The Philippine Declaration of Independence by Ambrosio R. Bautista

 

The proclamation of Philippine Independence. (Image via ManilaDirectory.Net)

 

The Philippine Declaration of Independence (Spanish: Acta de la proclamación de independencia del pueblo Filipino, 'An Act of the Proclamation of the Independence of the Filipino People') was written by Ambrosio R. Bautista, “War Counselor and Special Delegate-Designate” of the revolutionary Philippine government. It was read by Bautista during the proclamation of Philippine Independence on June 12, 1898. The event took place between four and five in the afternoon at the ancestral home of Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite; which featured the unfurling of the first Philippine flag (sewn in Hong Kong by Marcela Agoncillo, Lorenza Agoncillo, and Delfina Herboza) and the playing of the Marcha Filipina Magdalo (composed by Prof. Julian Felipe) by the San Francisco de Malabon Marching Band. This would eventually become the Philippine National Anthem, the Lupang Hinirang (lyrics composed by Prof. Jose I. Palma).

The making of the Philippine flag by Fernando Amorsolo.

Emilio Aguinaldo, leader of the Philippine revolutionary forces, was in exile in Hong Kong after signing the Pact of Biak-na-Bato with Spain in December 1897. Because of the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in December 1897, the Asiatic Squadron of the US Navy, under the command of Commondore George Dewey, abroad the USS Olympia, sailed into Manila Bay and defeated the Spanish navy in the Battle of Manila Bay. Aguinaldo returned home abroad the USS McCullogh in May 1898.

The document declares the independence of the Filipino people from Spain. It lists down the abuses of the Spanish colonial regime starting from the time of the arrival of Ferdinand Magellan in 1531. Unfortunately, the Declaration was recognized by neither the United States nor Spain because Spain had ceded the Philippines to the United States through the Treaty of Paris.The Philippines would be a colony of the United States and of Japan, and was eventually granted independence on July 4, 1946.

The Declaration is now housed in the National Library of the Philippines. It is not on public display but can be seen upon request. During the Philippine-American War, about 400,000 documents were seized and sent to the US. These were returned in 1958. Sometime in the 1980's or the 1990's the Declaration was stolen from the National Library, but was returned by a professor from the University of the Philippines in 1994.

 AN ACT OF THE PROCLAMATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE

OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE

Translation by Sulpicio Guevara

In the town of Cavite-Viejo, Province of Cavite, this 12th day of June 1898:

BEFORE ME, Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, War Counsellor and Special Delegate designated to proclaim and solemnize this Declaration of Independence by the Dictatorial Government of the Philippines, pursuant to, and by virtue of, a Decree issued by the Engregious Dictator Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy,

The undersigned assemblage of military chiefs and others of the army who could not attend, as well as the representatives of the various towns,

Taking into account the fact that the people of this country are already tired of bearing the ominous joke of Spanish domination,

Because of arbitrary arrests and abuses of the Civil Guards [Guardia Civil] who cause deaths in connivance with and even under the express orders of their superior officers who at times would order the shooting of those placed under arrest under the pretext that they attempted to escape in violation of known Rules and Regulations, which abuses were left unpunished, and because of unjust deportations of illustrious Filipinos, especially those decreed by General Blanco at the instigation of the Archbishop and friars interested in keeping them in ignorance for egoistic and selfish ends, which deportations were carried out through processes more execrable than those of the Inquisition which every civilized nation repudiates as a trial without hearing.

Had resolved to start a revolution in August 1896 in order to regain the independence and sovereignty of which the people had been deprived by Spain through Governor Miguel Lopez de Legazpi who, continuing the course followed by his predecessor Ferdinand Magellan who landed on the shores of Cebu and occupied said Island by means of a Pact of Friendship with Chief Tupas, although he was killed in the battle that took place in said shores to which battle he was provoked by Chief Kalipulako of Mactan who suspected his evil designs, landed on the Island of Bohol by entering also into a Blood Compact with its Chief Sikatuna, with the purpose of later taking by force the Island of Cebu, and because his successor Tupas did not allow him to occupy it, he went to Manila, the capital, winning likewise the friendship of its Chiefs Soliman and Lakandula, later taking possession of the city and the whole Archipelago in the name of Spain by virtue of an order of King Philip II, and with these historical precedents and because in international law the prescription established by law to legalize the vicious acquisition of private property is not recognized, the legitimacy of such revolution can not be put in doubt which was calmed but not complete stifled by the pacification proposed by Don Pedro A. Paterno with Don Emilio Aguinaldo as President of the Republic established in Biak-na-Bato and accepted by Governor-General Don Fernando Primo De Rivera under terms, both written and oral, among them being a general amnesty for all deported and convicted persons; that by reason of the non-fulfillment of some of the terms, after the destruction of the plaza of Cavite, Don Emilio Aguinaldo returned in order to initiate a new revolution and no sooner had he given the order to rise on the 31st of last month when several towns anticipating the revolution, rose in revolt on the 28th , such that a Spanish contingent of 178 men, between Imus Cavite-Viejo, under the command of major of the Marine Infantry capitulated , the revolutionary movement spreading like wild fire to other towns of Cavite and the other provinces of Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, some of them with seaports and such was the success of the victory of our arms, truly marvelous and without equal in the history of colonial revolutions that in the first mentioned province only the Detachments in Naic and Indang remained to surrender; in the second all Detachments had been wiped out; in the third the resistance of the Spanish forces was localized in the town of San Fernando where the greater part of them are concentrated, the remainder in Macabebe, Sexmoan, and Guagua; in the fourth, in the town of Lipa; in the fifth, in the capital and in Calumpit; and in last two remaining provinces, only in there respective capitals, and the city of Manila will soon be besieged by our forces as well as the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Pangasinan, La Union, Zambales, and some others in the Visayas where the revolution at the time of the pacification and others even before, so that the independence of our country and the revindication of our sovereignty is assured.

