The Noli Me Tringere as

Catalyst of Revolution

I have chosen the wording for the title with some care:
catalyst of revolution, not catalyst of the Revolution . Though there
was indeed a connection between the Noli and the Revolution of
1896, I do not intend to draw a direct line between the two; the
matter is more complex than that. Rather, I want to speak of Rizal's
purpose in writing the Noli-to provide a catalyst for a revolution,
to start the process that would lead to the emancipation of the
Philippines. That is to say that by the time he completed his novel
in late 1886, Rizal had already concluded to the futility of the goals
sought by many of his fellow-Filipinos, who hoped to obtain from
Spain reforms for the Philippines by which Filipinos would enjoy
th o full rights of Spanish citizens and continue as equals within the
Spanish empire.
'rhis wos th e assimilationist solution under whose banner the
l rop11i,n11dn Mov m nt would osten sibly pursue its campaign in La
92 Noli Me Tangere
Solidaridad. That Rizal had originally shared that goal is very
likely true, perhaps even when he began to write the Noli in 1884.
If so, by the time he brought the novel into its final form, he had
already opted for ultimate separation from Spain. Since Spain would
never voluntarily grant independence to the Filipinos, he had
concluded, there remained no choice except a revolution, and the
Noli was the first step toward that goal.
I am aware that this statement goes contrary to what numerous
other writers have said about Rizal from Spanish times up to the
present. It is also true that the Noli itself nowhere makes an explicit
call for revolution. Hence, Spaniards, Americans, and Filipinos have
said, some in praise, some in scorn, that Rizal was not a revolution-
ary but a reformist; a mere reformist, as say the advocates of the
violent overturning of our society. In the words of Amado Guerrero's
Philippine Society and Revolution: "[Rizal] failed to state categori-
cally the need for revolutionary armed struggle to effect separation
from Spain."1 Similarly, from a somewhat different point of view,
for Renato Constantino: "the demands of the ilustrado reformists
[among whom he includes Rizal] were necessarily delimited by their
class position," and Rizal was "a reformist to the end. "2 Such views
had been enunciated long ago by men from opposite ends of the
ideological spectrum, like Rizal's first biographer, the Spaniard
Wenceslao E. Retana. The latter denied that Rizal had been the
enemy of Spain, but only one who sought reforms, which Spain
unwisely denied. This too was the image promoted by American
colonialists like William Howard Taft and later by W. Cameron
Forbes, who even insisted: "Rizal never advocated independence
nor did he advocate armed resistance to the government. He urged
reform from within, by publicity, by public education, and appeal
to the public conscience."3 No doubt, not everything is false in these
images, but they present only certain aspects of Rizal's ideas, and
in the end certainly falsify his insights into the problems of the
Philippines of his day.
I would maintain, in contradiction to these views, that Rizal, as
early as 1886, had already determined that there was no future for
the Philippines in union with Spain, that the only course to be
pursued was the complete separation from Spain as an independent
nation. Why has this view found so little acceptance among writers
on Rizal if it is as clear as I would maintain? I see the answer in
three factors, apart from ideological biases: (1) the failure to distin-
guish between what Rizal (and other Filipinos who shared his ideas)
w r bl to ay publicly and what they felt privately; (2) the failur
to r nd Riznl' Noli and hi oth r writing within th context of hi
Noli Me Tangere 93
personal correspondence at the time be was publishing; and (3) the
failure to see the Noli not simply as an independent work but as
part of a well-thought-out long-range plan. More specifically, Rizal's
three major books, the Noli, the annotated edition of Antonio de
Morga's Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, and the Filibusterismo, form
a unity, a carefully calibrated effort to point the way to the future
independence of the Philippines.
Noli as Charter of Nationalism
In 1884, in his speech at the Madrid banquet honoring Juan
Luna and Felix Resurrecci6n Hidalgo for their prize-winning paint-
ings, Rizal still expresses hope for reforms from Spain. But he also
speaks of two equal races, and though he proclaims that even if the
Spanish flag were to disappear from the Philippines, "her memory
would remain, eternal and imperishable," at the same time he warns:
"What can a red and yellow rag do, or guns and cannon, where love
and affection do not flower, where there is no union of minds, no
agreement on principles, no harmony of opinions?"4 The implicit
conditions he here placed on future Filipino loyalty to Spain were
not lost on Spaniards in Manila, and his brother Paciano wrote of
his mother's illness due to her fears that Jose would never be able
to return to his homeland. 5 Separation of the Philippines from Spain,
therefore, was at this point a distinct possibility for Rizal, who was
beginning to write his novel, but it was not inevitable.
