The Compadrazgo as a Reflection of the Natural and Spiritual Person

STOR ®
Stephen Gudeman

Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, No.
1971 (1971), 45-48+4+49-71.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4169%281971%290%3A1971%3C45%3ATCAARO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5

Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is currently published by Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you
have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and
you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/rai.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or
printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of
scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.j stor.org/
Wed Feb 8 08:20:26 2006
 THE COMPADRAZGO AS A REFLECTION OF THE NATURAL
AND SPIRITUAL PERSON
The Curl Prize Essay 1971
STEPHEN GUDEMAN
University of Minnesota
THE compadrazgo is found in areas throughout the
world from the Mediterranean to Latin America and
the Philippines. Its adherents include Roman and
Orthodox Catholics, rural and urban dwellers, and
native and conquering groups. The institution is an
elaboration of Catholic Church dogma and practices
and is formed normally at baptism and confirmation.
Its core pattern consists of three roles: parent, child
and godparent; and three relationships: a kin tie
between parent and child; a spiritual tie between child
and godparent; and a spiritual tie between godparent
and parent.1 However, this structure is found in
dramatically variant forms. Modifications include (a)
expanding the number of occasions on which formed,
(b) augmenting the number of godparents used,
(c) deleting some of the roles, (d) extending the bonds
to kin of the principals, (e) utilising different modes
of address, and (f) employing the religious ties for
secular duties.
The compadrazgo has been the subject of extensive
treatment in ethnographies and analytic writings, yet
no theory has been proposed which reduces the
institution to its essential principles while explaining
its manifold forms. In this essay my concern is with
this problem. My view is based upon the ideology of
the institution. I shall argue that the temporal and
spatial variants of the complex are united and in-
formed by the conceptual distinctions of the natural
and spiritual being, and natural and spiritual parent-
hood. Within a society this ideology has a profound
impact upon the relation of the compadrazgo to the
kinship and marriage systems.
The essay is divided into four parts:
Part 1: a review of previous explanations and a
presentation of my thesis;
Part 2: an examination of church theology and
historical materials concerning baptism, spon-
sors and spiritual relationships;
Part 3: an analysis of the compadrazgo pattern
in a peasant community of Veraguas Province,
Panama;
Part 4: an exploration of contemporary permuta-
tions of the complex.
The areas and sources covered are listed in Appen-
dix 1.1 think the significant variations in the complex
have been included, although I have not made refer-
ence to all the available ethnographies. For diagram-
matic purposes I have used certain notations not
45
normally employed by anthropologists. The symbols
and their meanings are set forth in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Notations used
' Conjugal tie
Kinship bond
4 I Spiritual relationship
i x and y are mutually substitutive or equivalent in a
x
/ y position
p q p is a transformation of q; q is a transformation of p
s —fr t s is transformed to t, or t is a transformation of s
= Identity
'=^=z Identity prohibited or lack of identity
1: Explanations of the compadrazgo
The compadrazgo has been reported in the litera-
ture since Tylor's (1861: 250-1) early account, but
theories about the institution have been developed
only within the last thirty years. A brief review of
these explanations seems appropriate to show how
my own analysis builds upon and departs from them.
In 1941 Redfield, almost in passing, spoke of the
compadrazgo as creating new ties or solemnising
and sanctifying existing ones (1941: 124). Shortly after,
his student, Paul (1942: 56-7), provided a more de-
tailed demonstration of how the institution could be
used to 'extend' or 'intensify' a given set of bonds.
Although today most analyses go beyond these
generalisations, they have yet to be refuted.
Implicit in the above views is an idea which has
persisted in the literature: that the compadrazgo
furthers social solidarity. Mintz and Wolf (1950)
showed that the institution is highly adaptable and
flexible, and that it can further solidarity by operating
'horizontally', linking members of the same social
class, or 'vertically', binding together persons of
different social groups. They suggested that when
communities are self-contained or form a single social
class, in a class-structured society, the compadrazgo
is principally an intra-group mechanism; when com-
munities consist of several social classes juxtaposed,
the compadrazgo helps to organise inter-class ex-
changes.2 Which of these two major patterns prevails
also was said to 'depend on the amount of socio-
cultural and economic mobility, real and apparent,
available to an individual in a given situation' (Mintz
& Wolf 1950: 358). The authors supported their views
 through the use of historical and present-day ethno-
graphic materials.
I am in agreement with the functional emphasis of
Mintz and Wolf in so far as they related the institution
to the context in which it occurs. But I do not think
their extension of the term function to mean furthering
social solidarity is analytically useful. Why cannot
social solidarity be promoted by another system in
the culture? What sets the compadrazgo apart from
other institutions which perform a similar function?
Further, Mintz and Wolf (1950: 341) defined the
compadrazgo as consisting of a set of relationships
yet, in effect, confined their discussion to the
compadre-compadre bond.3 In many contexts this
may be the most important tie, however, as I shall
demonstrate, their analysis was restricted by this pre-
figuring of the data. Finally the authors carefully
documented the historical relation of the com-
padrazgo to church dogma and practices and noted
that it represents a synthesis of ideas about sponsor-
ship, spiritual rebirth and 'ritual kinship', but their
examples were concerned only with the latter. Con-
sequently, they stressed the utilitarian importance and
omitted the spiritual implications of the institution.
Foster, in developing the notions of flexibility and
social stability, suggested that the compadrazgo
supplements kinship ties to meet economic, spiritual
and social needs (1953: 9; 1967: 85).4 He also pro-
posed that the institution is one form of the 'dyadic
contract', an unnamed, unrecognised 'principle of
reciprocity' (1967: 214; 1961; 1963). In that the
dyadic contract may be either symmetric or asym-
metric, his view closely paralleled Mintz and Wolf's
distinction between horizontal and vertical patterning.
In certain respects an argument which links the
compadrazgo with the family is similar to my own,
but Foster did not explain why it is this and not some
other institution which closes a gap left by kinship
ties. And as indicated, to see the compadrazgo as no
more than a dyadic bond is to misperceive its dogmatic
and essential nature.
In a recent article Ravicz developed a different
theory: on the one hand, 'The compadrazgo [by
which Ravicz meant only the co-parental bond] . . .
does not create a family situation in its image' (1967:
242). On the other, the complex does provide 'a model
for all interpersonal relationships . . . by joining large
numbers of individuals in respect-relations' (1967:
250). In my view Ravicz was wrong to deny structural
similarities between the family and co-parental bonds.
Also the complex often does consist of a network of
respect relationships, but it remains to be demon-
strated that it is the model for all interpersonal ties.
In two articles Pitt-Rivers (1958; 1968) echoed
some of these earlier notions and added an important
view of his own. He reasoned that the compadrazgo
is what 'cognatic kinship aspires to, but cannot, be*
(1968: 412). It establishes trust relationships which
can be put to different uses. This idea is a variant of
the social solidarity theme. Pitt-Rivers also linked
46
the compadrazgo with kinship in a more profound
manner. He suggested that a similarity exists between
the roles of the ritual kinsman and the brother-in-
law (1968: 409). In Andalusia he pointed out:
The word grace is sometimes used to refer to a
person's first name and from this comes the ex-
pression for the godparents, padres de gracia. It is
by Divine Grace that Original Sin is remitted
through the rite of baptism. The association of this
concept with the personal side of the social person-
ality, as against the structural side represented by the
surname, illustrates a contrast that is made in many
ways in this society and is the basis of the juxta-
position of kinship and spiritual kinship (1958: 428).
Apparently Pitt-Rivers drew an analogy between the
compadrazgo and 'complementary filiation'. He also
contrasted sacred compadrazgo and profane kinship
relations. These notions are congruent with my own
view.
For Jugoslavia, Hammel (1968) interpreted the
kumstvo (the godparenthood complex) as a mechan-
ism for extending a network of trust. Following argu-
ments proposed in the context of kinship theory, he
suggested that the kumstvo is a kind of 'alliance'
between continuing unilineal descent groups.
Although Hammel's view is thought-provoking and
bears a similarity to my own, it is hard to apply
directly to situations of bilateral kinship.
In summary, most analyses of the compadrazgo
have been based upon its observed characteristics and
overt functions. The institution has been seen as a
flexible and adaptable mechanism, and it has been
recognised as a means for establishing or expressing
relationships between individuals or groups. Few
authors have satisfactorily defined its distinctive char-
acteristics. Only Pitt-Rivers has perceived that the
compadrazgo and the family ideologically bear a
close relation one to the other.
My view follows a type of argument advocated by
Levi-Strauss, Leach and others. I believe that all
compadrazgo systems, including the church version,
may be seen as a set of variations occurring through
time and space. The current forms of the complex
derive from the church dogma which was enunciated
at the time of the Conquest (sixteenth century). Since
then contacts between many rural areas and the
Church have been sporadic. Contemporary ecclesias-
tical rules have been codified over time by church
specialists; folk dogmas have been codified over
generations by laymen. All the forms have a similar
foundation but have evolved in different directions.
Nevertheless since the contemporary versions do
derive from the same 'great tradition' and are linked
by their historical connexion to the spread of
Christianity, all are variants.5 It follows that we may
compare compadrazgo systems throughout the world
instead of restricting the comparison to adjacent
societies yet make few assumptions about the pan-
cultural workings of the human 'mind'. These his-
 torical facts also delimit the relations to be compared.
Only compadrazgo systems, as forms of the original
godparenthood complex, are commensurate. For this
reason classifications which include the compadrazgo
with institutions such as blood brotherhood are un-
acceptable (Eisenstadt 1956; Foster 1956; Pitt-
Rivers 1968).
Since the current forms are linked historically to
the church, we must look to earlier church ideology
to gain an understanding of them. Thus, behind all
the observed compadrazgo variants lies the historical
Christian theological distinction made between man
as a spiritual and natural, or cultural and biological,
being. Through baptism the passage from the state of
original sin to the state of grace is achieved: man is
thought to be conceived with the sin of Adam; he is
regenerated when this sin is 'washed away' during
baptism and he is reborn to Christ and a second set of
parents, the minister and sponsor. A belief in man's
dual nature is found, of course, in many cultures. What
is distinctive about Christian spiritual sponsorship is
that these two aspects of the human personality must
be entrusted to different sets of persons: the natural
and spiritual parents. On the basis of this notion two
mutually exclusive sets of relationships are formed:
the Birth Set, consisting of father, mother and child,
and the Baptismal Set, containing minister, sponsor
and spiritual child (seefig.1).
Birth Set Baptismal Set
Father = Mother Minister Sponsor
\ / \ /
Child Spiritual Child
FIGURE 1. Birth and baptismal sets.
Thus, if natural parents are to raise their child as a
member of Christian society, they must give away or
entrust to others certain rights over him; in return
the recipients perform and promise to undertake
various duties. It is this act of bestowing rights, when
recognised as creating a bond itself, that establishes
spiritual relationships between the parents on the one
hand, and minister and godparent on the other, and
results in the compadrazgo (seefig.2).6 Although now,
Parent
Minister
y ix Godparent
x Iy
Child/Godchild
FIGURE 2. The compadrazgo.
47
as at the time of the Conquest, the dogma of the
godparenthood complex includes four roles, in prac-
tice this seems everywhere to be reduced to the three
roles of parent, godparent and child, or the Com-
padrazgo Set (seefig.3).
Parent < • Godparent
\ /
Baptized
FIGURE 3. The compadrazgo set.
Conceptually the Birth and Baptismal Sets are
opposed as the natural to the spiritual. The Com-
padrazgo Set mediates between them as it is based
on a sharing of the baptised. A model of the relations
may be constructed as shown in fig. 4 (Levi-Strauss
1963: ch. 2,7, 8; 1966; Leach 1970: 28-30). The Birth,
Baptismal and Compadrazgo Sets are transforma-
tions (seefig.5).7
Compadrazgo Set RECOGNISED
y \. Relationship
y N. Established
y N. Through Sharing
y \. I Common Paternity
/L _ \ NOT RECOGNISED
Birth Set Baptismal Set
NATURAL < > SPIRITUAL
Types of Paternity
FIGURE 4. Interrelation of the birth, baptismal and
compadrazgo sets.
It is this Compadrazgo Set, then, mediating between
the Birth and Baptismal Sets and embodying the
stated theological distinctions, which undergoes per-
mutations and elaborations in a multitude of dimen-
sions. In this respect Leach's (1961: 7) notion of
plotting social relationships on a rubbery sheet is
worth recalling, for it appears that the Compadrazgo
Set can be 'stretched', 'pushed out', and even
'replicated' in a number of ways. In the first place
whether the mechanism is pushed toward the natural
or spiritual end of the continuum appears to vary by
culture. In some contexts the opposition between the
Birth and Compadrazgo Sets is strongly marked; in
others less so.8 Other structural variations, which are
detailed in Part 4, include:
1. Replicating the relations over ceremonies other
than those of baptism and confirmation.
2. Multiplying the number of godparents employed
at any ceremony.
 Birth Set Baptismal Set
Father = Mother Minister
Child Spiritual Child
FIGURE 5. The birth, baptismal and compadrazgo sets as itransformations.
3. Adding kin or existing compadres and/or god-
parents of the principals to the complex.
4. Repeating or proliferating the bonds in the
selection of new compadre/godparents.
5. Prohibiting choice reversal.
In addition certain compadrazgo 'customs' such as
linguistic expressions, modes of address and specific
forms of behaviour seem to emerge in non-contiguous
areas. These customs too are a part of the great tradi-
tion, but the nature of their connexion to the basic
structural patterning, as well as the reasons for their
occurrence and non-occurrence, and their permutated
forms are problems yet to be solved. The broader
question also remains as to why the compadrazgo
assumes a particular form in a culture. In this regard
a situational explanation may be useful. Indeed, since
I have argued that the compadrazgo is everywhere
linked to the family, one implication of the thesis is
that a contextual interpretation always may be
important. Such an explanation might not be accept-
able to a rigorous structuralist.
The notion of a situational interpretation is itself
related to two further issues. First, it is clear that the
ideology of the compadrazgo is 'embedded' to a
greater or lesser degree in different cultures. For
example, in Veraguas a large portion of the peasants'
culture is derived from sixteenth-century Spain, while
in Zinacantan, Mayan beliefs are overlaid by only
a Veneer' of Roman Catholicism (Vogt 1969: 390).
Nevertheless I would hold that the basic church con-
cepts are implicit to some degree in the institution
itself. At least they place limits on the form of the
compadrazgo; its specific shape in a society may be
determined by other factors.
It is striking that the compadrazgo has been
adopted by such a diversity of cultures. In the last
few centuries missionaries proselytising in many
societies have stressed the importance of being bap-
tised. There is also scattered evidence that the notion
of sponsorship or similar concepts existed in some
preconquest cultures. Such customs could have facili-
tated acceptance of the compadrazgo (Foster 1953:
23-5; Hart 1971: 19-33; Paul 1942: 79-87; Ravicz
1967: 238). But these facts alone neither explain why
the compadrazgo itself was adopted nor why
it was not reworked into dramatically new forms.
48
Compadrazgo Set
Sponsor Parent * • Godparent
Child/Godchild
The implication is that the concept of man's dual
nature as both natural and cultural being may be
common to many if not all cultures.
What seems invariant in the compadrazgo is the
spiritual/natural opposition, its representation in
spiritual and natural parents, their ties with one
another and a set of compadrazgo characteristics.
Not all the possible characteristics are utilised in any
one society; some are elaborated and others are
suppressed to form a coherent system.
2. Baptism, sponsors and spiritual relationships
To justify and expand the argument, I trace here
the historical development of the compadrazgo. Since
most of the materials used are derived from Christian
dogma, let me elaborate my view concerning the
relation of this doctrine to contemporary folk forms
of the institution. From today's vantage point the
church's view of godparenthood is one variant in the
total series. But official dogma is something more
than a convenient starting place for analysis of the
permutations. The present Canon Law which became
effective in 1918 appears to be a static con-
stitution, none the less it has evolved over the centuries
in response to existing social conditions while main-
taining continuity with earlier legal texts.9 The
'collapsed' version of the compadrazgo embodied in
the current church law is deceptive, for it too has
undergone successive historical transformations. Its
main outlines, however, were essentially crystallised
by the time of the Council of Trent (1545-63) and
were contained in the religion which was spread to
the New World. Therefore a brief historical study of
the dogmatic foundations and successive permutations
of the compadrazgo up to the time of Trent is
essential for understanding the total series of which
each present-day variant is but a partial reflection.
In examining the institution through time it is use-
ful to draw a distinction between the church's funda-
mental beliefs and actual law. The basic theological
notions and a conceptual paradox about man have
persisted for nearly two thousand years. However, the
laws concerning compadrazgo relationships which
are but a reflection of and a solution to this problem
have been continuously reformulated. The division
of this Part parallels this distinction.
 Baptism
Baptism is a sacramental representation of the
death and resurrection of Christ. Rebirth and re-
generation are its basic concepts. Through immersion
the Christian dies to his carnal life and is reborn
spiritually to the church as mother. Therefore, the
Christian partakes of the Passion itself, and there
has always been a close association between baptism
and Easter. For early Christians this was the day
above all others to be baptised. Baptism regenerates
in that it cleanses the soul of the guilt of original (and
actual) sin contracted by all men from Adam. The
baptised passes to the state of justice and participa-
tion in the divine nature through having a sanctifying
grace implanted in him. Regeneration enables the
Christian to attain a new life and salvation based on
faith.
Baptism marks man with an indelible character
which is the sign of the supernatural union with
Christ. The baptised becomes a 'juridic person' in the
eyes of the church with all the rights and obligations
this implies, and he assumes membership in the
moral-religious community. A baptism also serves to
remind the spectators of their duties as true Christians.
The concepts concerning baptism derive from
various sources. Christian theologians usually assert
that baptism originated with Christ,10 but a number
of antecedents can be noted. The rite of washing
predates Christianity, and retrospective comparisons
are sometimes made with the Hood, the departure
from Egypt, and the crossing of the Jordan. Early
baptism entailed a three-fold renunciation of the
devil, and this pattern was probably taken from the
Roman law by which agnatic relations were extin-
guished through a triple repudiation. More to the
point, baptism is surely related to the Judaic rite of
circumcision (Col. 2. 11-12). Its immediate warrant,
however, comes from Christ:
Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say
to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see
the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How
can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a
second time into his mother's womb, and be born
again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee,
unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit, is spirit (J. III. 3-6).11
Saint Augustine (354-430) first summarised the
various doctrines concerning baptism, and he became
the most influential theorist for the following ages.
Augustine argued that the baptised enters the com-
munity of the church which forms the body of
Christ. The first effect of baptism is to expunge
all actual and original sin, the latter preventing entry
into the Kingdom of God. Baptism, he also stated,
has the positive effect of conferring grace upon the
recipient.
Today's notions about baptism are derived
primarily from Part III of Saint Thomas Aquinas's
49
Summa Theologica. Aquinas (1225?-1274) prefaced
his study of the sacraments with Augustine's dis-
tinction between the effect of baptism upon character
and grace. As one scholar has pointed out (Ryan
1963: 365), this is an indication that he followed the
general doctrine of Augustine. By the sixteenth cen-
tury the views of Aquinas were well accepted, and
the Council of Trent was influenced strongly by his
ideas. This is a fact of importance for my argument
since, as noted, it was this Council which established
the main outlines of the compadrazgo as it was trans-
mitted to Latin America and as it is known today.
Some of the essential concepts of the Thomist and
Council of Trent versions of baptism were that the
sin of Adam, which is transmitted to all his descend-
ants and known by the fact that all are under ban of
death, can be removed only through the rite of
baptism. By means of baptism membership in the
church is gained, the gift of the Holy Spirit is con-
ferred, and an indelible character is implanted.
Christian baptism has many interpretative levels,
most of which are not explored here, but of particular
interest are the arguments which Aquinas used to
justify his views, for it is these which make clear the
theological foundations of my own thesis. It is relevant
that Aquinas employed, developed and refined the
technique of argument by analogy. The majority of
his analogies were built upon two-, three- or four-term
statements. With respect to baptism most were four
term, having the form a : b :: c : d. My thesis is pre-
dicated upon the proportion: Birth: Baptism::
Family: Compadrazgo.
The major portion of Aquinas's discussion con-
cerning baptism is found in Part III, Questions 65-9
of the Summa. Extracts from this segment of his work
are contained in Appendix 2. In these selections the
following basic analogies are found:
Natural : Spiritual : :
Birth : Rebirth : :
Death : Life : :
Natural Parents : Spiritual Parents.
In addition, further substantiation for my thesis is
provided in the Supplement (Q. 56, A. 3)12 where
Aquinas discussed why sponsors contract spiritual
relationships with the baptised:
Just as in carnal generation a person is born of a
father and mother, so in spiritual generation a
person is born again a son of God as Father, and of
the Church as Mother. Now while he who confers
the sacrament stands in the place of God, whose
instrument and minister he is, he who raises a
baptized person from the sacred font, or holds the
candidate for Confirmation, stands in the place of
the Church. Therefore spiritual relationship is con-
tracted with both . . . Not only the father, of whose
seed the child is born, but also the mother who pro-
vides the matter, and in whose womb the child is
begotten. So too the godparent who in place of the
Church offers and raises the candidate for Baptism
and holds the candidate for Confirmation contracts
spiritual relationship.
It is clear that the notion of rebirth links the Birth
and Baptismal Sets in a transform relationship. And
in the Baptismal Set, God the Holy Ghost and
minister, as well as the holy water, font, church and
sponsor, stand in place of one another (see fig. 6).
Sponsors and spiritual relationships
The idea of godparenthood developed from the
notion of sponsorship; a sponsor is one who stands
surety for another. Currently baptismal sponsors
present the infant at the church. In his name they ask
for the gift of faith and make a profession of faith and
a renunciation of Satan. They also perform other
functions of which the infant is incapable (Kearney
1925: 8).
The reasons for having sponsors and a summary of
their duties were given by Aquinas in Pt. Ill, Q. 67,
A. 7-8. He stated that because the clergy do not have
time, spiritual sponsors are needed and are duty-
bound to instruct and guide their spiritual children
in the Christian faith, though it is firstly the respon-
sibility of the parents to do so.13 The present Canon
Law strictures are similar, and the obligation is con-
sidered to be a grave one although it binds the spon-
sors only if the parents or guardians die or are
negligent. Since spiritual sponsors according to
Aquinas (Supplement, Q. 56, A. 3) stand in place of
the church, it follows that they are also an 'extension'
of it and a form of remembrance of baptism.
Historically the evolution of the concepts of spon-
sorship and spiritual relationship has been extremely
complex. In the following discussion I examine the
church rules to see some of the successive transforma-
tions of the godparenthood pattern which have pre-
ceded the present. Mintz and Wolf (1950) already
have given a superb contextual account of the history
of 'ritual kinship'. My purpose here is not to redupli-
cate their study but to look at some of the same
materials from a different viewpoint. I describe only
the changes in church law. A diagram of the historical
events is provided in fig. 7.
The exact role of the minister in early times is
obscure. However it has been suggested that there
is a scriptural basis for the notion of spiritual
Birth Baptism
God/Holy Ghost/
Father = Mother
Natural
Child
FIGURE 6. Natural relations transformed to spiritual relations.
50
paternity. Hence from the earliest era the tie of
spiritual relationship arose between the minister and
the person baptised (Petrovits 1919: 278). It was this
bond, we shall see, which was gradually extended to
other persons connected with the act of baptising.
It is also difficult to specify when the institution
of sponsorship arose, for it has no scriptural basis.
Some Protestant writers suggested that the practice
came from the Roman Law according to which two
witnesses were needed to attest to the validity of a
contract; however, Corblet (1882: 172) disagreed with
this view. Others saw a precursor in the Judaic cir-
cumcision rite which required two witnesses.14 At the
latest the custom originated in early Christian times
when an adult pagan wishing to enter the church had
to be accompanied by a Christian, known to the
Bishop, who could vouch for him and undertake his
supervision. This function was later combined with
that of sponsor for infants and that of helper at the
baptismal ceremony.
The word 'sponsor' first appeared in Tertullian
(second century). In his time parents normally spon-
sored their own children. (Until at least the ninth
century confirmation was conferred directly after
baptism so that a separate sponsor was not required
for this second ceremony.) Even in the age of
Augustine parents usually sponsored their children,
for in a letter to a Bishop Boniface, Augustine assured
him that although it was not the common practice,
others besides parents could also act as sponsors
(Kearney 1925: 30-2,52-3).
In 530 the civil statute of Justinian forbade
marriage between a sponsor and his godchild. The
church officially enacted such a rule several centuries
later, but as Petrovits (1919: 279-80) pointed out, this
law must have reflected the 'spirit of the age' and been
in accord with general churdi practices. The rule was
justified by the idea that a 'paternal link' united the
souls of sponsor and baptised. Its implication was
that the sponsor already must have been a different
person from the parent, otherwise no prohibition
would have been needed. The concept of sponsorship,
then, had become differentiated from that of parent-
hood.
Holy W a t e r / F o n t /
Minister Church / S p o n s o r
Spiritual
Child
 The Council of Auxerre in 578 forbade those in
the religious service of the church to act as sponsors.
Thus, the roles of minister and sponsor were cate-
gorically distinguished.
It is not entirely clear how many sponsors were
originally used. Most likely, until the fifth century
only one sponsor was employed, although this prac-
tice may have endured until the ninth century. Corblet
(1882: 203) thought that in the sixth century females
were permitted to act as sponsors for girls, and
towards the seventh and eighth centuries, to em-
phasise the analogy between natural and spiritual
generation, one male and one female were utilised.
The Council of Trullo (692) canonised the Justinian
law noted above and prohibited marriage between
male sponsor and natural mother of the baptised
child. 'Those who are sponsors to children may not
marry their mother. The spiritual relationship is
higher than the bodily' (Hefele 1896: 231). The
decision of this Council to add a marital prohibition
between mother and sponsor seems a crucial one,
for it was the first time that a relationship between
the two was recognised. None the less, after extensive
inquiries I am still uncertain about precisely when the
concept of a spiritual bond between sponsor and
parent came into existence. As indicated, the tie
between minister and baptised arose early. Kearney
(1925: 104) argued that the idea of spiritual paternity
(which apparently referred to both minister and spon-
sor) arose in apostolic times, but Corblet (1882: 207)
was only willing to date the spiritual relationship
between sponsor and baptised from the Justinian
Code. Now in the Justinian Code the marital impedi-
ment between baptised and sponsor was said to follow
from the existing 'paternal' tie which united two
souls; and in theological reasoning the marriage
prohibition is always distinguished from and said to
be a consequence of the preceding supernatural
bond.15 With respect to the prohibition between spon-
sor and parent, however, the historical reasons may
have been different. To distinguish between natural
and spiritual parenthood, parent and sponsor could
not be permitted to have sexual relations or marry;
if they did spiritual paternity would be converted to
a kind of natural paternity and the entire edifice
would crumble. Thus, in canonising the Justinian law
it was logical for the Council of Trullo also to prohibit
marriage between sponsor and mother. This prohibi-
tion was justified then by the notion that a spiritual
relationship existed between sponsor and female
parent.16
Spiritual relationships were extended when a Synod
of Rome in 721 punished by anathema those who
married their 'spiritual co-mother'. (In the original
text it is clear that 'spiritual co-mother' refers to
female sponsor.) Thus, both natural father and mother
were prohibited from marrying their children's spon-
sors. The first recorded use of the term ipatrinus>
(godfather), however, did not appear until 752.
In spite of the preceding prohibitions, the complete
51
separation of spiritual and natural paternity was not
officially recognised until 813 when the Council of
Munich prohibited parents from acting as sponsors
to their own children.
There was no explicit legislation concerning the
number of sponsors until the Council of Metz (888)
prohibited the use of more than one. In this and the
following century the complex underwent special
developments. Baptism and confirmation officially
became distinct ceremonies requiring separate sets
of sponsors. A catechismal godfather was added, and
other types of spiritual relationships became recog-
nised.
By degrees the impediment continued to widen its
scope, weaving a net of spiritual relationship around
paternity, compaternity, direct [relation between
sponsors and natural parents] and indirect [relation
between baptised child and the husband or wife of
the sponsor], and even around fraternity [relation
between baptised child and natural children of the
godparents]. But even then it failed to reach its
furthest limits. It was extended to the confessor
and his penitent rendering incestuous all carnal
relations between them (Petrovits 1919: 280).
According to Kearney (1925: 106-7), even more
spiritual relationships were involved for they were
contracted directly and indirectly between the
recipient and the minister and his spouse; and the
minister contracted spiritual bonds with the sponsors
and parents. The parents of the recipient contracted
indirect compaternity with the spouse of the minister
and the spouse of the sponsor. The natural children
of the minister and the recipient also contracted
fraternity.17 All these spiritual relationships con-
stituted diriment impediments to marriage.
Further developments occurred in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries when, in spite of the decree
of the Council of Metz and local church laws, the folk
practice of having several baptismal sponsors became
a widespread custom (Kearney 1925: 43-5). Indeed
Mintz and Wolf (1950: 345) noted that when Pope
Boniface the Seventh in 1298 abolished the spiritual
relationship arising between penitent and father con-
fessor, he also decreed that all sponsors present at
a ceremony contracted spiritual relationships. Foster
(1953: 3) stated that in the early fourteenth century
local orders in Spain began to try to limit the number
of sponsors (which had grown to as many as twenty
for baptism) in response to the 'needs of a feudal
society'. He also cited a Spanish document of 1440
which warned priests to accept no more than two god-
parents of each sex for a baptism. Since spiritual
relationships gave rise to matrimonial impediments,
this proliferation of sponsors led to much confusion
among the peasantry. Apparently the impediments
were frequently broken, and this was one of the
reasons which led the church to reform and elucidate
its stand.
The church at the Council of Trent (1545-63)
 Parents

