SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTOne would welcome an attempt by some one of the more ambitious Filipino writers and students whose attention has been occupied almost exclusively with political controversy to write the social history of his people during this last period of Spanish rule. The materials for such a study, so far as they now exist in print, are very fragmentary, and the work could hardly be well done by any but a resident of the islands during that period. But few references need be given here, and the inquirer must derive most of his information on this line from the numerous books and pamphlets whose object is primarily political questions and from the economic and fiscal tables and studies which shed light upon the general status of the people.General historical surveys of the period are lacking. Montero y Vidal’s three-volume history comes down only to 1873. And, though it is the best Philippine historical work for reference purposes, it is, after all, hardly more than a chronology of important events and compilation of official orders and projects, touching the life of the people scarcely at all. Thesame author’s work of 1886,El archipiélago filipino, merits attention also in this connection, though primarily it sets forth facts geographical, statistical, etc. The works of Manuel Scheidnagel deserve also citation as those of a Spanish official of long and varied experience in the Philippines, and as shedding, incidentally to the particular subjects which they treat, light upon the conditions of country and people in general.16The foreigners who traveled in the Philippines during this period, and who have written thereon, were occupied in most cases with scientific pursuits, and have confined themselves mainly to these objects in what they have published. TheLuçon et Palaouan(Paris, 1887) of Alfred Marche touches upon the customs and conditions of the people in its record of six years’ scientific research for the government of France. Edmond Plauchut’s contributions to theRevue des deux mondesfor 1869 and 1877, in lighter vein and perhaps not always accurate, are, like Gironière’s writings of earlier date, interesting as presenting the observations of a resident foreigner. Among the works in English, revised or written since 1898 to meet the demand in the United States for information about the Philippines, Dean C. Worcester’sThe Philippine Islands and their People(New York, 1898), brings us nearest to the life of the people, particularly in the rural districts and regions most remote from modern changing influences. The treatises of the British engineers and experts in tropical agriculture, Frederick H. Sawyer and John Foreman, are written by men who were, naturally, best preparedto discuss the agricultural conditions and the material resources in general of the Philippines. Outside of these matters, except when reciting personal experiences and observations, both are compilers whose reading in Philippine bibliography has been very fragmentary. Foreman in particular has undertaken to cover the entire field of Philippine history and politics, and has, to state the plain truth, made a very bad botch of it. He has been so often quoted in the United States as authority for erroneous statements that it is time to make this fact clear. It is commonly impossible to draw the line in what he has written between fact and gossip, conjecture, or partial truth. His latest edition (1906) contains most of the old glaring errors or even worse omissions, with a full measure of new ones in his recital of the history of events since 1896. Some data contained in Foreman’s book are not readily available to an American student outside of the large libraries; but a caution is to be uttered against relying upon him, even for his recital of fiscal details or for his statistical tables. Sawyer is very much more accurate and reliable, just as he is less pretentious in the program of his work.In studying the social process of the Filipino people from about 1860 onward, the subject of education holds the first place.17It is, however, unnecessary to occupy ourselves here with the bibliography of the subject, which has been very fully covered inVOLS.XLVandXLVIof this work, the appendices to those volumes giving, in connection with other documentsin this series and with the bibliographical notes, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of education in the Philippines that is yet available in any language.As we might expect from what has been said, the social life of the Philippines, at least from about 1875, may best be studied in the periodicals of Manila. In this connection it is only necessary to mention Retana’sEl periodismo filipino, which covers the subject down to 1894.La Revista de Filipinas, edited by J. F. del Pan, 1875–77, deserves special mention among the many periodicals of short life. Among those of longer duration may be namedEl Diario de Manila, and also, for the closing years of Spanish rule,La Oceanía Española,La Voz EspañolaandEl Comercio.18One should also consult these Spanish periodicals of Manila for the political history of these years, particularly of 1896–98. It must be remarked, however, that, just as these periodicals reflected mainly the life only of the capital, and that quite exclusively from the Spanish viewpoint, so also they treated political and administrative matters not merely under the constraint of their editors’ notions as to “maintaining Spanish prestige” but also with a censorship in the background, maintained by and for the political and the ecclesiastical authorities.19Down to 1898 the Philippine law of censorship of 1857, modeled on that of Spain in the days of Isabel II, was in force, and it covered the publication of books and pamphlets of all sorts and of newspapers, the importation and sale of books, pictures, etc., and the regulation of theaters.20One will, therefore, look almost in vain in these periodicals prior to 1898 for expressions of the Filipino point of view, or, till the close of 1897, for any frank expression of liberal political views on the part of Spanish editors. The few Manila periodicals started by Filipinos before 1898, usually printed in Spanish and Tagálog, had but an ephemeral existence.21One must look for the expression of Filipino aims and ideas to the periodicals that have been published since 1898; indeed, even the Spanish press of Manila has treated Filipino questions with freedom only since American occupation began.For population statistics, all practical purposes are served by the tables and comparisons of the American census of 1903.22Here one may find also the best data for reconstructing before his eyes the social and economic status of the Philippines and its inhabitants at the close of Spanish rule. The Spanish civil census of 1896 was unfortunately never published, nor completed in some provinces. The civilcensus of 1887, though published in very condensed form, merits attention.23Certain of the more notable statistical works of private individuals will require notice in connection with agriculture, industry, and commerce; here the student may be referred to theBibliographyunder the names of Agustín de la Cavada, J. F. del Pan, and José Jimeno Agius.24
