Rizal and the Joie de Vivre

Media

Part of The Philippine Educator

Title: Rizal and the Joie de Vivre
Language: English
Year: 1947
Rights
Fulltext: ?l AND THE JOIE DE VIVRE By GILBERT S. PEREZ What one should admire in Rizal is the richness of his life, his wealth of knowledge in various fields, his varied powers of appreciation which enabled him in the short space ot three decades to live a life that very few if any of his contemporaries could duplicate. Rizal was an embodiment of "Joie de vivre", of finding happiness in many fields of action. The French expression, "Joie de vivre", is often very erroneously interpreted. Many believe that "Joie de vivte" means frivolity, revelry, and debauchery. That is not a true interpretation of the phrase. "Joie de vivre" means the enrichment of life and of living and the ability of finding happiness in different highways and by-ways of life as well as in the seclusion of one's home. It is in this that Rizal is unique among the ~reat reformers of the world. No study of the growth of liberal thought in the modern world can be complete unless Jose Rizal is included among the great leaders in this development. However, great reformers have invariably been individuals endowed with one-track minds. They have been usually so obssessed with their main objectives that they were oblivious of the life that was around them. They concentrated on their main tasks and few had the capacity or the ability to see any value in anvthing other than the great task .to whieh they dedicated themselves. There were the three outstanding 1:>riental reformers--RiLa.l, Sun Yat Sen, 35 and Lenin (for I consider Lenin an Oriental and however I may hate or decry some of his philosophy, one r:mmot minimize the extent of his influence·· both on the Occidental and the Oriental world); of these Rizal is the only one of the triad that shines out as an example of one who not only reached his objectives but who also lived richly while accomplishing them. Rizal was not a recluse nor was he one who spent his days in meaningless revelry. He was a lover of beautiful women but no one can say that he was a libertine. His friendship with those with whom he came into contact was a joyous and worthwhile experience for both anq,·. was unsullied by guile or deceptlo~: He could cultivate a worthwhile friendship with a blonde from thP Alps or with one from warmer cltmel: and none carried wounds of disappointmei;J.t or of disillusion. As a moralist we cannot forget ltls worcts of admonition to his counteymen 1n Madrid when he chided them seTerely and told them that what they dl<i when abroad reflected either good or evil and as such influenced the foreign mind with re.spect to the Philippines and the Filipino people. As a commentary on the relationship of Rizal with his numerous women friends, it is pleasing to note that his conduct was such that there was no breath of scandal, no heartbreaks and disappointments in their relationship with JMe Riz.al, the great scholar and ~bove 36 THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATOR all the perfect gentleman. Don lsabelo de los ReyE's \n "La S~nsacional Memoria" stated that ~ zal sacrificed 1111 native pa&31oru to his country. I Jo not believe that Rizal made this sacrifice. What he · really did was to lead them into paths that would not interfere with his greater and more passionate love of · country and love of fruitful and happy endeavor. It was not a question of sacrifice; it was merely a task of making his relationships contributive and not merely senseless and debilitating debauchery that would interfere with the tasks that he had assigned to himself. Not a narrow ' austerity but a controlled emotional set-up that gave him happiness without harming those things which were dearer to him than life itself. Some may say that Rizal was a dillitante-a man endowed with such varied abilities and capabilities for enjoyment in many different lines and fields. However, there is someThing lacking in the word dillita.nte because it precludes any serious efforts in any one line. In this respect he was no dillitante because he did not sip, butterfly-like, here and there, unmeaningly and without thought or objective. He drank wholly or fully of the good things of life-whether it was with his pen, with his brush or with a definite trend in all that he tried to accomplish. Retana clearly noted this outstanding feature of the character of Rizal but while he seemed to be praising the microscope of a scientist or the scalpel of a surgeon, and these were the varied accomplishments of Riza1, we can easily detect a note of malice and a barb of satire in his pseudo-eulogy, for although I recognize most emphatically the outstanding -value of Retana's work and the most excellent contribution that he has made to Rizaliana and inspite of the· fact that I consider W enceslao Retana to be one of the great bibliophiles not only,.in Spain but in Europe, 1 am regret-1 fully led to believe that Retana never,' completely rid himself of his jealousy and dislike of Rizal even in after-life when he was writing a biography that was supposed to be an appraisal of the work of a man who in Retana's earlier years was his pet bete noir and his principal obssession. The late Don Epifanio de los Santos once graciously presented me with a communication written by Blumentritt to a Manila newspaper that had published a most scurrilous affack on Rizal in an article signed with a pseudonym. This writer of the article was none other than Wenceslao Retana. Blumentritt was equally as bitter in his arraignment of Retana an~ lambasted him for not having the civic courage to write such an artic1e under kis own name instead of under a concealing pseudonym. The Japs unfortunately destroyed this letter but since reading it I could never entirely convince myself that Retana was ever able to complete1y rid himself of his former prejudices agablst Jose Rizal "As a physician, Rizal was not a Mariani; as an artist he was not a Gustav Dore; as a poet, he was lOU a Goethe; as an antropologist, he was not a Virchow;· as an ethnologist, he was not a Ratzel; as an Filipinista, he was not a :.Blumentritt; as a historian, he was not a Macaulay; as a thinker, he was not a Nietzche; as a naturalist, he was not a Buf.fon; as a linguist, he was not a Hervas; as a MalayologiSt, he w~ s THE PHILIPPINE EDUC.ATOR 37 not Nern; as a philosopher, he was no Zola; as a writer he was no Melenaez y Pelayo, and as a geographer, he was no Reclus." But hombre! Who ever claimed that he was? Certainly 'Rizal himself never had the egotisrrf; that would war' rant such pretensions or such presumptions. Nor are his countrymen so naive as to exalt him to the rank of what Rizal himself would have