AGONCILLO, Teodoro A, según el Index del Opus Dei

AGONCILLO, Teodoro A.; GUERRERO, Milagros C.

History of the Filipino People

5th ed., R. P. Garcia Publishing Co., Quezon City 1977, 710 pp.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Methodology of this Study.

II. Chapter-by-chapter Analysis.

III. Appendices:

1. C. Quirino, Julius Caesar in Manila (book review) in "Philippine Studies", pp. 317-319.

2. N. Zafra, "The Revolt of the Masses": Critique of a Book, in "Philippine Studies", Vol. IV, nº 4, December 1956, pp. 493-514.

IV. Recommended Bibliography to accompany the reading of Agoncillo's works.

I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY OF THIS STUDY.

The author is not, strictly speaking, a marxist historian but a philomarxist writer. One thing definite, however, is that he is anti-Catholic.

His superficiality and lack of scientific rigor shows clearly that even his knowledge of marxist philosophy is limited to paying lip service to the said ideology. His marxism is that of an essayist, or a journalistic and naive type of marxism; lacking all scientific and philosophical rigor which can be found in some of the more orthodox marxist authors.

Thus, ideologically, Agoncillo (and the co-author, Milagros Guerrero) could be considered as the typical 19th century liberal thinker with the usual characteristics: anti-Catholic, anti-clerical, blindly nationalistic, deistic and rationalistic, and with many traits and similarities to masonic-inspired ideologies. The liberal thinkers of today easily fall prey to a superficial Marxist ideology, or at least they openly sympathize with it. In the decadent age of the late sixties and early seventies, it became a fad to espouse marxist philosophies and foster such socialist causes. Greatly affected were some intellectual groups from the University of the Philippines. This unfortunately is the case of our authors (henceforth, they will be referred to only as one author in this study, using the name of the principal writer: Teodoro Agoncillo).

The methodology followed is to make a more or less detailed chapter-by-chapter analysis of the 29 chapters in the 4th edition (1973). (In the 5th edition, 1977, he adds a 30th chapter called Under Martial Law, which is purposedly left out in this critique since it does not really add anything substantial to the treatment of the topic in the latter part of Chapter 29 of the previous edition).

Sometimes, chapters have been grouped together with some general comments or observations. The chapters are divided into units, by numbering the titled headings, in order to facilitate references.

Some of the "units" can be read —or for that matter, some entire chapters save for one or two units within that chapter— without producing any direct harm on the mature reader who has a minimum of intellectual formation. By this is meant that he must at least have a good grounding in Catholic Doctrine and some exposure to serious historical readings. The reading of the aforementioned parts of the book is of course only justified in the case of those students for whom it is used as a prescribed textbook.

Regarding those portions which should not be read, cross-references were made from two main sources:

1. MOLINA, Antonio M., The Philippines Through Centuries, University of Santo Tomas, Manila 1961, 2 vols.

2. ZAFRA, Nicolás, Philippine History Through Selected Sources, Alemars— Phoenix Publishing, Quezon City 1967.

Part III of this work has two Appendices:

Appendix I: a short book review of A Short History... by Carlos Quirino.

Appendix II: a long, detailed critique of Revolt of the Masses by Nicolás Zafra.

In Part IV: BIBLIOGRAPHY, there is a short list of works that could serve as "antidote" for those who might be obliged to read this book of Agoncillo. The recommended readings are of two types:

BIBLIOGRAPHY I: Philosophical and Religious-Ideological orientations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY II: Historical works and commentaries.

II. CHAPTER BY CHAPTER ANALYSIS

PART I: PRE-COLONIAL PHILIPPINES

Part I is composed of 4 chapters ranging from a brief geographical description of the Philippines (Chapter One: The Setting), a brief history of the early filipino immigrations (Chapter Two Before the Conquest), a chapter on customs, beliefs, social structure of pre-colonial Philippines (Chapter Three: Early Customs and Practices), and a last chapter on language, writing, literature, etc. (Chapter Four: Pre-colonial Culture).

As a whole, these four chapters is like a long cultural essay made by an amateur anthropologist. The very style itself is so unscholarly, not to mention unscientific. But from the doctrinal and ideological point of view, there are no serious objections. Through these chapters, the author already reveals to the reader his narrow-minded nationalism by an overexalted and over-idealistic view of anything ethnic, on one hand; and a looking-down upon foreign —specially western— influences.

As a possible substitute reading, MOLINA, Vol. I, ch. 1: Early Philippines (pp. 1-23) is recommended. It is more objective though the style of Agoncillo is more lively and easier to read. Also suggested is the book of ZAFRA, Part I, ch. 1: The Philippines in the Period of European Colonial Ventures in the East. Introduction.

PART II: THE SPANISH PERIOD

Chapter Five: Integration Into The Spanish Empire; Chapter Six: Philippine Society Under Spain; Chapter Seven: Resistance Against Spanish Rule.

In this period, our author summarizes in three short chapters the first 351 years of the Spanish Regime —from 1521 (Magellan) to 1872 (Gomburza)—.

Agoncillo, in a lecture delivered in a Seminar sponsored by the National Historical Commission (Baguio, 27 May 1972), (published as AGONCILLO, On Rewriting Philippine History in Historical Bulletin pp. 178-187) has personally expressed his rationale behind his summary treatment of this period. His own words betray his peculiar unscholarly and unscientific approach to history:

(...) I have been criticized by certain quarters, mostly by those who have not been liberated from the traditional view of Philippine History, for treating the Spanish period of our history in a "cavalier" manner, which is to say, that I gave only three chapters to the Spanish period which lasted for three centuries. The traditional or Spanish view-point of our history, derived mostly from the Spanish Filipinologist Wenceslao E. Retana, discusses with some prolixity everything the Spaniards did in the Philippines —except the graft and corruption in the government and the extracurricular activities (sic) of many friars. Filipino historians, retracing Retana's heavy footsteps, discuss with alacrity such irrelevant subjects as Spanish expeditions to the Moluccas, the Marianas, French-Indochina and other places, in which the Filipino's only role was that of rowers. Other subjects in which the Filipinos did not play any significant part are also discussed with such enthusiasm as to make one wonder what the furor is all about. These and subjects not related to the development of the Filipino nation I dismissed in a few words thus economizing on time, energy, and paper. A Spaniard once asked me why I treated the Spanish period of Philippine history in such "arbitrary" manner. I answered him thus: "Spanish historians give the Moors, who ruled Spain for eight centuries, only a few pages; I give the Spaniards, who ruled the Philippines for only three centuries, three full chapters, and here you are complaining."

Prof. Nicolás Zafra, in a long critique of one of Agoncillo's books (The Revolt of the Masses) published in Philippine Studies, (N. ZAFRA, "The Revolt of the Masses: Critique of a Book, Vol. 4, No. 4, December 1956, pp. 493-514), makes a very extensive commentary of the first chapter of the book being reviewed. The title of the chapter is "Night over the Philippines". It serves as an introduction to the book by making a general survey of Philippine history covering practically the entire Spanish period from the very beginning up to the time of the Katipunan.

All the comments and criticisms of Zafra on this chapter can be perfectly applied to the three chapters we are now considering. Thus, quoting from Zafra's article (pp. 496-500):

(...) He presents in the first chapter (Night over the Philippines) a general survey of Philippine history intended to provide a historical background for the Katipunan and the subsequent revolt. How adequate is this survey?

The most charitable thing that can be said of it is that it is inadequate and unsatisfactory. Remote and isolated events, some 300 years before the Katipunan came into being are telescoped into the pattern of the 19th century, giving the impression that the Filipino nationalists of the latter part of the 19th century had these events in mind as "grievances" against the Spanish administration. The fact that many of the conditions had changed and that the policies which had brought them about had been revoked long before the Katipunan came into being must necessarily weaken the author's implied causal background to the revolution. Had the author been less bent on conjuring up a picture of "an age of political chicanery and social hypocrisy" (p. 19) out of remote incidents too early to have influenced the thinking of the Filipinos of the period of the Revolution, and had he drawn instead a true picture of Philippine society during the period under study, the cause-effect relationship would have been clearer and stronger. That reforms were attempted during the period was part of the true picture. The author's silence on this matter makes his "background" treatment determined by personal bias.

From another angle, the author's survey of the historical background of the Katipunan movement is subject to criticism. Since the author has ventured to include in his survey the entire Spanish period, he is expected to tell his readers something of the origin of nationalism in the Philippines, to indicate what the factors and forces were which in one way or another contributed to its growth. This the author has not done. He overlooks or ignores the fact that certain historic forces played a vital role in the formation of Filipinos into a nation: for example, Christianity, the educational system, and the governmental agencies that Spain established in the Philippines. It cannot be ignored that these small factors contributed in no small degree to the development of Philippine nationalism. What role each of these factors played is familiar enough to every well-informed student of Philippine history.

Christianity produced in the Philippines, as it did in other lands, notable changes in the ways of life of the people. For one thing, it gave the Filipino Christians a new set of moral and religious values. Under the influence of this new Faith, they turned away from certain customs and practices some of which had been deeply rooted in their lives. At the same time, Christianity strengthened many of their traits and virtues —their love of home, their hospitality, their innate courtesy, their sense of loyalty to constituted authority, their spirit of cooperation, the respect of children towards their parents, and, above all, their love of freedom.

That Christianity raised the moral and intellectual stature of the Filipinos was the considered judgment of many foreign authors. The distinguished English scholar, John Crawford, expressed himself on this point in these words:

"The natives of the Philippines who are Christians possess a share of energy and intelligence not only superior to their pagan and Mohammedan brothers of the same islands, but superior also to all the western inhabitants of the Archipelago, to the very people who in other periods of their history, bestowed laws, language, and civilization upon them."

Christianity, moreover, impressed upon the Filipinos the reality of the birth and dignity of the individual as a child of God, endowed with free will and at liberty to develop his powers to the fullest extent for his own benefit and for the welfare of this countrymen. We have in these ideas the source of the notion of country or nation as well as the basis of sane and sound democracy. It can be well said that Christianity, apart from the changes it effected in the social and spiritual life of the Filipinos, implanted in Philippine soil the seeds of nationalism and democracy.