2^C.
Minister ^ Minister Sponsor
Witness /Guarantor

J a Assistant at Baptism
Spokesman for Infant
Sponsor
Baptized
Baptized

Parents

St. Augustine (354-430) v Justinian Civil

V Minister
*4f+J
Sponsor
Statute-530

Baptized

Parents Parents

Council of
Minister Sponsor ^ Minister ==Q^V = Sponsor
Auxerre - 578

Baptized Baptized

Parents
7 th . Q\h C. Council of N
y Minister Male S p o n s o r ^ Female Sponsor
Trullo-692'

Baptized

Father = Mother

Synod of
Minister Male Sponsor / Female Sponsor
Rome-721

Baptized

Parents Parents

752 "Godparents"
Minister Sponsors ^ Minister

Baptized Baptized

A
52
clarified its position and laid down the essential guide-
lines which would inform spiritual sponsorship until
the present day. In its 24th session concerning the
reform of matrimony it clearly defined the number of
permitted sponsors, the extent of spiritual relation-
ships contracted, and the occasions over which they
could be formed.18 Spiritual relationships were limited
to those resulting from baptism and confirmation
(catechismal sponsorship was abolished); the number
of sponsors was restricted to one, or at most two, for
baptism and one for confirmation; the spiritual
relationships were limited to those arising between
minister and sponsor, on the one side, and parents
and recipient, on the other.19
The compadrazgo was transmitted in essentially
this form from southern Europe (mainly Spain) to
Latin America where it has since received folk
elaboration and development.
Few changes in church law were made following
the Council of Trent. However, the 1918 Code did
modify the relationships, and this led to further
variation between folk forms and church dogma.
Spiritual relationships are still said to arise from
baptism and confirmation. But they are limited to
those between recipient, and minister and sponsors
(Canon 768). Parents, and minister and sponsor do
not contract spiritual bonds, and there is no matri-
monial impediment between co-parents (Canon 1079).
While a baptised child and the minister or his god-
parents may not marry, spiritual parenthood in
confirmation no longer gives rise to a diriment impedi-
ment (Canon 797). It is interesting to note also a

Parents

Council of Council of
Minister Godparents
Munich-813 Metz-888

Baptized

Parents
9th_10thc Baptism 9&-10& Q
Minister Godparent
Other Ceremonies

Baptized

Parents

13 t h - 14 t h C Number of Baptismal
Spouse — Minister -*• -^"Godparent = Spouse
Sponsors Increased

Offspring -* *-Baptized- -Offspring

Parents

Council of Baptism and \ Transmitted to

Confirmation ) Minister Godparentfs)
Trent-1545-63 » ( Only ' Latin America >

Baptized
B
FIGURE 7. Historical origins and .transformations of the compadrazgo.

