MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF the time they occurred, or have since been
HISTORY forgotten. A fortiori, the experience of a
Topic: Meaning of History and Historical
Sources
Presentation of Contents
What are "History" and "Historical
Sources"?
By: Louis Gottschalk
The Meaning of "History"
The English word history is derived from the
Greek noun utopia, meaning learning. As used
by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, history
meant a systematic account of a set of natural
phenomena, whether or not chronological
ordering was a factor in the account; and that
usage, though rare, still prevails in English in
the phrase natural history. In the course or time,
however, the equivalent Latin word scientia
(English science) came to be used more
regularly to designate non-chronological
systematic accounts of natural phenomena; and
the word history was reserved usually for
accounts of phenomena (especially human
affairs) in chronological order.
By its most common definition, the word
history now means "the past of mankind.”
Compare the German word for history
Geschichte, which is derived from geschehen,
meaning to happen, Geschichte is that which
has happened. This meaning of the word history
is often encountered in such overworked
phrases as "all history teaches” or “the lessons
of history.”
It requires only a moment’s reflection to
recognize that in this sense history cannot be
reconstructed. The past or mankind for the most
part is beyond recall. Even those who are
blessed with the best memories cannot re-create
their own past, since in the life of all men there
must be events, persons, words, thoughts,
places, fancies that made no impression at all at
generation long dead, most of whom left no
records or whose records, if they exist, have
never been disturbed by the historian s touch, is
beyond the possibility of total recollection. The
reconstruction o1 the total past or mankind,
although it is the goal of historians, thus
becomes a goal they know full well is
unattainable.
"Objectivity" and "Subjectivity"
Sometimes objects like ruins, parchments, and
coins survive from the past. Otherwise, the facts
of history are derived from testimony and
therefore are facts of meaning. They cannot be
seen, felt, tasted, heard, or smelled. They may
be said to be symbolic or representative of
something that once was real, but they have no
objective reality of their own. In other words,
they exist only in the observer's or historian's
mind (and thus may be called "subjective"). To
be studied objectively (that is, with the intention
of acquiring detached and truthful knowledge
independent of one's personal reactions), a
thing must be first be an object; it must have an
independent existence outside the human mind.
Recollections, however, do not have existence
outside the human mind; and most of history is
based upon recollections that is, written or
spoken testimony.
A vulgar prejudice exists against "subjective"
knowledge as inferior to "objective"
knowledge, largely because the word
"'subjective has also come to mean "illusory" or
"based upon personal considerations," and
hence either "untrue" or "biased." Knowledge
may be acquired, however, by an impartial and
judicially detached investigation of mental
images, processes, concepts, and precepts that
are one or more steps removed from objective
reality. Impartiality and "objectivity," to be
sure, may be more difficult to obtain from such
data, and hence conclusions based upon them
may be more debatable; but such data and
conclusions, if true, are not necessarily interior
to other kinds of knowledge per se. The word
subjective is not used here to imply
disparagement of any sort, but it does imply the
necessity for the application o1 spec1a1 Kinds
of safeguards against error.
Artifacts as Sources of History
Only where relics of human happenings can be
found a potsherd, a coin, a ruin, a manuscript, a
book, a portrait, a stamp, a piece of wreckage, a
strand of hair, or other archeological or
anthropological remains- do we have objects
other than words that the historian can study.
These objects, however, are never the
happenings or the events themselves. If
artifacts, they are the results of events; if written
documents, they may be the results of the
records of events. Whether artifacts or
documents, they are raw materials out of which
history may be written.
To be sure, certain historical truths can be
derived immediately from such materials. The
historian can discover that a piece of pottery
was handwrought, that a building was made of
martared brick, that a manuscript was written in
a cursive hand, that a painting was done in oils,
that sanitary plumbing was known in an old
city, and many other such data from direct
observation of artifacts surviving from the past.
But such facts, important though they are, are
not the essence of the study of history. The
historian deals with the dynamic or genetic (the
becoming) as well as the static (the being or the
become) and he aims at being interpretative
(explaining why and how things happened and
were interrelated) as well as descriptive (telling
what happened, when and where, and who took
part). Besides, such descriptive data as can be
derived directly and immediately from
surviving artifacts are only a small part of the
periods to which they belong.
A historical context can be given to them only
if they can be placed in a human setting. That
human beings lived in the brick building with
sanitary plumbing, ate out of the handwrought
pottery, and admired the oil painting that were
mentioned above might perhaps easily be
inferred. But the inference may just as easily be
mistaken, for the building might have been
stable, the piece of pottery might have been
from a roof-tile, the painting might have been a
hidden-away relic with not admirers
whatsoever; and an infinity of other
suppositions is possible. Without further
evidence the human context of these articles
can never be recaptured with any degree of
certainty.
Historical knowledge Limited by
Incompleteness of the Records
Unfortunately, for most of the past we not only
have no further evidence of the human setting
in which to place surviving artifacts; we do not
even have the artifacts. Most human affairs
happen without leaving vestiges or records of
any kind behind them. The past, having
happened, has perished forever with only
occasional traces. To begin with, although the
absolute number of historical writings is
staggering, only a small part of what happened
in the past was ever observed. A moment’s
reflection is sufficient to establish that fact.
How much, for example, of what you do, say,
or think 1s ever observed by anyone (including
yourself)? Multiply your unobserved actions,
thoughts, words, and physiological processes
by 2,000,000,000, and you get rough estimate
of the amount of unobserved happenings that go
on in the world all the time. And only a part of
what was observed in the past was remembered
by those who observed it, only a part of what
remembered was recorded; only a part of what
has survived has come to the historian's
attention; only a part of what is credible has
been grasped; and only a part of what has been
grasped can be expounded or narrated by the
historian. The whole history of the past (what
has been called history-as-actuality) can be
known to him only through the surviving record
of it (history-as-record), and most of history-
as-record is only the surviving part of the
recorded part of the remembered part of the
observed past of that whole. Even when the
record of the past is derived directly from
archeological or anthropological remains, they
are yet only the scholar's selected parts of the
discovered parts of the chance survivals from
the total past.
In so far as the historian has an external object
to study it is not the perished history that
actually happened (history-as-actuality) but the
surviving records of what happened (history-as-
record). History can be told only from history-
as-record; and history as told Spoken-or-
written-history) is only the historians expressed
part of the understood part or ten credible part
of the discovered part of history-as-record.
Before the past is set forth by the historian, it 1s
likely to have gone through eight separate steps
at each of which some of it has been lost; and
there is no guarantee that what remains is the
most important, the largest, the most valuable,
the most representative, or the most enduring
part. In other words, the "object" that the
historian studies is not only incomplete; it is
markedly variable as records are lost or
rediscovered.
History as the Subjective process of Re-
creation
From this probably inadequate remainder the
historian must do what he can to restore the
total past of mankind. He has no way of doing
it but in terms of his own experience. That
experience, however, has taught him (1) that
yesterday was different from today in some
ways as well as the same as today in others, and
(2) that his own experience is both like and
unlike other men's. It is not alone his own
memories interpreted in the light of his own
experience that he must try to apply to the
understanding of historical survivals; it is the
memories of many other people as well, but
one's own memories are abstract images, not
realities, and one's reconstructions of others’
memories, even when reinforced by
contemporary records and relies, are likely to be
even more abstract. Thus the utmost the
historian can grasp of history-as-actuality, no
matter how real it may have seemed while t was
happening, can be nothing more than a mental
image or a series of mental images based upon
an application of his own experience, real and
vicarious, to part of a part of a part of a part of
a part of a part of a vanished whole.
In short, the historian's aim is verisimilitude
with regard to a perished past – subjective
process – rather than experimental certainty
with regard to an objective reality. He tries to
get as close an approximation to the truth about
the past as constant correction of his mental
images will allow, at the same time recognizing
that the truth has in fact eluded him forever.
Here is the essential difference between the
study of man's past and of man' s physical
environment Physics, for example, has an
extrinsic and whole object to study – the
physical universe – that does not change
because the physicist is studying it, no matter
how much his understanding of it may change;
history has only detached and scattered objects
to study (documents and relics) that do not
together make up the total object that the
historian is studying – the past of mankind –
and that object, having largely disappeared,
exists only in as far as his always incomplete
and frequently changing understanding of it can
re-create it. Some of the natural scientists, such
as geologists and paleozoologist , in so far as
the objects they study are traces from a perished
past, greatly resemble historians in this regard,
but differ from them, on the other hand, in so
far as historians have to deal with human
testimony as well as physical traces.
Once the historian understands his predicament,
his task is simplified. His responsibility shifts
from the obligation to acquire a complete
knowledge of the irrecoverable past by means
of the surviving evidence to that of re-creating
a verisimilar image of as much of the past as the
evidence makes recoverable. The latter task is
the easier one. For the historian history
becomes only that part of the human past which
can be meaningfully reconstructed from the
available records and from inferences regarding
their setting.
Historical Method and Historiography
Defined
The process of critically examining and
analyzing the records and survivals of the past
is here called historical method. The
imaginative reconstruction of the past from the
data derived by that process is called
historiography (the writing of history). By
means of historical method and historiography
(both of which are frequently grouped together
simply as historical method) the historian
endeavors to reconstruct as much of the past of
mankind as he can. Even in this limited effort,
however, the historian is handicapped. He
rarely can tell the story even of a part of the past
"as it actually occurred," although the great
German historian Leopold von Ranke enjoined
him to do so, because in addition to the probable
incompleteness of the records, he is faced with
the inadequacy of the human imagination and
of human speech for such an 'actual re-creation.
But he can endeavor, to use a geometrician's
phrase, to approach the actual past "as a imit."
For the past conceived of as something that
"actually occurred" places obvious limits upon
the kinds of record and of imagination that he
may use. He must be sure that his records really
come from the past and are in fact what they
seem to be and that his imagination is directed
toward re-creation and not creation. These
limits distinguish history from fiction, poetry,
drama, and fantasy.
Imagination in Historiography
The historian is not permitted to imagine things
that could not reasonably have happened. For
certain purposes that we shall later examine he
may imagine things that have happened. But he
is frequently required to imagine things that
must have happened. For the exercise of the
imagination in history it is impossible to lay
down rules except very general ones. It is a
platitude that the historian who knows
contemporary life best will understand past life
best. Since the human mentality has not
changed noticeably in historic times, present
generations can understand past generations in
terms of their own experience. Those historians
can make the best analogies and contrasts – that
is – the widest range of experience,
imagination, wisdom, and knowledge.
Unfortunately, no platitude tells how to acquire
a wide range of those desirable qualities and
knowledge or how to transfer them to an
understanding of the past. For they are not
accumulated alone by precept or example,
industry and prayer, though all of these may
help. And so historiography, the synthesizing of
historical data into narrative or expositions by
writing history books and articles or delivering
history lectures, is not easily made the subject
of rules and regulations. Some room must be
left for native talent and inspiration, and
perhaps that is a good thing. But since precepts
and examples may help, an effort will be made
to set forth a few of them.