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTOne would welcome an attempt by some one of the more ambitious Filipino writers and students whose attention has been occupied almost exclusively with political controversy to write the social history of his people during this last period of Spanish rule. The materials for such a study, so far as they now exist in print, are very fragmentary, and the work could hardly be well done by any but a resident of the islands during that period. But few references need be given here, and the inquirer must derive most of his information on this line from the numerous books and pamphlets whose object is primarily political questions and from the economic and fiscal tables and studies which shed light upon the general status of the people.General historical surveys of the period are lacking. Montero y Vidal’s three-volume history comes down only to 1873. And, though it is the best Philippine historical work for reference purposes, it is, after all, hardly more than a chronology of important events and compilation of official orders and projects, touching the life of the people scarcely at all. Thesame author’s work of 1886,El archipiélago filipino, merits attention also in this connection, though primarily it sets forth facts geographical, statistical, etc. The works of Manuel Scheidnagel deserve also citation as those of a Spanish official of long and varied experience in the Philippines, and as shedding, incidentally to the particular subjects which they treat, light upon the conditions of country and people in general.16The foreigners who traveled in the Philippines during this period, and who have written thereon, were occupied in most cases with scientific pursuits, and have confined themselves mainly to these objects in what they have published. TheLuçon et Palaouan(Paris, 1887) of Alfred Marche touches upon the customs and conditions of the people in its record of six years’ scientific research for the government of France. Edmond Plauchut’s contributions to theRevue des deux mondesfor 1869 and 1877, in lighter vein and perhaps not always accurate, are, like Gironière’s writings of earlier date, interesting as presenting the observations of a resident foreigner. Among the works in English, revised or written since 1898 to meet the demand in the United States for information about the Philippines, Dean C. Worcester’sThe Philippine Islands and their People(New York, 1898), brings us nearest to the life of the people, particularly in the rural districts and regions most remote from modern changing influences. The treatises of the British engineers and experts in tropical agriculture, Frederick H. Sawyer and John Foreman, are written by men who were, naturally, best preparedto discuss the agricultural conditions and the material resources in general of the Philippines. Outside of these matters, except when reciting personal experiences and observations, both are compilers whose reading in Philippine bibliography has been very fragmentary. Foreman in particular has undertaken to cover the entire field of Philippine history and politics, and has, to state the plain truth, made a very bad botch of it. He has been so often quoted in the United States as authority for erroneous statements that it is time to make this fact clear. It is commonly impossible to draw the line in what he has written between fact and gossip, conjecture, or partial truth. His latest edition (1906) contains most of the old glaring errors or even worse omissions, with a full measure of new ones in his recital of the history of events since 1896. Some data contained in Foreman’s book are not readily available to an American student outside of the large libraries; but a caution is to be uttered against relying upon him, even for his recital of fiscal details or for his statistical tables. Sawyer is very much more accurate and reliable, just as he is less pretentious in the program of his work.In studying the social process of the Filipino people from about 1860 onward, the subject of education holds the first place.17It is, however, unnecessary to occupy ourselves here with the bibliography of the subject, which has been very fully covered inVOLS.XLVandXLVIof this work, the appendices to those volumes giving, in connection with other documentsin this series and with the bibliographical notes, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of education in the Philippines that is yet available in any language.As we might expect from what has been said, the social life of the Philippines, at least from about 1875, may best be studied in the periodicals of Manila. In this connection it is only necessary to mention Retana’sEl periodismo filipino, which covers the subject down to 1894.La Revista de Filipinas, edited by J. F. del Pan, 1875–77, deserves special mention among the many periodicals of short life. Among those of longer duration may be namedEl Diario de Manila, and also, for the closing years of Spanish rule,La Oceanía Española,La Voz EspañolaandEl Comercio.18One should also consult these Spanish periodicals of Manila for the political history of these years, particularly of 1896–98. It must be remarked, however, that, just as these periodicals reflected mainly the life only of the capital, and that quite exclusively from the Spanish viewpoint, so also they treated political and administrative matters