Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context
17
possible alternately to portray the American colonial system as the fulfillment of Rizal's aspirations, to picture him as an ineffectual reformist unable to bring himself to accept the national revolution envisaged by Bonifacio, and to invoke him as patron of the ideals of the Marcos New Society.' To sum it up in a phrase used by Renato Constentino ill a different context, it has often been "veneration without understanding," hence, no veneration at all. Economic Development
Rizal in the Context of Nineteenth-Century Philippines
The flowering of the nationalist movement in the late nineteenth century could scarcely be possible without the economic growth which took place in nineteenth-eentury Philippines, particularly after about 1830. The growth of an export economy in those years brought increasing prosperity to the Filipino middle and upper classes who were in a petition to profit by it, as well as to the Western-chiefly British and American-merchants who organized it. It also brought into the Philippines both the machinery and the consumer goods which the industrialized economies of the West could supply, and that Spain could not, or would not, supply. The figures for Philippine foreign trade for the beginning, middle, and end of this peri od are significant of what was happening."
Though the .origins
and development of Filipino nationalism cannot be understood simply by studying Rizal and his nationalist thought, neither can it be understood without giving him central attention. But like any seminal thinker's, Rizal's evolving nationalist thought must be studied within the context of his times. The purpose of this essay is to single out some major economic, political, cultural, and religious developments of the nineteenth century that influenced Rizal's growth as a nationalist and conditioned the evolution of his thought. Without an understanding of that milieu one can scarcely understand Rizal's enduring importance to the Filipino people nor the relevance of his ideas and ideals today. One of the ironies of the cult rendered to Rizal as a national hero is that often his words, rather than his thoughts, have been invoked without any consideration ofthe historical context in which they were spoken or of the issues they addressed. Thus, it has been
,
__ .. _ --
.
-
- --
- --
-
- --
- --
-
-
Year
Exports (i n peeoe)
Imports (in pesos)
1825 1875 1895
1,000,000 18,900,000 36,600,000
1,800,0 00 12,200,000 25,400,000
Total Trade (in pesos)
2,800,000 31,100,000 62,000,000
Philippine exports in thi s burgeoning economy were agricultural products, and a rapidly STowing popul ation ne eded increased amounts of rice. Thus, those who controlled large rice-, sugar-, and abaca-growing lands in Central Luzon, Batangas, parts ofthe Bikol region, Negros, and Pariay profited the most. These included not only the Filipin o hacenderos of Pampanga, Batangas, and Western Visayas, and th e friar orders owning the large haciendas of Bulacan, Laguna, and Cavite, but also the inquilinos of the friar haciendas. fly this time, many of these inquilinos were equivalently hacenderos in their own right, passing on from one generation to the next the lands they rented from the friar hacienda, and farming them hy means of their sh are-tenants or ka sama. To the latter they stood in a semifeudal relati onship little different from that which existed
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context 18
19
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context
between owner-hacenderos and their tenants.' The prosperity which the new export economy had brought to some may be illustrated by the case of Rizal's Chinese ancestor Domingo Lam-co. When he had come to the Binan hacienda in mid-eighteenth century, the average holding of an inquilino was 2.9 hectares; after Rizal's father had moved to the Calamba hacienda, the Rizal family in the 1890s rented from the hacienda over 390 hectares.' But on the friar haciendas, rising prosperity h ad also brought friction between inquilinos and haciendas as lands grew in value and rents were raised. A combination of traditional methods and modernizing efficiency led to disputes, ultimately over who sh ould reap the larger part of the fruits of the economic boom. Eventually, this would lead to a questioning of the friar s' rights to the haciendas. But it is a gross misnomer to speak uf the Revolution as an "agrarian revolt" in the modern sense. For it would not be the kasama who would challenge friar ownership, but the prosperous mquilinos. And their motive would be as much political as economic-to weaken the friars' influence in Philippine political Iife .f Political Developments Economic development, as it largely took place under non-Spanish initiatives, had important political conse quences as well. Modernizing Filipinos saw the colonial policies of Spain as not only not the causes of the existing economic prosperity, but increasingly as positive hindrances preventing further progress and even threatening what had already been achieved. In Spain Liberals succeeded Conservatives at irregular intervals as one or the oth er proved incapable of coping with the problems of governing the nation, The instability of these governments mads it impossible to develop any consistent policy for the overseas colonies, Worse, both parties used the Philippines as a handy dumping ground to reward party hangerson with jobs. Hence, each change of government brought another whole new mob of job-seekers to the Philippines, ready to line their pockets with Filipino money before they would be replaced by still others. Thus, Filipinos were deprived of those few positions they had formerly held in the bureaucracy while the vast majority 0 Spanish bureaucrats had no interest. in, or even knowl edge of, the country they were supposed to be govern ing. If the Spanish bureaucracy had always been characterized by graft and corruption, at least those bureaucrats of an earlier day had often remained i the country. If they too had often lined their own pockets, they ha
-
,
-- - -
