Did Rizal Favor the Revolution? A Criticism of the Valenzuela Memoirs

Monday May 26, 2014 ()

   Did Rizal Favor the Revolution?  A Criticism of the Valenzuela Memoirs
   (After a painting by Luciano A. Alejandrino which depicts the meeting between Rizal and Valenzula in Dapitan)

THERE exists a thin manuscript volume of fourteen pages in the "Coleccion Rizalina" of Dr. Jose P. Bantug, collector and antiquarian, which throw some light on the otherwise obscure relation that Dr. Jose Rizal had with the Philippine revolution. The manuscript is typewritten and dated at Polo, Bulacan, May 27, 1914. It was written at the request of Dr. Bantug by Dr. Pio Valenzuela, the emissary of the Katipunan sent purposely to Dapitan, Zamboanga, to enlist the support of Jose Rizal, who was then there an exile. It bears no original title, but the owner has entitled it Memorias de Mi Viaje a Dapitan, evidently following a suggestive phrase in Dr. Valenzuela's letter of transmittal accompanying the manuscript. From this letter, it can be inferred that it was only at that time that an attempt was ever made to record whatever conversation transpired in Dapitan.

It is this document which Dr. Gregorio F. Zaide, a prolific historical writer, brings forward to support his contention that Rizal was in favor of the Philippine revolution. His English translation, although abridged, does not substantially differ, on the whole, from the Spanish original, except in two or three points which will be discussed presently. It should be noted that Mr. Arsenio R. Afan had made a more complete Tagalog translation the year previous.

Did Rizal Favor the Revolution?  A Criticism of the Valenzuela Memoirs

Besides making the English translation, Dr. Zaide was able to wrest from Dr. Valenzuela personally the positive statement that "Rizal was in favor of the revolution" and he goes so far as to state that "Dr. Valenzuela emphatically denies the charge that Rizal was against the plan of the Katipunan to plunge the country into the chaos of revolution." This statement gains convincing strength when it is recalled that Rizal was found guilty of the crimes of rebellion and the founding of illicit societies by the Council of War which tried him six months after the interview.

Few material facts in the field of Rizalian biography have been brought to light since the publication of W. E. Retana's full and scholarly life of the patriot. The Valenzuela Memoirs coming as it does from the pen of the only living participant of the drama that was enacted in Dapitan, must be of considerable interest in determining the part that Rizal might possibly have had in starting the revolution.

The particular section in the Memoirs to which attention is called runs:

"Rizal [speaking to Valenzuela]: Tell our countrymen that I wish to establish a school in Japan which I will turn into a university for Filipino youth, in the course of time. Meanwhile, we will be preparing a revolution against Spain. It will be a great pleasure for me to direct such a school."

"Valenzuela: Yes, sir, I will do what you wish. But I believe that you are bound to direct the revolution first, before the school that you have in mind."

"Rizal: Well, I am ready to head both of them."

Also, when told of the plans of the Katipunan to bring about the separation of the Philippines and Spain by force of arms, Rizal is quoted as having said:

"That shows that the seeds have been sown. All that this association has done is extremely correct, for Spain is now weakening because of her war with Cuba. I approve of such plans and I advise beginning their execution at once to take advantage of the times."

Mark the last sentence as it is important in the succeeding discussion.

Zaide then makes the sympathetic remark:

"In his Memoirs, Dr. Valenzuela tries to vindicate Dr. Rizal before the bar of historical judgment. His is an unselfish attempt to right the wrong done by historians and biographers to that sad exile in Dapitan whose lifeblood watered the seeds of the Philippine Revolution".

One of the biographers evidently referred to is Retana, who believes that Rizal was not in favor of the revolution. Other writers undoubtedly rely upon Retana in adopting the same view. Charles Derbyshire; LeRoy; Craig although he does not indicate so; Teodoro M. Kalaw, in addition he mentions an incident to support his belief; the joint-biographers Charles Edward Russell and E. B. Rodriguez are not unequivocal. Maximo M. Kalaw, after a brief study, opines in one place that "Rizal did not approve of the rebellion", and at another, that "Rizal was and was not the author of the revolution which had started."

It would not now be necessary to add to this line of authorities and to make statements of a more conclusive nature, were it not for the acquisition by the National Library at Manila of two documents not accessible to these writers, besides the declarations which Valenzuela himself made to the Spanish authorities after the Katipunan plot was discovered. The writer refers to the manuscript written by Rizal himself in his own defense; and to the manuscript written by his lawyer and read before the Council of War in Rizal's defense proper.