The educational system that Spain established in the Philippines, with all its shortcomings and imperfections, contributed much to the political and cultural make-up of the Filipino people. It was in the schools with their emphasis on moral and religious instruction that the Filipinos acquired those elements and facets of Western civilization which made the Filipino pattern of culture quite distinct from that of the Malays in other parts of Malaysia. In the schools, too, the Filipinos learned a new alphabet and a new language. With these valuable acquisitions, the Filipinos found new tools with which they could strengthen the bonds of union among themselves and through which they could more adequately make known their thoughts, their conditions and their aspirations.

The governmental agencies that Spain established with all their defects, produced salutary results. They brought together the scattered, independent, and separate communities in the Philippines and welded them into a nation. Moreover, under the Spanish colonial administration, the Filipino obtained valuable experience in and knowledge of the governmental ways and practices of Spain. Exposed continuously for years to the actuations and requirements of the Spanish colonial administration, and sharing common experiences in the observance of the laws and orders of that government, the Filipinos acquired national consciousness. They came to learn that they belonged to one country and that they had common interests and common aspirations.

Under the influence of the factors above noted religious, educational, administrative— the Filipinos developed within a comparatively short time into a nation with a culture basically Christian in character and in spirit. It took many more years, however, for them to acquire that sense of solidarity and that keen sensitiveness to events in their country and awareness to the significance of these events to their lives and fortunes as a people which provide a basis for nationwide dynamic and militant form of nationalism. Conditions existing in the Philippines throughout the 17th and 18th centuries were not favorable to rapid growth of this type of nationalism. The facilities for travel and communications were quite inadequate. Besides, Spain's policy of commercial restriction and isolation for the Philippines during those centuries tended to keep the Filipino away from the influence of historic changes and developments taking place in other parts of the world. To be sure, the spirit of resistance against alien domination remained alive as the frequent revolts and conspiracies which occured in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries would show. But these manifestations of militant nationalism were local in scope and character. They did not quite rise up to the character and proportion of a truly nation-wide movement.

This development did not come to pass until the latter part of the 19th century. It was brought about by new historic forces and conditions —the opening of the Philippines to foreign trade and consequent material and social progress, representation of the Philippines in the Spanish Cortes, improvement of means of travel and comunication, administrative and educational reforms, the Spanish Revolution of 1868, and above all the controversy which arose over the Philippine curacies which had for its tragic sequel the execution in 1872 of Fathers Burgos, Gómez, and Zamora.

An adequate presentation of these facts and developments of Philippine history is important if the reader is to understand and appreciate the place and significance of the Philippine Revolution as an episode of Philippine history for the underlying forces and influences which made the Revolution possible had their roots in the past. They can be traced to the workings and operations of the Spanish colonial system in all its various aspects —political, administrative, religious, educational, and economic. This fact is recognized and understood well enough by scholars and authorities. Joseph R. Hayden adverted to this fact when he wrote:

"Although in practice the Spanish government of the Philippines was in many respects corrupt and demoralizing, yet in theory and profession the colonial system of Spain was fine and uplifting. Spaniards and Filipinos may have failed always to maintain high standards, but those standards were ever before them in the laws and precepts of both the State and the Church. There could be no better evidence that these standards did make an impression upon the Filipino mind than the ultimate rebellion of the Filipino people against Spanish rule."

In these three chapters we can cite many examples to show how unscientific is the historiography of Agoncillo. His method consists of making generalized statements and judgments backed up with a few examples without hardly making any reference to historical sources. His viewpoint of Spanish colonization of the Philippines is set in the marxist framework of colonizer as oppressor class and colonized people as oppressed class.

Spain who lagged behind Western Europe in cultural developments, pursued a socio-cultural policy which, upon closer analysis, was intended to keep the Filipinos submissive vassals of Spain: divided, apathetic, and unable to resist iniquities of the Spanish colonial system. Filipino society changed considerably and allowed only partial Hispanization. (p. 94)

Another example is on taxation:

The author enumerates a series of taxation practices covering a wide period from 1571 to 1584 without any attempt to explain the different forms of taxation in their proper sociological and historical contexts.

The system was nothing more than outright confiscation of goods, for the government, nearly always bankrupt, merely issued promissory notes in exchange for the people's produce... The colonial system of taxation weighted like a millstone on the entire economic life of the Filipinos. While the Spaniards introduced the theory of taxation for the support of public welfare, only a negligible portion of the revenues collected was spent on public works, health and sanitation programs, and the security of the natives. To be sure, a considerable portion of the taxes did not always find their way into the colonial treasury. Much of it went to swell pockets of the indolent civil officials and grasping clergy (p. 95).

Talking about forced labor, our author clearly tries to inject the marxist interpretation of colonialism as the mere exploitation of the colony's human resources:

A master-slave complex was thus created in Philippine society, buttressed even further by the indiscriminate use of the services of the natives for the private needs of Spanish officials, such as hewing wood or drawing water for their households. As the Spaniards led a life of ease and comfort, indeed a parasitic existence, the Filipinos developed a distate for work that simply re-enforced the latent tendency to indolence. This detrimental effect on Filipino psychology would be translated into the present century into the so called "white collar job" mentality.

And finally, on the Encomienda System, one of the most typical issues in Philippine history which has been subject to many exaggerations regarding abuses of the encomenderos:

The encomenderos, however, abused their prerogatives and caused the natives no small measure of harrassment and exploitation. They forced the Filipinos to pay tribute beyond the amount required of them by law. While the law gave the Filipinos the right to pay the tribute either in cash or in kind, the encomenderos created a crisis, even in times of good harvests, by lowering the prices of commodities and forcing the natives to pay in cash. If the encomenderos collected tribute in kind, he at once controlled the commerce of the area under his jurisdiction by selling the goods at ceiling prices. Those who could not pay tribute in the manner dictated by the encomendero were either tortured or imprisoned, an ordeal which many terrorized peasants tried to avoid by escaping to the mountains, only to find upon their return that their houses were looted and razed to the ground by the Spaniards (p. 97).

We can find a more objective and more historically based evaluation of the encomienda system in Molina, Vol. I, pp. 152-153.

The reader is stongly recommended to omit these three chapters entirely. Instead, he can read the following:

1. Molina, The Philippines through the Centuries, Vol. I, chapters 2-10 (This covers almost the entire first volume, except for chapter 1 which deals with pre-Spanish Philippines.)

2. Zafra, Philippine History through Selected Sources, Part Two: The Philippines under the Spanish Hapsburgs (pp. 51-73 j. Part Three: The Philippines During the First Century of the Spanish Bourbon Dynasty (pp. 75-116 ).

3. De la Costa, The Philippines: A Capsule History, in Historical Bulletin, Vol II, no. 4, December 1963, pp. 285-292.

PART III: REFORM AND REVOLUTION

Chapter Eight: "The Campaign For Reforms"

This chapter describes the attempts of the Filipino Propagandists to establish reforms without resorting to an armed uprising. Agoncillo views this phase of Philippine History as both "a failure in that it did not achieve its goals. In another sense, however, it was a success, for its failure led to the founding of the revolutionary Katipunan with separatist aims." (p. 139).

Carlos Quirino has this to say regarding the lack of objectivity of our author when dealing with this period of Philippine history:

It is regrettable that in his attempt to emphasize his idea of "class conflict" and "class struggle", Mr. Agoncillo wrote his so-called "middle-class" in terms of disparagement and reproach, depriving them of the credit and recognition that they justly deserve for their labors and sacrifices on behalf of Philippine Freedom. It is his contention that the movement was sparked by a selfish desire on the part of this "class" to preserve its position of respectability and political influence, and that the majority of the members of this class were political idealists whose thinking did not concern itself with economic problems in the country. The undeniable fact, however, is that the Propaganda movement, which was the prelude to the Revolution, was carried out courageously and unselfishly by men who belonged to and represented what Mr. Agoncillo claims was the "middle class" group of Filipinos. To say that the men who participated in the movement were actuated by selfish motives and were indifferent towards the plight of the masses is unfair and unjust to them.

Moreover, the Liga Filipina, an organization of "middle class" people as Mr. Agoncillo himself claims, had for one of its aims "The encouragement of instruction, agriculture and commerce". (Italics supplied). It would seem in the light of good evidence, that the "middle class" was not, as Mr. Agoncillo would have his readers believe, entirely unconcerned with the economic needs and problems of the nation.

It is best too mit this chapter. Instead, there ader can refer to Parts Four and Five of Nicolás Zafra, Philippine History Through Selected Sources, Alemars-Phoenix Publishing House, Quezon City, 1967: pp. 117-254.

Part Four: The Philippines in the 19th Century Revolutionary Period.

Part Five: The Period of the Nationalist Crusade for Emancipation.

The reader can also refer to Molina, Vol. II, Chapter 11: Propaganda. pp. 1-57.

Chapter Nine: Bonifacio and the Katipunan; Chapter Ten: The Revolution: First Phase.

These two chapters are just a detailed description and narrative of how the Katipunan was founded; its internal structure; its leadership, etc. up to the outbreak of the Revolt of August 1896. The author highlights the personalities of its two top leaders: Andrés Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto.

There is nothing objectionable in this chapter from the doctrinal and ideological points of view. However, the reader should be aware that aside from its nationalistic ideals, in everything else the Katipunan is an ideological offspring of Freemasonry. Agoncillo himself testifies to this in another work of his, The Revolt of the Masses, (The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan), University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 1956:

Contacts made by the Filipino leaders in Spain with the leading Spanish Masons, led the fiery López Jaena to establish the lodge Revolución in Barcelona on April 1, 1889, exclusively for and by Filipinos. A year later, lodge Revolucion was dissolved and all members affiliated themselves with the new lodge La Solidaridad founded in Madrid. The way was now cleared for the concerted action of the Gran Oriente Español and the Filipino Masons, who helped one another in introducing in the Cortes important legislations beneficial to the Philippines. The Filipino Masonic Lodges, therefore, became a focus of propaganda activities in Spain and were responsible for welding together the irreconcilable elements who, in some instances, came dangerously close to strife that would have been fatal to the Philippine cause.

