READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

PRELIM MODULE

LESSON 1An Introduction to Philippine Historiography:

Sources and Discourses

Introduction
History deals with the study of past events. Individuals who write about history are called
historians. They seek to understand the present by examining what went before. They undertake
arduous historical research to come up with a meaningful and organized reconstruction of the
past.
But whose past are we talking about? This is a basic question that a historian needs to answer
because this sets the purpose and framework of a historical account. Hence, a salient feature of
historical writing is the facility to give meaning and impart value to a particular group of people
about their past. The practice of historical writing is called historiography. Traditional method in
doing historical research focuses on gathering of documents from different libraries and archives
to form a pool of evidence needed in making a descriptive or analytical narrative. However,
modern historical writing does not only include examination of documents but also the use of
research methods from related areas study such as archaeology and geography.

Sources of History
Basic to historical research is utilization of sources. There are diverse sources of history
including documentary sources or documents, archaeological records, and oral and video
accounts.
To date, most of our historical sources are documents. These refer to handwritten, printed,
drawn, designed, and other composed materials. These include books, newspapers, magazines,
journals, maps, architectural perspectives, paintings, advertisements, and photographs. Colonial
records such as government reports and legal documents form a significant part of our
collection of documents here and abroad, particularly in Spain and the United States. In the 20th
century and up to now, memoirs or personal accounts written by important historical personages
constitute another type of documents. Philippine presidents such as Emilio Aguinaldo,
Manuel Quezon, and Diosdado Macapagal wrote their memoirs to highlight their roles as
nation-builders.
On the other hand, archaeological records refer to preserved remains of human beings, their
activities, and the environment where they lived. In the Philippines, the most significant
excavated skullcap (22 000 BCE). Aside from human remains, other archaeological records are
generally categorized as fossils and artifacts. Fossils are remains of animals, plants, and other
organisms from the distant past, while artifacts are remnants of material culture developed by
human beings.

human remains include the Callao Man’s toe bone (dated 67 000 BCE) and the Tabon
Man’s
These include clothing, farm implements, jewelry, pottery and stone tools.
Oral and video accounts form the third kind of historical source. These are audio-visual
documentation of people, events, and places. These are usually recorded in video and
audio cassettes, and compact discs. Aside from scholars, media people also use oral and video
accounts as part of their news and public affairs work.

Primary and Secondary Sources

There are two general kinds of historical sources: primary and secondary. Primary
Sources refer to documents, physical objects, and oral/video accounts made by an individual or a
group present at the time and place being described. These materials provide facts from people
who actually witnessed the event. Secondary sources, on the other hand, are materials made by
people long after the events being described had taken place.
Most historical narratives today are so reliant on documentary sources due to the plethora
of written records and the lack of archaeological records and oral/video memoirs. Although
having several documents about an event allows for easier counterchecking of facts history
researchers
are confronted with one basic challenge with regard primary sources- their ability to read and
understand texts in foreign languages.
Many of our untapped archival documents here and abroad are written in Spanish. A good
knowledge of Spanish is a huge advantage. But this skill is unusual among today’s historians
who
prefer to read translations of Spanish texts such as the 55-volume. The Philippine Islands, 1493-
1898 (1903-1909) edited by Emma Blair and James Robertson, which is the most cited collection
of primary sources about the Philippines before the advent of the American colonial regime. The
collection includes translations of portions of 16th - century chronicles such as Antonio
Pigafetta’s Primo Viaggio intorno al mundo (1524), Miguel Loarca’s Relacion de las Yslas
Filipinas (1582), and Juan de Plasencia’s Relacion de las Islas Pilipinas (1592).
Filipino historians, such as the father-daughter tandem of Gregorio Zaide and Sonio Zaide,
have also compiled and translated colonial documents. They published the 10- volume
Documentary Sources of Philippine History (1994).
Aside from reading the Spanish originals documents or translated words, another daunting
task for Filipino historians is to discern the cultural context and historical value of primary
sources because most of these primary documents were written by colonialists and reflected
Western cultural frames. For examples, derogatory terms used to Label Filipinos such as
“pagan,” misconceptions about Filipino cultural identity propagated by the Spanish and
American colonizers is extra challenging for contemporary Filipino scholars
“uncivilized,” “wild,” and “savage” abound in these colonial documents. Uncovering myths and
.
If the key function of primary source documents is to give facts, secondary source
documents, on the other hand, provide valuable interpretations of historical events. The works of
eminent historians such as Teodoro Agoncillo and Renato Constantino are good examples of
secondary sources. In his interpretation of the Philippine Revolution, Agoncillo divided the
revolution into two phases: the first phase covers the years from the start of the revolution in
August 1896 to the flight of Emilio Aguinaldo and company to Hong Kong as a result of the Pact
of Biak-na-Bato, while the second phase spans from Aguinaldo’s return to Manila from
Hong Kong until his surrender to the Americans in March 1901.
However, Constantino refuted Agoncillo’s leader-centric scheme of dividing the revolution
into two phases by stressing that Agoncillo’s viewpoint implied that the revolution came to a halt
when Aguinaldo left the country. Constantino disputed the soundness of Agoncillo’s two-phase
scheme by asserting that the war of independence continued even without Aguinaldo’s presence
in the country.
Aside from the issue on Philippine Revolution, there are other contending issues in
Philippine history such as the venue of the first Christian mass in the country and the question of
who deserves to be named national hero. By and large, interpretations serve as tools of
discernment for readers of historical sources, but they should be cautious of frames of analysis
used for biased, discriminatory, and self-serving ends.

