Part Two ‘Thoughts ever winging dack to hie far lend The pattern of their plight formed ix hu head ‘And on each page, he poured the iter truth ‘That tyrenny'be laughed out of thve strands Where countless vicina bore thir aha ¢ or Had ‘Thi tae @ great Cervante, to, foraoth ‘The poges brated and accused each shone, Blot on religion and the couse of man: ‘he good men érinen f0.0 hfe of crime, ‘The couse of thir fall ll writ tn flame ‘SauvanoR P. Lapaz MARIA CLARA — PARAGON OR CARICATURE? Tere ts no more sigatticant faquiry that can be sc into the ‘terary wort of Jose Rizal than his coneplion ff He character of Maria Clara, No otter charast'c in Philippine literature has had a more pervasive inrTuence ‘on th thought life ofthe Pilipino people than this foros heroine of Ral Filipino womanhood ia even now at the crosste modernity and conservatinm, slightly bewildere, Inoving exactly which way to turn. Laret on Ihand by the attractions of she new emancipation on the other hand at yet too stenngly attach to 8 ing ideal of Filipino yomanheod to brush aside ditional conception ‘of her sex swhich sho ‘msbibe her mother's milk, For decades since Mavia Clara was created by te sgentus of the great patriot, we have heard the mame of this heroine apoken now in reverent whispers, nos io truth of romantic idealism. She has been cslbrit tong and oratory as the parago: of Fllpino womanhood. Whenever it seemed that the modern Fuipino gir) wns becoming too vital, to progressive or too darine, p Pets of exeeration and doom were not lacking © tp the figure of Maria Clarn mew and to whizpe> © r name ag If Jt were an incantation to drive stay 20 « spirit Preven o7 Cavizatere / 3‘That was the accepted interpretation of the character of Maria Clara, Bveryoae thought that Rizal intended to eet her up as an Ideal for the women of his country, the noblest blcstom of Filipino womankood, Was she rot the fianece of the hero of the novel in which he tried to bare the soul of his people through the auffer- ings of his own soul? Did not even this nero himself seem to be moulded upon Rizal's own personality, the author weaving into this hero's thoughta, pains and fbu- Jationa, the deep notes of his own anguish? Did he not ‘imbue Marin Clara with loyalty and modesty, which are the two cardinal virtues of our women? There seemed to be no escape from the only comet sion to which the answers logically led. Tt was ev'dent, sovording to this view, thae Rizal had dntended ‘daria Clara to be @ model Filipino woman — loyal to the point of slfleasness, modest to the point of weakness, So aid the legend become firmly imbedded in the Pilip:no mind =~ of Mavia Clara against whose aasinaed perfection all the wea'noss of present-day women are fo be measured, whose virtues are a mirror whereon ‘thor women might look at thelr own reflection and blush in shame. Let us try to subject {ais legend to closer exis tion, “We shall not tear away the canvas from the veall of memory where Rizal hung it for the contenplation of posterity. We shall only take it down with reverent lands 0 that at the close range we may judge whether the portealt was drawn by a loving or by a satirical hand. Let us consider the original inepiration of Maria Clara. Rizal makes her the daughter of a Spanish priest, thus placing a double handicap upon her as a would-be ‘model Filipino woman, For that automaticaly mekes her ‘8 mestiza and an illegitimate child, It is true that he ‘ives her the virtues of modesty and loyalty. ut in an ‘ge which compelled a woman to remain in the bas ‘eround, these quality v ere not virtues born of Interior #2) Lopes strength, Aud while Rizal surrounds *he figure of Clare with the aura of romanticiom (as in her love with Cristom Ibarra), he also places her in qu able situations with another priest, Allin all, the acter of Marla Clara i far too weak to. jnstf igeing held up as a model for the women of cur ct Her loyalty ic the lova'ty of the varquishot in her modesty the modesty of the tim. ‘To insist that Rizal moant to put up a voman of type as an ideal for future generations of Fitiping won torimitata, i to place a miserable estimate ua the photic insight of Rizal. Sucely, the man who wrote “1 Philippines a Cenlury Tenes" and "The Indutence Filipino” could not have made the mistaks of putt as ca ideal a type of womanhood that the Lventet tury was certain to outmode, Rival knew that th cantury was going to be a century of unprovolentes pr gress ia all lies of human endeavor. He knew th few age woule witness the emergence of new \ enjoying privileges and responsibilities of waich she was not even aware, Having lived for many ys ‘Burope and hsviug visited Ameriea shortly Letore th of the ventury, he could not have misnet the clear po. ff the new womarhood that was soon to ave. It fa dictiult to believe that, with