8 THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTICN The question that I should like to ask is this: Tf Rival bad wanted to retract in Dapitan in 1895 when death was not at hand “in order to avoid public scandal, and out of respect for the custom of the peopie,” was there any compelling reason why he would not do .go a few hours before his execu- the same at Fort Santi tion?/ The answer is obvious! On December 26, 1896, Rizal was accused and tried before a military tribunal for the alleged crimes of rebellion, sedition, and illegal association. The prosecutor and the defense finished presenting their arguments that morning, and the sentence of death was pronounced that same morning. Two days after, on December 28, to be exact, the Governor General affirmed the death sentence and set the execution of Rizal on December 30, at 7:00 o'clock in the morning. ‘The death sentence was read to Rizal early in the mom- ing of December 29. Now we come to the most intriguing part of Rizal’s lie — the ast. 24 hours of his stay at Fort Santiago. What actually happened inside that infamous fort from December 29 to 6:30 in the morning of De- cember 30, 1896, is the. main issue before us. I will try to prove the following: 1, That Rizal retracted his masonic. affiliation. 2. Thet he himself wrote down and signed his re- traction, . 3. That he and Josephine were married. EYEWITNESSES will prove my points by the testimonies of eye- witnesses who were privy to what had happened in Rizal’s cell at Fort Santiago from early in the morn- ing of December 29 to 6:30 in the morning of December 30, 1896. ‘My first eyewitness is Fr. Vicente Balaguer Lt: who, in the notarial act sworn to by him in’ Murci: Spain, August 8, 1917, deposes and says in part® That, after Rizal was condemned to death, when the ckaplain of the Royal Fort Santiago, where the convict was, offered his services for so sad circum- stances, the prisoner told him that he appreciated his offering, but that he desired rather to be visited by the Fathers of the Society of Jesus by whom he hac been educated. When he made this request, the Rev. Father Superior, Father Pi, in compliance with the commission of His Grace, the Archbishop, had aiready sent Father Saderra, Rector of the Ateneo, and Father Luis Viza to the Fort. When these Fathers entered the Fort that moming of December 29, 1896, Rizal received them with signs of affection, and asked them whether some of those who had been his professors were still there in Ateneo. 3 Jesut Ma Cavanna y Manson, Rizal's Unfading Glory, pp. 6-10. 910 THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION ‘They told him that Father Vilaclara only, who had returned to Manila, a few days before, remained. ‘They told him that I was also in Manila, and he asked that I go also, since I had been. .. a Mission- ary in Dapitan, where he dealt with me as a friend He wes a very polite gentleman, and even friendly towards me. Let us pause here for a moment to consider the significance of the statement: “.. . when the chaplain of the Royal Fort Santiago, where the conuict was, of- fered his services for so sad circumstances, the prisoner told him that he appreciated his offering, but that he desired rather to be visited by the Fathers of the Society of Jesus by whom he had/been educated.” We all know that the Jesuit fathers-had been much interested in Rizal’s retraction since his Dapitan days. They had sent Father Sanchez, Rizal’s favorite profes- sor, to Dapitan to persuade him to retract. Father Pas- tells had exchanged several long letters with Rizal for the same purpose. If Rizal was really against the re- traction, why did he ask for the same retraction-minded Jesuits to visit him knowing that they would persuade hima with more vigor since he had only one day to live? Viewing this objectively, I am more inclined to believe that Rizal was interested in discussing further the pro and the con of his retraction with his friends, the Jesuits. Therefore, the probability of his retraction gt Fort San- tiago was indeed great when he invited the Jesuits to visit him. As a matter of fact, Rizal had decided to retract on December 29. When his sister Maria visited ‘him at Fort Santiago on that day to bade him farewell, he told her: “Maria, I am going to marry Josephine.” (See p. 124.) i EYEWITNESSES . u Father Balaguer continues At about ten o'clock in the morning, Father Vilaclara poe to Fort Santiago, where the chapel cell of the convict was. He received us with great affection and embraced us. I think it convenient to point out that, when the Archbishop sent his commission to the Ateneo, he remarked that, in case of