CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO HISTORY: DEFINITION, ISSUES, SOURCES, AND METHODOLOGY

Learning Objectives:

 To understand the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to be familiar with the
underlying philosophy and methodology of the discipline
 To apply the knowledge in historical methodology and philosophy in assessing and analyzing
existing historical narratives
 To examine and assess critically the value of historical evidences and sources
 To appreciate the importance of history in the social and national life of the Philippines

This chapter introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative. It presents the definition of the history,
which transcends the common definition of history as the study of the past. This chapter also discusses
several issues in history that consequently opens up for the theoretical aspects of the discipline. The
distinction between primary and secondary sources is also discussed in relation to the historical subject
matter being studies and the historical methodology employed by the historian. Ultimately, this chapter
also tackles the task of the historian as the arbiter of facts and evidences in making his interpretation and
forming historical narrative.

DEFINITION AND SUBJECT MATTER

History has always been known as the study of the past. Students of general education often dread the
subject for its notoriety in requiring them t memorize dates, places, names, and events from distant eras.
This low appreciation of the discipline may be rooted from the shallow understanding of history’s
relevance to their lives and to their respective contexts. While the popular definition of history as the
study of the past is not wrong, it does not give justice to the complexity of the subject and its importance
to human civilization.

History was derived from the Greek word HISTORIA which means “knowledge acquired through inquiry
or investigation”. History as a discipline existed for around 2,400 years and is as old as mathematics and
philosophy. This term was then adapted to classical Latin where it acquired a new definition.
HISTORIA became known as the account of the past of a person or of a group of people through written
documents and historical evidences. That meaning stuck until the early parts of the twentieth century.
History became an important academic discipline. It became the historian’s duty to write about the lives
of important individuals like monarchs, heroes, saints, and nobilities. History was also focused on writing
about wars, revolutions, and other important breakthroughs. It is thus important to ask: What counts s
history? Traditional historians lived with the mantra of “no document, no history.” It means that unless a
written document can prove a certain historical even, then it cannot be considered as a historical fact,

But as any other academic disciplines, history progressed and opened up to the possibility of valid
historical sources, which were not limited to written documents, like government records, chroniclers’
accounts, or personal letters. Giving premium to written documents essentially invalidates the history of
other civilizations that do not keep written records. Some were keener on passing their history by word of
mouth. Others got their historical documents burned or destroyed in the events of war or colonization.
Restricting historical evidence as exclusively written is also discriminating against other social classes

1
who were not recorded in paper. Nobilities, monarchs, the elite, and even the middle class would have
their birth, education, marriage, and death as matters of government and historical record. But what of
peasant families or indigenous groups who were not given much thought about being registered to
government records? Does the absence of written documents about them mean that they were people of
no history or past? Did they event exist?

This loophole was recognized by historians who started using other kinds of historical sources, which
may not be in written form but were just as valid. A few of these examples are oral traditions in forms of
epics and songs, artifacts, architecture, and memory. History thus became more inclusive and started
collaborating with other disciplines as its auxiliary disciplines. With the aid of archaeologists, historians
can use artifacts from a bygone era to study ancient civilizations that were formerly ignored in history
v=because of lack of documents. Linguists can also be helpful in tracing historical evolutions, past
connections among different groups, and flow of cultural influence by studying language and the changes
that it has undergone. Even scientists like biologists and biochemists can help with the study of the past
through analyzing genetic and DNA patterns of human societies.

QUESTIONS AND ISSUES IN HISTORY

Indeed, history as a discipline has already turned into a complex and dynamic inquiry. This dynamism
inevitably produced various perspectives on the discipline regarding different questions like: What is
history? Why study history? And history for whom? These questions can be answered by historiography.
In simple terms, HISTORIOGRAPHY is the history of history. History and historiography should not be
confused with each other. The former’s object of study is the past, the events that happened in the past,
and the causes of such events. The latter’s object of study, on the other hand, is history itself (i.e., How
was a certain historical text written? Who wrote it? What was the context of its publication? What
particular historical method was employed? What were the sources used?). Thus, historiography lets the
students have a better understanding of history. They do not only get to learn historical facts, but they are
also provided with the understanding of the facts’ and historian’s contexts. The methods employed by the
historian and the theory and perspective, which guided him, will also be analyzed. Historiography is
important for someone who studies history because it teaches the student to be critical in the lessons of
history presented to him.

History has played various roles in the past. States use history to unite a nation. It can be used as a tool
to legitimize regimes and forge a sense of collective identity through collective memory. Lessons from
the past can be used to make sense of the present. Learning of past mistakes can help people to not repeat
them. being reminded of a great past can inspire people to keep their good practices to move forward.

POSITIVISM – is the school of thought that emerged between the eighteenth and nineteenth century.
This thought requires empirical and observable evidence before one can claim that a particular knowledge
is true. Positivism also entails an objective means of arriving at a conclusion. In the discipline of history,
the mantra “no document, no history” stems from this very same truth, where historians were required to
show written primary documents in order to write a particular historical narrative. Positivist historians
are also expected to be objective and impartial not just in their arguments but also on their conduct of
historical research.