not merely under the constraint of their editors’ notions as to “maintaining Spanish prestige” but also with a censorship in the background, maintained by and for the political and the ecclesiastical authorities.19Down to 1898 the Philippine law of censorship of 1857, modeled on that of Spain in the days of Isabel II, was in force, and it covered the publication of books and pamphlets of all sorts and of newspapers, the importation and sale of books, pictures, etc., and the regulation of theaters.20One will, therefore, look almost in vain in these periodicals prior to 1898 for expressions of the Filipino point of view, or, till the close of 1897, for any frank expression of liberal political views on the part of Spanish editors. The few Manila periodicals started by Filipinos before 1898, usually printed in Spanish and Tagálog, had but an ephemeral existence.21One must look for the expression of Filipino aims and ideas to the periodicals that have been published since 1898; indeed, even the Spanish press of Manila has treated Filipino questions with freedom only since American occupation began.For population statistics, all practical purposes are served by the tables and comparisons of the American census of 1903.22Here one may find also the best data for reconstructing before his eyes the social and economic status of the Philippines and its inhabitants at the close of Spanish rule. The Spanish civil census of 1896 was unfortunately never published, nor completed in some provinces. The civilcensus of 1887, though published in very condensed form, merits attention.23Certain of the more notable statistical works of private individuals will require notice in connection with agriculture, industry, and commerce; here the student may be referred to theBibliographyunder the names of Agustín de la Cavada, J. F. del Pan, and José Jimeno Agius.24
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTOne would welcome an attempt by some one of the more ambitious Filipino writers and students whose attention has been occupied almost exclusively with political controversy to write the social history of his people during this last period of Spanish rule. The materials for such a study, so far as they now exist in print, are very fragmentary, and the work could hardly be well done by any but a resident of the islands during that period. But few references need be given here, and the inquirer must derive most of his information on this line from the numerous books and pamphlets whose object is primarily political questions and from the economic and fiscal tables and studies which shed light upon the general status of the people.General historical surveys of the period are lacking. Montero y Vidal’s three-volume history comes down only to 1873. And, though it is the best Philippine historical work for reference purposes, it is, after all, hardly more than a chronology of important events and compilation of official orders and projects, touching the life of the people scarcely at all. Thesame author’s work of 1886,El archipiélago filipino, merits attention also in this connection, though primarily it sets forth facts geographical, statistical, etc. The works of Manuel Scheidnagel deserve also citation as those of a Spanish official of long and varied experience in the Philippines, and as shedding, incidentally to the particular subjects which they treat, light upon the conditions of country and people in general.16The foreigners who traveled in the Philippines during this period, and who have written thereon, were occupied in most cases with scientific pursuits, and have confined themselves mainly to these objects in what they have published. TheLuçon et Palaouan(Paris, 1887) of Alfred Marche touches upon the customs and conditions of the people in its record of six years’ scientific research for the government of France. Edmond Plauchut’s contributions to theRevue des deux mondesfor 1869 and 1877, in lighter vein and perhaps not always accurate, are, like Gironière’s writings of earlier date, interesting as presenting the observations of a resident foreigner. Among the works in English, revised or written since 1898 to meet the demand in the United States for information about the Philippines, Dean C. Worcester’sThe Philippine Islands and their People(New York, 1898), brings us nearest to the life of the people, particularly in the rural districts and regions most remote from modern changing influences. The treatises of the British engineers and experts in tropical agriculture, Frederick H. Sawyer and John Foreman, are written by men who were, naturally, best preparedto discuss the agricultural conditions and the material resources in general of the Philippines. Outside of these matters, except when reciting personal experiences and observations, both are compilers whose reading in Philippine bibliography has been very fragmentary. Foreman in particular has undertaken to cover the entire field of Philippine history and politics, and has, to state the plain truth, made a very bad botch of it. He has been so often quoted in the United States as authority for erroneous statements that it is time to make this fact clear. It is commonly impossible to draw the line in what he has written between fact and gossip, conjecture, or partial truth. His latest edition (1906) contains most of the old glaring errors or even worse omissions, with a full measure of new ones in his recital of the history of events since 1896. Some data contained in Foreman’s book are not readily available to an American student outside of the large libraries; but a caution is to be uttered against relying upon him, even for his recital of fiscal details or for his statistical tables. Sawyer is very much more accurate and reliable, just as he is less pretentious in the program of his work.In studying the social process of the Filipino people from about 1860 onward, the subject of education holds the first place.17It is, however, unnecessary to occupy ourselves here with the bibliography of the subject, which has been very fully covered inVOLS.XLVandXLVIof this work, the appendices to those volumes giving, in connection with other documentsin this series and with the bibliographical notes, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of education in the Philippines that is yet