conversion, before ministering the Sacraments to him, Dr. Rizal should make a re- traction of errors publicly professed by him in words and writings, and a profession of the Catholic To this effect, when the Father Superior of the Mission went to the Archbishop's Palace, he brought by way of precaution a retraction and profession of faith, concise, but including what he thought ought to be exacted from Dr. Rizal. The Prelate read it, and declared it to be sufficient. He said, however, that he would prepare or order to be prepared a more extensive one. __ Before going to the Fort, I went to the Palace in order to receive orders ‘and instructions from the Frelate. The Archbishop gave me the formula of retraction and profession of faith, composed by Rev, Father Pio Pi, He told me to wait for the other more extensive one, and to present to the convict cither of them, according to his personal disposition. At any rate, it was enough to admit the shorter and concise formula of Father Pi, since His Grace considered it sufficient in order to ad- minister the Holy Sacraments to him. __ Therefore, when we, the two Fathers, met him in the chapel, after exchanging greetings with him and talking on various matters, I, who knew the history and errors contained in his books, in order to fulfill our delicate mission, asked Rizal to give an explanation of his ideas on religion. At the outset he appeared a Protestant, because of cer- tain phrases manifesting love and respect for JesusTHE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION Ghrist. Nay, he came to say more or less explicitly that ‘his rule of faith was the word of God con- tained in the Sacred Scriptures. I tried to make him see how false and indefensible such p criterion was, inesmuch as without the authority of the Church he could not be sure of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures or of the books truly re- vealed by God; how absolutely impossible it is for the individual reason to interpret at his will the word of God. Then he declared himself openly a rationalist or freethinker, unwilling to admit any other criterion of truth than individual reason. I then pointed out to him the absurdity of ra- tionelism for the lack of instruction of the immense majority of humankind, and for the absurd and monstrous errors professed by the greatest sages of paganism, I tried to convince him with irrefutable arguments that there is not, nor can there be, a more rational criterion than supernatural faith and divine revelation, warranted by the infallible au- thority of the Church; that such is the clear testi- mony of reason, history and the motives of credibility offered with evidence by the Church. Constrained by these invincible arguments, he came to say to me that he was guided by the reason God had given him, adding with a self-possession that curdled my blooc, that he was going to appear thus before the tribunal of God, with a clear conscience for having fulfilled his duty as a rational man. When attacked him with the arguments of Catholic doc- trine, he began to expound the objections of the heretics and rationalists, a thousand times refuted already. We had to discuss the criterion or rule of faith, the authority of the Church, her infallibility and divine teaching authority, the power of working miracles, the death penalty (a subject of so bum- ferest in those moments), the death of ing ‘EYEWITNESSES 18 ‘Ananias ‘and Sapphira, the Holy Scriptures, the Vulgate, Saint Jerome’s version, that of LXX, Pur- gatory, the’ variations of the Protestant Churches, the'arguments of Balmes against them,’ the worship of Saints, and especially the extension of Redemption, and many other objections of apologetics, a thou- sand times refuted with irresistible arguments. When T attacked: him with the logic and evidence of Cath- olic truth, T told him with energy that if he did not yield his mind and his reason for the sake of faith, he would surely be damned. Upon hearing this threat, tears gushed from his eyes, and he said: “No, E will not damn myself.” “Yes,” — I replied, — “you will go to hell, for, whether you like it or not, EXTRA ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM NULLA DATUR SALUS. Yes; out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but one. As such, truth is uncompromising in all orders, and much more so in the religious order, which is the most trans- cendental.” ‘A€ected. by this reproach he. said: — “Look here, Father: if to please Your Reverence I would say yes to everything and would sign everything you Present to me without meaning it, I would be a hypecrité and would offend God.” “Certainly,” — T