As a narrative, any history that has been taught and written is always intended for a certain group of

2
audience. When the ilustrados, like Jose Rizal, Isabelo delos Reyes, and Pedro Paterno wrote history,
they intended it for the Spaniards so that they would realize that Filipinos are people of their own intellect
and culture. When American historians depicted the Filipino people as uncivilized in their publications,
they intended that narrative for their fellow Americans to justify their colonization of the islands. They
wanted the colonization to appear not as a means of undermining the Philippines’ sovereignty, but as a
civilizing mission to fulfill what they called as the “white man’s burden”. The same is true for nations
which prescribe official versions of their history like North Korea, the Nazi Germany during the war
period, and Thailand. The same was attempted by Marcos in the Philippines during the 1970s.

POSTCOLONIALISM – is a school of thought that emerged in the early twentieth century when formerly
colonized nations grappled with the idea of creating their identities and understanding their societies
against the shadows of their colonial past. Post-colonial history looks at two things in writing history:
first is to tell the history of their nation that will highlight their identity free from that of colonial
discourse and knowledge, and second is to criticize the methods, effects, and idea of colonialism. Post-
colonial history is therefore a reaction and an alternative to the colonial history that colonial powers
created and taught to their subjects.

One of the problems confronted by history is the accusation that the history is always written by victors.
This connote that the narrative of the past is always written from the bias of the powerful and the more
dominant player. For instance, the history of the Second World War in the Philippines always depicts the
United States as the hero and the Imperial Japanese Army as the oppressors. Filipinos who collaborated
with the Japanese were lumped in the category of traitors or collaborators. However, a more thorough
historical investigation will reveal a more nuanced account of the history of that period instead of a
simplified narrative as a story of hero versus villain.

HISTORY AND THE HISTORIAN

If history is written with agenda or is heavily influenced by the historian, it is possible to come up with an
absolute historical truth? Is history an objective discipline? If it is not, is it still worthwhile to study
history? These questions have haunted historians for many generations. Indeed, an exact and accurate
account of the past is impossible for the very simple reason that we cannot go back to the past. We
cannot access the past directly as our subject matter. Historians only get to access representation of the
past through historical sources and evidences.

Therefore, it is the historian’s job not just to seek historical evidences and facts but also to interpret these
facts. “facts cannot speak for themselves.” It is the job of the historian to five meaning to these facts and
organize them into a timeline, establish causes, and write history. Meanwhile, the historian is not a blank
paper who mechanically interprets and analyzes present historical fact. He is a person of his own who is
influenced by his own context, environment, ideology, education, and influences, among others. In that
sense, his interpretation of the historical fact is affected by his context and circumstances. His
subjectivity will inevitably influence the process of his historical research: the methodology that he will
use, the facts that he shall select and deem relevant, his interpretation, and even the form of his writings.
Thus, in one way or another, history is always subjective. If that is so, can history still be considered as
an academic and scientific inquiry?

Historical research requires rigor. Despite the fact that historians cannot ascertain absolute objectivity,

3
the study of history remains scientific because of the rigor of research and methodology that historians
employ. HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY comprises certain techniques and rules that historians follow
in order to properly utilize sources and historical evidences in writing history. Certain rules apply in
cases of conflicting accounts in different sources, and on how to properly treat eyewitness accounts and
oral sources as valid historical evidence. In doing so, historical claims done by historians and the
arguments that they forward in their historical writings, while may be influenced by the historian’s
inclinations, can still be validated by using reliable evidences and employing correct and meticulous
historical methodology.

The ANNALES SCHOOL OF HISTORY is a school of history born in France that challenged the canon
of history. This school of thought did away with the common historical subjects that were almost always
related to the conduct of states and monarchs. Annals scholars like Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch, Fernand
Braudel, and Jacques Le Goff studied other subjects in a historical manner. they were concerned with
social history and studied longer historical periods. For example, Annales scholars studied the history of
peasantry, the history of medicine, or even the history of environment. The history from below was
pioneered by the same scholars. They advocated that the people and classes who were not reflected in the
history of the society in the grand manner be provided with space in the records of mankind. In doing
this, Annales thinkers married history with their disciplines like geography, anthropology, archaeology,
ad linguistics.

For example, if a historian chooses to use an oral account as his data in studying he ethnic history of the
Ifugaos in the Cordilleras during the American Occupation, he needs to validate the claims of his
informant through comparing and corroborating it with written sources. Therefore, while bias is
inevitable, the historian can balance this out by relying to evidences that back up his claim. In this sense,
the historian need not let his bias blind his judgment and such bias is only acceptable if he maintains his
rigor as a researcher.

HISTORICAL SOURCES

With the past as history’s subject matter, the historian’s most important research tools are
historical sources. In general, historical sources can be classified between primary and secondary
sources. The classification of sources between these two categories depends on the historical subject
being studied. PRIMARY SOURCES are those sources produced at the same time as the event, period,
or subject being studied. For example, if a historian wishes to study the Commonwealth Constitution
Convention of 1935, his primary sources can include the minutes of the convention, newspaper clippings,
Philippine Commission reports of the U.S. Commissioners, records of the convention, the draft of the
Constitution, and even photographs of the event. Eyewitnesses accounts of convention delegates and
their memoirs can also s=be used as primary sources. The same goes with other subjects of historical
study. Archival documents, artifacts, memorabilia, letters, census, and government records, among others
are the most common example of primary sources.

On the other hand, SECONDARY SOURCES are those sources, which were produced by an
author who used primary sources to produce the material. In other words, secondary sources are
historical sources, which studied a certain historical subject. For example, in the subject of the Philippine
Revolution of 1896, students can read Teodoro Agoncillo’s Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio
and the Katipunan published originally in 1956. The Philippine Revolution happened in the last years of

4
the nineteenth century while Agoncillo published his work in 1956, which makes the Revolt of the
Masses a secondary source. More than this, in writing the book, Agoncillo used primary sources with his
research like documents of the Katipunan, interview with the veterans of the Revolution, and
correspondence between and among Katipuneros.

However, a student should not be confused about what counts as a primary or a secondary source.
As mentioned above, the classification of sources between primary and secondary depends not on the
period when the source was produced or the type of the source but on the subject of the historical
research. For example, a textbook is usually classified as a secondary source, a tertiary source even.
However, this classification is usual but nor automatic. If a historian chooses to write the history of
education in the 1980s, he can utilize textbooks used in that period as a primary source. If a historian
wishes to study the historiography of the Filipino-American War for example, he can use works of
different authors on the topic as his primary source as well.

Both primary and secondary sources are useful in writing and learning history. However,
historians and students of history need to thoroughly scrutinize the historical sources to avoid deception
and to come up with the historical truth. The historian should be able to conduct an external and internal
criticism of the source, especially primary sources which can age in centuries. ETERNAL CRITICISM is
the practice of verifying the authenticity of evidence by examining its physical characteristics,
consistency with the historical characteristic of the time when it was produced; and the materials used for
the evidence. Examples of the things that will be examined when conducting external criticism of a
document include the quality of the paper, the type of ink, and the language and words used in the
material, among others.

INTERNAL CRITICISM, on the other hand, is the examination of the truthfulness of the
evidence. It looks at the content of the source and examines the circumstances of its production. Internal
criticism looks at the truthfulness and factuality of the evidence by looking at the author of the source, its
context, the agenda behind its creation, the knowledge which informed it, and its intended purpose,
among others. For example, Japanese reports and declarations during the period of the war should not be
taken as a historical fact hastily. Internal criticism entails that the historian acknowledge and analyze how
such reports can be manipulated to be used as war propaganda. Validating historical sources is important
because the use of unverified, falsified, and untruthful historical sources can lead to equally false
conclusions. Without thorough criticisms of historical evidences, historical deceptions and lies will be
highly probable.

One of the most scandalous cases of deception in Philippine history is the hoax Code of
Kalantiaw. The code was a set of rules contained in an epic, Maragtas, which was allegedly written by a
certain Datu Kalantiaw. The document was sold to the National Library and was regarded as an
important precolonial document until 1968, when American historian William Henry Scott debunked the
authenticity of the code due to anachronism and lack of evidence to prove that the code existed in the
precolonial Philippine society. Ferdinand Marcos also claimed that he was a decorated World War II
soldier who led a guerilla unit called Ang Maharlika. This was widely believed by students of history and
Marcos had war medals to show. This claim, however, was disproven when historians counterchecked
Marcos’s claims with the war records of the United States. These cases prove how deceptions can
propagate without rigorous historical research.

5
 The task of the historian is to look at the available historical sources and select the most relevant
and meaningful for history and for the subject matter that he is studying. History, like other academic
discipline, has come a long way but still has a lot of remaining tasks to do it does not claim to render
absolute and exact judgment because as long as questions are continuously asked, and as long as time
unfolds, the study of history can never be complete. The task of the historian is to organize the past that
is being created so that it can offer lessons for nations, societies, and civilization. It is the historian’s job
to seek for the meaning of recovering the past to let the people see the continuing relevance of
provenance, memory, remembering, and historical understanding for both the present and the future.

PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY underwent several changes sine the precolonial period until
the present. Ancient Filipinos narrated their history through communal songs and epics that they passed
orally form a generation to another. When the Spaniards came, their chroniclers started recording their
observations through written accounts. The perspective of historical writing and inquiry also shifted. The
Spanish colonizers narrated the history of their colony in a bipartite view. They saw the age before
colonization as a dark period in the history of the islands, until they brought light through Western
thought and Christianity. Early nationalists refuted this perspective and argued the tripartite view. They
saw the precolonial society as luminous age that ended with darkness when the colonizers captured their
freedom. They believed that the light would come once the colonizers were evicted from the Philippines.
Filipino historian Zeus Salazar introduced the new guiding philosophy for writing and teaching history:
PANTAYONG PANANAW (for us-from us perspective). This perspective highlights the importance of
facilitating an internal conversation and discourse among Filipinos about our own history, using the
language that is understood by everyone.

Using primary sources in historical research entails two kinds of criticism. The first one is the
EXTERNAL CRITICISM, and the second one is the INTERNAL CRITICISM. External criticism
examines the authenticity of the document or the evidence being used. This is important in ensuring that
the primary source is not fabricated. On the other hand, internal criticism requires not just the act
establishing truthfulness and/or accuracy but also the examination of the primary sources in terms of the
context of its production. For example, a historian would have to situate the document in the period of its
production, or in the background of its authors. In other words, it should be recognized that facts are
neither existing in a vacuum nor produced from a blank slate. These are products of the time and of the
people.

