Scribd
Upload
416 views

Sucesos Worksheet

Rizal provides a sarcastic reply to Isabelo de los Reyes' criticism of his annotations on Morga's views: 1) Rizal argues that neither he nor de los Reyes were eyewitnesses or actors in the events, so neither has the right to judge the other's work. 2) Rizal asserts that his annotations were based on seven contemporary writers as primary sources, while de los Reyes relied on less reliable sources like Father Rada. 3) Rizal says that while de los Reyes' authority may be greater, Rizal has seven contemporary authors supporting his views, so they "balance each other out" if de los Reyes

Uploaded by

Ceej Revs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
416 views

Sucesos Worksheet

Rizal provides a sarcastic reply to Isabelo de los Reyes' criticism of his annotations on Morga's views: 1) Rizal argues that neither he nor de los Reyes were eyewitnesses or actors in the events, so neither has the right to judge the other's work. 2) Rizal asserts that his annotations were based on seven contemporary writers as primary sources, while de los Reyes relied on less reliable sources like Father Rada. 3) Rizal says that while de los Reyes' authority may be greater, Rizal has seven contemporary authors supporting his views, so they "balance each other out" if de los Reyes

Uploaded by

Ceej Revs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

GE9 – Life and Works of Rizal

Name: Revilla, Christian James C. Schedule: 5:30 – 7:30 PM Date: July 08, 2021
Instruction: Give your interpretation of the following texts.
1. On Morga’s and Rizal’s view of Indio’s cuisine.

VIEWS INTERPRETATION
Their daily fare is composed of: rice crushed in In this particular text, Morga described the
wooden pillars and when cooked is called daily fare of Indios or Filipinos based on his
morisqueta (this is the staple throughout the own observations and experience. This text
land); cooked fish which they have in abundance; shows how resourceful Filipinos are. Despite
MORGA pork, venison, mountain buffaloes which they call of having the lack of modern tools, they still
carabaos, beef and fish which they know is best find a way to create alternative tools to aid
when it has started to rot and stink (Retana 1909, their daily living. This also shows their unique
174). cuisine which is composed of mostly
agricultural produce. The abundance of their
agricultural products only shows the richness
of their agricultural system before.
This is another preoccupation of the Spaniards This line is considered as one of Rizal’s
who, like any other nation, treat food to which correction of Filipino culture that is included in
they are not accustomed or is unknown to them his annotations. Rizal was trying to imply that
with disgust. The English, for example, feel horror the Spaniards, just like any other nation, treat
to see a Spaniard eating snails. To the Spaniard food as disgusting because it is unusual and
roast beef is repugnant and he can- not unknown for them. Morga stated that Filipinos
understand how Steak Tartar or raw beef can be like to eat a fish dish which they know best
RIZAL eaten; the Chinese who have tahuri and eat when it has started to rot and stink. Rizal
shark cannot stand Roquefort cheese etc. etc. wanted to correct this statement because, the
This fish that Morga mentions, that cannot be dish that Morga is referring is a famous sauce
good until it begins to rot, is bagoong [salted and in the Philippines called Bagoong and those
fermented fish or shrimp paste used as a sauce people who have eaten it and tasted it know
in Filipino cuisine] and those who have eaten it that it neither is nor should be rotten. Rizal
and tasted it know that it neither is nor should be also stated a how different countries react to
rotten (Rizal 1890, 264). different cuisines around the world because
GE9 – Life and Works of Rizal

we all have different preferences.


2. On Blumentritt’s criticism of Rizal’s annotation

BLUMENTRITT’S CRITICISM INTERPRETATION


My great esteem for your notes does not impede me from Blumentritt’s line shows that he discovered and found some
confessing that, more than once, I have observed that errors committed by Rizal himself. It also shows how Rizal
you participate in the error of many modern historians misjudged the events that have had happened in the 16th
who censure the events of past centuries according to the century on his experiences and observations during the
concepts that correspond to contemporary ideas. This 19th century. Blumentritt believed that the 16th and the
should not be so. The historian should not impute to the 19th century are two different centuries with different events
men of the sixteenth century the broad horizon of ideas and happenings. The changes that had happened during
that moves the nineteenth century. The second point with the 19th century created a difference therefore, Rizal
which I do not agree is against Catholicism. I believe that should not impute to the men of the 16th century the broad
you cannot find the origin of numerous events regrettable horizon of ideas that moves the 19th century. Rizal must be
for Spain and for the good name of the European race in cautious in bringing history to the people since he wasn’t
religion, but in the hard behavior and abuses of many able to experience those events. The second point is all
priests (xii) about how Rizal’s statements came out to be biased and
too much a work of propaganda to critic the church.

3. On Isabelo de los Reyes’ comment on Rizal’s Morga


DE LOS REYES’ COMMENT INTERPRETATION
But that very laudable patriotism of his, it seems to me, This line implies how Rizal’s strong nationalism and love for
blinds him at times, and as an historian ought to be the Philippines blinded and hindered him to deliver impartial
rigorously impartial, the optimism of the said author and fair history based on the events that have happened
[referring to Rizal] turns out to be passionate in some before. Rizal wasn’t able to tell the two sides of the story
points, taking exceptions of the general rule, and vice- impartially since he was found to be passionate at some
versa. The consensus among authors who had no reason point and it came out to take exceptions of the general rule.
to lie in these cases ought to be taken into account. The Rizal, as a historian used his annotations to his motives on
true character of that [pre-Hispanic] civilization and what is his propaganda movements. It implies that being a historian
still preserved of it in the present customs of the people means being able to fully understand the situation by looking
(Quoted in Rizal's reply to de los Reyes, La Solidaridad) into different viewpoints and perspectives.
GE9 – Life and Works of Rizal

4. On Rizal’s sarcastic reply to de los Reyes’ comment of his annotation


RIZAL’S REPLY INTERPRETATION
I do not know how discreet it is to raise oneself as a judge of This line implies how Rizal argued that no one is in the
others . . . [when] neither one nor the other was an eyewitness right position to judge others work. Rizal also stated that
or more or less an influential actor. But this, which in anyone De Los Reyes doesn’t have the right to criticize his
else could be censured as vain presumption, ceases to be so works since both of them was not considered as
in Mr. Isabelo de los Reyes who knows very well how to eyewitness or more or less an influential actor of the
interpret the historians of the Philippine events before.
As I based my assertion on seven contemporary writers, I do Rizal continues the fire by bragging about his credibility.
not know if in this case, I shall be the exception and de los Rizal stated that his assertions are based on seven
Reyes the general rule. I know that the authority of de los contemporary writers which are also considered to be
Reyes is worth seven times more than mine; but with my primary sources of the Philippine history. He also
seven authors and he with his Fr. Rada, we can balance criticized De Los Reyes for relying on some “unreliable
ourselves, if he does not take offense... dealing with historical sources” unlike him who based on primary and reliable
facts, only the testimony of contemporaries can be authori- sources.
tative, a testimony that ought to be subjected to the processes
of criti- cism (ibid.)

You might also like