told him — “and we don’t want that. But believe me that it is a grief with- out equal to see a beloved person obstinate in error, and to see that person about to be damned and to be unable to prevent it. You take pride in being a sincere man; so, believé us that if by giving our blood ard our lives, we could achieve the salvation of: your soul, right now, we would give ‘our Lives aiid-offeréurselves to be shot in Tew of you.” “But Father,” — he replied with regret — “what would yourhave me do,'since it seems that I cannot, dominate my reason?”1d THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION “Cifer,” — I answered, — “offer|to God the sacrifice of your self-love. Even if it be against the voice of your reason, ask God the grace of faith, which is a gift that God bestows abundantly and is obtained infallibly by humble and_ persevering prayer Only on your part, you should not reject it” “Well then, Father,” — he said — “I promise you that I will spend the time that still remains of my life, asking God for the grace of faith.” “Take a rest, then,” —- I told him, — “and ponder over what we have talked about. Have recours: to the Lord, trusting the infallible ef- ficacy of prayer. Man’s heart isin the hands of God.” » Then. I went to the Ateneo, and thence I wert with Father Viza to itie-Palace. There I reported on the-condition of the convict, who offered some hope for conversion, since he had asked for the formula of retraction. Hence, I re- quested the Prelate for the formula he had prom- ised, arcd-he told me that it was not yet finished. Soon-hé would send it to me. t was already night when I arrived at the Fort. I found Dr. Rizal impatient. He asked for the formula of the Prelate. ‘This came at last, at about ten o'clock;, upon knowing it, the convict ‘aske’ me for ‘t insistently. Without letting me read ‘it first, he called and asked me to read it to him. Both of us sat at a desk, where there was station- ery and began to read it Upon hearing the first paragraph, he told me: “Father, do not proceed. That style is different from mine. cannot sign hat, because it should be understood that I am writing it myself.” I brought out then the shorter and more con- cise formula of Father Pi, I read the first para- EYEWITNESSES 15 graph and he said to me: “That style is as simple asmine. Don’t bother, Father, to read it all. Dic- tate what I ought to profess or express, and I shall write, making in any case some remarks.” And thus it was done. As I suggested the idea, hhe proceeded to write with steady hand and clear letters, making at times some observation or add- ing some phrase, Certainly, after the discussion, Dr. Rizal was yielding to the impulse of grace, since he had retired into himself and prayed as he had promised. Thus he appeared to be while writing his retraction, At the beginning, the formula stated: “I de- clare myself a Catholic and in this religion I wish to live and die.” Dr. Rizal told me: “Please, add” (and he was already writing, after the’ word religion”): “in which I was born and educated.” as if he wished to make his Catholic education known, I continued reading, He continued assenting and writing with some brief indication of his own, and an explanation on my part. He assented then, and admitted everything expressed in the formula. When we came to the paragraph where Masonry was detested, he showed some resistance to sub- scribe this sentence of the formula: “I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church.” He gave me this reason. He said that he had known Masons who were very bad; but those with whom he had been acquainted in London were businessmen and seemed to be good persons. It seemed also that he meant to say that the kind of Masonry in the Philippines did not require the abjuration of the Catholic faith, although I am not quite sure of this. Anyhow, it seems that Dr. Rizal was admitted, at all events, into some of the first degrees only, in which the members are not, obliged to abjure the faith, explicitly. After some16 THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION observations, he himself proposed to write and to sign, as he did, this formula: “I abominate Ma- sonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same * Church.” And in this way he wrote it. I continued reading, and he continued assent- ing, with some little observations. So, for instance, it was said at the end: “The Diocesan Prelate may” . and he wanted to add “as the superior ecclesiastical authority, make public this my manifestation.” At the words “my mani- festation” he asked me to allow him to|add “spon- taneous and voluntary,” and he told me then