And having as witness to the rectitude of our intentions the Supreme Judge of the Universe, and under the protection of our Powerful and Humanitarian Nation, The United States of America, we do hereby proclaim and declare solemnly in the name by authority of the people of these Philippine Islands,

That they are and have the right to be free and independent; that they have ceased to have allegiance to the Crown of Spain; that all political ties between them are should be completely severed and annulled; and that, like other free and independent States, they enjoy the full power to make War and Peace, conclude commercial treaties, enter into alliances, regulate commerce, and do all other acts and things which and Independent State Has right to do,

And imbued with firm confidence in Divine Providence, we hereby mutually bind ourselves to support this Declaration with our lives, our fortunes, and with our sacred possession, our Honor.

We recognize, approve, and ratify, with all the orders emanating from the same, the Dictatorship established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo whom we reverse as the Supreme Head of this Nation, which today begins to have a life of its own, in the conviction that he has been the instrument chosen by God, inspite of his humble origin, to effectuate the redemption of this unfortunate country as foretold by Dr. Don Jose Rizal in his magnificent verses which he composed in his prison cell prior to his execution, liberating it from the Yoke of Spanish domination,

And in punishment for the impunity with which the Government sanctioned the commission of abuses by its officials, and for the unjust execution of Rizal and others who were sacrificed in order to please the insatiable friars in their hydropical thirst for vengeance against and extermination of all those who oppose their Machiavellian ends, trampling upon the Penal Code of these Islands, and of those suspected persons arrested by the Chiefs of Detachments at the instigation of the friars, without any form nor semblance of trial and without any spiritual aid of our sacred Religion; and likewise, and for the same ends, eminent Filipino priest, Doctor Don Jose Burgos, Don Mariano Gomez, and Don Jacinto Zamora were hanged whose innocent blood was shed due to the intrigues of these so-called Religious corporations which made the authorities to believe that the military uprising at the fort of San Felipe in Cavite on the night of January 21, 1872 was instigated by those Filipino martyrs, thereby impeding the execution of the decree- sentence issued by the Council of State in the appeal in the administrative case interposed by the secular clergy against the Royal Orders that directed that the parishes under them within the jurisdiction of this Bishopric be turned over to the Recollects in exchange for those controlled by them in Mindanao which were to be transferred to the Jesuits, thus revoking them completely and ordering the return of those parishes, all of which proceedings are on file with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to which they are sent last month of the year of the issuance of the proper Royal Degree which, in turn, caused the grow of the tree of the liberty in our dear land that grow more and more through the iniquitous measures of oppressions, until the last drop of our chalice of suffering having been drained, the first spark of revolution broke out in Caloocan, spread out to Santa Mesa and continued its course to the adjoining regions of the province were the unequaled heroism of its inhabitants fought a one sided battle against superior forces of General Blanco and General Polavieja for a period of 3 months, without proper arms nor ammunition, except bolos, pointed bamboos, and arrows.

Moreover, we confer upon our famous Dictator Don Emilio Aguinaldo all the powers necessary to enable him to discharge the duties of Government, including the prerogatives of granting pardon and amnesty,

And lastly, it was results unanimously that this Nation, already free and independent as of this day, must used the same flag which up to now is being used, whose designed and colored are found described in the attached drawing, the white triangle signifying the distinctive emblem of the famous Society of the "Katipunan" which by means of its blood compact inspired the masses to rise in revolution; the tree stars, signifying the three principal Islands of these Archipelago - Luzon, Mindanao, and Panay where the revolutionary movement started; the sun representing the gigantic step made by the son of the country along the path of Progress and Civilization; the eight rays, signifying the eight provinces - Manila, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Laguna, and Batangas - which declares themselves in a state of war as soon as the first revolt was initiated; and the colors of Blue, Red, and White, commemorating the flag of the United States of America, as a manifestation of our profound gratitude towards this Great Nation for its disinterested protection which it lent us and continues lending us.