Before taking up the question as to whether or not Rizal favored the Philippine revolution, an interesting matter for inquiry arises with regard to the date of the Dapitan interview. According to the Valenzuela Memoirs, the S. S. Venus, which he took, sailed from Manila on June 15, 1896, Monday, and reached Dapitan at about six o'clock in the afternoon of June 21. The memorable conversation occurred in the evening after dinner. In his declarations before the Spanish authorities, however, the emissary on two occasions stated that he sailed for Dapitan about the end of May 14. The date in the Memoirs therefore contradicts that in the declarations.

Unfortunately, the log-book of the S. S. Venus is now lost and there is no hope of ever finding it again. Rizal, however, in his defense of himself, says that he never knew of any proposed uprising until the first or second day of July, 1896, when Pio Valenzuela came to see him about the revolt. That Rizal remembered correctly may be gathered from the following evidence:

A shipping advertisement appears daily in the periodical El Comercio for the Compaiia Maritima which then owned the S. S. Venus. There is no announcement, however, that the S. S. Venus sailed, or would sail, from Manila on or about June 15 for Dapitan. Beginning in the issue for June 10, 1896, it is advertised that the S. S. Venus will sail on June 13, at ten o'clock in the morning, and will touch the ports of Batangas, Calapan, Laguimanoc, Pasacao, Donsol, Sorsogon, Legaspi, and Tabaco; returning by way of Sorsogon, Donsol, Palanoc, S. Pascual, Pasacao, Laguimanoc, Boac, Calapan, and Batangas. This announcement was continued up to and including June 12 and not thereafter. It will be seen that the S. S. Venus did not touch at for Dapitan.

In the issue for June 26, however, we read that the S. S. Venus will sail on June 27 at ten o'clock in the morning for Romblon, Capiz, Iloilo, Dapitan, Sindangan, Dapitan, Dumaguete, and Cebu, and will touch Iloilo, Capiz, and Romblon on the return trip. The same announcement is made in the La Oceana Espanola beginning in its issue for June 24, and continued to June 27. The same ports are mentioned in the Memoirs but not in the order stated. It is a certainty that the S. S. Venus sailed on the 27th because for the following day no advertisement can be found about its sailing.

On July 7, the S. S. Venus is again scheduled for other ports; which implies that it had returned to Manila, most probably the day previous. This is the more reasonable inference because the voyage to and from Dapitan usually took ten days. The S. S. Venus therefore anchored at Dapitan on July 1, and the conversation was held on the evening of that day. The day following, July 2, Valenzuela took the same boat back to Manila.

The more important part of the Memoirs deals with Rizal's stand regarding the Philippine revolution. The question to be answered is:

Was Rizal against, or in favor, of the revolution? We shall attempt, first, to examine the literary basis for the opinion ascribed to Rizal by Valenzuela, namely: "Rizal believed that independence is won, not asked for ... Rizal's credo was a true revolution-a fight to the last, for the freedom of the Philippines". And, second, we shall test the consistency of the Valenzuela memoirs with other available documentary evidence.

   Dr. Jose Rizal's Noli Me Tangere
  
To many readers of Rizal's novels, Juan Crisostomo Ibarra, the hero of Noli Me Tangere, is generally identified with the author. A study of this subject had already been made, in fact, by Miss Carmen Ocampo y Casas. In her able dissertation on the characters in Rizal's novels, after a comprehensive review of the opinions of Rizal's living contemporaries (some now dead), and after a comparative study of the characters of Rizal himself and of Ibarra, his literary creation, she arrived at the conclusion that "both from the moral, mental, and physical points of view, it can be asserted that Ibarra was Rizal, or at least that the author intended to picture himself". This is very revealing, for as a reading of the Noli will show, Ibarra was not the type of a man who would have led his people to open revolt against Spain. He asked for reforms, equal rights, justice, and sought the education of the masses.

However, we also know that Ibarra after the chase on the lake did not die. He lived to be seen again in El Filibusterismo as Simoun. Rizalian students seem to agree that this sequel to the Noli expresses Rizal's maturer thought. Rizal himself thought that his second novel contain a message of greater importance than the first. And Simoun advocated revolution. On two occasions Simoun attempted to start uprisings, the second when at the wedding of Paulita Gomez and Juanito Pelaez, the explosion of the lamp was the sign for a general uprising in and around Manila.