with great asseveration: “Because, believe me, Father. I am doing this heartily; otherwise, I would not do it.” “Well then,” I told him, “you-may-put_spon- taneous and it is enough.” HE finished the writing, a ‘ and thus it remained. It (vas-half past eleven; it was dated December the {wenty-ninth. ~~ This declaration or retraction was signed to- gether with Dr. Rizal by Sefior Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Sefior Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza Finally, I declare and affirm that, a little before Rizal came out from the chapel, I left in the com- pany of Josephine Bracken and a sister of Rizal, from whom, after a while, I departed. Twas bring: ing with me Rizal's own handwritten’ retraction signed by him and by the witnesses, Before Rizal reached Bagumbayan, I went to the Ateneo and delivered the aforementioned document to Father Pio Pi, who that very day brought it to the Palace and handed it to Archbishop Nozaieda. His Grace entrusted it to his Secretary, Reverend Tomas Gon- zales Feijéc, who kept it in the Secretary's Office, in the chest of reserved documents, This last fact +The word same i not found in the Rizal retraction) Father Belo ier must fave confused the formula of Father Pi with the retraction of EYEWITNESSES it I know through the testimony of His Grace, the ‘Most Reverend Bernardo Nozaleda, and of his Sec- retary. The other things I have declared I know as an eyewitness and because I personally took part in the said events. My second eyewitness is 2 former Lieutenant of the infantry who made the following affidavit: DECLARACION JURADA® “Yo, el abajo firmante, MARIANO MAR- TINEZ GALLEGOS Y LASALA, mayor de edad, filipino, casado y residente en la Ciudad Quezon, declaro y hago constar los siguientes particulares: A fines de diciembre de mil ochocientos noventa y seis, y ya desde el ocho de diciembre del afio enterior, me encontraba yo en Manila, graduado @ la “REAL ACADEMIA MILITAR” con el rango de Primer Teniente, y estacionado en la Real Fuerza de Santiago, prestando servicio en uno de los Fiquetes como ayudante cel comandante Eloy Moure. El dia veintinueve del expresado mes de diciem- bre de mil ochocientos noventa y seis cuando se le ley6 al Doctor Rizal Ia sentencia de muerte est’- bamos presentes, ademés del capellin de artillerfa y de los comandantes Fresno y Moure, sus dos ayu- dantes, el teniente de artilleria, Martin, y el com- pareciente que era teniente de infanteria, Gallegos. Desde aquella hora ambos tenientes Martin y Gallegos estuvimos de guardia todo el tiempo que Rizal estuve en capilla, acompafiandole despues a Bagumbayan hasta que se entreg6 su cadaver para ser evado al cementerio de Paco. Estaban tam- ien de centinelas en el Fuerte Santiago otros tres soldados del cuerpo de artilleria, pero éstos se rele- vaban de seis en seis horas. Yo, en cambio, pude 5 Gavanna, pp. 257-58.18 TH2 GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL) RETRACTION ver y oir la mayor parte de los hechos que ocurrieron en las veinticuatro ultimas horas del Doctor Rizal; y sin vacilacién afirino que presencié su conversion a Ia fé catdlica y las pruebas evidentes que dié de ello. Y la fin de evitar cualquier reparo que en lo futuro se pueda suscitar contra mi testimonio, deseo se haga constar por modo auténtico y fidedigno los siguientes hechos de los que yo fui testigo de vista por estar presente cuando tavieron lugar: V"EI Dr. José Rizal escribié y firmo un docu- mento de retractacién y profesion de fe catélica, que firmaron tambien los oficiales Fresno y Moure como testigos. 2’—Rizal ley6 de rodillas, en voz alta, su ab- juracion y profesién de {é catélica, asi como los actos de fé, esperanza y caridad contenidos en un devocionario. 3’—Rizal se confes6 varias veces, oy6 dos Misas y recibié la sagrada comunién con edificante piedad. 4#—Rizal se cas6 canonicamente con Josefina Bracken, 5*Rizal recibié el escapulario de la Inmacu- lada, rez6 el rosario, repetia las jaculatorias que el sugerian, bes l2 imagen del Sagrado Corazén de Jesus, antes de salir de la Fuerza de Santiago, y el crucifijo antes de morir; de manera que no dej6 lugar a dudas sobre la sinceriddd de su con- versién.” EN TESTIMONIO DE LA CUAL, firmo el presente documento en Manila, Filipinas, hoy a 29 de Julio de 1952. (Sap.) MARIANO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS Y LASALA EYEWITNESSES 19 REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS ) 5 CIUDAD DE MANILA ys SUSGRITO Y. JURADO ante mi hoy a 29 de Julio de 1952, por Don Mariano Gallegos y Lasala con Certi- ficado de Residencia No. A-4797518 expedido en Ciudad Quezon el dia 28 de