It was thought at that time that masonic lodges should be secretly established in the Philippines in order to disseminate the ideas for which the propagandists were fighting. Pedro Serrano Laktaw and Antonio Luna were ordered to proceed to the Philippines to carry out the instructions of the Mother Lodge.

Serrano Laktaw, upon arriving from Spain in 1890, conferred with José Ramos and Moisés A. Salvador regarding the feasibility of establishing masonic lodges. On January 6, 1891, the lodge Nilad was founded and a year later, on March 10, 1892, it was recognized by the Gran Oriente Español. Even the Masons, being composed of intellectuals and middle class Filipinos, were rather careful in their demands for liberty. Every utterance was measured, and gave evidence of the intellectuals fear of unduly antagonizing their enemies. Thus, at one of their meetings, the Filipino Masons set forth their platform on the Philippine problem:

"It is the eight million people who have been, for the duration of three centuries, under the tyranical oppression...The social life they lead is destitute of freedom; the inhabitants have no right of association; they have no tribune where they could express their needs and do not even have the right to voice their thoughts...And with respect to their individual life, the Filipinos have not, as in other countries, the security against the abuses of the authorities, and for these reasons, the prisons and the mysterious deportations of reputable persons have been repeatedly done upon the notorious instigation of the friars.

We want a dignified, free and prosperous country in whose horizons can be seen with clarity the splendor of the sun of justice and of civilization. We want a regime of democracy, a genuine and effective autonomy of the human individuality as against the enslaving pretensions of an ambition that nourishes its life in the absorption of the rights of the people and waters its happiness with the tears of the needy. We want a good government and a good administration. We want for our country the right to be represented in the Cortes: not a single Representative, not a single Senator is defending its interests in the Spanish Parliament. Its government is dependent, in Madrid, upon the Minister of the Ultramar who, by and for itself, legislates and governs the Philippines through Royal Orders, while in Manila, the Governor-General executes and annuls the orders of the Ministers. We want our country declared a Spanish province, with all the rights and obligations. In a word, we want reforms, reforms, reforms."

The boldness of the Masonic platform and the sincerity with which the propagators spread the gospel drew more and more Filipinos within its fold, so that in time it was decided by the leaders to establish branches throughout the islands. So rapid was the spread of Masonry that up to the month of May 1893, the lodges numbered thirty five, of which about nine were in Manila.

Yet Masonry was only a means for propaganda. It had never been the intention of its founders in Spain to make it a society for political action. Thus, in a letter to Juan Zulueta, Marcelo H. del Pilar emphasized that:

"The Peninsular Masonry is a means of propaganda for us. If the Masons there (in the Philippines) pretend to make masonry an organ of action for our ideals, they make a very bad mistake. What is needed is a special organization devoted specially to the Filipino cause; and although its members, or some of them, may be masons, they must not depend on Masonry."

So popular had Masonry become that even women, laboring under the current prejudice against their participation in such activities, readily joined the movement and so gave evidence to the growing restlessness of all classes of the social strata. Events were moving at a fast pace, and the Spanish authorities became cognizant of the potential power of such an organization.

The reader must keep in mind that Freemasonry is formally condemned by the Church (cf. Pius XI Encyclical Humanus Genus)

Like most essayist-type historians, our author, in his treatment of the Katipunan shows his lack of precision in terminology, his own use of terms being sometimes contradictory. This lack of scholarly training is pointed out by Carlos Quirino (the pages cited by C. Quirino in this article refer to The Revolt of the Masses.)

From another angle, the author's survey of the historical background of the Katipunan movement is subject to criticism. Since the author has ventured to include in his survey the entire Spanish period, he is expected to tell his readers something of the origin of nationalism in the Philippines, to indicate the factors and forces that were in one way or another contributed to its growth. This the author has not done. He overlooks or ignores the fact that certain historic forces played a vital role in the formation of the Filipinos into a nation: for example Christianity, the educational system, and the governmental agencies that Spain established in the Philippines. It can not be ignored that these factors contributed in no small degree to the development of Philippine Nationalism. What role each of these factors played is familiar enough to every well-informed student of Philippine history.

One feature of the book that the reader can not fail to notice is the author's obsession with the idea of class conflict. He constantly harps on the theme that there was a sharp clash of interests between what he calls the "masses" and the "middle class". For one thing, he gives the reader the impression that the Katipunan revolt was exclusively "the revolt of the masses"; that the "middle class" were interested mainly in the things that would redound to their material welfare; that not only were they unsymphathetic with the need and aspirations of the masses but they "betrayed" the cause of the Katipunan as well.

It is regrettable to say that the author's presentation of this aspect of his subject is unsatisfactory, unconvincing, unscholarly. In the first place, there is much confusion in the author's mind as regards his categories. What he calls the "masses" for example can be interpreted in many ways. In one place, he speaks of the "broad masses" (who) "groaned and grew numb under the spell of poverty and profound ignorance". (p. 1) Elsewhere, he gives one to understand that the "masses" means "Those unsophisticated minds who could not see the various possibilities that might accompany a mode of action" (p. 41), or the group of "agressive and nationalistic elements of the population" (p. 42), or the "Victims of subtle or overt exploitation" who were not "accustomed to the intricacies of the rational processes and are moved by the impact of feeling and passion and refuse to see the probable effects of their planned action" (p. 99), or "the ignorant and starving...confused, hopeless, abused" (p. 278), or simply "the lowest class" (p. 204).

What the author's criterion is by which a person may be identified with the "masses" is obviously not at all clear. Certainly, it cannot be said that Bonifacio or Jacinto or Arellano or Valenzuela was of the group of those who "groaned and grew numb under the spell of poverty and profound ignorance", or of those "unsophisticated minds who would not see the various possibilities that might accompany a mode of action".

The confusion becomes worse confounded when he speaks of the "middle class". On pages 45-46, Mr. Agoncillo writes:

"The Katipunan..., the idea of a plebeian Andrés Bonifacio...None of its chartered members were of the middle class. Bonifacio was a laborer; while Arellano, Plata, Diwa, and Díaz were court clerks. Dizon, though not ill-provided, was...a small merchant belonging more to the masses than to the intellectual middle class."

Elsewhere in his book, (p. 98), the author states that a segment of the "middle class" was the intellectual group. Now Emilio Jacinto, the "Brains of the Katipunan", is represented as coming from the "poor intellectual class". Since Jacinto was truly an "intellectual", it is clear that the author in claiming that he was not of the "middle class" repudiates his own statement that the "intellectual group" represented a segment of the middle class.

In his efforts to underline his idea that the Revolution was a "class conflict", a "class struggle", the author has, wittingly or unwittingly, drawn a distorted picture of the character of the Revolution. He seems to have overlooked the important fact that the revolutionary movement was truly national in scope and in character. The persons who participated in it were moved and inspired by a genuine love of the population. Their supreme ideal, the bond of union among them, was freedom and independence for the Philippines from alien domination. It was their cherished hope and aspiration to establish a regime of liberty, justice, and democracy in their country. That was the "sacred cause" of the Filipino nationalists. And for the "cause" they were disposed to give generously their blood and possessions.

That the masses from whose rank and file the Katipunan drew the bulk of its strength and power played a vital role in the struggle for freedom is an established fact of Philippine history on which there need be no controversy. They gave generously of their time, their meager earnings or their fortunes. It is regrettable that in his attempt to emphasize his idea of "class conflict" and "class struggle", Mr. Agoncillo wrote of his so-called "middle class" in terms of disparagement and reproach, depriving them of credit and recognition that they justly deserve for their own labors and sacrifices on behalf of Philippine freedom. It is his contention that the movement was sparked by a selfish desire on the part of this "class" to preserve its position of respectability and political influence and that the majority of the members of this "class" were political idealists whose thinking did not concern itself with the economic problems of the country. The undeniable fact, however, is that the Propaganda movement, which was the prelude to the Revolution, was carried out courageously and unselfishly by men who belonged to and represented what Mr. Agoncillo claims was the "middle class" group of filipinos. To say that the men who participated in that movement were actuated by selfish motives and were indifferent towards the plight of the masses is unfair and unjust to them.

Moreover, the Liga Filipina, an organization of "middle class" people as Mr. Agoncillo himself claims, had for one of its aims, "the encouragement of instruction, agriculture and commerce." (italics supplied). It would seem in the light of good evidence, that the "middle class" was not, as Mr. Agoncillo would have his readers believe, entirely unconcerned with the economic need and problems of the nation.

Chapter Eleven: The Revolution: Second Phase

Chapter Twelve: The Malolos Republic

These two chapters continue the narrative of Chapters 9 and lO. This time, it deals with the outbreak of the Spanish-American War and the shortlived Philippine-American Alliance (Chapter 11). A rift between the two then develops and thus follows the proclamation of Philippine Independence of June 1898 and the subsequent establishment of the short-lived Malolos Republic (Chapter 12). Nothing specially objectionable is found in these two chapters.

Chapter Thirteen: The Filipino-American Hostilities

1. American Apostasy

2. McKinley's Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation

3. Filipino Reaction

4. Attempts to Relax the Tension

5. The San Juan Bridge Incident

6. American Victories

7. The Drive to the North

8. The Fall of Mabini

9. Assasination of Luna

10. American Conquest of the Visayas

11. The Negros Constitution

12. The Bates Treaty

13. Aguinaldo Flees to the Mountains

14. The Battle of Pasong Tirad

15. The Capture of Aguinaldo

16. Barbarous Acts

17. End of the Resistance

18. Reading 13.1: President McKinley's Proclamation

19. Reading 13.2: Aguinaldo's Proclamation

This chapter is mainly factual. It can be read. The facts are also contained and with more details and better documentary proofs in Molina, Chapter 16: The Philippine-American War. It would be better to skip Unit 16: Barbarous Acts.

