HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Knowing the facts is the first requirement in constructing arguments, but
the focus is on issues and interpretations, particularly in drawing conclusions
about events. In analyzing historical events, it is imperative to understand what
motivated people to act as they did. Historical context describes the condition
and situation (including social, religious, economic, and political) that occurred
during a time and place.It gives significance to details. It is the setting in which
an event occurred. Context enables interpretation and thorough scrutiny of
works or events of the past, rather than simply evaluating them using the
standards of that period. Any time critical analysis is required, historical
context is needed. It helps people understand what inspired certain behavior
during a time in history. Because what may seem irrational or even offensive to present-day
standards can be fully appreciated or understood only by taking into consideration the era it is
from.
An event, an issue, or a document, should never be looked at without placing it in its
context. Let us take the retraction of Rizal as one case in point. Most historians would agree that
it is one of the most contentious historical issues of all time. The story of the retraction has been
told and retold and has created tremendous ambiguities in Philippine history on the credence of
the national hero. There were varying opinions and different historians have proposed different
explanations. And those opinions and explanations bring about more questions. There were
doubts on Rizal’s character. Some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature
beliefs and personality. Others argue that Rizal was fickle-minded and was in fact prone to
stumble. Some others believe that Rizal retracted because he wanted to be at peace when he died.
To get to the bottom of the retraction issue, to better understand its urgency, its impact, or
even its timing, verifiable facts must be examined thoroughly. This includes historical sources,
eye witness accounts, and events that transpired after the retraction itself. Without examining the
context, this part of our history would be just meaningless collection of dates and names of little
or no informative value.
Jose Rizal’s Retraction Controversy
The retraction controversy started when a certain archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel
Garcia, C.M. discovered the “original" text containing the so-called retraction formula in the
archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, 39 years after Rizal’s execution. Fr. Garcia discovered a
bundle entitled Masoneria, the retraction and other documents of many Filipino Freemasons and
heroes. He then called Archbishop O’Doherty who later obtained the opinion of the then
President M. Quezon, the director of the National Library; Teodoro Kalaw, the editor of the
Herald; Carlos P. Romulo, the Anthropology professor and curator of UP Museum; Prof. H.Otley
Beyer and a handwriting expert; Dr. Jose del Rosario.
Garcia (1964) cited the retraction in Spanish text:
“Me declarocatolico y enesta Religion en que me naci y me
enduquequierovivir y morir. Me retracto de todo Corazon de cuantoenmis
palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habidocontrario a mi calidad de
hijo de la YglesiaCatolica. Abomino de la Masoneria, comoenemiga que es
de la Yglesia, y como Sociedad prohibidapor la Yglesia. Puede el Prelado
Diocesano, comoAutoridad Superior Eclesiastica hacer publica esta
manifestaciones ponteneamia para reparar el escandalo que mis actos
hayan podido causar y para que Dios y loshumbres me perdonan.” (p.39)
As translated in the English language:
"I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated
I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,
publications and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic
Church. I abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same
Church. The Diocesan Prelate as the superior ecclesiastical authority may make public
my spontaneous manifestation to repair the scandal that my actions may have caused and
so that God and the humble may forgive me”
Opinion varies from all walks of life, even the views of notable historians differ about the
controversy. Several well-known historians like León María Guerrero III, Nick
Joaquin, Gregorio Zaide and Ambeth Ocampo have affirmed the authenticity of Rizal’s
retraction. They concluded that the retraction document had been evaluated carefully by notable
specialists on the writings of Rizal (this include Teodoro Kalaw, Prof. H. Otley Beyer and Dr.
José I. Del Rosario) and it was indeed written by the National Hero himself, after comparing it
with other relevant documents, including the manuscript of his farewell addressed to his mother,
and numerous letters found in the archives of the Filipiniana Division of the National Library.
The points below are significant proofs that validate the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction:
The Retraction Formula
Father Pio Pi Y Vidal, Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines in 1896,
published a detailed account in 1909 La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor
Rizal and confirmed his account in a Notarial Act signed in Barcelona,
April 7, 1917.
In summary, the Jesuit version was this: On December 28 (the very day Governor
General Polaviéja ordered the death sentence) Archbishop Nozaleda appointed the Jesuits
to the spiritual care of Rizal, implying retraction and suggested that both he and Father Pi
prepare a retraction “formula.”
