CHAPTER 2

Rizal and the Revolution

A deep chasm separates our contemporary historians from the na-

tionalist life-world of the nineteenth century. Nothing could have
sounded more absurd to the ears of both peasants and ilustrados of the
like
revolutionary past than the now taken-for-granted thesis that Rizal,
the rest of the reformists in Spain, was for assimilation, and that, true to
his bourgeois character, he repudiated the Revolution. This was cer-
tainly not how Rizal was seen by his contemporaries. For example,
Galicano Apacible, Rizal's cousin and fellow expatriate, writes:

Twish to touch on some opinions attributed to Rizal erroneously by

some writers who had not associated closely with him in the last years
book about
of his life. Amongthem was the infamous Retana in his
Our National Hero (Vida y escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal [Madrid, 1907),
S12 pp.). These writers have affirmed that Rizal was not a separatist
betore he had been in
and that he was a lover of Spain. Perhaps so,
true situation obtaining in that
Spain, before he had discovered the
though I have my doubts
country, he was not much of a separatist,
he was truly a nationalist
this, because even when he was here,
about But in Spain, when I joined him
in his acts and opinions.
ilipino separatist. I remember
Dere, I found him a complete and unwavering

41
 the Revolution
Rizal and
42 Rizal and the Revolution
the
of the first 43
first
c o n v e r s a t i o n

alone, o n e
lusioned at our
things
then called
he
told me
that in
our
entirely
disillus
otherland. In almost every report of "disturbances" during the first decade of
the predo
was
that he and predominant
was
Spanish atmosphere
time the that the
American rule, there is mention of Rizal as reincarnated in "fanatical"
At that
were such, according
accor
to him, PhilippinesPanish leaders.. . in general, as literally the "spirit" behind the unrest. In the
opinions
could not and ought
not to expect anything good un der Spanish
coun
1920s Lantayug proclaimed himself a reincarnation of Rizal and won
separation from Spain could.
rule and that
only after ve our wide following in the Eastern Visayas and Northern Mindanao .. .
and political
aspirations. (Cited in Alzona 1971, Other peasant leaders who challenged the colonial order in the 1920s
social, civil,
italics mine)
233-34, and the 1930s claimed to be in communication with Rizal.
Jose Alejandrino (1949, 4)-Rizals roommate in Germaany These facts are most crucial in interpreting Rizal. For if Renato
in the Revolution as a general
who Constantino's interpretation of Rizal as a counterrevolutionary is cor-
would later figure prominently
it strange "that some of his biogranhe rect, then verily the Katipuneros were guilty of venerating Rizal with-
with Apacible and finds have
to the revolution of 189 out understanding. That is to say, they did not have the same informed
presented Rizal as completely opposed
The Katipuneros have even gone Rizal's ilustrado col. and intelligent understanding that Constantino has always had. During
farther than
leagues. They have venerated Rizal as the symbol and inspiration of the Rizal's time, however, Constantino's opinion would have been consid-
Revolution: Rizal's used among the ered extraordinary, if not absurd.
name was
the password
ranking menmbers, the picture of Rizal was hung in every Katipunan
higher It seems that the American colonizers first learned about Rizal
from two sources, both counterrevolutionaries: Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo
meting hall, and by Katipunero leaders usually
speeches given ended
with three cheers: for the Philippines, for de Tavera and Wenceslao E. Retana. Pardo de Tavera, a Spanish creole
Liberty, and for Dr. Rizal!
This veneration of Rizal continued medical doctor, Sanskrit scholar, and ethnohistorian, was one of the
beyond 1896. In 1898, in first ilustrados to offer their services to the Americans as soon as the
commemoration of the second death
anniversary of Rizal, the Spanish regime collapsed. Retana (1907) was an anti-Rizal, profriar
Aguinaldo-led Philippine Republic issued a
pamphlet that invoked the
martyr's name as journalist who had a change of heart after Spain's deteat and wrote, in
1907, the first documented full-length biography of Rizal, Vida y
The word Escritos del Dr. Rizal. Pardo de Tavera and Retana shared a common
named Jose Rizal, down
sent by heaven to the land
o
Filipinas, in order to spend his whole life, from
childhood, striving to view of Rizal as the multitalented, liberal, and reformist intellectual
who opposed Bonifacio's uprising, but who was, nonetheless, the most
spread throughout this vast
must be Archipelago, the notion that righteousnes revered of all Filipino patriots. Norwithstanding the obvious contradic
fought for wholeheartedly.
(Cited Ileto 1982, 319-20) in tion in this thesis, the Americans found it most congenial to their colo-
nial agenda.
Such was the veneration of Rizal
by the revolutionary leaders Pardo de Tavera declared, in an interview with American authori-
tnat Kicarte, the one ilustrado
deteat of the
Revolution revolutionary who refused to con he
to the
that when the Katipunan asked for Rizal's counsel regarding the
ties,
pose changing the name of American forces, was planned revolution, "Rizal opposed the plan and said it would not be
he the country. In a o ution suitable" and advised that what was good for the country was "the im-
drafted, Las Islas revolutionary and its
Citizens be
will Filipinas will be "The Rizaline Republic" 1963, provement and education of the people." However, "Bonifacio, instead
139). called, instead of telling the truth, told the Filipino people that Rizal, instead of advis-
Filipinos, "RizalinoS
linos" (Ricarte of
Long after the
ng peace, had advised the revolution.
Surrendered, military forces of Aguit guinaldo's Philippine Republic It was Retana, however, who fully explicated the now taken for
name of Rizal.peasants continued the fight Americans in
the
granted interpretation that Rizal was an antirevolutionary retormist
Ileto against inst the
(1982, 323) writes: and a
deply loyal subject of Spain. It was also Retana who provided
 Revolution
the
Rizal and Rizal and the Revolution 45
14

documentary
evidence
tor Rizal's supposed
supno
milationist 1931), who asserted that Rizal supported the Revolution in his essay,
of Rizal's politics
the primary
Retana's
interpretation
seconded by was Rizal against the Revolution?" Zaide's evidence is the memoirs
reformism.
f Rizal's novels, Charles Derbyshire, who
translator of Rizal's 27 May 1914) of Dr. Pio Valenzuela, who was sent to Dapitan in late
the first
American
thesis.
assimilationist translator's introduct Tuune 1896 by the Katipunan Supreme Council to consult with Rizal
Retana's
thesis
xi-xiil). This thesis
wae
reiterated

Social Cancer
(1912,
was
picked up and about the planned revolution. Valenzuela was also among the first
to The izal,
of Rizal, Austin Craig,
a

popularized by
the second biographer
biographies, Lineage, Life
circulated
Ameri batch of Katipuneros imprisoned by the Spanish military shortly after
che outbreak of the Katipunan. In his memoirs, Valenzuela (1978a, 92)
whose widely
and Minor Writines (16
historian
can
and Rizal's Life quotes Rizal's reaction, after being briefed regarding the Katipunan's
Labors of Rizal (1913) ,set
version of Rizal. Yet on what docur plans, as follows:
the official American
sources were these readings based? How valid are these sources) THhese
So the seed grows. The resolutions ot the association are very just,
are the critical historiographic questions.
Retana's erroneous identification of Rizal with Ibarra can be eas. patriotic, and above all, timely because now Spain is weakened by the
himself had unequivocably belied this interpre revolution in Cuba. I approve these resolutions and I suggest that they
ily disposed of, for Rizal
tation twice. First, in his La Solidaridad polemic with Barrantes (15 lan. be complied with as early as possible in order to take advantage of
1890), Rizal declared emphatically that he does not share Ibarras opportunity.3
Views.
Second, in his conversation with Jose Alejandrino, Rizal revealed After obtaining the document from Dr. J. P. Bantug-a
scholar who married Rizal's great grandniece, Asuncion Lopez-Zaide
Rizal
that his hero was not lbarra but Elias. As quoted by Alejandrino (1949,
3-4), Rizal declares: sought Valenzuela for an interview and thereby obtained the unequivo-
cal testimony that "Rizal was in favor of the revolution" and that
I regret having killed Elias instead of Crisostomo Ibarra; but when I "Rizal believed that independence is won, not asked for.. . Rizal's
wrote the Noli me credo was a true revolution-a fight to the last, for the freedom of the
tangere, my health was badly broken and I never in Manuel 1934, 542).
thought that I would be able to write its sequel and speak of a Philippines" (Zaide 1931; cited
tion. revo
Otherwise, I would have preserved the life of Elias, who was a Unfortunately, this was not tobe the last word on the matter,
noble character, because three years after Zaide's article appeared, E. Arsenio Manuel
patriotic, self-denying and disinterested-necesSauy
qualities in a man who leads a (1934),then a buddinghistorian/anthropologist, came out with his cri-
revolution-whereas Crisostomo tique of 2Zaide, refuting the latter's evidence on the basis of other, alleg-
Darra was an egoist who only decided to provoke the rebellion wneu all
he was hurt in his interests, his edly more authoritative, primary sources from Retana's collection,
things he held sacred. With men person, his loves and
all the out
contradicting Valenzuela. These are-
in their undertakings. like him, success cannot De ected

c
December 1896
1, Documents written by Rizal himself: Rizal's 25
in his trial for treason before the
We shall now examine Retana's subse
memorandum for his defense
and the
quent
historians-from Manuel to primary sources, Spanish Council of War "Defensa del Dr. Jose Rizal";
relied
We will
on as
the definitive Agoncill
illo to Constantin-
evidence for Rizal's stand on the. volution.
15 December 1896 "Manifiesto a Algunos Filipinos.
Taviel de Andrade
begin with E. Arsenio .The tinal defense of Rizal's lawyer, D. Luis
Manuel's critique of "Documento Original de la Defensa de Rizal" read
before the
Zaide versus Manuel Zaid Council of War on 25 December
1896.
Of the of war, to
early Rizal scholars 3. Dr. Pio Valenzuela's declarations, as a prisoner
a
view and ame up with and his subsequent
contrary to the official historians, one panish authorities on 6 September
1896;
American w
rican version was Dr. egorio
Zaide
 Rizal and the Revolution 47
Revolution

and the
Rizal

so forth.... Besides, I
added they need not think me, of
Indigatoria que Tiene natience, and
Ab la Decl.
P which is the one going to suffer. . . .

a country
" A m p l i a c i o n

but of the
been opposed to the rebellion not only on
account

I have always
a d d e n d u m

Prestada Pio Valenzuela."

of war, to Span- but also because I am hoping that
prisoner
as
and untimeliness,
of its absurdity
testimony,

y
Matanza s v a l e n z u e l a ' s
6 September
testimony' treedom. (Kalaw's translation, cited
in
4. Jose
Dizon
contirming
Spain will soon grant us
ish
authorities,
docum
Manuel 1934, 565)
sources,
the one ent that
primary
evidence for Rizal Rizal's testimony in the clos-
definitive
Taviel de Andrade reiterates
a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d

Of the he
the
as
litics is the 15 Decem D. Luis 1896 before the
read on 25 December
considered

polit his final detense,

is generally
statement of
a n t i r e v o l u t i o n a r y

and awaiting
itary tri
a military trial for the ing
while
War (ibid.):
Council of
1 s s i m i l a t i o n i s t

written in prison,
Manifiesto," paragraph:
second
Here is the Valenzuela in June of the
of treason.
the interview with Pio
crime
h as I desire as much Lastly, regarding can be deduced against him [Rizal],
proofs that
.

many not a single charge

I have given present year, if he
Fellow countrymen: them. But I to desire if he did not approve of the uprising,
country; I
continue
for
liberties for o u r
in order that but that of exculpation, this conclusively and
the next man education of the people them from their plans, proves
prerequisite the acted to dissuade and did not sympathize
laid down as a hard work, they may acquire a
did not have any participation
such instruction,
and by
entirely that he the director and promoter
of
by means of and so become worthy
of such liberties. In
with it. On the other hand, if Rizal w e r e
their own determine the m o v e .
personality of and the civic virtues, without without an order of his,
will
recommended study
I have all this, nobody,
my writings I have also written (and my
words
which no redemption
is possible. testimonies.
if they are to bear fruit, Valenzuela's earlier prison
that retorms, documents confirm
have been repeated by others) below are upheav
These t w o consistent
declarations

for reforms that c o m e from Valenzuela gave

must come from above,
imbued with these ideas,I
According to Manuel, and the other o n 6
October.

als both violent and transitory. Thoroughly o n 6 September

while in prison, o n e
as I do condemn,
this ridiculous and 1896 declaration
reads:
cannot do less than condemn, Valenzuela's 6 September
which both dishonors us
barbarous uprising, plotted behind my back, commissioned by
have taken our part |Spanish
was
[Valenzuela]
Filipinos and discredits those who might About the month of May last, he advisability of
for which it is responsible and to confer
with Rizal on the
liberals, etc.]. I abominate the crimes
Bonifacio to go to Dapitan opposed
who have tenaciously
will have no part in it. With all my heart I am sorry for those Spain. Rizal
was

an armed revolt against when it

was men
rashly allowed themselves to be deceived. Let them return to thel raising
and became so enraged
toit from the beginning to Dapitan
to stay a month,
homes, and may God pardon those who have acted in bad faith. Royal the witness had gone Ma-
tioned that though and to r e t u r n to
following day
Fort of Santiago, 15 December 1896. (Austin Coates's transiato he decided to
re-embark on the
Bonifacio the result of the confer-
1968, 299-300) he reported to called Rizal a
nila. On his arrival
hearing the
news,

flew into a rage on about

ence. Bonifacio word to anybody
Rizal's "Manifiesto" is witness n o t to say
a

consistent with! his 12 December memo

moran

coward and ordered the Institute transla-

Historical
dum, which makes a reference to
Valenzuela's visit to Dapita nd th conference. (National
the bad issue of the Valenzuela 1978b, 158-59)
opening part reads: the original Spanish
document;
on ot
testimony of
a
I had no knowledge of what was being projected uuntil the first or corroborating
mentions the Manuel reters
to
also
second of July of 1896 does not cite it,
Manuel
when Pio Valenzuela anup Though he to Dizon:
cam to tell
me Dizon.
rising.I told him
that it was wered
me K
punero, Jose testimony.
According
absurd, and
and so forth; and he ans 1896 prison
that they could shoulo have D1Zon's 23 September
suffer no more, I counseled that they
 Revolution
the
Rizal and Rizal and the Revolution
49

from wealthy Filipinos gatherina moirs. But more importantly, Valenzuela later admitted that, because
Pto Valenzuelacollected
1,000 pesos to
Bonitacio
s version,
over
pay the expenses h i s fear that bis prison testimony night harm Rizal and other
to make to Dapitan to consult with Ri:
cording
intend
and a servant Katipuneros, who were also at that time in prison, he deliberately
of a trip he him a
blind man and and
pretense he
took with
Ihe motive tor the conferen
nce was to
presented aoided implicating them (Quirino 1978, ii).
treatment.
seek Nevertheless, when Manuel's seemingly unassailable evidence
him to Rizal for the beg1nning
of med revolt. When Val
an a r m e

light, Dr. Zaide's contrary essay was relegated to the dustbin

of
idvice concerning entirely opposed to came to
eturned he told
us that Rizal
was anv
ch thing forgotten historical interpretations, and the Pardo de Tavera-Retana-
chamber of
action the s e c r e t
alt of Rizal's met Derbyshire-Craig version, reintorced by Manuel's devastating essay
was propOsed. Bonifacio 's explanation: o ne of the became the unchallenged orthodoxy and continues to remain unchal
and another plan to embark:a number
tollows: they were of fighting men as lenged until today.
plan was as steamer going to Dapitan. These mer
passengers
on some to be This "official version" also became the basis, in the late 1960s, of
instructed to overpower
ship as soon
the crew and to seiZe the
as they the nationalist Left's denunciation of Rizal, articulated most eloquently
reached the high seas. They
should
then go to Dapitan, steal awa by Constantino. This anti-Rizalist position has rwo variants. One,
es-
Rizal and take him wherever they could. (National Historical Inctiitute
Dizon 1978, 202) poused by Teodoro Agoncillo, is the softer or weaker version. The
translation of the original Spanish; is the stronger view. Agoncillo, in
other, propounded by Constantino,
the
his reply to Bonifacio H. Gillego's request for comments regarding
These 1896 declarations by Valenzuela and Dizon, notes Manuel, Rizal, is undecided as to
latter's soon-to-be published manuscript on
contradict Valenzuela's 1914 memoirs. Thus, the researcher is con-
whether to call Rizal a "reluctant revolutionary" or a "revolutionary
fronted with the problem of which document to rely on. Manuel (1934, reformist" or a "reformist revolutionary" (Gillego 1990, 5). Nonethe-
566) opts for the earlier versions, reasoning that characterizes Rizal as an idealist dreamer who insists on
less, Agoncillo
the "impossible" project of educating the Filipinos under Spanish rule.
Because of the length of time that elapsed before the emissary put the asking
Rizal the
According to Agoncillo, "In a manner of speaking.
was

conversation on paper, the Memoirs suffer from inaccuracies which the flour with which to
Filipinos to bake bread but without giving them
"Rizal never suc-
anyway inherent in this class of document. Dr. Valenzuela himself bake the bread!" (6). Moreover, Agoncillo asserts that
are

