“The Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General”

Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City, 1992

By: Santiago V. Alvarez
About the Author
As the information stated in the book, “Santiago V. Alvarez was born in Noveleta, Cavite
on July 27, 1872. During his early years, he studied at San Juan de Letran and the
University of Santo Tomas, and later at Liceo de Manila to take up law. A son of
revolutionary leader Mariano Alvarez, he himself became Captain General of the
Magdiwang forces and fought with distinction against Spain in the battles of 1896-1897.
After the Revolution’s defeat by the U.S. Army, Alvarez became president of Nacioalista
Party’s directorate in 1901 and served as leader of the Philippine Independent Church”.
The work under review, “The Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General” is a
product of prodding from someone Alvarez considered as his colleague and friend in the
person of Lope K. Santos-admittedly “to shed lights on the different facets of the
revolution”. This memoir, as he claimed, is a product of close proximity to the “major
personalities” of the Revolution, namely Andres Bonifacio, Dr. Pio Valenzuela and
Emilio Jacinto as he was able to keep notes about the experiences . At the time Alvarez
completed this work, he was fifty five years old. He died at San Pablo, Laguna in 1930,
about three years after the completion of this work.
Introduction
The period of 1896-1897 is a major turning point in Philippine history. This period was
the culmination of hundred years of unsuccessful uprising and revolt-with varied
reasons ranging from social stratification, economic exploitation, labor conscription,
religious suppression to individual and common grievances against the Spanish
authorities as typified by the “Nativistic ” and peasant uprising, to the early Creoles
flight, up until the Propaganda Movement. 
These layers of development have produced a natural course of historical maturity;
particularly to people that were starting to assert the distinctiveness of their identity that
was long deprived of this choice. Consequently, the Katipunan, which represented an
alternative movement, gave birth to a new concept that is radical and revolutionary in
character- conceptualizing the idea of a sovereign state for the Indios. It is this moving
years of 1896 and 1897 that served as the back draft in the pageant of Philippine
History as narrated by the author who was not only an eye witness but an active
participant in the events.
Conceptual /Theoretical Framework
As an active participant in the unfolding of events, Santiago Alvarez is writing directly
from his experience. He was not an ordinary spectator trying to recollect what had
transpired before his eyes. An active participant and a decision maker, he was in a
position to know the authenticity of the narratives that historians can only dream of. In
historiography, only a frail memory was his enemy for readers to believe the veracity of
his recollections. Since his writing of this book was already 20 years past the event,
(completed around nineteen twenty seven) he cannot be accused of carrying an
immediate emotional luggage, and since he is not yet in his old age, neither can he be
accused of senility. However, the issue of “unbiased” and “neutral” point of view was
something to be careful about. His privilege of being part of the leaders of the Katipunan
enabled him a concrete picture of events. In writing this memoir, he stated that: “I will
attempt to write down what I saw and what I know about the Katipunan and the
Revolution”, a subtle way of assuring his readers of the truthfulness of his account.
Santiago Alvarez wanted to write a narrative of the Revolution as it happened, “in
the interest of honorable truth, acceptable to all”. He wanted to shed lights on the
different facets of the Revolution, for the youth whom he considered as the direct
beneficiary of his work. He argued that he “personally labored to write his memoirs
instead of others after his death, believing that his notes would be of little value since it
was disjointed and unclear to anyone other than himself” . Aside from honoring the
fallen compatriots during the dark days of the Revolution, he was also inclined to
believe that his work will serve as a worthy addition to what General Artemio Ricarte
has done in terms of publishing the latter’s memoir. He also intended this work as an
encouragement to other generals of the Revolution to write their own recollection.
Alvarez was a revolutionary turned historian.
In writing this work, he narrated the events in chronology but occasionally used
flashbacks to highlight or explain previous narrations. He also included the memoirs of
other actors to further elucidate on the actual events. Because of this inclusion, this
work is a fine addition to Philippine historiography particularly relating to the “history
from below”.
Content Analysis
The book was originally published in Sampagita, a Tagalog weekly during the 1920’s. It
was serialized from 24 July 1927 to 15 April 1928. The original work was written in
Tagalog but was translated by Paula Carolina S. Malay in English. Composed of four
hundred sixty six pages, two hundred thirty six is the English translation while two
hundred pages composed the original Tagalog text, included is the appendix on the
comments of Teodoro Gonzales about the series. The book was divided into eighty
parts; probably the number it appeared in the weekly. The work is a faithful
reconstruction of events that happened in the brightest period of our history as a people
longing for an independent country. This work did not have any pretention of an
academic “high brow” but in the process has created a new form of historiography, of
writing history from the point of view of the masses. The uniqueness and strength of this
historical work lies in the fact that the author was an active participant in the events he
was writing about. This work is a collection of narratives of ordinary people living in an
extraordinary period.