Abril de 1952 y no exhibe certi- ficado de clase B alegando estar exento de semejante impuesto. (Sep.) ENRIQUE RAMIREZ Notario Publico Hasta Diciembre 31, 1952. Doc. No. 496 Pag. No. 84 Lib. No. 22 Serie de 1952:THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION 1e Cabrera, exy of Gi is heads in pious prayers for the: s The two priests bowed THE BEST EVIDENCE FEAPNALLY, let ws come to the best evidence of all~ the document of retraction itself. On how it was found, let us give Fr. Manuel A. Gracia * a hearing In April, 1935, I was appointed the archdio- cesan archivist, a position which I held until two years ago. Assuredly, the archdiocesan archives are the richest in the Philippines. In 1933, these archives were piled up on a few shelves, To look for a document there was some- what like trying to find a needle in a haystack I know that by years of personal experience. No wonder, then, that when the controversy on Rizal's retraction arose, it was practically and physically impossible to find the precious document. Some attempts were made but with no results. And Freemasonry kept asking repeatedly for the docu- ment. There was no trace of the document. But the document existed.as was claimed by a thousand and one person who had seen it Again, back in 1935. In our new fire-proof VAULT, the muchachos and clerks of the Arch- bishop’s House and Office made a perfect mound of papers. I began my work, the silent and patient work of an archivist. Eight big new 3182 {UE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION shelves of narra were ordered uppn which the papers were to be put in order. One paper after Paprrer began to be caressed by my hands which ineiy what treasures the Church of the Philip- pines had in them. The pity is that even wie Petlay there has been no Filipino interested enough wo work exhaustively at the history of the Church ee eecountry. In my career as an archivist, T ied to train some serninarians, and they did wel. T hope that in the future these my pupils will give te ak least one genuine historian of the Church in the Philippines. May. 18, 1935. ‘The tedious, work continued, giving t0 me aew surprises. As other papers passed gee by one through my hands, a bundle entitled “Maseneria” was in sight. I knew what that memis_-A BUNDLE OF JEWELS FOR FILL PINO HISTORY. The retraction and other documents of so many Filipino Freemasons and heroes who came back co the bosom of Mother Church, were in my hands. I was well acquaint: ed with all those names; for I was a professor of History in Manila Seminary. My whole being exalted at what I saw. I Kept them carefully. T called His Grace by Long Distance. He was in Baguio atthe time, He ordered mic to see him. ‘The next day, His Grace saw all the papers and ordered me to keep the whole matter secret until further notice. His Grace, Monsignor O'Doherty, and the late President Quezon were close friends. M. Quezon had retracted Masonry in 1930. His Grace called Quezon to his Palace; and handed to him the Brecious bundle of papers. “Oh, my!” exclaimed Quezon on secing them. “Your Grace, I think that these papers should be shown to Teodoro Kalaw.” And they agreed to call the Director of the National: Library. ‘THE BEST EVIDENCE 38 But they were prudent, both of them, ers, They knew that Kalaw was a Freemason of the thirty-third degree. They then called th now General Carlos P. Romulo, who was at the time Editor of the Herald. And they called me, precisely at noon, on June 15, 1935. Romulo and 1 prepared the atomic bomb for that Saturday ternoon paper, The Herald. In two-inch letter. Sargon “RIZAL'S RETRACTION . Subsequently, General Romulo was able to confer a on neal and other documents found Father Gracia. He said: “See what we‘hat Kalaw. Wat do you think of them?” fn Kalaw studied the / tudied the papers carefully and then ad- initted enthusiastically, “Why, they are the susing Ric mite en missing Rizal's “Any doubt about them?” queried Romulo ‘None whatever,” said Kalaw,” / oat it ite of the opinion of Kalaw, Archbishop Ceherty was not satisfied. He requested Prof. HL oe, Beyer, Profesor of Anthropology, in the Univer- sty ofthe Palippine, and eurator of the U.P. museum of rthaolgy, and recognized handwriting exper to study and examine the Rizal retraction document lecide whether or not it was genuine. a a ; oe oy, he Faculty Symposium of the University of the Phlgpines held at Diliman, Quezon City, in 2 Profesor Beyer delivered an extemporancous cl 1e i i - speech onthe Rial retraction which was tape recoded — caren, po, 47-48, Sts Bela Galeges T Abjure Matory — Rizal34 THE GREAT DEBATE: ‘THE RIZAL RETRACTION I will