And holding up this flag of ours, I present it to the gentlemen here assembled:

Don Segundo Arellano

Don Tiburcio del Rosario

Don Sergio Matias

Don Agapito Zialcita

Don Flaviano Alonzo

Don Mariano Legazpi

Don José Turiano Santiago y Acosta

Don Aurelio Tolentino

Don Felix Ferrer

Don Felipe Buencamino

Don Fernando Canon Faustino

Don Anastacio Pinzun

Don Timoteo Bernabe

Don Flaviano Rodriguez

Don Gavino Masancay

Don Narciso Mayuga

Don Gregorio Villa

Don Luis Perez Tagle

Don Canuto Celestino

Don Marcos Jocson

Don Martin de los Reyes

Don Ciriaco Bausa

Don Manuel Santos

Don Mariano Toribio

Don Gabriel Reyes

Don Hugo Lim

Don Emiliano Lim

Don Fausto Tinorio

Don Rosendo Simon

Don Leon Tanjanque

Don Gregorio Bonifacio

Don Manuel Salafranca

Don Simon Villareal

Don Calixto Lara

Don Buenaventura Toribio

Don Zacarias Fajardo

Don Florencio Manalo

Don Ramon Gana

Don Marcelino Gomez

Don Valentin Polintan

Don Felix Polintan

Don Evaristo Dimalanta

Don Gregorio Alvarez

Don Sabas de Guzman

Don Esteban Francisco

Don Guido Yaptinchay

Don Mariano Rianzares Bautista

Don Francisco Arambulo

Don Antonio Gonzales

Don Juan Arevalo

Don Ramon Delfino

Don Honorio Tiongco

Don Francisco del Rosario

Don Epifanio Saguil

Don Ladislao Afable José

Don Sixto Roldan

Don Luis de Lara

Don Marcelo Basa

Don José Medina

Don Epifanio Crisia

Don Pastor Lopez de Leon

Don Mariano de los Santos

Don Santiago Garcia

Don Claudio Tria Tirona

Don Estanislao Tria Tirona Don Daniel Tria Tirona

Don Andrés Tria Tirona

Don Carlos Tria Tirona

Don Sulpicio P. Antony

Don Epitacio Asunción

Don Catalino Ramon

Don Juan Bordador

Don José del Rosario

Don Proceso Pulido

Don José Maria del Rosario

Don Ramon Magcamco

Don Antonio Calingo

Don Pedro Mendiola

Don Estanislao Calingo

Don Numeriano Castillo

Don Federico Tomacruz

Don Teodoro Yatco

Don Ladislao Diwa,

 Who solemnly swear to recognize and defend it unto the last drop of their blood.

In witness thereof, I certify that this Act of Declaration of Independence was signed by me and by all those here assembled including the only foreigner [extranjero] who attended those proceedings, a citizen of the U.S.A., Mr. L.M. Johnson, a Colonel of Artillery.

Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista
War Counselor and Special Delegate-Designate  

 What is believed to be the original Philippine flag, used in the proclamation of independence.

The Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson

Declaration of Independence, a painting by John Trumbull showing the Committee of Five presenting its work to the Continental Congress.

The Declaration of Independence refers to the document in which the Thirteen Colonies declared itself independent from Great Britain and declaring themselves to be a sovereign nation called the United States of America. The document was drafted by Thomas Jefferson (who would become the third president of the US) and revised by John Adams (the first vice-president and the second president) and Benjamin Franklin. The document was passed by the Continental Congress, which was composed of representatives from the Thirteen Colonies on July 4, 1776.

The Thirteen Colonies have been at war with Great Britain for a year before the Declaration. Great Britain was heavily into debt following the Seven Years' War (1756-1763). So the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act in 1765 as a form of tax to the Thirteen Colonies. It levied a tax on all printed material, including playing cards. The Colonists thought that the tax was oppressive and that Parliament had no right to tax them since the Colonies had no representatives to Parliament: “No taxation without representation”. In order to protest the perceived abuses of Great Britain (in this instance, forcing the Americans to buy tea from the Britist East India Company), protesters dumped an entire shipment of tea into the Boston Harbor in 1773, which would later become “The Boston Tea Party”.