History of Historical Method
Historical method, however, not only can be
made the subject of rules and regulations; for
over two thousand years it has been.
Thucydides, who in the fifth century B.C. wrote
his famous history of the Peloponesian War,
conscientiously told his readers how he
gathered his materials and what tests he used to
separate truth from fiction. Even when he
invented speeches to put into the mouths of
contemporaries, he tried to make them as like
the originals as his sources of knowledge
permitted. He hoped to conform both to the
spirit of the speaker and the letter of the speech;
but since stenographic reports were not
available, he had sometimes to supply the
speaker's words, "expressed as I thought he
would be likely to express them."
Since Thucydides' day, many historians have
written, briefly or at length, upon historical
method. Outstanding examples are Lucian, Ibn
Khaldun, Bodin, Mably, Voltaire, and Ranke,
though sometimes their studies have dealt with
the scope rather than the techniques of history.
With Emst Bernheim's Lehbuch der historichen
Methode und de Geschichtsphilosophie (1" ed.,
Leipzig, 1889). The modern and more academic
discussion of the subject may be said to have
begun. Since Bernheim's exposition a number
of other textbooks have been published.
Although none of them surpass his masterpiece,
peculiar merits intended for particular kinds of
readers are found in some. Notable examples
are the Langlois and Seignobos volume for
Frechmen; the Johnson and the Nevins volumes
for Americans; the Harsin and the Kent
booklets for younger students; and the Wolf, the
Hockett, and the Bloch and Renouvin books for
students of specialized fields of history.
In all of these works and literally dozens of
others like them there is a striking degree of
unanimity regarding the methods of historical
analysis. For our purposes these methods will
be considered under four headings: (l) the
selection of a subject for investigation; (2)
collection of probable sources of information of
the subject: (3) the examination of those
sources for genuineness (either in full or in
part), and (4) the extraction of credible
particulars from sources (or parts of sources)
proved genuine. The synthesis of the particulars
thus derived is historiography, about which
there is less unanimity among the textbooks.
For purposes of clarity we shall have to treat
analysis and synthesis as if they were discreet
processes, but we shall see that at various stages
they cannot be entirely separated.
Sources
The historian's problem in choosing a subject
and collecting in formation upon it (the latter
sometimes dignified by the Greek name of
heuristics) will be discussed in Chapter IV.
Historical heuristics do not differ essentially
from any other bibliographical exercise in so far
as printed books are concerned. The historian,
however, has to use many materials that are not
in books. Where these are archeological,
epigraphical or numismatical materials, he has
to depend largely on museums. Where they are
official records, he may have to search for them
in archives, court houses, governmental
libraries, etc. where they are private papers not
available in official collections he may have to
hunt among the papers of business houses, the
muniment rooms of ancient castles, the prized
possessions of autograph collectors, the records
of parish churches, etc. having some subject in
mind, with more or less definite delimitation of
the persons, areas, times, and functions (i.e., the
economic, political, intellectual, diplomatic or
other occupational aspects) involved, he looks
for materials that may have some bearing upon
those persons in that area at that time
functioning in that fashion. These materials are
his sources. The more precise his delimitations
of persons, area, time, and function, the more
relevant his sources are likely to be (see Chapter
X).
The Distinction between Primary and Other
Original Sources
Written and oral sources are divided into two
kinds: primary and secondary. A primary
source is the testimony of eyewitness, or of a
witness by any other of the senses, or of a
mechanical device like the Dictaphone – that is,
of one who or that which was present at the
events of which he or it tells (hereafter called
simply eyewitness). A secondary source is the
testimony of anyone who is not an eyewitness
that is, of one who was not present at the events
of which he tells. A primary source must thus
have been produced by a contemporary of the
events it narrates. It does not, however, need to
be original in the legal sense of the word
original – that is, the very document (usually
the first written draft) whose contents are the
subject of discussion for quite often a later copy
or a printed edition will do just as well; and in
the case of the Greek and Roman classics
seldom are any but later copies available.
“Original” is a word of so many different
meanings that it would have been better to
avoid it in precise historical discourse. It can be,
and frequently is, used to denote five different
conditions of a document, all of which are
important to the historian. A document may be
called "original" (1) because it contains fresh
and creative ideas, (2) because it is not
translated from the language in which it was
first written, (3) because it is in earliest,
unpolished stage, (4) because its text is the
approved text, unmodified and untampered
with, and (5) because it is the earliest available
source of the information it provides. These five
meanings of the word may overlap, but they are
not synonymous.
Unfortunately, the phrase "original sources" has
become common among historians, and it is
desirable to define its usage accurately. It is best
used by the historian in only two senses – (1) to
describe a source, unpolished, uncopied,
untranslated, as it issued from the hands of the
authors (e.g., the original draft of the Magna
Carta) or (2) a source that gives the earliest
available information (i.e. the origin) regarding
the question under investigation because earlier
sources have been lost (in the sense that Livy is
an "original source for some of our knowledge
of the kings of Rome). In using the phrase
historians are frequently guilty of looseness. An
effort will be made to use it here only in the two
senses just defined.
Primary sources need not be original in either
of these two ways. They need be "original" only
in the sense of underived or first-hand as to
their testimony. This point ought to be
emphasized in order to avoid confusion
between original sources and primary sources.
The confusion arises from a particularly
careless use of the word original. It is often used
by historians as a synonym for manuscript or
archival. Yet a moment's reflexion will suffice
to indicate that a manuscript source is no more
likely to be primary than a printed source, and
that it may be a copy rather than the "original”.
Even where it is a primary source, it may deal
with a subject upon which earlier information is
already available. Hence a manuscript source is
not necessarily "original" in either of the two
relevant senses of that word. It should be
remembered that the historian when analyzing
sources is interested chiefly in particulars and
that he asks of each particular whether it is
based on first-hand or second-hand testimony.
Hence it makes small difference to him whether
a document is original in the sense of "as
written by its actual author" or a copy, except in
so far as such originality may aid him to
determine its author and therefore whether it is
primary or, it is secondary, from what more
independent testimony it is derived. Students of
history readily depend upon specialists in
editorial skills and archival techniques to
publish collections of manuscripts and are
willing to use them in printed form.
Primary Particulars Rather than Whole
Primary Sources Sought
As has been indicated, the historian is less
concerned with a source as a whole than with
the particular data within that source. It is easy
to conceive of a source essentially primary that
will contain secondary (and therefore less
usable) data. The general who writes a
communiqué thereby provides a source that
may be for the most part primary but for many
details secondary, because he must necessarily
depend upon his subordinates for information
regarding much that he reports. The newspaper
correspondents may, like Aeneas, tell about
things "all of which he saw and part of which
he was and yet may also have to depend upon
"an official spokesman or "source usually
considered reliable" for some of his
information. The careful historian will use all
the statements of such military communiqué or
newspaper dispatches with equal confidence.
On the other hand, should he find, as he
frequently does, that a book that is essentially
secondary (like a biography or even a work of
fiction) contains, for example, personal letters
or touches of directly observed local color, he
may well use them as first-hand evidence if they
are genuine and relevant.
Sources, in other words, whether primary or
secondary, are important to the historian
because they contain primary particulars (or at
least suggest leads to primary particulars). The
particulars they furnish are trustworthy not
because of the book or article or report they are
in, but because of the reliability of the narrator
as a witness of those particulars.
The Document
The word document (from docere, to teach) has
also been used by historians in several senses.
On the one hand, it is sometimes used to mean
a written source of historical information as
contrasted with oral testimony or with artifacts,
pictorial survivals, and archeological remains.
On the other, it is sometimes reserved for only
official and state papers such as treatises, laws,
grants, deeds, etc. Still another sense is
contained in the word documentation which as
used by the historian among others, signifies
any process of proof based upon any kind of
source whether written, oral, pictorial, or
archeological. For the sake of clarity, it seems
best to employ the word document in the last,
the most comprehensive meaning, which 1s
etymologically correct, using written document
and official document to designate the less
comprehensive categories. Thus document
becomes synonymous with source, whether
written or not, official or not, primary or not.
The Human and the "Personal" Document
The human document has been defined as "an
account of individual experience which reveals
the individual's actions as a human agent and
as a participant in social life." The personal
document has been defined as "any self-
revealing record that intentionally or
unintentionally yields information regarding
the structure, dynamics and functioning of the
author's mental life." The first definition is by a
sociologist and emphasizes experience… In
“social life” as an element of the human
document. The second definition is by a
psychologist and emphasizes "the author's
mental life" as an element of the personal
document have been used interchangeably. The
two kinds of documents seem to have one
essential characteristic in common; a human,
personal reaction to the events with which they
deal. To both sociologist and psychologist it is
the degree of subjectivity in these documents
that distinguishes them from other documents.
The best examples seem to be documents
written in the first person -like autobiographies
and letters - or documents written in the third
person but describing human reactions and
attitudes like newspaper accounts, court
records, and records of social agencies.
To the historian the difference between first-
person and third-person documents is not of
major significance. That is true for at least three
reasons. (1) Often an apparently third-person
document is in fact first-person (as, for
example, the Mémoires of Lafayette or The
Education of Henry Adams). (2) Genuinely
third-person documents in so far as they are
"historicable" must ultimately rest on first-hand
observation (whether by the author or by
someone consulted by the author). (3) Every
document, no matter how thoroughly the author
strove to be impartial and detached, must
exhibit to a greater or lesser extent the author's
philosophies and emphases, likes and dislikes,
and hence betrays the author's inner personality.
Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, Johann Gustav Droysen's
Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen or
Hippolyte Taine's French Revolution may be
regarded as secondary, third-person accounts of
remote history, or they may be (and indeed have
been) regarded as autobiographical writings of
Gibbon, Droysen, and Taine. Scholarly reviews
of scholarly books ought to be among the least
likely places to hunt tor personal reactions
(except, as sometimes happens with the best
reviews, the reviewer deliberately sets out to
present his own point of view); and yet how
often private philosophies, attitudes, likes, and
dislikes are unintentionally betrayed by the
most sober reviewers! Whether a documents is
to be examined for what it reveals about its
subject or for what it reveals about its author-
whether, in other words, it is a third-person or a
first- person document thus depends upon the
examiner's rather than the author's intention.
For the same reason the term personal
document is to the historian synonymous with
the term human document. These terms were
invented by social scientists. The historian is
not likely to employ them. To him they appear
tautalogous. All documents are both human and
personal, since they are the work of human
beings and shed light upon their authors as well
as upon the subjects the authors were trying to
expound. Sometimes, indeed, they betray the
author's personality, private thoughts, and
social lite more revealingly than they describe
the things he has under observation. Here, too,
a document's significant may have greater
relationship to the intention of the historian than
to that of the author. Sometimes the historian
may learn more about the author than the author
intended that he should.