53
 Father = Mother Godfather
Child Godchild
FIGURE 8. The baptismal godparents and godchild as a variant.
current variation between the Latin and Oriental
Codes. In the latter the person baptising does
not incur the impediment, but the sponsor does with
the baptised and his parents.
Thus, once the essential concepts had evolved the
historical progression of the compadrazgo was not
'unilinear'; some relationships were abolished, re-
established and abolished again. None the less, the
complex has always been based upon the ideas of
spiritual rebirth, spiritual paternity and consequent
spiritual relationships. These notions have only been
woven and re-woven into different institutional com-
plexes. Now, previously I established that the funda-
mental idea of baptism is that of rebirth, and that
conceptually two sets of relationships are formed by
the rite (see figs. 1 and 6). I suggest here that it is
possible to see the historical reworking of the con-
cepts of spiritual paternity and spiritual relationship
as a series of attempts to resolve and trace out the
implications of the fundamental antinomy of man as
a natural and spiritual being: the natural child in the
Birth Set is one and the same with the spiritual child
in the Baptismal Set. The Council of Trent's
'solution', for example, was a symmetric synthesis of
the two as shown in figs. 2 and 7. But as stated the
more frequent form of the compadrazgo usually omits
the minister's position.
Several related historical permutations should also
be noted. When in the seventh and eighth centuries
one male and one female sponsor came to be em-
ployed, a new variant was introduced: the godparents
of baptism are illustrated as a permutation in fig. 8.
In addition, Christ who instituted baptism was him-
God/Holy Ghost/
God/Holy Ghost Mary
Christ
FIGURE 10. The baptismal set as a transformation of Christ's divine birth.
54
Godmother Minister Sponsor
Baptized
self born divine. As Leach (1967: 42) showed, in order
to separate Christ's legal from his divine relations, it
is quite necessary to maintain the doctrine of virgin
birth (see fig. 9). But the Baptismal Set is also a
metaphor of Christ's divine birth (see fig. 10). There
is an analogy of the form: Christ's legal relations :
Christ's divine relation : : Birth Set : Baptismal Set.
And in certain respects the dogma of virgin birth has
a function similar to the marriage prohibition be-
tween parent, and minister and sponsor. Thus, the
Legal Relations Divme Relations
Joseph = Mary God /Holy Ghost Mary
Christ Christ
FIGURE 9. Christ's dual nature as man and God.
sets of relations with which I have been principally
concerned belong to a larger domain including man-
man and man-God relationships. None the less my
purpose in this part has been only to establish
within this larger system of relationships the inter-
connexion of the family and compadrazgo and to view
the latter as a temporal series of solutions to the
problem inherent in man's existence as both a natural
and spiritual being.
Holy W a t e r / F o n t /
Minister Church / S p o n s o r
Spiritual Child
 3. The compadrazgo in Veraguas
Thus far I have been concerned with the com-
padrazgo as it appears in church dogma and history.
Now I turn to my own recent field data from a com-
munity in Veraguas Province, Panama to provide a
contextual illustration of the argument.20 I begin
with some necessary ethnographic background and
a description of the compadrazgo system.
The community of Los Boquerones lies to the west
of Panama City, approximately in the centre of the
country. It consists of 350 Spanish-speaking peasants.
The present-day culture of the people is derived from
early Spanish patterns and later influences. A few
material items may be traced to the Indians who
inhabited the area prior to the Conquest. As defined
by the state, the village is a politico-geographical
unit, yet it is in no sense of the term a 'corporate'
community. No internal religious, economic or
political organisations either unite it or provide it
with a specifically village structure. The inhabitants
have always been squatters though they have now
developed a folk system of usufruct rights to the land.
Swidden agriculture is practised. The main products
raised are rice, grown primarily for home consump-
tion, and sugar-cane, grown for cash sale to sugar
refineries. In addition to their crops and tenuous land
rights, the peasants possess few other valuables. Due
to the fact that individual fortunes may vary from
year to year there is no permanent economic stratifica-
tion within the community.
The peasants are Roman Catholics and their version
of the religion exerts an important influence upon
their lives. As in other Latin American communities
certain fiestas, ritual precautions and beliefs are
closely observed.
One aspect of their value system deserves special
mention: the concept of 'respect'. This notion is
closely allied to the idea of 'shame', and both these
concepts surely are variants of the Mediterranean
'honour-shame' complex. Briefly, respect is thought
to be an inner quality of an individual which is
exhibited through various forms of 'proper' behaviour
such as greetings, farewells and general demeanour
Respect should be paid by younger to elder, by female
to male, by children to parents, by compadre to
compadre, by godchild to godfather and in reverse,
and more generally between those who are kin.
Different situations, then, require more or less respect-
ful behaviours. It is also said that a person who him-
self observes the demands of respect-giving will be
respected by others. From a different perspective,
respect is seen as the opposite of certain shameful
actions such as swearing, breaking proper forms of
behaviour and acting without due regard for others.
Children, who are sometimes compared to animals,
are explicitly taught how to respect. In this context
respect stands for the cultural aspect of man's actions.
The community may be seen as a collectivity of
domestic units. The household and the family, which
55
are conceptually distinguished by the peasants, may
be thought of as two inter-related frames of refer-
ence. Households are the primary functioning groups
of the village. Each household group exploits the en-
vironment, and distributes and consumes the products
of its labour. Households are also the centres of
domestic and social activity. Mistrust and petty
stealing frequently occur between them. Although
households do not endure beyond one generation and
are not corporate groups, they are repetitive in form
over time.
The kinship system is bilateral. Residence is
neolocal; two couples are prohibited from occupying
the same household. Thus, when a young man antici-
pates marrying, he leaves his natal household and
constructs a new tliatch and wooden house on un-
occupied land in which to receive his spouse. As a
consequence of this rule, it may be said that the
nuclear family provides the conceptual 'model' for
the household group. Indeed when non-kin are
brought into a household their ties to the other mem-
bers are usually converted into elementary kin links.
Statistically nearly all household groups (91 per cent.)
are patterned after or consist of some form of the
nuclear family.
The co-residential nuclear family is characterised
by a precise division of labour; the man is expected
to work in thefields,the woman is obliged to tend the
house, and the children have a variety of duties. The
basis of the conjugal bond is a material exchange.
The kinship system may be termed 'loosely
structured'. In the first place, variant forms of the
conjugal relation are recognised: church marriage
29 per cent.), civil marriage (4 per cent.), consensual
co-residential unions (64 per cent.), polygyny (2 per
cent.) and consensual extra-residential unions (2 per
cent.). Aside from church marriage the conjugal
relations may easily be, and in fact fairly frequently
are, ruptured. The mother-child bond is considered
to be immutable, but men are able to renounce or at
least minimise their paternal obligations if they leave
their children. Beyond the nuclear family each
individual recognises a range of kin to the second or
third cousin level, but kin obligations are not strongly
binding and occasionally a kin tie may be severed.
This rather 'functionless' kinship network is surely
related to the fact that kinfolk never hold an estate in
common nor are they required to exercise politico-
legal duties together.
The bilateral kinship system, then, may be seen as
a potential network of bonds. One portion of this
'substratum' of relations, the elementary family, is
emphasised and utilised by the people. Given the
independence of households plus the cultural rules
concerning the division of labour and the physical
location of conjugal couples, the nuclear family is the
most practical unit upon which a household may be
founded. Consequently the peasants use the elemen-
tary family as a model for household groups.
 The compadrazgo pattern in this community has
two unusual and interrelated features. First, the
mechanism is not used in an instrumental manner.
The bonds are rarely used to invoke an economic or
contractual tie; they are expressed solely through
'ritual' behaviours. Second, non-peasants and persons
living in distant communities are seldom brought into
the network. Compadrazgo bonds are generally con-
fined to the community and its neighbouring villages.
Nevertheless the ties occasionally are extended to out-
siders of a higher social class. In such cases they
may have economic implications. Geographic distance
minimises the frequency of contact and apparently
permits economic elements to enter. Thus, com-
padrazgo bonds are usually formed within the com-
munity and tend to be symmetric. On the infrequent
occasions when they are formed with outsiders, the
ties are more asymmetric in that wealth or political
favours usually are exchanged for respect.
Compadrazgo bonds are formed over baptism, con-
firmation and church marriage. At baptism a baby
acquires two godmothers and one godfather; at con-
firmation a young person assumes a godparent of the
same sex as himself; and at diurch marriage the
marital couple together acquire a godmother and a
godfather. In all cases the parents of the novitiate and
the godparents become compadres. Two individuals
may also become compadres by performing a ritual
outside the church—the breaking of a rice stalk—but
no godchild is involved.
Usually children are baptised within six to eight
months of birth. Baptisms are performed on Sundays
in the district capital Which lies some ten miles away.
Several weeks prior to the selected date the parents
decide on the prospective godparents; the father asks
if they will serve. On the day of the baptism the god-
parents come to the parents' house. The principal
godmother, known as the madrina de pila (godmother
of the baptismal font), recites several prayers and then
takes the baby to the district capital. Once there she
gives the child to the other godmother, the madrina
de la puerta de iglesia (godmother of the church
door). When the appointed hour for the baptism
arrives, the second godmother hands the infant to the
madrina de pila at the church door. She then pro-
ceeds to the altar with the godfather. After the cere-
mony the godparents emerge; at the church entrance
the godmother hands the child over to the mother if
she is present. The godfather (who previously paid
the baptismal fee) throws the bolo, consisting of small
coins, to assembled youngsters waiting on the church
steps. In addition to the godmothers, the godfather
and the father, sometimes the mother and other friends
accompany the party. A fiesta is held later at the
parents' house. The godparents always attend, and
other compadres and friends of the parents also may
be invited. The cost of the party is borne principally
by the father, although the godfather occasionally
may contribute liquor or cash.
Confirmation is less elaborate than baptism. The
56
godparent accompanies the child to the church;
usually no fiesta is held afterwards. Church marriages
are rather infrequent. Although in the eyes of the
church the godparents are only witnesses, the people
recognise them as compadre /padrinos. A large fiesta
follows this ceremony.
Finally if two individuals who have no children to
baptise wish to become compadres, they may break
off a rice stalk. One holds the outer leaf and the other
pulls out the grains and stem. The first is left with the
sheath while the second retains the inner stalk. The
second is said to have pulled or taken out the son
or godson (sacar el ahijado) which is the same
expression used for the other ceremonies. With this
ritual the two become compadres and are considerd
to have the same obligations as other types of
compadres. The custom is infrequently practised
today.
The relationships established by these ceremonies
are well defined. The most important godparents are
those of baptism; the baptismal godfather is thought
to be more important than the godmothers. In the
peasants' view, which differs from the church
formulation, the basic ingredient of the godparent-
godchild bond is respect. This respect should be ex-
pressed in a number of ways; a generation ago when
they met a godchild would kneel before his godfather
who would say a benediction over him. Other 'polite'
forms of address are still observed today. Godparents
and godchildren should not marry, have sexual
relations or engage in sexual joking with one another;
nor should they be angry or swear in each other's
presence. Godparents should look after the general
welfare of their godchildren, speaking to their parents
if necessary. In fact, I was unable to record any such
instances. It is also said that a godparent should raise
his godchild if the latter's parents die. At the death of
a godparent or godchild the other is expected to help
the bereaved family by bringing coffee or candles for
the wake orfindinga reciter for the prayers.
No mandatory material obligations are prescribed
by the bond. Godparents may give small presents to
their godchildren as they grow up, and very occasion-
ally may help them find agricultural land. God-
children, in return, may aid their godparents when
the latter are too old to work. In general, however,
because the bond of respect is so important the
relationship is circumscribed in terms of other per-
missible actions.
The compadre-compadre bond, too, is considered
to be based upon respect. This respect is exhibited
in a variety of greetings and by the fact that
compadres are expected not to fight with one another,
swear in each other's presence or have sexual relations.
A compadre too should attend the funeral of his
compadre and offer the bereaved family some aid;
but like close family members he should not dress
the dead body, carry the coffin to the cemetery, help
dig the grave or shovel on the soil. All these jobs must
 be undertaken by less closely related members of the
community.
As with the godparent-godchild tie no material
exchanges are required by the compadre-compadre
relationship. The bonds occasionally are used to
obtain economic or political favours, but such ties
are usually formed with individuals outside the com-
munity. Two of the storekeepers in the village were-
rather more frequently chosen as godparents than
others, however they were not obligated to give lower
prices or special credit to their compadres. They were
selected partly for their greater ability to pay for
baptisms. In explaining this lack of economic obliga-
tions the peasants say that loans and favours often
lead to ill-will between the parties; since the bond
between compadres must be one of respect it is best
not to permit other entangling relations to enter. At
the most they save compadres for cases of extreme
emergency, for it is true that a compadre ultimately
would be obliged to offer financial aid no matter how
strained this would make the bond.
The compadre-compadre relationship is said to
endure forever. In heaven, for example, a man's com-
padre will defend him before God. Compadres are
important people; all the peasants express a desire to
have many.
The rules for choosing compadre /godparents are
elaborate and deviate in a number of ways from
church prescriptions. Only a person whom one
respects should be chosen. Parents are prohibited
from choosing each other, and they may not choose
their own children, but children may choose their
parents.21 Finally, the direction of choice may not be
reversed.
With this brief ethnographic description, I turn to
an analysis of the material. I hold that the Veraguas
form of the compadrazgo is one particularly marked
variant of the compadrazgo /family pattern. The data
can be seen as a reflection of the following model:
the family and compadrazgo are opposed as the
material to the spiritual but complementary. This
polarisation permits or forces each to be what the
other is not. The relation between the compadrazgo
and kinship is like going through the Looking Glass:
everything is the same but it is all turned around.
Although the peasants themselves do not explicitly
recognise this model, it can be seen in the way they
have 'thought out' their social relations, for the
opposition is reflected in language, ideology, ritual
behaviour, and economic and household organisation.
I begin by looking at the similar structures of the
family and compadrazgo', then I contrast birth and
baptism, the relationships in the two systems and cer-
tain linguistic expressions; finally, I examine the
notion of respect and spiritual bonds. At the end of
this part I return to the interrelation of the family,
compadrazgo and household.
Reduced to its basic form the elementary family in
Veraguas is a three-member group. The roles consist
57
of two parents and a child. The roles of parents and