available in any language.As we might expect from what has been said, the social life of the Philippines, at least from about 1875, may best be studied in the periodicals of Manila. In this connection it is only necessary to mention Retana’sEl periodismo filipino, which covers the subject down to 1894.La Revista de Filipinas, edited by J. F. del Pan, 1875–77, deserves special mention among the many periodicals of short life. Among those of longer duration may be namedEl Diario de Manila, and also, for the closing years of Spanish rule,La Oceanía Española,La Voz EspañolaandEl Comercio.18One should also consult these Spanish periodicals of Manila for the political history of these years, particularly of 1896–98. It must be remarked, however, that, just as these periodicals reflected mainly the life only of the capital, and that quite exclusively from the Spanish viewpoint, so also they treated political and administrative matters not merely under the constraint of their editors’ notions as to “maintaining Spanish prestige” but also with a censorship in the background, maintained by and for the political and the ecclesiastical authorities.19Down to 1898 the Philippine law of censorship of 1857, modeled on that of Spain in the days of Isabel II, was in force, and it covered the publication of books and pamphlets of all sorts and of newspapers, the importation and sale of books, pictures, etc., and the regulation of theaters.20One will, therefore, look almost in vain in these periodicals prior to 1898 for expressions of the Filipino point of view, or, till the close of 1897, for any frank expression of liberal political views on the part of Spanish editors. The few Manila periodicals started by Filipinos before 1898, usually printed in Spanish and Tagálog, had but an ephemeral existence.21One must look for the expression of Filipino aims and ideas to the periodicals that have been published since 1898; indeed, even the Spanish press of Manila has treated Filipino questions with freedom only since American occupation began.For population statistics, all practical purposes are served by the tables and comparisons of the American census of 1903.22Here one may find also the best data for reconstructing before his eyes the social and economic status of the Philippines and its inhabitants at the close of Spanish rule. The Spanish civil census of 1896 was unfortunately never published, nor completed in some provinces. The civilcensus of 1887, though published in very condensed form, merits attention.23Certain of the more notable statistical works of private individuals will require notice in connection with agriculture, industry, and commerce; here the student may be referred to theBibliographyunder the names of Agustín de la Cavada, J. F. del Pan, and José Jimeno Agius.24
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTOne would welcome an attempt by some one of the more ambitious Filipino writers and students whose attention has been occupied almost exclusively with political controversy to write the social history of his people during this last period of Spanish rule. The materials for such a study, so far as they now exist in print, are very fragmentary, and the work could hardly be well done by any but a resident of the islands during that period. But few references need be given here, and the inquirer must derive most of his information on this line from the numerous books and pamphlets whose object is primarily political questions and from the economic and fiscal tables and studies which shed light upon the general status of the people.General historical surveys of the period are lacking. Montero y Vidal’s three-volume history comes down only to 1873. And, though it is the best Philippine historical work for reference purposes, it is, after all, hardly more than a chronology of important events and compilation of official orders and projects, touching the life of the people scarcely at all. Thesame author’s work of 1886,El archipiélago filipino, merits attention also in this connection, though primarily it sets forth facts geographical, statistical, etc. The works of Manuel Scheidnagel deserve also citation as those of a Spanish official of long and varied experience in the Philippines, and as shedding, incidentally to the particular subjects which they treat, light upon the conditions of country and people in general.16The foreigners who traveled in the Philippines during this period, and who have written thereon, were occupied in most cases with scientific pursuits, and have confined themselves mainly to these objects in what they have published. TheLuçon et Palaouan(Paris, 1887) of Alfred Marche touches upon the customs and conditions of the people in its record of six years’ scientific research for the government of France. Edmond Plauchut’s contributions to theRevue des deux mondesfor 1869 and 1877, in lighter vein and perhaps not always accurate, are, like Gironière’s writings of earlier date, interesting as presenting the observations of a resident foreigner. Among the works in English, revised or written since 1898 to meet the demand in the United States for information about the Philippines, Dean C. Worcester’sThe Philippine Islands and their People(New York, 1898), brings us nearest to the life of the people, particularly in the rural districts and regions most remote from modern changing influences. The treatises of the British engineers and experts in tropical agriculture, Frederick H. Sawyer and John Foreman, are written by men who were, naturally, best preparedto discuss the agricultural conditions and the material resources in general of the Philippines. Outside of these matters, except when reciting personal experiences and observations, both are compilers whose reading in Philippine bibliography has been very fragmentary. Foreman in particular has undertaken to cover the entire field of Philippine history and politics, and has, to state the plain truth, made a very bad botch of it. He has been so often quoted in the United States as authority for erroneous statements that it is time to make this fact clear. It is commonly impossible to draw the line in what he has written between fact and gossip, conjecture, or partial truth. His latest edition (1906) contains most of the old glaring errors or even worse omissions, with