Topic: The Problem of Authenticity and
Credibility
Chapter VI
Excerpt from "The Problem of
Authenticity, or External Criticism"
 by Louis Gottschalk
So far it has been assumed that the documents
dealt with have been authentic. The problem of
authenticity seldom concerns the sociologist or
psychologist or an anthropologist, who
generally has a living Subject under his eye, can
see him as he prepares his autobiography and
can cross-examine him about doubtful points.
Even in the law courts the question of
authenticity of documents becomes difficult
problem only on rare occasions, when the writer
or witness to the writing cannot be produced.
But for historical documents those occasions
are not rare. They are in fact frequent for
manuscript sources; and if doubt as to
authenticity arises less often for printed
sources, it is because usually some skilled
editor has already performed the task of
authenticating them.
Forged or Misleading Documents
Forgeries or documents in whole or in part
without being usual, are common enough to
keep the careful historian constantly on his
guard. "Historical documents" are fabricated
for several reasons. Sometimes they are used to
bolster a false claim or title. A well-known
example is the Donation of Constantine, which
used to be cited on occasion to bolster a theory
that popes had a wide territorial claim in the
west. In 1440 Lorenzo Valla proved, chiefly by
means of anachronisms of style and allusion,
that it had been forged. At other times
documents are counterfeited for sale.
Counterfeit letter of Queen Marie Antoinette
used to turn up frequently. A Philadelphia
autograph dealer named Robert Spring once
manufactured hundreds of skilful forgeries in
order to supply the demand or collectors. A
recent notorious example of forgery was the
"correspondence" of Abraham Lincoln and Ann
Rutledge, palmed off on the Atlantic Monthly
in 1928.
Sometimes fabrication is due to less mercenary
considerations. Political propaganda largely
accounts for protocols of the Elders of Zion, a
"document” pretending to reveal a ruthless
Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Sometimes
historical "facts" are based only on some
practical joke, as in the case of H.L. Mencken's
much cited article on the "history" of the
bathtub, or of Alexander Woollcott's mocking
letter of endorsement of Dorothy Parker's
husband (of which he never sent the original to
ice supposed addressee, although he did send
the carbon copy to the endorsee). The Memoires
of Madame d' Epinay are a striking example of
fabrication of a whole book that has beguiled
even respectable historians.
Sometimes quite genuine documents are
intended to mislead certain contemporaries and
hence have misled subsequent historians. A
statement supposed to be that of Emperor
Leopold II's views on the French Revolution
misled Marie Antoinette and subsequently even
the most careful historians until it was exposed
in 1984 as a wishful statement of some French
emigrés. In days when spies are expected to
open mail in the post, writers of letters would
occasionally try to outwit them by turning their
curiosity to the advantage of the one spied upon
rather than to that of the spy or his employer.
And when censors might condemn books to be
burned and writers to be imprisoned, authors
could hardly be blamed if they sometimes
signed others names to their work. For instance,
it is hard to tell whether some works actually
written by Voltaire are not still ascribed to
others. It is thus possible to be too skeptical
about a document which may be genuine
though not what it seems. Bernheim has
provided a list of documents that were once
hypercritically considered unauthentic bur are
now accepted. Perhaps it was hypercriticism of
this kind that led Vincent Starrett to write his
verse entitled “After Much Striving for Fame”
It would be rather jolly, I think,
To be the original authority
On some obscure matter of literature or
faith
Upon which, in one's leisure,
One had jotted down an inaccurate
pamphlet
And forever there after
To be quoted by all post- Vincentian
borrowers
In a pertinacious footnote.
Occasionally misrepresentations of the nature
of printed works result from editor‘s tricks. It is
still a matter of dispute which of many writings
attributed to Cardinal Richelieu were in fact
written or dictated by him, and little of the so-
called Mémoires de Jean de Witt and Testament
politique de Colbert were in fact Written by
John de Witt and Colbert. The memoirs
attributed to Condorcet and to Weber, foster-
brother of Marie Antoinette, and several works
ascribed to Napoleon l are by others than their
alleged authors. Even issues of daily
newspapers have been manufactured long after
the dates they bear. The Moniteur furnishes
some good examples. Several diaries have been
made up by others from his writings. The
Circumstances of The forgery or
misrepresentation of historical documents may
often themselves reveal important political,
cultural, and biographical information - but not
about the same events or persons as if they were
genuine.
Tests of Authenticity
To distinguish a hoax or misrepresentation from
genuine document, the historian has to use tests
that are common also in police and legal
detection. Making the best guess he can of the
date of the document, he examines the materials
to see whether they are not anachronistic: paper
was rare in Europe before the fifteenth century,
and printing was unknown, pencils did not exist
there before the sixteenth century; typewriting
was not invented until the nineteenth century,
and India paper came only at the end of that
century. The historian also examines the ink for
signs of age or for anachronistic chemical
composition. Making his best guess of the
possible author of the document, he sees if he
can identify the handwriting, signature, seal,
letterhead, or watermark. Even when the
handwriting is unfamiliar, it can be compared
with authenticated specimens. One of the
unfulfilled needs of the historian is more of
what the French call "isographies - dictionaries
of biography giving examples of handwriting.
For some period of history, experts using
techniques known as dictionaries of biography
giving examples or handwriting for some
period of history, experts using techniques
known as paleography and diplomatics, first
systematized by Mabillon in the seventeenth
century, have long known that in certain regions
at certain times handwriting and the style and
form of official documents were more or less
conventionalized. Seals have been the subject
of special study by sigillographers, and experts
can detect faked ones. Anachronistic style
(idiom, orthography or punctuation) can be
detected by specialists who are familiar with
contemporary writing. Often spelling,
particularly of proper names and signatures
(because too good or too bad or anachronistic),
reveals a forgery, as would also unhistoric
grammar.
Anachronistic references to events (too early or
too late or too remote) or the dating of the
document at a time when the alleged writer
could not possibly have been at the place
designated (the alibi) uncovers fraud.
Sometimes the skillful forger has all too
carefully followed the best historical sources
and his product becomes too obviously a copy
in certain passages, or where, by skillful
paraphrase and invention, he is shrewd enough
to avoid detection in that fashion, he is given
away by the absence of trivia and otherwise
unknown details from his manufactured
account. Usually, however, if the document is
where ought to be- for example, in a family’s
archives, or among a business firm's or lawyer's
papers, or in governmental bureau’s records
(but not merely because it is in a library or in an
amateur’s autograph collection) - its
provenance (or its custody, as the lawyers call
it), creates a presumption or its genuineness.
Garbled Documents
A document that in its entirety or in large part
is the result of a deliberate effort to deceive may
often be hard to evaluate, but it sometimes
causes less trouble than does the document that
is unauthentic only in small part. For such parts
are usually the result, not of studied falsehood,
but of unintentional error. They occur most
frequently in copies of documents whose
originals have disappeared, and are generally
due to that kind of error of omission, repetition,
or addition with which anyone who have ever
made copies soon becomes familiar.
Sometimes they are the result, however, not of
carelessness but of deliberate intention to
modify, supplement, or continue the original.
Such a change may be made in good faith in the
first instance, care being exerted to indicate the
differences between the original text and the
glossary or continuations, but future copyist are
often less careful or more confused and make
no such distinctions.
This problem is most familiar to classical
philologists and Bible critics. For they seldom
have copies less than eight centuries and several
stages of reproduction removed from the
original-that is to say, copies of copies of copies
and sometimes copies of translations of copies
of translations of copies, and so0 on. The
philologists give to this problem of establishing
an accurate text the name textual criticism, and
in Biblical studies it is also called lower
criticism. The historian has borrowed his
technique from philologist and Bible critics.
The Restoration of Texts
The technique is complicated but can be briefly
described. The first task is to collect as many
copies of the dubious text as diligent search will
reveal. Then they are compared. It is found that
some contain words or phrases or whole
passages that are not contained in others. The
question then arises: Are those words, phrases
or passages additions to the original text that
have found their way into some copies, or are
they omissions from the others? To answer that
question it is necessary to divide the available
copies into one or more "families" - that is,
groups of texts which closely resemble each
other and therefore seem to be derived, directly
or indirectly, from the same master copy. Then
by a comparison of the texts within each family
an effort is made to establish the comparative
age of each in relation to the others. If the
members of the same family are largely copied
from each other, as this arrangement in families
frequently shows, the oldest one is all
probability (but not necessarily) the one nearest
the original. This process is continued for all the
families. When the copy nearest the original in
each family is discovered, a comparison of all
of these "father" copies will usually then reveal
words and passages that are in some but not in
others. Again the question arises: Are those
words and passages additions to the copies that
have them or omissions from the copies that do
not? The most accurate available wordings of
the passages added or omitted by the respective
copyists are then prepared. Changes in
handwritings, anachronisms in style, grammar,
orthography, or factual detail, and opinions or
errors unlikely to have been those of the
original author frequently reveal additions by a
later hand. When the style and contents of
passages under discussion may be attributed to
the author, it is safe to assume that they were
parts of his original manuscript but were
omitted by later copyist; and when they cannot
be attributed to the author, it is safe to assume
that they were not parts of his original
manuscript. In some cases, a final decision has
to await the discovery of still more copies. In
many instances the original text can be
approximately or entirely restored.
By a similar method one can even guess the
contents, at least in part, of a “father”
manuscript even when no full copy of it is in
existence. The historian Wilhelm von
Giesebrecht, a student of Ranke, attempted to
reconstruct a text that he reasoned must be the
ancestor of several eleventh-century chronicles
in which he had noted striking similarities. By
adding together the passages that appeared to be
"descended" from an unknown chronicle, he
made a guess as to its contents. Over a quarter
of a century later the ancestor chronicle was in
fact found and proved to be extensively like
Giesebrecht's guess.
Identification of Author and of Date
Some guess of the approximate date of the
document and some identification of its
supposed author (or, at least, a surmise as to his
location in time and space and as to his habits,
attitudes, character, learning. associates, etc.)
obviously form an essential part of external
criticism. Otherwise it would be impossible to
prove or disprove authenticity by
anachronisms, handwriting, style, alibi, or other
tests that are associated with the author's milieu,
personality, and actions. But similar knowledge
or guesses are also necessary for internal
criticism, and therefore the problem of author-
identification has been left for the next chapter.
Having established an authentic text and
discovered what its author really intended to
say, the historian has only established what the
witness's testimony is. He has yet to determine
whether that testimony is at all credible, and if
s0, to what extent. That is the problem of
internal criticism.
Chapter VII
The Problem of Credibility, or Internal
Criticism
The historian first aims in the examination of
testimony to obtain a set of particulars relevant
to some topic or question that he has in mind.