child are contrasted on a generational axis. The
parents themselves are contrasted on the basis of sex
or, more broadly, choice. In its elementary form the
compadrazgo has precisely the same structure. It
consists of three members, a parent, child and god-
parent I compadre. (Just as I reduce all children in the
family to the one role of child, so I reduce the many
compadres to the one basic role and the two parents
to the one role.) Parent and godparent are united in
contrast to the child by a generational difference. They
in turn are linked by choice, as are the parents. The
model for both is the same. The contrast of these two
structures is reflected on different levels.
In the family a birth normally follows formation
of the conjugal tie. In the compadrazgo a baptism
precedes or is the reason for founding the compadre-
compadre bond. The parents initiate the child into
the physical world and household; the godparents
initiate him into the spiritual world and community.
One is ritually unmarked, the other marked.
In the family the mother-child bond is thought to
be unbreakable; a mother is rarely renounced. How-
ever an individual may have several fathers or the
pater may not be the genitor. The family presents a
system of one mother but possibly several fathers. In
the compadrazgo of baptism, by contrast, there is
only one godfather but two godmothers, and the god-
father is more important. In the family the parent-
child bond is more important than the conjugal tie,
but in the compadrazgo the compadre-compadre tie
is more important than the godparent-godchild one;
that is, in one the Vertical' bond takes precedence
over the 'horizontal' tie, whereas in the other the
reverse is true. Moreover in the family a child is like
his sibling in that he shares the same set of parents.
In the compadrazgo each child in a given family is
individuated by having a different set of godparents.
Kinship originates in birth, it is founded on blood.
The compadrazgo begins in baptism (or confirmation
or marriage)—the counterpart to birth—and is
founded on spiritual affinity. But where the house-
hold enterprise itself and material goods provide the
'glue' for kinship, respect, that is immaterial actions,
provides the 'glue' for the compadrazgo. Both are
forms of property in the broadest sense, but they are
opposed as the concrete is to the abstract.
The contrast between the family and compadrazgo
is reflected on the linguistic level. In both systems
special words are used to address and mark off in-
dividuals. As in English the terms describing the
comparable roles are linguistically related:
father : godfather :: padre : padrino
mother : godmother :: madre : madrina
son : godson :: hijo : ahijado
daughter : goddaughter :: hija : ahijada
Of course, these words are also found in other settings.
But the terms most commonly used to describe a
 conjugal spouse, companero (partner, mate) and
companera, are also related to compadre and
comadre. Indeed, the word compadre may be trans-
lated as 'co-father', that is, a person who shares the
responsibility of fatherhood by undertaking comple-
mentary functions.
A different linguistic usage is more interesting. The
term 'hot hand' {la mono caliente) describes a man
whose godchildren die. He is said to have bad luck
and consequently is seldom chosen to be a compadre.
However, the expression 'hot hand' can also refer to a
man's sexual potency. Used jokingly it is a way of
saying that a man is very masculine. The one ex-
pression is used in two spheres but in contrasting
ways. In the context of familial relations 'hot hand'
refers to a man's sexual power, his life-giving force.
In the context of the compadrazgo 'hot hand' refers
to a destructive role, the killing of a child. In each
case a man is the agent and a child is the object, but
in the family 'hot' produces life, while in the com-
padrazgo 'hot' produces death. The expression can
be seen as a reflection of the categorical separation
made between natural and spiritual relations. When
they intrude upon spiritual relations, natural relations
are reversed and become destructive.
The use of the term 'political' (politico) also pre-
sents some contrasts. The previous children of two
adults who form a conjugal union are termed 'political
brothers' or 'political sisters' (see fig. 11). In-marrying
aunts and uncles also are distinguished from blood
aunts or uncles; the spouse of a parental sibling is
termed a 'political' aunt or unde and the child is a
'political' nephew or niece (see fig. 12). A godchild
and the offspring of his godparent are termed 'political
brothers' (or sisters) (see fig. 13).
The term 'political' is used only in these contexts.
In each case the persons in a political relationship
are joined by three ties. In the first the linkage runs
A - O
A A
A Finally a look at the terms employed when in-
Political Brothers/Sisters
FIGURE 11. Step-brothers as political siblings.
58
offspring to father, father to spouse, spouse to off-
spring. In the second the connexion goes offspring to
father, father to sibling, sibling to spouse. In the third
it runs offspring to father, father to compadre, com-
padre to offspring. In the first two situations the three
bonds consist of two kin links and one conjugal tie. In
the third, there are also two blood links but the con-
jugal tie is replaced by a compadre bond. In all three
cases the individuals classed as political relations are
in an anomalous category. In the first two situations
Political Aunt —
Political Nephew
FIGURE 12. A child and his in-marrying aunt as political
partners.
they are neither kin nor non-kin. Their bond is made
up of kinship and affinal links. In the third they are
not fully in the compadrazgo network nor fully out of
it. Their bond is constructed from kinship and com-
padrazgo ties. And although individuals in a political
relationship are close to being prohibited partners,
sexual relations are not proscribed between them. In
the 'political' domain compadre and conjugal ties
are employed equivalently.
Compadres *A
A A 6 A
i
Political Brothers / S i s t e r ,
FIGURE 13. A godchild and the children of his godparents as
political siblings.
dividuals become compadres over a rice spigot is of
some interest. The spigot is cut at its base, then pulled
by one person from its sheath which is held by the
other. The expression used to describe this process
is 'to draw out' or 'obtain' (sacar) a compadre. Is
there an analogy between these two forms of 'baptism'
 and the process of birth when a child is pulled from
the womb? More significantly, the rice itself—the
symbolic child and staff of life—forms the basis for
a different series of associations. Rice is hulled in a
mortar called a pilon: the process of hulling is pilar:
the baptismal font is a pila. The substitution of rice
for child is congruent with linguistic categories.
Let us turn to a more direct expression of the
natural/spiritual opposition. Respect, as seen, is an
important element in the social relations of the
peasants. To keep respect and to have shame require
that an individual exert self-discipline and control.
Being respectful implies living a moral life, and to
have respect and shame generally means to live in
accord with God's dictates. Although the two are not
synonymous, in many contexts respect stands for the
people's notion of the spiritual.22 Both are opposed to
sinning or having vices which are a loss of self-
control and shameful. Loss of control and sins
result from the influence of evil or the devil. The
struggle between God and the devil, between dis-
cipline and lack of discipline, between man's social
and better nature and his animal and worse nature
is an opposition between sacred and profane or
polluting acts. All social relations involve both
elements and tension between the two always exists.
Respect, then, is an aspect of relationships; in some
interchanges it is heavily emphasised, in others less
so. To rank relationships in the society, a scale ranging
from the sacred to the profane could be constructed.
At the profane end bonds would be utilitarian and
marked by distrust; at the sacred pole they would be
marked by respect.
The godparent-godchild and compadre-compadre
bonds are spiritual. They are marked by respect and
lie at the sacred end of the continuum. The ties
amount principally to positive assurances of mutual
esteem and prohibitions on profane elements entering.
Compadres do not contract debts or have sexual
relations. The taboos of respect separate off the bonds
of the compadrazgo and assure their sacredness.
In this sense it is through the compadrazgo that
the peasants come closest to reaching God during
life on earth. The complex is an expression of
discipline and good. The compadrazgo is formed
upon church rites and through it the people carry into
their lives something of the church.
The compadrazgo also provides a means of placing
all individuals in the 'ideal order', and it gives them
an enduring position in society. In parallel to Pitt-
Rivers I would note that the godparent-godchild
tie is complementary to that of parent and child. God-
parents are explicitly linked to the moral aspect of
their godchild's personality. Through the mediation
of his godparents an infant enters the spiritual world.
Godparents should counsel and teach their god-
children, and through this process children are in-
dividuated from their siblings. Compadres them-
selves have a mutulal moral band. A compadre,
whether father or godfather, is always assured of
59
being respected and respecting thereby lifting him to
a spiritual level. Compadres are eternal: they greet
one in heaven and intercede with God on one's behalf.
The compadrazgo implants a perpetual sacred obliga-
tion between persons.
In contrast relations of kinship and marriage fall
towards the other end of the continuum. The family
is primarily a material and sexual organisation.
Goition is said to be polluting. Through his parents
a child enters the natural world: and his parents are
the guardians of his material and physical life. The
family is man's expression, then, of his more 'earthy'
character. Kinship ties are in one sense immutable, in
another they have a lack of permanence. Sexual free-
dom on the part of men is valued; paternity may be
denied. When an individual enters a household he
nearly always assumes the role of a nuclear kinsman
with the existing members, regardless of his original
link. Thus kinship bonds are somewhat optative; they
can be broken, utilised and to some degree formed as
persons desire.
Elaborate ritual and public marking accompany
the formation of the compadrazgo. Long before a
compadrazgo rite takes place it is announced, and
representatives of the community are invited to
attend. Family formation, be it by birth or non-church
union, occurs without ritual and privately. Planned
conjugal unions (and even pregnancies) are kept secret
until the physical fact of co-residence (or mother-
hood) makes them obvious to the community. Family
bonds are profane and private; compadrazgo ties are
sacred and public.
The household
Having described the basic outline of the opposition
between the family and compadrazgo, I view it here
in a functional setting. The pattern becomes com-
prehensible when seen in the context of the house-
hold. My general theme is that the family is used as
the model for the household group, while the com-
padrazgo is formed between these units. Although
households are not perpetual entities, for their dura-
tion the compadrazgo provides a system of spiritual
exchanges between them. The complex lends a coher-
ence to the community that it otherwise might not
have; this cohesiveness is strengthened by the
institution's 'generalised' form and 'replication' over
church marriage. Following its ecclesiastical founda-
tions, I view the compadrazgo as something more
than a dyadic bond. Whatever its specific form the
institution always includes or implies a three-mem-
ber set linking one household group composed of
parents and child with another as represented by the
godparent/compadre. For this and reasons discussed
below, I feel justified in viewing the complex as in-
volving household groups, although the specific ties
between the units may be dyadic.
Household groups are the basic units of organisa-
tion in the community. They exploit the environment,
 undertake the sexual, reproductive and affective
functions, and are independent, largely self-sufficient
and based upon material ties. Kinship and marriage
are ways of recruiting members to and organising
households. The elementary family provides the
pattern for the domestic group. Any new resident
regardless of his true link may become a member of
the household family.
Kin and affinal bonds link different households,
but such ties are relatively 'weak'. They are optative,
based on sentiment, and tend not to be utilised.
Suspiciousness and stealing exist between house-
holds. Children are kept at home to play. Houses are
aways set apart from one another. In a sense like
relations between lineages of a segmentary society,
there are 'feuds' between houses. One's primary
allegiance is to the household, and this group is set
in opposition to other like groups.
The compadrazgo, similar to affinal ties between
lineages, establishes 'safe' links between households
for the mistrust normally encountered between them
is eliminated by the compadrazgo bond. For example
it is perfectly safe for a child to play at the house of
his godfather. Compadres and comadres are always
trusted, they do not steal from one. Since compadres
are sexually and maritally taboo a man will always
trust his wife to be alone with the godfather of their
child, or the father to one of her godchildren. He will
trust no other men. Compadres are a different order
of people, but trust in them is achieved by eliminating
them from the sphere of life in which sex, stealing
and mistrust occur.
The peasants' rules for choosing compadre /god-
parents substantiate the argument. Their basic rule
follows from the opposition of spiritual and natural
paternity: parents may not choose themselves. They
also may not select their (co-resident) children. Hence
they must choose from without the group. However,
when children marry and have their own offspring
(and live in separate households) they may choose
their parents. Thus, kin may be chosen but the
compadrazgo must be extra-domestic.
Further, the custom which links a child to his god-
parent's children as a political brother, I view as
stressing the inter-ties and solidarity of households.
And if a young person is chosen as godparent in pre-
ference to his co-resident same-sex parent, the term
compadre is extended to his parent also. Thus, the
compadrazgo links together households, yet brings
out the integrity and unity of each through opposition
to others.
The argument may be demonstrated in a different
way. The peasants say that a household does not be-
come a full unit nor have the appropriate internal
organisation until children are born. This event makes
it a complete group. (Childless couples, in fact, cast
about to find a youngster to raise.) And until the
children are baptised the household has no external
ties which link it as a group to other such units.
Compadrazgo bonds between the husband or wife
60
and others may exist, but these are individual bonds
of the two adults and are different for each. The kin
of each adult are also dissimilar. Only when it has
baptised children does a household group have links
as a unit to other such groups. Birth, which contri-
butes to the internal organisation and stability of the
group, is always followed by baptism which results
in the inter-household ties of the compadrazgo. Just
as children cement a conjugal union and hence the
group by the fact of their birth, so also they help
establish its unity, validate its position and connect it
to other households through baptism and the
compadrazgo.
Compadrazgo ties within a household, comparable
to weak family bonds between households, have a
minor function. It is impossible to choose a co-resident
as compadre. I noted that following church dogma
the peasants frequently say a godfather should raise
or be responsible for his godchild if the parents are
unable to do so or die. At the least a godfather should
act as if he were a father when he sees his godchild.
However, I found only one case of a godchild being
taken into the home of his godfather to be raised,
despite the many occasions when children needed
care. It is not in the domain of the compadrazgo
to recruit members to a household. Just as natural
parents may not become spiritual parents to their
natural child, so spiritual parents do not become
'natural' parents to their spiritual child. Therefore
just as family links between households are unem-
phasised, so the functions of compadrazgo ties within
a household are minimised.
Thus the family and compadrazgo are in a relation
of complementary opposition; one is concerned
primarily with intra-household ties, the other pertains
to inter-household links. Families are divided into
households; the compadrazgo unites these units. One
entails physical and material exchanges, the other
consists of spiritual bonds. To be sure each intrudes
in the sphere of the other but their polarisation mini-
mises the importance of the compadrazgo within the
household and the family between households.
More broadly, the two systems present different
forms of solidarity. The persons within a household
exchange goods and services, are united by a division
of labour and are related by family ties. Institu-
tionalised or enduring exchanges between households
are reciprocally equivalent (respect) or a replication of
each other, and occur through the mechanism of the
compadrazgo. There is a disjunction of the two