He originally intended to write the novel in French, then the
universal language of educated Europe, so as to depict Philippine
society for them. But as he would tell his friend Ferdinand Blumen-
tritt in 1888, he had later decided that other writers could under-
take that task-it was instead for his fellow Filipinos that he must
write. For, he continued, "I must wake from its slumber the spirit
of my country ... I must first propose to my countrymen an example
with which they can struggle against their bad qualities, and after-
wards, when they have reformed, many writers will rise up who can
present my country to proud Europe."6 In his Noli he does seek for
reforms, demands them even, but from Filipinos rather than from
Spaniards. Spain of course has an obligation to grant reforms in the
Philippines, but in a sense, whether she does or not is irrelevant;
the Filipinos must bring about reform themselves. As I have tried
to how elsewhere, the novel is not primarily an attack on the
nbu of Spain and the friars. It contains that, to be sure, but it
i mor than that. It is a charter of nationalism for Filipinos. It calls
on th Filipino to regain his self-confidence, to appreciate his own
94 Noli Me Tangere
worth, to return to the heritage of his ancestors, to assert himself
as the equal of the Spaniards. Because it was Filipinos Rizal wrote
for he was insistent that his book had to reach the Philippines and
had' to be written in a language they would understand. 7
What message did Rizal wish to transmit to his fellow Filipinos?
As i& clear from the quotation we have given, it was first of all that
the Filipinos should be aware of what was wrong with Philippine
society, not only Spanish abuses, but Filipino failures as well. But
his purpose went beyond that. His correspondence with his new
friend Blumentritt in early 1887, even though at first cautious,
makes clear the direction of his thinking. From Rizal's comments
it may be gathered that Blumentritt had proposed that a time
would come when the Philippines would gradually develop toward
independent status with the acquiescence of Spain. Rizal answers:
It will never come. The peaceful struggle must remain a dream, for
Spain will never learn from her earlier colonies in South America. Spain
does not see what England has learned in North America. But in the
present circumstances we want no separation from Spain; all we de~and
is more care, better instruction, better officials, one or two representatives,
and more security for ourselves and our property. Spain can still win the
Philippines for herself forever, if only Spain were more reasonable. 8
Rizal registers a glimmer of hope that the separation of the Phil-
ippines from Spain might come about by a peaceful and gradual
development, a vain hope he now believes, but still the ideal. But
in any case the separation must come; that is clear in his mind. It
is, however, not something for which the Philippines, at the moment,
is ready-"in the present circumstances we want no separation from
Spain"-but the eventual goal is already determined.
It becomes more clear in his impassioned outburst a month later,
occasioned by the crude anti-Filipino articles being published in
Madrid by the Spaniard, Pablo Feced, writing under the pseudo-
nym Quioquiap. Rizal tells Blumentritt:
Quioquiap is a little more crude than Caftamaque, Mas, San Agustin,
etc., but more honest; he wants separation and he is correct. The Filipinos
have long desired Hispanization and have been wrong. Spain should
desire this Hispanization, not the Filipinos. Now we receiile this lesson
from the Spaniards, and we express our thanks to them.
It is in this light that we must understand the Noli. Rizal's
hostile critic, the Spanish writer Vicente Barrantes, would taunt
him for making the Filipinos in his novel just as bad as th frii:irs
nnd th unrdin Civil. 10 Barrant s mi s d th point. Thou,:rh ltiza l
Noli Me Tangere 95
does from time to time highlight the virtues and good qualities of
the unspoiled Filipino, the Noli does not have as its goal the glo-
rification of the race any more than it does the mere condemnation
of Spanish oppression. A sound nationalism had to be based on an
accurate and unsparing analysis and understanding of the contem-
porary situation, not on a self-congratulatory, and therefore self-
deceptive, adulation of all things Filipino. Before beginning the
struggle, the foundation must be well and surely laid.
Noli and Fili: Action with Vision
For the Noli was not meant to stand alone. Even before it had
come off the press, Rizal already had in mind a sequel. This we can
gather from a letter written to him in Berlin by his friend Evaristo
Aguirre in Madrid in January 1887:
I applaud the studies you are undertaking, both of Sanskrit and of those
other books which will give you the wealth of historical data needed to
write that other novel, based on history, which you have in mind.11
Though the planned historical novel never saw the light as such,
the role it would have played may be conjectured with good proba-
bility from the book that actually turned out to be the most immediate
and significant outcome of Rizal's historical studies in Germany
and later at the British Museum in London, after his return to
Europe in 1888. Dedicating it to his fellow Filipinos, he wrote in the
preface to his annotated edition of Antonio de Morga's seventeenth-
century work, Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, an explanation that
clarifies the evolution of his thought:
In the Noli me tangere I began the sketch of the present state of our
country. The effect which my attempt produced made me understand
that before continuing to unveil to your eyes other succeeding pictures
I must first make known the past, so that it may be possible to judge
better the present and to measure the path which has been traversed
during three centuries... .
If this book succeeds in awakening in you the consciousness of our
past, which has been blotted out from our memories, and in rectifying
what has been falsified by calumny, then I will not have labored in vain.
With this foundation, tiny as it may be, we can all dedicate ourselves
to Atudying the future. 12
ft woulds em that it was only after some months researching in
th Hriti h Mu um in early Spanish sources on Philippjne hjstory,
lhnt lt1~11I de ·id d to giv up th idea of an historical nov l llS n
96 Noli Me Tangere
sequel to the Noli. He would publish instead a scholarly analysis
of the Philippines at the Spanish contact, using Morga's book as a
base. As the Noli had shown the Filipinos their present condition
under Spain, the Morga would show them their roots as a nation-
"the last moments of our ancient nationality," as Rizal put it. 13
The foundation having thus been laid in these two books, Rizal
would chart the Filipino course for the future in El Filibusterismo.
Here we find the fulfillment of the promise contained in the Noli.
He shows two possible courses remaining: the solution of Simoun
and that of Padre Florentino-that of armed violence and that of
active nonviolent resistance, to put them in terms familiar today.
Rizal explores the way of Simoun-Ibarra in detail and rejects it; he
has Padre Florentino give only the outlines of the second course,
just enough to show that it is the only way to follow. Because the
implementation of Padre Florentino's vision lies in the future, Rizal
cannot give detailed instructions. Rather, he gives the vision and
makes his act of faith in the Filipino and in the God of history;
action in accord with that vision will prove its genuinity and open
the paths to its fulfillment.
This interpretation of the Fili depends on my interpretation of
the Noli. Some biographers of Rizal, like Retana, have tried to
explain the Noli in terms of Ibarra, the idealist, working for reforms
under Spanish auspices and representing the mind of Rizal; while
Elias, the man of action, represents Bonifacio, the revolutionary. 14
Leon Ma. Guerrero, in his First Filipino, has pointed out the fallacy
in this interpretation. For when Ibarra fails in his reform program
and opts for violence, it is Elias who tries to dissuade him, urging
that he will lead his countrymen into a bloodbath, and that it will
be the defenseless and innocent who will most suffer. Rather, says
Guerrero,
the Noli thus presents a problem without offering a clear solution,
perhaps purposely, for either Rizal was not clear in his own mind as to
the correct one, or was prudent enough not to openly favor independence
and revolution. 15
No doubt prudence played a part, though Rizal was not one to
keep silent for his own protection if he felt that something really
needed to be said. Probably more significant was his prudence not
to arouse people at this point to revolution. For in 1887, as he
agreed with Blumentritt, the conditions for success did not yet
xist. But I do not think Guerrero is correct in speculating that
Riznl wA p rhap not y t cl ar in his own mind about th futur .
Noli Me Tangere 97
As I have tried to show, he had decided on separation from Spain
when he published the Noli. And in broad lines he knew how he
thought it should come about. He originally intended to propose the
solution in his second novel, but then realized that he could only
do so after having laid further groundwork. The first part of that
groundwork, the awakening of a national consciousness, already
begun in the Noli, had to be undergirded with a solid historical
foundation; this he did in the Morga. But there still remained the
course of action to be explored for the fulfillment of the nationalism
he had aroused.