All this would seem to sustain Valenzuela's opinion. If the reforms asked for by Ibarra in the first novel are Rizal's, as undoubtedly they are, and represent the policies he wished to pursue, and if Ibarra lived in the second novel to instigate more drastic measures in order to remedy the ills of the country, the latter novel being expressive of Rizal's later views, the logical inference is that Rizal would have supported bloodshed to attain what he failed to obtain by peaceful means. But this is still not satisfactorily answer to the pressing question, Did Rizal favor the revolution?

In the first place, Rizal did not believe that the time had come for an open revolt. Speaking through the mouth of Ibarra, he said:

"Never! I will never be the one to lead the multitude to get by force what the government does not think proper to grant, no! If I should ever see that multitude armed I would place myself on the side of the government, for in such a mob I should not see my countrymen. I desire the country's welfare, therefore I would build a schoolhouse. I seek it by means of instruction, by progressive advancement; without light there is no road."

"Neither is there liberty without strife!" answered Elias.

"The fact is that I don't want that liberty!"

And in the second place, a Rizal acting through the personality of a Simoun in the Fili would only serve to show the futility of armed hostilities. Simoun's two attempts to start a revolution were utter failures, and he died in the house of the native priest, Padre Florentino, who must have expressed the real attitude of Rizal at the time, when he said:

"I do not mean to say that our liberty will be secured at the sword's point, for the sword plays but little part in modern affairs, but that we must secure it by making ourselves worthy of it, by exalting the intelligence and the dignity of the individual, by loving justice, right, and greatness, even to the extent of dying for them,-and when a people reaches that height God will provide a weapon, the idols will be shattered, the tyranny will crumble like a house of cards and liberty will shine forth like the first dawn".

For this ending Rizal was accused later as a listless dreamer and an idle visionary.

Possibly, Rizal's real political views are to be found elsewhere. We quote from an essay, The Philippines a Century Hence, published originally in the Filipino fortnightly review La Solidaridad in its issues for September, 1889, to January, 1890:

To recapitulate:

"The Philippines will remain Spanish, if they enter upon the life of law and order and civilization, if the rights of their inhabitants are respected, if the other rights due them are granted, if the liberal policy of the government is carried out without trickery or meanness, without subterfuge or false interpretations".

We quote from this essay for the reason that it is less subject to the criticism that the ideas expressed in the novels can not be wholly separated from the fictive elements, however small. The passage is doubly significant, because it suggests possible separation as the only remaining course in case Spain should deny the Filipinos equal rights; and it shows Rizal's capability of supporting a revolution. General Jose Alejandrino and Dr. Galicano Apacible, both friends and companions of Rizal in Europe at the time the two novels were being written, would seem to support these views. The same thought is expressed in another essay, The Indolence of the Filipinos, which appeared in the same review from July 15 to September 15, 1890.

A final question is yet to be answered. Had the reforms so ardently advocated by Rizal in his novels and essays been carried out by 1896? The answer is, No.25 Then had the time come to open bloody hostilities in 1896? It must confessed that this question can not be answered conclusively from an examination of Rizal's literary works. Resort must be had to other sources. The time between the writing of the two novels and the events of 1896 preclude one from coming to positive conclusions on the matter, and the two essays were written before the last novel. Rizal himself did not offer a solution to the problems he presented in concluding the Fili. As Graciano Lopez Jaena well remarked after reading the Fili:

"The beginning of your recent work is sublime, poetic like the harbingers of the dawn just peeping over the horizon, brilliant, limpid, announcing a fair and a beautiful day, but your ending is like the fading of an evening twilight overcast by a heavy fog".

Besides, from July 9, 1892, Rizal began to serve his exile. From the letters that he wrote now and then, no valid conclusions can be drawn since every thing he wrote and every letter he received passed the close vigilance of his watchers. The four years that followed were peaceful years devoted wholly to farming, study, and teaching, until Dr. Valenzuela came to consult him as to the propriety of the revolution.

After the Katipunan plot was discovered, numerous persons were arrested, including the youthful emissary himself. In a declaration made to the Spanish authorities on September 6, 1896, Valenzuela stated that after informing Rizal of the purpose of his visit, the latter opposed the idea of a revolution against Spain so tenaciously and ill-humoredly and used such words, that the emissary, who had intended to stay in Dapitan for a month, took the boat back the day following. Upon his arrival in Manila, he recounted the result of his interview to Andres Bonifacio, who was much vexed and called Rizal a "coward". He was prohibited from telling anyone else of the ill result of his consultation. But since Valenzuela shared Rizal's opinion, and in view of the insistence of several members of the Katipunan that he inform them of Rizal's attitude, he was not able to maintain silence. He told Emilio Jacinto and a certain Capitan Ramon of Pandacan, and others he could not then remember, of what Rizal advised. This disgusted Andres Bonifacio.