say what I have to state ‘very briefly I have no part in this controversy whatsoever. Presiden: Palma was one of my best friends in the University of the Philippines at the time. I may cay to start with that he never discussed this matter of Rizal’s retraction with me nor did the know that I had made a report of it. I examined the document of Rizal’s retraction twice. The first time was shortly after the docu- ment wes found by someone looking through the marriage records in the Archbishop's file, “T'was asked by Father Fletcher, the Secretary of Arch- bishop O'Doherty, to make an examination of the document and let the Archbishop know! whether or not I thought it was genuine for his | personal information. And I agreed to do that on the un- derstanding at that time that there was to be no publicity concerning my opinion as to the genuine- ness or ungenuineness of the document. When I went to the Archbishop's Palace, I was brought by Father Fletcher ‘to ‘Archbishop O'Doherty. The folder that had been found in the records contained this document. That folder wes of the usual Spanish catalan paper containing @ series of documents about 1/2 inch thies, legal documents bound together. The binding, as I examined it rather carefully, had not been dis- turbed for decades at least; it seemed to be quite the original binding that had been put there in the beginning. In that folder, which contained some 40 or 50 o:her documents, was the document signed by Dr. Rizal. There were contained, af I remem- ber, documents pertaining to the marriage bf Jose phine Bracken. The document has begn filed in the marriege file which contained thrée or four letters from Rizal in addition to the retkaction, re- questing marriage to Josephine Bracken| and other letters refusing that marriage unless hé signed a ‘THE BEST EVIDENCE 35 retraction, All of those documents are bound to- gether. This retraction of Rizal was pinned right in the folder originally as it was to the marriage document of Josephine Bracken. Now, when I examined the document itself, of which I have a photograph here, I was not satisfied because, while in this folder were three or four other letters signed by Rizal, they did not satisfy me. So I said that I would not give a genuine opinion on the writing until I had other letters and writings of Rizal to compare with that document; and so this photograph was made and T took it away and examined it in comparison with probably 150 letters and documents in Rizal’s hand- writing I would say off hand, from my experience of 30 or 40 years of examining handwriting docu- ments, that there .is not the slightest doubt that every word on that sheet of paper was written by Jose Rizal except the signatures of the other witnesses below. The whole document is in his normal handwriting. We have now in.my custody in the Museum letters of Rizal written to Prof. Ferdinand Blumen- tritt. One of them is here, the last that he wrote the night before his execution. - Anyone who would compare that letter with this I think will immediately come to the conclusion that they are both in the same handwriting. The signaturé as far as I can see is normal. Every man writes his signature in several different ways, If I write my name 20 times and then line ‘them up on the board and look at them, J will be astonished at the number of discrepancies that occur between one signature here and one there. No one can write his name five times, unless he has a copper plate hand, which people don’t have, 5 or 6 times, it exactly the same. There is always aTHE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION difference in form, but in examining handwriting, there are just two things that are very important. One is that a man in writing, particularly when he uses the pen, puts into that writing a lot of un- conscious characteristics which flow out of his hand. He does not know anything about them, but they are present there in the writing. Little tricks and curves are there but he does not think about them at all but they represent his characteristic writing. Now, if anyone attempts to forge a piece of writing, the one thing he cannot copy, he cannot see even, perhaps, and does not copy, are those little char- acteristics of the original writing. It is difficult to do that. Furthermore, he takes into his forgery a lot of little characteristics he has in his own writing. So that, I will say that, while one signa- ture may always be questioned, because it is too small, and as I say a man’s signature vaties a great deal from day to day, and month to month and year to year, and liable to change, and so on, there are certain innate characteristics, but