Lineage, Life and Labors of José Rizal, Philippine Patriot
the elbows till he was insensible, and then cut down that the fall
might revive him. Three days of this maltreatment made him so ill
that there was no possibility of his signing anything, and he was
carted home.
It would not be strictly accurate to say that at the close of the
nineteenth century the Spaniards of Manila were using the same tortures
that had made their name abhorrent in Europe three centuries earlier,
for there was some progress; electricity was employed at times as
an improved method of causing anguish, and the thumbscrews were much
more neatly finished than those used by the Dons of the Dark Ages.
Rizal did not approve of the rebellion and desired to issue a manifesto
to those of his countrymen who had been deceived into believing that
he was their leader. But the proclamation was not politic, for it
contained none of those fulsomely flattering phrases which passed
for patriotism in the feverish days of 1896. The address was not
allowed to be made public but it was passed on to the prosecutor to
form another count in the indictment of Jose Rizal for not esteeming
Spanish civilization.
The following address to some Filipinos shows more clearly and
unmistakably than any words of mine exactly what was the state of
Rizal's mind in this matter.
COUNTRYMEN:
On my return from Spain I learned that my name had been in use,
among some who were in arms, as a war-cry. The news came as a painful
surprise, but, believing it already closed, I kept silent over an
incident which I considered irremediable. Now I notice indications of
the disturbances continuing and if any still, in good or bad faith, are
availing themselves of my name, to stop this abuse and undeceive the
unwary I hasten to address you these lines that the truth may be known.
From the very beginning, when I first had notice of what was being
planned, I opposed it, fought it, and demonstrated its absolute
impossibility. This is the fact, and witnesses to my words are now
living. I was convinced that the scheme was utterly absurd, and,
what was worse, would bring great suffering.
I did even more. When later, against my advice, the movement
materialized, of my own accord I offered not alone my good offices,
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 countrymen, I have given proofs that I am one most
anxious for liberties for 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. I have written likewise (and I
repeat my words) that reforms, to be beneficial, must come from above,
that those which come from below are irregularly gained and uncertain.
Holding these ideas, I cannot 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.
Return, then, to your homes, and may God pardon those who have worked
in bad faith!
Jose Rizal.
Fort Santiago, December 15, 1896.
Finally a court-martial was convened for Rizal's trial, in the
Cuartel de Espana. No trained counsel was allowed to defend him,
but a list of young army officers was presented from which he might
select a nominal defender. Among the names was one which was familiar,
Luis Taviel de Andrade, and he proved to be the brother of Rizal's
companion during his visit to the Philippines in 1887-88. The young
man did his best and risked unpopularity in order to be loyal to
his client. His defense reads pitiably weak in these days but it was
risky then to say even so much.
The judge advocate in a ridiculously bombastic effusion gave an
alleged sketch of Rizal's life which showed ignorance of almost every
material event, and then formulated the first precise charge against
the prisoner, which was that he had founded an illegal society,
alleging that the Liga Filipina had for its sole object to commit
the crime of rebellion.
The second charge was that Rizal was responsible for the existing
rebellion, having caused it, bringing it on by his unceasing labors. An
aggravating circumstance was found in the prisoner's being a native
of the Philippines.
The penalty of death was asked of the court, and in the event of pardon
being granted by the crown, the prisoner should at least remain under
surveillance for the rest of his life and pay as damages 20,000 pesos.
The arguments are so absurd, the bias of the court so palpable, that
it is not worth while to discuss them. The parallel proceedings in
the military trial and execution of Francisco Ferret in Barcelona in
1909 caused worldwide indignation, and the illegality of almost every
step, according to Spanish law, was shown in numerous articles in
the European and American press. Rizal's case was even more brazenly
unfair, but Manila was too remote and the news too carefully censored
for the facts to become known.
The prisoner's arms were tied, corded from elbow to elbow behind
his back, and thus he sat through the weary trial while the public
jeered him and clamored for his condemnation as the bloodthirsty
crowds jeered and clamored in the French Reign of terror.
Then came the verdict and the prisoner was invited to acknowledge
the regularity of the proceedings in the farcical trial by signing
the record. To this Rizal demurred, but after a vain protest, affixed
his signature.
He was at once transferred to the Fort chapel, there to pass the last
twenty-four hours of his life in preparing for death. The military
chaplain offered his services, which were courteously declined, but
when the Jesuits came, those instructors of his youth were eagerly
welcomed.