The obvious answer to Elias's objection that the people were not
yet ready and that, by embarking on revolution, Ibarra was only
preparing a bloodbath for the innocent, was the course that Ibarra
attempted to implement in his new role as Simoun-to rouse up the
Filipinos to a revolutionary consciousness by stimulating Spanish
injustice and abuses while organizing the people of all classes to
resist that oppression. But Rizal the novelist shows Simoun's path
to be.. the wrong one by leading him to failure and to death. More-
over, he passes judgment on this path in the words of Padre
Florentino. To the dying Simoun's question as to why a God of
justice and freedom had forsaken him in his efforts to bring justice
and freedom to his country, Padre Florentino replies:
Because you chose a means of which He could not approve . ... Hate only
creates monsters; crime, criminals; only love can work wonders, only
virtue redeem. If our country is one day to be free, it will not be through
vice and crime, it will not be through the corruption of its sons, some
deceived, others bribed; redemption presupposes virtue; virtue, sacrifice;
a nd sacrifice, love. 16
imoun then asks the despairing question as to whether Padre
Florentino proposes that it is God's will that the Philippines should
contjnue in its present miserable condition. Rizal gives an answer,
at once confident of the justice of the Filipino cause in God's sight
and sure of the direction to be taken, though without knowledge of
th detailed means:
I know that God has not forsaken those peoples that in time of decision
lu v placed themselves in His hands and made Him the judge of their
OJIJ) r 1 ion . I know that His arm has never been wanting when, with
Ju fr trnmpl d under foot and all other resources exhausted, the
oppn 11 1 d h• v taken up the sword and fought for ... their inalienable
r uh . , . :od i ju tice and He cannot abandon His own cause, the
1•m1 1 of fr, 1 d m without which no justice i poseibl .17
 98 Noli Me Tangere
The Filipino people, he says, in the face of oppression must "endure
and work." It is not, however, a passive endurance, but an active
resistance to evil and refusal to accept the deprivation of their
freedom. But he adds:
/ ; do not mean that our freedom is to be won at the point of the sword;
the sword counts for little in the destinies of modern times. But it is true
that we must win it by deserving it, exalting reason and the dignity of
the individual, loving what is just, what is good, what is great, even to
the point of dying for it. When the people rises to this height, God
provides the weapon, and the idols fall, the tyrants fall like a house of
cards, and freedom shines in the first dawn. 18
Finally, consistent with the purpose Rizal had set when he wrote
the Noli, he places the responsibility on the Filipinos themselves.
Our misfortunes are our own fault, let us blame nobody else for them.
If Spain were to see us less tolerant of tyranny and readier to fight and
suffer for'our rights, Spain would be the first to give us freedom ....
But as long as the Filipino people do not have sufficient vigor to proclaim,
head held high and chest bared, their right to a life of their own in
human society, and to guarantee it with their sacrifices, with their very
blood ... why give them independence? With or without Spain they
would be the same, and .perhaps, perhaps worse. What is the use of
independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And
no doubt they will, because whoever submits to tyranny loves it!1 9
Rizal indeed foresees the possibility of bloodshed; he can even
conceive a situation in which it would be justified to take up arms.
But an armed revolution will not by itself win freedom. The point
is not to shed other people's blood, but to be ready enough to shed
one's own for the people that one will have the courage to resist any
attack on human dignity, on the freedom that belongs to every man
and woman. Until a people has been built up who are ready to
claim, demand, and even die for that dignity and freedom, an armed
revolution will not only fail to solve the problem, but perhaps even
create a new tyranny.
Rizal: Reformist or Revolutionary?
Today perhaps it is easier to answer that question than it was
a year ago. Over the last couple of decades we had allowed the
question to be formulated by thinking springing from a Marxist
ideology, and thus put in a constricting and ultimately false di-
1 mma: to be r formist meant to engag in futil tinkering with th
politic11l oncl conomic i,tructur of so ·i t,y th rour.h pnrlinm nt,nry
Noli Me Tangere 99
means, or even by political bargaining and intrigue. To be revolu-
tionary, on the other hand, was to take up arms against the gov-
ernment, the establishment, those in power. In February 1986 the
Filipino people showed that there was another kind of revolution.
I do not know how many of those involved in that revolution were
consciously aware of Rizal's ideas, but the fundamental thinking of
many who stood in front of the tanks on EDSA was directly in the
line of Rizal as he expressed himself through the mouth of Padre
Florentino--revolution is not primarily an armed struggle to shed
other people's blood, but a willingness to risk shedding one's own
blood for the sake of the people.
I had not aimed to draw parallels with contemporary events. I
simply intended to show that Rizal had a consistent view of the
Filipino national task that dated back to his Noli; to show that
Rizal had been a separatist from early in his career, but one who
understood quite clearly the preconditions by which that independ-
ence from Spain would mean true freedom and justice. But a
reexamination of Rizal's writings has made clear to me that Rizal's
philosophy of revolution has considerable relevance for today. Ironi-
cally those who have tried in our country to develop a philosophy
of active nonviolent resistance to injustice, though they have of
course based themselves primarily on the Gospels, have looked for
modem inspiration to figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King
for the most part, and not, as far as I am aware, to Rizal. Yet, in
a way even more striking than these men, there is a consistency in
Rizal between thought and life.