Isolated particulars have little meaning by
themselves, and unless they have a context or
fit into a hypothesis they are of doubtful value.
But that is a problem of synthesis, which will be
discussed later. What we are now concerned is
the analysis of documents for credible details to
be fitted into a hypothesis or context.
What is Historical Fact?
In the process of analysis the historian should
constantly keep in mind the relevant particulars
within the document rather than the document
as a whole. Regarding each particulars he asks:
Is it credible? It might be well to point out again
that what is meant by calling a particular
credible is not that it is actually what happened,
but that it is as close of what actually happened
as we can learn from a critical examination of
the best available sources . This means
verisimilar at a high level. It connotes
something more than merely not being
preposterous in itself or even than plausible and
yet is short or meaning accurately descriptive
of past actuality. In other words, the historian
establishes verisimilitude rather than objective
truth. Though there is a high correlation
between the two, they are not necessarily
identical. As far as mere particulars are
concerned, historians disagree relatively
seldom regarding what is credible in this special
sense of "conforming to a critical examination
of the sources. It is not inconceivable that, in
dealing with the same document, two historians
of equal ability and training would extract the
same isolated "facts" and agree with each
other's findings. In that way the elementary data
of history are subject to proof.
A historical "fact" thus may be defined as a
particular derived directly or indirectly from
historical documents and regarded as credible
after careful testing in accordance with the
canons of historical method. An infinity and a
multiple variety of facts of this kind are
accepted by all historians: e.g., that Socrates
really existed; that Alexander invaded India,
that the Romans built the Pantheon; that the
Chinese have an ancient literature (but here we
introduce a complexity with the word ancient,
which needs definition before its factual quality
can be considered certain); that pope Innocent
III excommunicated King John or England, that
Michael Angelo sculptured "Moses"; that
Bismarck modified the dispatch from Ems of
King Williams secretary; that banks in the
United States in 1933 were closed for four days
by presidential proclamation; and that "the
Yankees” won the “World Series” in 1949.
Simple and fully attested "facts" of this kind are
rarely disputed. They are easily observed, easily
recorded (it not self-evident, like the Pantheon
and Chinese literature), involve no judgments
of value (except with regard to the antiquity of
Chinese literature), contradict no other
knowledge available to us, seem otherwise
logically acceptable, and avoiding
generalization, deal with single instances.
Even some apparently simple and concrete
statements, however, are subject to question. If
no one disputes the historicity of Socrates, there
1s less agreement regarding Moses and earlier
figures of Hebrew folklore. If no one doubts
that Michael Angelo sculptured his "Moses, a
few still think that Shakespeare's plays were in
fact written by Francis Bacon. Doubt regarding
concrete particulars is likely to be due,
however, to lack of testimony based on first-
hand observation rather than to disagreement
among the witnesses. In general, on simple and
concrete matters where testimony of direct
observation is available, the testimony can
usually be submitted to tests of reliability that
will be convincing either pro or con to most
competent and 1mpartial historians. As soon as
abstractions, value judgments, generalizations,
and other complexities enter into testimony the
possibility contradiction and debate enters with
them. Hence, alongside the multitude of facts
generally accepted by historians, exists another
multitude debated (or at least debatable) by
them.
The Interrogative Hypothesis
In analyzing a document for its isolated facts,"
the historian should approach it with a question
or a set of questions in mind, The questions may
be relatively noncommittal. (E.g Did Saul try to
assassinate David? What were the details of
Catiline’s life? Who were the crusading
companions of Tancred? What was the date of
Erasmus birth? How many men were aboard De
Grasse's fleet in 1781? What is the correct
spelling of Siėyes? Was Hung Hsui-chun' an a
Christian?) It will be noted that one cannot ask
even simple questions like these without
knowing enough about some problem in history
to ask a question about it and if one knows
enough to ask even the simplest question, one
already has some idea and probably some
hypothesis regarding it, whether implicit or
explicit, whether tentative and flexible or
fformulated and fixed. Or the hypothesis may
be full-fledged, though still implicit and in
interrogative form (E g.: Can the Jews be held
responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus? Did the
medieval city develop from the fair? Why did
Anabaptists believe in religious liberty? How
did participation in the American Revolution
contribute to the spread of liberal ideas among
the French aristocracy? Why did Woodrow
Wilson deny knowledge of the "secret
treaties”?) In each of these questions a certain
implication is assumed to be true and further
clarification of it is sought on an additional
working assumption.
Putting the hypothesis in interrogative form is
more judicious than putting it in declarative
form if for no other reason than that it is more
noncommittal before all the evidence has been
examined. It may also help in some small way
to solve the delicate problem of relevance of
subject matter (see Chapter X below), since
only those materials are relevant which lead
directly to an answer to the question or indicate
that there is no satisfactory answer.
The Quest for Particular Details of
Testimony
As has already been pointed out, every
historical subject has four aspects - the
biographical, the geographical, the
chronological, and the occupational or
functional. With a set of names, dates, and key-
words in mind tor each of these aspects, the
historical investigator combs his document for
relevant particulars or “notes”, as he is more
likely to call them). It is generally wise to take
notes on relevant matter whether or not it at first
appears credible. It may turn out that even false
or mistaken testimony has relevance to an
understanding of one’s problem.
Having accumulated is notes, the investigator
must now separate the credible from the
incredible. Even from his "notes" he has
sometimes to extract still smaller details, for
even a Single name may reveal a companion of
Tancred, a single letter the correct spelling of
Sieyes, a Single digit the exact number of De
Grasse s Crew, or a single phrase the motives of
Wilson's denial. In detailed investigations, few
documents arc significant as a whole; they
serve most often only as mines from which to
extract historical ore. Each bit of ore, however,
may contain flaws of its own. The general
reliability of an author, in other words, has
significance only as establishing the probable
credibility of his particular statements. From
that process of scrupulous analysis emerges an
important general rule: for each particular of a
document, the process of establishing
credibility should be separately undertaken
regardless of the general credibility of the
author.
Identification of Author
As has already been pointed out, some
identification of the author is necessary to test a
document’s authenticity. In the subsequent
process of determining the credibility of its
particulars, even the most genuine of
documents should be regarded as guilty of
deceit until proven innocent. The importance of
first establishing the author's general reliability
is therefore obvious. Where the name of the
author can be determined and he is a person
about whom biographical data are available,
identification is a relatively easy task. Because,
in most legal and social science investigations,
the witness or the author of a document is
personally known and available to the
investigator, that question generally presents no
insurmountable difficulties to lawyers and
social scientists.
The historian, however, is frequently obliged to
use documents written by persons about whom
nothing or relatively little is known. Even the
hundreds of biographical dictionaries and
encyclopedias already in existence may be of
no help because the author's name is unknown
or, if known, not to be found in the reference
works. The historian must therefore depend
upon the document itself to teach him what it
can about the author. A single brief document
may teach him much if he asks the right
questions. It may, of course, contain explicit
biographical details, but to assume that would
be begging the question. Even where it is
relatively free from first-person allusions, much
may be learned of the author's mental processes
and personal attitudes from it alone.
Let us take the usual text of Lincoln's
Gettysdurg Address, and assume for the same
of example that we have no knowledge of it
except for what its own contents may reveal:
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers
brought forth on this continent, a new
nation, conceived in Liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men
are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war,
testing whether that nation, or any nation
so conceived and so dedicated, can long
endure. We are met on a great battle-field
of that war. We have come to dedicate a
portion of that field, as a final resting place
for those who here gave their lives that that
nation might live. It 1s altogether fitting
and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate-
we cannot consecrate-we cannot hallow-
this ground. The brave men, living and
dead, who struggled here, have
consecrated it, far above our poor power to
add or detract. The world will little note,
nor long remember what we say here, but
it can never forget what they did here. It is
for us the living, rather, to be dedicated
here to the unfinished work which they
who fought here have thus far so nobly
advanced. It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining
before us-that from these honored dead we
take increased devotion to that cause for
which they gave the last full measure of
devotion-that we here highly resolve that
these dead shall not have died in vain- that
this nation, under God, shall have a new
birth of freedom-and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people
shall not perish from the earth.
Even a hasty examination will suffice to make
clear that the author, at the time of writing, was
planning to use it as a speech ("we are met, what
we say here"), that he wrote English well, that
his address was a funeral oration ("we have
come to dedicate portion of that field as a final
resting place"), that he was probably a
prominent citizen, that he presumably was an
American ("our fathers," "this continent," "new
nation," four score and seven years ago"), that
he was an advocate of liberty and equality (or at
least desired his hearer to think so), that he lived
during the American Civil War, that he was
speaking at Gettysburg, or possibly Vicksburg
("great battlefield," "four score and seven years
ago), and that he wanted his side in the war to
be thought of as fighting for democracy
("government of the people, by the people, for
the people"). If we forget the controversy
among historians as to whether the words under
God were actually delivered or were only
afterward inserted, we may assume that he
subscribed, or wished to appear to subscribe, to
the belief in Supreme Being.
From a short document, it would thus appear, it
is possible to learn much about the author
without knowing who he was. In the case of the
Gettysburg Address a trained historian would
probably soon detect Lincoln's authorship, if it
were unknown. But even if he had never heard
of Lincoln, he would be able to tell that, in
attempting to judge the truth of the particulars
stated in that address, he would have to consider
it as probably a public exhortation by a
prominent antislavery Northerner after a major
victory over the Confederate States in the
American Civil War. Many documents, being
less modest and less economical of words than
the Gettysburg Address, give their authors
away more readily.
Determination of Approximate Date
It would be relatively easy, even if the
Gettysburg Address were a totally strange
document, to establish its approximate date. It
was obviously composed tour-score and seven
years after the Declaration of Independence,
hence in 1863. But few strange documents are
so easily dated. One has frequently to resort to
the conjectures known to the historian as the
terminus non-post quem (“the point not after
which"). These termini, or points, have to be
established by internal evidence by clues given
within the document itself. If the date 1863
were not implicit in the Gettysburg Address,
other references within the speech could point
obviously to the beginning of the American
Civil War as its terminus non ante quem and
since the war was obviously still going on when
the document was composed, its terminus non
post quem would be the end of the Civil War.
Hence its date could be fixed approximately,
even if the first sentence had been lost, as
somewhere between 180l and 1861; and if we
were enabled by other data to guess at "the great
battlefield,” we might even narrow that margin.
Some documents might not permit even a
remote guess of their termini, but where the
author is known, one has at least the dates of his
birth and death go by.