Representatives from the Thirteen Colonies convened as a Continental Congress, they petitioned King George III to end the oppressive acts of Great Britain toward the Colonies. This led to the US War of Independence (or the Revolutionary War). The second Continental Congress hoped that the King would intercede on their behalf, but the King reject the Congress's “Olive Branch Petition”. King George ordered a naval blockade of American ports in February 1776 and declared that all American vessels were enemies.

Congress appointed a “Committee of Five” which included Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. Jefferson wrote the draft for seventeen days and the committee submitted the draft to Congress on July 1. Congress edited the document to one-fourth of it's original length. After lengthy debates, the Continental Congress ratified the Declaration on July 4, 1776. Then the Declaration was sent to the printing shop of John Dunlap, who printed two hundred copies of it for circulation.

An “engrossed copy” was made for the Founding Fathers to sign. John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, is said to have signed first and has the largest and clearest signature. This document is considered as a National Treasure by the United States and is kept on public display at its National Archives in Washington, D.C.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

(The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:)

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:Matthew Thornton

The engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence on display at the National Archives. (For a larger copy, click on this file from Wikimedia Commons.)

Tuesdays with Morrie - We Talk About Death

Morrie Schwartz with Mitch Albom. (Image via MitchAlbom.Com)

Tuesdays with Morrie is a book written by Mitch Albom (born in 1958), a newspaper sports columnist, as a memoir to Morrie Schwartz, his college professor. Morrie Schwartz (1916-1995) was a sociology professor in Brandeis University in Massachusetts. Sixteen years after his graduation, Albom saw his Schwartz being interviewed on a television news show and learns that he is now suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a terminal neurological disease. Albom decided to resume contact with his former teacher, so Albom would commute from his home in Michigan all the way to Massachusetts every Tuesday in order to take his “final course” with Schwartz. Tuesdays with Morrie is a compilation of the fourteen Tuesdays that Albom and Schwartz met. The book was published in 1997, was made into a movie in 1999, and topped the New York Times bestseller list in 2000, and was made.

The Fourth Tuesday: We Talk About Death

"Let's begin with this idea," Morrie said. "Everyone knows they're going to die, but nobody believes it." He was in a businesslike mood this Tuesday. The subject was death, the first item on my list. Before I arrived, Morrie had scribbled a few notes on small white pieces of paper so that he wouldn't forget. His shaky handwriting was now indecipherable to everyone but him. It was almost Labor Day, and through the office window I could see the spinach-colored hedges of the backyard and hear the yells of children playing down the street, their last week of freedom before school began.


Back in Detroit, the newspaper strikers were gearing up for a huge holiday demonstration, to show the solidarity of unions against management. On the plane ride in, I had read about a woman who had shot her husband and two daughters as they lay sleeping, claiming she was protecting them from "the bad people." In California, the lawyers in the O. J. Simpson trial were becoming huge celebrities.


Here in Morrie's office, life went on one precious day at a time. Now we sat together, a few feet from the newest addition to the house: an oxygen machine. It was small and portable, about knee-high. On some nights, when he couldn't get enough air to swallow, Morrie attached the long plastic tubing to his nose, clamping on his nostrils like a leech. I hated the idea of Morrie connected to a machine of any kind, and I tried not to look at it as Morrie spoke.


"Everyone knows they're going to die," he said again, "but nobody believes it. If we did, we would do things differently."


So we kid ourselves about death, I said.

"Yes. But there's a better approach. To know you're going to die, and to be prepared for it at any time. That's better. That way you can actually be more involved in your life while you're living."


How can you ever be prepared to die?

"Do what the Buddhists do. Every day, have a little bird on your shoulder that asks, `Is today the day? Am I ready? Am I doing all I need to do? Am I being the person I want to be?' "

He turned his head to his shoulder as if the bird were there now.

"Is today the day I die?" he said.


Morrie borrowed freely from all religions. He was born Jewish, but became an agnostic when he was a teenager, partly because of all that had happened to him as a child. He enjoyed some of the philosophies of Buddhism and Christianity, and he still felt at home, culturally, in Judaism. He was a religious mutt, which made him even more open to the students he taught over the years. And the things he was saying in his final months on earth seemed to transcend all religious differences. Death has a way of doing that.

"The truth is, Mitch," he said, "once you learn how to die, you learn how to live."


I nodded.


"I'm going to say it again," he said. "Once you learn how to die, you learn how to live." He smiled, and I realized what he was doing. He was making sure I absorbed this point, without embarrassing me by asking. It was part of what made him a good teacher.


Did you think much about death before you got sick, I asked.


"No." Morrie smiled. "I was like everyone else. I once told a friend of mine, in a moment of exuberance, `I'm gonna be the healthiest old man you ever met!'


"How old were you?