In this chapter, we are going to look at a number of primary sources from different historical
periods and evaluate these documents’ content in terms of historical value, and examine the context of
their production. The primary sources that we are going to examine are Antonio Pigafetta’s First Voyage
Around the World, Emilio Jacinto’s “Kartilya ng Katipunan,” the 1898 Declaration of Philippine
Independence, Political Cartoon’s Alfred McCoy’s Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the

6
American Era (1900-1941), and Corazon Aquino’s speech before the U.S. Congress. These primary
sources range from Chronicles, official documents, speeches, and cartoons to visual arts. Needless to say,
different types of sources necessitate different kinds of analysis and contain different levels of
importance. We are going to explore that in this chapter.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FIRST VOYAGE AROUND THE WORLD BY MAGELLAN BY

ANTONIO PIGAFETTA

This book was taken from the chronicles of contemporary voyages and navigators of the sixteenth
century. One of them was Italian nobleman Antonio Pigafetta, who accompanied Ferdinand Magellan in
his fateful circumnavigation of the world. Pigafetta’s work instantly became a classic that prominent
literary men in the West like William Shakespeare, Michel de Montaigne, and Giambattista Vico referred
to the book in their interpretation of the New World. Pigafetta’s travelogue is one of the most important
primary sources in the study of the precolonial Philippines. His account was also a major referent to the
events leading to Magellan’s arrival in the Philippines, his encounter with local leaders, his death in the
hands of Lapulapu’s forces in the Battle of Mactan, and in the departure of what was left of Magellan’s
fleet from the islands.

Examining the document reveals several insights not just in the character of the Philippines
during the precolonial period, but also on how the fresh eyes of the Europeans regard a deeply unfamiliar
terrain, environment, people, and culture. Locating Pigafetta’s account in the context of its writing
warrants a familiarity on the dominant frame of mind in the age of exploration, which pervaded Europe in
the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Students of history need to realize that primary sources used in
Pigafetta’s account was also written from the perspective of Pigafetta himself and was a product of the
context of its production. The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan was published after Pigafetta
returned to Italy.

For this chapter, we will focus on the chronicles of Antonio Pigafetta as he wrote his firsthand
observation and general impression of the Far East including their experiences in the Visayas. In
Pigafetta’s account, their fleet reached what he called the Ladrones Islands or the “Islands of the
Thieves.” He recounted:

“These people have no arms, but use sticks, which have a fishbone at the end. They are poor, but
ingenious, and great thieves, and for the sake of what we called these three islands the Ladrones
Islands.”

The Ladrones islands is presently known as the Marianas Islands. These islands are located
south-southeast of Japan, west-southwest of Hawaii, north of New Guinea, and east of
Philippines. Ten days after they reached Ladrones islands, Pigafetta reported that they reached
what Pigafetta called the isle of Zamal, now Samar but Magellan decided to land in another
uninhabited island for greater security whey they could rest for a few days. Pigafetta recounted
that after two days, March 18, nine men came to them and showed joy and eagerness in seeing
them. Magellan realized that the men were reasonable and welcomed them with food, drinks, and
gifts. In turn, the natives gave them fish, palm wine (uraca), figs, and two cochos. The natives
also gave them rice (umai), cocos, and other food supplies. Pigafetta detailed in amazement and
fascination the palm tree which bore fruits called cocho, and wine. He also described what

7
 seemed like a coconut. His description read:

“This palm produces a fruit name cocho, which is as large as the head, or thereabouts: its
first husk is green, and two fingers in thickness, in it they find certain threads, with which
they make the cords for fastening their boats. Under this husk, there is another very hard,
and thicker than that of a walnut. They burn this second rind, and make with it powder
which is useful to them. under this rind there is a white marrow of a finger’s thickness,
which they eat fresh with meat and fish, as we do bread, and it has the taste of an almond,
and if anyone dried it he might make bread of it.

Pigafetta characterized the people as “very familiar and friendly” and willingly showed them
different islands and the names of these islands. The fleet went to Humunu Island (Homonhon) and there
they found what Pigafetta referred to as the “Watering Place of Good Signs.” It is in this place where
Pigafetta wrote that they found the first signs of gold in the island. They named the island with the
nearby islands as the archipelago of St. Lazarus. They left the island, then on March 25 th, Pigafetta
recounted that they saw two ballanghai (balangay), a long boat full of people in Mazzava/Mazaua. The
leader, who Pigafetta referred to as the king of the balanghai (balangay), sent his men to the ship of
Magellan. The Europeans entertained these men and gave them gifts. When the king of the balangay
offered to give Magellan a bar of gold and a chest of ginger, Magellan declined. Magellan sent the
interpreter to the king and asked for money for the needs of his ships and expressed that he came into the
islands as a friend and not as an enemy. The king responded by giving Magellan the needed provisions of
food in chinaware. Magellan exchanged gifts of robes in Turkish fashion, red cap, and gave the people
knives and mirrors. The two then expressed their desire to become brothers. Magellan also boasted of
his men in armor who could not be struck with swords and daggers. The king was fascinated and
remarked that men in such armor could be worth one hundred of his men. Magellan further showed the
king his other weapons, helmets, and artilleries. Magellan also shared with the king his charts and maps
and shared how they found the islands.

