A historical analysis of the Philippine revolution : a critical approach to history as simplicity / Manuel F. Martinez.

one was for vertical elevation in character, the other for onrushing forward movement to freedom. And where Rizal was celebral and sublime, Bonifacio was robust and elemental. One was philosophy in -depth and the other poetry incarnate. Rizal was ruminatory, governed by the mind, even though physically active. Bonifacio was sanguine, driven by impulse, and yet also full of thought. Rizal argued for the power of collective virtue, Bonifacio for the virtue of collective power. One was rational before being heroic, the other heroic before being rational...

Excepts from what this book says about Rizal and Bonifacio: Rizal was a world-class genius who strode our historical landscape like a benign colossus, while Bonifacio was the crucible of elemental fire in a sea of glacial submission. If Rizal was the agile Mozart of our people's communal sonatas, Bonifacio was the Revolution's thundering Beethoven. It is no accident or inanity that the monuments of Rizal are static and serene while those of Bonifacio are dynamic and surging. The representation is apt in both cases. Rizal stood for peace, Bonifacio for war