Chapter Fourteen: The Religious Schism

1. Gregorio Aglipay on the Scene

2. Nozaleda against Aglipay

3. Mabini and the National Church

4. The Filipino National Church

5. Chapelle and Filipinization

6. The Schism

7. First Converts

8. Aglipay and the Jesuits

9. Aglipay's Consecration as Bishop

10. Significance

11. Reading 14.1: Aglipay's Letter to the Filipino Clergy

12. Reading 14.2: Excerpts from Mabini's Manifesto

This chapter should be omitted entirely. Regarding Unit 9: Aglipay's Consecration as Bishop, please note that Aglipay's consecration as bishop is invalid and therefore the "priests" ordained in the Aglipayan Church are not validly ordained.

A short and objective account of this can also be read Molina: The Aglipayan Schism, Vol. II, pp. 255-258.

PART IV: THE AMERICAN PERIOD

Chapter Fifteen: The Period of Suppressed Nationalism

1. American Military Rule in the Philippines

2. Foundations of American Policy in the Philippines

3. Early American Colonial Policy and Filipino Nationalism

4. Punishment of the "Irreconcilables"

5. Guerilla Resistance against American Rule

6. Sakay and the Resistance

7. Brigandage Act and Reconcentration

8. Suppression of Nationalistic Journalism and Literature

9. Flag Law (1907)

10. Suppression of Nationalist Parties

11. The Federal Party

12. Reading 15.1: "Aves de Rapiña"

13. Reading 15.2: McArthur Report.

There is nothing particularly objectionable in this chapter. It describes the first period of American Rule from 1901-1910. By reading the introduction (pp. 280-281), it would be sufficient to get a good idea of the chapter. Some units which might be worth reading for their historical relevance are:

Unit 6: Sakay...(pp. 287-288) since this is a well-known rebellion frequently referred to;

Unit 8: Suppression ...Journalism and Literature (pp. 290-293) since it will familiarize the reader with names of some well-known writers and also because it contains the famous "Aves de Rapiña" libel suit of Kalaw;

Unit 11: The Federal Party (pp. 295-298) since the facts contained in this unit are interesting.

Chapter Sixteen: Self Government Under America

1. Filipinization and the Taft Commission

2. Factors that Favored and Limited Filipinization

3. Reorganization of Municipal Governments

4. Filipinization of National Governments

5. The Philippine Commission

6. Philippine Bill of 1902 (Cooper Act)

7. Establishment of the Philippine Assembly

8. The Philippine Assembly and the Autonomy Question

9. Resident Commissioners

10. National Civil Service

11. Education Under the Americans (1899-1915)

12. Taft and American Policy in the Philippines (1901-1913)

13. The Friar Lands Question

The entire chapter, except for two units, is entirely about the political and administrative policies of the American Regime.

Unit 11: Education Under the Americans could be read; however, take into account the strong nationalistic prejudices of Agoncillo which leads him to be very unjust in his evaluation of both the American and Spanish systems of Education established in the Philippines. Our author does not do justice to the long lasting benefits produced by the wide-scale spread of education during the American regime, sometimes even reaching very remote rural areas.

Unit 13: Friar Lands should be skipped entirely. Instead, read Molina: The Friar Lands Case, Vol. II, pp. 260-261.

Chapter Seventeen. The Harrison Administration;

Chapter Eighteen: The Wood Administration

Chapter Nineteen: The Os-Rox and Quezon Missions

These are three short chapters which taken as a whole, contain nothing relevant from the doctrinal and ideological points of view. They deal mainly with the political, administrative, and economic issues during the American Regime.

Chapter Twenty Preparations for Independence

Chapter Twenty One: Results of the American Occupation

The two chapters deal with the American Commonwealth period, the last years of the American regime prior to the outbreak of World War II. Chapter Twenty is mainly factual and concentrates on the political power struggle of the emerging political parties which were more "personalistic" than ideological. However, we see here a clear trend in the mind of our author in highlighting incidents which show social unrest, and in citing peasant uprisings as that of the Colorums and the Sakdalitas to prove his theories. The reader could get some idea of Agoncillo's slanted style by comps version of Quezon and the "Social Justice" Program (pp. 419-420) and Molina's The Social Justice Program, Vol. II, pp. 311-312.

Reading 21.1 is the well-known essay of Renato Constantino: The Mis-Education of the Filipino written in 1966. This essay should not be read (cf. book review of Schumacher in Philippine Studies: Review Article: 23 (1975), pp. 465-480). Constantino is thoroughly Marxist in his thoughts and in his writings. He sometimes cleverly disguises his ideology under the pretense of nationalism. For example, in this essay on education, it is not easy to detect this tendency because this is one of the earlier writings of Constantino.

The reader should omit entirely the reading of Chapter Twenty One. It contains all the commonplace biases and prejudices of Agoncillo.

PART V: THE WAR YEARS

Chapter Twenty Two: The Japanese Occupation

Chapter Twenty: The Liberation

These two chapters on the Japanese Occupation are perhaps among the few well written chapters of this work, from a historian's point of view. It is the fruit of an intensive research which was published in a two volume work in 1965: The Fateful Years. In this work, as could be expected, as well as in the two chapters of this Part, Agoncillo clearly shows his anti-American sentiments. These two chapters can be ready without any dangers in doctrine.

PART VI: THE THIRD REPUBLIC

Chapter Twenty Four: Post War Problems and the Republic

1. Post-war Economic Conditions

2. The Philippine Civil Affairs Unit

3. Reorganization of Government

4. The Congress Convened

5. The Collaboration Issue

6. American Financial Aid

7. The Bell Trade and Rehabilitation Acts

8. The Election of 1946

9. Policies of the Roxas Administration

10. Guerilla Amnesty

11. The Treaty of General Relations

12. The Plebiscite of 1947

13. Death Came for Roxas

14. Quirino's Administration

15., 16., 17. (Various Speeches and Documents)

18. Reading 24.4: Alien Sovereignty in the Philippine Republic by Vicente G. Sinco

This chapter tries to describe the first years of the Philippine Republic after the Liberation. Agoncillo narrates the facts and the different administrative policies of the U.S. Government which had a direct influence on the politico-economic situation of the war-ravaged Philippines. Marxist authors usually emphasize the unfair treatment received by the Filipinos during the post-Liberation years in order to arouse strong anti-American sentiments. Viewed in this historical perspective, it is true that there has been unfair treatment in the postwar rehabilitation of the Philippines. Unit 18: Reading 24.4: Alien Sovereignty... is a long article by Sinco which can give the reader a good appreciation of the post-war problems faced by the young Philippine Republic. It would be interesting to read here Unit 12: Plebiscite of 1947 which will serve as background information for the next chapter on the Hukbalahap movement.

Chapter Twenty Five: The Hukbalahap Movement

1. Spanish Origins

2. Agrarian Unrest Under the Americans

3. The Rise of Socialism and Communism

4. The Founding of the Hukbalahap

5. The Hukbalahap Sovereignty

6. Liberation and Imprisonment

7. The Arrest of Taruc

8. Roxas and the Huks

9. The Pacification Campaigns

10. Outlawing of the Huks

11. The Amnesty Proclamation

12. The Breakdown of Amnesty

13. Cause of the Failure of Amnesty

14. The Murder of Mrs. Quezon

15. The Fall of the Huk Politburo

16. The Surrender of Taruc

17. Significance of the Huk Movement

18. Reading 25.1: Taruc's Letter to Roxas

19. Reading 25.2: Quirino's Amnesty

This is a typical Marxist interpretation of History. It includes that naive approach of tracing the class struggle even to the pre-historic times.

The reader should omit the entire chapter. Instead, he can read from Molina, Vol. II, the following units:

—The "Huks" are outlawed (p. 383)

—Taruc Surrenders (p. 387 )

—"Huk" reincidence (p. 388 )

—Mrs. Quezon is murdered (p. 390)

—Communism is outlawed (p. 413)

Concerning this chapter, this paragraph from a book review of Carlos Quirino: Julius Caesar in Manila (Philippine Studies) is quite apropos:

In this latest work by Prof. Agoncillo, he continues bandying about such terms as "landed aristocracy", "burgeoisie", "middle class", "serf" and "proletarian", which were used in two of his earlier books, Revolt of the Masses and Malolos: The Crisis of the Republic, leading the causal reader to believe what his bitter critics have accused him of: espousing the Marxist interpretation of History. This suspicion is further strengthened by the chapter on the Hukbalahap movement, wherein the use of certain adjectives indicate where his sympathies lie. "Taruc", he relates, "entered Manila (after the presidential amnesty of June 21, 1948) like Julius Caesar entering Rome after the Gallic Wars". This phrase could be aptly used of Manuel L. Quezon on his return to the islands in 1916, but hardly of anybody else. Again, the murder of the millionaire hacendero of Pampanga, José de León, Sr., is attributed to the peasant worker's "discontent", when in reality, he was killed by a disgruntled sugar planter named Timbol over some personal and financial arrangements. (cf. Unit 4: The Founding of the Hukbalahap)

Chapter Twenty Six: The Recognition of the Tao

1. The "tao" in History

2. The Presidential Election of 1953

3. Magsaysay's Charismatic Leadership

4. The Spoiled Masses

5. The Failure of the "Tao"

6. The Election of 1957

7. Garcia's Programs

8. Reading 26.1: Magsaysay s State of the Nation

9. Reading 26.2: J.V. Cruz: Unbashedly pro-U.S., Ramón Magsaysay had his own merits.

This chapter is about President Magsaysay focusing on his popularity with the masses and the common man (tao). "The Hukbalahap movement (...) which was in essence agrarian in nature, lost its glamour when Secretary Magsaysay came to them with an open heart and convinced many of them that their future lay in peace and honor. With the help of trained public relations men, Magsaysay projected himself into the national scene as the friend of the 'tao'". (p. 540)

This chapter can be read but skipping units 1 (The "tao" in history) and 5 (The Failure of the "tao") because of their marxist undertones.

The article of J.V. Cruz (unit 9) is interesting as an appraisal of Magsaysay's term as president. Please note the comment of Agoncillo (asterisked footnote on p. 553) which reflects many of his views.