After a few days, Magellan was introduced to the king’s brother who was also a king of another
island. They went to this island and Pigafetta reported that they saw mines of gold. The gold was
abundant that parts of the ship and of the house of the second king were made of gold. Pigafetta
described this king as the most handsome of all the men that he saw in this place. He was also adorned
with silk and gold accessories like a golden dagger, which he carried with him in a wooden polished
sheath. This king was named Raia Calambu, king of Zuluan and Calagan (Butuan and Caragua), and the
first king was Raia Siagu. On March 31st, which happened to be Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered the
chaplain to preside a Mass by the shore. The king heard of his plan and sent two dead pig and attended
the Mass with the other king. Pigafetta reported that both kings participated in the mass. He wrote:

“…when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings, went to kiss the cross like us, but they
offered nothing, and at the elevation of body of our Lord they were kneeling like us, and adored
our Lord with joined hands.”

After the Mass, Magellan ordered that the cross be brought with nails and crown in place.
Magellan explained that the cross, the nail, and the crown were the signs of his emperor and that he was
ordered to plant it in the places that he would reach. Magellan further explained that the cross would be
beneficial for their people because once other Spaniards saw this cross, then they would know that they

8
had been in this land and would not cause them troubles, and any person who might be held captives by
them would be released. The king concurred and allowed for the cross to be planted. This Mass would
go down in history as the first Mass in the Philippines, and the cross would be the famed Magellan’s
Cross still preserved at present day.

After seven days, Magellan and his men decided to move and look for islands whey could acquire
more supplies and provisions. They learned of the islands of Ceylon (Leyte), Bohol, and Zzubu (Cebu)
and intended to go there. Raia Calambu offered to pilot them in going to Cebu, the largest and the richest
of the islands. By April 7th of the same year, Magellan and his men reached the port of Cebu. The king
of Cebu, through Magellan’s interpreter, demanded that they pay tribute as it was customary, but
Magellan refused. Magellan said that he was a captain of a king himself and thus would not pay tribute to
other kings. Magellan’s interpreter explained to the king of Cebu that Magellan’s king was the emperor
of a great empire and that it would do them better to make friends with them than to forge enmity. The
king of Cebu consulted his council. By the next day, Magellan’s men and the king of Cebu, together with
other principal men of Cebu, met in an open space. There, the king offered a bit of his blood and
demanded that Magellan do the same. Pigafetta recounts:

“Then the king said that he was content, and as a greater sign of affection he sent him a little of
his blood from his right arm, and wished he should do the like. Our people answered that he
would do it. Besides that, he said that all the captains who came to his country had been
accustomed to make a present to him, and he to them, and therefore they should ask their captain
if he would observe the custom. Our people answered that he would; but as the king wished to
keep up the custom, let him begin and make a present, and then the captain would do his duty.”

The following day, Magellan spoke before the people of Cebu about peach and God. Pigafetta
reported that the people took pleasure in Magellan’s speech. Magellan then asked the people who would
succeed the king after his reign and the people responded that the eldest child of the king, who happened
to be a daughter, would be the next in line. Pigafetta also related how the people talked about, how at old
age, parents were no longer taken into account and had to follow the orders of their children as the new
leaders of the land. Magellan responded to this by saying that his faith entailed children to render honor
and obedience to their parents. Magellan preached about their faith further and people were reportedly
convinced. Pigafetta wrote that their men were overjoyed seeing that the people wished to become
Christians through their free will and not because they were forced or intimidated.

On the 14TH of April, the people gathered with the king and other principal men of the islands. Magellan
spoke to the king and encouraged him to be a good Christian by burning all of the idols and worship the
cross instead. The king of Cebu was then baptized as a Christian. Pigafetta wrote:

”To that the king and all his people answered that thy would obey the commands of the
captain and do all that he told them. the captain took the king by the hand, and they walked about
on the scaffolding, and when he was baptized he said that he would name him Don Charles
(Carlos), as the emperor his sovereign was named; and he named the prince Don Fernand
(Fernando), after the brother of the emperor, and the King of Mazavva, Jehan: to the Moor he
gave the name of Christopher, and to the others each a name of his fancy.”

After eight days, Pigafetta counted that all of the island’s inhabitant were already baptized. He

9
admitted that they burned a village down for obeying neither the king nor Magellan. The Mass was
conducted by the shore every day. When the queen came to the Mass one day, Magellan gave her an
image of the Infant Jesus made by Pigafetta himself. The king of Cebu swore that he would always be
faithful to Magellan. When Magellan reiterated that all of the newly baptized Christians need to burn
their idols, but the natives gave excuses telling Magellan that they needed the idols to heal a sick man
who was a relative to the king. Magellan insisted that they should instead put their faith in Jesus Christ.
They went to the sick man and baptized him. After the baptismal, Pigafetta recorded that the man was
able to speak again. He called this a miracle.