The fact of opposition to the Katipunan plan on the part of Rizal is confirmed by Jose Dizon Matanza who heard Valenzuela's report. Matanza's testimony is especially important for the reason that it places Valenzuela's decla ration beyond the reach of the possible objection that it could not have been given freely.

In a subsequent declaration before the same authorities, amplifying the first, Valenzuela reiterates what he said previously. He states that Rizal upon being told of the plans of revolution said: "No, no, no, a thousand times no!" and cited some philosophic principle to show that what was proposed was not advisable and would result to the prejudice of the Filipino people.

The untimeliness of the proposed hostilities is further brought out by General Jose Alejandrino, who was commissioned to transmit Rizal's advice to Antonio Luna. He says,

"Upon learning of the organization and the resources of the Katipunan in every detail, he [Rizal] was of the opinion that the uprising should be deferred, and that the cooperation of the intelligent and rich class should be secured if possible ..."

The testimony of Rizal himself before the Council of War throws some light on what really transpired in Dapitan, although the evidence already presented sufficiently contradicts Valenzuela's Memoirs in a crucial point, with substantial corroboration. Rizal declared that he told Valenzuela

"that the occasion was not timely to make adventures, for the reason that there exists no union among the diverse Filipino elements, nor do they have arms, nor ships, nor education, nor the other elements of resistance ..."

This evidence upholds Valenzuela's testimony (although it contradicts his Memoirs), in an essential particular, namely, the untimeliness of the uprising. It also shows how far Rizal had carried on and sustained the ideals of his youth.

In line with this declaration is the opening part of Rizal's defense of himself written in his cell at Fort Santiago, December 12, 1896:

"I had no knowledge of what was being projected until the first or second of July of 1896 when Pio Valenzuela came to tell me of an uprising. I told him that it was absurd, and so forth; and he answered me that they could suffer no longer. I counselled that they should have patience, and so forth ... Besides, I added they need not think of me, but of the country which is the one going to suffer ..."

"I have always been opposed to the rebellion not only on account of its absurdity and untimeliness, but also because I am hoping that Spain will soon grant us freedom ..."

This Rizal reiterates substantially in his Adiciones a Mi Defensa (Additions to My Defense). And more emphatically, we have Rizal's statement made upon learning that his name was being used as a war cry in the battlefields. His address, Manifiesto a Algunos Filipinos (Manifesto to Some Filipinos), written December 15, 1896, runs in part:

"From the very beginning, when I first learned of what was planned, I opposed it, fought it, and demonstrated its absolute impossibility ..."

"I did even more. When later, against my advice, the movement materialized, of my own accord I offered not alone my good office, but my very life, and even my name, to be used in whatever way might seem best, toward stifling the rebellion; for, convinced of the ills which it would bring, I considered myself fortunate if, at any sacrifice, I could prevent such useless misfortunes. This, equally, is of record. My coutrymen, I have given proofs that I am one most anxious for the liberties of our country, and I am still desirous of them. But I place as a prior condition the education of the people, that by means of instruction and industry our country may have an individuality of its own and make itself worthy of these liberties. I have recommended in my writings the study of the civic virtues, without which there is no redemption ..."

"Holding these ideas, I can not do less than condemn, and I do condemn this uprising as absurd, savage, and plotted behind my back which dishonors us Filipinos and discredits those who could plead our cause. I abhor its criminal methods and disclaim all part in it, pitying from the bottom of my heart the unwary who have been deceived."

This summarizes Rizal's political creed energetically, probably a little bit nervously, but consistently.

As Don Luis Taviel de Andrade succinctly concluded Rizal's defense.

"Lastly, regarding the interview with Pio Valenzuela in June of the present year, not a single charge can be deduced against him [Rizal], but that of exculpation, for if he did not approve of the uprising, if he acted to dissuade them from their plans, this proves conclusively and entirely that he did not have any participation and did not sympathize with it. On the other hand, if Rizal were the director and promoter of all this, nobody, without an order of his, will determine to move".

