consider it as the most entertaining and fun form
of drama and literature. An example of a comedy drama is ’The Comedy of Errors’ by William
Shakespeare.
 Types of Drama.

2. Tragedy: Tragedy is the type of drama that has a dark theme. It portrays suffering, pain,
longing, and often death. An example of a tragedy drama is ‘Romeo and Juliet’ by William
Shakespeare.
 Types of Drama.

3. Musical Drama: A musical drama tells a story with dialogues, songs, music, and dance. These
things convey the emotions in the drama. An example of a musical drama is ‘A Star is Born’,
which starred Lady Gaga.
 Types of Drama.

4. Melodrama: Melodrama is a kind of drama that portrays exaggerated emotions like tension or
excitement. It arouses the same emotions in the audience and makes them indulged in it. The
situation and the dialogues are more important in a melodrama than action. An example of a
melodrama is ‘Still Life, Brief Encounter’ by Noel Coward.
 Non-Fiction

A prose that deals with real events and people. In nonfiction, the characters, setting and actions
must conform to what is true. They cannot be manipulated by the imaginative of the writers.