On the 26th of April, Zula, a principal man from the island of Matan (Mactan) went to see
Magellan and asked him for a boat full of men so that he would be able to fight the chief named
Silapulapu (Lapulapu). Such chief, according to Zula, refused to obey the king and was also preventing
him from doing so, Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed his desire to go to Mactan himself
to fight the said chief. Magellan’s forces arrived in Mactan in daylight. They numbered 49 in total and
the islanders of Mactan were estimated to number 1,500. The battle began. Pigafetta recounted:

“When we reached land we found the islanders fifteen hundred in number, drawn up in
three squadrons; they came down upon us with terrible shouts, two squadrons attacking on us on
flanks, and third in front. The captain then divided his men in two bands. Our musketeers and
crossbow-men fired for half an hour from a distance, but did nothing, since the bullets and
arrows, though they passed through their shields made of thin wood, and perhaps wounded their
arms, yet did not stop them. The captain shouted not to fire, but he was not listened to. The
islanders seeing that the shots of our guns did them little or no harm would not retire, but shouted
more loudly, and springing from one side to the other to avoid our shots, they at the same time
drew nearer to us, throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in fire, stones, and even mud, so
that we could hardly defend ourselves. Some of them cast lances pointed with iron at the captain-
general.”

Magellan died in that battle. The natives, perceiving that the bodies of the enemies were protected with
armors, aimed for their legs instead. Magellan was pierced with a poisoned arrow in his right leg. A few
of their men charged at the natives and tried to intimidate them by burning an entire village but this only
enraged the natives further. Magellan was specifically targeted because the natives knew that he was the
captain general. Magellan was hit with a lance in the breast and tried to draw his sword but could not lift
it because of his wounded arm. Seeing that the captain has already deteriorated, more natives came to
attack him. One native with a great sword delivered a blow in Magellan’s left leg, brought him face down
and the natives ceaselessly attacked Magellan with lances, swords, and even with their bare hands.
Pigafetta recounted the last moments of Magellan:

“Whilst the Indians were thus overpowering him, several times he turned round towards us to see
of we were all in safety, as though his obstinate fight had no other object than to give an
opportunity for the retreat of his men.”

Pigafetta also said that the king of Cebu who was baptized could have sent help but Magellan
instructed him not to join the battle and stay in the balangay so that he would see how they fought. The
king offered the people of Mactan gifts of any value and amount in exchange of Magellan’s body but the
chief refused. They wanted to keel Magellan’s body as a memento of their victory.

10
 Magellan’s man elected Duarte Barbosa as the new captain. Pigafetta also told how Magellan’s
slave and interpreter Henry betrayed them and told the king of Cebu that they intended to leave as quickly
as possible. Pigafetta alleged that the slave told the king that if he followed the slave’s advice, then the
king could acquire the ships and the goods of Magellan’s fleet. The two conspired and betrayed what was
left of Magellan’s men. The king invited these men to a gathering where he said he would present the
jewels that he would send for the King of Spain. Pigafetta was not able to join the twenty-four men who
attended because he was nursing his battle wounds. It was only a short time when they heard cries and
lamentation. The natives had slain all of the men except the interpreter and Juan Serrano who was
already wounded. Serrano was presented and shouted at the men in the ship asking them to pay ransom
so he would be spared. However, they refused and would not allow anyone to go to the shore. The fleet
departed and abandoned Serrano. They left Cebu and continued their journey around the world.

ANALYSIS OF PIGAFETTA’S CHRONICLE

The chronicle of Pigafetta was one of the most cited documents by historians who wished to
study the precolonial Philippines. As one of the earliest written accounts, Pigafetta was seen as a credible
source for a period, which was prior unchronicled and undocumented. Moreover, being the earliest
detailed documentation, it was believed that Pigafetta’s writings account for the “purest” precolonial
society. Indeed, Pigafetta’s work is of great importance in the study and writing of Philippine history.
Nevertheless, there needs to have a more nuanced reading of the source within a contextual backdrop. A
student of history should recognize certain biases accompanying the author and his identity, loyalties, and
the circumstances that he was in; and how it affected the text that he produced. In the case of Pigafetta,
the reader needs to understand that he was a chronicler commissioned by the King of Spain to accompany
and document a voyage intended to expand the Spanish empire. He was also of noble descent who came
from a rich family in Italy. These attributes influenced his narrative, his selection of details to be
included in the text, his characterization of the people and of the species that he encountered, and his
interpretation and retelling of the events. Being a scholar of cartography and geography, Pigafetta was
able to give details on geography and climate of the places that their voyage had reached.

In reading Pigafetta’s description of the people, one has to keep in mind that he was coming from
a sixteenth century European perspective. Hence, the reader might notice how Pigafetta, whether
implicitly or explicitly, regarded the indigenous belief systems and way of life as inferior to that of
Christianity and of the Europeans. He would always remark on the nakedness of the natives or how he
was fascinated by their exotic culture. Pigafetta also noticeably emphasized the natives’ amazement and
illiteracy to the European artillery, merchandise, and other goods, in the same way that Pigafetta
repeatedly mentioned the abundance of spices like ginger, and of precious metals like gold. His
observations and assessments of the indigenous cultures employed the European standards. Hence, when
they saw the indigenous attires of the natives, Pigafetta saw them as being naked because from the
European standpoint, they were wearing fewer clothes indeed. Pigafetta’s perspective was too narrow to
realize that such attire was only appropriate to the tropical climate of the islands. The same was true for
materials that the natives used for their houses like palm and bamboo. These materials would let more air
come through the house and compensate for the hot climate in the islands.