not been completely indifferent to the welfare of the Philippines where they were making their home. But with the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 and relatively easy passage between Spain and the Philippines, most became birds of prey, staying only long enough to feather their nests." Far worse in many ways than the corruption of the government was its inability to provide for basic needs of public works, schools, peace and order, and other prerequisites to even a semimodern economy. Created to rid the provinces of the bands of tulisanes, the Guardia Civil not only failed to achieve this end, but became an oppressive force in the provinces, harassing farmers and using their position for personal profit, as Rizal depicts so vividly in his novels.? The antiquated system of taxation in effect actually penalized modernization, and the taxes never found their way into the roads, bridges, and other public works needed for agricultural progress." Finally, highly protective tariffs forced Filipinos to buy expensive Spanish textiles and other products instead of the traditional cheaper British ones.' In the face of a system that was both exploitative and incapable of producing benefits for the colony, liberal nationalists and even conservative upper-class Filipinos increasingly no longer found any compelling motive for maintaining the Spanish colonial regim e, as it becam e more and more clear that reforms would not be forthcoming. To a nationalist like Rizal the decision to separate from Spain had been made long since; it was, as the Spanish prosecutors noted in 1896 (with substantial correctness though with little respect for due legal process) a matter of when and how the Revolution should come.P Cultural Development A key factor in the em ergence of nationalism in the late nineteenth century was the cultural development consequent on the rapid spread of education from about 1860. It has become a commonplace to speak of the role of ideas learned by the Europeaneducated ilustrados in t.he emergence of the nationalist movement. But it was not just this handful of Filipinos who were important, nor was it only the European intellectual atmosphere which stimulated nationalism. In many respects, the spread of higher education am ong middle- and lower-middle-class Filipinos who could not afford to go abroad was more important for propagating the liberal and progressive ideas written about from Europe by Rizal or Del Pilar. The creation of a limited but substantial number (some 5 percent
-
--'-
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context
21
20 Rizal in Nineteenth·Century Context perhaps) of Filipinos in all parts of the country who c~uld ~ommu· nicate in Spanish made possible for the first time In history a movement that was both regional am', national in scope. '! One of the major influences on the educational developments of the nineteenth century was the return of the Jesuits. Expelled from the Philippines and the rest of the Spanish empire in 1768: they finally returned in 1859 to take charge of. the evan gelization of Mindanao. Having esca ped, because of their expulsion, fr om the general decline that in the early part of the nineteenth .century afflicted the Philippine church and the system of education that depended on it, they returned with ideas and method~ new to the Philippine educational system. Asked by the Ayuntamiento to take over the municipal primary school in 1859, th ey renamed it, Ateneo Municipal and opened it to Filipino students as well as the Spa n. iar ds for whom it had been founded. By 1865 It h a d been tra~ s. formed into a secondary school that offered a level of instr uction beyond the official r equirements and more approximated today's college than high school. Aside from Latin and Spanish , Greek, French and English were studied. At the same time such a r ole was given to the natural sciences that Rizal h as the Fil6sofo Ta sio say, "The Philippines owes [th e J esuits] the begmnmgs of the Natural Sciences, soul of the nineteenth century."! Under the direction of the Jesuits t oo was th at oth er n ew edu cationa l in stitution, the Escuela Normal de Maestros. It wa s opened in 1865 to provide Spani sh-sp eaking teach ers for the projected new primary school system . The Escuela Norm al represen ted a h ope of progress in the minds of many Filipinos, just as it would be opposed by those for whom m odern education f?r ~ilipino s pose d a danger to the continuance of Spanish rule." Rizal s picture of the tria ls of the schoolteacher in th e N oli, if n ot perhaps typical, wa s certainly not completely a caricature. Jesuit sources frequen tly complain about the opposition that the graduates of the Normal Sch ool ~let from many pari sh priests." If further concrete proof were required, one need only read the book published in 1885 by the !ranclscan Fr. Miguel Lucio y Bustamante. Here he denounced . [itongl ~anga maestrong bagong litao ngayon, na ang pangala.i , normal 8:"d proclaimed the danger of studying, and especially of learnmg Spanish. For, he declared, "ang mga tagalcg, ang rnga indio baga, aniya na humihiualay 0 pinahihiualay sa calabao, ay ang cadalasa, " . H '''15 i, naguiguing masama at palamarang tauo sa DlOS a~ sa an. More than in the primary schools, however, It. was m the secondary schools that the ideas of nationalism were to awak~, ev~n among those who had never gone to Europe. While still a university
student in Manila, Rizal would write in his Memorias that through his studies of literature, science, and philosophy, "the eyes of my intelligence opened a little, and my heart began to cherish nobler sentiments." And more explicitly, speaking of his fifth year at the Ateneo, through these studies "my patriotic sentiments greatly developed."" When already in Europe, he would write to his Austrian friend Ferdinand Blumentritt, concerning the YOW1g Filipinos in Spain: These mends are all young men, criollos, mestizos, and Malays; but we
call ourselves simply Filipinos. Almost all wore educated by the Jesuits. The Jesuits have surely not intended to teach us love of country, but
