Rizal and the Revolution

Galicano Apacible – Rizal’s cousin and fellow-expatriate

- Rizal was not a separatist and he was a lover of Spain – he has doubts in here because he saw that
Rizal was truly a nationalist Filipino in his acts and opinions.
- But when they were in Spain, he found him complete separatist
- Rizal thought that Philippines could not expect anything good under Spanish rule and that only
after separation from Spain could we achieve social, civil and political aspirations

Jose Alejandrino – Rizal’s roomate in Germany – finds it strange that some of his biographers have presented
Rizal as completely opposed to the revolution of 1896

- Katipuneros have venerated Rizal as the symbol and inspiration of the Revolution:
o Rizal’s name was the password
o Picture of Rizal was hung in every Katipunan meeting hall
o According to Emilio Jacinto, Meetings are adjourned with 3 cheers “Mabuhay Rizal!”
- This veneration continued beyond 1896
- In 1898, for the 2nd death anniversary of Rizal: (Aguinaldo-led Philippine Republic pamphlet)
o Martyr’s name: Jose Rizal – sent down by heaven to the land of Filipinas

Ricarte – one ilustrado revolutionary ; inspired to change the name of the country

- Rizaline Republic – citizens are called Rizalinos

Lantayug – proclaimed himself a reincarnation of Rizal

American colonizers first learned about Rizal from counter-revolutionaries:

- Pro-american Dr. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera

o Spanish mestizo medical doctor; sanskrit scholar and ethnohistorian ; one of the first
ilustrados who offered their services to the Americans as soon as the Spanish regime
collapsed.
o Provided the American’s first image of Rizal
o 15-page transcript of his interview with the Shurman Commission –
Tavera was asked about the true causes of the revolution 1896-1897 and what this man
Rizal did, what became of him and how he attained so much influence here in the
Philippines
o He provided a capsule biography of Rizal – included a disparagement of Bonifacio
 Rizal opposed the plan of starting a revolution by Bonifacio
 He said that we should devote ourselves to the improvement and education of
people and to look for reformation in peaceful ways
 Bonifacio, instead of telling the truth and advising peace, told people that Rizal
had advised the Revolution
 When the Revolution broke out, Rizal was court-martialed
o This version of Tavera has been reproduced down the line (from 1899 – contemporary
period)
- Infamous Wenceslao Retana
o Was as anti-Rizal; profriar journalist who had a change of heart after Spain’s defeat
o 1907 wrote the first documented full-length biogrpahy of Rizal –
Vida y Escritos del Dr. Rizal
o He fully explicated the now taken for granted interpretation that Rizal was an
antirevolutionary reformist and he was a loyal subject of Spain
o He provided documentary evidences (primary sources) for Rizal’s assimilationist
reformism
o Biographies also started the now standard reading of Rizal’s novels – Ibarra represents
Rizal and Elias is Bonifacio
o Charles Derbyshire – reiterated Retana’s assimilationist thesis –The Social Cancer
 This thesis was picked up by Austin Craig -2nd biographer of Rizal; an american
historian whose widely circulated biographies set the official American version of
Rizal as a peace-loving reformist
o Retana’s erroneous identification of Rizal with Ibarra –
 Rizal belied this interpretation twice
 La Solidaridad – he declared that he is neither rich, mestizo, orphan
 Convo with Jose Alejandrino – his hero was Elias not Ibarra
o Crisostomo Ibarra was an egoist and Elias was a noble character,
patriotic and self-denying
o He regret that he killed Elias instead of Ibarra
- They shared a common view of Rizal as multitalented, liberal and reformist intelectual who
opposed Bonifacio’s uprising and who is the most revered of all Filipino patriots

Schumacher – first professional historian to take note of the irony involved in the American colonial
appropriation of Rizal

- Post-colonial nationalist historiography has tended to see Rizal’s work as an American view

Zaide Versus Manuel : the Rizal Debate Begins

Dr. Gregorio Zaide – who asserted that Rizal supported the revolution in his essay “Was Rizal against the
Revolution?” (1931)

- His evidence is the memoir – May 27, 1914 of the founding member of Katipunan:
Dr. Pio Valenzuela – who was sent to Dapitan June 1896 by katipunan Supreme Council to consult
with Rizal and seek his advice about the planned Revolution
o He was also among the first batch of Katipuneros captured by Spanish military
o He quoted Rizal’s reaction after being briefed by the Katipunan’s plans:
 So the seed grows. I approve these resolutions and I suggest that they be
complied with as early as possible to take advantage of opportunity
- After obtaining document from Dr. J. P. Bantug – a Rizal scholar who married Rizal’s great
grandniece Asuncion Lopez , Zaide sought Valenzuela for an interview
- He obtained that Rizal was in favor of the revolution
- Rizal’s credo was a true revolution – a fight to the last, for freedom of the Philippines

E. Arsenio Manuel -1934 – After 3 years of Zaide’s article, a budding historian/anthropologist came out with
his critique of Zaide

- Refute’s Zaide’s evidences; claiming that his is from a primary source from Retana’s collection which
are all contradicting Pio Valenzuela’s memoir

1. Documents written by Rizal : December 12 1896 memorandum for his defense in his trial
for treason before Spanish Council of War
2. Final defense of Rizal’s lawyer D. Luis Taviel de Andrade : December 25 1896
3. Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s declarations, as a prisoner of war to Spanish: September 6 1896
4. Jose Dizon y Matanza’s testimony confirming Valenzuela’s : September 6 1896

- The definitive evidence only considered is the December 15 Manifesto written in prison

o Rizal wrote a manifesto to his people appealing to them to stop the necessary shedding of
blood and to achieve their liberties by means of education and industry.