a full measure of new ones in his recital of the history of events since 1896. Some data contained in Foreman’s book are not readily available to an American student outside of the large libraries; but a caution is to be uttered against relying upon him, even for his recital of fiscal details or for his statistical tables. Sawyer is very much more accurate and reliable, just as he is less pretentious in the program of his work.In studying the social process of the Filipino people from about 1860 onward, the subject of education holds the first place.17It is, however, unnecessary to occupy ourselves here with the bibliography of the subject, which has been very fully covered inVOLS.XLVandXLVIof this work, the appendices to those volumes giving, in connection with other documentsin this series and with the bibliographical notes, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of education in the Philippines that is yet available in any language.As we might expect from what has been said, the social life of the Philippines, at least from about 1875, may best be studied in the periodicals of Manila. In this connection it is only necessary to mention Retana’sEl periodismo filipino, which covers the subject down to 1894.La Revista de Filipinas, edited by J. F. del Pan, 1875–77, deserves special mention among the many periodicals of short life. Among those of longer duration may be namedEl Diario de Manila, and also, for the closing years of Spanish rule,La Oceanía Española,La Voz EspañolaandEl Comercio.18One should also consult these Spanish periodicals of Manila for the political history of these years, particularly of 1896–98. It must be remarked, however, that, just as these periodicals reflected mainly the life only of the capital, and that quite exclusively from the Spanish viewpoint, so also they treated political and administrative matters not merely under the constraint of their editors’ notions as to “maintaining Spanish prestige” but also with a censorship in the background, maintained by and for the political and the ecclesiastical authorities.19Down to 1898 the Philippine law of censorship of 1857, modeled on that of Spain in the days of Isabel II, was in force, and it covered the publication of books and pamphlets of all sorts and of newspapers, the importation and sale of books, pictures, etc., and the regulation of theaters.20One will, therefore, look almost in vain in these periodicals prior to 1898 for expressions of the Filipino point of view, or, till the close of 1897, for any frank expression of liberal political views on the part of Spanish editors. The few Manila periodicals started by Filipinos before 1898, usually printed in Spanish and Tagálog, had but an ephemeral existence.21One must look for the expression of Filipino aims and ideas to the periodicals that have been published since 1898; indeed, even the Spanish press of Manila has treated Filipino questions with freedom only since American occupation began.For population statistics, all practical purposes are served by the tables and comparisons of the American census of 1903.22Here one may find also the best data for reconstructing before his eyes the social and economic status of the Philippines and its inhabitants at the close of Spanish rule. The Spanish civil census of 1896 was unfortunately never published, nor completed in some provinces. The civilcensus of 1887, though published in very condensed form, merits attention.23Certain of the more notable statistical works of private individuals will require notice in connection with agriculture, industry, and commerce; here the student may be referred to theBibliographyunder the names of Agustín de la Cavada, J. F. del Pan, and José Jimeno Agius.24
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTOne would welcome an attempt by some one of the more ambitious Filipino writers and students whose attention has been occupied almost exclusively with political controversy to write the social history of his people during this last period of Spanish rule. The materials for such a study, so far as they now exist in print, are very fragmentary, and the work could hardly be well done by any but a resident of the islands during that period. But few references need be given here, and the inquirer must derive most of his information on this line from the numerous books and pamphlets whose object is primarily political questions and from the economic and fiscal tables and studies which shed light upon the general status of the people.General historical surveys of the period are lacking. Montero y Vidal’s three-volume history comes down only to 1873. And, though it is the best Philippine historical work for reference purposes, it is, after all, hardly more than a chronology of important events and compilation of official orders and projects, touching the life of the people scarcely at all. Thesame author’s work of 1886,El archipiélago filipino, merits attention also in this connection, though primarily it sets forth facts geographical, statistical, etc. The works of Manuel Scheidnagel deserve also citation as those of a Spanish official of long and varied experience in the Philippines, and as shedding, incidentally to the particular subjects which they treat, light upon the conditions of country and people in general.16The foreigners who traveled in the Philippines during this period, and who have written thereon, were occupied in most cases with scientific pursuits, and have confined themselves mainly to these objects in what they have published. TheLuçon et Palaouan(Paris, 1887) of Alfred Marche touches upon the customs and conditions of the people in its record of six years’ scientific research for the government of France. Edmond Plauchut’s contributions to theRevue des deux mondesfor 1869 and 1877, in lighter vein and perhaps not always accurate, are, like Gironière’s writings of earlier date, interesting as presenting the observations of a resident foreigner. Among the works in English, revised or written since 1898 to meet the demand in the United States for information about the Philippines, Dean C. Worcester’sThe Philippine Islands and their People(New York, 1898), brings us nearest to the life of the people, particularly in the rural districts and regions most remote from modern changing influences. The treatises