they have showed us all that is beautiful and all that is best. Therefore I do not fear discord in our homeland; it is possible, but it can be combated and prevented." It was not that the Ateneo taught nationalism or the liberal principles of progress. But in imparting to its students a humanistic education in literature, science, and philosophy, in inculcating principles of human dignity and justice and the equality of all men , it effectively undermined the foundations of the Spanish colonial regime , even without the Spanish Jesuits wishing to do so. If they did n ot draw all the conclusions to their principles, many of their Filipino students would do so. The eyes of th ese Filipinos had been opened tc a much wider perspective than their narrow Philippine experi en ce before they ever set foot in Europe, and they no longer would accept th e establish ed or der. As the chapter of Rizal in El Filibusterism o on a class in the university or hi s passing r emarks in the Noli sh ow, the Filipino nationalists were much le ss appreciative of th e other educational in stitutions, run by the Do minica ns. No doubt the weight of traditi on hun g much h eavier on these than on th e newly founded J esu it school s and it would only be later in th e century that they would begin to mcd er nize. P Yet. one has to remember that the early nati onali st leaders am ong the Filipin o clergy, like Fr. Jose Burgos and Fr. Mariano Sevilla, came from the University of Santo Tomas without ever having studied abroad. Moreover, such later key figures as Marcelo del Pilar , Emilio Jacintc, and Apolinario Mabini obtained th eir educa tion in San Jose, S an Juan de Letran, and San to Tomas. As early as 1843 , the Spanish offi cial Juan de la Matta had proposed th e closing of these in stit ut ions as being "nurseries . . . of su bversive ideas."!" Though the accusation of subversion was often rashly bestcwed on Filipinos, especially priests,
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context 22
Rizal in Nin eteenth-Century Context
it is clear that th e university was communicating something tha stirred up the sparks of nationalism. Nonetheless a maj or factor in giving nationali sm the form i actually took w as the experience of Filipino students in Spain Seeing th e liberties enjoyed in the Peninsula, they becam e all th more conscious of the servitude which their people suffere d. On th other hand , the more perceptive saw the backwardness of Spain i . compari son with other European countries, th e con',;ptIon .a~ futility of the Spanish politi cal system, a nd the system s inabilit to promote even th e welfare of Spain, much less that of her colom.es Many who came to Europe still in hope of ~eform and mod ermz~tlO in the Philippines cam e t o realize that this could never be achieve under Spanish rul e and that the Filipinos must look to th em sel ve~. "Umasa [Filipina s) sa sari ling lakas," as Rizal would say, tur mn his back on Europe and returning to hi s own country to carry 0 the struggle there." . . One final cultural factor involved in the ri se of nationalism was the interest in th e Filipino past, largely inspired by th e European, especially German, preoccupation with history and eth nology. I the German universities of the nineteenth century, and to a lesse extent in other European countries, modern hi storical method wa examining the origins not only of the European nations themselves but of other peoples as well. Rizal was the principal , th ough by n means the only, Filipino to see the importance of such hi s tori c~ investigation for the creation of a nat ional consciousness a mong hi countrymen." Fr. Jose Burgos had already emph asized the ne ed,fo Filipinos to look to their heritage, and it was fr om him that Rizal had learned that concern. To thi s concern Rizal joined an historical consciousness formed by German historiography, applying modern historical method to the investigation of that heritage. In the preface to his edition of Antonio de Morga's Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, his most important hi storical work, Rizal outlines the process by which he had come to seek a foundation for his nationalism in the historical past and emphasizes the importance of history to the national task." In hi s annotations to the book, Rizal seek s ou t all the evidence of a Filipino civilization before the coming of the Spaniards and tries to show how the intervening three centuries have meant decline rather than progress. At the same time he emphasizes Filipino values contrasting them with the Spanish and extolling the accornplishmants of his people. Iffrom a scientific historical point of view, Rizal proves too much and veers toward the opposite distorti?n from that of friars who had denied all civilization to the pre-HIS
( -
23
panic Filipin os, he did lay a historical foundation in his Morga and oth er essays for a national con sciousness and pride in the race which was to prove important for the future. Religious Developments The growth of education was producing an i1ustrado class, not to be completely identified with the wealthy, as the examples ofMabini and Jacin to show. These ilustrados were increasingly antifriar, at times even anticlerical or anti-Catholic, A simplistic historiography has attributed this hostility to the "abuses of th e friars" or to the influen ce of Spani sh anticlericalisrn." Both of th ese factors no doubt played th eir part. There were indeed abuses on the part of some friars . There is, however, little or no evidence that these were committed more in the latter part of the nineteenth century than at an earlier peri od, rather the contrary.P The reason for this attitude among th e ilust rados is t o be sough t elsewhere-in th e intermingling ofthe political and the religious so characteristic of the Spanish Patronato Real , most especially in the latter half of the nineteenth century. As S pain became less and less willing or able to promote th e happiness and prosperity of the Philippines, the Spanish colonial gover n me nt lean ed more heavily on what had always been a mainstay of Spanish rule--the devotion of Filipinos to their Catholic faith. Th e sentiment th a t animated many a Spanish official was expressed with brutal frankness by Gov. Valeriano Weyler in 1891: Far fr om relizi ous exagger ati on being a n obstacle in th e Ph.ilippines, it sh ould be su pported, so that the influence of the parish pnest may be what it shoul d be. .. . Religion can and should be in Lu zon an d the Bisayas a rnear.s of government which is to be taken a dvantage of, and whi ch ju sti fi es th e n ecessi ty of the reli gious or ders .P