Rizal's trial had awakened great interest and accounts of everything
about the prisoner were cabled by eager correspondents to the Madrid
newspapers. One of the newspaper men who visited Rizal in his cell
mentions the courtesy of his reception, and relates how the prisoner
played the host and insisted on showing his visitor those attentions
which Spanish politeness considers due to a guest, saying that these
must be permitted, for he was in his own home. The interviewer found
the prisoner perfectly calm and natural, serious of course, but not
at all overwhelmed by the near prospect of death, and in discussing
his career Rizal displayed that dispassionate attitude toward his
own doings that was characteristic of him. Almost as though speaking
of a stranger he mentioned that if Archbishop Nozaleda's sane view
had been taken and "Noli Me Tangere" not preached against, he would
not have been in prison, and perhaps the rebellion would never have
occurred. It is easy for us to recognize that the author referred to
the misconception of his novel, which had arisen from the publication
of the censor's extracts, which consisted of whatever could be
construed into coming under one of the three headings of attacks on
religion, attacks on government, and reflections on Spanish character,
without the slightest regard to the context.
But the interviewer, quite honestly, reported Rizal to be regretting
his novel instead of regretting its miscomprehension, and he seems
to have been equally in error in the way he mistook Rizal's meaning
about the republicans in Spain having led him astray.
Rizal's exact words are not given in the newspaper account, but it is
not likely that a man would make admissions in a newspaper interview,
which if made formally, would have saved his life. Rizal's memory
has one safeguard against the misrepresentations which the absence
of any witnesses favorable to him make possible regarding his last
moments: a political retraction would have prevented his execution,
and since the execution did take place, it is reasonable to believe
that Rizal died holding the views for which he had expressed himself
willing to suffer martyrdom.
Yet this view does not reflect upon the good faith of the reporter. It
is probable that the prisoner was calling attention to the illogical
result that, though he had disregarded the advice of the radical
Spaniards who urged him to violent measures, his peaceable agitation
had been misunderstood and brought him to the same situation as though
he had actually headed a rebellion by arms. His slighting opinion
of his great novel was the view he had always held, for like all
men who do really great things, he was the reverse of a braggart,
and in his remark that he had attempted to do great things without
the capacity for gaining success, one recognizes his remembrance of
his mother's angry prophecy foretelling failure in all he undertook.
His family waited long outside the Governor-General's place to ask
a pardon, but in vain; General Polavieja had to pay the price of his
appointment and refused to see them.
The mother and sisters, however, were permitted to say farewell to
Rizal in the chapel, under the eyes of the death-watch. The prisoner
had been given the unusual privilege of not being tied, but he was
not allowed to approach near his relatives, really for fear that
he might pass some writing to them--the pretext was made that Rizal
might thus obtain the means for committing suicide.
To his sister Trinidad Rizal spoke of having nothing to give her
by way of remembrance except the alcohol cooking lamp which he had
been using, a gift, as he mentioned, from Mrs. Tavera. Then he added
quickly, in English, so that the listening guard would not understand,
"There is something inside."
The other events of Rizal's last twenty-four hours, for he went in to
the chapel at seven in the morning of the day preceding his execution,
are perplexing. What purported to be a detailed account was promptly
published in Barcelona, on Jesuit authority, but one must not forget
that Spaniards are not of the phlegmatic disposition which makes for
accuracy in minute matters and even when writing history they are
dramatically ificlined. So while the truthfulness, that is the intent
to be fair, may not be questioned, it would not be strange if those who
wrote of what happened in the chapel in Fort Santiago during Rizal's
last hours did not escape entirely from the influence of the national
characteristics. In the main their narrative is to be accepted,
but the possibility of unconscious coloring should not be disregarded.
In substance it is alleged that Rizal greeted his old instructors
and other past acquaintances in a friendly way. He asked for copies
of the Gospels and the writings of Thomas-a-Kempis, desired to be
formally married to Josefina, and asked to be allowed to confess. The
Jesuits responded that first it would be necessary to investigate
how far his beliefs conformed to the Roman Catholic teachings. Their
catechizing convinced them that he was not orthodox and a religious
debate ensued in which Rizal, after advancing all known arguments,
was completely vanquished. His marriage was made contingent upon his
signing a retraction of his published heresies.
The Archbishop had prepared a form which the Jesuits believed
Rizal would be little likely to sign, and they secured permission
to substitute a shorter one of their own which included only the
absolute essentials for reconciliation with the Church, and avoided all