forms, but by their opposition and complementary
nature they are united on a higher level of organisa-
tion.
4. Permutations
It has been amply demonstrated that the com-
padrazgo is a flexible mechanism. Granted the in-
stitution's adaptability, the more significant question
now may be the converse: are there limits to its
variability? Compadrazgo bonds comprise a system
 of relationships like ties of kinship and affinity. Per-
haps for this reason the institution has been called a
'network' of ties. However, such a concept is a syn-
thetic notion which obscures the differences between
compadrazgo systems. It neither accounts for nor
distinguishes between the diverse patterns which are
found.
What is notable about the compadrazgo is that its
flexibility is not random. Lying behind the different
observed patterns is the invariant structure of the
Compadrazgo Set and its relation to the family. It
seems possible, then, to reduce the observed forms to
certain logical rules Which, when applied to the
Compadrazgo Set, in combination account for the
diverse patterns found. In the first section of this part
these cross-cultural rules are described. In the later
sections the relation of the compadrazgo to the family
is viewed across societies.
Variation in the compadrazgo
Five rules and several sub-rules specify variation
in the compadrazgo', the rules are applied to the
paradigm of the Compadrazgo Set.
1. Structure replication. The set of relationships
may be replicated; that is, it may be extended meta-
phorically from the prescribed church rituals of
baptism and confirmation to other rites as well. The
outcome of this rule is an increase in the number of
ceremonies enacted and in the sets of compadrazgo
relationships formed. For example, in Veraguas the
set is repeated over church marriage. Oases of replica-
tion in other societies include godparents for church
marriage (Foster 1953: 5), for first hair-cutting
(Buechler & Buechler 1971: 48), for entrance in a
ceremonial society, for the donning of a hdbito by an
individual who wishes to ward off illness (Spicer 1940:
95), for the hetzmek, when a child is first placed on
the left hip of his mother or sister (Redfield & Villa
Rojas 1962: 188-90), for blessing when a child has had
a fright (Gillin 1951: 61; Reina 1966: 230), for first
communion, for girls turning 15, for curing of susto
(Ingham 1970: 283), and for emerging from prison
(Parsons 1936: 55). And in Moche and Huaylas there
are respectively ten and twelve different occasions
on which the full set of bonds may be brought into
play (Gillin 1947:105; Doughty 1968: 115-16)!32
Since the basic church rituals are sometimes repli-
cated, logically it might be expected that they are
also reduced. Although rare, some examples have
been reported. In Chan Kom a folk ceremony, the
hetzmek, is said to awaken the physical and intel-
lectual faculties of a child; Catholic confirmation,
which has a broadly similar function, is not practised
(Redfield & Villa Rojas 1962: 189). In Chimaltenango
persons are not confirmed (Wagley 1949: 17). The
sacraments of baptism and marriage but not con-
firmation are observed in two Tzotzil-speaking
municipios (Laughlin 1969: 169). I have found no
cases, however, in which the paradigmatic rite,
baptism, is omitted.24
61
la. Structure replication with substitution in the
godchild position. In some cases the structure is not
only repeated over various ceremonies but certain
objects are substituted for the godchild. In these in-
stances the objects are not said to be the godchild;
they stand in place of the godchild. A personal rela-
tionship is formed only between the owner or 'parent'
of the object and the godparent. Cases besides the
Veraguas example already noted include the cele-
bration of a household saint (Madsen 1960: 102; Reina
1966: 231), the "breaking in' of a house or store
(Ingham 1970: 283), the sale of cattle (Grimes &
Hinton 1969: 803), and the purchase and 'breaking
in' of a mule (Madsen 1960: 102-3).25 At least three
ceremonies in Moche are performed over objects
standing in place of the godchild (Gillin 1947: 105).
lb. Structure replication with substitution in the
sponsor position. In rural areas of Portugal, when an
unbaptised child is dying and no human sponsor is
available, a saint may be selected as godparent. As
elsewhere in the Catholic world it is considered
undesirable to let a child die without supernatural
protection (Willems 1963: 77).
\c. Structure replication with substitution in the
godchild and parent positions. A further variant of
(1) occurs when an individual 'sponsors' an object for
an institution or group. The sponsor is said to be the
godparent, he may or may not form ties with other
individuals. For example, godparents were selected
for the reconstruction of a church wall and the
building of a new bridge in Tecospa; they became
compadres to all the town's inhabitants (Madsen
1960: 109-12). In Huaylas godparents sponsor objects
acquired by schools, clubs or the church. No personal
ties are formed by these ceremonies (Doughty 1968:
116). Similar customs are reported for Moche (Gillin
1947: 105), Mitla (Parsons 1936: 249-50, 283-4), and
San Lorenzo (Whitten 1965:111).
A problem has been raised in the literature con-
cerning the classification of all these rites. They can
be separated into dogmatically prescribed and non-
prescribed categories: baptism and confirmation
versus marriage and other ceremonies. Gillin has sug-
gested dividing the fourteen Moche ceremonies into
'Roman' and 'pagan' rites, that is Christian versus
non-Christian rituals. In such a scheme marriage is
grouped with baptism and confirmation in opposition
to the other ceremonies. But Gillin also has classified
the rites into 'spiritual' and 'friendship' categories
which 'are the terms used by the Mocheros in speaking
of them' (Gillin 1947: 105). Spiritual godparents spon-
sor persons; friendship godparents sponsor things. On
the other hand, in speaking of godparents of churches
and images, Spicer reports: 'Yaquis in Pascua classify
these sponsors as being of the same kind as the cere-
monial sponsors of humans' (Spicer 1940: 111).
These differences in classification are apparently
the result of whether the church's, peoples' or anthro-
pologists' conscious categories are being used. As
further reports are published undoubtedly other typo-
 logies will be generated. But all such classifications
are misleading, for the structure does not lie at the
observed level. The issue is not the ways in which
the different types of objects and life cycle rites Which
are brought into the system may be classified but
the fact that the Compadrazgo Set serves as a model
for the variant forms. Viewed in this way the under-
lying unity of the ceremonies emerges.
What are the implications of replication for the
system of relationships formed? First, the bonds
established may vary in importance according to the
ceremony. In Panama, most compadre and godfather-
types are considered to be nearly equal, but this is
not so in all societies (Doughty 1968: 221; Parsons
1936: 68; Romney & Romney 1960: 56-7; Wagley
1953: 153; Whitten 1965: 103). Better data are needed
to set forth the exact differences among the bonds
formed over the various ceremonies. Second, replica-
tion creates more extensive and/or intensive networks
than those found in societies which have only two or
three compadrazgo rites. However, when it occurs,
usually not all the ceremonies are prescribed; flexi-
bility in the pattern is permitted for individual pur-
poses. Another subject for future studies, then, would
be statistical analyses of the intensity or coverage of
compadrazgo bonds within a society. A further
problem to be solved is Why replication occurs in some
groups and not others.
2. Position replication of the godparent/comp&dre
role. The number of godparents chosen for any
occasion may vary: each godparent stands in place of
the other. For example, at one extreme only one god-
parent may be selected. The Veraguas pattern is
slightly more complex; the peasants choose two god-
mothers and one godfather for baptism, one god-
parent for confirmation, and one godmother and one
godfather for church marriage. At the other extreme,
as represented by the barrio of Santo Domingo,
Juxtlahuaca, one married couple is chosen for a
baptism, a first mass, a first communion, a confirma-
tion, and for private saints and animals. Two married
couples are selected for a marriage. For a ceremony
over a new house four married couples are chosen,
and five are selected for the erection of a funeral cross
(Romney & Romney 1966: 55)! The number chosen
is not a direct reflection of the importance of the cere-
monies (Romney & Romney 1966: 53).
Replication of the godparent role also may be at
the option of the individuals. A study in rural Hungary
indicates that at times up to twenty extra pairs of
baptismal godparents may be chosen (Fel & Hofer
1969: 165 f.n. 8). The number of godparents selected
also varies in the Philippines and San Pedro (Fox &
Lynch 1956: 426, 648-9; Hart 1971: 68; Hollnsteiner
1963: 65 f.n. 2; Richardson 1970: 83-4).
Increasing the number of sponsors chosen for a
ceremony has a direct effect upon the network of
bonds formed. In fact, the outcome is the same as in
variant (1), but the system of relationships is replicated
62
without increasing the number of rites or 'baptised'
objects.
3. Position replication by extension of compadrazgo
terms to kin of the principals. In this variant certain
of the compadrazgo terms or relationships are ex-
tended and these usually to kin of the principals. This
permutation is similar, though not identical, to
variant (2). Some examples are as follows. Grand-
parents and/or other kin of the baptised may become
compadres of the godparents (Doughty 1968: 118;
De la Fuente 1949: 168; Hollnsteiner 1963: 70; Reina
1966: 233; Spicer 1940: 94; Vogt 1969: 235). Beals
reports for Cheran a somewhat similar practice at
marriage (1946: 103). Conversely, cases are also re-
ported where kin of the godparents are brought into
the extensions (De la Fuente 1949: 168; Fox & Lynch
1956: 429, 649; Hollnsteiner 1963: 70; Parsons 1936:
70; Reina 1966: 233; Spicer 1940: 94; Vogt 1969:
235). Sometimes the godparents for the same or
different ceremonies may themselves become com-
padres to one another (Ingham 1970: 282, 286; Spicer
1940: 92-4). We have seen that in Veraguas a child
and the children of his godparent are said to be
'political brothers', the term used for step-siblings. In
Chinautla a godchild and the children of his god-
parents are considered to be siblings; marriage be-
tween them is prohibited (Reina 1966: 199, 233).
Somewhat more complex is the pattern in Juxtlahuaca
where 'for the more important type of compadre
relationships, the children of compadres would extend
terms for brothers and sisters to each other' (Romney
& Romney 1966: 57). Similar practices obtain in Hulo
and Tepoztlan (Hollnsteiner 1963: 70; Lewis 1951:
76).
Occasionally the extensions are formed between
persons not even linked by a common compadre or
godparent. For example, in some areas the parents
or other kin of a bride and a groom may become
compadres to one another (Beals 1946: 103; Stein
1961: 117-18, 133; Wagley 1949: 17). Or, as in
Veraguas, the term 'compadre7 may be used jokingly
or seriously between two good friends (Harris 1956:
152; Radfield & Villa Rojas 1962: 99).
Generally only the compadre terms are extended,
although sometimes the godpfarenit-godchild terms
may be included (Fox & Lynch 1956: 649). Less
frequently sibling terms are also. To my knowledge
only one case is reported of the godparent-godchild
term by itself being extended: in Chinautla one
woman considered herself to be the godgrandmother
to the godson of her son (Reina 1966: 233).
In some cases these extensions occur automatically,
while in others they are formed at the option of the
individuals (Foster 1953: 7-8; 1967: 71, 83-4; Romney
& Romney 1966: 54). I suspect the difference may lie
in whether the compadrazgo is conceived more as a
relation between groups or as a network of potential
ties. Of course, the different forms of extension also
may be combined. The extraordinarily complex
 Moche system is one such example (Gillin 1947:
106-7).
Extension of the terminological system, however,
should be distinguished from extension of the rela-
tionship system. Because an individual stands in the
category of compadre does not mean that all the con-
comitant rights and obligations of the bond are
extended to him. The latter may depend upon such
factors as proximity, social closeness and so forth.
This fact delimits several topics for future research.
4. Position replication of the godchild role; choice
repetition. Since the godparent position may be repli-
cated, it might be asked whether replication also may
occur for the godchild role. Indeed, through special
patterns of choice this variant may be effected. In
variant (2) there is a proliferation of godparents for
one child; in this permutation there is a proliferation
of children or ceremonies for the same godparent. In
the literature we find that one baptismal godparent
may be used for boys and another for girls in the
same family (Bunzel 1952: 161). Sometimes the same
godparents of baptism are used for all or nearly all
the children in a sibling group (Deshon 1963: 579;
Fel & Hofer 1969: 163; Lewis 1951: 350; Parsons
1936: 395; Reina 1966: 229; Vogt 1969: 232; Whitten
1965: 103). It even may be thought a sin to change
baptismal godparents (Villa Rojas 1945: 90, 142). In
a different form of repetition, the baptismal god-
parents may be repeated for confirmation or church
marriage (De la Fuente 1949: 169; Hammel 1968;
Hart 1971: 74; Reina 1966: 229-30; Ravicz and
Romney 1969: 392). (Although by church law the con-
firmation sponsor may not be the same as the bap-
tismal sponsor (Canon 796).) Conversely, the marriage
godparents sometimes are selected to be the baptismal
godparents to the first, several, or all children of the
marital couple (Buechler & Buechler 1971: 47;
DeCicco 1969: 363; Madsen 1960: 94). If age does
not permit, such sponsorship may be repeated by suc-
cession from father to son (Halpern 1967: 161;
Hammel 1968; Reina 1966: 229). Finally, examples
are reported of doubling up, that is, employing one
set of godparents for two or more children at the same
time (Gillin 1947: 111; Ingham 1970: 285).
The converse of replication in the godchild position
is choosing new godparents for each child and cere-
mony. This appears to be the more normal pattern;
in fact, choice repetition may be prohibited. In
Veraguas, repeating the relationship with the same
godparent for different children or for the same child
over different ceremonies is not looked upon with
favour. In other areas this negative preference
emerges as an absolute prohibition (Anderson 1957:
49; Foster 1967: 83). Clearly both these patterns help
determine the nature of the compadrazgo network
found. New selection expands the system. Choice
repetition may serve to intensify the ties between two
individuals or groups; or as Mintz and Wolf (1950:
349) reported, it may be used to restrict the total
number of spiritual relationships one enters.
63
5. The prohibition of choice reversal A variant
which is almost universally prohibited is the reversal
of the parent and godparent roles; that is, the direc-
tion of choice usually may not be reversed. In
Veraguas a godfather-giver may not become a god-
father-taker to the same man. The peasants say that
the 'debt' cannot be returned. Were choice to be
reversed then all the relationships would be voided
and both children would become unbaptised. Although
such a rule was never instituted by the church, it
appears to be a widely accepted folk prohibition.
Only four exceptions are reported in the literature
(Anderson 1956: 9, 41, 43, 103; Diebold 1966: 50;
Fel & Hofer 1969: 163; Wagley 1949: 18), and only
in Atany, a Hungarian peasant community, is choice
reversal mandatory. Despite the fact that this general
prohibition has important implications no explanation
for it has been offered.
The prohibition appears to be a folk deduction
from church concepts. The implicit folk reasoning
may be as follows. Natural and spiritual parenthood
are conceptually distinct. Just as these two forms of
paternity must be kept separate (parents may not
become godparents to their own children), so natural
and spiritual co-parenthood must be distinguished.
Further, since spiritual relationships (as explicitly
stated by the Council of Trullo) are higher than
natural ones, the godparent in terms of the child
occupies a higher status than the parent. Therefore,
if choice were returned from godfather to father, each
would be both natural and spiritual co-parent to the
other, and each would occupy both a higher and
lower status in relation to the other. By prohibiting
choice reversal this structurally impossible situation
is avoided. The two roles are segregated and an in-
dividual plays a natural co-parenthood role towards
some and a spiritual co-parenthood role towards
others.26
The pattern of choosing compadres is related to
this rule. First, it follows from the prohibition that
compadrazgo choice must be 'generalised'. Choice
may not be returned and the network of bonds in the
society must be expanded. At least three different
persons are required for the system to be operative.
Second, the prohibition is related to the fact that
when choice is between those in unequal statuses, the
godparent usually occupies the higher. Now, Ingham
recently argued that the co-parenthood tie is 'asym-
metrical in the sense that godparent selections are
not reciprocated and that the rights and obligations
based upon this relationship are not precisely the
same for each co-godfather and family. This asym-