For thi s reason, even the most anticlerical of Spanish governors maintained th a t it was ne cessary t o support the friars by every means. Writing " cc nfl dent ial memorial for th e use of his successor in 1872, Ra fael l?']lJiordo expressed the key ideas of this policy: The religiou s orde-rs have th eir defects, their vices and their difficulties, bu t in the Phil ippines they have two qualities which from the political poin t of vie w n rc so grea t nnd so important tha t they oblige us to presciri d from whatever may be alle~e d agains~ them. One ~f the~ qualities is thei r un shakeable devo:lon to Spain; the oth~r 18 .the~r infl ue nce on thfl! nati ves , which even In the weakened state In which It is today, is still su fficiently great to consider it a preserving factor. 27
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context 24
Rizal in Nin eteenth-Centu ry Context
His successor, Juan Alaminos, likewise an anticlerical, could no sufficiently emphasize the importance of the friars. No one, h e fel could deny their pat riotism, "wh ich verges on fa naticism, and the make the Indio believe that only in loving t he Spaniards can h save his soul in the next Iife."28 That patriotism and the undeniable infl uence that the friar pari s priest had on the ordinary Filipino, r ather than those often-recit but little-documented abus es of the friars, explain wh y the fri ar inevitably became the main t arget of th e Filipino natio nalists, an of Rizal in particular." Th e same may be said conce rni ng th e fria haciendas. For instance, a lthough the Rizals had a land disput with the Dominican hacienda of Calarnba, t h e r eal is sue wa something bigger-to be able to show that th e F ilipino wa s th equal of the Spaniard, even if the Spaniards be friar s. For Filipino to win a lawsuit against a powerful friar order meant eventually nullify that influence of the friars wh ich th e Spanish governmen so emphasized a s a means t o control the indios?" On that poin Rizal and his fellow nationalists were in agreement-from a differ ent point ofview-with Governors Weyler, Izquierdo, a nd Alami nos A letter of Paciano Rizal to h is br other J ose in Europe, writte at the h eight of the Cala mba h acienda dispute, is sign ificant in thi regard. He wrot e in r eference to a rumor h e had h eard that Arch bishop Nozaleda, th en in Europe, h a d proposed fri a r support fo reforms to the Filipino nationalists t here, in the person of Del Pilar in order to end t he antifriar campaign of La Solidaridad. If the Hacienda of Calamba has any part in the compromise, I will tel
you the opinion of the majority of the people. The peop le do not ~esiTe to appropria te to themselves this H a cien da, because ... th e h aciend was handed over to the order in [1833J a pproxi mate ly by Asanza. Bu
they likewise know (because of the leek of title-deeds) that those land did not have the extension which they now WIsh to gr ve them . In thir situation the most just and equitable thing is to mark the limits of thi Ha cienda so as to declare free of a ll Tent those lands not include d in th sale or cessi on a nd to return the m oney wrongly coll ected for these . Thi is what ought'to be done in s trict jus tice . . . . If th e com promise in the above sense will not injure the ca use w hich y ou are upholding, you can propose it so as to put a h a lt to the u nbearabl e sit ua t ion in which the
people fin d themselves; if it would be harmful, I will always believe tha interests of a secon dary order should be subordi nated."
The cause that Rizal is spoken of as upholding, and to which economi interest s were to be subordinated, was of cour se the opport unity fo Filipinos to run t heir own affairs a nd eventually to throw off th yoke of Spain completely.
\ , , - --
25
_ .~ -- -- -- -- -- -- ----
On e can see here t he paradox of Philippine Cath olicism at the en d ofthe nineteenth century. On the one h a nd, the ordinary Filipino who h ad not gone to Manila or abroad for higher edu cat ion r ema ined in the traditional religious practices and beliefs ' of his forefathers and continued to look up to his friar parish priest as fath er of hi s people and protector against oppressive government officials. So much was t h is true that duri ng th e Revolution one of th e great sources of division was the sorrow with which th e ordinary Filipino saw hi s friar parish priest imprison ed and taken away." In some cases, notably a mong the Guardia de Honor, this even led to vi olent oppositio n to the Revolution ; in others, to such a paradoxical situation a s that of the Dominican parish pri est of Orio n , Bata an, wh o had taken refuge in th e church tower with Spanish soldie rs when the figh ting broke out. Wh en the Spanish troops could n o longer h old out, Father Herrero came down to a rrange for su rrender. As h e h imself later told t he story, On seeing me, as if at a s ignal a ll immediately sh ea th ed their bolos, knelt down , and brok e forth in a deafe nin g sh ou t: "Viva a n g Santisirno S a cramento, s ala m a t sa Diosl, because-they added in t h e same language-in spite of ou r continuous rapid-fir e, th e Father is unharmed." As I came down from t h e choir to pass to th e! con vento, another
spontaneous shout broke forth from all who filled the place, as they separa ted into two files, sh outi ng: "Viva an g Paring Cura! Viva!"33
On th e oth er han d, th e Fi lipino ilustrado educated in Europe found th e Catholic practice of his day childish and incompatible with modern ideas. As Rizal puts it thr ough the mouth of Elia s in the Noli: Do you call those externa l practices fa ith? Or that b usiness in cor ds and scupul nrs, religion? Or the s tor-i es of mi ra cles and oth er fairy tales th at w {> h oa r (·ver y day, tru t h? Is t h is tbo la w of .lesus Ch rist? A God did not _ha ve t o let Himself be cru cifi ed for this, nor we as sum e th e obliga ti on of eterna l gra tit ude. Su perstiti on existed long befor e this; all that was needed wns t o per fec t it lind to r ni se th e price of th e mercha ndi se."
What wa s m ore, for th e nat.ionalists religi on had come to signify .1 mean s to perpetuate the s ta tus qu o, to mainta in Spanish power in th e Philip pines. Rizal expre ssed his own mind in a letter to B1umentritt: I wanted to hit t he fri a rs [but] since t h e fria rs are a lways making use of religion, not only as a shi eld bu t also as a wea pon , protection, citadel, for tress, armor, etc ., I was the re fore force d to a tta ck their fa lse a n d
26
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context superstitious religion in order to combat the enemy who hid behind this religion.... God must not serve as shield and protection of abuses, nor must religion."
The picture of the religious environment in which nineteenth century nationalism came to maturity would be incomplete, above all for Rizal, without the Filipino clergy. Not only were Rizal and his fellow Propagandists partly the heirs of the conflict between Filipino secular priests and Spanish friars that had led to the martyrdom of Fathers Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora in 1872; it was also in that conflict that the seeds of nationalism, which were to come to full flower among the Propagandists, had first been sowed. Just as one cannot understand Bonifacio without knowing Rizal, whose thoughts he imbibed and rephrased in more popular language, so one cannot understand Rizal without knowing the influence of Burgos on him. Rizal prolonged the incipient national consciousness, of which Burgos was the most articulate spokesman, into the full-blown nationalism which led to the Revolution. He would hint at that influence in a slightly fictionalized passage in an early chapter of the Noli. In the novel Ibarra, just back from his studies in Europe, passes hy Eagurnbayan, where the three priests had been executed in 1872. Though in the novel the priest is referred to as an old man for the sake of the story, Burgos, with whom Rizal was acquainted both personally and through his brother Paciano, is clearly the one intended. He writes of the priest as: the man who had opened the eyes of his intel1igence, and had made him understand the good and the just, giving him only a handful of ideas, yet these not commonplaces but COf. victions that had stood up well under the glare of all that he had learned later . . .. [His] parting words still resounded in his ears. "Do not forget that if wisdom is the patrimony of all men, only those of good heart can inherit it. I have tried to transmit to you what I in turn received from my teachers, adding to that legacy as much as I was able in handing it on to the next generation.' You must do the same with your own iriheri tance: increase it threefold, for you go to countries that are very rich." And the priest had added with' a smile: "They came here seeking gold; go you to their countries in search of the treasures we lack. But remember all that glitters is not
gold." The priest had died on a scaffold on that hill." What heritage had Burgos passed on to the next generation? He transformed the century-old dispute between the Spanish friars and the Filipino secular clergy from an intramural ecclesiastical controversy into a clear assertion of Filipino equality with the Spaniard, into a demand for justice to the Filipino." A century earlier the court prelate, Archbishop Basilio Sancho de Sta. Justa,
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context
27
had attempted to subject the religious orders to his own jurisdiction and to that of the government whose creature he was, by the overnight creation of a Filipino clergy who would take their places. The chief victims of this power play had been the Filipino clergy, whose slow but steady growth had been accelerated at the expense of quality. When the Archbishop's crash program produced unworthy priests, whose behavior led to the Spanish joke that there were no more oarsmen for the Pasig river boats because the archbishop had ordained them all, a permanent prejudice was created against the Filipino clergy." The lack of friars at the beginning of the nineteenth century led to turning over many parishes to the Filipino priests. But once the number of friars began to increase again after about 1825, a series of moves to deprive the Filipinos of the parishes once more succeeded each other for the next fifty years. Just when a new generation of Filipino priests under the leadership of Fr. Pedro Pelaez were attempting to disprove the age-old accusations against them by showing that they were equal in ability to the friars, the government hardened its position, filled with suspicion that these priests, as had earlier happened in America, might become the leaders of Filipino emancipation from Spain. Pelaez died in the earthquake of 1863, accused as a subversive." His role in fighting for the rights of the Filipino clergy was taken over by one of his young disciples, Jose Burgos, who published an anonymous pamphlet the following year, defending the memory of Pelaez and calling for justice to the Filipino clergy." Burgos's defense of the rights of the secular clergy in his Manifiesto, however, goes beyond the scholarly arguments from canon law used by Pelaez to urge the rights of the Filipino clergy to the parishes; it blazes forth in a passionate challenrrs to the whole notion of inferio:ity of the Filipino, whether of Spanish blood or indigenous, to the European Citing a long list of Filipino pnests and lawyers from the past, he insists: If in ~ur days we do not see more Filipinos outstanding in the sciences, let this not be attributed to their character nOT to their nature nor to the inf1~ence of the climate nor much less that of the race, but rather to the discouragemen t which for some years now has taken possession of the youth, because of the almost complete lack of incentive. For as a matter of fact, what young man will still make efforts to excel in the science of law or of theology, if he does not see in the future anything but obscurity and indifference?'!