Dr. Valenzuela presumably wrote his Memoirs with the only thought of rendering a true account of the Dapitan conversation, probably disinterestedly, since it was not till after Dr. Bantug requested him to do so that he attempted to put the conversation on paper, and as faithfully as his memory permitted. His two declarations, while they contradict the Memoirs on essential points, were made while he was probably under pressure, being then under arrest. On the other hand, there was no reason for testifying otherwise than he did, unless he was trying to cover up Rizal's complicity. But no charges had yet been filed against Rizal and the emissary would have done better had he remained silent on the matter. Considering the nearness in point of time to the events to which he was asked to testify, Valenzuela's two declarations should contain nothing but the truth. Besides, his testimony is corroborated in an essential particular by Matanza, who heard him; and also by General Alejandrino. The Memoirs, written eighteen years after the fact, can not overcome this array of contrary evidence.

It may be asked whether Rizal was not prompted by the instinct of self-preservation in making the statements he did. We may answer that this is not probable. He could have saved himself on two different occasions had he wanted to. Besides, Rizal had a very high regard for truth.

From what has been said, the following conclusions can reasonably be made.

  • First, the Dapitan interview must have taken place on July 1, 1896, and not on June 21, as Dr. Valenzuela states in his Memoirs.
  • Second, Rizal believed in national freedom, and that this was to be attained only by educating the masses, teaching them the civic virtues, and by industrializing the country. He believed that reforms should be asked for in the most frank and peaceful manner from the mother country, Spain, and that these should be gradually introduced.
  • Third, he believed that separation would be inevitable if Spain did not heed the demands for reform, the willingness to grant which he considered the only basis for a continued relationship between the two countries. This separation, he believed, might come by revolution.
  • Fourth, although he believed in the supreme right of revolution, Rizal did not think it timely in 1896, and considered the people and the country unprepared for it.
  • And fifth, whatever historical matter of importance the Valenzuela Memoirs may contain, it is discredited in one essential point: Rizal did not favor, and could not have favored, the Philippine revolution.

Because of the length of time that elapsed before the emissary put the conversation on paper, the Memoirs suffer from inaccuracies which are anyway inherent in this class of document. Dr. Valenzuela himself was aware of this. As Professors Langlois and Seignobos have declared in a joint work:

"Memoirs written several years after the facts, often at the end of the author's career, have introduced innumerable errors into history. It must be made a rule to treat memoirs with special distrust, as secondhand documents, in spite of their appearance of being contemporary testimony".