metry may or may not entail differences in social
status' (1970: 281). He also noted that 'to give as a
godparent is more blessed than to receive as an
earthly parent' (1970: 287).
In view of my own thesis I think I can clarify
Ingham's analysis. Different rights and obligations,
non-reciprocated choice and the distinction of god-
parent and earthly parent are not all equally ex-
 pressions of asymmetry. Ideologically the relation-
ship is inherently asymmetric, for it is between natural
and spiritual persons. From this it follows that choice
cannot be reversed. The conceptual asymmetry may
or may not be reflected in differing social obligations
and statuses.
In the five variants discussed the essential structure
of the compadrazgo remains constant. However,
through various rules of permutation different systems
of relationships can be generated. The ideology of
the compadrazgo, then, is directly connected to the
observed relationship patterns. If the compadrazgo is
viewed only as a collection of dyadic bonds this unity
underlying the perceived system remains obscure.
Further, the notion of a network of compadrazgo
ties (Foster 1961: 1183) scarcely does justice to the
complexity of the institution. The compadrazgo is a
set of relations which may take form as a discrete
group of individuals or as an assemblage of ties. The
patterning of this set is complex, and in specifying
its nature, size, density and relation to other groupings
in the society, viewing each compadrazgo system as
a combination of the five variants may lead to more
precise and comparative analyses. When the com-
padrazgo does take form as an assemblage of bonds,
the ties may be of an optative character. Useful
descriptions of this aspect of the system have already
been given and it will not be pursued further here
(Doughty 1968: 119; Foster 1961; 1963; 1967: 212-33;
Gillin 1947: 109-12; Hollnsteiner 1963: 76-80; Spicer
1940: 105-8, 113-14; 1954: 61-2; Wagley 1953: 154-6).
In addition to the ideology, however, the permuta-
tions also have been influenced by church history,
for the historical evolution of the compadrazgo has
led to certain variants being dogmatically prohibited.
For example, one mode of expansion is to increase
the number of sponsors at a given ceremony. It may
be that this variation is infrequently developed as a
result of the Council of Trent's restriction of the
number of sponsors at baptism and confirmation.
Similarly, catechismal sponsors have been dog-
matically prohibited by the church as well as spiritual
relationships between confessors and penitents. Those
in religious orders are prohibited from becoming
sponsors (Canons 766, 796); although this rule has
little influence upon today's patterns, it does provide
a further constraint on the system. Conditional
baptisms cannot be repeated with different sponsors
(Canon 763). Finally, a baptismal sponsor must him-
self be baptised, must be a full and accepted member
of the church, must physically touch the baptised,
and must be personally designated by the person to
be baptised, his parents or guardians, or the minister
(Canons 765, 766). As Mintz and Wolf (1950: 351)
pointed out, one effect of the Council of Trent's stand
and subsequent church dogma was to prevent un-
known persons from entering the complex.
Nevertheless church dogma has^ scarcely suppressed
the explosion of the compadrazgo into diverse
64
patterns. Any 'deficiency' caused by limiting the num-
ber of sponsors, for example, has been overcome by
expansion in other directions.
The compadrazgo and kinship
The system of relationships also must be seen in
the context of kinship for it has been argued that the
compadrazgo is closely connected with the family.
Although the comparative ethnographic data on this
issue are incomplete, some cases parallel to Veraguas
do exist, and they may provide a suggestion of the
minimum variation to be found.
It was pointed out that the compadrazgo is some-
times used like a marital alliance, that is in a form
complementary to kinship ties. Hammel, in particular,
has shown that kumstvo, kinship and marital ties are
all mutually exclusive but to some degree substitutive
(1968: 85-7, 89-94).27
In one bilateral situation, I have argued that there
is a connexion between the compadrazgo, the family
and household organisation. The relation between
these different frames apparently can take a diversity
of forms. For example, in Pascua the family is
unstable, but houses, which are usually occupied by
one or two related elementary families, are permanent
(Spicer 1940: 79-80). Compadres are ordinarily
sought from without the circle of blood kin. Further,
if a child's grandparents are living in his household
they also are called compadres by his godparents.
'The padrino system is thus a formal social institution
based on ritual obligations which formalises the rela-
tionships between groups already organised on a
basis of blood' (Spicer 1940: 116). The resemblance
to Veraguas is made stronger by Spicer's statement
that the accent 'is on ritual relations in the padrino
structures, while in the families the emphasis is on
economic obligations' (1940: 115). When the com-
padrazgo is formed within the community, a similar
pattern seems to obtain in Yalalag (De la Fuente
1949: 162-4,168).
Nearly thirty-five years ago Parsons reported that
households in Mitla usually consist of elementary
families, that marriage into the family of one's
baptismal godparents is prohibited, and that there
is a 'marked tendency' for godparents to be sought
outside the family though not outside of affinal con-
nexions (1936: 66, 94, 441, 68). In Huaylas, too, most
households are composed of elementary families. No
house includes a compadre or comadre of the head
(Doughty 1968: 30). In fact, 'child and adult alike
are allied with others outside of the family [which
in the context clearly refers to the nuclear family]
through the elaborate system of fictive kin called
compadrazgo and padrinazgo' (Doughty 1968: 114,
see also 119). In Cruz Das Almas elementary families
occupy isolated farm households; but they maintain
compadrazgo ties with other families in the immediate
neighbourhood (Pierson 1951: 101-2). The people of
Moche usually live in nuclear family households
 (Gillin 1947: 98). Kinship relations outside these units
are relatively unimportant; both blood and affinal ties
tend to break or weaken through inheritance disputes
and separations. Non-relatives of the parents often
are chosen as compadres. And 'the strong and abiding
fabric is composed of the ceremonial kinship bonds'
(Gillin 1947: 104). Gillin also stated that 'The real
function of godparents is to broaden and, if possible,
increase the social and economic resources of the
child and his parents' (1947: 108), but it is clear from
his data that most of the godparental and compadre
duties are not strictly 'utilitarian' but 'ceremonial'
(1947: 108-9). These examples of the relation between
bilteral kinship and the compadrazgo are summarised
in table 2.
Aside from Pascua, the evidence is incomplete, and
only general tendencies may be seen. But Deshon and
Foster have presented more thoroughgoing material
for a hacienda in Yucatan and for Tzintzuntzan
which highlights the connexion of compadrazgo ties
with the family and household and which poses a
paradox. In Yucatan a married couple normally resides
patrilocally for a few years as part of an extended
family and then neolocally. Later the pair become
part of an extended family again as their grown
children marry and briefly reside with them. The ex-
tended family household provides support for in-
dividuals at crucial points in their life cycles, but it
also presents opportunity for conflicts of authority
between two co-resident adult generations. The choice
of compadres is determined by this situation. Initially
a newly-married couple selects co-resident kinsmen.
The compadre relationships are respectful and re-
straining, the bonds closely approximate the ideal kin
relations between generations, and household cohesion
is maintained. When a young couple first establish
their own household, they frequently still choose close
kin, but later they phrase their ties vertically and
make them multiple to 'promote security or advance-
ment' (Deshon 1963: 580).
In Tzintzuntzan the pattern of choice is the
opposite, although the developmental cycle of the
domestic group is the same. When a young couple
first live with or near the husband's family, they most
frequently choose friends as compadres. After they
separate and establish their own household, a couple
are more likely to choose relatives. Foster explained
that fighting between compadres should never occur,
TABLE 2. The compadrazgo, kinship and household organisation
COMMUNITY HOUSEHOLD ORGANISATION
Pascua Elementary Families
Yalalag Elementary Family Usually
Mitla Elementary Family Usually
Huaylas Elementary Family Usually
Cruz Das Almas Elementary Family
Moche Elementary Family Usually
65
but friction in a household is inevitable. The pattern
both pi events conflicts between compadres and per-
mits individuals eventually to restrict the size of their
compadrazgo networks and to cut their baptismal
expenses (Foster 1969: 276-7).
In both Yucatan and Tzintzuntzan the household,
family and compadrazgo form systematic complexes.
Compadrazgo ties in both situations are opposed to
family bonds but in variant ways. In Yucatan com-
padrazgo ties are used initially to forestall conflict
in family relationships, later to complement them. The
bonds are first formed intra-domestically, then extra-
domestically. In Tzintzuntzan the compadrazgo com-
plements and is protected from the divisive ties of
kinship until the latter can no longer disrupt them.28
Tzintzuntzenos first choose extra-domestic friends,
then extra-domestic family. Recognising the single
contrast underlying both patterns leads, I think, to a
better understanding of them and to an explanation
of their seemingly conflicting natures.
Thus, in variant forms a patterned interrelation of
the family and compadrazgo is discernible in a num-
ber of communities. Undoubtedly other forms exist.
But it is my hypothesis that further data and analyses
will confirm in greater detail that the two systems in
a particular society are ranged relative to each other
along a natural-spiritual continuum. As in Veraguas
this interrelation will have an impact upon the five
compadrazgo variations discussed above.
Variation in compadrazgo customs
I remarked at the outset of the essay that certain
customs seem to accompany the compadrazgo com-
plex; neighbouring areas may exhibit different ones
while non-contiguous areas may have similar prac-
tices. These cultural bits are part of the great tradi-
tion, and it seems possible to find some cross-cultural
similarities in their arrangements. Further research
undoubtedly will reveal the great complexity in the
patterning of these customs, but if their symbolic
nature is recognised a new domain of analysis may
be opened. Here are some examples.
With respect to those who accompany the child
to baptism, in rural Andalusia the parents remain at
home, other members of the family take the child to
be baptised, and the godparents receive it from the
font (Pitt-Rivers 1958: 428). By contrast, in Moche a
COMPADRAZGO BONDS OTHER
Extra-domestic Kinship and com-
padrazgo opposed
Extra-domestic
Extra-domestic
Extra-domestic
Extra-domestic
Extra-domestic Kinship and com-
padrazgo in certain
respects opposed
 special nurse (la ama de pila) carries the child from
the house to the font where she gives it to the father.
The godparents stand beside and answer for the
parents during the baptism. After the ceremony the
father returns the child to the nurse and she carries
it home. The ama de pila is not a godmother,
although she is integrated into the compadrazgo net-
work (Gillin 1947: 106, 108-9). Other variations be-
tween these two extremes are found in Tzintzuntzan
(Foster 1967: 77), Tecospa (Madsen 1960: 93), Pascua
(Spicer 1940: 96), Caticugan and Lalawigan (Hart
1971: 50, 70), Zinacantan (Vogt 1969: 233), and
Veraguas.
The purchase of clothes for the novitiate com-
prises a different example. In Panama the principal
godmother buys the baptismal vestments which are
the first dress clothes a child has. In Tlayacapan the
godparents of baptism and for curing of susto pur-
chase clothes (Ingham 1970: 282-3). Variations on
this theme are found in the Philippines (Fox & Lynch
1956: 649; Hollnsteiner 1963: 74), Zinacantan (Vogt
1969: 235-6), Moche (Gillin 1947: 108, 110), Pana-
jachel (Tax 1953: 159, 178), parts of Spain (Foster
1953: 5; 1960: 122; Pitt-Rivers 1958: 428-9),
Tzintzuntzan (Foster 1967: 77), Juxtlahuaca (Romney
& Romney 1966: 53, 55), and Chimaltenango
(Wagley 1949: 18).
Other thematic variants include the practice of
throwing the bolo from the church steps, the in-
fluence of the godparents upon the 'luck' of their
godchild, and the role of the godmother in shielding
her godchild from the evil eye or forces of evil. It is
also frequently reported that godchildren pay respect
to their godparents by kneeling and kissing their
hands, in return for which a benediction is said; this
custom itself may be a replication of the practice of
kissing the ring of a bishop or the Pope.
These customs pose a problem of analysis. Given
their cross-cultural consistency it is clear that a
functional or 'folk' explanation, although necessary,
is not sufficient. It is the ideology of the compadrazgo,
I suggest, which may provide clues for the analysis.
For example, the variants concerning who carries
the child to baptism, the influence of the godparents
upon the 'luck' of their godchild, and the protection
which godparents can offer their godchildren against
evil surely are related to the juxtaposition of natural
and spiritual paternity. -The purchase by the god-
parents of a new suit of clothes for their godchild may
be symbolic of the fact that the baptised becomes a
social and spiritual in addition to a natural member
of the community.
TABLE 3. Participation in major aspects of a funeral
Veraguas
Yaqui and certain Middle American groups
Moche and Ghinauitla
Cheran and Hualcan
66
A more complete and intriguing pattern is pro-
vided by the example of funeral customs. In Veraguas
close relatives, godparents, godchildren, and com-
padres are all prohibited from dressing the body,
carrying the coffin, preparing the grave or shovelling
back on the earth. A partial inversion is presented
by the practice of the Yaquis of Potam and Pascua.
Among them relatives of the deceased are also ex-
cluded from the funeral preparations, but the god-
parents, and in their place the godchildren or com-
padres, are obliged to participate (Spicer 1954: 60-1;
1940: 104-10). Guiteras Holmes (1952: 101) reported
a similar custom for certain Middle American groups.
In Moche, the Veraguas pattern is completely inverted.
When a person dies his relatives and compadres
gather. The male members of the group dig the grave
and serve as pallbearers. The compadres shovel on the
earth (Gillin 1947: 109, 149-50). In Ghinautla there
obtains a somewhat similar pattern with the god-
parents taking the role of the Moche compadres
(Reina 1966: 259-60). By contrast, in Cheran the god-
parents take no part in the funeral of an individual
above the age of fourteen. Burial clothing is prepared
by the nearest relative, and four male kin carry the
coffin to the grave (Beals 1946: 207-8). In Hualcan
at the funeral of adults, emphasis on the role of kin
and not compadres also is found (Stein 1961: 116-17,
282-6). The patterns are summarised in table 3 where
+ denotes presence and - signals absence.
In fact, the variations are even more complex than
this. For example, in Pascua the pattern is slightly
different if the deceased was married, and in Cheran
the godparents do participate if the child was below
the age of fourteen. Both these customs may be re-
lated to whether the child was still considered to be
an angelito (little angel). A detailed analysis would
clearly require further refinement.
Nevertheless, it seems that funeral customs, too,
are elaborations of the basic natural/spiritual opposi-
tion, and I suspect that further comparison will turn
up other systematic patterns. But each society 'draws
upon' only parts of the great tradition, and the frag-
ments are there arranged and woven into a coherent
pattern, as I attempted to demonstrate in part 3.
In this essay I have summarised and pointed out
certain inadequacies in earlier theories of the com-
padrazgo. My own thesis, founded on the ideology of
the Catholic church, is that all forms of the institution
are based on the conceptual opposition of the natural
and spiritual being and comprise a system of dia-
RELATIVES SPIRITUAL 'RELATIVES'
+ +
chronic and synchronic permutations. The changing
historical configurations of the compadrazgo were
variant solutions to the fundamental antinomy. The
edict of the Council of Trent solidified the form of
the institution, and today's variations are based on
the three-member Compadrazgo Set. Different struc-
tures have been generated from this paradigm by
permutation rules involving metaphoric substitution
and extension. Contextually the compadrazgo must
be examined in relation to the systems of kinship and
67
affinity, since the institution is patterned after the
family. In one peasant community I have demon-
strated that an intimate connexion exists among the
compadrazgo, family and household. Thus, through
the use of church ideology, the presentation of new
field materials and the examination of prior reports,
I have tried to elucidate previously unrecognised
aspects of the compadrazgo. At the least I think new
questions have been raised about this two-thousand-
year-old institution.
 APPENDIX 1:

CATALOGUE OF GROUPS CITED

I have termed the groups 'community', 'tribe', and/
or 'linguistic' according to their primary designation
in the cited literature. Where the data were available
in the references cited, I have added linguistic or
tribal affiliations to the units defined as communities.
There is some overlap among the groups (for example,
Ravicz & Romney, and Romney & Romney), and I
have not attempted to distinguish 'tribal' from
'peasant' societies. Since my concern is with variation
in the compadrazgo, any permutation is significant
and it does not seem strictly necessary to draw such
quantitative and qualitative distinctions.

Group (Community, Tribe*, Linguistic**) Country Authority cited

Various Villages, Towns, Cities Italy Anderson (1956; 1957)
Cheran (Tarascan*, Tarascan**, Spanish**) Mexcio Beals (1946)
Compi (Aymara**) Bolivia Buechler & Buechler (1971)
Chichicastenango (Quiche**, Spanish**) Guatemala Bunzel (1952)
Cora* Mexico Cerda Silva (1943)
Chatino* Mexico DeOcco (1969)
Yalalag (Zapotec**, Spanish**) Mexico De la Fuemte (1949)
Hacienda in Yucatan Mexico Deshon(1963)
San Mateo (Huave**, Spanish**) Mexico Diebold (1966)
Huaylas (Spanish**, Quechua**) Peru Doughty (1968)
Saucio (Spanish**) Colombia Fals-Borda (1955)
Atany (Hungarian**) Hungary Fel&Ho£er(1969)
Tzintzuntzan (Spanish**) Mexico Foster (1961; 1963; 1967; 1969)
Tagalog*, Tagalog** Philippines Fox & Lynch (1956)
Vasilika (Greek**) Greece Friedl (1965)
Moche (Spanish**) Peru Gillin (1947)
San Carlos (Pokomam**, Spanish**) Guatemala Gillin (1951)
Huichol*, Cora* Mexico Grimes & Hinton (1969)
Los Boquerones de Veraguas (Spanish**) Panama Gudeman
Various Middle American Groups Mexico Guiteras Holmes (1952)
Qrasac (Serbo-Croatian**) Jugoslavia Halpern (1967)
Jugoslavia Hammel (1968)
Minas Velhas (Portuguese**) Brazil Harris (1965)
Caticugan (Cebuan**), Lalawigan (Samaran**) Philippines Hart (1971)
Hulo (Tagalog**) Philippines Hollnsteiner (1963)
Tlayacapan (Spanish**, Nahuatl**) Mexico Ingham (1970)
Tzotzil** (Maya*) Mexico Laughlin (1969)
Tepoztl&n (Spanish**, Nahuatl**) Mexico Lewis (1951)
Tecospa (Spanish**, Nahuatl**) Mexico Madsen (1960)
Mitla (Zapotec**, Spanish**) Mexico Parsons (1936)
Cruz Das Almas (Portuguese**) Brazil Pierson (1951)
Rural Andalusia (Spanish**) Spain Pitt-Rivers (1958)
Mixtec** Mexico Ravicz & Romney (1969)
Chan Kom (Maya*) Mexico Redfield & Villa Rojas (1962)
Chinautla (Maya*, Pokomam**) Guatemala Reina (1966)
San Pedro (Spanish**) Colombia Richardson (1970)
Juxtlahuaca (Mixtec**, Spanish**) Mexico Romney & Romney (1966)
Pascua (Yaqui*) U.SA. Spicer (1940)
Potam (Yaqui*) Mexico Spicer (1954)
Hualcan (Quechua**, Spanish**) Peru Stein (1961)
Panajachel (Cakchiquel**, Spanish**) Guatemala Tax (1953)
Various settlements in the Territory of Quintana Roo Mexico Villa Rojas (1945)
(Maya*, Maya**)
Zinacantan (Maya*, Tzotzil**, Spanish**) Mexico Vogt (1969)
Ghimaltenango (Mam**) Guatemala Wagley (1949)
ltd. (Portuguese**) Brazil Wagley (1953)
San Lorenzo (Spanish**) Ecuador Whitten (1965)
Rural areas (Portuguese**) Portugal Willems (1963)