"In my sixties."


So you were optimistic.


"Why not? Like I said, no one really believes they're going to die."


But everyone knows someone who has died, I said. Why is it so hard to think about dying?

"Because," Morrie continued, "most of us all walk around as if we're sleepwalking. We really don't experience the world fully, because we're half-asleep, doing things we automatically think we have to do."


And facing death changes all that?


"Oh, yes. You strip away all that stuff and you focus on the essentials. When you realize you are going to die, you see everything much differently.


He sighed. "Learn how to die, and you learn how to live."


I noticed that he quivered now when he moved his hands. His glasses hung around his neck, and when he lifted them to his eyes, they slid around his temples, as if he were trying to put them on someone else in the dark. I reached over to help guide them onto his ears.


"Thank you," Morrie whispered. He smiled when my hand brushed up against his head. The slightest human contact was immediate joy.


"Mitch. Can I tell you something?" Of course, I said.


"You might not like it." Why not?


"Well, the truth is, if you really listen to that bird on your shoulder, if you accept that you can die at any time--then you might not be as ambitious as you are."

I forced a small grin.


"The things you spend so much time on-all this work you do-might not seem as important. You might have to make room for some more spiritual things."


Spiritual things?


"You hate that word, don't you? `Spiritual.' You think it's touchy-feely stuff."


Well, I said.


He tried to wink, a bad try, and I broke down and laughed.


"Mitch," he said, laughing along, "even I don't know what `spiritual development' really means. But I do know we're deficient in some way. We are too involved in materialistic things, and they don't satisfy us. The loving relationships we have, the universe around us, we take these things for granted."


He nodded toward the window with the sunshine streaming in. "You see that? You can go out there, outside, anytime. You can run up and down the block and go crazy. I can't do that. I can't go out. I can't run. I can't be out there without fear of getting sick. But you know what? I appreciate that window more than you do." Appreciate it?


"Yes. I look out that window every day. I notice the change in the trees, how strong the wind is blowing. It's as if I can see time actually passing through that windowpane. Because I know my time is almost done, I am drawn to nature like I'm seeing it for the first time."


He stopped, and for a moment we both just looked out the window. I tried to see what he saw. I tried to see time and seasons, my life passing in slow motion. Morrie dropped his head slightly and curled it toward his shoulder.


"Is it today, little bird?" he asked. "Is it today?"


Letters from around the world kept coming to Morrie, thanks to the "Nightline" appearances. He would sit, when he was up to it, and dictate the responses to friends and family who gathered for their letter-writing sessions.


One Sunday when his sons, Rob and Jon, were home, they all gathered in the living room. Morrie sat in his wheelchair, his skinny legs under a blanket. When he got cold, one of his helpers draped a nylon jacket over his shoulders.


"What's the first letter?" Morrie said.


A colleague read a note from a woman named Nancy, who had lost her mother to ALS. She wrote to say how much she had suffered through the loss and how she knew that Morrie must be suffering, too.


"All right," Morrie said when the reading was com­plete. He shut his eyes. "Let's start by saying, `Dear Nancy, you touched me very much with your story about your mother. And I understand what you went through. There is sadness and suffering on both parts. Grieving has been good for me, and I hope it has been good for you also.'"


"You might want to change that last line," Rob said.


Morrie thought for a second, then said, "You're right. How about `I hope you can find the healing power in grieving.' Is that better?"

Rob nodded.


"Add `Thank you, Morrie,' " Morrie said.


Another letter was read from a woman named Jane, who was thanking him for his inspiration on the "Nightline" program. She referred to him as a prophet.


"That's a very high compliment," said a colleague. "A prophet."


Morrie made a face. He obviously didn't agree with the assessment. "Let's thank her for her high praise. And tell her I'm glad my words meant something to her.


"And don't forget to sign `Thank you, Morrie.' "


There was a letter from a man in England who had lost his mother and asked Morrie to help him contact her through the spiritual world. There was a letter from a couple who wanted to drive to Boston to meet him. There was a long letter from a former graduate student who wrote about her life after the university. It told of a murder-suicide and three stillborn births. It told of a mother who died from ALS. It expressed fear that she, the daughter, would also contract the disease. It went on and on. Two pages. Three pages. Four pages.


Morrie sat through the long, grim tale. When it was finally finished, he said softly, "Well, what do we answer?"


The group was quiet. Finally, Rob said, "How about, `Thanks for your long letter?' "


Everyone laughed. Morrie looked at his son and beamed.


The newspaper near his chair has a photo of a Boston baseball player who is smiling after pitching a shutout. Of all the diseases, I think to myself, Morrie gets one named after an athlete.


You remember Lou Gehrig, I ask.


