LIWORIZ: HARD TO IMAGINE

overall argument

• translation of Leon Ma. Guerrero of Jose Rizal’s Noli were systematically softened, de-radicalized, and de-historized from the original spanish text.

• Rizal’s original novel was politically urgent, multilingual, and satirical. the translation turned it into a safe, more generic, national myth suitable for the government at that time.

history / context of translation

• American regime wiped out almost all local use of spanish due to spread of public education. hence, american became widely understood than any PH vernaculars making the original spanish text inaccessible

• the government sponsored a prize competition for the best new translation. the government also sponsored a bill making Rizal’s 2 novel a requirement for all students in private / public

• churched place in difficult spot due to: (1) clerics portrayed as villains. (2) rumors of Rizal retraction spread. Schools didn’t require to teach this, but the situation made the Church look like it censoring Rizal.

• the catholic church, being conservative, wanted to ban Rizal’s novels due to the portrayed corrupt clerics. Hence, the environment around the translation was already tense and political.

• the ruling elite saw rizal as an amigo, emigo and exemplary hero but his writings were considered as upsetting. authorities wanted a controlled, official version of Rizal to teach in schools / new generations to inspire obedience and respect for the state = turn him into a “saint like” hero. Guerrero had family & social connections with the elite (uncle was a bishop; he was president of a sugar federation), so he was under pressure.

Leon Ma. Guerrero

• came from prominent ilustrado / mestizo family

• considered his primary language to be english = wrote & published most of his work in english.

• his translations were succesful / quickly supplanted all older versions in highschool & university. eto parin yung ginagamit currently

• his translations were distorted / inconsistent from the original text which was unlikely as he was highly fluent in spanish.

• The reading suggests these distortions came from a major shift in how nationalism was understood between Rizal’s time (1890s) and the 1950s, when Guerrero was translating.

• Rizal’s time: urgent call for nationalism VS Guerrero: safer & softer nationalism

Guerrero’s objective / intent

• to make the novel palatable to the new generation. (pinaka hinahanap ni sir na answer)

• He tried to translate it the way he thought Rizal might write it if he were alive and writing for that generation

• to make it easier / accessible for English-speaking Filipinos to understand the novel

• to soften the radical parts so the past wouldn’t encourage modern-day activism.

The lost eden

inaccurate translation of title Noli Me Tangere

7 key elements of guerrero’s translation

1. demodernization: rizal used present tense to make social critiques feel urgent / ongoing. guerrero changed these present tense into past tense making the issues seem like an antique past.

2. exclusion of the reader: rizal directly addresses the readers to draw them into the story / make them feel involved. guerrero removes these and renders narration. = excludes readers from the intimate community of resistance that rizal was attempting to create.

3. excision of tagalog: original text was often accompanied w/ tagalog words and expression but guerrero eliminates these and replaced tagalog terms. (ex: bata to schoolboy, sinigang to native dish)

4. bowdlerization: consistently softened or removed content that made him uncomfortable, sometime removing entire sentences (religious criticism, bodily functions, profanity.) = downplayed satire and realism.

5. delocalization: strips about 80% of specific Manila and San Diego place names and removes references to real cultural figures. replaced w/ generic phrases. (ex: opera performers Chananay to “most renowned performers from Manila.) = eliminates spatial & filipino identity, immediacy, realism.

6. de-europization: original text used untranslated latin, mythological names, european literary references for satire (ex: calling doña consolacion “medusa” to compare her cruelty to a greek monster). guerrero removed & simplified these references = flattens novel’s intellectual layer & satire.

7. anachronism (something belonging to a certain period): racial and political terminologies were changed by guerrero (ex: Rizal’s ‘filipina’ = female creole VS guerrero: female national of PH). = changed original meaning & historical context which makes it inaccurate & confusing.

Is it considered as a translation

• not entirely bcs it mainly reflected Geurrero’s time more than the original text from Rizal

• The changes weren’t due to mistakes or lack of skill, but intentionally bcs Guerrero followed a specific agenda to promote the official nationalist version of Rizal.