Rizal, on the other hand, did not withdraw. The first was a copy of the retraction paper reportedly signed by Rizal, which was kept secret and only released in newspapers. When Rizal's family asked for the original copy, it was supposed to be lost. However, some believe that it may have been stolen by people who wanted Rizal to be condemned as a criminal.
Some say that this proves that Rizal didn't write the essay he retracted because there was no way for him to get a hold of an original version. Instead, they claim that he must have used a copy after all.
Other sources say that this isn't proof at all because many people could have had access to the document - such as government officials who might have wanted to use it to prove Rizal's guilt. They also point out that if it were true that Rizal never wrote the essay in the first place, why would he need to retract it?
In conclusion, these articles are just opinions so they can't really be considered fact. What we do know for sure is that Rizal retracted his statement that the Philippines is not capable of self-government and that he believed that it could one day become independent.
Despite several perspectives and facts offered by various writers as to whether Rizal did or did not retract, there has been no proof or rationale to conclude the controversy.
The following accusations lead to Rizal's testimony that he did not retract before his execution:
- In a letter to the editor published on August 9, 1892, an anonymous writer claims that "On reading over his [Rizal's] writings again recently, I found one sentence which seemed to me worthy of notice. This is the sentence: 'I do not feel at liberty to publish any document which might be used against my friends.' " The writer adds that this sentence was "notorious" in the Philippines and that it caused many people to reject Rizal's ideas.
- In her book Philippine Politics: A Study in Machiavellianism (1927), American political scientist Ellen Bellows states that "There is evidence that Rizal did not retract." She continues that "this does not mean that he was a true believer in the Revolution, but only that "his retraction would have been useless since no one would have believed him.
- In his book On the Trial of Dr. Jose Rizal (1945), Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo argues that Rizal did not retract.
There is also a claim that the retraction document was forged (Nidoy, 2013). Others feel that the alleged retraction of Rizal was fabricated by the friars to divert Rizal's heroism, which was focussed on the friar abuses (Uckung, 2012).
Rizal had already been declared a national hero before he died at the age of 36. The declaration came from President Aguinaldo who went on television to announce the news.
It is possible that the retraction was forged to protect the image of the friars. However, this does not mean that everything else Rizal wrote after the retraction is also false. For example, some scholars believe that Rizal actually supported the idea of an independent Philippines during his lifetime but this view is not popular among many historians.
In conclusion, it can be said that there is no proof that the retraction of Rizal is a forgery. However, it is still debated by many historians if Rizal really supported the idea of an independent Philippines or not.
Copyright © 2020 - 2023 Authors Cast Inc.
