Rizal’s Retraction Controversy Review Essay

“Rizal’s Retraction Letter: Real or Fake”

History LF101
Mr. Geoffrey Cruz

Fresto, Triszka Noelle Jimenez

11705006
AB-CDA

November 6, 2017

Readings under review:

Reading 1: “Did Rizal Retract from Masonry?”

Reading 2: “The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction”

Reading 3: “Rizal Beyond the Grave”

Reading 4: “Rizal’s Unfading Glory Tested”

1 –––– José Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda, also more recognized as Dr. Jose Rizal,
the known national hero of the islands of the Philippines and Father of the Philippine Nation. He
acquired this notable title because he fought for the country’s freedom through his works – such
as novels, poems, articles, essays, etc. Yet along the outputs of his works, he, Rizal, displeased a
community through the act of Masonry. As it was decided that he’d be sentenced to death, it was
wanted for him to withdraw or retract his masonry that offensively affected the Catholic Church.
A document was then available and said to be a letter of Rizal’s retraction, then people started to
be sceptical about this said document and doubted its authenticity.

Now, the question that circulated to a lot of historians that has not yet to be answered up to
this date is that – was the retraction letter a genuine document that was from Rizal himself or was
it a forgery of another person? This question may or may not be answered through my review but
nonetheless, I will be providing information that will open the minds of my reader to their beliefs
of the genuineness of the document.

There has been a lot of controversies regarding this event that lead to the uncertainty of the
document. In the beginning, when I was not yet educated about this topic, I doubted the facts of
the whole retraction event in general whether if it was real or a sham. But now that I have read a
few passages regarding the retraction, I have thought of the many possibilities of it legitimacy of
the retraction document.

Through the readings that I have read, I have gathered a couple of information that would
suffice the readers to be open-minded about this topic. I will not be able to change the judgement
of the people regarding the question at hand because there is nothing that we can do to change their
mind. But all I can say is that, they can believe whatever they want to believe in towards the
document if it genuine or forged.

The passages have different sort of information about retraction letter that would help
educate its readers about the different controversies about the topic. It is very full of information
and is also detailed that it must be read thoroughly to be able to know the similarities and
differences of the readings supposing for the readings to be related in any way. So, is the document
in fact genuine? Is it from Rizal? Sometimes it is difficult to determine it authenticity because of
the different stories that we read or hear from others. Would the studies that were stated in the
readings be able to guide us through the discussion of assessing the matter in question.
2 –––– There are four readings that was evaluate and whilst reading these passages, it was a
challenging task to tackle since each readings focuses on different topics. Moreover, each readings
discusses similar topics from one another which made it exciting to read.

Going over to our question, whether the retraction letter is a genuine document that was
from Rizal himself or was it a forgery of another person, is it considered an important subject to
address? In my opinion, I do believe that the question at hand is important because we are in the
search for the truth. The truth about the famous controversy of the retraction letter will be essential
to our national history. It will allow the nation to learn more about our national hero and for the
nation to provide the history of the Philippines the fact about this event. Therefore, I must compare
and contrast the differences and similarities between the four paragraphs.

First, the main issue of the controversy is that about if the document was forged. For the
Reading 1, “Did Rizal Retract from Masonry?”, it stated that Roman Roque forged the retraction
letter. Roman Roque is a famous forger that helped other heroes of our country to win over their
enemies. Since, Roque is a forger, it is not impossible that he could have forged the retraction
letter. As it was mentioned in the Reading 3, “Rizal Beyond the Grave”, it says that the document
could have been forged. Even though the examined letters have similarities, but it also has its
differences. These comparison is judged by the handwriting of the writers which had their own
characteristics. The two statements do not assure us of the forgery of the document because it did
not give enough details for us to consider the matter.

Second, there has been people around José Rizal during his imprisonment and as well as
his family. I am more comfortable with that factor that might influence my belief of the truth
because these are real humans who gave their testimonies that they have witnessed Rizal. In
contrary, the negative side is that it may be false testimonies from these people but we wouldn’t
want that to get in our way. It has been said that the retraction document of Rizal was genuine
because of the following: he wanted to be visited by the Society of Jesus, he was married to
Josephine Bracken (another controversy), he was seen praying – etc. These are a few of acts that
could prove genuineness of the document because a true Catholic would not do this if he was
against the Church, its community and the Catholic faith.
 In Reading 2 and 4, “The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction” and “Rizal’s Unfading Glory
Tested”, a few witnesses were stated including the Fathers, his family and official guarding or on
duty during Rizal’s imprisonment. These people said that they witnessed Rizal and firmly believe
on the sincerity of his retraction on his masonry. And what is there to lie about, fame? I do not
think so. So, in both passages, it listed the witnesses and a special mention to Fr. Llacer who strikes
my attention because he was the Father who was with Rizal the night before his execution.

To add in this subject, on Reading 2, “The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction”, the eye
witness of the retraction was a father part of Society of Jesus named Fr. Vicente Balaguer Llacer.
The reading states in a part on how Rizal would profess and express his thoughts and then Llacer
would write it down. So we can assume that Rizal did not write the letter, therefore, I ought to
believe that this information will help later on the other subjects to talk about.

Third, as well as on Reading 2, “The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction”, that Fr. Manuel
Garcia found the retraction document. He was the new archdiocesan archivist and it happens that
the file came across his path and appeared on his hands. This statement was similarly mentioned
as well on Reading 4, “Rizal’s unfading Glory Tested”. In both passages, it says that the document
was to be shown to His Grace and then to Kalaw, a freemason. Garcia then examined and compared
the letter and together with the retraction letter was Rizal’s letters to Josephine. These letters
contain his request for marriage with Bracken and the request will only be granted if he would
write a retraction letter. Surprisingly, it was assumed that José and Josephine was married before
he was killed then it must suggest that he retracted the masonry. Is it the reason why Rizal was
wed with Bracken. As the document was found, it will be available for people to further study the
material and be able to find the answer for the controversy.

Fourth, now that the famed retraction paper has been found and available to be deliberate,
the majority chose to study the handwriting of the letter as it could be compared to Rizal’s other
works. On Reading 1, “Did Rizal Retract from Masonry?”, it was briefly mentioned that the
handwriting will be examined by examiners. On Reading 3, “Rizal Beyond the Grave”, was a
whole reading dedicated on the study of the letter’s handwriting and materials. In which they have
thoroughly studied on its materials and how a Catalan paper was the paper where the letter is
written and that it was 32 cm long. Also, determine the ink colour, slants of the words, signature
and the writing habits of the writer. This help them assess the retraction letter by comparing it to
Rizal’s other handwritten words such as letters.

Every letter has unconscious characteristic and little tricks and curves. These handwriting
were examined by handwriting experts Professor H. Otley Beyer and Dr. Jose I. Del Rosario. The
letters were examined carefully like on Reading 3, the letter “C” has a vertical syster, letter “D”
for “Diocesano” and “Diciembre” had a downward stroke while “Dios” had an arc tail and letter
“A” for “Abomino” was angular and had upward stroke while “Autoridad” was rounded. As for
in Reading 2, Del Rosario said that there was different characteristic and slopes for the capital
letters “D,J,R,I,P,V,S,C,M,D” and small letters “h,d,r,o,g,p,j,a” yet it was not detailed. Then, does
this study help us determine the authenticity of the letter through the handwriting whether if it was
Rizal who wrote it or not. Possibly. Through comparison with other documents, it was stated that
it was found similar to one another.

Lastly, the Very Reverend Pio Pi y Vidal was the Father Superior of the Archbishop Palace.
He was known as the one who formulated the retraction letter for Rizal. Reading 2 and 4 partly
talked about when Fr. Llacer brought back to Rizal the letter Pio Pi wrote and as well as the letter
from the Prelate. Rizal described the Prelate’s letter to be not similar to his writing and Fr. Pi’s
letter was supposed to be as simple as his own. Rizal must have obtained ideas from the formulate
letter or the formulated letter was actual retraction letter of Rizal and it could have just been signed
by him. A lot of possibilities could come through the way and this could be one possibility to be
considered.

Thus, it is really difficult to determine and pick up information for what is the truth. Then,
was our question answered – was the retraction letter a genuine document that was from Rizal
himself or was it a forgery of another person? The topic at hand would not wholly rely on these
subjects because there are still a whole lot more of factors that we must acknowledge and consider.
We could not base and tell the “truth” without the facts and those facts must be properly studied
by professionals. It is difficult to say if the letter was fake or real. One moment you would be
convinced that it could be fake in any way then next you’d be certain it was real. And that just
points out that History can be confusing and will continue be confusing but why is that? It’s
because there are different sources, just the the readings that was reviewed, they were all from
different sources and information changes or differs depending on the sources.
3 ––– In my opinion, even though there has been a lot of versions of stories concerning the
retraction document, for if it was real or fake and if it was genuine or forged, the belief that the
people would believe in is what they should stick at. These passages would help aware the people
of the chances of finding out the truth. For Reading 1, “Did Rizal Retract from Masonry?”, it was
a short reading compared to the others but it gave out pieces of information that give ideas to the
readers about what happened to Rizal.

I like the fact that there were handwriting examiners who studied the handwriting of the
letters to prove the authenticity of the documents but for me, I do not think that this kind of
technique would work to convince the people because of the variability of handwritings. Just like
me, my handwriting varies depending on my mood and on the pen I use. It even changes through
time as I get older as well as as simple when we write so much at a time and get tired after some
time. So the study of handwriting is not really approved to clarify the authenticity of one’s work.

I ought to affirm the beliefs of the people because these subject at the matter are not
clarified to us. The issue of the retraction document still remains as a puzzle to the people.

In my own perspective, I do not mind whether the document was genuine or fake but what
I believe in is that José Rizal was a Catholic, born and raised as it is even around fathers, so I
would not doubt his faith to the religion. A man can decide on what ever he wants to believe in.
As long as he believes to himself that he still is a Catholic who practices the beliefs of the religion
then he still one with the Church. He may have joined the masonry but it was to spread the
betterment of the society and he did it in good conscience. The Englishmen he knew from masonry
were good men and I do not presume that he did it against the Philippines nation. So, if ever Rizal
retracted to masonry, it must have been real because I still strongly prefer the testimonies of the
witnesses. As they said they actually saw Rizal write it because they were there and saw him or
wrote it together with them makes me believe that it was true. There were witnesses who saw Rizal
prayed and a person who was accused of withdrawing from church wouldn’t do that if he doesn’t
have faith anymore, yet Rizal did pray. If the thoughts and desire of a person is true to his religion,
he does not need any documents to prove that. Yet the people wanted a letter from Rizal probably
to not ruined their pride
 Rizal was just another human being who wanted to express his thoughts but a few were
affected by it because of the possibility of guilt. Yet, I’d still like to believe that his works was to
warn the society of the immoral upbringings of the Spanish government. We have to understand
that he did it to share his talents and knowledge the mind of the people about what was occurring
during the era.

Along as I was writing my review, I came across to the thought of what so important for
the people for Rizal to write a retraction paper. For Rizal was a Catholic, did it affected the Church
that much that they convincing him to write one, were they guilty that they want to show proof to
people that was Rizal said about them was not true. Then there were more questions of – why was
the document brought after years? Why did the people make a big issue out of it? It led to the
unending controversy of the retraction letter that is still unanswered up to this date. I would also
like to find out what is it in for the people if the retraction letter was composed.

In conclusion, there are many factors and subjects that can tackled but not be able to answer
the question set for the essay. But what I want others to keep in mind that we have to be
understanding and considerate of the actions of other people because they could mean so much
things from different thought and experiences. In the end, Rizal is just also another person of the
earth who wanted to be loved and share his knowledge to others.