sarcasticacally termed: "Sabro profundo en todas clases de sabidurias.'" However, this veiled "desprecio" of Rizal in spite of its hidden satire, in spite of its veiled sophism, is in reality when properly studied, interpreted, and analyzed, in spite of the real intention of Retana, was the most remarkable eulogy that has ever been made with reference to Rizal because one who reads will by no means be impressed by Retana's ironical ana multifarious negations. It is not that Rizal was not a Virchow. It is not that Rizal was not a Macaulay. The main source of wonder and admiration which Retana knew and could have mentioned if he wanted to was that one whom he had formerly considered a mere Indio "presundo y presuntioso" could in the short space of less than three decades have the intemgence, the sagacity, the ability, ana the determination to qualify himself so eminently in so many different fields of cultural scholarship and of scientific achievement. Few and far between in the history of the world do men appear on the scene even with a modest store of ability in so many and so varied fields of human endeavor. Instead of a "desprecio" it was a supreme honor for Rizal even to be mentioned in connection with so many leaders in so many different lines of scholarly activity. Rizal never aspired to leadiz.ship in any of the fields mentionea, not because he 'i?-cked. the ability or the intelligence but because to do this even in one line of work would not fit into his philosophy of life.. His innate Joie de vivre, of enjoyment of the finer things of life, would not have permitted him to devote the years of his short life in the complete mastery of any one field. Life and living was too precious and there were too many avenues of happiness that were open to a man of his capabilities to sacrifi ce years of work that would be needed for perfection and leadership. If he were willing to spend the necessary time he could have become one of the world's greatest historians; he could have become one of the world's greatest scientists. He could have written 20 instead of only two best ~ellers. Furthermore, the tasks that h£- had assigned to himself in behalf of his people and his country would r:.ot permit him the luxury of spending too much of his valuable time to 2nother equally time exhausting specialty. Besides, there were many others who had the .time to do this without having to work for the eradication of evils that prevailed in their country. He· had a task to perform and his own life to live and to enjoy. · Furthermore, he was the only one who could do this task efficiently and I believe that he realized it. There could be many great historians, past, present, and future; there could be also great scientists for each generation; but there could be only one Rizal and nothing could or should interfere· with the fruition of the plans that he had made for the betterment and for the enlightenment of his people. He did not aspire to be a great novelist and his novel might not have been a great one from a literary standpoint, but it was the mightiest FOR MODER~ : OPTICAL NEEDS-SEE KEEPSAKE OPTICAL-SO EscoJ.ta 38 THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATOR plea for justice and for the right that Lad been written· since Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her immortaJ Uncle Tom's Cabin and paved the way for universal human freedom. More of a political "feulleton" than a rox:_ance it stirred the souls of men as effectively as an oration of Cicero or a '.Philippic of Demosthenes and led to the fruition of liberal thought in the- Far East, just as effectively as Eeaumarchais' Barber of Seville paved the way for the Liberty, Fraternity of a Republican France. Who cares whether nor not Rizal was as great a novelist as Melendez y Pelayo -whoever the literary marvel might be, the fact re~ains that what he wrote has influenced the history of his country and has made greater contribution to human liberty than any of the greater and better novels penned by better and greater novelists. Rizal might not and would not have written a Les Miserables but only Jose Rizal could pen an effective Noli Me Tangere. Only Rizal lmew what lay hidden-unspoken in the heart of his countrymen; only he had the ability, the courage, and the determintltion to bring these hidden things out fearlessly into the open. However, Rizal was a free soul--one who not only loved a book but loved different types of books, who appreciated human friendships and who delighted himself and his friends with his pen, his brush, and his sculptor's mallet. He could seek happiness with his microscope and find an emotional outlet in the study of nature and its wonders. Without this freedom to work for the interest of his country and to seek enjoyment and happiness in varied fields, Rizal would have been sunk in a sea of boredom and ennui. His unsual ability to make the most of the Joie de vivre is what adds to his fame and his stature. When he :finished his "Noli Me Tangere" and his "Fill" he turned his talents into other directions ever seeking experiences and accomplishments that would add to his ri~ ness of life and thereby make a greater contribution to his country and to hill people. ;i A succesful physician, yet he writes to Blumentritt from Dapitan and says: "Me voy agricultor porque aqui apenas me dedi co a Ia medicina." ·"When my maquina de photografia arrives I will take pitcures of roy 'bosque civilizado' which I am constructing with its lawns and steps and benches and I shall send copies of them to you, my friend and brother." To his scientist friends in Austria, he sent lizards, butterflies, and other natural history specimen. another pleasant outlet for happy endeavor. Rizal abhorred boredom because he realized that boredom was a vacuum, and a vacumm had no place in the life of Rizal. Even in his prisons he found ways and means to avoid boredom both in Dapitan with his scientific and teaching activities and in Fort Santiago with his pen. With such men "walls do not a prison make". If he had been deprived of his pen he ·would have found some emotional outlet in clasliifying the different types of hexapods that invaded the loneliness of his prison· cell, for a man who loves is never entirely alone. Furthermore, he did not build his life solely out of local material, strands that connected him with fellow scientists, friends and fellow scholars far across the seas and which enabled him to pluck a note. here and there on the strands and receive comforting echoes from the Austrian Alps and from the Spaf?.ish Pyrenees. But with all of his cosmopolita~ make-up Rizal never once forgot that he was a Filipino; he never wavered once in his love for his people and for his (Continued on page 50)