It should be understood that such observations were rooted from the context of Pigafetta and of
his era. Europe, for example, was dominated by the Holy Roman Empire, whose loyalty and purpose was
the domination of the Catholic Church all over the world. Hence, other belief systems different from that

11
of Christianity were perceived to be blasphemous and barbaric, even demonic. Aside from this, the
sixteenth century European economy was mercantilist. Such sytem measures the wealth of kingdoms
based on their accumulation of bullions or precious metals like gold and silver. It was not surprising
therefore that Pigafetta would always mention the abundance of gold in the islands as shown in his
description of leaders wearing gold rings and golden daggers, and of the rich gold mines. An empire like
that of the Spain would indeed search for new lands where they could acquire more gold and wealth to be
on top of all the European nations. The obsession with spices might be odd for Filipinos because of its
ordinariness in the Philippines, but understanding the context would reveal that spices were scarce in
Europe and hence were seen as prestige goods. In that era, Spain and Portugal coveted the control of
Spice Islands because it would have led to a certain increase in wealth, influence, and power. These
contexts should be used and understood in order to have a more qualified reading of Pigafetta’s account.

THE KKK AND THE ‘KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN’

The Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (KKK) or Katipunan

is arguably the most important organization formed in the Philippine history. While anti-colonial
movements, efforts, and organizations had already been established centuries prior to the foundation of
the Katipunan, it was only this organization that envisioned (1) a united Filipino nation that would revolt
against the Spaniards for (2) the total independence of the country from Spain. Previous armed revolts
had already occurred before the foundation of the Katipunan, but none of them envisioned a unified
Filipino nation revolting against the colonizers. For example, Diego Silang was known as an Ilocano who
took up his arms and led one of the longest running revolts in the country. Silang, however, was mainly
concerned about his locality and referred to himself as El Rey de Ilocos (The King of Ilocos). The
imagination of the nation was largely absent in the aspirations of the local revolts before Katipunan. On
the other hand, the propaganda movements led by the ilustrados like Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano
Lopez Jaena, and Jose Rizal did not envision a total separation of the Philippines from Spain, but only
demanded equal rights, representation, and protection from the abuses of the friars.

In the conduct of their struggle, Katipunan created a complex structure and a defined value
system that would guide the organization as a collective aspiring for a single goal. One of the most
important Katipunan documents was the Kartilya ng Katipunan. The original title of the document was
“Manga (sic) Aral Nang (sic) Katipunan ng mga A.N.B.” or “Lessons of the Organization of the Sons of
Country.” The document was written by Emilio Jacinto in the 1896. Jacinto was only 18 years old when
he joined the movement. He was a law student at the Unibersidad de Santo Tomas. Despite his youth,
Bonifacio recognized the value and intellect of Jacinto that upon seeing that Jacinto’s Kartilya was much
better than the Decalogue he wrote, he willingly favored that the Kartilya be distributed to their fellow
Katipuneros. Jacinto became the secretary of the organization and took charge of the short-lived printing
press of the Katipunan. On 15 April 1897, Bonifacio appointed Jacinto as a commander of the Katipunan
in Northern Luzon. Jacinto was 22 years old. He died of Malaria at a young age of 24 in the town of
Magdalena, Laguna.

The Kartilya can be treated as the Katipunan’s code of conduct. It contains fourteen rules that
instruct the way a Katipunero should behave, and which specific values should he u;hold. Generally, the
rules stated in the Kartilya can be classified into two. The first group contains the rules that will make the
member an upright individual and the second group contains the rules that will guide the way he treats his
fellow men.

12
 Below is the translated version of the rules in Kartilya:

I. The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a tree without a shade, if not
a poisonous weed.
II. To do good for personal gain and not or its own sake is not virtue.
III. It is rational to be charitable and love one’s fellow creature, and to adjust one’s conduct, acts
and words to what is in itself reasonable.
IV. Whether our skin be black or white, we are all born equal: superiority in knowledge, wealth and
beauty are to be understood, but not superiority by nature.
V. The honorable man prefers honor to personal gain; the scoundrel, gain to honor.
VI. To the honorable man, his word is sacred.
VII. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be recovered but not time lost.
VIII. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the field.
IX. The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.
X. On the thorny path of life, man is the guide of woman and the children, and if the guide leads to
the precipice, those whom he guides will also go there.
XI. Thou must not look upon woman as mere plaything, but as a faithful companion who will share
with thee the penalties of life; her (physical) weakness will increase thy interest in her and she
will remind thee of the mother who bore there and reared thee.
XII. What thou dost not desire done unto thy wife, children, brothers and sisters, that do not unto the
wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy neighbor.
XIII. Man is not worth more because he is a king, because his nose is aquiline, and his color white,
not because he is a priest, a servant of God, nor because of the high prerogative that he enjoys
upon earth, but he is worth most who is a man of proven and rea value, who does good, keep his
words, is worthy and honest; he who does not oppress nor consent to being oppressed, he who
loves and cherishes his fatherland, though he be born in the wilderness and know no tongue but
his own.
XIV. When these rules of conduct shall be known to all, the longed-for sun of Liberty shall rise
brilliant over this most unhappy portion of the globe and its rays shall diffuse everlasting joy
among the confederated brethren of the same rays, the lives of those who have gone before, the
fatigues and the well-paid sufferings will remain. If he who desires to enter has informed
himself of all this and believes he will be able to perform what will be his duties, he may fill out
the application for admission.