Historical Criticism
Many documents have primary and secondary segments. For instance, examining a
newspaper as a historical source entails a discerning mind to identify its primary and secondary
components. A news item written by a witness of an event is considered as a primary source,
while a feature article is usually considered as a secondary material. Similarly, a book published
a long time ago does not necessarily render it as a primary source. It requires a meticulous
reading of the document to know its origin.
To ascertain the authenticity and reliability of primary sources to be used in crafting a
narrative, a historian needs to employ two levels of historical criticism, namely, external
criticism and internal criticism. External criticism answers concerns and questions
pertinent to the authenticity of a historical source by identifying that composed the historical
material, locating value.
when and where the historical material was produced, and establishing the material’s
evidential
Internal criticism, on the other hand, deals with the credibility and reliability of the
content of a given historical source. This kind of criticism focuses on understanding the
substance and message that the historical materials wants to convey by examining how the
author frame the intent and meaning of a composed material.

Locating Primary Sources

There are substantial primary sources about the Philippines here and abroad. In the country,
government institutions such as the National Library and the National Archives are major
repositories of documentary sources.
The National Library has complete microfilm copies of the Philippine Revolutionary
Records (1896-1901), a compilation of captured documents of Emilio Aguinaldo’s revolutionary
government, and Historical Data Papers (1952-1953), a collection of “history and cultural life”
of all towns in the country spearheaded by public school teachers during President
Elpidio the presidential papers of different administrations from Manuel Quezon to Joseph
Ejercito. Search the presidential papers of different administrations from Manuel Quezon to
Joseph Ejercito. Search easier way to look for historical materials.

Quirino’s term. The Manuscript’s Section of the National Library’s Filipiniana Division contains
aids such as the “Checklist of Rare Filipiniana Serials (1811-1914),” “Filipiniana Serials
in
Microfilm,” and several registers of Philippine presidential papers are provided for faster
and
The National Archives, on the other hand, holds a substantial collection of catalogued and
uncatalogued Spanish documents about the Philippines composed from 1552 to 1900. These
consist of 432 document categories such as Administration Central de Rentas y Propiedades
(Central Administration of Rentals and Properties), Administration de Hacienda Publica
(Administration of Public Finance), Aduana de Manila (Customs Office of Manila), Almacenes
Generales (General Stores), Asuntos Criminales (Criminal matters), Ayuntamiento de Manila
(Town Council of Manila), Colera (Cholera), Padron General de Chinos (General register of
Chinese), and Presos (Prisoners). For local historians, valuable materials from the National
Archives include Cabezas de Barangay (Heads of Barangay), Ereccion de los Pueblos
(Establishment of Towns), Guia Oficial (Official Guide), and Memorias (Official Reports of
Provincial Governors), Aside from Spanish sources, the National Archives is also the repository
of 20th -century documents such as civil records, notarial documents, and Japanese wartime
crime records. There are also some sources written in Tagalog such as the documents
pertinent to
Apolinario de la Cruz, the leader of the Coonfradia de San Jose in the 19th century.
Academic institutions such as the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Ateneo de
Manila University in Quezon City, University of Santos Tomas in Manila, Silliman University in
Dumaguete City, and University of San Carlos in Cebu City have also substantial library and
archival holdings. The Media Services Section of the UP Main Library has microfilm copies of
Philippine Radical Papers, a compilation of documents relevant to the Partido Komunista ng
Pilipinas (PKP) and its allied organizations as well a People’s Court Proceedings, a collection of
court proceedings against Filipino leaders who corporate with the Japanese during their short-
lived consists of vital documents relevant to the American experience such as the Reports of
the Philippine Commission (1901-1909), Annual Reports of the Governors-General of the
Philippine Islands (1916-1935), and records of the Philippine legislature from 1907 to 1934.

