The thought only struck me because yesterday was Father’s Day and today is Rizal’s birth date. It makes one wonder why Rizal didn’t have any direct heirs, preferably a son, considering that he had been linked with so many women abroad. One of them was Nelly Boustead, over whom he nearly fought a duel with Antonio Luna. It’s exhilarating to know that heroes were also moved by mundane passions.

My own theory – for which I have no "documentary evidence" – is that Rizal had formed friendships with many women and this was interpreted by romanticizing chroniclers as love affairs simply because he wrote poems and letters to them. Someone told me that then and now, young men, especially Ateneans (obviously anecdotal), loved to write letters and send books to young women. The unwary could easily interpret the practice as signs of intimacy.

In any case, if Rizal had sired sons and daughters and they in turn had continued the line, would any of them have become presidents of the country? After all, Rizal was our Gandhi, who gave India three prime ministers. Would any one of them have ended the 35-year-old insurgency?

Having a father or grandfather who died for freedom, would another Rizal have committed himself or herself in realizing the Rizalian dream of a free and happy Philippines?

All his life, Rizal deplored the lack of "national progress" in the face of "individual progress."

That’s why historians say that his works and martyrdom gave us a sense of nationhood. This makes us the historical progeny of Rizal. Undoubtedly, we consider ourselves a nation, although our self-image is that of a fragmented one.