Convicted and fined

THOSE who are interested in Philippine art and collectible items should get the latest issue of the glossy quarterly from Hong Kong, "Arts of Asia" (Vol. 34, No. 3, May-June 2004). Every now and then the magazine comes out with special issues on specific themes, ranging from exhibitions of Asian art in European museums to issues that give the latest on Ming ceramics, to Japanese miniature sculptures in ivory or netsuke.

In the past two decades, there have been special issues devoted to the Philippines, with the latest carrying an illustrated survey of the magnificent Paulino Que Collection of Philippine Paintings. It also carries a definitive and readable article on Philippine postal stamps reflective of Philippine history by Paulino's younger brother Mario Que. For those with more esoteric tastes, the issue carries a review of the Muller Collection of Chinese Ceramics at the Baur Museum by Rita C. Tan, an authority on the subject and former president of the Oriental Ceramic Society of the Philippines. A lengthy survey article on Juan Luna and his art by Ramon Villegas caps this issue that promises to soon be a collector's item.

One can only wish that a future issue would cover new ground like Philippine contemporary art or even lesser known 19th-century painters who have been eclipsed by Juan Luna and Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo. With the record auction prices paid for Philippine paintings at past auctions in Sotheby's and Christie's, the names Luna, Hidalgo, Fernando Amorsolo, Anita Magsaysay-Ho, Vicente Manansala, Arturo Luz and Bencab, already blue-chip investments in the Philippines, have found a new and international market.

A decade ago, one would have wondered what a wealthy non-Filipino collector would do with Philippine art. Today the better question should be, why not? The controversial purchase by the Government Service Insurance System of Luna's 1892 "Parisian Life" has made international collectors take a second look at Philippine paintings. While some people, fearing flight of cultural treasures, insist this is not good for us, it is good for Filipino artists to get international recognition and value for works that often remain unappreciated in their own country.

The only item I disagree with in the present "Arts of Asia" issue on the Philippines is a small but important part of the Juan Luna story that remains confused to this day. The editorial states: "In 1892, in a jealous rage, after wounding his brother-in-law, Juan Luna accidentally shot and killed mother-in-law- and wife." In the article by Ramon Villegas, we read:

"Luna discovered what appeared to be proof of his wife's infidelity. In a rage, in September 22nd, 1892, Luna fired at and wounded his brother-in-law Felix. He shot at a closed bedroom door, behind which his mother-in-law and his wife were huddled, killing them. He was charged with murder... But Luna was acquitted by the French court after a day's session, on February 7th, 1893 on grounds of temporary insanity and the 'unwritten law' which permitted a husband to kill an adulterous wife ... Luna was only made to pay the court the sum of forty francs for documentary stamps."

Such is the story that makes the rounds these days that is so far from the historical documentation that has been dug up in recent years. I don't know where the above story originated, but the version of the prosecution and the police report state that Luna entered the bathroom that the women had forgotten to lock, or maybe he managed to enter from another door, and he shot both in the head at close range, killing his mother-in-law on the spot. His wife died in a hospital a few days later.

There was more than one court session and unfortunately we have no record of the hearings, because the Paris Justice Department burned in 1977. The final court decision handed down in February 1893 is extant, but nobody seems to be reading it. Everyone wants to believe that Luna was acquitted, but the document proves this false. Contrary to popular belief, Luna was not acquitted. He was a convicted murderer, but for the French this was a sensational "crime of passion."

Luna paid Trinidad and Felix Pardo de Tavera one symbolic French franc for causing them a loss for which reparation was due. This was but interest on damages. A reading of the court decision shows that Luna was condemned to pay court costs amounting to 1,651 francs and 83 centimes plus 25 francs for postage (or was this for documentary stamps?).

If Luna was acquitted, why was he made to pay court costs? Luna was indeed convicted for murder, but this being a crime of passion, he got off lightly.

I have yet to complete my research on this to understand this unusual part of 19th-century French law, but it would probably be safe to assume that Luna's departure from Paris was part of the deal. I discussed the court decision with two former French ambassadors to the Philippines, Samuel le Carruyer de Beauvais and Gilles Chouraqui, and both gave a layman's interpretation. The present ambassador, Renee Veyret, being a woman interested in human rights, will surely provide a different perspective on the Luna trial.

This is a sordid part of the Luna story that should be politely swept under the rug. But with documentary evidence available, a re-evaluation of what we know is essential to rewrite history.

Comments are welcome at aocampo@ateneo.edu