of the British engineers and experts in tropical agriculture, Frederick H. Sawyer and John Foreman, are written by men who were, naturally, best preparedto discuss the agricultural conditions and the material resources in general of the Philippines. Outside of these matters, except when reciting personal experiences and observations, both are compilers whose reading in Philippine bibliography has been very fragmentary. Foreman in particular has undertaken to cover the entire field of Philippine history and politics, and has, to state the plain truth, made a very bad botch of it. He has been so often quoted in the United States as authority for erroneous statements that it is time to make this fact clear. It is commonly impossible to draw the line in what he has written between fact and gossip, conjecture, or partial truth. His latest edition (1906) contains most of the old glaring errors or even worse omissions, with a full measure of new ones in his recital of the history of events since 1896. Some data contained in Foreman’s book are not readily available to an American student outside of the large libraries; but a caution is to be uttered against relying upon him, even for his recital of fiscal details or for his statistical tables. Sawyer is very much more accurate and reliable, just as he is less pretentious in the program of his work.In studying the social process of the Filipino people from about 1860 onward, the subject of education holds the first place.17It is, however, unnecessary to occupy ourselves here with the bibliography of the subject, which has been very fully covered inVOLS.XLVandXLVIof this work, the appendices to those volumes giving, in connection with other documentsin this series and with the bibliographical notes, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of education in the Philippines that is yet available in any language.As we might expect from what has been said, the social life of the Philippines, at least from about 1875, may best be studied in the periodicals of Manila. In this connection it is only necessary to mention Retana’sEl periodismo filipino, which covers the subject down to 1894.La Revista de Filipinas, edited by J. F. del Pan, 1875–77, deserves special mention among the many periodicals of short life. Among those of longer duration may be namedEl Diario de Manila, and also, for the closing years of Spanish rule,La Oceanía Española,La Voz EspañolaandEl Comercio.18One should also consult these Spanish periodicals of Manila for the political history of these years, particularly of 1896–98. It must be remarked, however, that, just as these periodicals reflected mainly the life only of the capital, and that quite exclusively from the Spanish viewpoint, so also they treated political and administrative matters not merely under the constraint of their editors’ notions as to “maintaining Spanish prestige” but also with a censorship in the background, maintained by and for the political and the ecclesiastical authorities.19Down to 1898 the Philippine law of censorship of 1857, modeled on that of Spain in the days of Isabel II, was in force, and it covered the publication of books and pamphlets of all sorts and of newspapers, the importation and sale of books, pictures, etc., and the regulation of theaters.20One will, therefore, look almost in vain in these periodicals prior to 1898 for expressions of the Filipino point of view, or, till the close of 1897, for any frank expression of liberal political views on the part of Spanish editors. The few Manila periodicals started by Filipinos before 1898, usually printed in Spanish and Tagálog, had but an ephemeral existence.21One must look for the expression of Filipino aims and ideas to the periodicals that have been published since 1898; indeed, even the Spanish press of Manila has treated Filipino questions with freedom only since American occupation began.For population statistics, all practical purposes are served by the tables and comparisons of the American census of 1903.22Here one may find also the best data for reconstructing before his eyes the social and economic status of the Philippines and its inhabitants at the close of Spanish rule. The Spanish civil census of 1896 was unfortunately never published, nor completed in some provinces. The civilcensus of 1887, though published in very condensed form, merits attention.23Certain of the more notable statistical works of private individuals will require notice in connection with agriculture, industry, and commerce; here the student may be referred to theBibliographyunder the names of Agustín de la Cavada, J. F. del Pan, and José Jimeno Agius.24
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
One would welcome an attempt by some one of the more ambitious Filipino writers and students whose attention has been occupied almost exclusively with political controversy to write the social history of his people during this last period of Spanish rule. The materials for such a study, so far as they now exist in print, are very fragmentary, and the work could hardly be well done by any but a resident of the islands during that period. But few references need be given here, and the inquirer must derive most of his information on this line from the numerous books and pamphlets whose object is primarily political questions and from the economic and fiscal tables and studies which shed light upon the general status of the people.General historical surveys of the period are lacking. Montero y Vidal’s three-volume history comes down only to 1873. And, though it is the best Philippine historical work for reference purposes, it is, after all, hardly more than a chronology of important events and compilation of official orders and projects, touching the life of the people scarcely at all. Thesame author’s work of 1886,El archipiélago filipino, merits attention also in this connection, though primarily it sets forth facts geographical, statistical, etc. The works of Manuel Scheidnagel deserve also citation as those of a Spanish official of long and varied experience in the Philippines, and as shedding, incidentally to the particular subjects which they treat, light upon the conditions of country and people in general.16The foreigners who traveled in the Philippines during this period, and who have