"I remember him in the stadium, saying good-bye." So you remember the famous line.


"Which one?"


Come on. Lou Gehrig. "Pride of the Yankees"? The speech that echoes over the loudspeakers?


"Remind me," Morrie says. "Do the speech."


Through the open window I hear the sound of a garbage truck. Although it is hot, Morrie is wearing long sleeves, with a blanket over his legs, his skin pale. The disease owns him.


I raise my voice and do the Gehrig imitation, where the words bounce off the stadium walls: "Too-dayyy . . . I feeel like . . . the luckiest maaaan . . . on the face of the earth . . . "


Morrie closes his eyes and nods slowly.


"Yeah. Well. I didn't say that."

Play Review – Der Kaufmann (Instructional Minutes edition)

“Der Kaufmann” is Tanghalang Pilipino’s third offering for their 27^th theater season, after the children’s musical “SandosenangSapatos” and the epic musical “Ibalong”. “Der Kaufmann” is an adaptation of “The Merchant of Venice” by William Shakespeare based on the Tagalog translation “Ang Negosyante ng Venecia” by National Artist Rolando Tinio and set in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.

Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” is mind-blowing in itself; but to have it translated in Tagalog? When I shared this experience to my friends, they were incredulous:  How can one translate the famous speeches in the play, like Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew eyes?” (Act 3, Scene 1) and Portia’s “The quality of mercy” (Act 3, Scene 5)? Furthermore, “Merchant” deals with themes of anti-Semitism and homophobia, and ends with legalistic maneuvering in a courtroom. Shakespeare’s play itself is tough going already, but “Der Kaufmann” dares to add the additional layers of rendering it in Tagalog and setting it in a Nazi concentration camp.

In preparing to watch and to review this play, I read a lot—perhaps the most that I had to do with any of the plays I’ve reviewed so far. I downloaded Shakespeare’s original play (courtesy of ManyBooks.Net and downloadable here) and read books on Judaism, anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust (HaShoah in Hebrew).

Summary

The play is a “play within a play” where the Jews who were forced into a concentration camp were forced by the Nazis to stage Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice". The play culminates when the Jews, the homosexuals, and the Gypsies were gassed to death.

Antonio, a merchant of Venice, is approached by his friend Bassanio, for a loan. Bassanio needs money to fund an expedition to Belmont in order to vie for the hand of the wealthy heiress, Portia. Antonio does not have the money with him at the moment but promises to borrow the money for him—3,000 ducats—from the Jewish moneylender, Shylock. Bassanio refuses for Antonio to enter such a deal but Antonio assures him that he will be able to pay the loan when his merchant ships arrive.

Shylock initially refuses to lend Antonio the amount because Antonio has repeated insulted him and his people. He finally agrees to lend the amount with no interest, provided that Antonio pays his loan in three months. If he defaults his loan, the penalty is that Shylock gets to remove “a pound of flesh” from Antonio. Meanwhile, Launcelot, Shylock’s servant decides to leave his Jewish master to work instead for Bassanio. Also, Jessica, Shylock’s daughter, decides to elope with Bassanio’s friend Lorenzo; taking with her a substantial amount of her father’s wealth. Bassanio and Gratiano, his uncouth friend, leave for Belmont to win Portia’s hand.

At Belmont, Portia and her maidservant Nerissa receive the prince of Morocco, who is also vying for her hand. But Portia’s late father left a test for his daughter’s suitors. He left behind three chests—one made of gold, the other silver, and the other lead—and whoever chooses that one with Portia’s picture will marry her. The Prince chooses the gold one reasoning that he is worthy to get what everyone wants, but gets a skull instead. Meanwhile in Venice, Shylock is distraught to discover that his daughter he run away but rejoices with the news that Antonio’s ships have been destroyed by a storm at sea. In Belmont, the next suitor is the prince of Aragon, who chooses the silver one, reasoning that he is worthy to get what he deserves. Instead, he gets the picture of a buffoon. 

Bassanio arrives in Belmont and he and Portia fall in love. Portia tries to delay the test but Bassanio insists on choosing a chest immediately. He correctly chooses the lead one, for he is ready to risk all that he has for Portia. Nerissa and Gratiano also fall in love, so a double wedding was scheduled. Portia gives a ring to Bassanio with a promise that he will never lose the ring. The celebrations were cut short with the news of the destruction of Antonio’s ships and the default of this loan. Bassanio and Gratiano return to Venice to Antonio’s aid. Portia and Nerissa follow incognito.