68
 APPENDIX 2:
EXTRACTS FROM THE
SUMMA THEOLOGICA
Pt. Ill, Q. 65, A.1: A likeness between spiritual and
corporeal things is drawn. The life of the body is
said to be perfected in three ways, the first of which
is generation through which a person begins to be
and live. 'And corresponding to this in the spiritual
life there is Baptism, Which is a spiritual regenera-
tion.' This analogy is carried through the rest of
Question 65.
Pt. Ill, Q. 66, A.9: Baptism, it is stated, cannot be
repeated as it is a spiritual regeneration. A man
dies to his old life and begins anew. 'Now one man
can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism can-
not be reiterated, just as neither can carnal genera-
tion. Hence Augustine says on John iii. 4: "Can he
enter a second time into his mother's womb and be
born again": So thou, says he, must understand
the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus understood the
birth of the flesh . . . As there is no return to the
womb, so neither is there to Baptism/
Pt. Ill, Q. 67, A.7: 'The spiritual regeneration, which
takes place in Baptism is in a certain manner
likened to carnal generation . . . Now, in carnal
generation the new-born child needs nourishment
and guidance: wherefore, in spiritual generation
NOTES
My fieldwork was supported in part by a Public Health
Service Fellowship (1-F1-MH-35, 467-01) from the National
Institute of Mental Health. For reading and commenting
upon drafts of the essay my thanks to Edmund Leach,
Evon Vogt, John Ingham, Akos Ostor, and Norma Rowe. I
am especially grateful to my wife Roxane.
1
In Spanish-speaking countries godchild and godparent
usually address one another as padrino I madrina (godfather/
godmother) and ahijado / ahijada (godson/goddaughter).
Parent and godparent use the reciprocal term compadre/
comadre (male co-parent /female co-parent).
The word compadrazgo literally refers to only one of the
bonds, that between parent and godparent. Ravicz (1967: 238)
proposed using 'Compadrinazgo* to describe the complete
set of relatlionishiips. Others distinguished between com-
padrazgo and padrinazgo (the godparent-godchild tie). For
simplicity I use the term compadrazgo to denote the entire
complex and specify more precisely when I refer to a parti-
cular bond.
2
In a recent article, Osborn (1968), although she claimed
differently, presented a isimilar argument. Others also elabor-
ated and refined Mintz and Wolfs position (Deshon 1963:
Inigham 1970; Reina 1966: 231-4; Stein 1961: 135).
3
The title of their article itself is ambiguous.
45 See also Lewis (1951: 350) and Padilla Seda (1956: 294).
See also Leach's distinction of philosophical and prac-
tical
6
religion (1968: 1).
But contrast Haanmel: *What is given and received, then,
is not the act of sponsoring on a particular occasion but the
position of sponsor' (1968: 78). In my formulation the com-
padrazgo
7
is distinguished from (Protestant) godparenthood.
Both here and below the word *transforination' is used
69
also, someone is needed to undertake the office of
nurse and tutor by forming and instructing one
who is yet a novice in the Faith.'
Pt. Ill, Q. 67, A.8: 'Just as spiritual generation is dis-
tinct from carnal generation, so is spiritual educa-
tion distinct from that of the body . . . Therefore
the spiritual father should be distinct from the
carnal father, unless necessity demanded other-
wise.'
Pt. Ill, Q. 68, A.9: 'The spiritual regeneration effected
by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this
respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb
receives nourishment not independently, but
through the nourishment of its mother, so also
children before the use of reason, being as it were
in the womb of their mother the Church, receive
salvation not by their own act, but by the act of
the Church. Hence Augustine says . . . The Church,
our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her
children, that they may imbibe the sacred
mysteries
Abbreviations are to be read: Part III, Question 65,
Article 1 (St. Thomas Aquinas 1947), etc. Italics are
in original text.
somewhat loosely. Generally, the term refers to different
logical
8
operations which may be applied to a set of relations.
'Although variation occurs in nearly every element,
nowhere is the system unrecognizable . . . It may emphasize
either sacred or profane aspects of culture' (Ravicz 1967:
242).
9 The church code is not a static, unitary whole but the
result of an accretion of laws over time. Trie principal
sources of the present code include papal laws, authoritative
opinions of papal congregations, decrees of the Council of
Trent and of the First Vatican Council, and the various
collections of laws beginning with Dionysius Exiguus. Since
1918 piapal decrees, official definitions of dogma, and decrees
of the Second Vatican Council have further modified the
code (Sftgmiund 1968).
10
Early Christians, like all revolutionaries, could hardly
do otherwise. But as with most revolutionaries their new doc-
trine
11
did indeed synioretise elements of the old.
I return to this distinction of flesh and spirit. An inter-
esting paradox derives from the fact that John baptised
Christ; yet, Christ instituted baptism! Theologians usually
distinguish the two by noting that John's baptism only re-
quired repentance. John's baptism was not, as true Christian
baptism is, associated with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Again,
a revolutionary religion could hardly fail to make such a
distinction.
12
1947: Question 56, Article 3.
13 See also Pt. Ill, Q. 68, A.9; Pt. Ill, Q. 72, A. 10; Supple-
ment
14
Q. 56, A.2, Reply Objection 1.
As with the origin of baptism orthodox theologians
often insist on the novelty of Christian sponsorship and
criticise such attempts to relate it to historical forerunners.
 15
For example see Dictionaire de Droit Canonique (1937:
162), Petrovits (1919: 281-2), St Thomas Aquinas (1947:
Supplement, Q. 56, A.1). That the spiritual relationship and
the marital impediment are distinct may be seen from the
fact that according to the present Canon Law although con-
firmation gives rise to a spiritual relationship between the
person confirmed and the sponsor, no diriment impediment is
imposed. Nonetheless parents cannot confirm their own
children.
16
Because the reasons for the prohibition of sexual rela-
tions in the godparenit-igodchild and godparent-parent
relationships are complex and different for each, it seems
unwise to label the prohibition 'incest' (Erasmus 1950). In
many ethnographic situations the spiritual relationship and a
sexual (and marital) prohibition are coincident. But it is also
true that the spiritual bonds sometimes are recognised with-
out the attendant prohibition.
17 Corblet {1882: 208) noted yet a slightly different con-
stellation of bonds.
18 The edict reads:
Experience teaches, that, by reason of the multitude of
prohibitions, marriages are ofttiimes unwittingly con-
tracted in prohibited cases, in which marriages either the
parties continue to live on, not without great sin, or they
are dissolved, not without great scandal Wherefore,
the holy Synod, wishing to provide against this incon-
venience, and beginning with the impediment arising
from spiritual relationship, ordains, that, in accordance
with the appointments of the sacred canons, one person
only, whether male or female, or at most one male and
one female, shall receive in baptism the individual
baptized; between whom and the baptized, and the
father and mother thereof; as also between the person
baptizing and the baptized, and the father and mother
of the baptized; and these only; shall spiritual rela-
tionship be contracted . . . That relationship, in like
manner, which is contracted by confirmation shall not
pass beyond him who confirms the person, confirmed,
his fatther and mother, and him who places his hand
on him; all impediments arising from this kind of
spiritual relationship between other persons being utterly
set aside (Waterworth 1898: 199-200).
19 As Mintz and Wolf (1950: 345) remarked, it was not
until the Council of Trent that the final ban against priests'
marriages was issued, and this may have been one reason
why spiritual bonds were originally extended to them. (Con-
versely, it seems possible that the present 'structural
amnesia' of this bond may be related to the fact that priests
now cannot marry.)
20
Fieldwork was carried out in 1966-67. A more com-
plete ethnographic description of the community will be
published later. To date the most useful source on rural
Panama is Adam's (1957) study. I have found nothing in his
survey which contradicts what is here reported.
21
Note how the peasants' reasoning partially 'involutes'
church dogma. Their folk model runs:
REFERENCES
ABBO, J. A. & J. D. HANNAN 1960. The sacred canons: a con-
cise presentation of the current disciplinary norms of
the church (2nd edn). St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co.
ADAMS, R. N. 1957. Cultural surveys of Panama—Nicaragua
Guatemala—El Salvador—Honduras. Washington: Pan
American Sanitary Bureau.
ANDERSON, G. 1956. A survey of Italian godparenthood.
Kroeber anthrop. Soc. Pap. 15,1-110.
1957. II comparaggio: the Italian godparenthood com-
plex. SWest. J. Anthrop. 13, 32-53.
BEALS, R. L. 1946. Cherdn: a Sierra Tarascan village (Publ.
Inst, social Anthrop. Smithson. Instn. 2). Washington:
Smithsonian Institution.
THE HOLY BIBLE: DOUAY VERSION 1914. New York: P. J.
Kennedy.
BUECHLER, H. C. & J.-M. BUECHLER 1971. The Bolivian
Ay mara. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
BUNZEL, R. 1952. Chichicastenango: a Guatemalan village.
Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.
70
a. Compadres must respect each other.
b. Therefore, compadres may not have sexual relations.
c. Therefore, parents may not become compadres to
each other (nor may either to one with whom he
has had sexual relations); that is, parents may not
baptise their own children.
Church dogma runs:
a. Spiritual and natural paternity are distinct.
b. Therefore, parents may not baptise their own children,
that is, become compadres to one another.
c. Therefore, marriage and sexual relations must be pro-
hibited between compadres.
This is an example, then, in which the historical 'bits and
pieces' have been re-arranged by the people into a different
but systematic pattern. See also Whitten (1965: 103-4).
Various investigators have reported that the compadrazgo
is sometimes used to forestall sexual tensions or advances. In
such cases, too, the reasoning of the folk model is the
reverse of that of the church.
22
The formalized actions contained in the concept of
respeto emphasize the ritual nature of the dual system [god-
parenthood, co-parenthood] and its crucial significance in
the social structure' (Ravicz 1967: 239).
23 Other forms are listed in Anderson (1957: 43-5), Fals-
Borda (1955: 197-8), Lewis (1951: 351), Ravicz (1967: 243-4),
Stein (1961: 131), and Wagley (1953: 153).
24
According to one source, among the Cora the com-
padrazgo is not contracted at baptism. Civil and church
marriages occasionally are practised; father-in4aw and son-
in-law become compadres. The godchild position apparently
is not filled (Cerda Silva 1943: 107-9; but see also Grimes &
Hinton
25
1969: 803, 812).
Parsons (1936: 228 n.96) reported that in Tizapan, Mexico
when a double ear of corn is found in the harvest 'a god-
father is sought and he will dress it as a ohild and give it
back to the owner to keep for good crops. The twin ear is a
sign of abundance. In exactly the same way godparents are
sought to dress El Nino, the Christ child.' See the discussion
in the text concerning the obligation of godparents to provide
baptismal vestments.
26
It is true that linguistically f&ther-compadres are not
distinguished from godfather-compodres. However, language
assuredly does not always directly reflect social relations,
and the use of campadre for both rather and godfather may
emphasise their common paternal relation to the child.
2
? See also Ingham (1970) and Vogt (1969: 145, 237). In
Vasilika there are some contrasts between affines and
kumbari (co-parents), on the one hand, and consanguines
on the other (Friedl 1965: 72-3). It also seems possible that
the compadrazgo links families of different barrios in
Tepoztlan
28
(Lewis 1951: 76, 350).
This is an example but on a different plane of the same
logic whereby compadrazgo ties may be in some societies
shielded from and in others used to buttress economic
exchanges.
CERDA SILVA, R. D E LA 1943. Los Coras. Rev. mex Sociol.
5, 89-117.
CORBLET, J. L'ABBE 1882. Histoire dogmatique, liturgique et
archeologique du sacrewent de bapteme, vol. 2. Paris:
Societe Generate de Librairie CathoHque.
DECICCO, G. 1969. The Chatino. In Handbook of Middle
American Indians, 7 (ed.) R. Wauchope. Austin: Univ.
of Texas Press.
D E LA FUENTE, J. 1949. Yalalag: una villa zapoteca serrana.
Mexico: Museo Nacional de Antropologia.
DESHON, S. K. 1963. Compadrazgo on a henequen hacienda
in Yucatan: a structural re-evaluation. Am. Anthrop.
65, 574-83.
DICTIONNAIRE DE DROIT CANONIQUE, vol. 2 1937. Paris:
Librairie Letouzey et Ane\
DIEBOLD, A. R. 1966. The reflection of coresidence in
Mareno kinship terminology. Ethnology 5, 37-79.
DOUGHTY, P. L. 1968. Huaylas: an Andean district in search
of progress. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.
 EISENSTADT, S. N . 1956. Ritualized personal relations. Man
56, 96.
ERASMUS, C. J. 1950. Current theories on incest prohibition
in the light of ceremonial kinship. Kroeber anthrop.
Soc. Pap. 2, 42-50.
FALS-BORDA, O. 1955. Peasant society in the Colombian
Andes: a sociological study of Saucio. Gainesville: Univ.
of Florida Press.
FEL, E. & T. HOFER 1969. Proper peasants: traditional life
in a Hungarian village (Viking F d Puibl. Anthrop. 46).
Chicago: Aldine.
FOSTER, G. M. 1953. Cofradia and compadrazgo in Spain
and Spanish Amerida. SWest. J. Anthrop. 9, 1-28.
1956. Preface t o ' A survey of Italian godparenthood'
by G. Anderson. Kroeber anthrop. Soc. Pap. 15, 1-110.
1960. Culture and conquest: Ajmerica's Spanish heritage
(Viking Fd Publ. Anthrop. 27). Chicago: Quadrangle
Books.
1961. T h e dyadic contract: a model for the social
structure of a Mexican peasant village. Am. Anthrop.
63, 1173-92.
1963. T h e dyadic contract in Tzintzuntzan, 2: Patron-
clienit relationship. Am. Anthrop. 65,1280-94.
1967. Tzintzuntzan: Mexican peasants in a changing
world. Boston: little, Brown & Co.
1969. Godparents and social networks in Tzintzuntzan.
SWest. J. Anthrop. 25, 261-78.
Fox, R. B. & F . LYNCH 1956. Area handbook on the
Philippines (Hum. Relat. Area Files 16). Chicago:
Univ. Press.
FRIEDL, E. 1965. Vasilika: a village in modern Greece. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
GILLIN, J. 1947. Moche: a Peruvian coastal community
(Publ. Inst, social Anthrop. Smithson. Instn, 3).
Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
1951. The culture of security in San Carlos (Publ.
Middle Am. Res. Inst. 16). New Orleans: Tulane Univ.
Press.
GRIMES, J. E. & T. B. HINTON 1969. T h e Huichol and Cora.
In Handbook of Middle American Indians 8 (ed.)
R. Wauchope. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
GUITERAS HOLMES, C. 1952. Social organization. In Heritage
of conquest (ed.) S. Tax. Glencoe: Free Press.
HALPERN, J. M. 1967. A Serbian village (2nd edn). New York:
Harper & Row.
HAMMEL, E. A. 1968. Alternative social structures and ritual
relations in the Balkans. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall.
HARRIS, M. 1965. Town and country in Brazil. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press.
HART, D . V. 1971. T h e godparenthood complex: ritual kin-
ship in Latin America a n d the Philippines. Manuscript.
HEFELE, C. J. 1896. A history of the Councils of the Church,
from the original documents 5 (trans ed.) W. R. Clark.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
HOLLNSTEINER, M. R. 1963. The dynamics of power in a
Philippine municipality. Quezon City: Community
Development Research Council (Univ. of the
Philippines).
INGHAM, J. M. 1970. T h e asymmetrical implications of god-
parenthood in Tlayacapan, Morclos, Man (N.S.) 5, 281-9.
KEARNEY, R. J. 1925. Sponsors at baptism according to the
Code of Canon Law (Canon Law Stud. 30). Washing-
ton: Catholic Univ. of America.
LAUGHLIN, R. M. 1969. T h e Tzotzil. In Handbook of Middle
American Indians 7 (ed.) R. Wauchope. Austin: Univ.
of Texas Press.
LEACH, E. R. 1961. Rethinking anthropology. London: The
Athlone Press.
1967. Virgin birth. Proc. R. anthrop. Inst. 1966, 39-49.
(ed.) 1968. Dialetic in practical religion (Camb. Pap.
social Anthrop. 4). Cambridge: Univ. Press.
1970. Levi-Strauss. London: Fontana.
LEVI-STRAUSS C. 1963. Structural anthropology. New York:
Basic Books.
1966. The culinary triangle. Partisan Rev. 3, 586-95.
LEWIS, O. 1951. Life in a Mexican village: Tepoztldn re-
studied. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
MADSEN, W. 1960. The virgin's children: life in an Aztec
village today. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
MINTZ, S. W. & E. R. W O L F 1950. An analysis of ritual co-
parenthood (compadrazgo). SWest. J. Anthrop. 6,
341-68.
71
OSBORN, A. 1968. Compadrazgo and patronage: a Colombian
case. Man (N.S.) 3, 593-608.
PADILLA SEDA, E. 1956. Nocora: the subculture of workers
on a government-owned sugar plantation. In The people
of Puerto Rico: a study in social anthropology (ed.)
J. H. Steward. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
PARSONS, E. C. 1936. Mitla: town of the souls. Chicago:
Univ. Press.
PAUL, B. D. 1942. Ritual kinship: with special reference to
godparenthood in Middle America. Thesis, University
of Chicago.
PETROVITS, J. 1919. The new church law on matrimony
(Canon Law Stud. 6). Philadelphia: John Joseph McVey.
PIERSON, D. 1951 Cruz das Almas: a Brazilian village (Publ.
Inst, social Anthrop. Smithson. Instn 12). Washington:
Smithsonian Institution.
PITT-RIVERS, J. 1958. Ritual kinship in Spain. Trans. N.Y.
Acad. Sci, II, 20, 424-31.
1968. Kinship: pseudo-kinship. In International Encyclo-
pedia of the Social Sciences 8 (ed.) D . L. Sills. New
York: Macmillan.
RAVICZ, R. 1967. Compadrinazgo. In Handbook of Middle
American Indians 6 (ed.) R. Wauchope. Austin: Univ.
of Texas Press.
& A. K. ROMNEY 1969. The Mixtee. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians 7 (ed.) R. Wauchope. Austin:
Univ. of Texas Press.
REDFIELD, R. 1941. The folk culture of Yucatan. Chicago:
Univ. Press.
& A. VILLA ROJAS 1962. Chan Kom: a Maya village.
Chicago: Univ. Press.
REINA, R. E. 1966. The law of the saints: a Pokoman pueblo
and its community culture. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
RICHARDSON, J. 1970. San Pedro, Colombia: small, town in a
developing society. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
ROMNEY, K. & R. ROMNEY 1966. The Mixtecans of Juxtla-
huaca, Mexico (Six Cult. Ser. 4). New York: John
Wiley.
RYAN, W. F. 1963. The teaching of St Thomas in the
Summa concerning the baptismal character. Am. eccles.
Rev. 149, 361-85.
SIGMUND, P. E. 1968. Canon Law. In International Encyclo-
pedia of the Social Sciences 2 (ed.) D . L. Sills. New
York: Macmillan.
SPICER, E. H. 1940. Pascua: a Yaqui village in Arizona.
Chicago: Univ. Press.
1954. Potam: a Yaqui village in Sonora (Mem. Am.
anthrop. Ass. 77). Menasha: American Anthropological
Association.
STEIN, W. W. 1961. Hualcan: life in the highlands of Peru.
Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.
TAX, S. Penny Capitalism: a Guatemalan Indian community
(Publ. Inst, social Anthrop. Smithson. Instn 16).
Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
THOMAS AQUINAS, SAINT. 1947. Summa Theologica, 3 vols,
(trans.) Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
New York: Benziger Brothers.
TYLOR, E. B. 1861. Anahuac: or Mexico and the Mexicans,
ancient and modern. London: Longmans, Green, Reader,
& Dyer.
VILLA ROJAS, A. 1945. The Maya of East Central Quintana
Roo (Carnegie Institution Publication 559). Washing-
ton: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
VOGT, E. Z. 1969. Zinacantan: a Maya community in the
highlands of Chiapas. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
WAGLEY, C. 1949. The social and religious life of a Guate-
malan Village (American Anthropological Association
Memoir 71).
1953. Amazon Town: a study of man in the tropics.
New York: Macmillan.
WATERWORTH, J. REV., trans. 1898. The Canons and Decrees
of the Sacred and (Ecumenical Council of Trent,
London: C. Dolmar.
WHITTEN, N. E. 1965. Class, kinship, and power in an
Ecuadorian town: the Negroes of San Lorenzo. Stan-
ford: University Press.
WILLEMS, E. 1963. On Portuguese family structure. In
Family and marriage (Int. Stud. Sociol. social anthrop.
1) (ed.) J. Mogey. Leiden: Brill.