written thereon, were occupied in most cases with scientific pursuits, and have confined themselves mainly to these objects in what they have published. TheLuçon et Palaouan(Paris, 1887) of Alfred Marche touches upon the customs and conditions of the people in its record of six years’ scientific research for the government of France. Edmond Plauchut’s contributions to theRevue des deux mondesfor 1869 and 1877, in lighter vein and perhaps not always accurate, are, like Gironière’s writings of earlier date, interesting as presenting the observations of a resident foreigner. Among the works in English, revised or written since 1898 to meet the demand in the United States for information about the Philippines, Dean C. Worcester’sThe Philippine Islands and their People(New York, 1898), brings us nearest to the life of the people, particularly in the rural districts and regions most remote from modern changing influences. The treatises of the British engineers and experts in tropical agriculture, Frederick H. Sawyer and John Foreman, are written by men who were, naturally, best preparedto discuss the agricultural conditions and the material resources in general of the Philippines. Outside of these matters, except when reciting personal experiences and observations, both are compilers whose reading in Philippine bibliography has been very fragmentary. Foreman in particular has undertaken to cover the entire field of Philippine history and politics, and has, to state the plain truth, made a very bad botch of it. He has been so often quoted in the United States as authority for erroneous statements that it is time to make this fact clear. It is commonly impossible to draw the line in what he has written between fact and gossip, conjecture, or partial truth. His latest edition (1906) contains most of the old glaring errors or even worse omissions, with a full measure of new ones in his recital of the history of events since 1896. Some data contained in Foreman’s book are not readily available to an American student outside of the large libraries; but a caution is to be uttered against relying upon him, even for his recital of fiscal details or for his statistical tables. Sawyer is very much more accurate and reliable, just as he is less pretentious in the program of his work.In studying the social process of the Filipino people from about 1860 onward, the subject of education holds the first place.17It is, however, unnecessary to occupy ourselves here with the bibliography of the subject, which has been very fully covered inVOLS.XLVandXLVIof this work, the appendices to those volumes giving, in connection with other documentsin this series and with the bibliographical notes, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of education in the Philippines that is yet available in any language.As we might expect from what has been said, the social life of the Philippines, at least from about 1875, may best be studied in the periodicals of Manila. In this connection it is only necessary to mention Retana’sEl periodismo filipino, which covers the subject down to 1894.La Revista de Filipinas, edited by J. F. del Pan, 1875–77, deserves special mention among the many periodicals of short life. Among those of longer duration may be namedEl Diario de Manila, and also, for the closing years of Spanish rule,La Oceanía Española,La Voz EspañolaandEl Comercio.18One should also consult these Spanish periodicals of Manila for the political history of these years, particularly of 1896–98. It must be remarked, however, that, just as these periodicals reflected mainly the life only of the capital, and that quite exclusively from the Spanish viewpoint, so also they treated political and administrative matters not merely under the constraint of their editors’ notions as to “maintaining Spanish prestige” but also with a censorship in the background, maintained by and for the political and the ecclesiastical authorities.19Down to 1898 the Philippine law of censorship of 1857, modeled on that of Spain in the days of Isabel II, was in force, and it covered the publication of books and pamphlets of all sorts and of newspapers, the importation and sale of books, pictures, etc., and the regulation of theaters.20One will, therefore, look almost in vain in these periodicals prior to 1898 for expressions of the Filipino point of view, or, till the close of 1897, for any frank expression of liberal political views on the part of Spanish editors. The few Manila periodicals started by Filipinos before 1898, usually printed in Spanish and Tagálog, had but an ephemeral existence.21One must look for the expression of Filipino aims and ideas to the periodicals that have been published since 1898; indeed, even the Spanish press of Manila has treated Filipino questions with freedom only since American occupation began.For population statistics, all practical purposes are served by the tables and comparisons of the American census of 1903.22Here one may find also the best data for reconstructing before his eyes the social and economic status of the Philippines and its inhabitants at the close of Spanish rule. The Spanish civil census of 1896 was unfortunately never published, nor completed in some provinces. The civilcensus of 1887, though published in very condensed form, merits attention.23Certain of the more notable statistical works of private individuals will require notice in connection with agriculture, industry, and commerce; here the student may be referred to theBibliographyunder the names of Agustín de la Cavada, J. F. del Pan, and José Jimeno Agius.24
One would welcome an attempt by some one of the more ambitious Filipino writers and students whose attention has been occupied almost exclusively with political controversy to write the social history of his people during this last period of Spanish rule. The materials for such a study, so far as they now exist in print, are very fragmentary, and the work could hardly be well done by any but a resident of the islands during that period. But few references need be given here, and the inquirer must derive most of his information on this line from the numerous books and pamphlets whose object is primarily political questions and from the economic and fiscal tables and studies which shed light upon the general status of the people.