They were closely associated with the events who saw him wrote the retraction,
signed a Catholic prayer book, recited Catholic prayers, and kiss the crucifix before his
execution. The primary eyewitness was Fr. Balaguer Llacer. S.J., the Jesuit priest who
claimed to have secured Rizal’s Retraction
Likewise, there were additional details believed to be significant in proving the retraction:
What Rizal wrote on the copy of "Imitations of Christ"
Recently, a copy of "De La Imitacion de Cristo" written by Thomas á Kempis was given
to the Director of the National Museum of the Philippines, Jeremy Barns. It was the same copy
given by Rizal to Josephine Bracken on her last visit before his death. There he wrote, "To my
dear and unhappy wife, Josephine, December 30th, 1896, Jose Rizal. Aside from the fact that he
called Josephine his "wife" or spouse (that may regard the legality of their marriage), the exact
book he gave to the last woman he loved was a book about the path of Christ.
Mentions about the "cross" in his final writings
The Cross is the universal symbol for Christianit and two of Rizal's writings before his
death spoke about the symbol. First was in his final instructions to his family that was not
received (by the family) till 1953(the letter was part of the donation of the Spanish Foreign
Minister Alberto Martinez y Alvarez Artajo to the government of the Philippines). The second
was found in his last poem, where he mentioned the marker cross on his grave twice.
If one is to ponder deeply onto the circumstantial evidences specified above, you might
believe that Rizal desired a Christian burial and wanted to die a Catholic.
On the contrary, notable personalities have doubted and questioned the authenticity and
genuineness of the retraction document. British writer Austin Coates was very vocal about his
contention, including the former director of the National Archives, Ricardo Manapat, and the
former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason, Rafael Palma.
Theystrongly believed that the retraction document was a fraud.
On the other hand, there are reasonable grounds to
question the Retraction Document:
The Retraction letter is not authentic.
Four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The first
text was published in La Voz Española and Diario de
Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30,
1896. The second text appeared in El Imparcial on the day
after Rizal’s execution; it is the shortest version of the retraction. The third text appeared in
Barcelona, Spain, on February 14,1897, in the monthly magazine in La Juventud; it came from
an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer.
The "original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it
disappeared for 39 years from the day Rizal died. Reproductions of the lost original text had
been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact was revealed by Fr.
Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had
received an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal.
Undocumented Marriage to Josephine Bracken
Dr. Jose Rizal paid tribute to Josephine Bracken in his unsigned and untitled poem which
we now refer to as his “Ultimo Adios”: “Adios, dulce extranjera mi amiga, mi alegria…”
Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S. J., claimed that he performed the marriage between 6:00 – 6:15
am of December 30, 1896 in the presence of one of the Rizal sisters. However, Dr. Rizal’s
family denied that any of the Rizal sisters were there that momentous morning. Dr. Rizal died at
7:03 am.
Josephine eventually left for Hong Kong in May 1897 upon the advice of the American
consul in Manila. After his foster father’s death, she married a mestizo from Cebu named Vicente
Abad. In Josephine Bracken’s matrimony to Abad, the Church Register of Marriages in Hong
Kong made no reference that Josephine was a “Rizal” by marriage, or that she was the widow of
Dr. Jose Rizal.
Unconfessed and Unrepentant Burial
Granting a proper Catholic burial is a sign that a person has returned to the Roman
Church. Jose Rizal’s burial intensified doubts on the veracity of his retraction. To begin with, at
the Paco Cemetery, the name of Dr. Jose Rizal was listed among those who died unrepentant.
The entry made in the book of burials at the cemetery where Rizal was buried was not made on
the page for those buried on December 30, 1896 (where there were as many as six entries), but
on a separate page, as ordered by the authorities. Thus, Dr. Jose Rizal was entered on a page
between a man who was burned to death, and another who died by suicide – persons considered
“un-confessed”, unrepentant and without spiritual aid. Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose
Vilaclara, S.J. (who had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the execution site) could have ordered a
Christian burial, but he did not. Dr. Jose Rizal died without a sack, without a coffin and
un-confessed.
Lastly, the Rizal family was informed by the church that eleven days after the execution,
a mass for Dr. Rizal would be offered, after which the letter of retraction would be shown to
them. The Rizal family was in attendance, however, no mass was celebrated and no letter of
retraction was shown.
Contribution of JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION CONTROVERSY in Understanding the Grand
Narrative Of Philippine History
References / Further Reading
Ricardo P. Garcia, The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction (pp 9-19;31-43)
Jesus Ma. Cavanna, Rizals Unfading Glory (pp,1-52)
Ricardo R. Pascual, Rizal Beyond the Grave(pp7-36)