occupation. The Ateneo de Manila’s Rizal Library houses the American Historical Collection
that
Privately owned museums and archives, such as the Ayala Museum in Makati and Lopez
Museum in Pasig City, have also considerable historical resources. Religious congregations such
as the Augustinians, Dominicans, Jesuits, and Recollects also have extensive archival holdings
that remain untapped.
Outside the Philippines, there are several documents about the country found in Spain and
the United States. The bulk of Spanish documents are found at the Archivo General de Indias in
Sevilla, Spain. Important American sources are available at the Manuscript Division of the
United
States Library of Congress, Harvard University’s Houghton Library, United States
National
Archives, and the University of Michigan’s Bentley Historical Library.
In this age of Internet, there are open access online archives on Filipino history and culture,
such as the extensive digital Filipiniana collection of the University of Michigan, which consists
of manuscripts and photographs of the early part of 20th century Philippines. Another rich online
source of primary documents is the University of Illinois at Chicago Field Museum. It houses the
extensive photographic collection of Dean Worcester, the secretary of Interior of the American
colonial government in the country from 1901 to 1913.

Colonial Historiography
Philippine historiography has changed significantly since the 20th century. For a long time,
Spanish colonizers presented our history in two parts: a period of darkness or backwardness
before they arrived and a consequent period of advancement or enlightenment when they
came. Spanish chroniclers wrote a lot about the Philippines but their historical accounts
emphasized the primacy of colonization to liberate Filipinos from their backward “barbaric” life
ways In the same manner, American colonial writers also shared the same worldview of their
predecessors by rationalizing their colonization of Filipinos as a way to teach the natives of the
“civilized lifestyle” which they said the Spaniards forgot to impart including personal
hygiene and public administration. Colonial narratives have portrayed Filipinos as a people
bereft of an advanced culture and a respectable history. This perception challenged Filipino
intellectuals beginning in the 1800s to rectify such cultural bias or prejudice. In 1890, Jose Rizal
came out with an annotation viewed precolonial Filipino culture, as a retort to the arrogant
Spaniards.

of Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (Events in the Philippine Islands), a book
originally published in 1609. He used de Morga’s book, a rare Spanish publication that positively
against Filipino culture continued even after Rizal’s death and the end of Spanish colonialism
Learning from the fate of its colonial predecessor, the United States did not only use brute
force but also affected ingenious ways of pacification such as the use of education as a tool to
control their subjects and increase political and economic power of the elite few. These colonial
instruments were so ingrained among Filipinos that they perceived their colonial past in two
ways:
initially maltreated by “wicked Spain” but later rescued by “benevolent America.” This kind of
Historical consciousness has effectively erased from the memories of Filipino generations the
bloody Philippine-American War as exemplified by the Balangiga Massacre in Eastern Samar
and the Battle of Bud Bagsak in Sulu. Consequently, such perception breathes new life to the
two-part view of history: a period of darkness before the advent of the United States and
an era of enlightenment during the American colonial administration. This view has resonated
with Filipino scholars even after the Americans granted our independence in 1946.