Chapter Twenty Seven: Profile of the Economy

Chapter Twenty Eight: External Affairs

1. Foreign Policy Planks

2. First Plank: Implementation

3. Problems of Fil-American Relations

4. Attempts at Relaxation of Tension

5. Re-Assessment of RP-US Relations

6. Second Plank: Implementation

9. Anti-Communism as a Policy

10. Maphilindo

11. The Breakup

12. The Dispute over Sabah

13. Association of Southeast Asia

14. The ASEAN

15. Relations with other Countries

16. The Chinese Problem

17. Reading 28.1: Recto on Foreign Policy

18. Reading 28. 2: The Pacific Charter

19. Reading 29. 3: The Manila Accord

This chapter explains Philippine foreign policy, dividing it into three different aspects, referred to as "planks". "An independent country, the Republic of the Philippines has anchored her foreign policy on three paramount planks: close association with the United States, symphaty for the aspirations of all dependent countries, particularly of Asia, and close cooperation with the United Nations. These three planks have been, and continue to be, implemented in various ways". The over-all tone of this chapter is "anti-imperialistic", that is, criticizing US-Philippine relations as detrimental to the nationalistic cause.

This chapter can be read skipping Unit 9: Anti-Communism as a Policy, which shows the author's philo-marxist ideas. Also, in this unit, the reader is made to understand that after Vatican II, under the aegis of ecumenism (sic), the Church has revised her attitudes towards Communism. This is, of course, not true. The Church has never withdrawn her formal condemnation of Marxism (cf. Fr. J. de Torre, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity, Sinagtala, Manila, 1983).

Chapter Twenty Nine: The Cultural and Social Scene

1. Education

2. Higher Education

3. The Community Schools

4. The Language Situation

5. Tagalog Literature

6. Filipino Literature in English

7. The Arts

8. The Social Scene

9. Beginnings of a New Elite

10. Declaration of Martial Law

11. Student Power

12. The New Constitution

13. Initial Results

14. Reading 29.0: The Language Problem by R. Constantino

15. Reading 29.1: The Economic Attitudes by R. Constantino

Units 1 to 7 as a whole, is a historico-cultural essay reflecting the author's view and opinions with his usual nationalistic leanings, although here, he tends to be more moderate and, to a point, dated in his opinions. These units can be read.

Units 8 and 9 (The Social Scene and Beginnings of a New Elite) shift to the social scene. There are slight overtones of class-struggle interpretation of our social-history, but again moderately dealt with. In fact, there are some paragraphs like the one at the beginning of p. 631 which show the author's typical liberal indignation for the alleged low level of morality specially among the wealthy and the powerful.

Unit 10 (Student Power) is a brief description of the student activist years which were specially intense in the last years of the sixties and the first two years of the seventies until the declaration of Martial Law.

In units 10-13, our author limits himself to a brief description of the post Martial Law era. In unit 13 (Initial Results) he seems to give a positive appraisal of the present day situation.

Skip the two Readings of Constantino for reasons already mentioned above.

III. APPENDICES

1. JULIUS CAESAR IN MANILA

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE by Teodoro A. Agoncillo and Oscar M. Alfonso. Quezon City: University of the Philippines. 1960. iv. 648 pp. Mimeographed

The senior author of this latest history of the Philippines has long been a vocal exponent of a new approach to the narration of local events: he believes that too much emphasis has been placed on the colonial period of the country and too little on the purely Filipino aspects of history that have given rise to the present modern Philippines. This history, therefore, is a sharp departure from previous work on the same subject by Conrado Benitez, Eufronio M. Alip and Gregorio F. Zaide, the writers of the sacrosanct textbooks used by our schools on that subject.

"With a few exceptions", says Professor Agoncillo, "the documents of the pre-1872 Philippines deal almost exclusively with the history of Spain in the Philippines", and it would be "illogical and irrelevant to discuss lengthily the innumerable events in which the Filipinos have no direct or indirect participation". Again, "it has been customary for foreign and Filipino historians and teachers to say that Magellan discovered the Philippines...this may be true insofar as the Spanish chroniclers are concerned; but why should Filipinos follow the Spaniards even in this matter of interpreting their own history? The Filipinos already had cultural and commercial intercourse with the peoples of Southeast Asia centuries before Magellan was born. From the Filipino viewpoint, how could Magellan have discovered something which has been known to many even before his time?"

In this latest work by Professor Agoncillo, he continues bandying about such terms as "landed aristocracy", "bourgeoisie", "middle-class", "serf" and "proletarian", which were used in two of his earlier books, Revolt of the Masses and Malolos: The crisis of the Republic, leading the casual reader to believe what his bitter critics have accused him of: espousing the Marxist interpretation of history. This suspicion is further strengthened by the chapter on the Hukbalahap Movement, wherein the use of certain adjectives indicates where his sympathies lie. "Taruc", he relates, "entered Manila (after the presidential amnesty of June 21, 1948) like Julius Caesar entering Rome after the Gallic wars". This phrase could aptly be used of Manuel L. Quezon on his return to the islands in 1916 after securing the Jones Law, or of Ramón Magsaysay on the day of his inauguration in 1953, but hardly of anybody else. Again, the murder of the millionaire hacendero of Pampanga, Jose de Leon Sr., is attributed to the peasant worker's "discontent", when in reality he was killed by a disgruntled sugar planter named Timbol over some personal financial arrangements.

The authors have properly devoted a chapter to the Aglipayan Movement, because it is an important offshoot of the revolutionary struggle, but to place it on the same level as the Reformation in Europe is to magnify it beyond true perspective. It cannot be denied that with the death of the two founders, Gregorio Aglipay and Isabelo de los Reyes, much of the initial momentum have been lost and today that church has a lesser impact than the other religious minorities in this country, say, the Iglesia ni Kristo, whose political potential seems to be greater than the Aglipayans ever enjoyed at the eight of their popularity.

Every so often, the authors have a tendency to lapse into inappropriate colloquialisms: for example, the term "fishy" for T. H. Pardo de Tavera's theory of direct Indian-Filipino contact, "taking it easy", "busting each other's head", etc. They are critical of President Manuel A. Roxas, whom they accuse of being slavishly pro-American, and question the truth of Ramón Magsaysay being "by nature a man whose heart always bled for the «tao»". In fact, they point out that "all his (Magsaysay's) plans relative to the rural uplift, though impressive to the peasants, were mere improvisations, patchwork, a temporary expedient that meant continued alliance of the masses with him." If the authors have been critical of the Spaniards, Americans and Japanese, they have not, on the other hand, spared the Filipinos themselves for their national shortcomings and idiosyncrasies.

But it is in the section on Filipino literature that the senior author excels. Himself a ranking writer in Tagalog, he gives a candid and witty appraisal of the status of past and presentwriters in both English and Tagalog. As for a certain exponent of free verse in Tagalog, Professor Agoncillo says this poet "considers himself an inch above Walt Whitman", since, in an introduction to an anthology, he "laid down, in the manner of a man about to give up his ghost, his soliterary testament." Passages such as this, which abound in the book, prevent it from becoming dull.

C. Q.

2. THE REVOLT OF THE MASSES: CRITIQUE OF A BOOK, Nicolás Zafra

The book entitled The Revolt of the Masses[1] is a painstaking and valiant attempt of a Filipino scholar to trace one of the most dramatic episodes in Philippine history birth and growth of the Katipunan and the significant role its members played in the revolt against Spain in 1896. The approach is in the main biographical. The author tells the story of the Katipunan movement, using the life and career of Andrés Bonifacio as the center and core of the story.

The picture which such a story presents must needs be drawn on a background of Philippine society during the latter part of the nineteenth century. His "Night over the Philippines" (Chapter 1), "The Awakening" (Chapter 2), "Canes and Paper Fans" (Chapter 5) are devoted to furnishing a historical background for the main event in the story. The rest of the book, with the exception of the concluding chapter, deals with a narration of the Katipunan from its birth to the tragic end of its founder at Mt. Buntis on 10 May 1897. Prominent in the narrative are Bonifacio's activities as founder, recruiter, and leader of the organization.

As a work of historical scholarship The Revolt of the Masses has many commendable features. While essentially the author has added no new fact to the already-known story of the Katipunan and its founder, he has by diligent search and critical examination of historical records and by fresh appraisal of statements of living participants of the movement effected amore complete and clearer understanding of some parts in the story than earlier writers on the subject have done. Through use of fresh evidence, he has also corrected some minor errors in the earlier works and he has attempted to clear up some hitherto obscure or controversial points in the career of Bonifacio. Chapters 3 and 4 touching on the events leading to the trial and death of Bonifacio are perhaps the meritorious portions of the book. In them are proofs of the painstaking effort and diligence of the author in gathering source material.

It must be said, however, with due respect to the author, that the work has serious defects and imperfections. It suffers from errors of omission and commission.

To the earnest and serious minded student of history, the feature of the book that is most vulnerable to valid criticism is the ill-concealed bias and contempt with which the author has dealt with certain elements and facets of Philippine history. This is particularly noticeable in his references to the religious orders. The impression that the reader gets from a reading of the book is that the friars did nothing worthwhile or uplifting among the Filipinos. In everything that they did, even in such things as the study of Philippine languages, they are represented as actuated by none but base, selfish and ignoble motives. We are made to understand that all they were interested in was to keep the Filipinos ignorant, docile, superstitious.

Such a view is, of course, unfair and unjust to the religious orders. The friars, collectively and individually, had their faults and foibles (what human being or human organization does not have its share of human frailty?). At the same time it mut be recognized, and the record abundantly proves it, that the religious orders contributed not a little to the material and cultural welfare of the Filipino people and that in undertaking their assigned mission, they were moved by noble and unselfish motives.

Prejudice has a way of distorting a man's understanding and sense of values. A biased mind has a tendency to see only the faults and vices of men and institutions and to blind itself to the brighter and nobler sides of their nature. It is true that a historian can not very well free himself entirely and completely from his likes and dislikes, but if he is really sincere and honest in his desire to understand the truths of the past, he should make an effort to detach himself from his prejudices. This is an obligation which a historian, if he is true to the ideals and standards of his craft, imposes scrupulously upon himself.