With Burgos we see the first articulation of national feeling, of a sense of national identity. One cannot speak of nationalism in the
Rizal in Nin eteenth-Century Context 28
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Cont ext
full sense. In spite of the accusations made against him , fo~ which he was executed, there is no evidence that Burgos ever aimed at separation of the Philippine s from Spain ," Rather, hl.swas the fir st step, the expression of a sense of those born ~n the Philippines being one people, with a nati onal identity a~d ~atJonal righ t s, even under the sovereignty of Spain. From this in itial articulation of national feeling, Rizal and others would m,o~e towar~ what they had ~o~e to see was the only way of maintammg th at iden tity and obt aining those rights-separation from Spai n ; if n eed be, by means of a revolution" It is n ot any accident that we find numerous close connections between th e activist Filipino clergy led by Burgos a nd the next generation of Filipinos wh o would lead the Propag~nda Movement of the 18805 and 1890s-that Rizal's brother, Paciano, was living in the h ouse of Burgos in 1872; an d that am ong those exiled t o Guam in the aftermath of Burgos's executio n would b~ Fr. Toribio H. del Pilar, older brother of Marcelo,. and Fr. Mariano Sevilla, in whose h ouse Marcelo del Pil ar was living as a student in 1872." The Propaganda Movement would b e th e heir of th e movement of the Filipino clergy, and would carry the Ideas ofnatJo.nal identity ar ticulated by Burgos to their ne xt step and their logical conclusion . . The Propagandists would also be heirs to another a llied moveu t one distinct fr om tha t of the clergy-the liber al r eformist s b t men , " h d . d t of the 18605. These were the "modernizers, men w 0 esrr e 0 bring to the Philippines economic progress, a m odern legal s~s te m and, the "modem liberties"-freedon: of the press, of assoclatJon, 0 speech , and of worsh ip. All of these goals would of course be pa of the goals of the nati onali st movement, bu t th ey were n ot confi ned to nationalists. Indeed, most of th e men who a ppear proml.nent~y am ong the lib er al r eformists who eme rged in to th e pu~li c light m 1869-72 were criollos, Spania rds born in the Philippines. Th ese criollcs had little or n o desire to see th e Philippines separ ated from Spain , but rather wished to see the liberties that ~ad bee~ I~tro duced into the Peninsula also extended to Spanish Philippines. Su ch were men lik e J oaquin Pardo de 'I'avera, Antonio Regidor, an oth er lawyers a nd merchant s. (Bu r gos h imself wa s a Spa nish mestizo but h e had identified him self cl ea rly with all those born in the Philippines, wh eth er of Spanish or M a~ay blo?d-"sean esto, 10 que son, filipinos 0 indigenas," as h e puts It m his M an ifi esto). Gen erally antifriar, th ese rsformists saw in the fn ~rs obstacl ~s progressive r eforms and modern liber ties. It was WIth en th uslas therefore that they welcomed the r ew governor , Carl os Ma . de I. Torre, wh o arrived in Manila in 1869, th e appointee of th e an ti
•
•
29
clerical liberals who had made the Revolution of 1868 in Spain. When de la Torre opened to Manila some of the freedom of expression proclaimed by the Revolution, an d ann ounced his intention of introducing r eforms into the government, these reformists cheered him on and were joined in their demonstration by Father Burgos. The latter saw in the new liberal government, with its proclaimed r espect for liberty and equality, the h ope of gaining recognition for the justice of the Filipino priests' cause. Both the clergy and the r eformists were deceived. In spite of the governor's professed liberali sm and his cordiality, h e was suspicious of both groups and had put them un der secr et pol ice surveilla n ce." Before long he was succeeded by another a ppointee of th e Revolution, Gen. Rafael Izquierdo. Even more than with De la Torre, for Izquierdo liberal r eforms were for the Penin sula , not the colonies. He did not even keep up the pretense of h is predecessor, but quickly suppressed the reform committees and ended even the appearances of liberty of expression allowed by De la Torre. The clergy and the reformi sts continued their struggle through fri endly political influence in Madrid, little realizing that their steps were watched. <7 Wh en finally the opport unity cam e, with the outbreak of what was to all evidence a mer ely local mutiny over local grievances in the garrison of Cavite , within h ours all had been arrested. Before the m onth was over three priests h ad gon e to their death by the garrote, while their colleagues a n d their r eformist allies were on their way to exile in Guam, despite th eir political influences in Madrid. It is n oteworthy th at it was th e three priests who were execu te d, not the reform ist lawyers a nd mer chants" Th eir execution manifested Izquierdo's conviction th at th e fria rs were a necessary political instrum ent for ma in ta inin g th e loyalty of the Filip inos to Spai n; th er efore, by th e sa me t ok en , the Filipino priests who migh t re pla ce th em in th e pa rish es must be eliminated. Those who cla mored for libe ral r efor ms wou ld be silenced, but they were on lv a pa ssing an noyan ce; th e clergy wh o represente d the growing Filipi no con scious ness of thei r r igo t s a s equal to any Spaniard must be cr us hed. With th e dea th of it s leaders a nd th e exile of their followers, th e movem en t of the Filipi no priests was indeed crush ed. When th e exiles fin ally r etu rn ed to Man ila, th ey kn ew better th an to expose th em selves a seco nd tim e. Only with the Revolution wou ld th e survivors , Fr. Pedro Dandan an d Fr. Mariano Sevilla, r eappear in t.he public eye. Fath er Danda n wou ld die fighting in the moun tain s in 1897. Fath er S evilla would work to rally Filipinos to resist the Americans, anti. once more be condemned- though eventually r eprieved-to exile in Gua m, th is tim e by th e American s."