To many the speeches of Padre Florentino have seemed creations
of the idealistic novelist's pen, rhetoric rather than practical pre-
scriptions. Rizal was aware of the objection. Though it was not
made directly to his face, such criticism had been expressed by one
who shared Rizal's basic nationalist commitment to a free Philip-
pines, but sought it by what he considered more practical meth-
ods-Marcelo H. del Pilar. When the split between the two men
took place in 1891, Del Pilar wrote to his brother-in-law, Deodato
Arellano, his judgment of Rizal: "The fact is that my man [Rizal]
has been formed in libraries, and in libraries no account is taken
of the atmosphere in which one must work."2°
Rizal's implicit answer to that criticism followed directly on his
second novel. By the end of the year 1891 Rizal was in Hong Kong,
ready to go back to the Philippines, for the work of writing was now
ov r; it remained to put Padre Florentino's ideals into action .21
From th b ginning he had insisted with Del Pilar that La Solidari-
<la<l !ihould dir ct iti, orticl fl to th •ilipinoA, not th pnninrd ,22
100 Noli Me Tangere
One can see this clearly in all his own articles, especially the major
ones, "Sohre la indolencia de los Filipinos" and "Filipinas dentro de
cien afios." But it was not enough to have his ideals proposed to his
countrymen in writing; it was necessary to put them into action
there in the Philippines. Even as early as 1888 or 1889 he had
written to one of his friends in Europe, probably Del Pilar,, his
convictions: \ from his prison cell, though undoubtedly hampered by his position
If our countrymen hope in us here in Europe, they are certainly mistaken.
... The help we can give them is our lives in our country. Had I not
been unwilling to shorten the lives of my parents, I would not have left
the Philippines no matter what happened. Those five months I stayed
there were a life of example, a book even better than the Noli me
tangere. The field of battle is the Philippines; there is where we should
be found .. . . There we will help each other, there we will suffer united,
and perhaps even triumph. 23
The intimate relation between his months in the Philippines in
1887 and the Noli repeats itself in the Fili and his return to Manila
in 1892 to activate the Liga Filipina. In the Liga he would give a
concrete exemplification of Padre Florentino's demand that the
Filipinos "must win [freedom] by deserving it, exalting reason and
the dignity of the individual, loving what is good, what is great,
even to the point of dying for it." On the one hand, the statutes of
the Liga call for national unity, dedication to economic, educational,
and other reforms-not begging them from the Spaniards, but the
Filipinos undertaking them themselves; on the other, the Filipinos
must defend one another against all violence and injustice, must be
of recognized moral character, and perhaps most significantly, they
must not submit to any humiliation nor treat others in such a way
as to humiliate them. 24 Essentially, it is what Rizal had demanded
of Filipinos in the Noli as well as the Fili-that Filipinos should act
as free men and women, and demand that their dignity as such be
recognized by others. When Filipinos are so united into what Rizal
calls a "compact, vigorous, and homogeneous body," then, "the idols
and the tyrants will fall like a house of cards." Recognizing that he
could make such demands on his countrymen only if he himself
were to give the example, Rizal returned to his homeland, well
aware that he was taking his liberty, and perhaps even his life, into
his hands.
Conclusion
No doubt relativ ly few of those to whom izal spok had p r-
iv d th who) ofhiR m sog , ond th Lir,n nn r hitt <l port,1\Lion
Noli Me Tangere 101
to Dapitan would · split into two groups: one still dedicated to the
support of Del Pilar's campaign in Europe; the other, as the Katip-
unan, soon turning to armed revolution. 25 Rizal had already re-
jected the first course long ago. Consistent with his long-range and
essentially nonviolent view of revolution, he would also refuse his
assent to the revolution of 1896. His address to his fellow Filipinos
as prisoner, retains the ideals of long-range preparation of the
nation, and nowhere repudiates his goal of emancipation from
Spanish rule, as the Spanish Judge Advocate General at his trial
noted in refusing to allow the appeal to be made public. 26 His
comment that Rizal "limits himself to condemning the present
rebellious movement as premature and because he considers its
success impossible at this time .... For Rizal it is a question of
opportunity, not of principles or objectives,"27 is simplistic and unjust
to Rizal's thought. But he is correct in seeing that Rizal did not
condemn revolution as such.
Rizal refused to take part in Bonifacio's revolution not merely
because he did not think it could succeed. That was a factor of
course; he did not want useless bloodshed. But, consistent with his
views from the Noli onward, he maintained to the end that the
revolutionary goal was to create a nation of Filipinos conscious of
their human and national dignity and ready to sacrifice themselves
to defend it. Then God would provide the weapon, and the tyrants
would fall like a house of cards. He did not live to see that day. But
he had pointed the way for his countrymen to follow, not just with
his books, but with his life and with his death.