was aware of this lin his 27

May 1934 letter to Dr. Bantug]. As Pro tirst, he wrote in the language ot
ceeded in reaching the masses because,
tessors Langlois and and second, his ideas
Seignobos have declared in a work: joint "Mem the which the people did not understand,
master
oirs written
several years ago after the
facts, often at the end of tne were too advanced for the people to
understand, assuming that they
authorscareer, have introduced innumerable errors into history knew Spanish" (5). It is not clear whether Agoncillo cites any documen-
must be made a rule to treat memoirs with as special distrust, tary evidence in his reply to Gillego.
However, in his widely circulated
nand
documents, secou 1896
in spite of their appearance of being Agoncillo cites the s a m e
contemppor.
ary
textbook on Philippine history,
testimony Valenzuela testimony that Manuel relies on.
ot Rizal. Ironically, it
Constantino's version is a total repudiation
Manuel, however, needs to be make of hagiographers like
Retana and Craig, that
a current that Valenzuela didi
minded Snares the basic premises whose goal was the
tions, and declaration-affirming his memoirs over his prison declara Zal was a reformist and an
assimilationist

when Zaide reiterating Rizal's P

support for the Philippir
his
revolution Tispanization of the Filipino. Only
Constantino's conclusion is
ditter-

alert and interviewed him in 1931. wa -indeed it is the only logical

conclusion, given the premises. That is

his later healthy man in his that time Valenzuela

alonein line is so powertul
when ranged against
the

early 60s. . And Valenzuela is. the Constantino

also testimforony-several
vouched his colleagues
agues Rizal, of
have mentio as we
not

tioned,
ny
1giographic biographies of
Rizal. Constantino's

Lecture at
argument, put
Fort Santiago,
torth
"Veneration

separatist, position in thel nis intluential 1969 Rizal Day

prorevolutionai
 Revolution
the
Rizal and

50 Rizal and the Revolution

which became the "offici 51
Understanding,"
and
as follows:
ne" of the
Without
Thus, the crucial evidence for
s u m m a r i z e d

nationalist
Left, may
be
Agoncillo, Constantino, Manuel,
lose, and Gillego is not Rizal's correspondence, not what he wrote, not
retormist, assimilationist (me his novels or essays, not his Liga project, not what his contemporaries
bourgeois
Rizal was a
indio to the el of
level .
Hispanization
of the sav, not how the Katipuneros and the masses perceived him, but what
elevate the
pired "to
counterrevolutionary.
Ther Span-
erefore,. he cannot be obur national Rizal allegedly said in the last months of 1896, in Valenzuela's prison
iard") and he is o u r natio ational hero-whi r
the fact that testimony, as well as Rizal's 15 December manifesto. These two texts
hero. However,
of free nations-
nakes us
our mendicant colonial
history became the bases tor a retrospective interpretation of all that was writ-
unique in the American colonizers who. Rizal. It is therefore crucial to examine the last
ten, said, or done by
to the
mentality, oursubservience
to decolonizing
our minds we must liberate nsored months of Rizal, as well as all the available evidence during this period.
him. As a first step loal Our
ot ilustrados like Rizal. We should We shall resolve this debate by addressing two fundamental issues:
selves from the spell
deserving of the title of national hero, such as Andres Bonif (1) the question of historiography: How valid are the historical sources
more
upon which Manuel, Agoncillo, and Constantino base their interpreta
the founder of the Katipunan.
tion regarding Rizal's political stance toward the Revolution; and (2)
Constantino camp, Vivencio lose. rei the meaning of Rizal's martyrdom: What was the impact of Rizal's "vol-
A younger member of the t-
To answer this twofold
erates the ilustrado versus masses theme. Jose, however, introduces untary sacrifice" on the revolutionary struggle?
we shall apply our critical hermeneutics on some hitherto un
something original: pitting Antonio Luna and Rizal against each other question,
The main diference between them, argues Jose (1979, 154), is that explored texts, both written and enacted.
Constantino's
But first, the documentary evidence. Following ar
Luna had transcended his ilustrado background and, consequently, be the Revolution twice: first,
gument, it would appear that Rizal betrayed
came committed to the people's struggle, while Rizal did not, and
there by demonstrating his loyalty to Spain when he volunteered to serve in
fore remained alienated from his people, whose revolution he and
the medical corps of the Spanish army during the Cuban revolution,
"vehemently repudiated." According to Jose (154-55), Luna-"who the Revolution when it finally erupted in the
second, by condemning
remained anti-imperialist, who stood strongly for national indepen their arms and aban-
Philippines, exhorting his countrymen to lay down
dence and the revolutionary democratic ideals of the Republic, and who and "ab-
don an that he condemned as "criminal," *savage,"
uprising
reposed confidence in the ability of the people to face in protracted con surd." To settle this question we shall now turn to the previously cited
frontation the might of their Agoncillo, and Constantino have
imperialist oppressors" -and Rizal, wno documentary sources that Manuel,
nurtured "a consistent assimilationist
ideal" and "never challenged i used in their influential critiques.
panish colonial system's] fundamental direct to the first question
assumptions and structure Valenzuela's memoirs provide a answer

97) recollections
"consciously played" positive and negative, respectively, the on Rizal's volunteering for Cuba.
Valenzuela's (1978a,
Philippine revolution. ro ot his 1896 conversation with Rizal in Dapitan regarding
Rizal's plans
If
Jose reiterates Constantino's parrots Agoncil are as follows:
Thus, in his line, Gillego
"Personal Preface" to Ideas
of Rizal on
Reform Requiem for Reformisn he had written to the
Minister of War
and
Revolution, Gillego (1990, TRizal] spoke to me of the letter Governor-General
10) wric ot Spain [Marcelo de Azcarraga],
through the
wherein he applied for a post
as
While he Ramon Blanco] of the Philippines,
agitated, through his flaming words and ubju
which letter, he said, had not yet been an-
gated masses iaea military doctor in Cuba,
to redeem
themselves
dage, Rizal
to his application,
telling him that
remained true and loyal to his class from Spanish bo his swered. I exercised my objection
forces in Cuba, might
shoot
bourgeois heritage and origin. He could not negate
rigin. He general-in-chief of the Spanish
cross the couof the oppressed Weyler, the because of the question arising
trom the

peasantry. rising frontier him, being his enemy

 Rizal and the Revolution Rizal and
52 the Revolution
53
this objection he replied that he also miph On his return here
Calamba estate. To
Bonifacio did not at tirst[Manila) reported the result of his
he
that bis mtention
in applying for the
post of sil:
Wevler first. He said credit the mission.
tary doctor was
to study the ar
in a
practical way; go throuoh be vinced he began to pour insults
report, but when he became
con-
be thought be would find there solutioms which and upon Dr. Rizal,
Cuban soldiery if saying other bad things about calling him coward a
bad situation in the rhilippines. If he were admi him. He also
would remedy the Valenzuela] from repeating Rizal's
reply to
prohibited witness
ted as a military doctor
in Cuba, ne
explalned, he could return to the tell Captain Ramon ot Pandacan and Emilio anyone. But witness did
a r o s e . (ltalics mine)
Philippines when
the necessity he did not remember. When this news got
Jacinto and others whom
disputes Valenzuela'e
heartened, especially those who, at the abroad, many became dis-
Pasig
Yet, as we have mentioned earlier,
Manuel
May, 1896 when the decision to meeting (sometime in
inasmuch as it is contradicted by his two wage the revolution was
1914 memoirs as unreliable, promised contribute money to the cause.
to made], had
and 6 Oct. 1896), which Manuel certifioo VII, given by the prisoner, Dr. Pio (Excerpts from Statement
prison declarations (6 Sept. corroborated by Valenzuela, to the Spanish military
authoritative, considering
that they are the court in Bilibid Prison, Manila)
as more
of another Katipunero, Jose
Dizon y Matanza (22
prison testimony
Sept. 1896). Herein lies the beginning of the academic debate
We shall thus examine
two sets of seemingly damaging evidence against Bonifacio, pitting Rizal
an utterly misleading and counterproductive
exercise
have used as evidence to
prove Rizal's because it is based solely on one
that Constantino and others testimony and ignores
assimilationist, counterrevolutionary politics: (1)
Valenzuela's testimo- two (suppresses?)
post-prison testimonies of Valenzuela that are consistently
the
un-
"Manifiesto." equivocal in affirming Rizal's support for the Revolution: (1) his 27
nies and (2) Rizal's 15 December
May 1914 memoirs, typewritten in Spanish
upon the request of Dr.
Pio Valenzuela's testimonies. While Manuel and others are famil Bantug; (2) his 12 September 1917 sworn declarations as a witness
for the defense of Vicente Sotto in the case
iar with Valenzuela's two prison testimonies and his 1914 memoirs of U.S. vs. Vicente Sotto for
mutually contradictory, they don't seem to be Libel.
which, they claim, are
aware sworn testimony given by Valenzuela before
of the third and last Jose Turiano Santiago filed a case against Vicente Sorto tor an ar-
ticle (as editor of the biweekly
a civilian court in 1917, which supports his 1914 memoirs. paper, The Independent) asserting that
Jose Turiano Santiago had been expelled from the Katipunan as a trai-
As a prisoner of the Spanish regime during the outbreak of the
tor Being
Philippine Revolution, Valenzuela gave a series of five testimonies trom a lawyer, Sotto conducted his defense, using Valenzuela
own
of his witnesses. Valenzuela gave about Rizal
2-13 September 1896 and two more corroborating testimonies on
6 as one sworn statements
and 7 October 1896. It is from the October testimony that Manuel, that tlatly contradicted his previous prison testimony (cired above).
own
To Sotto's question, "Did you meet Rizal?" Valenzuela (1978c, 231-33)
Agoncillo, and Constantino derive their evidence. The text, extracted answered:
from Valenzuela's (1978b, appendix L, 163) response to the questi0n
If he went to Dapitan to confer with Jose Rizal and what was the pur it it
Tes, in Dapitan in June 1896, and he told me, in a tew words, that
pose of their conference," reads as follows: Were possible there should be no uprising until they [the Katipunan|
were provided with arms. And when I objected saying that the
visit, betore the arms arrived, he said
Witness [Dr. Pio Valenzuela] explained to Rizal the object of his v
but as soon as the doctor claimed:
atipunan plot might be discovered
tnat in that case it would be necessary to rise
in revolt without await-
understood what he was saying, nc Rizal said, but in this case
sic
o, ng the arms.. "You have
no resources,
no, no,thousand times, no" citing a principle in philosophy he
a . .
j project whicl it discovered
have no alternative but to
by the Spanish regime] you arms." He asked me it we
Witness did not recall, to prove to him the folly of the project
the field without waiting for
the
declared would be peop ake to
detrimental to the interest of the Filipino
advancing, at the same time, other arguments against
 the Revolution
Rizal and Rizal and the Revolution 55
54
Filipinos of influence, mon.
unanimous in that as