E. Arsenio Manuel's references

  1. Gregorio F. Zaide, "Was Rizal Against the Revolution?" Graphic, Dec. 30, 1931.
  2. "Ang Pinagusapan Namin ni Rizal nang Dalawin Ko Siya sa Dapitan"; mga pagtatapat ni Dr. Pio Valenzuela kay Arsenio R. Afan, Liwayway, Dec. 26, 1930
  3. Gregorio F. Zaide's article already cited, Graphic, Dec. 30, 1931, p. 56. It should be noted that Zaide's translation is not faithful. He uses the pronoun "we", while the Spanish text which should prevail reads: "... al mismo tiempo que se prepara para una guerra contra Espafa". "... while a revolution is being prepared against Spain", is a better translation. Afan's Tagalog version is more accurate in this respect.
  4. Ibid., p. 4. The first sentence should read more accurately: "That shows that the seed is germinating", following the Spanish original: "De manera que germina la semilla."
  5. Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal (Madrid, 1907), pp. 342, 343.
  6. "Translator's Introduction", in Jos6 Rizal, The Social Cancer (Manila, 1912), pp. xl-xli.
  7. The Americans in the Philippines (Boston, 1914), vol. I, pp. 83-84.
  8. Rizal's Life and Minor Writings (Manila, 1927), p. 176.
  9. The Philippine Revolution (Manila, 1925), p. 15.
  10. The Hero of the Filipinos (N. Y., 1923), pp. 276-277.
  11. The Development of Philippine Politics, 1872-1920 (Manila, 1926), pp. 66, 67.
  12. This document is now known as "Defensa del Dr. Rizal". Craig calls it the "treasure" of the "Lete Collection" ("The Lete Collection of Rizaliana", Philippine Magazine (July, 1930), vol. 27, p. 124) It is written on papel de barba, 31.5 cm. X 22.5 cm.; consisting of 4 leaves of 8 pages; the eighth page bearing the signature of Jose Rizal and dated at Fort Santiago, December 12, 1896; National Library Acc. No. 31498f. Director Kalaw of the National Library has made a partial English translation of this document which appears in the Graphic issue for June 17, 1931. It is through the courtesy of the Director that the writer was enabled to use the unpublished part in this article.
  13. Rizal's lawyer, D. Luis Taviel de Andrade, calls this document "Documento Original de la Defensa de Rizal". It is written in ink on papel de barba, 31.5 cm. X 22.5 cm.; consisting of 12 leaves, 22 pages of which are fully filled; bearing the date December 25, 1896; not accessioned. It was donated by D. Taviel de Andrade to the Philippine Government. As to how Senator Sergio OsmeƱa came to acquire this document, see Francisco Villanueva, Jr., "Original Draft of Rizal's Defense Being Brought Back to Philippines", Philippines Free Press, Aug. 24,1929, pp. 2-3.
  14. "Declaracion de D. Pio Valenzuela", Sept. 6, 1896, in W. E. Retana, "Documentos Politicos de la Actualidad", primera serie, Archivo de Bibliofilo Filipino (Madrid, 1897), vol. III, p. 342, "Ampliacion a la Declaracion Indigatoria que Tiene Prestada Pio Valenzuela", ibid., vol. III, p. 268.
  15. The S. S. Venus is still in existence. It was originally owned by the Compafiia Maritima, later purchased by Ynchausti & Company, dnd is now owned by Elizalde & Company which bought the Ynchausti interests.
  16. Letter of Juan Sitges, chief of the district, dated at Dapitan, June 8. 1893, to Governor General Ramon Blanco, in Retana, Vida, p. 315.
  17. See Zaide's article already cited.
  18. Rizal's Most Important Character in Real and Typical Filipino Life (Manila, 1931), submitted to the Graduate Studies Committee, College of Liberal Arts, University of the Philippines, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, p. 119. MS. There is still room, however, for investigation.
  19. See Rizal's two letters to Jose Maria Basa, one dated in Brussels, May 30, 1891, in Epistolario Rizalino 1890-1892 (Manila, 1933; ed. T. M. Kalaw), vol. III, p. 194; and the other dated at Ghent, Aug. 6, 1891, ibid., vol. III, p. 205; also Rizal's letter to Marcelo H. del Pilar, dated in Paris, Oct. 13, 1891, ibid., vol. III, p. 249. l
  20. The Social Cancer, pp. 392-393. If this conversationis pursued further in the novel, the reader will find a similarity with the Dapitan dialogue, although it negatives Valenzuela's Memoirs.
  21. The Reign of Greed (Manila, 1912; tr. Derbyshire), p. 360.
  22. Craig, Minor Writings, pp. 250-251.
  23. See La Senda del Sacrificio, Episodios y Anecdotas de Nuestras Luchas por la Libertad (Manila, 1933), p. 2.
  24. See Reminiscencias del Pasado, p. 163. MS.
  25. See Leandro H. Fernandez, The Philippine Republic (N. Y. 1926), pp. 11, 12, 13.
  26. Letter to Jose Rizal dated at Barcelona, Oct 2, 1891, translated in Ocampo's thesis already cited, p. 144.
  27. Retana, Archivo, vol. III, pp. 146-147.
  28. Ibid., vol. III, p. 209.
  29. Ibid., vol. III, p. 269.
  30. La Senda del Sacrificio, p. 3. According to a personal interview with General Alejandrino, Oct. 27, 1934, this book was written without knowledge of the existence of Valenzuela's Memoirs.
  31. Retana, Vida, p. 362.
  32. "Defensa del Dr. Rizal" (MS), p. 1. While Director Kalaw has made an English translation of the defense, the portion regarding the rebellion, the Liga Filipina, and Masonry, was purposely omitted for delicate reasons. See note no. 12.
  33. Retana, Vida, p. 404.
  34. M. M. Kalaw's revised Craig's translation, in "The Philippine State Papers", No. 1, The Philippine Social Science Review (August, 1930), vol. III, pp. 62-63.
  35. "Documento Original de la Defensa de Rizal". MS.
  36. See letter to Dr. Jose P. Bantug dated at Polo, Bulacan, May 27, 1914, in Dr. Bantug's "Rizalina Coleccion".
  37. Introduction to the Study of History (London, 1912; tr. Berry), p. 176.


21,960

Comments (Did Rizal Favor the Revolution? A Criticism of the Valenzuela Memoirs)