Jose Rizal and the Invention of a National Literature PDF

GE1804 Jose Rizal and the Invention of a National Literature A Summary By R...

GE1804 Jose Rizal and the Invention of a National Literature A Summary By Resil B. Mojares Jose Rizal, as a nineteen-year old student, won first prize in an essay-writing contest in Manila. His alleged winning piece, entitled El Consejo de los Dioses (i.e. The Council of the Gods), entails Homer, Virgil, and Cervantes' reputations being cross-examined by the Greek gods in Mt. Olympus. They were arguing who among the three (3) literary figures was the best in terms of art and virtue, whose musings led to them declaring Cervantes as a winner, whose works were centered around social reform and the rule of reason. Rizal, as Minerva, narrated that Cervantes' work, Don Quixote, was chosen as the winning piece because it is "… the magic hand that strongly guides human passions," and "the whip which punishes and corrects without bloodshed." With Cervantes, Rizal noted that, "Truth came back to occupy its place, announcing a new era to the world, then corrupted." Perhaps it was viewed as pro-Spain at first glance because it was written to reflect Rizal's classical learning during his time. However, a closer introspection can imply that he was subversive as well -- Rizal could be implying that the Philippines needed its Cervantes when he [Cervantes] praised the Spaniard for what he did in a society ruled by "the obscurity of intelligence", "… afflicted by a kind of madness, made more dismal and frantic when stupid authors with feverish imaginations write about it; bad taste was propagated everywhere and time was uselessly spent in pernicious reading …" This essay, composed and submitted in 1880, was composed by Rizal during the early days of the Propaganda. This movement was the response of the Filipinos for the tragic 1872 events, particularly the Cavite Mutiny and the GomBurZa Execution. It waned for a while, but later resurged after 1880 when Marcelo Hilario del Pilar relaunched it. Rizal himself was affected by these events. During the 1880s, the Propaganda was then an "assimilationist" movement that aimed for the reformation, autonomy, and equity among Filipinos and Spaniards -- a recurring theme among concerned peninsular and creole authors in Manila. Rizal attempted in his essay to stand on equal grounds with Spaniards: writing in Spanish, using a Spanish classic, and applying European discourse in his work. However, his attempts were rebuffed -- the Spanish jurors instead chose to deface it by referring it as a work by a Spaniard, not by an indio. What sets Rizal -- and the ilustrados -- from the other critics was their use of literary works as media for their propaganda. Dominated in the scene by a handful of notable peninsulares and Creoles such as Jose felipe del Pan, Francisco de Paula Entrala, and Antonio Vasquez de Aldana, their open-minded and self-conscious views were often lauded due to their racial privilege. Their objectives being pro-Spain, they imagined themselves as the forerunners of unity and enlightenment in the metropolis. However, their influence ever extended only beyond their local Spanish community. They have acquired "disciples", such as Isabelo de los Reyes and Pascual Poblete, who initially shared their ideas of modernity, but eventually pushed them in the other direction. Literature as a medium for propaganda did not guarantee safe scrutiny: it is a medium full of struggles, innovation, and challenges to authority. Thus, the dichotomous works about Philippine nationalism had always been evident. Views such as assimilationism and separatism were noted -- reflecting the complex and dynamic continuum of ideas inextricably existing, as well as the views of reformation and revolution and pre-nationalism and nationalism. Rizal, in 1880, stood at the forefront where the perspective change from pre-nationalism into true nationalism, forging a path to a "national" literature. Rizal tried different things that would incorporate and highlight the Filipino culture: from researching and writing his own version of national history to composing and creating a lexicon of all known dialects in the country, starting from T'boli up to the well-known ones such as Tagalog and Cebuano -- all in the name of 01 Handout 2 *Property of STI  [email protected] Page 1 of 4  GE1804 asserting difference in culture. He knew that local languages are cultural resources for national unity. He and the early nationalists knew that their propaganda mission was an ambivalent one. They were claiming that the Filipinos can stand equally with Spaniards, the benefactors, whose myriad of local languages can be utilized as an autonomous state, much like Galicia and Catalonia in the main peninsula. However, they also noted that the Filipinos weren't also welcoming to the steady encroachment of said benefactors, as the Spanish literary space could spell the erasure of cultural autonomy in the country -- one of the vital components to become a separate nation-state. They knew of the importance of being "internationalized", and how it could help natives step up and join the "world-system", allowing them to engage with other external power because their way of life has been contaminated and vitalized by foreign elements. Because of this, Rizal noted that people's literature should be grounded in their history, acting as a store of social, psychological, and linguistic resources. He added that, in literature, writing is an exercise in authority -- and that Filipinos must be active participants in literature-writing and must exercise command over it. However, he also pointed out that literature can only grow through a vital conversation with the rest of the world. In this perspective, he treated Noli Me Tangere as a window to his "present time", while El Filibusterismo is a glimpse of the "future" that Noli Me Tangere might head towards. The Rizal Bill of 1956: Horacio de la Costa and the Bishops An Abridged Summary By John N. Schumacher, SJ Several drafts of a pastoral letter, written by Horacio de la Costa for the bishops in 1952, survive. De la Costa's Rizal emerges as an outstanding moral figure whose devotion to the truth made his novels a source of moral as well as social and political wisdom for Filipinos. Although subsequent drafts show he was forced by an unknown interlocutor to temper this view, he retained an essentially positive reading of the novels. In the face of Recto's 1956 bill imposing the novels, however, Archbishop (Abp.) Rufino J. Santos commissioned Father (Fr.) Jesus Cavanna to draft a new "Statement." Beginning with a few positive paragraphs from De la Costa, the "Statement" then absolutely condemned the novels and forbade their reading, a prohibition that proved quite ineffective. The drafts of De la Costa show