In search of the ‘Russian Mountain’
People who have taken the trouble to go beyond “Noli,” “Fili,” and “Ultimo Adios” will discover that Rizal’s letters can provide hours of fun. These were originally compiled under the direction of Teodoro M. Kalaw in the 1930s as part of a series called “Documentos de la biblioteca nacional de Filipinas” that included, aside from the “Epistolario Rizalino,” the writings of Mariano Ponce, Apolinario Mabini, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Marcelo H. del Pilar and a biography of Gregorio del Pilar. Up until recently only the “Epistolario Rizalino” was available in English translation. Our other heroes are forgotten because today’s generation are separated from the 19th century because of language. Spanish used to be a bridge among people, now it is a barrier. Our generation is separated from our history because of language.
Kalaw compiled the basic primary source, the “Epistolario Rizalino,” of five volumes in six books because volume 5, containing the correspondence with Ferdinand Blumentritt, was published in two parts. The “Epistolario” is out of print but can still be found on eBay or used bookstores with volume 3 being, for some reason, most scarce. These volumes are available online—that is, if you can get the link to work.
From the “Epistolario,” the Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission (JRNCC) in 1961 re-arranged Rizal’s correspondence into four parts: Correspondence with Family; Correspondence with Blumentritt; Correspondence with the Propaganda Movement; and last but not least “Miscellaneous Correspondence” for people who didn’t fit in the other categories. Like the “Epistolario,” the JRNCC collection of letters has no index, making simple search by name, date or subject unnecessarily difficult. One would think chronological arrangement regardless of author was most sensible and useful, but that is how the JRNCC series hindered rather than enhanced our scholarship.
The task ahead, the task that should have been done by Kalaw in the 1930s and by the JRNCC in 1961 and by others who have created Rizaliana online in 2011, should be to return to the source of all that we hold true and accept by faith today. We must review what we have and supplement the “Epistolario” with letters unknown to Kalaw and the JRNCC. Off-hand there are about 50 extant letters that should be included in any new compilation. Another 24 letters that were offered to the National Library in the 1950s but could not be acquired for lack of funds are now missing and should be located.
The archaeology of Rizaliana has to be undertaken. We must return to the primary sources and trace each and every original manuscript to check the accuracy of transcription, annotation and translation. If we are left only with a transcription, we have to verify the source. This is all so basic yet nobody since the JRNCC has undertaken this.
The late Esteban de Ocampo once gave me a funny example from his own research experience. While tracing Rizal’s travels, he was stumped by a letter Rizal wrote his sister Trinidad on March 11, 1886 from a place in Germany called “Donnerstag” which he could not locate on the map. The letter is reproduced in facsimile the “Epistolario”: Rizal gave the date as “March 11” but left out the year, then on the upper right hand part of the letter he wrote “Donnerstag.” When Kalaw and his assistants transcribed the letter in the 1930s they supplied the year in brackets—[1886]—and also the location of Donnerstag also in brackets—[Alemania]. De Ocampo was to find out later that Donnerstag was not an obscure German town, but “Thursday” in German!
In fairness to Kalaw such mistakes are rare, but it should give us pause and alert us to the need for renewed and critical documentary editing.
I had a similar experience once with an article Antonio Luna published in La Solidaridad. Following Luna’s footsteps in Paris, I went to Bois de Boulogne in search of the “Russian Mountain” where he had enjoyed himself. I couldn’t find it, so I looked up the original Spanish and asked some French friends where I could find “Montaña rusa” and they laughed because in French “montagne russe” was not a place but referred to a roller coaster.
A new critical and annotated edition of Rizal’s letters and other writings is needed to push our research further. One cannot discount the necessity of having the basic scholarly apparatus for a study of Rizal. As mentioned earlier, the “Epistolario” and the JRNCC compilation lack something as basic as an analytical index, and cross referencing. To date I have yet to see a real critical edition of “Noli” and “Fili” with full explanatory footnotes similar to the Folger editions of Shakespeare. We have no concordance to “Noli” and “Fili,” no table of characters, no notes on the classical, historical and personal allusions in the novels lost to a general reader.
From the above, we see the importance of going back, of tracing each and every piece of paper known to have come from Rizal. Unfortunately, much of what was available to Kalaw was lost or destroyed during the Battle for Manila in 1945. How do we validate manuscripts we know only from a copy since the original has been lost?
I thought I could retire from Rizal studies at the end of 2011, but it seems that my work has only begun.
* * *
Comments are welcome in my Facebook Fan Page.
