Philippine Studies - Cavite Mutiny - Ud'd
Philippine Studies - Cavite Mutiny - Ud'd
Philippine Studies - Cavite Mutiny - Ud'd
John N. Schumacher
http://www.philippinestudies.net
Fri June 30 13:30:20 2008
The Cavite Mutiny: An Essay
on the Published Sources
JOHN N. SCHUMACHER
FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS
There were several men who appear t o have been living in
Manila a t the time of the events which culminated in the Ca-
vite Mutiny who wrote accounts of the events. The account
of Josh Montero y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila a t the
time, is the fullest account of the mutiny itselL3 I t embodies
the official interpretation of the mutiny in Cavite as part of a
general revolt directed by the three priests and their lay and
clerical colleagues in Manila and Cavite, having as its aim the
assassination of the Governor-General and a general massacre
of all Spaniards. Published only in 1895, a t the height of the
Filipino nationalist campaign, Montero's account is strongly
hostile to Filipino reformist aspirations, has no doubt of the
guilt of those executed or exiled, and places much of the blame
for the revolt of 1872 on the alleged tolerance of Governor-
General Carlos Maria de la Torre in the period 1869-1871.
In a lengthy appendix to his own account4 Montero re-
produces selections from that given by Edmond Plauchut, a
Frenchman resident in Manila for some years, indignantly or
sarcastically denying various allegations of the latter. The
narrative of Plauchut is actually only a part of a series of
articles on the Philippines published in the internationally
known French journal, Revue des D e m Mondes, in Paris in
1877.5 His account of the events of 1872 has often been called
"the Filipino version" of the events, having been translated
23 The nmrative portion is pp. 87-111. The first of these two chap-
ters (pp. 87-100) was reprinted in La Politica de EspuZa en Fi1ipina.s 2
(1 Marzo 1892), 58-61, as an answer to La Solidaridd'~ publication of
the translation of Pkuchut's aorount, cited in n. 6 above.
24 Manila: Imprenta Amigos del Paie, 1888. The relevant sections
OTHER CONTEMPORARIES
Two other figures of approximately the same generation as
those just treated but without known direct contacts with con-
temporaries of the events were Father Salvador Pons and Apoli-
nario Mabini. Both spoke briefly about the events of 1872 in
connection with their other writings.
Pons was an Augustinian friar who first came to the
Philippines in 1884, left his order in 1899 in Manila, and for
the next decade spent much of his time in writing against the
friars, and cooperating with the founders of the Iglesia Filipina
Independie~~te.~"inally being reconciled with the Catholic
Church, he re-entered t.he Augustinians and spent the rest
of his life in a monastery in Germany. Since he retracted his
anti-friar and anti-Catholic writings as a whole, and spent much
of the rest of his life in refuting them, all of his writings must
be used with some caution, particularly since those which
may in some sense be qualified as historical were composed in
great haste, and comparable carelessness and exaggeration.
The two works in question here are Defensa del clero fili-
pino, and El clero filipino." The first of these reproduces Plau-
chut's account, and for the rest contains no facts that could not
be found in Montero y Vidal, and indeed, it is in general short
on facts. The second book contains a series of biographies
and bibliographies of outstanding Filipino secular priests, among
them Burgos and G6mez. In his account of Burgos' academic
career (which is replete with factual errors in the matter of
dates) he attributes the revolt of 1872 to the friars, "as was
said almost publicly." The reason given is that Burgos had
incurred the ire of the Recoletos by his defense of the rights
of the Filipino clergy, and of the Dominicans by his just se-
verity in refusing to give a passing grade to incapable friars
when he acted as a member of the board of examiners for
candidates for degrees a t the University of Santo Tomas. (No
explanation is given how such a motive would have brought
about the execution of Zamora or Gdmez.) Given the many
factual errors and open contradictions in the account, it may
be safely ignored as an independent source, and is dependent
on Plauchut and/or Regidor. The biography of G6mez is
similarly dependent on Regidor, as would seem to be shown
by the erroneous statement that the former founded the Madrid
newspaper La Verdad, "exclusively dedicated to the defense of
Filipino int,erests. . . ." La Verdad was, of course, the news-
paper in which the attacks on the Filipino clergy by the Re-
coleto procurator in Madrid, Father Guillerrno Agudo, were
published, provoking the Manifiesto of Burgos in 1864.
Mabini devotes one chapter of his posthumously published
work La Revolucidn Filipina to our subject, "Causa y efecto
de le ejecucidn de 10s Padres Burgos, Gdmez y Z a m ~ r a . " ~ ~
Mabini makes no claim to have had first-hand knowledge of
the events, but without taking any position on the cause of
44 Both books were published in Manila in the press of La Demo-
cracia in 1900. The pertinent passage of the Dejensa is pp. 44-49.
Those of El c6ero filipino are pp. 16-17 and 97-100 for Burgos, and
p. 120 for Gmez. The two sections on Burgos give two distinct
years for his birth, apparently unconscious of the contradiction.
45 La Revolucwn Filipina (con otros documentos c k la hpoea) (2
vols.; Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1931), 11, 282-84.
622 PHILIPPINE STUDIES
the revolt, states clearly that the three priests were innocent of
it. I t was used by their enemies-principally the friars, from
the context, but supported by the government-to bring about
the execution of those three men who were martyrs to justice.
Mabini's chapter is not a narrative, but rather a discussion of
the place of the martyr-priests in the Revolution. Hence fac-
tual details are almost completely lacking, but from his re-
ference to Burgos' protest of his innocence on the scaffold, it
would seem that he is dependent on the account of Plauchut,
whose translation was published in La Solidaridad while Ma-
bini was intimately involved with the newspaper's support in
Manila.