As the primary governing document, which determines the rules of conduct in the Katipunan properly
understanding the Kartilya will thus help in understanding the values, ideals, aspirations, and even the
ideology of the organization.

ANALYSIS OF THE ‘KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN”

Similar to what we have done to the accounts of Pigafetta, this primary source also needs to be
analyzed in terms of content and content. As a document written for a fraternity whose main purpose is
to overthrow a colonial regime, we can explain the content and provisions of the Kartilya as a reaction
and response to certain value systems that they found despicable in the present state of things that they
struggled against with. For example, the fourth and the thirteenth rules in the Kartilya are an invocation
of the inherent equality between and among men regardless of race, occupation, or status. In the context

13
of the Spanish colonial era where the indios were treated as the inferior of the white Europeans, the
Katipunan saw to it that the alternative order that they wished to promulgate through their revolution
necessarily destroyed this kind of unjust hierarchy.

Moreover, one can analyze the values upheld in the document as consistent with the burgeoning
rational and liberal ideals in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Equality, tolerance, freedom, and
liberty were values that first emerged in the eighteenth century French Revolution, whish spread
throughout Europe and reached the educated class of the colonies. Jacinto, an ilustrado himself, certainly
got an understanding of these values. Aside from the liberal values that can be dissected in the document,
we can also decipher certain Victorian and chivalrous values in the text. For example, various provisions
in the Kartilya repeatedly emphasized the importance of honor in words and in action. The teaching of
the Katipunan on how women should be treated with honor and respect, while positive in many respects
and certainly a significant stride from the practice of raping and physically abusing women, can still be
telling of the Katipunan’s secondary regard for women in relation to men. For example, in the tenth rule,
the document specifically stated that men should be the guide of women and children, and that he should
set a good example, otherwise the women and the children would be guided in the path of evil.
Nevertheless, the same document stated that women should be treated as companions by men and not as
playthings that can be exploited for their pleasure.

In the contemporary eyes, the Katipunan can be criticized because of these provisions. However,
one must nor forget the context where the organization was born. Not even in Europe or in the whole of
the West at the juncture recognized the problem of gender inequality. Indeed, it can be argued that
Katipunan’s recognition of women as important partners in the struggle, as reflected not just in Kartilya
but also in the organizational structure of the fraternity where a women’s unit was established, is an
endeavor advanced for its time. Aside from Rizal’s know Letter to the Women of Malolos, no same
effort by the supposed cosmopolitan Propaganda Movement was achieved until the movement’s eventual
disintegration in the latter part of the 1890s.

Aside from this, the Kartilya was instructive not just of the Katipunan’s conduct toward other
people, but also for the members’ development as individuals in their own rights. Generally speaking, the
rules in the Kartilya can be classified as either directed to how one should treat his neighbor or to how
one should develop and conduct one’s self. Both are essential to the success and fulfillment of the
Katipunan’s ideals. For example, the Kartilya’s teachings on honoring one’s world and not wasting time
are teachings directed toward self-development, while the rules on treating the neighbor’s wife, children,
and brothers the way that you want yours to be treated is an instruction on how Katipuneros should treat
and regard their neighbors.

All in all, proper reading of the Kartilya will reveal a more thorough understanding of the
Katipunan and the significant role that it played in the revolution and in the unfolding of the Philippine
history, as we know it.

READING THE “PROCLAMATION OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE”

Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the Philippine Independence
proclaimed on 12 June 1898, in the province of Cavite. Indeed, such event is a significant turning point
in the history of the country because is signaled the end of the 333 years of Spanish colonization. There

14
have been numerous studies done on the events leading to the independence of the country but very few
students had the chance to read the actuals document of the declaration. This is in spite of the historical
importance of the document and the details that the document reveals on the rationale and circumstances
of that historical day in Cavite. Interestingly, reading the details of the said document in hindsight is
telling of the kind of government that was created under Aguinaldo, and the forthcoming hand of the
United States of America in the next few years of the newly created republic. The declaration was a short
2,000-word document, which summarized the reason behind the revolution against Spain, the war for
independence, and the future of the new republic under Emilio Aguinaldo.

The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the conditions in the Philippine during
the Spanish colonial period. The document specifically mentioned abuses and inequalities in the colony.
The declaration says:

“…taking into consideration , that their inhabitants being already weary of bearing the ominous
yoke of Spanish domination, on account of the arbitrary arrests and harsh treatment practiced by the Civil
Guard to the extent of causing death with the connivance and even with the express orders of their
commanders, who sometimes went to the extreme of ordering the shooting of prisoners under the pretext
that they were attempting to escape, in violation of the provisions of the Regulations of their Corps, which
abuses were unpunished and on account of the unjust deportations, especially those decreed by General
Blanco, of eminent personages and of high social position, at the instigation of the Archbishop and friars
interested in keeping them out of the way for their own

15