The Personal Equation
This analysis of the Gettysburg Address (under
the false assumption that its authorship is
unknown) indicates the type of question the
historian asks of both anonymous and avowed
documents. Was the author an eyewitness of the
events he narrates? If not, what were his sources
of information? When did he write the
document? How much time elapsed between
the event and the record? What was his purpose
in writing or speaking? Who were his audience
and why? Such questions enable the historian to
answer the still more important questions: Was
the author of the documents able to tell the
truth; and if able, was he willing to do so? The
ability and the willingness of a witness to give
dependable testimony are determined by a
number of factors in his personality and social
situation that together are sometimes called his
personal equation," a term applied to the
correction required in astronomical
observations to allow for the habitual
inaccuracy of individual observers. The
personal equation of a historian is sometimes
also called "his frame of reference”, but it
probably will be found more expedient to
restrict the latter term to his conscious
philosophy or philosophies of life in so far as
they can be divorced from personality traits and
biases of which he may or may not be aware.
General Rules
In a law court it is frequently assumed that all
the testimony of a witness, though under oath,
is suspect if the opposing lawyers can impugn
his general character or by examination and
cross-examination create doubt or his veracity
in some regard. Even in modern law courts the
old maxim falsus in uno, jaisus in omnibus
tends to be overemphasızed. In addition,
hearsay evidence is as a general rule excluded;"
certain kinds of witnesses are "privileged" or
unqualified" and therefore are not obliged to
testify or are kept from testifying: and evidence
obtained by certain means regarded as
transgressing the citizen’s rights-such as "third
degree," drugs, wire-tapping, or lie-detector –
are ruled out or some courts. The legal system
of evidence, Says James Bradley Thayer, "is not
concerned with nice definitions, or the exacter
academic operations of the logical faculty. . . Its
rules. . . are seeking to determine, not what is or
is not, in its nature, probative, but rather,
passing by that inquiry, what among really
probative matters, shall, nevertheless, for this or
that practical reason, be excluded, and not even
heard by the jury. Courts of law, in the Anglo-
Saxon system at least, go on the assumption that
it one side presents all the permissible
testimony in its favor and if the other side
presents all the permissible testimony in its, the
truth will emerge plainly enough for judge and
jury from the conflict or harmony of the
testimony, even if some kinds of testimony are
not permissible; and possibly where much and
recent testimony is available, the innocent
suffer less often by such an assumption than the
guilty escape.
The historian, however, is prosecutor, attorney
for the defense, judge, and jury all in one. But
as judge he rules out no evidence whatever if it
is relevant. To him any single detail of
testimony is credible even if it is contained in a
document obtained by force or fraud, or is
otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay
evidence, or is from an interested witness
provided it can pass four tests:
1. Was the ultimate source of the detail
(the primary witness) able to tell the
truth?
2. Was the primary witness willing to tell
the truth?
3. Is the primary witness accurately
reported with regard to the detail under
examination?
4. Is there any independent
corroboration of the detail under
examination?
Any detail (regardless of what the source or
who the author) that passes all four tests is
credible historical evidence. It will bear
repetition that the primary witness and the
detail are now the subjects of examination, not
the source as a whole.
Ability to Tell the Truth
(1) Ability to tell the truth rests in part upon the
witness's nearness to the event. Nearness is
here used in both a geographical and a
chronological sense. The reliability of the
witness's testimony tends to vary in
proportion to (a) his own remoteness from
the scene in time and space, and (b) the
remoteness from the event in time and space
of his recording of it. There are three steps
in historical testimony: observation,
recollection, and recording (not to mention
the historian's own perception of the
witness's record). At each of these steps
(3) Degree of attention is als0 an important fact
something of the possible testimony may be
lost. Geographical as well as chronological
closeness to the event affects all three steps
and helps to determine both how much will
be lost and the accuracy of what is retained.
(2) Obviously all witnesses even if equally
close to the event are not equally competent
as witnesses. Competence depends upon
degree of expertness, state of mental and
physical health, age, education, memory,
narrative skill, etc. the ability to estimate
numbers is especially subject to suspicion.
The size of the army with which Xerxes
invaded Greece in 480 B.C. was said by
Herodotus to have numbered 1,700,000 but
it can be shown to have been considerably
less by the simple computation of the length
of time it would have taken that many men
to march through the Thermopylae Pass
even unopposed. More recently by a similar
computation doubt was thrown upon the
veracity of a newspaper report from
Moscow that one million men, women, and
children paraded through the Red Square in
celebration of the thirty-second anniversary
of the October Revolution (November 7,
1949) in five and one-half hour
demonstration, for it would require more
than fifty persons a second to march abreast
past a given point to complete a parade of
one million in five and one-half hours. With
some notable exceptions, such as the
Domesday Book of William the Conqueror,
historians have been warned against using
any source of numbers before the end of the
Middle Ages. The careful keeping of vital
statistics was a relatively late innovation or
the end of the eighteenth and the beginning
of the nineteenth century. Previous to that
time tax rolls and incomplete parish records
of baptisms, marriages, and burials were the
best indications. Even battle casualty
statistics before the nineteenth century are
suspect, and historians still disagree on the
cost in human life of wards up to and
including those or Napoleon I, and, in some
instances, beyond.
in the ability to tell the truth. A well-known
story, no less illustrative if it be apocryphal,
tells of a psychology professor who
deliberately staged a fight in his classroom
between two students, which led to a free-
for-all. When peace was restored, the
professor asked each member of the class to
write an account of what had happened.
There were, of course, conflicting
statements among the accounts, but, what
 was most significant, no students had
noticed that the professor in the midst of the
pandemonium had taken out a banana and
had peeled and eaten it. Obviously the entire
meaning of the event rested upon the
unnoticed act, it was an experiment in the
psychology of attention. Because each
student's interest had been fixed upon his
own part in the drama, each had given an
erroneous interpretation of what had
occurred. Magicians similarly depend upon
their ability to divert attention from things
they are doing to perpetuate some of their
tricks. The common human inability to see
things clearly and whole makes even the
best of witnesses suspect.
(4) We have already discussed the danger of the
leading question (p. 104). Such questions,
by implying the expected answer, make it
difficult to tell the whole truth. Lawyers also
count the hypothetical question ("Supposing
you did agree with me, would you act as
1?"), and the argumentative or "loaded"
question ("Have you stopped beating your
wife?") and the coached answer as
belonging to kindred categories. Such
questions are especially liable to be
misleading If they have to be answered
"Yes" or "No." Allport gives a striking
illustration of the kind of misinformation
that can be derived from the witness whose
narrative is circumscribed by the questioner.
He mentions an investigator who *secured
fifty topical autobiographies, forcing all
writers to tell about radicalism and
conservativism in their lives," and who from
those biographies almost (but fortunately
not quite) came to the conclusion that
"radicalism-conservativism constitutes one
of those first-order variables of which all
personalities are compounded."10
(5) In the last instance the investigator barely
missed reasoning n a circle -from premise
back to premise again. It has been contended
also that one of the reasons why religious
problems and events receive so much
attention in the history of the Middle Ages is
that its principal sources were written by
clergymen. lf medieval architects,
landowners, Soldiers, or merchants had
written more, they might have asked and
answered different kinds of questions and
given writings of our own intellectuals
should prove to be the major source for
future accounts of our age, future historians
will be misled into thinking that intellectuals
had a greater influence upon human affairs
in our time than they actually have. This sort
of circular argument must be especially
guarded against when an effort is being
made to ascribe unsigned writings to a
supposed author, for it is easy to assume that
the ideas of the writings are characteristic of
the supposed author if those very articles are
the basis of the assumptions regarding the
author's characteristics.
(6) One almost inescapable shortcoming of the
personal document is its egocentrism. It is to
be expected that even a modest observer will
tell what he himself heard and what he
himself did as if those details were the most
important things that were said and done.
Often it is impossible for him to tell his story
in any other terms, Since that is the only way
he knows it. This observation is a more or
less inevitable corollary of the caution with
regard to attention discussed above. The
famous speech of the Comte de Mirabeau
after Louis XVľ's Royal Session of June 23,
1789, provides a pat illustration of how
easily such egocentrism may mislead the
historian. Mirabeau (though speaking in the
third person) told how he has said something
about the necessity of force: "For we shall
leave our seats only by the power of the
bayonet." He failed to mention that several
others were expressing a similar
determination at about the same time,
though probably in more moderate
language. Therefore, historians trusting too
confidently to Mirabeau's testimony have
sometimes made him the heroic center of a
desperate crisis, still it 1s more probable that
he was not so conspicuous or the situation so
dramatic as he implied.
In general, inability to tell the truth leads to
errors of omission, rather than commission,
because of lack of completeness or lack of
balance n observation, recollection, or
narrative. Such errors may give a picture that is
out of perspective because it subordinates or
fails to include some important things and
overemphasızes those it does include.
Willingness to Tell the Truth
The historian also has to deal with documents
whose authors, though otherwise competent to
tell the truth, consciously or unconsciously tell
falsehoods. There are several conditions that
tend especially toward untruthfulness and
against which the experience of mankind has
armed lawyers, historians, and others who deal
with testimony."
(1) One of the most elementary rules in the
analysis of testimony is that which requires
the exercise of caution against the
interested witness. A witness's interest is
obvious when he himself may benefit from
perversion of the truth or may thereby
benefit some one of some cause dear to
him. Certain kinds of propaganda are
perhaps the worst examples of deliberate
perversion of truth out of a desire to benefit
a cause. In the seventeenth century the
word propaganda was applied to Catholic
missionary word without disparagement.
Since the nineteenth century, however, it
has been used more or less derogatorily to
designate any kind of concerted movement
to persuade and the instruments of such
persuasion. The word may be modem, but
propaganda and its methods have been
familiar since efforts were first made to
influence public opinion.
(2) Often the benefit to be derived from a
perversion of the truth is subtle and may
not be realized by the witness himself. In
such a case the cause of prevarication
probably is bias. If the witness's bias is
favorable to the subject of his testimony, it
is frequently designated studium. If it is
unfavorable, it may be designated odium
or ira. The Latin words are derived from a
declaration by Tacitus that he would write
history since ira studion (thereby setting a
standard that few historians, including
Tacitus, have been able to achieve).
Studium and odium, bias for and bias
against, frequently depend upon the
witnesses' s social circumstances and may
operate in a fashion of which he himself
may not be aware. it becomes important to
the historian to know what the witness's
Weltanschauung (or "frame of reference")
may be, as well as his religious, political,
social, economic, racial, national, regional,
local, family, personal, and other ties (or
personal equation). Any of these factors
may dictate a predilection or a prejudice
that will shade his testimony with nuances
that otherwise might have been absent.
(3) The intended hearers or readers of a
document, it has already been remarked (p.
90), play an important part in determining
the truthfulness of a statement. The desire
to please or to displease may lead to the
coloring or the avoidance of the truth.