Philippine Historiography after World War II

The stark reality of Filipino historians thinking like their colonial counterpart’s during the
Postcolonial period troubled a small group of professors and cultural workers who were mostly
Alumni of the University of the Philippines. This spurred the emergence of Filipino scholars who
Challenged the narrow view of colonial narratives and developed historical writing from the
viewpoint of a nationalist agenda.

In the 1950s, Teodoro Agoncillo pioneered nationalist historiography in the country by

Highlighting the role of the Filipino reformists and revolutionaries from 1872, the year that saw
The execution of the Gomburza priests, to the end of the Philippine Revolution as the focal point
of the country’s nation-building narrative. Two of his most celebrated books focus on the impact
of the Philippine Revolution: The Revolt of the Masses:
The story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan (1956) and Malolos:
The Crisis of the Republic (1960). His writings veered away
from emphasizing Spanish colonial period and regarded
events before 1872 as part of the country’s “lost history.”
This discourse of “lost history” was not accepted by
another known scholar, Renato Constantino, whose
published work entitled “The Miseducation of the Filipino”
became a staple reading for academics
and activists beginning in the
late1960s. Constantino advanced the
idea of a “people’s history” – a
study of the past that sought to
analyze society by searching out people’s voices from colonial
historical materials that typically rendered Filipinos as decadent, inept
and vile. Following this mode of historical inquiry, he authored The
Philippines: A Past Revisited (1975), a college textbook that offered a
more critical reading of Philippine history compared to Agoncillo’s
History of the Filipino People (1973). Undoubtedly, these two
nationalist scholars inspired or challenged other historians to reevaluate the country’s
national history.
Three other Filipino historians set new directions in redefining Philippine historiography
in the last 30 years of the 20th century. The first of these scholars is Zeus Salazar who
conceptualized “Pantayong Pananaw” as an approach to understanding the past from our
own cultural frame and language. He emphasized the value of our Austronesian roots to
defining Filipino culture and encouraged other scholars to conduct outstanding historical
researches in Bulacan (1986).

Filipino such as the work of Jaime Veneracion’s Kasaysayan ng

Equally important is the

contribution of Reynaldo Ileto
who wrote about his “history
from below” treatise in his
ground-breaking work, Pasyon
and Revolution: Popular
Movements in the Philippines,
1840-1910 (1979). In this work,
Ileto endeavored to recognize the way of thinking of ordinary
folks by using alternative historical sources such as folk songs and
prayers. His other works spurred new interpretations of common
topics such as Jose Rizal, Philippine-American War, and
American colonization.

There is Samuel Tan, another prolific historian who is remembered for mainstreaming the
role and relevance of Filipino Muslims in the country’s national history. His definitive work, The
Filipino Muslim Armed Struggle, 1900-1972 (1978), sougth to examine the struggle of Filipino
Muslims in the context of 20th –century nation-building dynamics during the American colonial
regime and subsequent postcolonial Filipino administrations. In his book, A History of the
Philippines (1987), Tan tempted to write a national history reflective of the historical experiences
not only of lowland Christianized Filipinos but also of the other different cultural communities in
the archipelago.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, there have been considerable changes in the way
historians compose our national history. However, contemporary Philippine historiography still
continues to be characterized by the dominance of political narratives, colonial histories,
elite-centric perspective, and patriarchal orientation as well as emphasis on lowland
Christianized Filipinos.
Political Narratives
Most of our national histories today favor narratives that deal with the political aspects of
nation-building such as the legacies of political leaders and establishment of different
government. Questions such as the following are focal points in these narratives. Who was the
first Spanish governor-general vital in implementing the encomienda policy? Who was the
governor-general responsible for the massive employment of Filipinos in the American colonial
bureaucracy? Who served as the last president of the Philippine Commonwealth and the
inaugural chief executive of the Third Republic? Who was the Philippine president responsible
for the declaration of martial law? The challenge for present-day historians is to present a more
holistic history that goes beyond politics by means of integrating other aspects of nation-building
such as its economic and cultural aspects.