Santiago Alvarez started his memoir on a specific date, March 14, 1896, the day when
the future military rival in Emilio Aguinaldo was to become a member of the secret
society initiated by the Supremo himself, Andres Bonifacio. Although his mentioning of
important dates associated with important personalities during this period was a
recurrent theme in his work, his narration of chronological events portrayed the lives not
only of the major actors but the ordinary “sons of the people” in an effort to write “history
from below”. To corroborate his own recollection, he also included the accounts of
ordinary people, such as in a case of Juan Maibay and Ramon Bernardo whose raw
emotion was captured candidly by Alvarez. The apprehension, excitement, superstition,
anxiety, bravery, treachery, cowardice were not filtered in his work, an account lacking
in other memoirs relating to the period. Readers who are familiar with the works of
Agoncillo and Constantino particularly during this time will find themselves a chance for
a fresh look at the “facts” presented by them as Alvarez readily offered firsthand
account. In this work, readers are given a chance to concretize their own historical
analysis. Alvarez supplied his reader the raw materials to develop an independent
inquiry devoid of coloration. This work did not offer refuge to both Magdalo and
Magdiwang members and leaders alike; of their mistakes, miscalculations, abuses,
personal ambitions, of which caused the fatal rift between the two factions. In this work,
I was able to validate my early assumptions as a student of history of the “grays” in the
history of the Revolution, which other authors of Philippine history had only mentioned
briefly. Examples of these are stated below to emphasize the point. Instances like the
first signs of brewing rift between the two major councils, as represented by Aguinaldo
and Bonifacio. Pirating heads was already practiced by the Katipuneros as the Magdalo
faction has tried to persuade Artemio Ricarte and Pascual Alvarez of accepting military
commissions in the former ranks. Likewise, Alvarez narrated the event which confirmed
the cheating of Magdalo representatives during the election at Tejeros Convention.
Treachery even at the height of battle did not escape the narrative of Alvarez, as he
wondered that, during the defense of the fortification of San Francisco de Malabon, the
site of retreat of Magdiwang council after Novelata was besieged by the Spanish army,
Col. Pio Del Pilar, a Magdalo officer, suddenly withdrew, despite the previous
commitment of helping the defense. Alvarez also narrated the betrayal of Aguinaldo’s
men when the Magdiwang Council, in a gesture of settling the previous
misunderstanding, lends their rifles to the Magdalo soldiers who did not bother to return
he weapons to its owners. Likewise, the controversial question of why Aguinaldo did not
assert his order of commuting the death sentence of Bonifacio brothers after the court
martial was also answered by Santiago Alvarez in the words if his cousin Pascual
Alvarez. These are but few examples of angles that are worth highlighting in the study
of the Revolution. In general, aside from his recollection, substantial portion of this work
were the recollections of ordinary actors of the period. An appendix was also included in
this book that discusses the comments of the events as recounted by Teodoro
Gonzales, an active participant in the Revolution. The comments somehow confirmed
the vulnerability of historical memoirs. However, the comments only strengthen
Alvarez’s work in terms of the correctness of his assessment of the period.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Decades of hiatus in shelves of this very important work has denied historians and
readers a wealth of a source in Alvarez’s work . This work has stood the test of time.
With regards to the value of his work as an academic endeavor, it has contributed
enormously to Philippine historiography. His methodology, somewhat advanced for his
time, has given chance for common people to be heard and be identified. He
humanized the rather nameless and faceless individuals, weaving a beautiful legacy of
history for future generation. He avoided grand narratives of heroes and their heroism
as individuals. He put emphasis on the people, the multitude of them, being historical
actors. The natural flow of narration made it more compelling as a historical work, it was
believable, authentic.
On the internal struggle within the Katipunan, he gave his reader a new insight, a new
perspective. Of course, his is a point of view of a disgruntled nationalist, a recipient of
unfortunate turn of events, being on the side of the Magdiwang. He undeniably captured
the feeling of a patriot in his portrayal of the tragedy of Bonifacio’s life. He made you
realize the heavy burden of waging a revolution, its complexities, and its uncertainties.
He elucidated on the motives of each actor, and painted the general atmosphere of the