we ivere,
ntel etorct,
the aid of such division of opinion; all w e r e
reckoned with did not;
we did not; tthat There was no
him that untortunately discovered and the members should be
tell the conspiracy was
and I had to and belonged to the lower soon as
classes the outbreak should begin. Dr. Rizal said,
part, poorlaborers,
. .

subjected persecution,
to
would take to the
the middle class. be discovered, naturally you
people, and
a few to
Should the Katipunan intend to kill you
the necessity of winning over the to be killed. If they
field. Do not allow yourselves
out
Rizal then pointed
to the cause and suggested that we shou
wealthy should you allow yourselves
to be killed. In this
sense revolution

and intelligent people why

ctAntonio Luna because
he was a man who had come
from E right." (Italics mine)
is
much influence in Manila,
and thus we would oDen th
rope, had way issues, and confirm
the
money and brains. After
of the men of s w o r n statements clarify two
to secure the sympathy this Valenzuela's
conversation, I asked him what we should do and he replied: Induce of his 1914 memoirs:
basic points
Luna to work along those lines, because it you do not win over the
arms
the necessary
your side all your labors will be in vain." I then
the Katipunan, first, that
1. Rizal's counsel
to
leading Filipinos to
as the cooperation
of the wealthy
told him the Katipunan was in great danger of being discovered be ammunitions, as well
and second,
assured before waging an uprising;
cause of its great activity. "In that case," I well remember he told me, Filipinos, must be be better to fight than
it would
"you should secure arms and those prominent Filipinos should join if the Katipunan is discovered, to support
refuse the
rich Filipinos
you, because otherwise they will become the principal enemies of the to flee; third, if the
they should be neutralized.
revolution. They will be your greatest enemies when you take to the Katipunan,
to his counsel,
that is, the majority,
field. When they find you uwithout arms they will place themselves on 2. The Katipunan's response
with Rizal.
the side of the Spaniards and not on your side. With their infuence, including Bonifacio, agreed
money and intelligence they can do you great harm and the Filipino sworn testimony:
in Valenzuela's
people will become divided and you will be conquered." There actually three subtexts
are
the relevance of
Rizal's
being a traitor; (2)
Inthis case how shall we solve the problem? I asked him. "f (1) the question of Santiago's Santiago against
these leading Filipinos do not join you," he replied, "you must at least the libel case filed by
support for the Revolution to what technically appears
make sure that fiscal's interest in pursuing
those who are very rich are rendered neutral, that 1s
to Sotto; and (3) the perspective on the
Revolution and
say that they do not side with either of you." And if they cannot DE that is, Rizal's
to be a separate case, members. Evidently, in
the
the Katipunan
inutilized, I asked him how we can render them neutral? "That ques whether this was shared by of Rizal
American rule in the
Philippines, the question
tionI cannot answer," he replied, "it depends on circumstances, tim early years of issue of crucial importance.
and the opportunity." Revolution was an
with respect to the the libel c a s e
n o w is: It,
as provided by
On my return I had to report all this to Andres Bonifacio. Itobld The question to pose
access to
information regarding

him that Rizal had said that in that case we could take to the American regime had
be against Sotto, the that the Katipunan
n e time it we were persecuted. That we should kill betorenao and the reverence

llow Revolution
Rizal's support for the the idea that became
the
ng ourselves to be
killed, but that we should take steps r the held for him, why then
did they promote
by both the
ironically
prominent Filipinos to he political agenda
(shared
orthodoxy o n Rizal's
neutral and to attract Luna to Our reforms
for assimilationist
could direct
the that Rizal w a s in fact obvi-
campaign. My ifI nar- Lett and the Right), is quite
everything. (Italics mine) testimony would very 1O
rated be of course,
Revolution? The a n s w e r to this, and
and not for the like Constantino
nationalist historians
Ous; what is baffling is why this colonial line,
he
fiscal, in and reproduce
i had to parrot, validate, o n Rizal during
thereere was division turn, interrogated Valenzuela.
a The fiscal
asked
Agoncillo variance with popular perceptions
Valenzuela (1978c, among the Katipuneros regarding Rizal's ounsel.
which was totally at
234) answered
unequivocably:
 Rizal and the Revolution
56 Rizal and the Revolution

sworn testimonies and memoir demone

his time, as Valenzuela's December. The evidence Constantino cites to
rate Manifesto of 15
unambiguously. Rizal repudiated the Revolution is Rizal's 15 December 1896
We have seen that the two post-prison testimonies of Valenzuela that Rizal's
pro
addressed to the Filipino people and presented, for
agree that Rizal strongly supported
the Revolution. Moreawe manifesto court trial for treason.
his
Valenzuela personally intormed the historian Gregorio Zaide that he defense, during popular essay, this document
on account of Constantino's
knew Rizal to be for the Revolution. The one exception which, instead Largely against the Revo-
as the detinitive proof that Rizal was

of being used as the definitive evidence, needs to be explained is the 6 is now regarded manifesto was in fact written
dated 15 December, this
October 1896 prison testimony of Valenzuela that depicts Rizal as cat- lution. Though 1896. Rizal issued a later clarification
December
earlier date, 10
egorically distancing himself from any violent enterprise. About this, at an Rizal laid down his po-
dated 12 December 1896. Here,
the historian Carlos Quirino (1978, ii) writes: of his defense, advocate general, who w a s not quite im-
betore the judge
litical views provided, as
Guerrero (427) said, we do
lt is easy to see why, advocate
Since these declarations were made under duress, they cannot be pressed. that [the judge
lied upon implicitly; specially those parts relating to Dr. Jose Rizal and
re not "close
o u r e a r s to
the hidden meanings
s o m e portions
of the
to catch." To quote
w a s alert enough
other Katipuneros whom Dr. Valenzuela later admitted he did not general]
want to incriminate because of the natural fear that his
m e m o r a n d u m :

statements
would harm them. democratic rights,"
phrase, "to enjoy
have taken my
Now, then, many different things. A people
independence," two entirely
It not farfetched to conclude, for "to have be indepen-
is
therefore, that both Dizon and free without being independent,
and a people can
Valenzuela were
deliberately misleading the Spanish authorities. can be

being free. and I

Valenzuela's own admission that he did
not want to incriminate Rizal, dent without
democratic rights for the Philippines
and Quirino's point that declarations made I have always wanted
under duress are not reli- myself in this
sense.
. .
.

able, become even more persuasive when have always expressed would be
considered in the light of the believed that little by little a u t o n o m y
hysterical prison testimony of one of the ilustrados arrested and tor- That I have also true.
the c o u r s e of time,
is

tured in Fort Santiago upon the outbreak of independence in

the Revolution, Antonio achieved, and then whern she
becomes convinced

Luna, who, among other things, cried abandon this {country)

Spain will involves s a c r i -
hysterically: and that (staying here)
in Morocco,
that her future lies abandon this [country|
and she will
No soy rebelde, ni mason, fices m o r e than
anything else, tried to do at
filibustero; al contrario, soy delator y
ni
wish to stop her,
as she
creo haber cumplido como hijo leal de e v e n though
the Filipinos may

Liga Filip1na. Su autor es D.

