Abstract

The author interprets Lopez's work as a case of mythologizing a historical figure for the Filipino masses. It is therefore a proletarian myth in contrast to bourgeois myths which Roland Barthes talks about. Myth indeed is a language - a metalanguage - and Lopez made use of it to express the theme of emulation and the responsibility of the proletarian man through traits that endure in the Filipino psyche: his loob (inner self), budhi (conscience), hiya (shame), and sense of responsibility. The author agrees with Barthes that history and myth do not mix. Where a piece of work does not portray historical facts faithfully it should not be taken as a historical document but - in the context of Lopez's awit - as a piece of literary work that must be enjoyed.