Antonio’s trial is presided over by the Duke of Venice. He has engaged the services of a doctor of law, which is actually Portia in disguise. Nerissa is disguised as Portia’s secretary. Bassanio offers to pay double the amount. Portia pleads for Shylock to show mercy upon Antonio, but the Jew insists on getting his due. Portia finds that the contract of Antonio and Shylock is legally binding and instructs him to get a pound of Antonio’s flesh. However, Shylock must not shed any blood and must get exactly one pound of flesh. Trapped in a bind, Shylock was found guilty of “conspiring against the life of a Venetian citizen”. As punishment, he is forced to convert to Christianity and his property is confiscated—half of which will go to the State and the other half to his daughter Jessica.

Grateful to the doctor of law, Antonio offers to pay him the six thousand ducats. Portia refuses, but she asks for Antonio’s ring instead. Nerissa in disguise also asks Gratiano for his ring.

Back in Belmont, Portia and Nerissa ask their husbands for their rings. The husbands could not produce the rings, claiming that they gave them to men. The women accuse the men of lying and infidelity. In the end, Portia and Nerissa produced the rings, revealing that they were in fact the doctor of law and the clerk, respectively. Both men were reconciled with their husbands and they celebrate their good fortune.

Technical Notes: Stage, Lights, Sounds

The play was staged at the Bulwagang Huseng Batute, the “studio theater”. The stage is arranged in an inverted “V” shape. There is an upper level which where scenes in Belmont were usually played. The lower level is composed of sliding frames with “cyclone wire” which represents cages. There is a square open area at the center where most of the action happens. In the middle of the play, during the wedding or Portia and Bassiano, Bassiano and his friends were revealed to be Nazis. They strapped the Nazi insignia on their left arms. To complete the effect, the red banner emblazoned with that hateful symbol, the swastika, was hoisted up from the sides. Portia and the rest give the one-armed Nazi salute. (It has been said that Hitler got the idea from Mussolini.) The transformation has been completed: The set is now a concentration camp.

Huseng Batute is a smallish venue so the cast did not need to use microphones. Also, only recorded music was used. There was only one musical number: a comical piece by Launcelot announcing his intend to depart from his Jewish master.

 The set gave me the creeps.

The sounds are the work of TJ Ramos and the lights were by John Batalla (who also did “Sandosenang Sapatos” and “Ibalong”) .

Acting

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

Regina de Vera gave an excellent performance as the wealthy heiress of Belmont. Previously she played the sweet older sister in “Sandosenang Sapatos” (albeit a static character). But in “Kaufmann” Regina was perfect in her haughty, upturned-nosed portrayal of Portia. One by one she deprecated her suitors, but melted like wax at the sight of Bassanio. She was also able to portray Portia’s alter-ego, the doctor of law, as a legal eagle, trapping Shylock in a web of legal technicalities. Overall, Regina gave a strong performance portraying a strong woman. There is no question “Kaufmann” is Regina’s play. Kudos, Miss de Vera!

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

The play guest-stars comedian par excellance Mr. Lou Veloso, who played Gobo, the bumbling father of Launcelot, Shylock’s friend Tubal, and the Duke of Venice. As he was presiding over the trial of Antonio, high upon the upper level and dressed in a Nazi uniform, Lou Veloso looked every inch the Füehrer. Great work, sir!

Too bad “Kaufmann” was not a musical so we were not regaled with the rich baritone of Jonathan “Tad” Tadionan (the father in “Sandosena” and Aswang in “Ibalong”), but he ably played the role of Shylock, complete with a grimace on his face and a limp in his gait. Tad is a good actor but infinitely better as a singer.

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

One of the surprises of the play is that Shylock is played not by one but three actors. Miss Racquel Pareño displayed great acting cred by portraying Shylock the mother. Her scenes were especially memorable: the “Hath not the Jew eyes?” speech and the scene where she was schizophrenically distressed over Jessica’s elopement while rejoicing over the loss of Antonio’s ships. Another memorable scene is when she rushed over to the fallen Shylock the father during the trial and delivered some of Shylock’s lines.

I also found it too bad that my favorite child stage actress, Trixie Esteban, only had a few lines in the play. She played Shylock the daughter, who delivered the final lines assigned to Shylock in the play. While we were not treated to her sweet singing voice, her clear, innocent voice seems to hang in the air as she delivered her lament.

The comedic foils were also very effective in the play (“Merchant” is a comedy, after all): Kristofer Kliatchko as the Prince of Morocco, and Aldo Vencilao as Launcelot and the Prince of Aragon.

Antonio and Bassanio. (Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

Hands down the most controversial roles went to Marco Viaña as Antonio and Ricardo Magno as Bassanio, friends and lovers in the play.

