“To tell the destiny of a nation, it is necessary to open the book that tells on her past” - Rizal, n.d.

Timeline (Slide 1)

1609 – Morga’s version was created

- Morgan’s version lacks Deux ex Machina (solution to the problem) – common to religious literature

1868 – H.E.J Stanley, Hakluyt Society, London (English Translation)

1889 – Rizal (annotated version of Morga) Garnier Hermanos, Paris

1909 – Wenceslao Retana (most accurate – misprints from Morga included)

1971 – J.S. Cummins of University of London – Reprinted Morgan’s copy

History (Slide 2)

The different concepts of Filipino did not exist until Rizal’s time and Filipino nation did not exist until the
establishment of the Philippine republic under Aguinaldo. Being irritated by the false claims written by
the Spaniards about the pre-colonial Phiilippines, Rizal realized the importance of the past as the tool to
understand the present. He wished to embark on some historical research but the felt inadequate as he
told to Ferdinand Blumentritt after he asked Rizal to write a history of the Philippines.

By this time, he began working on a sequel for Noli Me Tangere but he had a change of heart and began
to produce a work that will influence his countrymen to think correctly. Rizal was a realist who accepted
the fact that scholarly books would not be financially rewarding and stated to a letter to Blumentritt that
his aim was to present a new edition to the public, above all the Filipino public and he is doing it solely
for his country, because his work will not bring him either honor or money.

Who is Antonio Morga? (Slide 3) Pahanap daw picture need daw sabi ni sir

Antonio Morga

 Born in 1559 in Seville, Spain

 Graduated from University of Salamanca (1574), attained a doctorate in Canon Law (1578)
 In 1580 he joined the government service, appointed in 1593 as Lieutenant Governor in Manila
 Rose to fame when he became in charge of the Spanish fleet against Dutch invasion, wherein
the Spaniards lost heavily. As a way of saving face after the disaster with the Dutch invaders in
Manila in 1600, Morga created the version of Battle of Manila which consists of eight (8)
chapters:
1. Of the first discoveries of the Eastern Islands
2. Of the government of Dr. Francisco de Sande
3. Of the government of don Gonzalo Ronquillo de Peñalosa
4. Of the government of Dr. Santiago de Vera
5. Of the government of Gomez Perez Dasmariñas
6. Of the government of don Francisco Tello
7. Of the government of don Pedro de Acuña
8. An account of the Philippine Islands
Reasons why religious literature was not considered and Morga’s work was preferred by Rizal: (Slide
4)

*religious testimonials by Chinese was done after they have been converted into Catholics.

*Morgan’s was used to discredit Aduarte’s work.

*Jesuits were spared to tirades, but 50 years behind secular opinions and science.

Rizal’s choice of Morga (Slide 5)

1. Morga was a layman, not a religious chronicler.

2. Only civil history of the Philippines.
3. The secular act was more objective more trustworthy than religious missionaries.
4. Morga appears to be more sympathetic/against friars who are more racist.
5. Morga was an eyewitness to the situation in the country.

(Slide 6) Ikaw na bahala if one slide lang or hahatiin mo hehehehehehe

Rizal stated in his annotation that Filipinos had own culture before 1521, thus Filipinos are not saved
from barbarism by the Spaniards. Flourishing civilization could have developed into something if not
obliterated by the friars.

Notable statements/annotations by Rizal:

Filipinos before the Spaniards had the idea of:

 Metallurgy – based on Panday Pira – a well-known ironsmith on the region. Rizal based the idea
of metallurgy existing on the islands of our country because of Panday Pira and his skills on
being an ironsmith. He stated that no Spaniards nor his (Panday Pira) kids know what he can do
or replicate the things he did after he died. This was proven wrong by a letter of Vera asking help
to the Viceroy wherein he said that no natives can be skilled enough to do big cannons. Leading
to the request of cannons came from Spanish ships or made by Robles. (a Spanish master
founder) This was stated in Retana’s version.
 Ship-building industry – Rizal exaggerated that natives could build ships that could hold around
2000 tons but later came to extinction due to cutting down of trees by the Spaniards.
 Literature – Rizal blamed Spaniards for the loss of pre-Hispanic Philippine literature. (which may
or may not fully exist)

(Slide 7)

- In Retana’s version of the book (Morga), he cited documents that task historians from claiming so
much from so little (Rizal)

- Retana stated that Rizal misread the article of Blumentritt wherein he stated that Portuguese taught
Tagalogs the foundry of cannons brought by Portuguese adventurers and deserters.

(Slide 8)
Rizal’s annotations were criticized by Blumentritt, whom he asked to do a introduction to the book itself.
On his introduction, he noticed that Rizal’s annotations were:

 Not new to the historians, especially the Germans who had discussed the same.
 Ahistorical use of hindsight & use of strong anti-clerical bias – censure of past events and
statements against the catholic church. Rizal used history as a propaganda weapon against the
abuses of colonial Spaniards.

(Slide 9)

The critique made by Blumentritt has affected his friendship with Rizal, but one must remember that
Rizal was the one solicited the introduction. On the print version was a slightly edited version of the
introduction made by Rizal.

(Slide 10) ikaw uli bahala maghati heehehheehehehehehehe

Rizal vs. de los Reyes

Isabelo de los Reyes

 a journalist, businessman, labor leader, politician and a prominent member of Iglesia Filipina
Independiente (Philippine Independent Church).
 Also interested in aspects of Philippine History and Culture
 Has published many books, pamphlets and articles

- de los Reyes called out Rizal in his Historia de Ilocos, comparing Rizal’s annotations to his own research,
in which he described as “excessive patriotism”

- Rizal responded in La Solidaridad and expressed his feelings by using sarcasm and attacked de los Reyes
fondness of using Philippine terms/Ilocano in his work. He continued his statement by flaunting his
familiarity of primary sources in Philippine History. He even cites seven authors (Pigafetta, Chirino,
Morga, Argensola, Colin, San Agustin and Aduarte) against the one main source of de los Reyes.

- Juan Luna wrote to Rizal’s that disagreements between propagandists was counter-productive and it’s
giving the Spaniards a “great laugh”

- Rizal’s patriotism made him over-sensitive or intolerant of criticism. He wanted to project the ideal
image of an indio. His own racist conception of history compared to that of the Spaniards.

- de los Reyes’ scholarship was more objective – fair as told by Tavera. She did not falsify history to
glorify ancient (pre-Hispanic) civilization of the Filipinos. Rizal expressed committed scholarship – giving
a narrative a bias to prove a point. Distorting truth to suit the needs of the propaganda against the
Spaniards.

(Slide 10)

References: