Inventing a Hero: The Posthumous Re-Creation of Andres Bonifacio

by Glenn Anthony May

Andres Bonifacio, the leader of the Philippine Revolution of 1896, has become one of the country’s great national heroes. He is celebrated in history textbooks read by millions of young Filipinos. His image, cast in bronze and cut into stone, stands on plazas across the archipelago. But what do we really know about him? As succeeding generations of historians have re-created his legend, has the real Bonifacio been lost to us forever?

In this carefully researched work, Glenn May sifts through the slender documentary legacy that Bonifacio left behind after his execution in 1897. Through a close reading of these texts, he uncovers a history of mythmaking in the service of nationalism. Our contemporary image of Bonifacio is the sum of unreliable personal testimony and dubious, possibly doctored, documents. If the real history of the Philippine Revolution is to be written, May concludes, historians will have to break through these heroic myths and admit to the limitations of the existing sources.

Distributed for the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Genres: History

216 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1996

Reviews

[Jason Friedlander · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is perhaps the most controversial Philippine history book published over the past thirty years. It argues that most of what we know about Andres Bonifacio was fashioned by myth-makers. In other words, the true nature of Bonifacio is still to be uncovered. It was widely denounced by local academics who were just as suspicious of Glenn Anthony May’s motives for writing this as he was for the various nationalist historians he criticizes in this book. In particular, he focuses on five historians who are among the most cited when referring to the life of Bonifacio: Manuel Artiga, Epifanio de los Santos, Jose P. Santos, Teodoro Agoncillo, and Reynaldo Ileto. He also leaves space for a chapter on the inconsistencies of the popular account of the Tejeros Convention by Katipunan member Artemio Ricarte.

At best, the book raises doubts on the trustworthiness of the methods of inquiry and analysis conducted by each of the historians mentioned. In practice though, a lot of it reads like the equivalent of watching May splatter paint on a wall and hoping the impression made on it creates a convincing picture. Instead of sounding convincing, however, a lot of the arguments come off as not fully thought out, and the level of high rigor he expects from the historians he criticizes does not manifest in his own research. It seems like his main contention stems from his confusion over the strange texts of one historian, Jose P. Santos, who if proved to be unreliable, would collapse the descriptions of Bonifacio conducted by other historians afterwards. This argument is the most consistent one he refers back to throughout the book.

Nevertheless, despite my problems with the style in which May presents his concerns, I think the overall ethos of the research is in the right direction, although the specifics of his (very hedged) conclusions have much left to be desired. It’s notable that despite the barrage of criticisms towards May over this book, two of the most renowned historians of the Philippine Revolution, Ambeth Ocampo and John N. Schumacher, S.J., were consultants for it and after its publication publicly supported the contributions of May to Philippine historiography.

Overall I think his strongest arguments are at the beginning when he shows how little we actually know for sure about Bonifacio before the Katipunan, and his sections on Agoncillo’s Revolt of the Masses and Ricarte’s memoir. Definitely still worth a read today.

[Earl · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is already 14 years old, and the critical atmosphere that this book bears is still relevant for historians of today (I think). Also, a superb evaluation of the famous Rey Ileto and his work in "Pasyon."

[Nalyn Cruz]

the story was very interesting

[jm · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this as book review requirement on my nationalism subject.