Colonial Histories in Historical Narratives

Another weakness of most national histories is the importance given to colonial histories.
This continues to breed Filipinos who are more familiar with stories about our colonial history
rather than stories of our precolonial past. Up to now, some social studies textbooks misrepresent
ancient Filipinos as savages or barbarians by portraying colonizers, especially the Spaniards and
American, as liberators of the Filipinos from cultural backwardness. The key to uncover such
cultural prejudices is to examine available historical sources and to write about our past by
understanding the myths and misconceptions that characterized the Filipino culture for centuries.

Elite-centric Perspective in Historical Narratives

Some historical narratives focus on the contributions of the elite in nation-building such as
what the Illustrados (educated Filipinos) fought for in the 19th century or how the local
politicians negotiated with their American counterparts to obtain an independence law during the
first half of the 20th century. Though eminent historians such as Constantino and Ileto reiterated
the importance

of a “people’s history” and “history from below,” respectively, so much has to be done in terms
writing about the roles played by ordinary people in our history.
Patriarchal Orientation in Historical Narratives
Most of the country’s historical narratives highlight the heroism of men in different ways:
leading revolts and liberation wars against colonizers, championing the cause of independence,
and spearheading political and economic development. Women, on the other hand, are viewed by
several historians as merely support to men. Let us take for example the women leaders such as
Gabriela Silang, Tandang Sora, and Corazon Aquino. Silang assumed the leadership of the Ilocos
revolt after her husband was murdered in May 1763. Tandang Sora’s decision to offer her barn
and farm to revolutionaries in August 1896 was linked to her son’s involvement in the
Katipunan.
Aquino rose to prominence as a martyr’s widow who led a movement to depose a dictatorship in
February 1986. These representations show women’s roles as consequences of their connection
to the men in their lives. With this bias in mind, it is imperative for contemporary historians to
use gender-sensitive approaches in understanding history to avoid typecasting women as
dependent, emotional, less important, passive, submissive, and weak.
Emphasis on Lowland Christianized Filipinos National histories tend to show partially toward
lowland Christianized Filipinos at the expense of other cultural communities such as Muslim
Filipinos and other indigenous peoples such as the Manobos of Mindanao, Ibalois of Cordillera,
and Mangyans of Mindoro. Celebrated figures of our past are all lowlander Christians and
predominantly Tagalogs including Jose Rizal, the leading propagandist; Andres Bonifacio,
the Katipunan founder; Emilio Aguinaldo, the revolutionary leader who declared
independence; and Manuel Quezon, the first president of the Philippine Commonwealth. Non-
Christians and highlanders remain unrecognized in historical narratives. Muslim Filipinos, in
particular, have been subjected to negative characterization by lowland Christians in published
works such as history books. This is caused by the culture of mistrust that developed between
Christians and Muslims during the colonial periods. Muslim

Filipinos are depicted as brutal, cruel, ferocious, and vicious as exemplified by their attacks of
Christian towns. This narrow-minded view has to be reevaluated in order to correct
misrepresentations of Muslim Filipinos in this age of political correctness and cultural
sensitivity.
Because of the need to reassess our national histories, many local stories- narratives about
origins and development of a barangay, town, city, province, or an ethnolinguistic community –
have been written in the last three decades. The writing of these stories broadens the scope of our
national history reflective of the roles played by the country’s cultural communities in nation
–
building.

Learning Activity: Essay

Requirements:
1. What is history? How is it different from historiography?
2. What are the sources of history? Enumerate them.
3. How do historians write history?
4. Who are some of the notable Filipino historians? What are their contributions to
Philippine historiography?

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Making Sense of the past:Historical Interpretation

History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is centered on how it
impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as the
attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past.
He also notes the history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all,
but a series of accepted judgment. Such judgement of historians on how the past should be
seen make the foundation of historical interpretation.
The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was
revealed as a hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker
was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text:
" CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third chief of Panay, born
in Aklan,established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the
first Filipino Lawgiver, the promulgated in about 1433 about penal code now known as a Code
of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the
original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by Rafael
Murviedo Yzamaney.
It was only in my 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a doctoral
candidate at the university of Santo Tomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic sources in
Philippines history. He attributed the Code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E.
Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de lang Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the Code itself to a
priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scotts findings
but there are still some who would like to believe that the Code is a legitimate document.
Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw their own
reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, ah process that in
essence, makes sense of the past. The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a
general audience, and without the proper training and background, and non
historian interpreting and primary sources may do more harm than good- a primary source may
even cause misunderstanding; sometimes, even resulting in more problems.
Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads primary sources, when it
was read, and how it was read. As student of history we must be well equipped to recognize
different types of interpretation why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift
the interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of history event change over
time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history to track these changes in an attempt
to understand the past.
"Sa Aking Mga Kabata " is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was 8 yrs. old and
is probably one of Rizals most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that
this poem, with that now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang sariling wika
mahigit pa sa malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse the evidence against Rizals
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.

There exist no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in a
1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato
Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizals close friend, Saturnino Raselis
Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings and more importantly, he
never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.

Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal.
The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word "Kalayaan". But it was documented
in Rizals letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilars translation of
Rizals essay "El Almor Patrio", where it was spelled as "kalayahan ".
While Rizals native tounge was Tagalog, the was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother,
Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing
himself in his native tounge.

The poems spelling is also suspect-the use of letters "k" and "w" to replace "c"and " u ",
respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written his time, it
should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.
Many of the things we accept as true about the past might not be the case anymore; just
because these were taught to us as facts when we were younger does not mean that it is open
for interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing account of the past that need ones
attention, important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary sources, but also
the historical interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.
Multiperspectivity with several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept
that we must note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way of looking at historical
events, personalities, development, culture and societies from different perspective. This
means that there is multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be
equally partial as well.

Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contain preconception. This historical
decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on
what his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a
certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians
may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced.
Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the
period the subject was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without
considering other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the way a
historian may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With
multiperspectivity as an approach in history, welcome must understand that
historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradiction, ambiguities and are often the focus
of dissent.
Exploring multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source material that reflect
different views of an event in history, because singular historical narrative do not provide for
space to inquire and investigate. Different source that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence, truths that there sources
agree on. different kinds of sources also provide different historical truth-an official document
may note different aspect of the past than, say, ah memoir of an ordinary person on the same
event.

Different historical agent create different historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome
work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship. Taking these in
close regard in the reading of historical interpretation, it provides for the audience a more
complete and richer understanding of the past.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal
There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz Espanola
and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared
in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February
1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer.
However, the "original" text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after
almost four decades of disappearance.
The Balaguer Testimony
Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one eyewitness account of
the writing of the document exists- that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his
testimony, Rizal woke up several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received
communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is the only
testimony of allegedly a "primary" account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has
been used to argue the authenticity of the document.
The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia
Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016,through the research of Professor Rene R.
Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a report on the last
hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia to Moreno.
Primary Sources: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal
Source: Michael Charleston Chua, "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at
Pananaw," GMA News Online, published 29 December 2016.
Most Illustrious Sin, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santigo to report on
the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date
of the following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Senor
Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments
after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza,
Senor Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a
prayer book, which was brought to him shortly by Father March.
Senor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers
March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented
him with a prepared retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about
the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he
asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself.
At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had
written.
Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Senor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Senor
Maure, were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that
the accused had written.
At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison... dressed in mourning.
Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot
ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal
and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in aticulo mortis).
After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence. However,
nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary
source to the writing of the document.
The Retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars, however, agree that
the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to
Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence
in 1898.

Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable - in fact, the precursor of the Katipunan as an
organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as
one of its members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards exiled Rizal to
Dapitan. Former members
decided to band together to establish the Katipunan a few days after Rizal's excile on 7 July
1892.

Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the Katipuneros showed great
appreciation of his work toward the same goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the
Katipunan (known as the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were
former members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal's name as a password.
In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to launch the revolution, and sent
Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela's accounts of his meeting with Rizal have
been greatly doubted by many scholars, but according to him, Rizal objected to the plans, saying
that doing so would be tantamount to suicide since it would be difficult to fight the Spaniards
who had the advantage of military resources. He added that the leaders of the Katipunan must do
everything they could to preventthe spilling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the
revolution could inevitably break out if the Katipunan were to be discovered by the Spaniards.
Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first secure the support of wealthy Filipinos
to strengthen their cause, and suggested that Antonio Luna be recruited to direct the military
movement of the revolution.

GOODLUCK