- -- -_. ~ -
-
- - - - -- -
-
-
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context 30
31
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context
Many of the liberal reformists of 1872, on the other hand, no long~ returned to the Philippines once they were free, but made thei homes in Hong Kong or in Europe. For them the issue had bee precisely that-liberal reforms, rather than ~ilipino rights-:an when they could not obtain these in the Philippines, they live elsewhere. 60 Since the Propaganda Movement was also heir to the Iibera reformist tradition the degree to which the Propagandists were truly nationalists, iike Rizal and Del :ilar, or merely liberal reo formists like many of their colleagues m the campaign of La Soh daridad' would only be made clear once war had broken out with the Americans, and the latter were offer ing the reforms which .h ad been sought in vain from Spain. To the reformists, the Am.encan offer would be enough; it was what they had really been lookm.g f~r all along. For the nationalists, the struggle would go on till I became h opeles s. Faced with a new colonial power, th e clergy continued to play its role in the rise of nationalism. The Americans directing the crushing of guerrilla r esistance, whether civilian like Governor Taft, or military like Gen . J. Franklin Bell in Batangas and Gen. J acob Smith in Samar, all singled out th e Filipino priest a s the mos dangerous enemy and the sou l of the Filipino resis~n ce51 At the height of the guerrilla war in 1901 nU,merous p:, e 't~ m all parts 0 the country were in prison, and not a lew, espe cially 10 the Vls~yas, suffered torture and even death for complicity with the guerrillas, Though the initiative in th e nati onalist movement had passed fr~m the Filipino priests to the young ilustrados in Europe and Mantia in the 1880s, the cl ergy remained a powerful force in the RevolutJOn and the major factor in k eeping the masses loyal. Main Current. of the Nationalist Movement In recent years certain gen eralizations have been used concerning the nationalist movem ent of the nineteenth c en~ury and the revolution th at emerged from It. Such catchwords a s the sscu larization movement," "the reform movement," "the revolt of the masses," and "the betrayal of th e ilustrados" obscur e mo:e than clarify the character of Filipino nationalism. The same might be said of attempts to describe the Revolution as " proletarian or lower:middleclass movement captured by the bourgeois ilustrado reformists, and other such explanations that come more from ideological constr~cts than from an examination of historical realities. These generahzations may not entirely be false. But by oversimplifying compie
events in a complex society, they fail to give an account of the reality thnt was. To understand what happened in the nineteenth-century Glovement culminating in the Revolution, it is necessary to distinguish the several different currents that went into movement. At least five can be considered-s-the reformist, the liberal, the anticlerical, the modernizing, and the strictly nationalist. Each individual need not be placed under one of these categories, for they certainly overlapped. Almost all n ation alist s were liberal s in some respect; a lmost all were in favor of modernization. So too most liberal s were also anticleri cal, or at least antifriar. But it is necessary to distinl:Ui sh what was really most im por tant for individu a ls or groups in orde r to u nd erstand wha t they aimed at in su ppor ti ng the Revolution, and why th ey did or did not con ti nue to do so wh en certain ends had been a chieved, Probably most Filipin os, certainly all thinking ones, and even Spaniards with any interest in the country, can be called reformists in some sen se in the late nineteenth century; th e Spanish colonial regime obviously failed any longer to satisfy basic needs and desires of the Filipino pe ople. As intimated in th e letter of Paciano Rizal we have quoted, many of the friars them selves de sired reform s. They even appear to have offered to make joint cause with the Filipinos in Spain to obtain su ch reforms, for all suffered from the inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy, from the antiquated and contradictory laws, from the exploitation of the Philippine treasury by the mother country, and from the inability of t he gove rn ment to maintain peace an d or der.'·2 Indeed, in an ea rlie r period the harshest condemnation of Spanish misgovernment came fr om the friars. It was onIy when th e cau se of reform began to t ak e on antifriar and nationalistic overtones that they opposed it.53 Though by no means 811 reformists were liberals. liberals were almost by definition reformi sts as well. For the safeguards of personal liberty-freedom of speech and of the press , freed om of association, freedom of religion, and r-specially freedom from arbitrary arrest and detenti on and exile or imprisonment without a trial-s-could only be obt.ained with major reforms in the existing colonial government. With the partial exception of freedom of religion, those liberties were the a spiration of all the activist Filipinos who participated in the Propaganda Movement." Together with the demand for representation in the Spanish Cortes, they h eaded the list of reforms demanded by La S olida ridad. As Rizal would write B1umentritt, these liberties were an essential component of any progress worth the name. 55 So integra] were the aspirations to civil liberties
~~----~-~ ~ ~
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context
33
32 Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context
-
