AT THE BAPTISMAL FONT
Francisco B. Icasiano
There is a thin line between the short story and the essay which made both of them confusing to distinguish between the other one. As I have mentioned in my note about Pantoja’s Breaking Barriers, there had been confusion and even mistakes about whether a piece is a short story or an essay. An essayist wouldn’t know how to react if his essay would be regarded as one of the best short stories. He wouldn’t know if it was a compliment or not.
Icasiano’s At the Baptismal Font was more like a short story to me than an essay. Well, perhaps because it belonged to informal essays, that was why. But the ‘essay’ had a story within it and instead of focusing on the idea within a given story, like some essays do, it focused on the story itself until it ended. There was no formal introduction, and a conclusion at the end. It seemed that it was left for the readers to decide which is a characteristic of a short story. A short story does not display all the details – does not display what he wanted to say – instead the writer puts ‘hints’ leading to the conclusion he wanted the readers to have and At the Baptismal Font went that way as to how I have read it. So, there is still the confusion in the distinction between the short story and the essay.
But as I have read the essay (or the story, whatever), I found it funny, in a way though I can’t really relate to its humor because I am a contemporary reader and this was still written during the Pre-War period, 1941 to be exact. As a 21st century reader, you would see corny stuff going on here but I understood that this was written a long time ago and the reader’s humor might have been like that. Just like their use of the English language and the worldview, there humor was naïve still.
I found the events in the story weird, and wondered if it really happened a long time ago – the priest would insist on a saint’s name and would have a fight with the parents of the child. I wonder if there were similar cases during Icasiano’s time.
I also found strange stuff that the priest had been doing with the child and realized they are not being done in the baptismal that Catholic have now.
The priest fed him a pinch of table-salt…The priest applied his saliva and holy ointment on various parts of the child’s anatomy…
Since the essay looks like a short story, I really do not know if I should believe it. I mean, I wonder if such things are being done during Icasiano’s time. And with an essay this story-like, it’s hard to conclude whether it’s true or not.
Icasiano’s At the Baptismal Font was more like a short story to me than an essay. Well, perhaps because it belonged to informal essays, that was why. But the ‘essay’ had a story within it and instead of focusing on the idea within a given story, like some essays do, it focused on the story itself until it ended. There was no formal introduction, and a conclusion at the end. It seemed that it was left for the readers to decide which is a characteristic of a short story. A short story does not display all the details – does not display what he wanted to say – instead the writer puts ‘hints’ leading to the conclusion he wanted the readers to have and At the Baptismal Font went that way as to how I have read it. So, there is still the confusion in the distinction between the short story and the essay.
But as I have read the essay (or the story, whatever), I found it funny, in a way though I can’t really relate to its humor because I am a contemporary reader and this was still written during the Pre-War period, 1941 to be exact. As a 21st century reader, you would see corny stuff going on here but I understood that this was written a long time ago and the reader’s humor might have been like that. Just like their use of the English language and the worldview, there humor was naïve still.
I found the events in the story weird, and wondered if it really happened a long time ago – the priest would insist on a saint’s name and would have a fight with the parents of the child. I wonder if there were similar cases during Icasiano’s time.
I also found strange stuff that the priest had been doing with the child and realized they are not being done in the baptismal that Catholic have now.
The priest fed him a pinch of table-salt…The priest applied his saliva and holy ointment on various parts of the child’s anatomy…
Since the essay looks like a short story, I really do not know if I should believe it. I mean, I wonder if such things are being done during Icasiano’s time. And with an essay this story-like, it’s hard to conclude whether it’s true or not.
Paradox
My dear, my dear, canst thou resolve for me
This paradox of love concerning thee:
Mine eyes, when opened, with thy beauty fill –
But when they’re closed they see thee better still!
The moment I had read the poem, I then knew it was a love poem, since it was talking about the love of, perhaps, a man for a woman. When reading the poem, I imagined an image of a young man and a young woman, the former courting the latter. Of course when a young lad courts he would use flowery words to entice the lady he was courting whether what he was saying is the truth or not. Here in the poem, the speaker is trying to make the lady understand this paradox of love he has for the girl. According to him, when he opens his eyes, he could see the beauty the lady possess – her physical beauty.
But when he closes his eyes, according to him, he could see her better still. “Seeing her” without his eyes open could mean he would know what kind of person the girl he was courting without using his eyes. He would know her character, her attitudes, and such like things, again without using his eyes. Perhaps this young lad wanted to say to the young lady that it’s not only her beauty that he is after. He’s interested in knowing her more, especially knowing her from the inside – her sentiments, her attitudes, etc.
It was the paradox the young lad was trying to understand. Without using his physical senses, he would know the young lady better than just looking at her.
This paradox of love concerning thee:
Mine eyes, when opened, with thy beauty fill –
But when they’re closed they see thee better still!
The moment I had read the poem, I then knew it was a love poem, since it was talking about the love of, perhaps, a man for a woman. When reading the poem, I imagined an image of a young man and a young woman, the former courting the latter. Of course when a young lad courts he would use flowery words to entice the lady he was courting whether what he was saying is the truth or not. Here in the poem, the speaker is trying to make the lady understand this paradox of love he has for the girl. According to him, when he opens his eyes, he could see the beauty the lady possess – her physical beauty.
But when he closes his eyes, according to him, he could see her better still. “Seeing her” without his eyes open could mean he would know what kind of person the girl he was courting without using his eyes. He would know her character, her attitudes, and such like things, again without using his eyes. Perhaps this young lad wanted to say to the young lady that it’s not only her beauty that he is after. He’s interested in knowing her more, especially knowing her from the inside – her sentiments, her attitudes, etc.
It was the paradox the young lad was trying to understand. Without using his physical senses, he would know the young lady better than just looking at her.