in a couple of words it is not easy to find very many of them. If you have, however, a whole sheet written by a man like this, 1 would venture to say that there is no one in the world who could forge that much writing in a way that any good hand- writing examiner cannot immediately detect. It is impossible to forge as much writing as there is in that paper or of any other man’s writing in 2 way that cannot be detected. Because you cannot imitate 3. or 4 lines of writing without getting 2 lot of your own tricks into it and you ¢an’t copy all of the original writer’s own tricks accurately enough so that they cannot be detected. The more signatures and the more writings that you have of any individual the easier it is to tell whether the writing is genuine or not. And in the case of anything of this sort, I believe that any person, who has had long experience in examining hand ‘THE BEST EVIDENCE 37 writing, who compares this letter or this document with any of Rizal’s other documents or letters will come to the conclusion that all of the words on this sheet except the witnesses’ signatures were writ- ing by Dr. Jose Rizal. That is all T can say. Now, let us hear the opinion” of another hand- writing expert, Dr. Jose I. del Rosario, “He studied handwriting analysis under the late Chauncey Me- Govern, the Los Angeles expert. He collaborated with the late Albert S. Osborn, the international authority on Handwriting analysis by preparing the data on certain Philippine cases submitted to him by the Jus- tices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.” [have carefully compared the handwriting of the retraction not only with the ULTIMO ADIOS and with the letter written by Dr. Jose Rizal to his “Defensor,” Don Luis Traviel de Andrade, as well as with ‘the manuscript of the farewell ad- dressed to his mother Dofia Teodora Alonso, dated the thirtieth of December, 1896, but also with nu- merous letters of Dr. Jose Rizal now ia the archives of the Filipiniana Division, National Library. In honesty, I can say that I do not find anything in Dr. Rizal's retraction which does not proclaim that, the retraction is in fact and in truth of the authentic, and genuine hanclwriting.of Dr. Jose Rizal. The characteristic points of identity between the handwriting of the retraction and the undisputed handwriting of Dr. Rizal check in every respect . . The following are perhaps the most salient individ- ual characteristics: 1, The execution and writing movement in cap- ital letters including the different varieties used, as in the letters “D”, “JY, “R", “1, “RP, ey MGavanne, pp. 50-51,3 THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION “sg”, “0”, “M”, “D", which are all by Dr. Jose Rizal. 2. The small letters “h”, “d”, “x”, “o”, “g”, , “”, and “a”, are all of the handwriting of Dr. Rizal, and check in every respect, including the variations of form whenever they, occur, with the form and execution of similar letters in un- disputed letters of Dr. Rizal. 3. What would have been very significant in point of identify is the constancy in the comparative slopes of cach constituent letter with respect to one another, within a given combination of words, ir respective of variations in the degree of mean basic slant in the handwriting under examination, because as Capt. Arthur D. Quirke states, “This is the only true basis upon which statistics bearing upon slope may legitimately be employed to determing the iden- tity of handwriting.” (See Capt. Arthur D. Quirke, Forged, Anonymous and Suspect Documents, p. 49), and these, fortunately, agree in all of Dr. Rizal’s writings including that of the retraction. 4. One point which proves beyond question that the “retraction” is undoubtedly an old authentic document, is the presence of perforations caused by “termites” in the upper left corner, and especially the perforation occurring over the ietter “C” in “Creo” found towards the end of the sixth line of the retraction. ‘These perforations show that. the’ paper is old, and also that when the paper was attacked by “termites” or “book worms” the writing must have in the paper, or else if the writing was re- cently made as some one wishes us to-believe, then the ink would have run through the perforation and would thus have soiled the reverse of thé paper, which is not the case in the retraction, = THE BEST EVIDENCE 39 5. The ink shows the proper color of old iron gallotannate inks which have been thoroughly oxid- ized during the course of time by natural agents and there are no indications whatever to suspect that the document has been artificially aged. In conclusion, in this particular case of the