Theological Reflections

Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hatred towards the Jewish people (who descended from Shem, son of Noah). The Jews here were not depicted as “Christ-killers” but as usurious moneylenders. The Catholic Church used to forbid its members from engaging in moneylending. But the Jews follow Deuteronomy 28:20-21:

Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals [food], interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Jewish Publication Society, 1917)

--which means Jews may lend money without interest to fellow Jews (“thy brother”) but may charge interest to non-Jews, i.e., “foreigners”. Hence that there is a conspiracy theory that Jews are “international bankers” and that they control the international banks, the press, etc.

In my observation, Jews are perceived in this country either as fairies or Christ-killers. A lot of Filipinos thought that Jews only existed in the Bible. A lot of people I talked to were surprised when I told them that there is actually a Jewish synagogue in Makati. (A Jewish doctor I talked to related a story of a nun who told him, “I’ve never met a Jew before!” He then pointed to Jesus on a Cross and said, “He’s Jewish.”)

But the more sinister perception is that Filipinos (and a lot of other misinformed people) think that the Jews are Christ-killers. One member from one of my former church assignments described the ugly features of “Jews” who are whipping Jesus in a tableau that Catholics parade around during Holy Week. I would like to point out that while Jesus was indeed condemned by Jewish religious leaders (the Sanhedrin), the execution was authorized by a Roman governor and carried out by Roman soldiers!  If one asks who is guilty of killing Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) are guilty! But it doesn’t matter: Jesus died for the forgiven of everyone’s sins, Jew or Gentile (Romans 1:16)!

Let me highlight a little-known chapter in Philippine history. In the story, Shylock is forced to convert to Christianity. For centuries European Jews had been forced to convert to Christianity but they still secretly observed Jewish religious customs. One little-known part of Philippine history is that these so-called nuevos cristianos (‘New Christians’) or Marranos (secret Jews) fled here to the Philippines to be able to escape persecution from in Spain and to be able to practice their religion freely. In World War II, President Manuel L. Quezon granted sanctuary to the Jews escaping the Holocaust in Europe. After the War, most of these Jews immigrated to the US or made aliyah to Israel. The remaining Jews compose the Jewish community in the Philippines. Most of us Filipinos are unaware that the Philippines was responsible for saving the lives about 1,200 Jews from the horrors of the Holocaust!

Homosexuality and homophobia. One of the questions posed by the audience is the homosexual relationship of Antonio and Bassanio (“My Husband’s Lover,” as many in the audience commented, referring to a local television program where a husband has an affair with another man.) According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, the homosexual angle between Antonio and Bassanio has been long a topic of scholarly debate. The play also pointed out that the Nazis not only committed genocide against the Jews but they also mass murdered homosexuals.

The issue on homosexuality is currently a hot issue of debate even within religious circles. I don’t wish to write at length on this topic now. Suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly subscribe to the official position of my denomination, The United Methodist Church as stated in the Social Principles:

Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.

As people of “sacred worth” “no less than heterosexual people”, homophobia has no place in the Church. However, the Church is currently against the ordination of “self-avowed” homosexuals and forbids its pastors to conduct same-sex marriages and the use of our churches for such ceremonies. I do not see the end of the homosexuality debate anywhere in sight. Suffice it for me to say for now that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin; and that such people, just like all of us common sinners, need the ministry of the Church. Jesus died on the Cross for them as much as he died for us “ordinary” sinners.

Excursus: Feminism. Perhaps what is not much discussed is the portrayal of Portia as a powerful woman. She is shown as a woman in charge; even if the choice for her husband is left to a game of chance. When the news of Antonio’s trouble reached Belmont, it was Portia who give Antonio the money—double of the amount owed—to Bassanio. Then, disguised as a man, she managed to outmaneuver Shylock in an example of courtroom cunning—the sort of judicial jujitsu that would make any defense lawyer proud. I have always wondered: How did Portia become so well versed in law?

For me, the play would have ended at the trial of Antonio where Shylock was defeated. I’m wondering why it had to end with the Portia tricking her husband. Bassanio, grateful for the help of the doctor of law but Portia instead asks for his ring. Likewise, Nerissa, disguised as the doctor of law’s secretary, asks for his husband Gratiano’s ring. In Belmont, Portia and Nerissa confronted their husbands for losing their rings and accuse them of lying and infidelity, only to reveal that the rings were in their possession all along? Is it just female nature to always put men to the test?

Conclusion

With the successful staging of "The Merchant of Venice",  I hope that Tanghalang Pilipino would be able to present other Shakespearean plays in future, like Hamlet ("To be or not to be, that is the question..."), the story of a prince who pretended to be insane to avoid being punishment for the alleged murder of his own father; and Othello, which is about a black Moorish prince who married a white Italian woman. Hopefully, these will be translated in Tagalog and placed in contemporary settings (Did I hear "Obama" instead of "Othello"?) in order to make these great works accessible to the people.