The works of one final author deserve special examination,
even though he cannot be considered a source in the strict
sense. Manuel Artigas y Cuerva wrote extensively on Philip-
pine history, more so perhaps than any other person in the
first three decades after the R e v ~ l u t i o n . ~Though
~ he treated
the events of 1872 in various periodical publications and as
part of books on broader subjects, his major work was Los
sucesos de 1872.47 This book, though somewhat unsystematic
CONCLUSIONS
The foregoing analysis of these early accounts of the Cavite
Mutiny would seem to lead to the following conclusions as to
the reliability of these sources and the relationships existing
among them:
(1) There are only three certainly independent major
APPENDIX
In the light of the evaluation of the primary sources at-
tempted in the foregoing article, it may be useful to annotate
briefly as to their sources the later books and major articles
of some importance. Textbooks and occasional popular articles
have been generally omitted. Miss Dolores Origeneza and Miss
Rachel Abanil gave me research assistance in the preparation
of the list, and the mimeographed bibliography prepared by
the Burgos-G6mez-Zamora CentenniaI Commission was also
helpful. I am grateful for this assistance.
SCHUMACHER: CAVITE MUTINY
Crua, Hermenegildo. E l P. Burgos, precursor de Rizal. Manila: Libre-
ria "Manila Filatblica," 1941. 94 pp. Based on the pseudo-Burgos
works of Jose Marco. Of no historioal value.
Daroy, Petronilo Bn. "Burgos and Rizal," in Rizal: Contrary Essays,
Petronilo Bn. Daroy and Dolores S. Feria, eds. Quezon City: Guro
Books, 1966. Pp. 51-56. Based on the pseudo-Burgos La loba
negra; hence of no historical value.
Foreman, John. The Philippine Islands. New York: Charles Scribner,
1699. Pp. 114-15. Though alleging Regidor as one of his sources.
contains numerous factual errors not in Regidor. Valueless.
Lopez, Honorio. Ang tunay na buhay ni P. Dr. Jmk Burgos at nang
nzanga Nmasarna Niya nu s i w P. Jacinto Zamora, P. Mariano
Gdmez at ang nadayang Miguel Zaldm. Icalawang Pagoahayag.
Maynila: Imp. J. Martinez, 1912. 62 pp. A narrative in Taga-
log verse, accompanied with footnotes. Depends on Regidor prin-
cipally, though also on the Pons and the Piernavieja accounts, pro-
bably through Artigas.
Manuel, E. Arsenio. "Burgos, Jose A.," Dictionary of Philippine Bio-
graphy. Quezon City: Filipiniana Publications, 1955-1970. Vol 11,
pp. 62-97. Makes a generally critical use of the sources cited
in this article, supplemented by interviews land other sources for
the establishment of genealogy and correct dates. However, the
account of the trial and certain other details are based on the
apocryphal Litian work by Marco, which he accepts as genuine.
Hr? also cites as works of Burgos the numerous other Marco com-
positions, though adverting to some of the difficulties and improb-
abilities which they contain, and inviting scholarly investigation.
(This biography was published prior to the appearance of my
PS article on the pseudo-Burgos apocrypha cited in n. 1.)
. - . "Mmez, Mariano." Dictionary of Philippine Biography,
I, 195-99. Principally based on Regidor and Pardo de Tavera,
but with additional information from surviving relatives, etc. The
best account existing up until now, though recently published docu-
mentation can supplement and correct it.
.. "Zamora, Jacinto." Dictianary of Philippine Bio-
graphy, I, 489-490. Brief account, based chiefly on Regidor.
Morales, 1914. Vol. I. pp. 139-143. Largely a literal transcription
rector of the Cathedral.
Ponce, Mariono. "El Padre Jose Burgos," Efemkrides filipinas, by
Jaime C. de Veyra and Mariano Ponce. Manila: Imp. de I. R.
Errs on the date of Zamora's taking possession of his post as
of Regidor, perhaps by way of Artigas, from whose work the
letter of Father Pedro Bertrhn, S.J., is reproduced.
PHILIPPINE STUDIES
Quijano de Manila [Nick Joaquin]. "How Filipino Was Burgos?"
Philippines Free Press, 8 June 1968, pp. 2-3, 70.
"The 'Precursor of Riza17?Philippines Free Press,
15 June 1968, pp. 4, 84-87. Though offering interesting and pro-
vocative insights into t h background
~ of Burgos and the movement
of which he was a part, especially in the first of these two arti-
cles, the articles make considerable use of the Marco apocrypha,
and hence base their conclusions on inauthentic data.
Quirino, Carlos, "Father Gomes the Immortal," Sunday Times Maga-
zine, 30 July 1972, pp. 26-27. Principally based on Manuel and hL
sources, but adding some further biographical details from recent
research in the Manila Archdiocesan Archives.
Santamaria, Alhrto, O.P. "El P. Burgos y la Universidad de Santo
Tomhs," llnitas 16 (1937-1938), 257-66.
. "Mas datos sobre el P. Burgos y Santo TomBs,"
Unitas 16 (1937-1938), 309-14. Useful data for the early life
of Burgos and his aoademic career, from the University archives.
Now superseded by Villarroel.
Villarroel, Fidel, O.P. Father Josk Burgos, University Student. Ma-
nila: University of Santo Tomas Press, 1971. xvii, 121, (127) pp.
Though not dealing with the Cavite Mutiny, this thorough study
of the University career of Burgos clarifies and corrects on the
basis of the University archives many erronequs details of earlier
accounts.
Zafra, Nicolas. Philippine History thraugh Selected Sources. Quezon
City: Alemar-Phoenix, 1967. Pp. 148-69. Most judicious text-
book account, based on critical use of the then available sources.