that there was within the Catholic Church a totally different attitude toward Rizal, whose legacy the church could embrace. There are five (5) known versions of Horacio de la Costa's pastoral letter: the original draft (Draft A), the carbon copies of their predecessors (Draft B), the first revision (Draft C), the abridged version (Draft D), and the copy of the "Statement", where De la Costa underlined everything that was omitted by the Catholic church (Draft E). Draft A painted Jose Rizal as a true patriot and a compassionate Filipino who devoted his time to "dispel the ignorance of his people, raise their moral standards, and combat the injustices and inequality under which they labored." However, he also noted that Rizal was also a flawed individual, calling out how the national hero criticized the defects from his countrymen, because he noted that Rizal was only driven to tell the truth. De la Costa noted several propositions in Draft A, which were as follows: 1. Rizal, by universal consent, is first among Filipinos who have distinguished themselves for service to their country. 2. For he possessed to an eminent degree those moral virtues that make up true patriotism. 3. He devoted himself to dispelling the ignorance of his people, raising their moral standards, and combating the injustices and inequality under which they labored. 01 Handout 2 *Property of STI  [email protected] Page 2 of 4  GE1804 4. His love for his country did not blame all ills on strangers, but proclaimed that the Filipino people were also victims of their own vices and defects. 5. That is why he could say of the Noli that "no one can dispute the objectivity of my narrative." 6. His devotion to the truth gave him a clear vision. No Filipino before or after him has understood so well or so memorably expressed the moral, political, and social principles upon which the peace and prosperity of our country must be based. 7. We must applaud in principle that the writings of Rizal be more read and even introduced into our schools. 8. Apart from the formal teaching of religion, there is no more effective means to develop in our youth a sane and constructive nationalism; the moral qualities of justice, responsibility, and integrity; and the civic virtue of subordinating individual ambitions to the common good. 9. Rizal declared he did not intend to attack the Catholic Church itself, but the abuses in it. 10. We must not allow the enemies of the Catholic Church to tear texts from their context to imply the opposite. 11. Rizal's statement is borne out by a critical examination of the novels, according to their nature as fiction. 12. He wrote about fictional crimes of fictional characters, which had a basis in fact. 13. In doing this, Rizal did not attack the Catholic Church itself; rather he did it a service. 14. As to the facts, the church awaits the judgment of history. 15. But since the history of the nineteenth century is imperfectly known, this induces many to take a fictional narrative like Rizal's novels as a substitute for the facts. 16. This is the main danger we foresee in their indiscriminate and undirected reading, especially by the young, who are apt to take as literally true whatever they see in print. 17. Young people cannot be expected to make the distinctions between what the persons in a novel say in accordance with their character, nor between what is said ironically and seriously stated, between the condemnation of an individual and the condemnation of the organization to which he belongs. 18. Therefore, it is our judgment that, while Rizal's novels should be made familiar to our students, the editions should be accurate translations from the Spanish text, properly annotated by a scholar familiar with the ecclesiastical and civil history of Rizal's period, and should ordinarily be commented on and explained by the teacher in charge. 19. There is nothing in the novels that constitutes a danger to the faith and morals of a mature, well-instructed Catholic. 20. Rather, they contain much that is in conformity with the Gospel and right reason, and will serve to develop in our people a wise and generous love of their native land. From these propositions it is obvious that for De la Costa, as shown in Draft A, Rizal is the national hero not just because he was executed by the Spaniards, nor because he analyzed the problems of the nation with perspicacity, nor because he enunciated political and social principles for the good of the nation. He did all these, but he was also a moral teacher and even a moral example (nos. 2, 3, 6, 8). In Draft C, there is a conscious effort to deny to Rizal the moral role, so prominent in Draft A, and which played so important a part in his life. He was no longer said to have devoted himself "to raising the moral standards" of his people. His novels were said to develop in the youth "a sane and constructive nationalism" but not "the moral qualities of justice, responsibility, and integrity." The whole long passage on Rizal's "unswerving devotion to the truth" is omitted. So too is the quotation from Rizal that had been adduced in support of that characterization, where he insisted on the objectivity of his narrative with regard to the Noli. Since he submitted the third draft, Fr. Cavanna utilized the first six paragraphs of Draft C as his opening in his official "Statement" before making significant changes to it, to De la Costa's disappointment. He then received a copy of this "Statement" and highlighted everything that has been changed. Over the course of the translation process from Draft C to the "Statement", Rafael Palma's Epistolario Rizalino was used. 01 Handout 2 *Property of STI  [email protected] Page 3 of 4  GE1804 There, he deliberately added in the translation the phrase "rituals and superstitions" in the passage from Rizal's correspondence with Ferdinand Blumentritt, where it originally stated, "I wanted to hit the friars, but since the friars use religion not only as a shield, but also as a weapon, protection, citadel, fortress, armor, etc., I as therefore forced to attack their false and superstitious religion in order to combat the enemy who hid behind this religion.... Why should I not attack this religion with all my strength, if it is the prime cause of our sufferings and our tears? The responsibility lies on those who misuse its name. Christ did the same with the religion of his country, which the Pharisees had so misused." REFERENCES: Mojares, R.B. (n.d.). Jose Rizal and the invention of a national literature. National Library of Spain. http://www.bne.es/es/Micrositios/Exposiciones/Rizal/resources/documentos/rizal_estudio_03.pdf Schumacher, J.N. (n.d.). The Rizal bill of 1956: Horacio de la Costa and the bishops. Ateneo de Manila University - Philippine Studies 01 Handout 2 *Property of STI  [email protected] Page 4 of 4