Deciphering and Decolonizing the Spanish Transpacific

A Prohibition Against the Presentation of Comedias,Saraos, and Dances Without Previous Authorization from the Church (1701)¹

By Jeraiah Gray and Mariela Mancia Pineda

Introduction to the Document

In 1701, the Archbishop of Manila, Diego Camacho y Ávila, prohibits comedias , coloquios, ² entremeses, ³ saraos⁴, and "danzas de dalagas" ⁵ staged by bands of women above the age of ten. The prohibition is to be applied all throughout the colonial capital and archbishopric of Manila as well as in the far-flung religious province of Nueva Segovia to the north of the Philippines. There is scant detail on the content of these performances and the document paints them in general terms as diabolical arts "that teach revenge, duels, frivolities, and the practice of illicit means and manners and dishonesties to offend the majesty of God." ⁶ Citing the context of political and economic hardship in Spain, ⁷ the document portrays 'sins' of this nature as catalysts for the divine punishments of "azotes de pestes, guerras, hambres, y la falta de sucesión a la Real Corona en nuestro Católico Monarca". ⁸ The range of punishments for the performers as well as for their apparently extensive supporters are substantial: lashings, mandatory servitude, time in the galleys, confiscation of property, and excommunication. In place of these productions, Camacho orders that no performance is to be held by women, whether married or unmarried (dalaga). Only themes that encourage obedience and piousness, such as the lives of saints, can be explored. Furthermore, the presentations will no longer be held at night and must first be screened by the provincial vicar before they are shown to the public.

Doctor Don Diego Camacho y Ávila (1652-1712) was appointed as Archbishop of Manila in 1695 and was in the position until 1704. He arrived in Manila in 1697, with the ability to exact any law and aspirations of solidifying the teaching of canon religious texts. ⁹ It is important to note that the title of Doctor during this period does not only refer to those practicing medicine, but any individual who, upon completion of an examination, can teach a science such as theology, the canons, law, or medicine. ¹⁰

The original document, “Auto prohibiendo que presenten comedias, saraos y danzas sin autorización previa del vicario provincial”, ¹¹ offers valuable glimpses into the use of theater as a Hispanic pedagogy of subjugation. On one hand, women were 'tamed' in the public eye according to perceptions of acceptable Catholic performativity. In current histories of early Philippine theater—of lowland, Christianizedtheater—there is a striking absence of women. The foundational 1909 work of Wenceslao Retana, Noticias Histórico-Bibliográficas de El Teatro en Filipinas desde sus orígenes hasta 1898, and Doreen Fernandez' 1981 analysis cite multiple cases of boys and young men—and no females—staging religious performances under the purview of the Jesuits in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries. ¹² Yet women took central roles in indigenous ritual performances within and around Manila. The Tagalog ¹³ shamans called katulunanor catalonanwere typically women from prominent families who oversaw private and public rituals surrounding birth, marriage, sickness, and death. ¹⁴ A ritual surrounding a girl's first menstruation concluded with "two days and nights of exclusively female company and singing". ¹⁵ Rather than random "escuadrones de mujeres", it is possible that the 1701 document in fact refers to bands of priestesses. From 1565 to 1650, ¹⁶ Church strategy was to convert them into pious women who could be educated as Catholics in beaterios. ¹⁷ Even as late as 1686, a group was found guilty of performing a mag-anito ceremony in a cave in Laguna by the Archdiocese of Manila. ¹⁸ The prohibition, then, may be interpreted as part of a wider campaign to disempower women of their public spiritual functions under indigenous belief systems.

On another critical note, the document speaks of the minimization of indigenous performances, religious or otherwise, in places that the Catholic church could reach. The Philippine komedya,for instance, is often cited as an indigenization of the Spanishcomediafrom the sixteenth century onwards. ¹⁹ As detailed in the article “The Philippine Komedya: History, Indigenization, Revitalization” by Nicanor G. Tiongson, the Philippine komedya is said to be a “descendant” of the sixteenth century Spanish comedia from playwright Lope de Vega, from which the komedya “inherited” different subject matter, drawing inspirations from contemporary events (comedia de capa y espada), the lives of saints (comedia de santo), or stories of faraway kingdoms (comedia a fantasia). ²⁰ In the seventeenth century, as Spain sought to establish its presence throughout the Philippines, the comedia de santo was used as a tool to Christianize the natives and it became the most typical form of comedias performed. In the eighteenth century, secular komedyas about the “lives and loves of European royalty and their battles with the Moros of the Middle East” began to appear. In the nineteenth century, as Manila was opened to world trade, komedyas became the most popular play in theaters for two reasons: (1) a demand for entertainment and (2) because as many landlords became wealthy from agricultural exports, they began funding town projects. For years, the komedyas were one of the safe forms of expression, while they were censored by colonial authorities. In the twentieth century, this began to change as censorship ended and critics called for komedyas to depict real-life events as well. In the second half of the twentieth century, komedyas began to lose their traditional sponsors and therefore be abandoned in certain regions; at the same time, there were influences of komedyas in media and vice versa. Today, “the komedya seems to survive only in a few towns” and, with the rise of nationalism in the 1970s, “a new appreciation of indigenous culture and the desire among many cultural workers to make the komedya a part of the national theatre of the country.” ²¹ The Philippine komedya has undergone many transformations, but in scholarly literature it does not question its Spaniard origin.

Yet this document reveals there were multiple and distinguishable forms of native performances which were not of Spanish origin yet were potentially similar enough in structure to be named in the prohibition as comedias , coloquios, entremeses, and saraos. In ensuring that they had effectively prohibited all forms of women-led performances, the Archbishopric inadvertently differentiated early forms of indigenous theater. Perhaps Reynaldo Ileto's (1997) later reconstruction of the sinakulo or pasyon play as a vehicle for folk Christianity can be revisited for a much earlier time frame. Is it possible that the natives were adapting the comediato prior notions of performance with comparable formats? If so, what would this tell us about the emergent syncretism of indigenous and Catholic beliefs of the period? For now, it will suffice to say the document supports the view that the Philippine theatrical tradition has indigenous roots. Perhaps the "mimetic songs, dances, rituals, [...] tribal customs" ²² of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Filipinos were not as "far from the theater that Spaniards knew” as is currently assumed. ²³

• Transcription
• Translation