The author assumes quite correctly that the Philippine Revolution was the culmination of the nationalistic movement and aspirations of the Filipino people. To substantiate that view, he presents in the first chapter ("Night over the Philippines") a general survey of Philippine history intended to provide a historical background for the Katipunan and the subsequent revolt. How adequate is this survey?

The most charitable thing that can be said of it is that it is inadequate and unsatisfactory. Remote and isolated events, some 300 years before the Katipunan came into being are telescoped into the pattern of the 19th century, giving the impression that the Filipino nationalists of the latter part of the 19th century had these events in mind as "grievances" against the Spanish administration. The fact that many of the conditions had changed and that the policies which had brought them about had been revoked long before the Katipunan came into being must necessarily weaken the author's implied causal background of the Revolution. Had the author been less bent on conjuring up a picture of "an age of political chicanery and social hypocrisy" (p. 19) out of remote incidents too early to have influenced the thinking of the Filipinos of the period of the Revolution, and had he drawn instead a true picture of Philippine society during the period under study, the cause-effect relationship would have been clearer and stronger. That reforms were attempted during the period was part of the true picture. The author's silence on this matter makes his "background" treatment open to criticism as one pre-determined by personal bias.

From another angle, the author's survey of the historical background of the Katipunan movement is subject to criticism. Since the author has ventured to include in his survey the entire Spanish period, he is expected to tell his readers something of the origin of nationalism in the Philippines, to indicate what the factors and forces were which in one way or another contributed to its growth. This the author has not done. He overlooks or ignores the fact that certain historic forces played a vital role in the formation of the Filipinos into a nation: for example Christianity, the educational system, and the governmental agencies that Spain established in the Philippines. It can not be ignored that these factors contributed in no small degree to the development of Philippine nationalism. What role each of these factors played is familiar enough to every well-informed student of Philippine history.

Christianity produced in the Philippines, as it did in other lands, notable changes in the ways of life of the people. For one thing, it gave the Filipino Christians a new set of moral and religious values. Under the influence of the new Faith, they turned away from certain customs and practices some of which had been deeply rooted in their lives. At the same time, Christianity strengthened many of their traits and virtues their love of home, their hospitality, their innate courtesy, their sense of loyalty to constituted authority, their spirit of cooperation, the respect of children towards parents, and, above all, their love for freedom.

"The natives of the Philippines who are Christians possess a share of energy and intelligence, not only superior to their pagan an Mohammedan brothers of the same islands, but superior also to all the western inhabitants of the Archipelago, to the very people who in other periods of their history, bestowed laws, language and civilization upon them"[2].

Christianity, moreover, impressed upon the Filipinos the reality of the worth and dignity of the individual as a child of God, endowed with free will and at liberty to develop his powers to the fullest extent for his own benefit and for the welfare of his countrymen. We have in these ideas the source of the notion of country or nation as well as the basis of a sane and sound democracy. It can well be said that Christianity, apart from the changes it effected in the social and spiritual life of the Filipinos, implanted in Philippine soil the seeds of nationalism and democracy.

The governmental agencies that Spain established, with all their defects, produced salutary results. They brought together the scattered, separate and independent communities in the Philippines and welded them into a nation. Moreover, under the Spanish colonial administration, the Filipino obtained valuable experience in the knowledge of the governmental ways and practices of Spain. Exposed continuously for years to the actuations and requirements of the Spanish colonial administration, and sharing common experiences in the observance of the laws and orders of that government, the Filipinos acquired national consciousness. They came to learn that they belonged to one country and that they had common interests and common aspirations.

Under the influence of the factors above noted —religious, educational, administrative—, the Filipinos developed within a comparatively short time into a nation with a culture basically Christian in character and in spirit. It took many more years, however, for them to acquire that sense of solidarity and that keen sensitiveness to events in their country and awareness of the significance of these events to their lives and fortunes as a people which provide a basis for a nation-wide dynamic and militant form of nationalism. Conditions existing in the Philippines throughout the 17th and 18th centuries were not favorable to the rapid growth of this type of nationalism. The facilities for travel and communication were quite inadequate. Besides, Spain's policy of commercial restriction and isolation for the Philippines during those centuries tended to keep the Filipino away from the influence of historic changes and developments taking place in other parts of the world. To be sure, the spirit of resistance against alien domination remained alive as the frequent revolts and conspiracies which occured in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries would show. But these manifestations of militant nationalism were local in scope and character. They did not quite rise up to the character and proportions of a truly nation-wide movement.

This development did not come to pass until the latter part of the 19th century. It was brought about by new historic forces and conditions the opening of the Philippines to foreign trade and the consequent material and social progress, representation of the Philippines in the Spanish Cortes, improvement of means of travel and communication, administrative and educational reforms, the Spanish Revolution of 1868, and above all the controversy which arose over the Philippine curacies which had for its tragic sequel the execution in 1872 of Fathers Burgos, Gómez, and Zamora.

An adequate presentation of these facts and developments of Philippine history is important if the reader is to understand and appreciate the place and significance of the Philippine Revolution as an episode of Philippine history. For the underlying forces and influences which made the Revolution possible had their roots in the past. They can be traced to the workings and operations of the Spanish colonial system in all its various aspects administrative, religious, educational, and economic. This fact is recognized and understood well enough by scholars and authorities. Joseph R. Hayden adverted to this fact when he wrote:

"Although in practice the Spanish government of the Philippines was in many respects corrupt and demoralizing, yet in theory and profession the colonial system of Spain was fine and uplifting. Spaniards and Filipinos may have failed always to maintain high standards, but those standards did make an impress upon the Filipino mind than the ultimate rebellion of the Filipinos against Spanish rule"[3].

III

One feature of the book that the reader can not fail to notice is the author's obsession with the idea of class conflict. He constantly harps on the theme that there was a sharp clash of interests between what he calls the "masses" and the "middle class". For one thing, he gives the reader the impression that the Katipunan revolt was exclusively "the revolt of the masses"; that the "middle class" were interested mainly in the things that would redound to their material welfare; that not only were they unsympathetic with the needs and aspirations of the "masses" but they "betrayed" the cause of the Katipunan as well.

It is regrettable to say that the author's presentation of this aspect of his subject is unsatisfactory, unconvincing, unscholarly. In the first place, there is much confusion in the author's mind as regards his categories. What he calls the "masses" for example can be interpreted in many ways. In one place he speaks of the "broad masses [who] groaned and grew numb under the spell of poverty and profound ignorance" (p. 1). Elsewhere he gives one to understand that the "masses" means "those unsophisticated minds who could not see the various possibilities that might accompany a mode of action" (p. 41), or the group of "aggressive and nationalistic elements of population" (p. 42), or the "victims of subtle or overt exploitation" who were not "accustomed to the intricacies of the rational processes and are moved by the impact of feeling and passion and refuse to see the probable effects of their planned action" (p. 99), or "the ignorant and starving,... confused, hopeless, abused" (p. 278), or simply "the lowest class" (p. 204).

What the author's criterion is by which a person may be identified with the "masses" is obviously not at all clear. Certainly it can not be said that Bonifacio or Jacinto or Arellano or Valenzuela was of the group of those who "groaned and grew numb under the spell of poverty and profound ignorance," or of those "unsophisticated minds who would not see the various possibilities that might accompany a mode of action".

The confusion becomes worse confounded when he speaks of the "middle class". On pages 45-46, Mr. Agoncillo writes:

The Katipunan... the idea of a plebeian Andrés Bonifacio... None of its chartered members were of the middle class. Bonifacio was a laborer; while Arellano, Plata, Diwa, and Díaz were court clerks. Dizon, though not ill-providad was... a small merchant belonging more to the masses than to the intellectual middle class.

Elsewhere, writing of the Liga Filipina, the author tells his readers that the Liga was an organization of "middle class" people, "a sort of caste system from which the unlettered commoners were contemptuously excluded" (p. 282). Since Bonifacio, Arellano and other prominent Katipunan members were at one time or another members also of the Liga Filipina, his contention that "none of the chartered members of the Katipunan were of the middle class" becomes difficult to substantiate.

Elsewhere in his book (p. 98) the author states that a segment of the "middle class" was the "intellectual" group. Now Emilio Jacinto, the "brains of the Katipunan" is represented as coming from the "poor intellectual class". Since Jacinto was truly an "intellectual", it is clear that the author in claiming that he was not of the "middle class" repudiates his own statement that the "intellectual group" represented a segment of the "middle class".

In his efforts to underline his idea that the Revolution was a "class conflict", a "class struggle", the author has, wittingly or unwittingly, drawn a distorted picture of the character of the Philippine Revolution. He seems to have overlooked the important fact that the revolutionary movement was truly national in scope and in character. The persons who participated in it were moved and inspired by a genuine love of country. They came from all classes and elements of the population. Their supreme ideal, the bond of union among them, was freedom and independence for the Philippines from alien domination. It was their cherished hope and aspiration to establish a regime of liberty, justice and democracy in their country. That was the "sacred cause" of the Filipino nationalists. And for that "cause" they were disposed to give generously of their blood and possessions[4].

That the masses from whose rank and file the Katipunan drew the bulk of its strength and power played a vital role in the struggle for freedom is an established fact of Philippine history on which there need be no controversy. They gave generously of their time, their lives, their meager earnings or their fortunes. It is regrettable that in his attempt to emphasize his idea of "class conflict" and "class struggle", Mr. Agoncillo wrote of his so-called "middle class" in terms of disparagement and reproach, depriving them of the credit and recognition that they justly deserve for their labors and sacrifices on behalf of Philippine freedom. It is his contention that the movement was sparked by a selfish desire on the part of this "class" were political idealists whose thinking did not concern itself with economic problems in the country. The undeniable fact, however, is that the propaganda movement, which was the prelude to the Revolution, was carried out courageously and unselfishly by men who belonged to and represented what Mr. Agoncillo claims was "the middle class" group of Filipinos. To say that the men who participated in that movement were actuated by selfish motives and were indifferent towards the plight of the masses is unfair and unjust to them.

Moreover, the Liga Filipina, an organization of "middle class" people as Mr. Agoncillo himself claims, had for one of its aims "the encouragement of instruction, agriculture and commerce". (Italics supplied.) It would seem in the light of good evidence, that the "middle class" was not, as Mr. Agoncillo would have his readers believe, entirely unconcerned with the economic needs and problems of the nation.