Speakers at political rallies and at
banquets, writers of wartime dispatches
and communiqués, makers of polite letters
and conversation are among the numerous
producers of documents that may subtly
pervert fact for that reason. Akin to and
often associated with interest and bias,
which are often socially determined, this
motive is nevertheless different from them,
being usually personal and individual. It
may occasionally stand alone as an
explanation of prevarication.
(4) Literary style sometimes dictates the
sacrifice of truth. Epigrams and
notoriously- slogans of war and politics
(“L ètat c'est moi", *The Old Guard dies
but never surrenders), if properly
discredited in the interests of accuracy and
truthful reporting, would be robbed
pithiness and color. Authors of
autobiographies and letters, especially
when they write for private amusement,
 may feel tempted to state as fact what is
only hearsay or tradition or even fiction;
and frequently narrators and reporters
(especially of they hope for large
audiences) seek to appear omniscient
rather than to use the less Vigorous word,
the less striking phrase, the ifs and buts, the
there-is-some-reason-to- believe and the it
is perhaps-safe-to-say of more precise
discourse.
The anecdote is especially suspect. Much too
often it is a subsequent invention to throw
into humorous or striking relief some
spectacular figure or episode. The more
apposite the anecdote, the mode dubious it
is likely to be without corroboration. And
yet the existence of an especially pat
anecdote has a historical significance of its
own as showing the sort of thing believed
of or imputed to the subject. A well-known
Italian proverb describes such anecdotes as
felicitous (ben trovato) even if untrue.
(5) Laws and conventions sometimes oblige
witnesses to depart from strict veracity.
The same laws of libel and of good taste
that have encouraged the hiding of the
"resemblance to persons now living or
dead” in fiction and moving pictures have
precluded complete accuracy in some
works of history. Some of the notorious
inaccuracies of Jared Aparks as a historian
were due to his writing of living characters
from testimony by living witnesses who
requested him not to use certain data.
Etiquette in letters and conversation,
conventions and formalities in treaties and
public documents require politeness and
expressions of esteem that are obviously
false or empty. A successful comedy,
James Montgomery's Mothin but the Truth
(1916), was written around the valiant
effort of a young man to go through a
whole day without saying anything that
was untrue; it nearly cost him all his
friends. Religious concepts like the
Christian Scientist's interpretation of the
ideas of evil, disease, and death may lead
to misunderstanding. Corporations,
commission, and societies are sometimes
required by their articles of incorporation
or constitutions to meet periodically, but
when their numbers are small, the minutes
ot their meetings may be much more
formal than the actual meetings.
(6) Closely akin to this category are the many
instances of inexact dating of historical
documents because of the conventions and
formalities involved. For example, the
official text of the Declaration of
Independence is dated “In Congress, July
4, I776.” To the unwary reader it would
appear that those who signed it were
present and did so on that day. In fact, the
formal signing took place on August 2,
1776, some members did not sign until a
still later date. Some medieval rulers used
to date documents as of certain towns
though they were not at those towns on the
dates indicated. The modern official's and
businessman's habit of sending letters on
office stationery regardless of where they
may be or of dictating but not reading their
letters, which are signed by a rubber stamp
or a secretary, may make it very difficult
for future biographers to trace their
itineraries. Bank checks, having the city of
the bank's location printed on them, may
also prove misleading as to the signer's
whereabouts.
(7) Expectation or anticipation frequently leads
a witness astray. Those who count on
revolutionaries to be bloodthirsty and
conservatives gentlemanly, those who
expect the young to be irreverent and the
old crabbed, those who know Germans to
be ruthless and Englishmen to lack humor
generally find bloodthirsty Germans and
humorless Englishmen. A certain lack of
precision is found in such witnesses
because their eyes and ears are closed to
fair observation, or because, seeking, they
find; or because in recollection, they tend
to forget or minimize examples that do not
confirm their prejudices and hypotheses.
(This sort of attitude is only a special kind
 of bias and might be regarded merely as a
subdivision of Paragraph 2 above.)
Topic: A Guide for Using Primary
Source or Original Source Documents
A Guide for Using Primary Source or
Original Source Documents
Minnesota Humanities Center
Origin, Purpose, Value and Limitation (OPVL)
is a technique for analyzing historical
documents. It is used extensively in the
International Baccalaureate curriculum and
testing materials, and is incredibly helpful in
teaching students to be critical observers. It is
also known as Document Based Questions
(DBQ).
OPVL can be adapted to be used in any grade.
Younger students can answer more concrete,
factual questions about a document, while older
students have more capacity for abstract
reasoning, placing documents in historical
context, and drawing conclusions.
Origin:
In order to analyze a source, you must first
know what it is. Sometimes not all of these
questions can be answered. The more you do
know about where a document is coming from,
the easier it is to ascertain purpose, value and
limitation. The definition of primary and
secondary source materials can be problematic.
There is constant debate among academic
circles on how to definitively categorize certain
documents and there is no clear rule of what
makes a document a primary or a secondary
source.
Primary – letter, journal, interview, speeches,
photos, paintings, etc. Primary sources are
created by someone who is the “first person”;
these documents can also be called “original
source documents. The author or creator is
presenting original materials as a result of
discovery or to share new information or
opinions. Primary documents have not been
filtered through interpretation or evaluation by
others. In order to get a complete picture of an
event or era, it is necessary to consult multiple-
-and often contradictory--sources.
Secondary – materials that are written with the
benefit of hindsight and materials that filter
primary sources through interpretation or
evaluation. Books commenting on a historical
incident in history are secondary sources.
Political cartoons can be tricky because they
can be considered either primary or secondary.
Note: One is not more reliable than the other.
Valuable information can be gleaned from both
types of documents. A primary document can
tell you about the original author’s perspective;
a secondary document can tell you how the
primary document was received during a
specific time period or by a specific audience.
Other questions must be answered beyond
whether the source is primary or secondary and
will give you much more information about the
document that will help you answer questions
in the other categories.
• Who created it?
• Who is the author?
• When was it created?
• When was it published?
• Where was it published?
• Who is publishing it?
• Is there anything we know about the
author that is pertinent to our
evaluation?
This last question is especially important. The
more you know about the author of a document,
the easier it is to answer the following
questions.
Purpose:
This is the point where you start the real
evaluation of the piece and try to figure out the
purpose for its creation. You must be able to
think as the author of the document. At this
point you are still only focusing on the single
piece of work you are evaluating.
• Why does this document exist?
• Why did the author create this piece of
work? What is the intent?
• Why did the author choose this
particular format? •Who is the intended
 audience? Who was the author
thinking would receive this?
• What does the document “say”?
• Can it tell you more than is on the
surface?
If you are teaching at the high school level, try
to steer students away from saying “I think the
document means this...” Obviously, if students
are making a statement it is coming from their
thinking. Help them practice saying “The
document means this...because it is supported
by x evidence.”
Value:
Now comes the hard part. Putting on your
historian hat, you must determine: Based on
who wrote it, when/where it came from and
why it was created...what value does this
document have as a piece of evidence? This is
where you show your expertise and put the
piece in context. Bring in your outside
information here.
• What can we tell about the author from
the piece?
• What can we tell about the time period
from the piece?
• Under what circumstances was the
piece created and how does the piece
reflect those circumstances?
• What can we tell about any
controversies from the piece?
• Does the author represent a particular
‘side’ of a controversy or event?
• What can we tell about the author’s
perspectives from the piece?
• What was going on in history at the
time the piece was created and how
does this piece accurately reflect it?
It helps if you know the context of the
document and can explain what the document
helps you to understand about the context.
Limitation:
This is probably the hardest part. The task here
is not to point out weaknesses of the source, but
rather to say: at what point does this source
cease to be of value to us as historians?
With a primary source document, having an
incomplete picture of the whole is a given
because the source was created by one person
(or a small group of people?), naturally they
will not have given every detail of the context.
Do not say that the author left out information
unless you have concrete proof (from another
source) that they chose to leave information out.
Also, it is obvious that the author did not have
prior knowledge of events that came after the
creation of the document. Do not state that the
document “does not explain X” (if X happened
later).
Being biased does not limit the value of a
source! If you are going to comment on the bias
of a document, you must go into detail. Who is
it biased towards? Who is it biased against?
What part of a story does it leave out? What
part of the story is MISSING because of parts
left out?
• What part of the story can we NOT tell
from this document?
• How could we verify the content of the
piece?
• Does this piece inaccurately reflect
anything about the time period?
• What does the author leave out and
why does he/she leave it out (if you
know)?
• What is purposely not addressed?
This is again an area for you to show your
expertise of the context. You need to briefly
explain the parts of the story that the document
leaves out. Give examples of other documents
that might mirror or answer this document.
What parts of the story/context can this
document not tell?
Topic: History of the Philippine Islands
by Antonio de Morga
Antonio de Morga wrote his scholarly work
Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (Events in the
Philippine Islands) which was published in
1609 in Mexico. It is a primary source that was
read and annotated by Dr. Jose Rizal. This book
contains Morga's personal experiences and
documentation from eye-witnesses of the
events in the country. In contrast to the religious
chronicles, the book is known to be the first
history of the Philippines to be written by a
layman. Filipino historians, then and now, find
it as a valuable document accounting the state
to Filipinos’ socio-economic, political, and
religious beliefs before the coming of the
Spaniards. However, some narratives of Morga
are often distorted facts with erroneous
conceptions about Pre-Hispanic Filipino
cultural practices. His writing is a good
example of how colonial history has presented
the Pre-Hispanic time as a period of "darkness
or backwardness” to justify Spanish conquest
and Filipino's conversion to Christianity.
As an eye-witness, Antonio de Morga was
primarily a lawyer who joined the government
Service in 1580. Thereafter, he was appointed
in 1593 as Lieutenant Governor in Manila, the
second most powerful position ii the colony,
next only to the Governor General of the
Philippines. In 1598, he resigned this post to
assume the office of oidor or Judge in the
Audiencia (Ocampo, 1998).
The following text is an excerpt of Sucesos de
las Islas Filipinas of Antonio de Morga
particularly focused on Chapter 8. It discusses
the economic system, antiquity, customs, and
government, both during the period of their
paganism and after their conquest by the
Spaniards. For present-day Filipinos, chapter
eight, according to Ambeth Ocampo (1998), is
the most interesting because it gives a
description of the prehispanic Filipinos, or
rather the indios, at the Spanish contact. This
same chapter was indispensable for Rizal, not
only for its ethnographic value but more so in
helping him reconstruct the prehispanic
Philippines which Rizal wanted to present to his
countrymen.