thie bockseon Rlaal could ever have fallen into the erro! of set 4 fecbie and invertebrate woman as the model fo ‘women of his country. He wanted his eountrymen robust and powerful in spirit; fo could mot have his countrymen to become exactly the opnosite farsous letter to the women of Maloloa shows cleats ¢) nis conception of Filipino. womanhood wae enlighls ne and that while he deplored none of their old viet insisted that new and more vite! qualities be adds hone. We ace left with the surmise that Rizal mos luahly intended the character of Maria Clara not Paragon oF C1obsclete melodramatic, meacning, and fatuous and finds her fragility mousy, her nobility irritating, her virtue prig- wish T mest confess that I am by temperament inlined to the second view. But an objective anaiya's of Maria Clara as Rizal wrote her and not as elubwomen axd their vest szeakers on one hand, nor as the aggrasive icone- claets of the thirties, on the other, would have her, c2ems to indicate that a middle way would be more correct. ‘Maria Clara, ss all successful literary creations should bbe, was not all of plese. She was, certainly a good and beautiful wom, innocent, unselfish, and admicable in many respects, But she was alao—and quite indubitably Sail itl, coy, sentimental, and often rather foolish, ‘She was, as most people are, alther all good nor all bad. She was so sweet that everyone adored her, so utterly feminine that everyone wished to protect her. She stat stso strong in adversity. When the shameful rtory of her parentage was revealed to ler, she tock it upon herself to shield her veal father, her foster father, and her mo her's honor. *She staggers, but abe isn't crushed,” writer Nick Joazuin, *3'¢ stands up under the blow. She agrees to ‘marry in eald blood a man abe does not fove, even at the ak of inviting the contempt of the lover she's trying to ve. When ako learns that her lover is dead, ake defies even her real father; she will marry no one, she will enter fa nunnery.” We may disagree with her decisions, as in- deed many of us do, but we cannot rightly say that she rade them out of wealmess. After all, It does take cour fage to give up a lover, to decide loveless marciage, and afterwards to take she vel. Nevertheless, and at the same time, Maria Clora is insafforably soggy and affected. When lier sweetheart, 4st home from Europe, comes to eall on her, she rshes to the family oratory tad has to be dragged out, head hanging, to greet him. Whenever she hears any piece of bad news, she develops faintuess and tottars off to her 85 / Nott bedrooms. She archly pretends to be unworthy of Ibarva attentions, She appears to be inarticulate end humo 1 pricales coinis cheracter like Dofia Vietorina does x draw the faintest smile oF the palest remark. from One las only to compare her with Stang, her cloc friend, who is direct, outspoken, and alive to the sicx ficane and the Humor of every situation, to resize oo dull and eoosTess Marin Clara’ company mit have ‘ut; worst of a abe fails to respond to the patriotic» of {he hoor; at the crusial moment, she does not cioos ‘the side of the flibustero, the reformer, the patriot, but ts side of the fricr and the peninndar.” She gives her all to have two completely unworthy men: Fray Dameso, th seduce, and Capitan Tiayo, the cringing, servile colonia. Hoow did this commonplace heroine, whase virtves singularly stereotyped and whese tragedies are ascribab! nly to fate, ever become apotheosized into the ideal o Fillp'no womanhood? We owe it to the histories! ‘camatances of Rizal's martyrdom and to the subs. ‘erotion, more passionate than discerning, to his liv treations, Had Rizal act become the mation her: heroine would have remained merely one more cher in our litle-rend Spaniah literature, to be encounters | ‘chance in the romani labyrinths of an oli-fashione: » vel, to be dissected perhaps by a few esoteric critic, but surely dismissed by n new generation of readers ‘We cannot realy blame Rizal, There is little ev that le tried to enshrine Marie Clare as the ides! or the typical Filipina. It is more probable that he ©» created a single individual character out of 2 wor Ins own life.” Perhaps Rieal tried to write out h frustration and 0 purge his own heartbreak fro™ unfortunate affair with Leonor Rivera, the wor” he erlled “ty only illusion.” We have reason that Leonor was the protolype for Maria Ciara; 0 snerifced her eweethexrt, although her motives pure and pressing than those the novelist attrbot ereatior, Rizal never did attempt to muko Yer: Moria Clareinto the Filipino woman, She was simply a woman he ‘nad loved. She was not even his own idral-—miny mer, after all give thelr hearta to women whom ther minds find inadequate. "We must go to the "Letter to the Young Women of Malolos” to know the measure of Ths women Rial really adinived. (a that letter he urged his young countrywomen 6 be bold, aggressive, indusriow, to get id of the inhibiting ties with religion and convention. ‘The Epistolario Rizalno, toc, contains ev'dence ofthe type of woman he believed his equntny needed, While in Ger- many, for example, he wrote his sister Maria te tell her of the ingenuity and the industry ofthe “ranling; he urged his sisters towards self-improvement, ant he was surely ‘heir inspiration when they joined the Katipunan and the Masonic Order, Rizal's own mother wat as dswimilar a2 possible from Maria Clara, and we know that he adored her. Doia Teodora was a dowa-toearth, esterprisng, i credibly brave woman with a recpect for the iatleet ard Intellectual accomplishment. She recognized, alihough it brought her pain, the value of hatred and rebelion. We can only imagine how different Rizal and our country ‘would have been if Rizsl had had a Maria Clara for mother, ‘Then, too, Rizal was perhaps merely following the Uterary conventions of the period: the literature of his time wer full of haunted, gentle, illstarred heroines Dickens, Dumas, Tolstoy, whom Rizal adsired, respected the fashion that ordained that hecoines mast be tre, good, sand beautiful—end also a little limp and void. Risats Maria Clara, perhaps, merely succumbed to the dictates of literary vogue. But we can blame the generation of Filipinos who after Rizal. Had they boon less sontimontal and more clear-headed about Maria Clara, things wuld have hen different. Tnstesd of seeing Maria Clara whole, in- stead of admiring the woman entire, they made the mis- take of idealizing her extornal trata. Instead of giving. their attention to her strength, her nobility, her inherent 88 / Nakpit stubbornness, they made a cult cut of her ex blind oosdience, for fainting and bleshing. Tau cr ‘women moved quickly from a studied toa habits! ice ‘murenets, nd the nation aon had many millions o° =ne ; einirking, dltion parodies cf Marie Clara, Maria Clara also influenced, and for the worse. our feminine standard of beauty. ‘She was a mestion and therefore, white, “perhaps too white” is Rizal's own phrase, Ligat of har, “almost blonde,” with huge eyes whic» ere “almost always east down” and a perfect nose, Rizal im self called her features "semi-Buropean,” and whe Us ‘circumstance vas clearly called for by th> novels yo! vot it was unfortunate for Filipino beaity. For, in povirs ing bis heroine in this guise, Riual eet up, unveittisly, one Wes to think, a standard of feminine beauty that vas ‘untypical ana ‘unreal, By trying to look Hike Maria Clara, Filipino voon hove lst the warm naturalness of their Asian personsity ‘Breause Maria Clara was fair, they have hidden thoir gold cen skin under rice powder, and, lataly, makeup: because Mario. Clara’ hair was curly, thes tivated thel= hair with ‘urling irons, ribbens, and chemicals and succeeded only in {rising It; because Meria. Clava’e eyes were round end Teng-lashed, their own Oriente] almond eyes fell into dis. repute, end because Riral called Meriz Clora’s 1i--pean rose “the cosreet proule,” everything else becsiys oor ect and therefore deplorable, Becaure Mara Civa's ‘mouth was small ana dimpled, thousands of Filipinas have gone through life compressing their gcnerous an lips Inte prim and ridiculous ruesbuds, We have all oer this Kind of mimicry in olé family albums—our mothers and ‘grandmothers, powdered, frizved, and over dressed, gazing {foolishly at a paper mcon and, when we come to fink of if looking painfully out of character. The cull of Moria Clara has contributed to the deve- lopment of many disagreeable traits and attitudes in the Filipino woman. One may cite a dichard refineren’ and of the comme ii fault, such as ostentatious costumes and Maria Clare / “89Jowolry, the duenna, the avoidance of industry or anything. that might possibly be ealed work, the ealtivation of idl - nes and leisure, Another is the exaggerated emphasis on the maidenly ropreties, the coy Took, the half-emile, the dislike. to Appear too eager oF too forward, the excessive regard for appearance. Alec, its corollary: the prescribed rituals of ‘Victorian Courtship, with it. elaborate hypocrisy and for- rmality, What tribulations he been heaped on generations of Filipino auitora because Maria Clora never met Ibarra's eves directly Another and even more deplorable resuit is the Fii- pino women's fondness for sentimentality, forthe mawkish ‘and the banel. Conventions! Filipinas, more’s te pity, have a propensity for being stickysweet, for tears ani signs, az well <5 saccharine situations and expressions Maria Clara once more! But the most unfortrnate of all of Moria Clara'r lec was the masoschistic attitude. Because of Maria Clare millions of Filipinas learned to enjoy suffering and ‘humiliation. They took up