There are many other instances of historical distortion or misrepresentation in The Revolt of the Masses. Of these, the one which relates to Rizal's attitude and position with respect to the Katipunan uprising deserves more than passing consideration because it involves the good name and character of our national hero.

In his chapter entitled "Dapitan Interlude", Mr Agoncillo gives the reader to understand that Rizal expressed himself in favor of an armed revolt such as was being planned and contemplated by the Katipunan. In writing that chapter the author relies entirely on the testimony of Dr. Pio Valenzuela as found in the latter's "Memoirs" and as repeated in an interview which he had with Valenzuela on 2 October 1947.

There is, however, another testimony of Valenzuela which gives an entirely different version of the matter. It is found in a declaration which Valenzuela made in September 1896 before the Guardia Civil, in the course of an investigation to which he was subjected shortly after he surrendered to the authorities[5]. It is to be remembered that in order to avail himself of the offer of immunity made by Governor Blanco in his proclamation of 30 August 1896, Valenzuela submitted himself to the Spanish authorities.

In his testimony, Valenzuela categorically stated that Rizal, to use Valenzuela's own words, was "tenaciously opposed to the idea of a rebellion against Spain". Valenzuela further stated that Rizal expressed himself "in such bad humor and with such feeling of disgust that he (Valenzuela), who had gone there (to Dapitan) intending to stay for a month, left the next day on the return trip to Manila."

Now which of these two versions of Valenzuela is worthy of credence?

In appraising the credibility of Valenzuela, it is important to take into account certain attendant conditions and circumstances. When in September 1896 Valenzuela made his declaration, he was fully aware of the fact that the safety of his life depended much upon the favorable impression that he could make on the authorities regarding the sincerity and honesty of his intentions. He knew that if he was found out to be misleading in his testimony or unwilling to cooperate with the authorities in their effort to delve into the secrets of the Katipunan his life would be seriously jeopardized. It was to his interest, therefore, that he should make a clean breast of the doings of the Katipunan. That is exactly what he did. A reading of his testimony would show that Valenzuela knew well enough that it was an easy thing for the authorities to check up on the veracity of his testimony, there being hundreds of Katipuneros who like him had taken advantage of the government's offer of immunity and who were at the time undergoing the same searching investigation to which he was being subjected. It can well be taken for granted, therefore, that under the circumstances what he said in his testimony regarding Rizal's attitude towards the Katipunan's subversive plans was the truth and nothing but the truth.

It is surprising that Agoncillo should ignore this testimony of Valenzuela and should choose to rely on a statement made by the same person half a century later when conditions were no longer the same and when the details of events were no longer fresh and vivid in his memory.

Valenzuela's earlier testimony was corroborated in an unmistakable manner by Rizal himself in the statement he submitted in his defence during his trial. In that statement Rizal said:

With respect to the rebellion, I had absolutely refrained from politics since 6 July 1892, until the 1st of July of this year when, advised by Don Pio Valenzuela that an uprising was proposed, I counseled against it, trying to convince him with reasons. Don Pio Valenzuela parted from me apparently convinced; so much so that instead of taking part in the rebellion later, he presented himself to the authorities for pardon[6].

Agoncillo's contention that Rizal had a change of view and attitude with respect to the Katipunan and its plans of revolt, apart from the fact that it lacks merit, reflects on the character and moral integrity of Rizal. For it gives the reader the impression that Rizal was not quite truthful in what he said regarding the Katipunan movement. The author expresses surprise at the "turnabout" of Rizal, saying that this action was an instance of the "betrayal" of the Katipunan by the "middle class" to which Rizal belonged. Considering that what Rizal said during his trial regarding the Katipunan was given under his word of honor (palabra de honor as the Spaniards would say), Mr. Agoncillo's contention is a slur on Rizal's sense of honor and good faith.

Mr. Agoncillo is, of course, at complete liberty to present the facts of history as he thinks they should be presented and to interpret them in accordance with his own technique of historical interpretation. It should be said, however, that his procedure with respect to this particular point of history is highly questionable. He is, to put it mildly, quite naive, credulous and uncritical.

Another instance of gross misreprentation is found in the author's reference to Mabini. On page 114, the author presents the following quotation from Mabini's writings:

But when I observed everywhere the unrest and indignation produced by the blind obstinacy of the Spanish Government and the cruelties with which it repaid the services of those who had shown it the dangers of bad administration of the Philippines and had offered plans for doing away with those,... I saw the popular will clearly manifested and deemed it my duty to take up the revolutionary cause.

The above citation was used to substantiate the author's favorite theme that the "middle class" was unsympathetic with and had a feeling of repugnance to the revolutionary ideas and plans of the Katipunan and that only after the outbreak of the Revolution did that "class" join the "masses" in the struggle for liberation. According to Agoncillo, Mabini was the "epitome" of this "middle class" attitude.

Any one will readily see how irregular and devious is the author' s method of historical presentation and interpretation. What Mabini wanted to say in the above quoted words of his is simply that he became a revolutionist, after seeing the failure of the propaganda campaign. Agoncillo has torn the quotation from its context to make it appear that Mabini, in common with other representatives of the "middle class", embraced the cause of the Revolution only after the Katipunan movement had expanded into a nation-wide struggle for freedom. The author, by making an improper use and interpretation of historical evidence, does an injustice to Mabini representing him as a fence-sitter and an opportunist.

Another instance of Agoncillo's peculiar methodology is found in the same chapter (Chapter 7 "Betrayal"). There the author makes a laborious attempt to show the reaction of the "middle class" people towards the events of their time. It is his contention that the "middle class" considered the idea of revolt "repugnant", and so were opposed to joining the Katipunan for fear that a revolt "might cost them their possessions and social prestige." As a proof of his contention he presents a statement from Le Roy's work on the conduct of certain prominent Filipinos following the outbreak of the Katipunan revolt. Le Roy stated that the "natives of position hastened to assure the Spanish authorities of their loyalty" and that they felt that "the revolt was wholly premature" (p. 112). That is the kind of evidence that Agoncillo uses to substantiate his claim of "repugnance" on the part of the "middle class" to the idea of revolt. It can readily be seen that Le Roy's quoted words have no relevance at all to the point under consideration. He was simply trying to bring out the fact that those prominent Filipinos, who chose to return to their allegiance to the Spanish Government following the outbreak of the Katipunan uprising, felt that the revolt was "premature". That is entirely different from saying that they had a feeling of "repugnance " to the idea of revolt.

We have another instance of the author's peculiar way of reasoning in his discussion of the trial of Bonifacio. He assumes that the trial was irregular, that it was a farce, a travesty of justice. "The Council of War", he tells us, "was decidedly pre-disposed against the man on trial for his life". In this connection he brings up for consideration the claim of T.M. Kalaw that the fact that "Bonifacio and his followers submitted to the Council of War without protest" (italics supplied) shows that Bonifacio and his followers felt that the Council of War was properly constituted and that they would be given fair trial. Agoncillo takes exception to this claim. He tries to refute it by saying that Bonifacio was not in a position to protest, being a prisoner and suffering from a wound. "Under the circumstances," he states, "how could Bonifacio and his followers have protested against the action of the governemnt and insisted on their refusal to recognize the authority of the Council of War? Bonifacio was helpless having been wounded and taken prisoner". Any one can see that Agoncillo has not quite grasped the cogency of Kalaw's contention. When he stated that Bonifacio submitted to the Council of War with protest, Kalaw had in mind not so much the freedom to move or act physically which can of course be shackled and controlled, but rather the freedom of the will which can not be suppressed by any physical force. Bonifacio had that freedom all the time and he could have used it to voice his protest against the constitution and authority of the Council of War if he cared to do so.

VII

Many other instances can be cited to show the author's peculiar method and technique of historical presentation and interpretation. In the first chapter we find such statements as the following:

Society, rotten to the core, exuded an odor that polluted the atmosphere for more than 300 years and led to the migration of the Filipino intellectuals to healthier climes...

Education was in the hands of the friars who waved the cloak of religion to dazzle the eyes of the Filipinos and so made them helots of a power that wanted to perpetuate itself by conveniently forgetting the principles and virtues for which it stood.

These are instances of sweeping generalities in which the book abounds, framed in utter disregard of the elemental principles of historical construction. Couched in highly rhetorical language they are vague if not entirely meaningless as statements of historical facts. Anyone who reads them is reminded of the style and technique of the Spanish writer Quioquiap and of what Rizal once said of him: "He generalizes the bad and the abject without any exception, drawing universal conclusions from secondary and remote premises". ("Generaliza lo malo y abjecto, sacando consecuencias universales de premisas secundarias y remotas")[7].

There are also to be found instances of anachronisms, contradictions and historical inaccuracies. In one place (p. 221) the reader is told Ricarte took the oath of office in the evening of 23 March 1897 at Tanza. In another page it is stated that on 24 March 1897 Ricarte was invited by Emiliano Riego de Dios to attend the oath taking at Tanza and that on that day Ricarte penned his protest against his election as general of the armed forces of the Revolution. Just when did Ricarte take his oath of office? On March 23 or March 24?

In one place Agoncillo speaks of the "awakening" from the "long night" which prevailed over the Philippines, the "awakening" being the launching of the propaganda campaign by Jaena, Rizal, del Pilar and other Filipino nationalists. And yet elsewhere the author gives the reader to understand that the period of the propaganda was "a long night of political persecution and economic serfdom" (p. 26). Just when the "night" ended and the "awakening" began is not quite clear.

Speaking of Spain in the 19th century the author says: "In Spain, owing to the unsettled political condition, progressive ideas existed only in whispers". The facts of Spanish history, particularly during the period 1808-1869 belie the author's claim. That period with its record of revolts, uprisings, golpes de estado and pronunciamientos bears eloquent witness to the militancy and vociferousness of the liberal spirit and tendencies in Spain. There is no basis to the claim the "progressive ideas existed only in whispers"[8].

