Rizal’s Morga and Views of Philippine History

Antonio de Morga, lieutenant governor of the Philippines in the late sixteenth century, described the food of the indios as follows: Their daily fare is composed of: lice crushed in wooden pillars and when cooked is called morisqueta (this is the staple throughout the land); cooked fish which they have in abundance; pork, venison, mountain buffaloes which they call carabaos, beef and fish which they know is best when it has started to mt and stink (Retana 1909,174). Reading this text in the British Museum 280 years later, Rizal was so incensed that he later responded in print with: This is another preoccupation of the Spaniards who, lii any other nation, treat food to which they are not accustomed or is unknown to them with disgust. The English, for ample, feel horror to see a Spaniard eating snails. To the Speninrd roast beef is repugnant and he cannot understad how Steak Tartar or raw beef can be eaten; the Chiiese who have taltlcn\u27 and eat shark cannot stand Roquefort cheese etc. etc. This fish that Morga mentions, that cannot be good until it begins to mt, is bagoong [salted and fermented fish or shrimp paste used as a sauce in Filipino cuisine] and those who have eaten it and tasted it know that it neither is nor should be rotten (Rizal 1890, 264): Rizal\u27s sarcastic rebuttal appears, surprisingly, not in his satirical novels or his polemical tracts, but in a scholarly work--his annotated reedition of Morga\u27s Sucesas de has Ishas Filipinas. Aside from the racial slurs to which he was reacting, however, RW maintained mixed feelings for the Morga, depending on its usefulness for his thesis that Spanish colonization retarded, rather than brought civilization to, the Philippines and its inhabitants. Unfortunately Rizal\u27s Morga has been relegated in the canon, under his minor writings (Craig 1927), and remains largely unread due to the pre-eminence of his novels, Noli me ta\u27ngere and El Filibusterismo. Unlike the novels, which have been attacked and condemned regularly in the past century, the Morga remains largely ignored. It is lamentable that, despite king a classic of nationalist historical writing, Rizal\u27s Morga is seldom read today. That Rizal\u27s annotations are largely disregarded today stems basically from the recent advances in historical, archeological and ethnographic research. Although many of Rizal\u27s assertions have been validated by recent research, the fact is that his work is now dated. Moreover Rizal\u27s annotations are secondary, and today\u27s scholars concentrate more on the primary source, Morga, than on Rizal\u27s notes. Few Filipinos today, even the most patriotic, would find the time and energy to read the sxnall text of Rizal\u27s footnotes, even if penned by the national hero. Another factor in the relative obscurity of Rizal\u27s annotations to Morga was censorship during the Spanish colonial period. Like Noli me ta\u27ngere and El Filibusterismo, the Rizal edition of Morga was banned in the Philippines in the late nineteenth century. Therefore copies confiscated by Spanish customs in Manila and other ports of entry were destroyed. Due to the burning of one particularly large shipment of the Morga, the book attained rare and out of print? status within a year of its publication. It did not have a second printing, and the few copies in circulation were left hidden and unread by frightened owners. There is also the problem of language, which restricted the impact of the Morga to a small, educated, Spanish-reading elite in Manila. Among this already minute circle, one could count with the fingers of one hand, the people who would read a historical work like Morga rather than the more entertaining Rizal novels. Rizal\u27s Morga was not read by the masses, although people heard a great deal about this controversial work. Rizal\u27s Morga, thus unread, is almost forgotten. This article deals with Rizal\u27s views on Philippine history. It attempts to place Rizal\u27s Morga within the framework of his work, as well as in the larger context of Philippine historiography. Rizal\u27s Morga may not have been read widely, but its significance lies in the fact that with this edition, Rizal began the task of writing the first Philippine history from the viewpoint of a Filipino

Jose Rizal in Filipino Literature and History

Filipinos in the twenty-first century are separated from their past by the language they speak. While it is true that Jose Rizal, National Hero of the Philippines, wrote a great deal for a nation that cannot read him in the original Spanish, nevertheless his vast and excellent opus guarantees his place in Filipino letters. These include, of course, his two major novels, Noli me tangere, published in 1887, and El filibusterismo, published in 1891, and an annotated edition of Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas that Rizal completed and published in 1890. Despite the fact that today Rizal’s works are read mainly in translations into English and Filipino, his privileged status as outstanding Filipino author results from the ease with which he wrote and his essential contributions to the birth of the nation. Born in Calamba, Laguna, on June 19, 1861 the young Rizal grew up in a cultured home, with a sizeable library, something rare in the colonial Philippines. He learned to read and write at his mother’s knee, and it was she who introduced him into the world of books and literature. He is said to have composed verse as a child, but unfortunately this is not documented. The only one of those early works extant is the poem written in Tagalog titled Sa Aking Mga Kabata (“To my fellow children”), which he allegedly wrote at the age of eight. This and another, later, poem are the only two he wrote in Tagalog, his native tongue; the rest are all in Spanish. Sa Aking Mga Kabata contains one of the most quoted lines in Filipino poetry: “ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita/ mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda” (he who does not love his native tongue is worse than a beast and a stinking fish). This poem compares Tagalog with English, Latin, Spanish and other languages and is even more popular as of Tagalog’s, later Filipino, designation as official language of the Philippines in 1937. Unfortunately, neither its style nor content make it easy to recognize Rizal as the author, and in view of its dubious provenance this poem is, at best, only attributable to Rizal. It may not even be by Rizal. Such are the myths that shroud the childhood of history’s great men. Jaime C. de Veyra established the canon of Rizal’s poetry in his compilation Poesías de Rizal. 1 It is generally agreed that the best English translation is The Complete Poems and Plays of Jose Rizal2 by the late Filipino National Artist for Literature, Nick Joaquin. Joaquin provides the original Spanish and its matching translation in parallel, enriched with an insightful introduction to each poem and pertinent annotations. From these basic reference works one can divide three periods in Rizal’s poetry. The first is the Early Period (from 1871 to 1882), including poems composed when he was a student in Manila, first in the Ateneo Municipal, a school belonging to the Jesuits, and then when he studied at the Royal and Pontifical University of Santo Tomás, a center belonging to the Dominican order. Following this, the Middle Period (from 1882 to 1888) includes a small number of poems composed during his first trip to Europe. And finally, the Final or Mature Period (between 1889 and 1896), during which he traveled to Europe for a second time and was exiled in Dapitan. To this period belongs the valedictory poem entrusted to his family after his execution on December 30, 1896

Liberating Ourselves From The Past

In this lecture, Ambeth Ocampo sheds light on the Magellan and Lapu-Lapu of collective Philippine imagination, and discusses how history can be used as a tool for both inclusion and exclusion. Speaker: Ambeth Ocampo is a public historian whose research covers the late nineteenth-century Philippines: its art, culture, and the heroes who figure in the birth of the nation. He writes a widely read Editorial Page column for the Philippine Daily Inquirer and moderates a growing Facebook Fan Page. Ocampo is a Professor and former Chairperson of the Department of History, School of Social Sciences in the Ateneo de Manila University.https://archium.ateneo.edu/magisterial-lectures/1015/thumbnail.jp

Chulalongkorn\u27s Elephants: The Philippines in Asian History

Chulalongkorn\u27s elephants are bronze elephants the King of Siam gave to Singapore and Java as gifts during his travels in 1871. I met the Singapore elephant first as I traced Rizal\u27s footsteps and found a reference to it in his diary. It was upon meeting next the Jakarta elephant that prompted me to compile this collection of essays that begins and ends with an elephant. More reflective than usual and going beyond Rizal and my 19th century comfort zone, these explorations still carry my trademark irreverent humor

Rizal without the Overcoat

Though writing about history, Ocampo writes on Rizal as if he happened yesterday. In the clean, cool style of a good journalist, Ocampo is one historian who has never been known to impose dogmas and definitive treatises. Reading Ocampo’s history is like sitting down with a friend who shares what he has learned. But what he does best is to share the certainty of his doubts. Which probably makes him less of a historian. But then history is too serious to be left to historian