Sophie Andrea C.

Bayagusa
BA Political Science - 1B
“Discourse Analysis Paper on the Retraction of Jose Rizal”

The Retraction of Jose Rizal

I. Introduction
Jose Rizal, the Philippine national hero, is renowned for his profound contributions to the country's
fight for independence through his writings and actions. He was the author of the two famous
novels “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo” which inspired the Philippine revolution and led to
his execution (Ravin, 2001). However, his supposed retraction of his anti-Catholic and anti-colonial
views just before his execution has been a topic of intense debate and controversy. This paper
aims to analyze the discourse surrounding Rizal's retraction, focusing on the historical context, the
varying narratives, and the implications of such a retraction on his legacy and the Philippine
nationalist movement.

II. Historical Context

Rizal's retraction is said to have occurred on the eve of his execution on December 30, 1896. At
the time, the Philippines was under Spanish colonial rule, and the Catholic Church wielded
significant influence. Rizal was a vocal critic of both Spanish tyranny and the Church's complicity in
colonial oppression. His novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, were critical in inspiring the
Philippine Revolution.

The purported retraction document surfaced after his death, claiming that Rizal had returned to the
Catholic faith and renounced his earlier writings. The retraction was seen as significant because it
challenged his previous anti-friar and anti-hispanic stance making it the subject of debate, with
questions about its authenticity persisting to this day.

III. Analysis of Competing Narratives

To this day, there are ongoing debates about whether Dr. Jose Rizal, who was executed for
treason, retracted his statements hours before his death. Some people believe that Rizal retracted
in order to save his family and to marry Josephine Bracken, while others believe that he did not,
and that the document was forged. In this paper, I will discuss points regarding whether Dr. Jose
Rizal wrote a retraction or not.

Proponents of the retraction's authenticity argue that Rizal, facing imminent death, experienced a
profound change of heart. They cite the document signed by Rizal, various testimonies from priests
who allegedly witnessed the retraction, and in order to marry Josephine Bracken, Rizal wrote with
the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This narrative is
often supported by the Catholic Church, which sees the retraction as a redemption of Rizal's soul
and a vindication of its position during the colonial period. To further support the claim, this incident
was revealed Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 191 what the
priest had told him; “the document (the retraction), enclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for
the mail when Rizal came hurrying to reclaim it.” It was stated that Jose Rizal realised (perhaps,
rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all to get
from him.

However, opponents argue that the retraction document is a forgery created by Spanish authorities
and the Church to undermine Rizal's martyrdom and discredit his anti-colonial and anti-clerical
stance. They point out inconsistencies in the handwriting, the lack of a definitive original document,
and contradictions in witness testimonies.

According to the articles I have read, the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by
Rizal was kept secret and only published in newspapers. When the Rizal family looked for the
original copy, it was said to be lost. However, 39 years later, the original copy was found in the
archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual, Ph.D., was permitted by Archbishop Nozaleda to
examine the document and later concluded in his book "Rizal Beyond the Grave" that the
document presented was a forgery. Additionally, another piece of evidence as to why Rizal did not
retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he married Jose and Josephine after Jose
signed the retraction, there was no marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove
Father Balaguer’s statement.

The opposition's response to the first statement was that either Father Baguer or Father Pi had
made errors in reproducing another copy of the original. Regarding the second evidence, there
was a physical clue - the handwritten autobiography of Josephine which concluded with a
declaration that “Before his execution, he married me at 5 a.m.” Josephine even signed herself as
"Josephine Bracken de Rizal, a widow."

In terms of the language and technicalities of the document. The language used in the retraction
document is formal and ecclesiastical, which is characteristic of documents prepared by church
officials. The rhetoric appeals to religious redemption and loyalty to the Church, aligning with the
interests of Spanish colonial authorities. In contrast, Rizal's known writings are marked by a
rational, critical tone aimed at social reform and liberation. The stark difference in style raises
questions about authorship and intent. Additionally, several critics have noted differences between
the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the retraction including the one issued
by Father Belaguer. To put emphasis, we know that reproductions of the lost original had been
made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is 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. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know
nor do I remember whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been written by
Rizal himself. I am sending it to you so that you may . . . verify whether it might be of Rizal himself .
. . ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.
On May 18, 1935, the lost "original '' document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the
archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about
Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs
significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that the
texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact
copies of the "original '' but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press
in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original '' while the Jesuits had only the
imitations.

We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the Manila
newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the texts of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and
F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.

First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the newspaper
texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").

Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which
are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma" which is
not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr.
Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original and
the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second sentences.

Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only
four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses from
the texts of the newspapers in Manila. In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer
finally named the witnesses. He said "This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by
Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the
proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr.
Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed by
Rizal, but she made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the
retraction.
To conclude, the proponents claim that the retraction document discovered in 1935 is the main
evidence supporting the reality of the retraction. They also argue that there are witnesses,
including the testimony of the press at the time of the event, "eye witnesses", and "other qualified
witnesses" closely associated with the events, such as the head of the Jesuit order and the
archbishop. Additionally, those who witnessed the retraction claim that Dr. Rizal recited and signed
"Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity," as well as acts of Piety during his last hours, and had a Roman
Catholic Marriage to Bracken. Father Garcia also discovered a signed "prayer book" along with the
retraction. The opposition believes that the retraction is a forgery. Several critics have noted
differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction,
including the one issued by Father Belaguer. Its content is strangely worded in parts, for example,
in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and Die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s
claim that this retraction was “spontaneous”. There was a confession of the forger. Antonio K. Abad
tells how on August 13, 1901, at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, a certain
Roman Roque told how he was employed by the friars earlier that same year to make several
copies of a retraction document.

Implications of the Retraction Debate

The discourse on Rizal's retraction has significant implications for how Philippine history is
understood and taught. If the retraction is accepted as genuine, it may necessitate a reevaluation
of Rizal's legacy and the nature of his contributions to Philippine independence. On the other hand,
if it is deemed a forgery, it reinforces the narrative of Rizal as an unyielding patriot and critic of
colonialism and clericalism.

Moreover, this debate highlights the broader issue of historical interpretation and the influence of
power in shaping collective memory. It underscores the importance of critical historical inquiry and
the need to question official narratives.

Conclusion
The retraction of Jose Rizal remains one of the most contentious issues in Philippine history.
Through discourse analysis, it becomes evident that the narratives surrounding the retraction are
deeply intertwined with issues of power, identity, and historical memory. Whether Rizal retracted or
not, the ongoing debate continues to shape how Filipinos understand their past and the legacy of
their national hero. The critical examination of this issue is essential for a nuanced appreciation of
Philippine history and the complex forces that have shaped it.

References:
Jesus Cavanna, Rizal’s Unfading Glory: A Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. José Rizal
(Manila: 1983) http://ournativehero.weebly.com/the-retraction.html http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/puchikamalucho.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/
did-jose-rizal-retract/amp/

EDITORIAL PAGE | Marahuyo. (n.d.). Marahuyo.

https://rizalsobresaliente.wixsite.com/marahuyo/editorial-page#:~:text=Another%20physical%20clu
e%20to%20the,’clock%20in%20the%20morning.%E2%80%9D

Tracy B. Ravin, M. (2001, February 1). José Rizal. Archives of Ophthalmology.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/265463#:~:text=Jos%C3%A9%20
Rizal%20(1861%2D1896),execution%20by%20the%20Spanish%20colonizers.