Reviewing 2 celebrated Rizal biographies
Guerrero’s First Filipino vs. Nery’s Revolutionary Spirit
I read this book for a class I’m teaching on the historical imagination of the Philippine Revolution. For contrast, I assigned this text together with John Nery’s Rizal biography, Revolutionary Spirit.
Guerrero’s version is more extensive and includes longer quotes from Rizal’s writings than Nery’s. Guerrero is also less careful about footnoting than Nery, probably because academic standards in the 1960s were less stringent than in 2011, when Nery’s bio was published. Given Guerrero’s context, we shouldn’t be too harsh on him for his sloppy referencing. Still, Guerrero’s and Nery’s portrayals of Rizal converge more than diverge. I say this because both use these three images in interpreting Rizal:
1. Rizal’s martyrdom mirrors Christ’s crucifixion. Nery introduces Rizal as a martyr who embraced his death willingly, rather than passively. Guerrero counts Rizal as among those “we reserve our highest homage and deepest love” for because he’s a “Christ-like victim whose mission is to consummate by the tragic ‘failure’ the redemption of our nation” (p. 531).
2. Rizal as an international scholar. Both biographers paint him as someone whose talent and intellect are feared and admired not only by Filipinos, but also Europeans and intellectuals in neighboring Southeast Asian countries.
3. Rizal as courageous (perhaps reckless) patriot and the Father of the nation. Both highlight Rizal’s decision to leave Europe to return to the Philippines, even if doing so meant risking his life. They also both recognize in Rizal’s writings and thought the emergence of a Philippine nation independent from Spain, and how these texts make him vulnerable to misinterpretations by both the Spanish colonial regime and Filipino revolutionaries of the late nineteenth century.
Guerrero’s difference though is that he uses Rizal’s writings as a springboard to imagine how Rizal FELT about the events of his life and milieu. This emotional element, albeit clearly literary and not factual, makes his portrayal livelier and more relatable than Nery’s investigative treatment. Nevertheless, in some parts of Guerrero’s text, the narrative turns messy, and the quotes from Rizal’s writings too lengthy. But at the end of each chapter, he manages to restore momentum and artfully close with an insightful and elegant commentary.
Even if tedious to read through, the messy narrative and lengthy quotations are not completely futile. They help show the complexity of Rizal’s personality, as well as of the times he lived in. This complexity challenges the static, simplistic view of Rizal and the Spanish colonial period that many Filipinos have.
