27 January 1891

Madrid

In order to dispel doubts and bitterness – Interest in their removal – Lete justifies himself – Meanness – Spirit of rivalry and envy? – Concerning the appointment of “one who would direct our work and our life” – Lete did not vote for Rizal to maintain his prestige – He entrusts himself to the good throwing him – Nor did he ridicule his laudable project – Lete’s act of vindication.

* * *

Madrid, 27 January 1891

DEAR PEPE,

So that certain statements of mine would not appear now untimely, I have preferred to keep silent. However, I wish my attitude to be well defined. A good friend of mine has suggested to me the desirability of dispelling certain doubts or bitterness that you harbor and I am going to do it because I am more interested in their removal than in their retention. As there is someone who is discrediting me, let there be someone who will tell about my good faith.

Concerning the desirability of appointing one from among us to direct our work and our life, logically I decided against voting for you, Why? Let us see. If I had recognized your leadership, I would have told you: “Your name is being questioned and this is not good. We recognize you morally as our chief and it is necessary that you be appointed legally so that henceforth you will not be questioned.” According to you, this would have been logical, that I should have supposed your candidacy, inasmuch as if someone else win the grumblings or the discussion of your name or your acts could not be avoided. I believe so and I am going to prove it. Whoever had been elected, would the purpose be attained? How? First, because the elected one would have endeavored to avoid any kind of discussion, backbiting, or dissent in trying to perform his duties. Second, no act of yours would be considered authoritative nor would they bother were it a command until you are invested with authority with the right to legislate. Third, you, knowing your true position, though you might feel impelled (which I do not believe) to express an opinion that be interpreted as authoritative, you would have carefully avoided it, because you know how to fulfill strictly your duties and engagements. Is my conduct logical? I am waiting for your impartial opinion. That I did not endorse your candidacy? That is true. Why did I do it? I have already stated it more than once; because I did not consider your character the most appropriate to fit into the manner of being of the colony and because you have expressed your determination to leave . . . [missing]. I am not accustomed to doubt your words and so I did not wish to nullify my vote. This is all.

But let us go to another point, for it seems to me that this is clearly stated.

I am surprised that I, being of very little worth and my “personal equation,” as the Germans says, being so insignificant they should pay attention to my words or my acts, interpreting them maliciously. It has been said that I have no other purpose but to overthrow you. I ought not to object to this assertion; I leave it to the consideration and the judgment of those who know how to think loftily and to feel deeply. In order to venerate or to like anyone, I do not use pedestals, or this reason, overthrowing is necessary. Besides, I have learned that however high is the head, the feet are always on the same level as mine are. For what then should I think of irrelevant downfall?

But here is still more. My plan to enter the contest has been attributed to mockery, supposing that I was ridiculing your laudable project. If my denial is not more than enough, I invoke the testimony of my friends Luna, Reyes, Rosario, and others to evaluate my affirmation.

Upon my arrival not many days ago, I was surprised still more by another statement which, if anything, reveals a very bad intention. The saying attributed to me that the Noli is “written with the feet”[1] has been revived. What is the purpose of this? I do not know nor do I care; but I pity the defamers whom I detest. But I am very sorry because they attribute to me a sentiment that never have I harbored – envy. If I consider myself an opaque body, how am I to pretend to radiate light that I do not possess? Other people’s laurels ought not to hurt me, much less when I esteem the persons who deserve them. Moreover, my acts and words were always a faithful reflection of my opinions and thoughts and I always stand by whatever I say, so I regret that they attribute to me things I have not said. On my honor I swore at a former occasion that I had not expressed such a coarse opinion. Should I spend my life in perpetually giving the lie? Now more, I challenge the one who attributes to me such a statement to defend it in the field of honor as he had done it in the field of calumny to show him that I can defend my convictions and I know how to tell him that he lies . . . [missing] the same to the one who invented the phrase who is equally responsible.

Perhaps in this way I may succeed to seal for all time my complete denial; perhaps thus such a thing may not be revived with such wretched intentions; perhaps thus peace of mind may be achieved.

Add this act of vindication to the many I have already made and to the one who is compelling me to do it, to my regret, who believes that he shows better his affection for you by reviling me.

Render your verdict in the last instance and tell me if I am right. To others perhaps all this would seem impertinent; to you, I believe, it will not seem so. I did not wish to keep this all to myself, because I wish to spare us asperities that are unjustified and not conducive to making more sincere the ties of affection between us.

I lay aside these wretched things. It is your turn to make all this clear to your friends, since at every relapse into error, I am obliged to issue statements daily.

Command me as a friend and countrymen who does not cackle any of these ideas because he trusts in time as the best proof.

Yours,

E. DE LETE

03-600 [Reformists]