their crosses and followed her to the apotheosis of romantic sanctification. They em Draced, with as many pretty tears 4s Rizn’s heroine, hard ships and tragedies which they could have, und shouki have, avoided; they gave up sweethearts and love mar- ages; they auffered in allence and renounced all unas: like pleasures, ‘They denied themselves eyery Kind of joy, ‘wallowed in slt-pity, gorged themselves on their delicous miseries. And in s0 doing taade everyone around then: miserable: we all know how hard it is to Live with « ‘woman who is bent on immolating herself, Sel-sacifice can be the eruelest form of tyranny. It Is this clement of guilt and disaster in the attitude of Filipino women that we must lament most. It is 30 ‘well rooted in our moree that the average Filiping =~ though she may not have read through Rizal's aovels — (0) Nek thas a compulsive sense of sin and doom, of sadness and shame. he feele obliged t0 ese terror in the delights «: ‘ove #mdser, and to offset this, as Moria Clore did, b kind cf frantic play. I risk the dangers of simplification wilingly when 1 say that all thi came about because Mariv Clara — Iterary ereation wo has become a “olicfigure” — had a priest for a father, an adulteress for a mothor, and ‘radical for a sweetheart and because, caught in the meshes of a patriotovelist’s plot, she made a talent for unhap ness her greatest virtus. Pertontio BX, DaRoy CRISOSTOMO IBARRA Tw the wot, ne i of the astro; middle-class in seis Status and in moral outlook, but distingiahed by ha ec cation, is Knowledge of books and ideas and his ibera lam. “He doea not have enough sense of himor and when Us father's memory is inated at Capita Tarw's bi duet, he resorts to violas. ‘The action of Crsoston Tara is definitive of his pertoral code, of an scutes af family honor An a matter of fact is Interest in hating # schooloae is motivated nol s0 rich by concern any hin desire to perptiste the naise of father, There {something im him of the oligarch: e. ‘when he lone with his swesthart, he tll of his a Els pene of responsi Ia only indiectly social: fo toot in bis ands the ides of clan. Hl i even capahic ot abusing iterate workers If they cannot shes him t irave of hin father, Crivestome Hnera 1slorification of tie women of his time but rather as a satire upon their Zoibles and weaknesses, To point out that her figure is touched with the sublimity of the author's conception, is merely to aay that Rizal succeeded fas an artist in cresting 1 character that is fundamentally ‘unsound without being contetaptible, that is weak and yet appealing. ‘The character of Maria Clara inspires not scorn but sympatly born of uncerstanding. We realize iat Rizal probably intended to ure the type of womanlinod she re- presented for a definite purpose, even as Cervantes used ‘the character of Don Quiznte to laigh the romantic knight out of court forever. ‘Maria Clara was the forerunner in fiction of that ‘woman who, in 1896, betrayed the secret of the Kstipy- nan to the priest of Tondo, Yeu find in her the same feebleness, the same helplessness, the .ame fear -— none of the qualities that were possessed by Princess Urduja of ancient Pangasinan or by Tandang Sora of the Re- volution or by Teodora Alonso, Rizal's own brave and gallant mother. Other times, other heroes and heroines. In the regime ‘upon which this nation has but recently entered, we shall need a type of Filipino woman as unlike that of Matia Clara as possible — energetic, enterprising, progressive and with a mind of her own, sk Leper CARMEN GuenEnoNARPT MARIA CLARA Tia grestat miniortane that has befalen Fil men in the last ene hundred years is Mario Cus 1 roan this in a very real sense for, in trying t9 to ‘the pattera set by Rizal beautiful heroine, 1 f Filipinas became something other than their real ‘They forced their persons into the narrow 2.0\' of Moria Clara's maidenly charms and became effete nd ex- ‘ecedingly genteel caricatures. They affected modesty to fan absurd degree and became martyrs to duty an ial love, They tried to disguise their native inivstry and enetgy sith puton airs of languidity. fund becois« Ma ria Clara was ill so often, and s0 elaborate} nd tragic, it oecame vulgar to be healthy and aly un Filipina to be happy. It ig this melancholy transformation of Morse Clare ‘from paragon to parody that I want to trace brietly here, ‘To begin with, let me say that I believe there are two yopular interpret ‘ions of Maria Clara. One, whieh found favor during the first three decades after the Voli conceived uf her a8 z compendium cf all possible fer nine virtues, beautiful, demure, tender, docile, pure © ‘8 woman siould be. hing, ‘The other, of more recent origin was ar the first, As a result of a “revolution of taste Moria Clara with jaundiced eye indeed, Tt cally her ion to Marie Clers /