re- traction of Dr. Jose Rizal, which has been suspected in some quarters as being a forged document, all indications and symptoms show that it is a genuine, authentic old document, written and signed by Dr. Jose Rizal, and I have found nothing in it to in- dicate that it may be a forged or spurious docu- ment. Against this array of eyewitnesses and documents, the anti-retractionists have nothing to offer but: “How could Rizal retract his words, writings, and publications to his fading glory?” they asked. I must admit with candor that to the unsuspecting, the unwary, and the ignorant, this query is very con- vincing. But to those who have read the retraction document ancl who understand it, the question is ab- surd Let us examine the text of the retraction, and T quote: Me declaro catolico y en esta Religion en que me naci y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido contrario 4 mi calidad de hijo de la ¥glesia Cato- lica. Creeo y profeso cuanto ella enseRa y mi someto 4 cuanto ella manda, Abomino de la Ma- soneria, como enemiga que es de la Yglesia, y como sociedad prohibida por la Yglesia. Puede el Pre- lado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesias- tica hacer piblica esta manifestacion esponténea ‘mia para reparar el escandalo que mis actos Rayan40 THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION podido causar y para que Dios y los humbres me perdouan. Manila 29 de Diciembre de 1896 JOSE RIZAL Eloy Moure Juan del Fresno Now, where is the phrase that means Rizal retracted his words, writings, and publications to his fading glory? Tread this retrection several times, but I could not find it, can you? The only thing I am sure of that Rizal retracted in this document was his affiliation with Ma- sotry, and his reason was that Masonry is the enemy of the Church and as such was prohibited by the Church. Inasmuch as he was returning to his Church, he could no longer be a Mason and a Catholic at the same time. He knew that the Church forbade it—and still forbids is. Why should the anti-retractionists begrudge Rizal of his return to his Church? Many other |great Fili pinos like Quezon, and the Luna brothers retracted their masonic affiliation and nothing is said against them. Why single out Rizal? What else had Rizal done that may be considered contrary to his status as a son of the Catholic Church? + They say that he fought against the Catholic) Church— he was the bitterest enemy of the Church. This is partly truc and pertly false, It is not true that he fought against the Catholic Church. What he had fought against was Catholicism as practiced in the Philippines—not the Catholic Church—and I quote Palma: About May, 1889, Dr. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera arrived in Paris to see the Universal Exposition and Palma, The Pride of the Malay Race, pp: 115-116, [ TEE BEST EVIDENCE at informed Rizal, who had established residence there, that life in the Philippines was becoming impossible, and predicted that if conditions did not improve there would be a revolution within ten years. He also told Rizal that he tried to defend him before Father Faura, explaining that, in the attack upon the friars, the stone was thrown so high and with such force that it reached religion. “This com- parison is not quite exact,” Rizal corrected him. “T wished to throw the missile against the fria as they made use of the rituals and superstitions of a religion as a shield, I had to get rid of that shield in order to wound the enemy that was hiding behind it. If the Trojans had placed the Athenian goddess Pallas on their fortress and thence, with their arrows, had fought the Greeks, I believe the Greeks would have also attacked the goddess. God should not be utilized as a shield and protector of abuses, nor should religion be made use of for that purpose. What happens in the Philippines is hor- rible; they abuse the name of religion to enrich their haciendas, to seduce an innocent girl, to de- stroy an enemy, to disturb the peace of a married couple and rob’a wife of her honor. Why should T not fight religion like that when it is the basic cause of our miseries and tears? The responsibility falls on those who abuse its name. Christ did the same thing with the religion of his country when the Pharisees abused it.” In other words, Rizal did not fight the Catholic religion; he fought those who abused that religion, Rizal was not against the Catholic religion, but against the manner the Catholic religion was practiced by the friars in the Philippines during his time. Here is a part of his letter to Blumentritt which reveals his opinion of the Catholic religion: