To what degree Filipino riddles are indigenous and original is an interesting but difficult question. So far as they are of European origin or influenced by European thought, they have come from or been influenced by Spain. Whatever comparison is made should chiefly, and primarily, be with Spanish riddles. But our available sources of information regarding Spanish riddles are not numerous. We have only Demofilo's Collecion de enigmas y adivinanzas, printed at Seville in 1880, and a series of five chap-books from Mexico, entitled Del Pegueño Adivinadorcito, and containing a total of three hundred and seven riddles. Filipino riddles deal largely with animals, plants and objects of local character; such must have been made in the Islands even if influenced by Spanish models and ideas. Some depend upon purely local customs and conditions—thus numbers [170], [237], etc., could only originate locally. Some, to which the answers are such words as egg, needle and thread, etc., (answers Page 8common to riddles in all European lands), may be due to outside influence and may still have some local or native touch or flavor, in their metaphors; thus No. [102] is actually our “Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;” the Mexican form runs:

“Una arquita muy chiquita
tan blanca como la cal
todo lo saben abrir
pero ninguno cerrar.”

But the metaphor “the King's limebox” could only occur in a district of betel-chewing and is a native touch. Many of the Filipino riddles introduce the names of saints and, to that degree, evidence foreign influence; but even in such cases there may be local coloring; thus, calling rain-drops falling “rods,” “St. Joseph's rods cannot be counted,” could hardly be found outside of the tropics. Religious riddles, relating to beads, bells, church, crucifixes, are common enough and are necessarily due to outside influence, but even such sometimes show a non-European attitude of mind, metaphorical expression or form of thought.

Everywhere riddles vary in quality and value. Many are stupid things, crudely conceived and badly expressed. Only the exceptional is fine. Examine any page of one of our own riddle books Page 9and you may criticize almost every riddle upon it for view-point, or form, or flavor. We must not demand more from Filipino riddles than from our own. Some knowledge of local products, customs, conditions, is necessary for the understanding of their meaning; when understood, they are fully equal to ours in shrewdness, wit and expression. Krauss emphasizes the fact that everywhere riddles tend to coarseness and even to obscenity and discusses the reasons. What is true elsewhere is true here; a considerable number of Filipino riddles are coarse; we have introduced them but emphasize the fact that any scientifically formed collection of German or English riddles would contain some quite as bad.

Probably few of our readers have considered the taxonomy of riddles. Friedreich offers a loose and unscientific classification as follows:

Page 10

Several of these forms occur in our collection.

More scientific than Friedreich's work is Petsch's Studien über das Volksrätsel. His analysis and dissection of riddle forms best enable us to test the indigenous content of our Filipino riddles. He recognizes two fundamental riddle types. He says: “Two groups of riddles have long been distinguished in the collections, the true rhymed riddles and the short ‘catch-questions’ expressed in prose. The difference is not only in form but in content. ‘True riddles’ have as purpose the describing of an object in veiled, thought-arousing, perhaps misleading, poetical clothing, which, from this presentation of its appearance, its source, its utility, etc., shall be recognized by the intelligence, i.e., can and shall be guessed. ‘Catch-questions,’ on the contrary, are not to be guessed, the questioner intending himself to give the solution; at their best they are intended to trick the hearer, and since their solution is impossible to the uninitiated are not ‘true riddles’ but false ones. Since I propose to divide the total riddle material of each single nation between these Page 11two great chief groups, may I not somewhat extend the scope of the latter, including some things which are rejected from most collections as having little to do with actual riddles—those questions which are generally insoluble and such tests of wisdom as appeal not to wit and understanding, but to knowledge—which are certainly not true riddles. Thus, in the group here characterized as ‘false’ different classes of things are brought together, the characteristics of which I shall investigate later.” It would be interesting to quote the author's discussion further. We can, however, only state that he recognizes three classes of “false riddles,” to which he gives the names “wisdom tests,” “life-ransoming riddles,” and “catch-questions.”

Of “true riddles” there is a vast variety of form and content. Most typical is the descriptive riddle of a single object to be guessed. In its complete and normal form Petsch claims that such a riddle consists of five elements or parts. 1 Introduction; 2 denominative; 3 descriptive; 4 restraint or contrast; 5 conclusion. 1 and 5 are merely formal, trimmings; 2 and 3 are inherent and essential; 4 is common and adds vigor and interest. Such complete and “normal” Page 12riddles are rare in any language. Usually one or more of the five elements are lacking. It is only by such an analysis of riddle forms that a comparative study of riddles can be made. Any single riddle is best understood, by the constant holding before the mind this pattern framework and noting the degree of development of the case in hand.