- December 15 manifesto is consistent with his December 12 memorandum which makes a reference
to Valenzuela’s visit to Dapitan:

o I have always opposed to the rebellion not only on account of its absurdity but also
because I am hoping that spain will soon grant us freedom
- D. Luis Taviel de Andrade reiterates Rizal’s testimony December 25 1896
o Regarding the interview with Valenzuela, basta parang dine-deny talaga ni Rizal na
associated siya with the Katipunan/ Revolution
- According to Manuel, Valenzuela gave 2 declarations while in prison:
o September 6 1896 declaration:
 Valenzuela was commissioned to go to Dapitan by Bonifacio about the revolution
against Spain. Rizal opposed to it and became enraged. Bonifacio flew into a rage
on hearing teh news and called Rizal a coward and ordered the witness not to say
a word
o October 6 1896 prison interrogation:
 Valenzuela explained to Rizal the object of his visit, but as soon as the doctor
understood what he was saying, he exclaimed: “no no no a thousand times no”
citing a principle of philosophy
- Manuel also mentions a prison testimony of katipunero Jose Dizon September 23, 1896:
o Valenzuela collected money from wealthy Filipinos para magpa-consult kay Rizal sa
Dapitan. He took with him a blind man and a servant para i-treat ni Rizal. Nung bumalik si
Pio, sinabi niya na hindi payag si Rizal kaya nagplano ulit ng bago ang Katipunan. Plan:
They were to embark a number of fighting men as passengers on some steamer going to
Dapitan. They should overpower the crew and go toDapitan to steal away Rizal.
- These declarations by Valenzuela and Dizon contradict Valenzuela’s 1914 memoir
- Kaya dahil diyan naguluhan din si Manuel na yung mga memoirs ay nagpoproduce din ng errors
and dapat kino-consider siya as second-hand doc with special distrust
- But Manuel needs to be reminded that Valenzuela did make a current declaration – affirming his
prison declarations and reiterating rizal’s support for the revolution
- But Valenzuela admitted na natakot siya na baka yung prison testimony niya isa ma-harm si Rizal
and other Katipuneros kaya mejj di niya in-imply
- Zaide’s essay soon had been forgotten and reinforced Manuel’s devastating essay: “Rizal did not
favor and could not have favored the Philippine Revolution”

The anti-Rizalist position has two variants:

- Teodoro Agonicllo – softer weaker version

o In his reply to Bonifacio Gillego, he is undecided whether to call Rizal a reluctant
revolutionary, a revolutionary reformist or a reformist revolutionary
o Characterizes rizal as an idealist dreamer who insists on the impossible project of
educating Filipinos under Spanish rule
o Rizal never succeeded in reaching the masses because:
 He wrote in the language of teh master
 His ideas are too advanced
- Renato Constantino –stronger view
o Total repudiation of Rizal
o Shares premises of hagiographers like retana and craig:
 Rizal was a reformist and an assimilationist
 Rizal’s goal is the Hispanization of Filipinos
o Rizal is a bourgeios reformist, an assimilationist and counter-revolutionary
o He cannot be our national hero – betrays our mendicant colonial mentality
o Vivencio Jose – young member of Constantino Camp
 Ilustrado vs. masses theme
 Pitting Antonio Luna and Rizal
 Luna Transcended his ilustrado background and became committed to the
people’s struggle
 Rizal remained alienated from people
- The crucial evidence is what Rizal allegedly said in the last months of 1896 – December 15
Manifesto and Valenzuela’s prison testimony
- It is therefore crucial to examine the last months of Rizal
- We can resolve this debate by addressing 2 fundamental issues:
o The question of historiography
o The meaning of Rizal’s martyrdom
- Following Constantino’s argument, it would appear that Rizal betrayed the Revolution twice
o Demonstrating his loyalty to Spain when he volunteered to serve in the medical corps of
Spanish army during the Cuban Revolution
o Condemning the revolution