España. El Katipunan es la .. .

Jose Rizal. Vuelvo various times in past

centuries.
systematically
denied demo
soy rebelde, ni filibustero, ni mason.
a
repitir: No
. . .

(Arch. Fl., believed that, it Spain and so I

IV, 199 I have also be
[19]; cited
insurrections,

Guerrero 1963, 522n in there would

24) cratic rights to the Philippines,
such eventuality but not ex-
any
have said in my
writings, bewailing
I am not a rebel, nor a mas50n, nor a
5ubversive; to be selt-
on the contrary, I am pecting it. necessary

an informner and I beieve have what I said:

that it w a s
The Tulliled my duties as a
loyal of This is the
s e n s e of
developments
occurred, we

Spain... .

Kat1punan is the Liga Filipina,. Jts son

that when .these|
Rizal, I repeat: I am not rebel, nora
a author .

is Dr. Jose
respectin8,
to unite, so
o r England,
o r Germany.
.

SubversiVe, nor a mason.

should n o t fall into the
hands ofJapan, Japanese
eminent
asked
1887, a certain
etc. I|
in July us, etc.
Luna redeemed
himself Jater by
joning the Quite s o m e t i m e ago,
that they
would help
and proving himself as (arguabiy) the most
revolutionary
brilliant
forces e why we did
not rebel, saying
well otf with
Spain and
did not w a n t to

Aguinaldo's army. general i a n s w e r e d them

that w e w e r e replied that Japan
had n o
hand.. . They
hand to
be passed trom
 Revolution
59
the
Revolution
Rizal and the
Rizal and
rebellion."
58 between him and the
and would help only for racialre any
direct
connection
Constantino's di-
thePhilippines
on reproduces
a tall
in history that their
their ancestors evidence
however, unwittingly Revolu-
i n t e r e s t

showed
them
from
had not Guerrero
(427), Bonifacio;
Reform versus

light of what
Rizal v e r s u s
and instance, in the
I smiled chotomies (for December manifesto

thoughtthe
same way. ople to
to appear [before the world] the 15 between
when he interprets
difference
Filipino people tion) (or tactical)
wanted the that make themselves methodological
I for a people to be the
noble, honest, themselves
Con he perceives
Bonifacio. He
writes:
or vices expose

temptible by their cowardice despises

whom he
abuses and Rizal and Bonifacio's Revo-

impositions.
In general,
m a n oppresses
Guerrero, There might be n o argument
that Rizal
condemned

both pursued
the same

equally beyond
dispute that they between them
424-26) lution; it is The difference
independence
of the Philippines. his t r u s t in
the Bonifacio put
writes Guerrero (426), "was nor hi-nd end, opportunity.
and
judge advocate general, the choice of the discov-
means
The lay in prematurely by
of Rizal's manitesto." He refused.
ed to been driven to
take up a r m s evolu-
the implhcations had and natural
that he did not see
that
force, and
Rizal believed in
the gradual
the
foresaw
and issue it, complaining the Katipunan, and
approve ery of Nation o v e r the
c o u r s e of years
independence
tion of the Filipino make eventual
that would would
condemning the present rebellious movement developments and colony
(Rizall limits himself to international
on which metropolis
as premature and
because he considers its impossible at this
success
an
inevitable
conclusion

the lines that the independence dreamed

time, but suggesting berween peaceably agree.
Decem-
of can be achieved by means less honorable than those used at present construe
Rizal's 15
seems to
Guerrero
by the rebels when the [level of] culture of the people could serve as a Like Constantino,
and testament.

most valuable factor in the struggle and as the guarantee of its suc- manitesto as his last will
ber
cess. For Rizal it is a question of opportunity, not of principles or ob-
Mi ultimo adios word. A
The Meaning of
more
jectives. His manifesto can be condensed into these words: "Faced Rizal's last
manifesto w a s not
with the proofs of defeat, lay down your arms, my countrymen; I shall December untitled, later
The 15 last poem,
of mind is his
state
Riza>'s scholars. Surpris-
lead you to the Promised Land on a later day." (426-27) accurate gauge of ultimo adios by
redundant title
Mi
has n o t been
given the rather his tinal testament,

Rizal, indeed Revo-

The Spanish authorities did not read this last poem of intimate view of the
Rizal's manifesto in the same ingly,
it could shed o n Rizal's unlike the
way thar Constantino had read it. They were in fact disappointed thar explored for the light imagination. For
on the popular
well as its impact Bonitacio.
KiZal did not profess loyalty to Spain. Nor did Rizal reject independen
as in
lution, as
it
disseminated to the
was
masses,
thanks to
Rizal
connection that
principle undesirable. Rizal even had the manitesto,
the intimate
temerity to
evitabilhty. Thus, Rizal's manifesto was never issued to the assert
stanza captures which the masses
The second Revolution,
and the
authorities may have feared pudil made between his martyrdom in no
uncertain terms,

from that if issued publicly, the manifesto, far perceived and

understood. This
stanza directly,
tor the revo
dampening revolutionary fervor, would more likely be r y the C o n s t a n t i n o ' s utter
misreading of
Rizal's meaning
Filpinos in exposes
different, more subversive light,
a
The original
reads:
context in which
it was
written. especially n lutionary masses.

delirio
casual and pra
Guerrero's reading of Rizal's "ison declarations is more En campos de batalla,
luchando con

sin dudas, sin pesar

both the 12 Otros te dan sus vidas
December ACCording to Guerrero (426), we m u s t consider importa, cipres,
laurel o lirio,
partly in the light of norandum and the 15 December ma
ifesto
El sitio nada
abierto, combate
o cruel
martirio,

had
prepared a brief the purpos
rpose for which they were
for the
adalso

Lo mismo
o campo
es si lo piden
la Patria y hogar.
el
king ne yer, he was

the defense, and, like good lawyers

prosecution at its weakest a
the insufficiency
of its
 60 DOLnt0N

Austin Coates's translation reads:

Rizal and the Revolution 61
Others are giving youttheir lives on fields of
Fighting joyfully, without hesitat or battle, Rizal's last poem was disseminated
How it takes place is not important hought for the form of Bonifacio's vernacular translation,
to the revolutionaries in the
the first Tagalog version,
Scaffold or attlefield, in combat or crue
Cypress, laurel or li consequena
lily,
which reads:

It is thesame when what isasked

your home. (Italics mine)
of you martyrdom,
is for your Sa pakikidigma at
pamimiyapis
country and ang alay ng iba'y ang buhay na kipkip
walang agam-agam, maluwag sa dibdib
Notice that something has
appened in the translation-R matamis sa puso at di ikahapis. (Italics mine)
phrase in the second line-sin dudas, sin
pesar- has been -Rizals
Coates into-"without hesitation or translate by
thought ffor the consequence" Saan man mautas ay di kailangan
Contrast this Nick cipres o laurel, lirio ma'y putungan
to
Joaquin's translation:
pakikipaghamok at ang bibitayan
On the field of battle, yaon ay gaon lgayon din kung hiling ng Bayan.
fighting with
others give you their lives delirium,
The site nought
without doubts, without As Ileto and Mary Jane Po had observed, "Bonifacio not
matters: cypress, laurel gloom only
gibbet or open field: combat or cruel or lily: translated the poem but reconstructed it in such a way that one stanza
are
equal if demanded by country andmartyrdom in the original became two in the Tagalog version. Thus,
apart from the
home. (Italics nuances imparted by the Tagalog
language, subordinate ideas in the
mines original were given their own existence" (lleto 1982, 337n100).
Not only is Joaquin's translation I would go further: not only do subordinate ideas come to exist on
the
phrase-"without doubts, without literally closer to Rizal's Spanish, their own, but also, and perhaps more importantly,
spirit of the poem (at least implicit ideas or
as read or gloom"-better captures the hidden assumptions burst forth with more force. Bonifacio in fact has
than
Coates 's misleading "without interpreted by the revolutionaries ingeniously added a new phrase not found in the original, and neither
guence." His stylistic hesitation or thought for the
entirely innocent becauseconse
in Joaquin's nor Coates's translations. After his translation of "sin
him, in transcription
twist enabled is not
lecture on Rizal's last
a dudas, sin pesar"-"walang agam-agam, maluwag sa dibdib"-he adds
eral and respectable opinion
about Rizal's poem, sneak in to
to matamis sa puso at di-ikahapis."
Revolution, to wit: ambivalent attitude tne Bonifacio's Tagalog version is even more joyously affirmative than
Joaquin's English version: "walang agam-agam" is equivalent to
NOw we learm
Heis in some from this |stanzal that a
Joaquin's "without doubts," but "maluwag sa dibdib" goes further
war of than the English "without gloom" for it signifies a wholehearted
ing, but he doesway connected with it. He admiressome kind
is accep-
go tance, sans misgivings or reservations. Even more interesting is
not those who arefight
phrase "without... entirely agreewith what they are doing. Note the Bonifacio's added phrase-"matamis sa puso at di ikahapis" --meaning
italics mine) thought
for the aence." (Coates 1977, 18,
consequen
"a joy of the heart that knows no
pain." Thus, Bonifacio's translation-
which became the popular version during the
Not Revolution-exposes
Coates's misreading of Rizal's last poem.
pesar" however,doubts,
-without that in
without
to
make
Joaqui
quin's translation of "sin dudas, in However, the most important line is the second part of the stanza
(or the secondstanza in Bonifacio's two-stanza translation):
the claim be
revolutionaries. that pugloom"-Coates
"Rizal did
would
with the
not entirely agree"
not
Joaquin's translation-
 Rizal and the Revolution 63
62 Rizal and the Revolution