History of the Philippine Islands
Antonio de Morga
Chapter 8
In various parts of this island of Luzon are
found a number of natives black in color. Both
men and women have woolly hair, and their
stature is not very great, although they are
strong and robust. These people are barbarians,
and have but little capacity. They possess no
fixed houses or settlements, but wander in
bands and hordes through the mountains and
rough country, changing from one site to
another according to the season. They support
themselves in certain clearings, and by planting
rice, which they do temporarily, and by means
of the game that they bring down with their
bows, in the use of which they are very skilful
and certain. [217] They live also on honey from
the mountains, and roots produced by the
ground. They are a barbarous people, in whom
one cannot place confidence. They are much
given to killing and to attacking the settlements
of the other natives, in which they commit
many depredations; and there is nothing that
can be done to stop them, or to subdue or pacify
them, although this is always attempted by fair
or foul means, as opportunity and necessity
demand.
The apparel and clothing of these natives of
Luzon before the entrance of the Spaniards into
the country were generally, for the men, certain
short collarless garments of cangan, sewed
together in the front, and with short sleeves, and
reaching slightly below the waist; some were
blue and others black, while the chiefs had
some red ones, called chinanas. [218] They also
wore a strip of colored cloth wrapped about the
waist, and passed between the legs, so that it
covered the privy parts, reaching half−way
down the thigh; these are called bahaques. [219]
They go with legs bare, feet unshod, and the
head uncovered, wrapping a narrow cloth,
called potong [220] just below it, with which
they bind the forehead and temples. About their
necks they wear gold necklaces, wrought like
spun wax, [221] and with links in our fashion,
some larger than others. On their arms they
wear armlets of wrought gold, which they call
calombigas, and which are very large and made
in different patterns. Some wear strings of
precious stonescornelians and agates; and other
blue and white stones, which they esteem
highly. [222] They wear around the legs some
strings of these stones, and certain cords,
covered with black pitch in many foldings, as
garters. [223]
There were no kings or lords throughout these
islands who ruled over them as in the manner of
our kingdoms and provinces; but in every
island, and in each province of it, many chiefs
were recognized by the natives themselves.
Some were more powerful than others, and each
one had his followers and subjects, by districts
and families; and these obeyed and respected
the chief. Some chiefs had friendship and
communication with others, and at times wars
and quarrels. [310]
These principalities and lordships were
inherited in the male line and by succession of
father and son and their descendants. If these
were lacking, then their brothers and collateral
relatives succeeded. Their duty was to rule and
govern their subjects and followers, and to
assist them in their interests and necessities.
What the chiefs received from their followers
was to be held by them in great veneration and
respect; and they were served in their wars and
voyages, and in their tilling, sowing, fishing,
and the building of their houses. To these duties
the natives attended very promptly, whenever
summoned by their chief. They also paid the
chiefs tribute (which they called buiz), in
varying quantities, in the crops that they
gathered. The descendants of such chiefs, and
their relatives, even though they did not inherit
the lordship, were held in the same respect and
consideration. Such were all regarded as nobles,
and as persons exempt from the services
rendered by the others, or the plebeians, who
were called timaguas. [311] The same right of
nobility and chieftainship was preserved for the
women, just as for the men. When any of these
chiefs was more courageous than others in war
and upon other occasions, such a one enjoyed
more followers and men; and the others were
under his leadership, even if they were chiefs.
These latter retained to themselves the lordship
and particular government of their own
following, which is called barangai among
them. They had datos and other special leaders
[mandadores] who attended to the interests of
the barangay.
The superiority of these chiefs over those of
their barangai was so great that they held the
latter as subjects; they treated these well or ill,
and disposed of their persons, their children,
and their possessions, at will, without any
resistance, or rendering account to anyone. For
very slight annoyances and for slight occasions,
they were wont to kill and wound them, and to
enslave them. It has happened that the chiefs
have made perpetual slaves of persons who
have gone by them, while bathing in the river,
or who have raised their eyes to look at them
less respectfully and for other similar causes.
[312]
The natives' laws throughout the islands were
made in the same manner, and they followed
the traditions and customs of their ancestors,
without anything being written. Some
provinces had different customs than others in
some respects. However, they agreed in most,
and in all the islands generally the same usages
were followed. [314] There are three conditions
of persons among the natives of these islands,
and into which their government is divided: the
chiefs, of whom we have already treated; the
timaguas, who are equivalent to plebeians; and
slaves, those of both chiefs and timaguas.
The slaves were of several classes. Some were
for all kinds of work and slavery, like those
which we ourselves hold. Such are called
saguiguilires; [315] they served inside the
house, as did likewise the children born of
them. There are others who live in their own
houses with their families, outside the house of
their lord; and come, at the season, to aid him
in his sowings and harvests, among his rowers
when he embarks, in the construction of his
house when it is being built, and to serve in his
house when there are guests of distinction.
These are bound to come to their lord's house
whenever he summons them, and to serve in
these offices without any pay or stipend. These
slaves are called namamahays, [316] and their
children and descendants are slaves of the same
class. From these slaves saguiguilirs and
namamahays are issue, some of whom are
whole slaves, some of whom are half slaves,
and still others one−fourth slaves. It happens
thus: if either the father or the mother was free,
and they had an only child, he was half free and
half slave. If they had more than one child, they
were divided as follows: the first follows the
condition of the father, free or slave; the second
that of the mother. If there were an odd number
of children, the last was half free and half slave.
Those who descended from these, if children of
a free mother or father, were only one−fourth
slaves, because of being children of a free father
or mother and of a half−slave. These half slaves
or one−fourth slaves, whether saguiguilirs or
namamahays, served their masters during every
other moon; and in this respect so is such
condition slavery.
In the same way, it may happen in divisions
between heirs that a slave will fall to several,
and serves each one for the time that is due him.
When the slave is not wholly slave, but half or
fourth, he has the right, because of that part that
is free, to compel his master to emancipate him
for a just price. This price is appraised and
regulated for persons according to the quality of
their slavery, whether it be saguiguilir or
namamahay, half slave or quarter slave. But, if
he is wholly slave, the master cannot be
compelled to ransom or emancipate him for any
price.
The usual price of a sanguiguilir slave among
the natives is, at most, generally ten taes of
good gold, or eighty pesos; if he is namamahay,
half of that sum. The others are in the same
proportion, taking into consideration the person
and his age.
No fixed beginning can be assigned as the
origin of these kinds of slavery among these
natives, because all the slaves are natives of the
islands, and not strangers. It is thought that they
were made in their wars and quarrels. The most
certain knowledge is that the most powerful
made the others slaves, and seized them for
slight cause or occasion, and many times for
loans and usurious contracts which were current
among them. The interest, capital, and debt,
increased so much with delay that the
borrowers became slaves. Consequently all
these slaveries have violent and unjust
beginnings; and most of the suits among the
natives are over these, and they occupy the
judges in the exterior court with them, and their
confessors in that of conscience. [317]
These slaves comprise the greatest wealth and
capital of the natives of these islands, for they
are very useful to them and necessary for the
cultivation of their property. They are sold,
traded, and exchanged among them, just as any
other mercantile article, from one village to
another, from one province to another, and
likewise from one island to another. Therefore,
and to avoid so many suits as would occur if
these slaveries were examined, and their origin
and source ascertained, they are preserved and
held as they were formerly.
The marriages of these natives, commonly and
generally were, and are: Chiefs with women
chiefs; timaguas with those of that rank; and
slaves with those of their own class. But
sometimes these classes intermarry with one
another. They considered one woman, whom
they married, as the legitimate wife and the
mistress of the house; and she was styled
ynasaba. [318] Those whom they kept besides
her they considered as friends. The children of
the first were regarded as legitimate and whole
heirs of their parents; the children of the others
were not so regarded, and were left something
by assignment, but they did not inherit.
The dowry was furnished by the man, being
given by his parents. The wife furnished
nothing for the marriage, until she had inherited
it from her parents. The solemnity of the
marriage consisted in nothing more than the
agreement between the parents and relatives of
the contracting parties, the payment of the
dowry agreed upon to the father of the bride,
[319] and the assembling at the wife's parents'
house of all the relatives to eat and drink until
they would fall down. At night the man took the
woman to his house and into his power, and
there she remained. These marriages were
annulled and dissolved for slight cause, with the
examination and judgment of the relatives of
both parties, and of the old men, who acted as
mediators in the affairs. At such a time the man
took the dowry (which they call vigadicaya),
[320] unless it happened that they separated
through the husband's fault; for then it was not
returned to him, and the wife's parents kept it.
The property that they had acquired together
was divided into halves, and each one disposed
of his own. If one made any profits in which the
other did not have a share or participate, he
acquired it for himself alone.
The Indians were adopted one by another, in
presence of the relatives. The adopted person
gave and delivered all his actual possessions to
the one who adopted him. Thereupon he
remained in his house and care, and had a right
to inherit with the other children. [321]
Adulteries were not punishable corporally. If
the adulterer paid the aggrieved party the
amount adjudged by the old men and agreed
upon by them, then the injury was pardoned,
and the husband was appeased and retained his
honor. He would still live with his wife and
there would be no further talk about the matter.
In inheritances all the legitimate children
inherited equally from their parents whatever
property they had acquired. If there were any
movable or landed property which they had
received from their parents, such went to the
nearest relatives and the collateral side of that
stock, if there were no legitimate children by an
ynasaba. This was the case either with or
without a will. In the act of drawing a will, there
was no further ceremony than to have written it
or to have stated it orally before acquaintances.
If any chief was lord of a barangai, then in that
case, the eldest son of an ynasaba succeeded
him. If he died, the second son succeeded. If
there were no sons, then the daughters
succeeded in the same order. If there were no
legitimate successors, the succession went to
the nearest relative belonging to the lineage and
relationship of the chief who had been the last
possessor of it.
If any native who had slave women made
concubines of any of them, and such slave
woman had children, those children were free,
as was the slave. But if she had no children, she
remained a slave. [322]
These children by a slave woman, and those
borne by a married woman, were regarded as
illegitimate, and did not succeed to the
inheritance with the other children, neither were
the parents obliged to leave them anything.
Even if they were the sons of chiefs, they did
not succeed to the nobility or chieftainship of
the parents, nor to their privileges, but they
remained and were reckoned as plebeians and
in the number and rank of the other timaguas.
The contracts and negotiations of these natives
were generally illegal, each one paying
attention to how he might better his own
business and interest.
Loans with interest were very common and
much practiced, and the interest incurred was
excessive. The debt doubled and increased all
the time while payment was delayed, until it
stripped the debtor of all his possessions, and he
and his children, when all their property was
gone, became slaves. [323]
Their customary method of trading was by
bartering one thing for another, such as food,
cloth, cattle, fowls, lands, houses, fields, slaves,
fishing−grounds, and palm−trees (both nipa
and wild). Sometimes a price intervened, which
was paid in gold, as agreed upon, or in metal
bells brought from China. These bells they
regard as precious jewels; they resemble large
pans and are very sonorous. [324] They play
upon these at their feasts, and carry them to the
war in their boats instead of drums and other
instruments. There are often delays and terms
for certain payments, and bondsmen who
intervene and bind themselves, but always with
very usurious and excessive profits and
interests.
