Interact with a Historical Document: Rizal’s Retraction Controversy

Student’s Name Macmod, Norjannah P.

Section GEC105-A51
Instruction: Identify the arguments and the evidences of those who are claiming that Rizal retracted
against those who are saying otherwise.
Rizal Retracted
Claimant Argument 1 Evidences/Proofs
Vicente Balaguer,S.J

Your Observations:

Rizal Retracted
Claimant Argument 2 Evidences/Proofs

Your Observations:
Interact with a Historical Document: Rizal’s Retraction Controversy

Rizal DID NOT Retract

Claimant Argument 1 Evidences/Proofs
Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual Pascual did not believe When Pascual tried to compare the
Rizal retracted since he was handwriting on his retraction document
among those granted access and some other documents that he had
by the archbishop to written days before his execution, he
catechize the document. He found discrepancies in the slants of
carefully checked the Rizal's handwriting, his signature, the
document and compared it inks used, the font of some words, the
to his previous works, margin, and the way individual letters
prompting him to write, "It were formed. These included the Mi
is better that such document Ultimo Adios, a letter written on
should not have been December 15, 1896 to his countrymen,
discovered at all." the Defensa, written on December 12,
1896, and the dedicatory message
contained on the title page of the book
Imitacion de Cristo, which Rizal
handed to Josephine Bracken. All of
his findings led him to the conclusion
that the recently discovered retraction
document was a fabrication.

Your Observations:
Interact with a Historical Document: Rizal’s Retraction Controversy

Rizal DID NOT Retract

Claimant Argument 2 Evidences/Proofs
Wenceslao Emilio Retana y Retana, like Pascual, claimed Another remonstrance have been
Gamboa that Rizal did not raised upon the certification of the
retracted because of retraction of Rizal was the discrepancy
inconsistencies and obvious his 1935 document and the version of
errors in his retraction paper, the retraction that Fr. Balaguer have.
in the care of Fr. Balaguer. First, in the 1935 document the word
cualidad there is spelled as “cualidad”
with a “u” while in Fr. Balaguer’s
version, the spelling is “calidad”
without the “u”. Second, the version of
Fr. Balaguer’s retraction document
does not contain the word “Catolica”
after the word “Iglesia” when in the
1935 document and newspaper
version, the word “Catolica” was
present. Third, the third Iglesias in the
Jesuits' edition is preceded by the term
"misma," which is not present in the
1935 version. Fourth, the second
paragraph in Fr. Balaguer's version
does not begin until the fifth sentence,
but the second paragraph in the 1935
version begins directly after the second
sentence. Fifth, in the 1935 document
of Rizal, the text has only four
commas, while in the version of Fr.
Balaguer’s, it has eleven. Finally, and
most importantly, there are no names
of witnesses in the texts of Manila
newspapers in Fr. Balaguer's copy.
Interact with a Historical Document: Rizal’s Retraction Controversy

Your Observations:

My Synthesis: