Disputatio:Biag ni Lam-ang

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A couple of queries[fontem recensere]

What's the real evidence for 1640? The English article sees problems with the date 1640 and seems to say, in truth, 1889/1890. The bilingual edition that I have myself (which I have added in the bibliography) says plainly that 1889 is the earliest known version.

I took out the category "Mythistoriae Philippinarum" because we use the term "mythistoriae" for novels, and novels are really very different from traditional epic poems. But I added a category for Ilocano literature, which this certainly is.

One other query: what's the source for the Latin name Lamhan -is?

It's very good to have this article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:54, 26 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I am gathering authoritive sources for your queries. Please keep in mind however that Pedro Bucaneg , the guy who wrote it down, lived in the 16th century and by that time it was already old, eg it should be considered an epic. I can't find the latin source for Lamhan.Perhaps it should be removed. I'm still looking though. The 'catholic' elements are obviously added elements to the original.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:16, 1 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep that in mind. Pedro Bucaneg's biography seems a bit legendary, and I can't see what the evidence is that he wrote this poem down. I mean, was the text printed in his time? It seems not. So is there, or was there ever, a manuscript from his time? No one seems to say so. I know about various other epics, so none of this is surprising to me. Many of them are surrounded by similar legends.
Biag ni Lam-ang as edited by Jovita Ventura Castro (1983) -- I have it at home -- has a good introduction which lists the various versions that were used to compose the current text: the 1889 edition (based on oral collection at that time) and the other three oral collected versions of 1906, 1926 and 1927. The 1906 one survives as a manuscript in an archive, the 1926 and 1927 ones were used for the 1935 published edition but do not now survive separately. An even later version was collected in 1947 and was published. All that makes perfect sense and corresponds with other sources. There is no mention of Pedro Bucaneg or of any version written down in the 16th century.
Of course there's no doubt at all that it is an old traditional epic which could well go back to the 16th century or before. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:35, 1 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

You have one at home?!!! I'm impressed!! It seems that Bucaneg is legendary and that it was fairly recent. I feel that epics tend to be at least a few hundred years old with different regions and localities having slightly different versions agreeing only on the main points. The versions only get standardized when somebody writes them down. Since this is an encyclopedia, I guess the recent sources would be more authoritive. If Bucaneg is unreliable then so be it, let the info and source be removed as appropriate.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:08, 2 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)


I am adding ' (the narrative) is associated with Pedro Bucaneg but that he is the author wrote about Lam-ang is uncertain.'.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:50, 5 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)