Pio Valenzuela’s Testimony

- They were aware of Valenzuela’s Sept 6 and Oct 6 1896 testimonies and his 1914 memoir which
are contradictory, they don’t seem to be aware of the third and last sworn testimony given by
Valenzuela before a civilian court in 1917 that supports his 1914 memoir
- Valenzuela gave a series of 5 testimonies from Sept 2-13 1896 and 2 more corroborating
testimonies October 6 and 7 1896.
- If he went to Dapitan and what was the purpose of their conference?
o October 6 1896 testimony: Valenzuela explained to Rizal the object of his visit, but as soon
as the doctor understood what he was saying, he exclaimed: “no no no a thousand times
no” citing a principle of philosophy
o Then nung umuwi siya, nagalit si Bonifacio and sinabi na wag sabihin kahit kanino yung
sinabi ni Rizal. Pero sinabi niya kay Emilio Jacinto and Captain Ramon of Pandacan. And
marami ang nalungkot
- The 2 post-prison testimonies of Valenzuela wherein Rizal affirms to support Revolution:
o May 27 1914 memoir (dr. Bantug request husband of Asuncion)
 Valenzuela clarifies 2 issues:
 Rizal’s 3-fold counsel to the Katipunan regarding Revolution
o Necessary arms must be assured before uprising
o If Katipunan is discovered, flee than fight
o If rich Filipinos refuse to support, they should be neutralized
 The Katipunan’s response – agreed with Rizal
o September 12 1917 sworn declarations as a witness for the defense of Vicente Sotto
 Libel case by Jose turiano Santiago kasi nag-publish si Sotto na na-expel daw si
Turiano dahil traydor siya sa Katipunan
 Dahil lawyer si sotto, nagconduct siya ng defense and witness si Valenzuela:
 Rizal said that katipuneros should kill before allowing themseleves to be
killed, but that they should take steps to render the prominent Filipinos
neutral and to attract Luna to their side until he could direct the
campaign.
- There are 3 subtexts in Valenzuela’s sworn testimony:
o The question of Santiago’s being a traitor
o The relevance of Rizal’s support for the revolution (libel case by Santiago to Sotto)
o The Fiscal’s interest in pursuing what technically appears to be a separate case
- Na-pressure lang ata si Valenzuela dun sa prison testimony niya
- Example of keeping one’s lips tight is Paciano. He was tortured and nearly died

The December 15 Manifesto

- Evidence of Constantino that Rizal Repudiated the Revolution

- This was written in December 10 1896
- The Spanish authorities did not read Rizal’s manifesto in the same way that Constantino has read
it.
- They were disappointed that Rizal did not profess loyalty to Spain

Rizal and the Revolution: Mi Ultimo Adios

- Dec 15 manifesto shouldn’t be considered as Rizal’s last words.

- Second stanza captures the intimate connectionthat rizal made between his martyrdom and the
Revolution: basta same pa rin naman daw yung pagka-martyr ng lahat basta para sa bayan
- English versions by Austin Coates and Nick Joaquin
- Bonifacio’s translation of Mi Ultimo Adios:
o 1st tagalog version
- Crucial lines from the poem clarify a double puzzle:
o Bakit di nagjoin si Rizal sa Revolution?
o Ano yung basis ng perception na siya raw yung Tagalog Christ?
 He gave a sketch of Agony of the Garden
 He left Kempis’s La Imitacion del Cristo to Joesphine
 He cried “Consumatum est”
- Mabini remembers rizal as joyful and calm because he would sacrifice his life
- God grant that they will know the only tribute worthy of his memory: imitation of his virtue
- Rizal became the inspiration of the Revolution

The Meaning of Josephine

- Josephine is a British citizen

- Josephine’s remarkable deportment after his execution
- Josephine will join the insurectos
- She is shouting “Miserables, crueles”
- She leaves immediately with Paciano to join the revolutionary forces – Imus, Cavite
- General Santiago Alvarez:
o Past one o clock in the afternoon Dec 30:
 Josefina and Trining (widow and sister) arrived at San Francisco de Malabon
 Bonifacio received them at the house of Mrs. Estefania Potente
 They had 2 small sheets:
 Last farewell written in Spanish
- Josephine joining the revolution has been interpreted as Rizal’s support and blessing for the
Revolution. Her presence lifted the morale of the revolutionists
- She nurses and cheers and teaches English
- Mataapng si Josephine kasi sinagot-sagot niya pa yung Governor-General
- She gave genuine support to the Katipuneros
- Josephine’s exemplary involvelemt raises a number of questions: eg Why did she join the
revolution? Did Rizal have anything to do with her decision?
- Both Rizal’s death and Josephine’s revolutionary participation signify the ultimate sacrifice;
reenactment of the passion of Christ
- Martyrdom is the ultimate sacrifice
- But for Constantino, what matters to him is his dec 15 manifesto

Constantino and American Imperialism

- Rizal was the central figure of the nationalist movement

- The task of true nationalist is to expose and opoose the mass deception
- 2 possibilities:
o Our progressive nationalists are themselves cut off from the popular imagination of the
19th century
o Notwithstanding their Marxist sophistication or pretensions, they are themselves
unwitting victims of American propaganda
- If both are correct, them American supremacy was established in the Philippines
- The publication of Constantino’s essay signalled the decentering of Rizal as a nationalist symbol
- Tehe problem was not rizal after all
- The problem has been with our historians who reproduce American colonial discourse on Rizal
and the Philippine Nationalist Movement of the 19th century failed to read the popular
imagination and the spirit of the times.