reason his life will be studied to see what kind of hero he was, and
no attempt need be made to plead good character and honest intentions
in extenuation of illegal acts. Rizal was ever the advocate of law,
and it will be found, too, that he was always consistently law-abiding.

Though they are in the Orient, the Filipinos are not of it. Rizal once
said, upon hearing of plans for a Philippine exhibit at a European
World's Fair, that the people of Europe would have a chance to see
themselves as they were in the Middle Ages. With allowances for the
changes due to climate and for the character of the country, this
statement can hardly be called exaggerated. The Filipinos in the
last half of the nineteenth century were not Orientals but mediaeval
Europeans--to the credit of the early Castilians but to the discredit
of the later Spaniards.

The Filipinos of the remoter Christian barrios, whom Rizal had in mind
particularly, were in customs, beliefs and advancement substantially
what the descendants of Legaspi's followers might have been had these
been shipwrecked on the sparsely inhabited islands of the Archipelago
and had their settlement remained shut off from the rest of the world.

Except where foreign influence had accidentally crept in at the
ports, it could truthfully be said that scarcely perceptible advance
had been made in three hundred years. Succeeding Spaniards by their
misrule not only added little to the glorious achievement of their
ancestors, but seemed to have prevented the natural progress which
the land would have made.

In one form or another, this contention was the basis of Rizal's
campaign. By careful search, it is true, isolated instances of
improvement could be found, but the showing at its very best was
so pitifully poor that the system stood discredited. And it was the
system to which Rizal was opposed.

The Spaniards who engaged in public argument with Rizal were
continually discovering, too late to avoid tumbling into them, logical
pitfalls which had been carefully prepared to trap them. Rizal argued
much as he played chess, and was ever ready to sacrifice a pawn to
be enabled to say "check." Many an unwary opponent realized after
he had published what he had considered a clever answer that the
same reasoning which scored a point against Rizal incontrovertibly
established the Kalamban's major premise.

Superficial antagonists, to the detriment of their own reputations,
have made much of what they chose to consider Rizal's historical
errors. But history is not merely chronology, and his representation
of its trend, disregarding details, was a masterly tracing of current
evils to their remote causes. He may have erred in some of his minor
statements; this will happen to anyone who writes much, but attempts to
discredit Rizal on the score of historical inaccuracy really reflect
upon the captious critics, just as a draftsman would expose himself
to ridicule were he to complain of some famous historical painting
that it had not been drawn to exact scale. Rizal's writings were
intended to bring out in relief the evils of the Spanish system of
the government of the Filipino people, just as a map of the world
may put the inhabited portions of the earth in greater prominence
than those portions that are not inhabited. Neither is exact in its
representation, but each serves its purpose the better because it
magnifies the important and minimizes the unimportant.

In his disunited and abased countrymen, Rizal's writings aroused, as he
intended they should, the spirit of nationality, of a Fatherland which
was not Spain, and put their feet on the road to progress. What matters
it, then, if his historical references are not always exhaustive, and
if to make himself intelligible in the Philippines he had to write in
a style possibly not always sanctioned by the Spanish Academy? Spain
herself had denied to the Filipinos a system of education that
might have made a creditable Castilian the common language of the
Archipelago. A display of erudition alone does not make an historian,
nor is purity, propriety and precision in choosing words all there
is to literature.

Rizal charged Spain unceasingly with unprogressiveness in the
Philippines, just as he labored and planned unwearyingly to bring
the Filipinos abreast of modern European civilization. But in his
appeals to the Spanish conscience and in his endeavors to educate his
countrymen he showed himself as practical as he was in his arguments,
ever ready to concede nonessentials in name and means if by doing so
progress could be made.

Because of his unceasing efforts for a wiser, better governed and
more prosperous Philippines, and because of his frank admission that
he hoped thus in time there might come a freer Philippines, Rizal was
called traitor to Spain and ingrate. Now honest, open criticism is
not treason, and the sincerest gratitude to those who first brought
Christian civilization to the Philippines should not shut the eyes to
the wrongs which Filipinos suffered from their successors. But until
the latest moment of Spanish rule, the apologists of Spain seemed to
think that they ought to be able to turn away the wrath evoked by the
cruelty and incompetence that ran riot during centuries, by dwelling
upon the benefits of the early days of the Spanish dominion.

Wearisome was the eternal harping on gratitude which at one time was
the only safe tone for pulpit, press and public speech; it irritating
because it ignored questions of current policy, and it was discouraging
to the Filipinos who were reminded by it of the hopeless future for
their country to which time had brought no progress. But with all the
faults and unworthiness of the later rulers, and the inane attempts
of their parasites to distract attention from these failings, there
remains undimmed the luster of Spain's early fame. The Christianizing