Also injurious to what otherwise might have been a purely scholarly research was the unfortunate use of a style such as might have been effective in campaign propaganda literature but which when employed in historical narration detracts rather than adds to its value. The use of expressions such as "crooked as the administration and dirty as the conscience of Spanish officialdom" (p. 64), "friars who wanted to act like the barbarian of the Attila cast" (p. 166), "the friars cackled in their hour of vindictive triumph" (p. 190), "bloodthirsty religious" (p. 168), and many others of the same nature is an exercise of literary "license" hardly in keeping with an objective and calm appraisal.

Not only does the author use an unfortunate style in words but he has also mingled fiction and history in historical narration, thus confusing the reader as to the real nature of the work. Is the author writing history or fiction in his account of the meeting in the caves of Makarok and Parnitian (pp. 70-71)? Is it history or fiction he writes when he divines the thought in the minds of the friars (p. 164-169)? Or the dramatic scene he describes on pp. 234-235 where Aguinaldo is described approaching the estate-house where Bonifacio and his friends were gathered?

VIII

Being an intensive study of the Katipunan movement, The Revolt of the Masses might have been expected to clear up an important point over which there is still much controversy. Reference is had to the time and place of the so-called "Cry of Balintawak". Just when and where did this memorable event of the Revolution take place?

Teodoro M. Kalaw in his book La revolución filipina relates the circumstances leading up to his significant event as follows:

The Revolution began in Balintawak in the last week of August 1896. The forces of Bonifacio were not yet adequately prepared, but the unexpected discovery of the Katipunan by Father Mariano Gil, pastor of Tondo, and the rigorous measures that the government took against the innocent as well as the guilty, precipitated the war. Hundreds of persons were arrested. Bonifacio at once held a meeting of Katipuneros in Kankong, Kalookan. It was a tumultuous meeting. Everybody was excited. There were, however, some at the meeting who believed that the moment was not propitious for an uprising. After some discussion, the radicals led by Bonifacio and Jacinto triumphed. Having made their decision, the Katipuneros swore not to return to their homes. To show that from that moment they renouned their allegiance to Spain, they tore their certificates of citizenship cédula personal. Bonifacio launched a manifesto calling upon his comrades to take up arms. The 29th of August was the day fixed for the uprising.

According to the inscription placed on the monument, the "Cry of Balintawak" took place on 26 August 1896. This date has been the officially accepted date for this event.

How accurate is the official version as regards the place and time of this event?

Guillermo Masangkay who was present on the historic occasion confirmed the official version in all its essential details in a statement that he made in 1932. According to him the "Cry of Balintawak" took place on 26 August 1896 near the spot where the monument now stands.[9].

Another eyewitness of this event, however, Dr. Pio Valenzuela gives us to understand that certain points in the officially accepted version are not in agreement with the historical reality. In the first place, Dr. Valenzuela says that it was at Pugad Lawin, not in Balintawak, in the yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where the decision was made to take up arms. Dr. Valenzuela further states that the date of this event was August 23, not August 26. According to him, at the close of the meeting at Pugad Lawin, which was tumultuous, many of the Katipuneros tore their cedula certificates and shouted "Long live the Philippines! Long live the Katipunan![10].

From another source we get a slightly different version. It comes from Santiago Alvarez, who, like Dr. Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay, was a prominent member of the Katipunan. In a series of articles published in Sampaguita, a Tagalog weekly, in 1927 and 1928, he gave a detailed account of the history of the Katipunan. The account was prepared, according to him, from notes that he kept, relating to his experiences as a member of the Katipuan. From his work we read the following references to the events of August 1896[11]:

Sunday, August 23, 1896.

As early as 10 o'clock in the morning, at the house and barn of Kabesang Melchora, at a place called Sampalukan, barrio of Bahay-Toro, Katipuneros began to gather. About 500 of these arrived ready and eager to join the "Supremo", Andrés Bonifacio, and his men...

Monday, August 24, 1896.

There were about 1,000 Katipuneros... The "Supremo" decided to hold a meeting inside the big barn. Under his presidency, the meeting began at 10 o'clock in the morning...

It was 12 o'clock noon when the meeting was adjourned amidst loud cries of "Long live the Sons of the Country". ("Mabuhay ang mga anak ng Bayan.")

Tuesday, August 25, 1896.

At two o'clock in the afternoon, a Katipunero lookout, watching from a sampalok tree, reported that enemy troops were approaching. The Katipuneros immediately made ready to meet the enemy. At a point between Kangkong, Balintawak and Bahay-Toro, a brief encounter took place.

Perhaps the earliest reference in a published document to the events of August 1896 is that made by Olegario Díaz of the Guardia Civil Veterana[12]. Díaz wrote a report on 28 October 1896 giving his version of those events. His account was prepared on the basis of official reports of the doings of the Guardia Civil and on information given by persons who either were captured by the Spaniards or voluntarily surrendered to take advantage of the amnesty offered under Governor Blanco's proclamation of 30 August 1896. Many of these had actual participation in the events of August 1896 and therefore had first hand knowledge of those events. From Díaz report we read the following:

The conspiracy having been discovered, Bonifacio and his followers hurriedly fled to the nearby town of Caloocan... On the 23rd Bonifacio moved to the barrio of Balintanac (sic) followed by 200 men from Caloocan; on the 24th they were attacked by the Guardia Civil in the outskirts of the said town and they retreated to their hiding places.

The Supreme Council called for a big meeting to be held the following day in the above mentioned barrio. More than 500 members attended. The meeting began with a discussion of what course should be taken in the face of the new situation and in view of the arrests that were being made. There were some who were disposed to go back and surrender to the Spanish government. Bonifacio was strongly opposed to such a course. He was for taking up arms at once. Put to a vote, Bonifacio's proposal was approved by an overwhelming majority. See how strong an influence he wields!

Orders were immediately sent out to Manila, Cavite, Nueva Ecija and other provinces for the Katipuneros to strike at dawn on Sunday, August 30th.

From the statements above presented, it will be readily seen that there is marked disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and the time of occurence of what is at present generally known as the "Cry of Balintawak". Four different places have been mentioned as the scene of the memorable event —Balintawak, Kankong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro. As the time of the event, four different dates were claimed —the 23rd, the 24th, the 25th, and the 26th of August 1896.

It is regrettable that Agoncillo has not seen fit to clear up the confusion that still prevails on this point in the history of the Revolution. All that he has done is to accept the version of Valenzuela without question. He has not told his readers why he considers the testimony of Valenzuela more reliable and more authoritative than that of any of the other contemporary witnesses. Considering the character and standing of the persons whose testimony has been cited and the excellent opportunities that they had for accurate observation of the events about which they wrote, what they had to say regarding those events is deserving of the utmost consideration and respect.

Despite the faults and defects of his work, the author is deserving of praise and commendation for certain things. He has presented in convenient form already known data which would otherwise have remained available only in scattered sources. To them he adds the new data he acquired from further research for which he deserves credit, especially those which he gathered from interviews he conducted in preparation for his book. These data will be useful to a historian when other sources are available to check them.

IV. RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHY TO ACCOMPANY THE READING OF AGONCILLO'S WORKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY I: Philosophical and Religious — Ideological Orientations

1. Torre, Joseph M. de, Roots of Society, Sinagtala, Manila.

2. Torre, Joseph M. de, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity, Sinagtala, Manila, 1983.

3. De Pedro, Javier U., Critique of Constantino's ''The Past Revisited" (pro manuscripto).

4. Dawson, Christopher, Dynamics of World History

BIBLIOGRAPHY II: Historical Works and Commentaries

1. Quirino, Carlos, Julius Caesar in Manila (book review) see Appendix

2. Zafra, Nicolás, "The Revolt of the Masses": Critique of a Book, see Appendix

3. Molina, Antonio, The Philippines Through the Centuries, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, 1961, 2 vols.

4. Zafra, Nicolás, Philippine History through Selected Sources, Alemars-Phoenix Publishing, Quezon City, 1967.

5. Schumacher, John N., Review Article: Re-Reading Philippine History: Constantino's A Past Revisited, in Philippine Studies, Vol. 23 (1975), pp. 465-480

6. Lachica, Eduardo, The Age of the Awakening.

7. Costa, Horacio de la, S.J., A Capsule History of the Philippines, in Historical Bulletin.

8. Phelan, John N., The Hispanization of the Philippines.

L.T. (1984)

Volver al Índice de las Recensiones del Opus Dei

Ver Índice de las notas bibliográficas del Opus Dei

Ir al INDEX del Opus Dei

Ir a Libros silenciados y Documentos internos (del Opus Dei)

Ir a la página principal

[1] Teodoro A. Agoncillo, The Revolt of the Masses:the Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan, Quezon City: University of the Philippines, College of Liberal Arts, 1956. pp. XV + 456, notes and appendices.

[2] History of the Indian Archipelago (Edinburgh 1820) II, 277-278

[3] The Philippines: A Study in National Development (N.Y. 1850)

[4] See: T.M. Kalaw, La revolución filipina (Manila 1925); L.H. Fernández, The Philippine Republic (New York 1926); A. Mabini, La revolución filipina (Manila 1931).

[5] Retana, Archivo del bibliófilo filipino (Madrid 1895-97) vol. 3.

[6] Retana, Vida y escritos del Dr. Rizal (Madrid 1907) p. 342 footnote.

[7] Rizal á Barrantes, Epistolario Rizalino (Manila 1931) II, 300.

[8] See: H. Butler Clarke, Modern Spain 1815-1898 (Cambridge 1906); Juan Ortega Rubio, Historia de España 8 vols. (Madrid 1910); Salvador de Madariaga, Spain (2nd ed. London 1942); Robert Sencourt, The Spanish Crown (New York 1932).

[9] "A Katipunero Speaks" The Tribune Sunday Magazine, Manila, 21 August 1932.

[10] "Memoirs of the K.K.K. and the Philiphine Revolution" (unpublished manuscript). Also Valenzuela's statement published in The Sunday Times, Manila 29 August 1948.

[11] "Ang Katipunan at Paghihimagsik" Sampaguita, 14 August 1927.

[12] In Retana, Archivo del bibliófilo filipino, vol. 3