to Burgos who wept guiltless,

because he died Rizal went
The site nought matters: cypress, laurel or lily: In contrast
execution ground calm and even cheerful, to show
that he was
gibbet or open field: combat or cruel martyrdom to the
to sacrifice his life, which
he had dedicated to the good of all
are equal it demanded by country and home. happy
that in love and gratitude they would always
re-
Filipinos, contident n truth the merit
member him and follow his example and teaching.
Coates's version in that it w a s voluntary and c o n -
of Rizal's sacrifice precisely
consists
the abuses
scious. He had
known perfectly well that, if he denounced
How it takes place is not important. Cypress, laurel or lily, were committing in the Philippines, they would
which the Spaniards
Scaffold or battleficld, in combat or cruel martyrdom, he did so because if
not until they had encompassed his ruin; yet
sleep
It is the same when what is asked of you is for your never be remedied.
From the
not exposed, they would
country and your home. (ltalics mine) the abuses were land and decided
understood the misfortunes of his native
day Rizal vivid imagination never ceased
to picture
redress them, his
to work to
These crucial lines
clarify a double puzzle: terrors of the death that
awaited
m o m e n t of his life the
First, if Rizal was to him at every it c a m e to
willing to support the Revolution, why did he learned not to fear it, and
had n o fear when
not join it when it him; thus he time he dedicated it to
the
finally came? He could have escaped from Dapitan, life of Rizal, from the
with or without the help of the Moros. When the Revolution broke out take him away; the death, bravely
therefore a continuing
service of his native land,
was
while he was on his way to Cuba to serve as a his countrymen. God grant
that they
physician for the Spanish endured until the end for
love of
of his
army, he could have jumped ship at Singapore, as the Roxases did, after tribute worthy
render to him the only
they, as well as Rizal, had been warned that they might be arrested. will know how to
imitation of his virtues.
(Italics mnine)
the
Second, what was the basis of the popular perception that he was memory:

the Tagalog Christ? Even the Revolution, his

Spanish philosopher Miquel de Unamuno became the inspiration
of the
had made this connection, calling him "the Immediately Rizal (Christ's suf
the garden of Gethsemane" (in Coates
Tagalog Christ suffering in viewed as a
of the Pasyon
reenactment

lite and works now dem-

1968, 358). Was Rizal con- lleto's work (1979) has
and resurrection), which,
as
sciously fostering this image, was he deliberately living up to what the tering, death, for the Revolution. Ilt
masses' framework
of meaning
anthropologist Victor Turner calls the "via crucis" paradigm?" onstrated, w a s the the revolutionary
masses

Consider Rizal's actions during his final was from the standpoint
of the Pasyon that
ment of his execution: He gave to his
days and up to the mo- oral histories ot the
one
Revolution,

family his sketch of the Agony in perceived Rizal's last poem. Among s t o r y ot how
the Garden, to Josephine he left consideration is the
serious
Kempis's La Imitacion del Cristo, and that has not received any
rallying cry tor the
at his execution, as the order to fire Bonifacio, becanme a
was given, he cried out aloud
Jesus Rizal's poem, as interpreted by and Constantino. As
last words, Consumatum est! Rizal had been mentioned by Agoncillo
manding officer so that his back was turned to the
positioned by the com- Kevolution. It is not even General Antonio
firing 92), a statt member of
the eight Remingtons cracked, he turned around to face squad,
but as Epitanio de los Santos (1973, trans
stated, Bonitacio's
the firing squad Independencia,
and thus fell with his face to the sky. Luna's revolutionary paper, La trenches." In
combatants in o u r
"was sung by the
If view these instances in the
we lation, "Pahimakas" its evocation

light of the second part of the millennial neanings,

particularly
stanza, we find the answer to our riddle: the context of the poem's observes that
Confronted with the option 1982, 319)
between Revolution and Martyrdom, Rizal chose the latter. ot the Pasyon, this is hardly
surprising. lleto ( e s t e e m . Noot
Mabini, the novels in popular
exceeds his
leading intellectual in Aguinaldo's cabinet (later deported to Guam for Izal's last poem "rivals if not
as well to the ot his
scenario