to the program of the Propagandists, that it is difficult to see how anyone with any knowledge of our history and heritage could ~ema::k, as some did in the Marcos years, that democracy and CIV11 liberties were an American import which can n ow be dispensed with. Notto the men who created a Filipino nati on long before the Americans ever established them selves." In the circumstances of the time, to be a liberal very often meant to be anticlerical or at least antifriar. Such anticlericali sm was not so much due to obscurantism, which certainly existed in some sectors of the clergy as it wa s to the well-justified fear that ecclesiastical power would' be used to suppress liberal progress. The influence ?f the friar orders in the Philippin es was not rarely used for this purpose, whether successfully or not, th ough the r eligious orders' fear of liberalism was not without basis. For church property had so often been confiscated in Europe and the personal rights of ecclesiastics so often violated in the name of the n ew fre edom." Whether or not they fully agreed with the liberal s, the Filipino clergy were much less likely to be the target of liberal antipathy. This was true even on the part of those liberals who cared little for the bond of common nationality, since the Filipino clergy were powerless to block liberal reforms, even if they had wanted to. Modernization was a desire of all liberals, as it would be of nationalists in general. But the converse was by no means true. Modernization was primarily an economic goal, and many of those who were deeply interested in progressive economic measures sought them for the profit they themselves would derive, not for the co~~ry. Many of these men were conservative politically. Though desiring far-reaching economic changes in Philippine society, just as the British, American, and other foreign entrepreneurs did, they had no desire to create a new nation.58 When the Spanish regime fell under the onslaught of the Revolution, conservative modernizers had no regrets, for th ey realized how little hope there wa s of Spain ever doing away with all the archaic obst.acles to economic progre ss. When the Philippine Republic emerged, they supported it cautiously, intending to control it. When they saw they very likely could not, or that an American regime promised more in the way of immediate peace and order and ultimate economic growth than could the newborn Revolutionary government, they had few Qualms about accepting positions in the new colonial regime, even while still holding positions in the Revolutionary government. Such were men like T. H. Pardo de Tavera, nephew of the exile of 1872, friend of Rizal and the Lunas in Paris. Although a bitter enemy of the friars and high.ranking anticlerical Mason, he was among the first to
accept a position in the American government. He would be one of the first Filipino members of the Philippine Commission, though he had been named Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the government of Aguinaldo." A similar case was Jose Ma. Basa, exile of 1872, who perhaps did more than any other individual to promote the campaign against the friars in the 1880s and 1890s. He was also the main source by which the writings of Rizal, Del Pilar, and others of the Propaganda Movement were smu ggled into the Philippines.'" Together with Doroteo Cortes, former head of the Comite de Propaganda in Manila which had supported Del Pilar and La Solidaridad fo r five year s, Basa W R S among the first to petition the American consul in Hong Kong for a n Am erican protectorate over the Philip pin es." The esta blishm ent of an Am erica n colonial government would sort out those wh o had b een agitating openly or se cr et ly during the decade before the Revolution. It would mak e cl ear who were only r eformists, or liberals, or anti clerical s, or modern izers, but not truly nationalists. For all of the former th e American government gave assurance that th eir main goals would b« achieved-modernizing r eform s in governm ent an d the economy, civil liberties, and the elimin ation of theocratical contr ol over Philippin e society; only the real nati onali sts would see th e fru strati on of the principal goal for which they had st ruggled. During the ear lier years of st r uggle this line of nation alist thought leading from Burgos to Rizal to Bonifaci o, Jacinto, and Mabini , had a ttracted n ot only th ose wh o yearned for an independent Phil ippines, but numerous oth ers wh ose goals were at lea st partia lly differen t, or who su ppor ted only part of the nationalist program. Now th e real n atio na lists were left to themse lves . It woul d be a n exaggeration to say that th e ma sses as a whole stood behind t h e na tionalist st ruggle, but large numbers of th em did . Th e kalayaan th ey looked for might not be the same concept a s th e ind ependencia conceived by Rizal, Bonifacio, a nd Mabini. But th e freedom th ey longed for was fa r nearer to the na tion alists' idea of independ ence than wore the goa ls of economic progress, political r eforms, an d moder nizat ion sought by many of th e ilu strados wh o h a d supoorted th e Propaganda Movement, only to shift t h eir loya lties in th e hour of crisis " For the goa ls now achieved from the Americans h ad only partially coincided with those of leader s like Riza J wh o had seen th e st ruggle primarily a s a movement ai med at th e creati on of a national consciousness, th e mnkinrr of t he Revolu tion . Rizal of course favored reforms in Philippine society, not only by Spania rds, but by t he F'i lipn os the mselves. He oppos ed the influ-
~--- ~ ~-------
I
34
Rizal in Nineteenth-Century Context
ence of the friars on that same society, for he saw them as obstacle to freedom and to progress. He was devoted to the moderni zation of his country, so that, as he put it, she might take her plac among the proud nations of Europe. But what he sought above all was that his country should be free, free from tyrants from abroad or at home, a country where there would not be any tyrants because Filipinos would not allow themselves to be slaves. It was the growth of a free people, proud of its past, working for its future, united in a common set of ideals.'"' This vision it was which made him the center of the nationalist movement of hi s day and the principal inspiration of the Revolution .
Higher Education and the Origins of Nationalism
To write
of hi gh er education and the beginnings of nationalism must seem a parad ox to one acquainted with the nationalist literature of th e last two decades of the nineteenth cen tury.' To say nothing of Ri zal's scathing caricatures of the University of Santo Tomas ill his EI Fili bueierismo, Jose Ma. Panganiban's harsh and detailed dissection in La Solidaridad of the university education open to Filipinos of the ;,880s is only th e most systematic of the critiques of Philippine higher education that regularly appeared in the pages of this organ of the Propaganda Movement," Even the Ateneo Municipal, which Rizal took delight in contrasting with the other schools of Manila, did not escape the jabs of his pen . For as the Fil6sofo Tasio drily observed to Don Filipo, the Ateneo represen ted progress only because the Philippines was still emerging from the darkness of th e Middle Ages.' Later, writing to his friend Ferdinand Blumentritt, Rizal would expl icitate, describing his