General historical surveys of the period are lacking. Montero y Vidal’s three-volume history comes down only to 1873. And, though it is the best Philippine historical work for reference purposes, it is, after all, hardly more than a chronology of important events and compilation of official orders and projects, touching the life of the people scarcely at all. Thesame author’s work of 1886,El archipiélago filipino, merits attention also in this connection, though primarily it sets forth facts geographical, statistical, etc. The works of Manuel Scheidnagel deserve also citation as those of a Spanish official of long and varied experience in the Philippines, and as shedding, incidentally to the particular subjects which they treat, light upon the conditions of country and people in general.16
The foreigners who traveled in the Philippines during this period, and who have written thereon, were occupied in most cases with scientific pursuits, and have confined themselves mainly to these objects in what they have published. TheLuçon et Palaouan(Paris, 1887) of Alfred Marche touches upon the customs and conditions of the people in its record of six years’ scientific research for the government of France. Edmond Plauchut’s contributions to theRevue des deux mondesfor 1869 and 1877, in lighter vein and perhaps not always accurate, are, like Gironière’s writings of earlier date, interesting as presenting the observations of a resident foreigner. Among the works in English, revised or written since 1898 to meet the demand in the United States for information about the Philippines, Dean C. Worcester’sThe Philippine Islands and their People(New York, 1898), brings us nearest to the life of the people, particularly in the rural districts and regions most remote from modern changing influences. The treatises of the British engineers and experts in tropical agriculture, Frederick H. Sawyer and John Foreman, are written by men who were, naturally, best preparedto discuss the agricultural conditions and the material resources in general of the Philippines. Outside of these matters, except when reciting personal experiences and observations, both are compilers whose reading in Philippine bibliography has been very fragmentary. Foreman in particular has undertaken to cover the entire field of Philippine history and politics, and has, to state the plain truth, made a very bad botch of it. He has been so often quoted in the United States as authority for erroneous statements that it is time to make this fact clear. It is commonly impossible to draw the line in what he has written between fact and gossip, conjecture, or partial truth. His latest edition (1906) contains most of the old glaring errors or even worse omissions, with a full measure of new ones in his recital of the history of events since 1896. Some data contained in Foreman’s book are not readily available to an American student outside of the large libraries; but a caution is to be uttered against relying upon him, even for his recital of fiscal details or for his statistical tables. Sawyer is very much more accurate and reliable, just as he is less pretentious in the program of his work.
In studying the social process of the Filipino people from about 1860 onward, the subject of education holds the first place.17It is, however, unnecessary to occupy ourselves here with the bibliography of the subject, which has been very fully covered inVOLS.XLVandXLVIof this work, the appendices to those volumes giving, in connection with other documentsin this series and with the bibliographical notes, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of education in the Philippines that is yet available in any language.
As we might expect from what has been said, the social life of the Philippines, at least from about 1875, may best be studied in the periodicals of Manila. In this connection it is only necessary to mention Retana’sEl periodismo filipino, which covers the subject down to 1894.La Revista de Filipinas, edited by J. F. del Pan, 1875–77, deserves special mention among the many periodicals of short life. Among those of longer duration may be namedEl Diario de Manila, and also, for the closing years of Spanish rule,La Oceanía Española,La Voz EspañolaandEl Comercio.18One should also consult these Spanish periodicals of Manila for the political history of these years, particularly of 1896–98. It must be remarked, however, that, just as these periodicals reflected mainly the life only of the capital, and that quite exclusively from the Spanish viewpoint, so also they treated political and administrative matters not merely under the constraint of their editors’ notions as to “maintaining Spanish prestige” but also with a censorship in the background, maintained by and for the political and the ecclesiastical authorities.19Down to 1898 the Philippine law of censorship of 1857, modeled on that of Spain in the days of Isabel II, was in force, and it covered the publication of books and pamphlets of all sorts and of newspapers, the importation and sale of books, pictures, etc., and the regulation of theaters.20One will, therefore, look almost in vain in these periodicals prior to 1898 for expressions of the Filipino point of view, or, till the close of 1897, for any frank expression of liberal political views on the part of Spanish editors. The few Manila periodicals started by Filipinos before 1898, usually printed in Spanish and Tagálog, had but an ephemeral existence.21One must look for the expression of Filipino aims and ideas to the periodicals that have been published since 1898; indeed, even the Spanish press of Manila has treated Filipino questions with freedom only since American occupation began.
For population statistics, all practical purposes are served by the tables and comparisons of the American census of 1903.22Here one may find also the best data for reconstructing before his eyes the social and economic status of the Philippines and its inhabitants at the close of Spanish rule. The Spanish civil census of 1896 was unfortunately never published, nor completed in some provinces. The civilcensus of 1887, though published in very condensed form, merits attention.23Certain of the more notable statistical works of private individuals will require notice in connection with agriculture, industry, and commerce; here the student may be referred to theBibliographyunder the names of Agustín de la Cavada, J. F. del Pan, and José Jimeno Agius.24