his refusal to take the oath of allegjance to America after the but it contributes the
Only is it goo«d poetry, scene in
Paalam (Farewell)
Revolution's defeat) perceived the element of will and volition in Rizal's the extended Filipin0
martyrdom, and understood its significance. In his memoir, written in death by repeating
Christ thus calls upon
every
asyon." The death of the Filipino the Revolution,
in
the solitude of his exile in Guam, Mabini (1969, 45) remembered Rizal: national Pasyon by joining
P r t i c i p a t e in the
 Rizal and the Revolution
64 Rizal and the Revolution 65
battlefield of Rizal's last no
which the inspired singing in the m is but makes
the manitesto
had no impact whatsoever, but Constantino
one expression of millennial solidarity. sem.
in-
of his argument. In so doing, he completely ignores,
poer
In the context of the Pasyon, acts of sacrifice, martyrdom it the keystone and
the indelible imprint that Rizal's farewell poem
armed struggle are not mutually exclus1ve modes of resistance I and deed suppresses,
the hearts and minds of the Filipinos at the
turn
Philippine millennial imagination, from Hermano Pule (1840) to Fel
the mode of dying
lett on
Salvador (1910), to Tatang de los Santos (1967) to Ninoy Aquin elipe of the century.
uino
(1983) martyrdom is the ultimate sacrifice and theretore the of Josephine
strugele The Meaning
par excellence. It is for this reason that Rizal's predecessors, Gomez. and martyrdom, there is a third motif
Aside from Rizal's last poem it has
Burgos, and Zamora, the three secular priests executed in 1872 and to the popular imagination, and though, regrettably,
whom Rizal dedicated his El Filibusterismo, are also venerated that stirred Rizal's for
as he- it nevertheless speaks eloquently of support
roes, their martyrdom celebrated in folklore. One been forgotten, dur-
popular song during It is Josephine Bracken's remarkable deportment
the the Revolution.
revolutionary period reters to the martyrs of the nationalist cause as last hours and immediately
after his execution.
siblings, with Burgos as the eldest and Rizal ing Rizal's Rizal for the
as the youngest Rizal's execution, Josephine met with
1910; in lleto 1979, 132). (Ronquilloo On the eve of
matter of specula-
the two talked about could only be a
No wonder, then, that Rizal's last last time. What some eyewitness
poem became a rallying cry of the Manila daily, El Imparcial, reports
the Katipunan revolutionaries tion, though to Rizal's question of
what
after Bonifacio circulated his ver-
soon
of which alleges that in reply
nacular translation accounts, one
among the that she will join the
rebels.
martyrdom marked his apotheosis as the
10To the revolutionary folk, Rizal's
would become of her, Josephine
answers
the teary-eyed Rizal, so
Tagalog Christ. He remains so insurrectos. forcibly taken away from
As she is
among the millennial folk of Mount furiously stomping her feet, shouting
Banahaw today. To fight in the the account goes, she
was heard
Revolution wasthus viewed as
can, therefore, understand participating in the national Pasyon. We "Miserables, crueles!"
witness
why the revolutionary did not tarry in Manila to
Bonifacio to Aguinaldo to leadership, from It is remarkable that Josephine
wallow in misery. She leaves
immediately
called messianic bandits Ricarte,
and even, some time
later, to the so- Rizal's execution and then
during the forces that were then gathering
voking Rizal's name in moments ofAmerican colonial regime, kept in with Paciano to join the revolutionary
In his memoir, General
defeat. struggle, whether in 50 miles from Manila.
Bonifacio sent to the field, in ordertriumph
One message that or at Imus, Cavite, some
the (1992, 71) writes:
Katipunan rebels who were
to inspire
Santiago Alvarez
them to remember the suffering a series of setbacks, enjoins December
supreme sacrifice of
"our most beloved afternoon of the same day [30
triot, the At past one o'clock in the
great Jose Rizal"
Jose Rizal"] (Agoncillo 1963,["ating pinaka-iibig na kababayan nacompa widow and sister, respectively,
of Dr.
si M.
1896), Josefina and Trining, by Mr.
When Rizal stressed on 71). Rizal, arrived at San
Francisco de Malabon accompanied
of
virtue and sacrifice as received them at the house
any revolutionary undertaking, he
the prerequisite
to Paciano Rizal. The Supremo [Bonifacio) small sheets of
origins as
Constantino erroneously
was not
being his Rizals had with them rwo
true to
bourgeois Mrs. Estefania Potente. The
presumes. Rizal's counsel was took from Dr. Rizal's
coherent with the in fact folded paper that they found
under a burner they
Pasyon theme Farewell," writ-
Constantino, however, this popular of the millennial imagination. For cell when they last visited him. On o n e
was the "Last
to keep it for
tion does not perception of Rizal and the Revolu- The Supremo asked
matter. What matters to him is ten in very fine script in Spanish. His was
festo that not even the the 15 the poem into Tagalog.
authorities themselves DecemberHence, that he could translate
Spanish manl Some time, so
the military court
decided not to believed.
publish it, convinced that the first translation of the tarewell poem.
mean it and that no Rizal did
the manifesto Filipino will believe not into
might further inflame the it. Above all, they feared describe the dramatic impact
of Josephine's entry
Filipinos. Unlike Rizal's that
last
Alvarez fails to
Foreman (1906, 536)
has a more vivid
account:
territory. John
 Rizal and the Revolution 6/
66 Rizal and the Revolution
Ambeth Ocampo (1997) has tried
historian and columnist
On her way she was often asked, "Who art thou?" but her answer Popular Constantino's lead, Ocampo ar-
Following
"Lo! I am thy sister, the widow of Rizal!" not only opened a resolve these questions. heroine and placed in a
Josephine was a reluctant
to
passage that, "like Rizal,
for her, but brought low every head in silent reverence. Amidst gues
seek o r want." Regarding the
first question,
mourn- she did not
ing and triumph she was conducted to the presence of the rebel com- po.
pOsition
Ocampo writes,
mander-in-chief, Emilio Aguinaldo, who received her with the respect
due to the sorrowing relic of their departed hero. But the formal be-
trib Manila because of the friction
utes of condolence were I would think that Josephine left
followed by great rejoicing in the camp. She uwhich must have reached boiling point
rween her
and the Rizal family he
was the only free white woman within the rebel lines. that she married Rizal shortly before
lauded
They her
though an angelic being had fallen from the skies; they sang her when the newspaper reported
sought refuge in Magdiwang
as
his execution in Luneta. She
praises as if she was a modern Joan of Arc sent by heaven to lead the was led to
Cavite. (Ital-
if Bonifacio invited her
to
do not know
way to
victory the banner of Castille.
over territory but we
Ics mine)
General Ricarte's account (1963, the grain of
27), written during his solitary historical imagination
(1910) goes against
confinement in Bilibid Prison, from Ocampo's evidence, oft some
1904-1910, perhaps captures most and the available documentary
poignantlythe heroic and
tragic figure of Rizal's dulce extranjera: both c o m m o n s e n s e If Josephine and
Rizal had
in his popular book.
which he in fact cites would an unverified
in Dapitan, why
The widow of Dr.
Rizal, born in Hong Kong, gave been like husband and wife
living execution aggra-
Rizal's
her support of the cause of
the country for which her
genuine proot of of their marriage just
before
from
newspaper report In fact, judging
gave a life full of vigor and
husband gladly wrath toward Josephine?
hope, by rendering much service to the in- vate the Rizal family's
13 August 1896, it
w a s pre-
surrection and suffering much letter to Rizal, dated
want and misfortune. At her request Josephine's troubled In the
there was installed in the
estate house in
creating some problems.
married that was
Tejeros, San Francisco de CIsely their not being 1963, 388)
laments:
Malabon, a field hospital. And Guerrero
dressed the wounded day and night, she attended and second paragraph, Josephine (in
with
soldiers who went to visit every She also gave hope to all the
care. quite
Trozo; it is
their deal with them in
When the Spaniards captured companions lying in the
hospital. Ah, my dear, I a m suffering
a great
as they say
in my tace and
to Naik and from
San Francisco de
Malabon, she escaped true that they ought to
be ashamed of me, because l am not
there to the their children,
of Sra. Narcisa and
companied by other women andMaragondon mountains, whence, ac
Paciano, her
in Presenance [sic)
for Laguna,
crossing the mountains and plains, brother-in-law, she left married to you. (Italics mine)
and although the soles of
her
oftentimes barefooted, should
feet scenario, however, why
At other times she
rode a carabao
were
blood-soaked, she did not stop. Even if we grant Ocampo's unlikely to the
she reached the town of which Paciano led Trinidad scurrying
Bay where she was received bythe rope. Thus
a Paciano and
t send Josephine and Batangas,
where
chief, Venancio Cueto, who by Katipunan Cavite? Why not
put her aboard a boat kevolution's caldron? Indeed, why And
she left for Hong Kong
where she died in 1902.
for Manila, whence and friends (the Malvars)?
(the Apacibles)
relatives
ne Rizals had Bonifacio, himself
a
in Cavite,
complete stranger
ny did they first
see
Josephine's exemplary Rizal's farewell poem?
number of questions. Why didinvolvement in the Revolution raises a dnd entrust him with a copy
of
Katipunan
could shed
she join the sisters in the
anything to do with Josephine's decision? revolution? Did Rizal have he involvement of Rizal's Trinidad, and
his
These questions are crucial, sisters, Josefa and
particularlyvis-a-vVIs Renato Constantino's ig the last question. Rizal's w e r e founding
leaders
the Revolution. claim that Rizal condemned (Narcisa's daughter), as president
Angelica Rizal Lopez Josefa served
of the Katipunan.
branch
and Angelica
a s tiscal
i women's
(Grego de Jesus was the vice president),
 68 Rizal and the Revolution Rizal and the Revolution 69
G. J. Younghusband
(Santiago 1997). In fact, they had preceded Gregoria de Jesus However, what Major (1899, 133-34), fellow
wrote of Josephine in his account is
Bonifacio's spouse, in the Katipunan. As Gregoria relates in her autobi af the Royal Geographical doCiety,
ography, Mga Tala ng Aking Buhay (Notes of My Life), Rizal's sisters even more stupendous:
were
among the welcoming officers when she and Bonifacio were wed
through Katipunan rites (after the Catholic ceremony in the Binondo first engagement it is narrated that she picked off, with
In this lady's
officer who was leading the troops to the
church): "I remember that there was a little feast, attended, among oth- unerring aim, the Spanish
she is said to have fired forty
ers, by Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Turiano, Roman
Basa, Mariano Dizon, attack, and during this engagement
the admiration of those around her by her
Josefa and Trining Rizal, and nearly all dignitaries of the rounds, and to have excited
(de Jesus 1930, 17). Katipunan" weeks this brave woman fought in the
excellent shooting. For many
Not content with combat at long ranges,
Indeed, there is more to the Cavite sojourn than Ocampo's ranks of the insurgents.
.
that Josephine was gossip have even faced the stern ordeal of hand-
fleeing from the wrath of the Rizal Madame Rizal is reported to
family. led the charges with the bohie knife as a
One issue raised by Ocampo, however, deserves serious consider- to-hand conflict, and to have
dumbfounded bodies of Spaniards.
ation-John Foreman's image of Josephine as a Joan of Arc. Foreman's weapon of
offence against
source may have been the
interview Josephine gave to a reporter of bereft of
China Mail upon her arrival in of course, dismiss all this as
Hong Kong in 1897 (in Ocampo 1990, The empiricist historian will,
132). Josephine claimed that in one however, was sim-
documents. Major Younghusband,
other lady, went battle, she, "in company with an- any supporting these stories proliferated
out on horseback armed
with Mauser rifles" and "was he had heard. The fact that
ply reporting what
lucky enough to kill a
Spanish officer." Ocampo (1997) Was, Josephine, as Ocampo alleges
argues: during the revolution is significant. she was
the troops to fight"? Certainly,
This is funny because all (1997), being used "to inspire farewell poem
the documents of martyrdom and his
there was a scarcity of
the period point out that used in the s a m e way that Rizal's
guns and However, this point is entirely separate
ammunition. Hence, they would used to rally the masses.
hardly entrust a rifle and a horse to a Were
Rizal, for that matter) was sim
woman, much less someone like from the issue of whether Josephine (or
Josephine. did seek nor want." For the
position she [or he]
not
Ply "placed in a
this second point;
But why the there is no doubt regarding
masses, I submit
contemptuous "someone like Josephine"? On the evolutionary
weresuch powerful symbols.
contrary, as the sympathetic accounts of and Josephine
Foreman and Ricarte reveal, It that is why Rizal correct. We
have established
precisely Josephine's identity as Rizal's perception w a s basically
was
special status among the revolutionaries. widow that accorded her a at this popular Mabini put it, "voluntary
and conscious."
sacrifice was, as clear. Mariano
Both accounts stress that dtizals
evidence is likewise
Josephine's presence in Cavite inspired the n the case of Josephine,
the Blumentritt, that
Ocampo acknowledges. Would it have beentroops to fight-a point that 1897 letter to
improbable for Josephine, 15) affirmed, in his 3 June to
the
who commanded such awe from
the rebel nce (1932, which
active opposition
implied
horse and a rifle, especially if this soldiers, to have been lent a Osephine was "una separatista,"
Another evidence 1s Cited
would lift the rebels morale? After 1963, 532-33n22). 199/
all, a rifle-wielding woman-rebel on
horseback was not so unusual dur panish regime (Guerrero conclusion of his
26 March
n e x t to the the China
ing the revolution. In her autobiography, campo himself, right Josephine is
reported in
spouse of Bonifaci0, claims to have done Gregoria
de Jesus (1930, 18), would be her
even more:
hilippineDaily Inquirer column. she had
breath it
Mail interview as saying that "as long as
Apparently,
I had fear of Philippines in their
fight for liberty." authori-
no facing danger, not even death itself, whenever I ac- d O r to help the However, the
Spanish
companied the soldiers in battle.. I .
was considered a soldier, and to does n o t
find this noteworthy.
to Madrid
ot the Spanish
be a true one Tlearned to ride, to shoot a 1897 dispatch Josephine's
rifle, and to manipulate other d . C o n s i d e r the 30 May After reporting
weapons which I had occasions actually to use.
minister in Hong Kong, Jose de Navarro. Navarro
oted that she
notec
1897,
arrival Hong Kong
in 23 Mayon
 10 Rizal and the Revolution Rizal and the Revolution 11
stayed in the house of Jose Ma. Basa where she is visited by all mem- nationalists intend to accomplish. Such unfounded denigration
Dizalist
The widow used the press to attack the present generation, which is in dire need of a
bers of the jnta filibustera.
She wished to
Spain af Rizal will prevent
imagination, from gaining "a proper understanding"
and the Spaniards aboutthe Philippines.. . .
excite pub robust nationalist
nationalist movement.
lic opinion. (In Ocampo 1990, 131). of the
nineteenth-century
this enigma can be tound among the anti-Rizal na-
The answer to
According to Jose (1979, 154-55), "after brutally
Indeed, given the stories surrounding her, the interview she gave, rionalists themselves.
Republic," American imperialists pro
and the Spanish minister's dispatch, we can conclude that Josephine did destroying the First Philippine
themselves of the collabora
seek and want the position in which she was colonize the country by availing
placed. However, was ceeded to
whose ranks the most effective agents of
Josephine in fact a revolutionary heroine? lf our answer depended on tion of the ilustrados, "from
were subsequently
chosen." As part of their hegemonic
knowing exactly what she did in Cavite, that is, if we are laboring from American policy mind personalities not
rulers enthroned in the public
a
positivistic historiography, in which only verifiable facts are asserted, task, "the
new
it."
we may not be able to resolve this American they denigrated those who opposed
rule even as
question. Yet, from a critical herme averse to
artistic, and scientific achieve-
neutic perspective, the question can be framed more his "highly significant literary,
fruitfully: How did In view of assimilationist" who never
the revolutionary masses because he was "a consistent
perceive Josephine's entry into their ranks? ments," and
that his dramatic death
Because she was associated with Rizal, this colonialism a s such, and considering
the question of how the masses
question is inseparable from questioned Rizal was the perfect hero
for reinforcing
perceived Rizal's martyrdom, especially made him so easily lovable, "a clever handling of
given the fact that both Josephine's entry into rebel colonial order. Thus, through
territory and Rizal's the goals of the n e w the Rizal cult to further
martyrdom occurred on the same day. Thus, for all the unresolved ques- the Americans promoted
mass propaganda," Jose,
tions surrounding task of the true nationalist, implies
Josephine's tragic life, one thing cannot be doubted: their imperialist ends. The
own
by ex Rizal
The profound esteem and reverence
with which Josephine was held in this mass deception. Denigrating
is to expose and oppose the nationalist effort of
the eyes of the is thus integral to
revolutionaries, who saw her entry into their ranks as posing his reactionary politics
signifying both her gesture of solidarity with the Filipino opposing American imperialism.
Rizal's blessing of the Revolution. people, and rests on a false premise, that is,
Rizal
Fine! Except that this logic repudiated" the
assimilationist reformist who "vehemently
Was an na-
Denigration without Understanding fundamental problem here lies in our progressive
So we face the Revolution. The of Rizal
representation
vexing problem: Why is there such rabid vehemence tionalists' uncritical acceptance of the American insidious
on the part of otherwise intellectual. This
progressive nationalists, epitomized by counterrevolutionary
bourgeois
both Spanish
Constantino, against Rizal as an assimilationist as a
colonial writers,
evidence points to the reformist, when all the Orientalist construction
of Rizal by and
opposite conclusion? What has n e v e r been questioned
cutting off Rizal from the radical nationalist
is to be gained by (Retana) and American (Craig, et al.), E. San
nationalists, with the
exception ot
tradition of the nineteenth leftist
century? Why insist on the 15 December Seriously critiqued by
unheeded.
travelers remain
other documents as hardcore manifesto and one or two critical advice his fellow
to
evidence, when these in fact constitute the Juan Jr., whose
exceptions to the main body of available evidence, and But why? n a t i o n a l 1 s t s are
more, these textual oddities can be when, further- two possibilities: (1)our progressive nineteenth
venture
of the
more
fruitfully accounted for histo- nere
popular imagination
riographically-on the basis of the
contexts in which they arose? Why, emselves cut off from the
their Marxist
sophistication,
or
in short, the compulsive obsession notwithstanding
the part of the nationalist Left to
on enturys and (2) victims of
American propa
write off Rizal? themselves unwitting
Pctensions, they a r e have to contront
the inevitable
This is a serious and then we
urgent problem because writing off a misread da. (1) and (2) a r e
It correct,
sucecesstully
established in
and misrepresented Rizal will have the hegemony w a s been
opposite effect of what the anti- Cation, that
American writers
have
our own
revered nationalist
Chilppines, and that
 72 Rizal and the Revolution

seduction. This
to this modern-day imperialist
unwitting accomplices the
unalloyed American success at building hegemony finally explains
failure of the nationalist project that
Rizal and Bonifacio embodied.
the decentering of
The publication of Constantino's essay signaled
with the vulgarization of the
Rizal as a nationalist symbol. However,
colonial appropriation by the Americaan
symbol that resulted from its
bound to happen with or with-
probably
regime, that decentering was

out Constantino's assault.

Constantino's critique of Rizal, however,
millennial con
served to push to the fringes the already marginalized
such peasant consciousness, Marxist
sciousness. Unable to understand
Setsuho
proselytizers, laboring from a discourse of modernity- what
Ikehata (1989, 79-80) the "modernist fallacy"-simply dis-
terms as
That is, peasant
miss it as a case of uneven ideological development.
consciousness is simply a backward consciousness compared to their

more advanced "proletarian"

and "scientific" consciousness. Hence,
toward a
the ideological viewpoints among various segments/classes
common counterhegemonic perspective,
the motive force of anti-impe-
nineteenth-cen-
rialist nationalism in the Third World, and which the
movement achieved, could not be articulated. The
result
tury nationalist
a united tront
is a fragmented nationalist movement unable to present
than ever.
against the forces of reaction that are now more entrenched
Constantino's move, in decentering Rizal, left a vacuum in the
mythological terrain of nationalism. The Rizal after
problem was not

all. All along, the problem has been with our historians who, in unwit-
tingly reproducing American colonial discourse on Rizal and the Philip-
pine nationalist movement of the nineteenth century, failed to read the
popular imagination and the spirit of the times.