Crimes were punished by request of the
aggrieved parties. Especially were thefts
punished with greater severity, the robbers
being enslaved or sometimes put to death. [325]
The same was true of insulting words,
especially when spoken to chiefs. They had
among themselves many expressions and words
which they regarded as the highest insult, when
said to men and women. These were pardoned
less willingly and with greater difficulty than
was personal violence, such as wounding and
assaulting. [326]
Concubinage, rape, and incest, were not
regarded at all, unless committed by a timagua
on the person of a woman chief. It was a quite
ordinary practice for a married man to have
lived a long time in concubinage with the sister
of his wife. Even before having communication
with his wife he could have had access for a
long time to his mother−in−law, especially if
the bride were very young, and until she were
of sufficient age. This was done in sight of all
the relatives.
Single men are called bagontaos, [327] and girls
of marriageable age, dalagas. Both classes are
people of little restraint, and from early
childhood they have communication with one
another, and mingle with facility and little
secrecy, and without this being regarded among
the natives as a cause for anger. Neither do the
parents, brothers, or relatives, show any anger,
especially if there is any material interest in it,
and but little is sufficient with each and all.
As long as these natives lived in their paganism,
it was not known that they had fallen into the
abominable sin against nature. But after the
Spaniards had entered their country, through
communication with them---and still more,
through that with the Sangleys, who have come
from China, and are much given to that viceit
has been communicated to them somewhat,
both to men and to women. In this matter it has
been necessary to take action
The natives of the islands of Pintados,
especially the women, are very vicious and
sensual. Their perverseness has discovered
lascivious methods of communication between
men and women; and there is one to which they
are accustomed from their youth. The men
skilfully make a hole in their virile member near
its head, and insert therein a serpent's head,
either of metal or ivory, and fasten it with a peg
of the same material passed through the hole, so
that it cannot become unfastened. With this
device, they have communication with their
wives, and are unable to withdraw until a long
time after copulation. They are very fond of this
and receive much pleasure from it, so that,
although they shed a quantity of blood, and
receive other harm, it is current among them.
These devices are called sagras, and there are
very few of them, because since they have
become Christians, strenuous efforts are being
made to do away with these, and not consent to
their use; and consequently the practice has
been checked in great part. [328]
Herbalists and witches are common among
these natives, but are not punished or prohibited
among them, so long as they do not cause any
special harm. But seldom could that be
ascertained or known.
There were also men whose business was to
ravish and take away virginity from young girls.
These girls were taken to such men, and the
latter were paid for ravishing them, for the
natives considered it a hindrance and
impediment if the girls were virgins when they
married.
In matters of religion, the natives proceeded
more barbarously and with greater blindness
than in all the rest. For besides being pagans,
without any knowledge of the true God, they
neither strove to discover Him by way of
reason, nor had any fixed belief. The devil
usually deceived them with a thousand errors
and blindnesses. He appeared to them in various
horrible and frightful forms, and as fierce
animals, so that they feared him and trembled
before him. They generally worshiped him, and
made images of him in the said forms. These
they kept in caves and private houses, where
they offered them perfumes and odors, and food
and fruit, calling them anitos. [329]
Others worshiped the sun and the moon, and
made feasts and drunken revels at the
conjunction of those bodies. Some worshiped a
yellow−colored bird that dwells in their woods,
called batala. They generally worship and adore
the crocodiles when they see them, by kneeling
down and clasping their hands, because of the
harm that they receive from those reptiles; they
believe that by so doing the crocodiles will
become appeased and leave them. Their oaths,
execrations, and promises are all as above
mentioned, namely, May buhayan eat thee, if
thou dost not speak truth, or fulfil what thou
hast promised,and similar things.
There were no temples throughout those
islands, nor houses generally used for the
worship of idols; but each person possessed and
made in his house his own anitos, [330] without
any fixed rite or ceremony. They had no priests
or religious to attend to religious affairs, except
certain old men and women called catalonas.
These were experienced witches and sorcerers,
who kept the other people deceived. The latter
communicated to these sorcerers their desires
and needs, and the catalonas told them
innumerable extravagancies and lies. The
catalonas uttered prayers and performed other
ceremonies to the idols for the sick; and they
believed in omens and superstitions, with which
the devil inspired them, whereby they declared
whether the patient would recover or die. Such
were their cures and methods, and they used
various kinds of divinations for all things. All
this was with so little aid, apparatus, or
foundation which God permitted, so that the
preaching of the holy gospel should find those
of that region better prepared for it, and so that
those natives would confess the truth more
easily, and it would be less difficult to withdraw
them from their darkness, and the errors in
which the devil kept them for so many years.
They never sacrificed human beings as is done
in other kingdoms. They believed that there was
a future life where those who had been brave
and performed valiant feats would be rewarded;
while those who had done evil would be
punished. But they did not know how or where
this would be. [331]
Topic: History of the Philippine
Province of the Society of
Jesus by Pedro Chirino, S.J.
Antonio de Morga and Father Pedro Chirino are
the early chroniclers who wrote about the pre-
hispanic Filipinos. However, they differ in
writing because Pedro Chirino was more
religious-accounting the functions, roles and
achievements of Spanish missionaries. Since
his focus is on ecclesiastical history, his
narrative is more on church history and contains
a lesson purposely reinforcing Christianity and
developing religious vocation. On the other
hand, the writing of Morga is more secular or
general history, he being a lay writing about his
experiences in the Philippines.
To Filipino historians, the writings of Chirino
was more of a chronicle of a missionary priest
rather than a history of the Philippines. His
writing is another primary source showing the
darkness or backwardness of the early Filipinos
as well as their advancement or enlightenment
after their Conquest and conversion to
Christianity.
The following text is an excerpt of History of
the Philippine Province of the Islands of the
Society of Jesus of Pedro Chirino. Chapter 15
describes the Filipinos pagan false religion,
idolatries and sacrifices while Chapter 12
narrates the Filipinos' concept of usury and
slavery. The text highlights that the prehispanic
Filipinos had no religion, at least from the eyes
of western culture and evangelical Christianity.
Such historical interpretation was a good way
of justifying the Filipinos' conversion to
Christianity to save them from the snares of the
devil.
Excerpts from History of the Philippine
Province of the Society of Jesus
Pedro Chirino, S.J.
But, since the devil, heartless waster of holy
comforts, does not sleep while our Fathers were
hunting these beasts, rushed at the least turn of
one’s eyes to sow the bad seed among the best
of our wheat, namely, in the village of San Juan
del Monte. Though all there had been baptized
and the Christians were many and very good,
the same Christians gave notice of the spark of
idolatry, which voraciously was devouring our
harvest. To better appreciate it, it will first be
good t superstitions in a separate chapter. Then
we shall describe what was happening in
Taytay and how it was ended.
Chapter 15 - The Pagan False Religion,
idolatries, and sacrifices of the Filipinos
Although on climbing to the dark peak of so
much blindness of idolatry, I find so much
confusion of very vile, abominable things
characteristic of their creator, and on digging
into the wall of this infernal cave, I uncover
something frightful that made my hair stand on
end, seeing so many beetles, stupid, loathsome,
that came only from hell, with the light of faith
as our guide, we shall put them in order so that
we may praise before the all powerful God all
who on opening the eyes, found ourselves
bathed with the eyes of faith, and commiserate
with those who, blind in their darkness love it
obstinately, miserably buried in it, unaware of
their miserable situation, nor take into account
the evil that oppresses and tyrannizes them. We
shall then discuss, first, what pertains to the
wrong belief the Filipinos had of the divinity of
their idols, then their priests, the ministers of
their abominable sacrifices, their sacrificial
rites, and the excesses and barbaric vulgar
Superstitions.
I. The Idols to which the Filipinos Attribute
Divinity
Although all these islanders, especially the
Tagalogs as the more reasonable people, had,
like the ancient philosophers, some hints of a
supreme god whom they used to call
"Bathalang Maykapal" which means God the
Creator, or Maker, they had no knowledge of
him, for they imagined him to be enveloped and
hidden n clouds, as he was for them with the
black cloud of paganism. Like other idolaters,
they had better knowledge of created things,
considering them divine, and offering them
impious sacrifices, according to the role and
work which to each one they assigned. As the
ancients Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans to
their Jupiter, Mercury, Minerva, Venus, Saturn,
Mars, and the outer false gods, so they first
adored these others, animals and birds, like the
Egyptians; the sun and the moon, like the
Assyrians. They attribute special divinity to the
rainbow, as though learned from the Poets, who
made it the messenger of the gods.
The Tagalogs gave the name “Bathala” to a
bluebird as big as the thrush, which in Castile
we call “avejuruco”. The crow they adored, like
the ancients, as god Pan or the goddess Ceres,
but naming it “Mavlupa”, which means lord of
the soil. They deeply venerated the crocodile. In
all their thinking, whenever they saw him in the
water, they addressed it “Nono”, grandfather.
With tender affection, they prayed to him not to
cause them harm, and for this reason, they
offered something from what they brought in
boat, which they threw into the water. There
was a catalonan who was so intimate with one
of them in the Manila river, that she treated it
like a domestic pet, which not only awaited
what she gave it to eat, but allowed her to touch
it and be anointed with her oils. Not difficult for
Aristotle, who says that these beasts can be
tamed like the others who eat flesh, and Strabo
affirms that there were tame geese in Egypt
adored more than in the Philippines, and to
surprise of foreigners the priests fed them with
their own hands. There was no old tree to which
they attribute divine powers, and it was a
sacrilege to think of felling them for any reason-
misuse of the eastern Indios born of their
appreciation of the tree's age or the big size, or,
more correctly, of diabolic astuteness, which in
our own beginnings made war against us with
the tree. Pliny in his time affirms people having
also made use of this aberration, in this
barbarity exceeding those who were content
with raising their altars and putting their
statuettes under the shadow of their saintly
prophets, zealous for God's honor.
What else? The very stones, peaks, crags, and
headlands of seashores and river they adored,
going as far as to offer something which they
let on the rock or crag itself when passing by.
Both quite ancient idolatrous practices for we
find them condemned by one of the ancient
councils and the most ancient Saints, and
furthermore, by God himself.
Many times I saw in the river of Manila a rock
which for many years was an idol of this
unfortunate people. It scandalized and gave
occasion to serious evils, until the Augustinian
Fathers who live close by in their holy zeal
broke it into pieces and in its place put up a
Cross.
Sailing around Panay Island, I saw on a rock at
the point they call “Naso” near Potol plates and
other clay utensils, which navigators were
offering. On Mindanao island, between Canela
and the river, a sharp point protrudes above a
dangerous and deep coast. On these points the
sea always suddenly becomes agitated, and
risky and hard to round. As it is very high, they
used to shoot arrows aimed with such force that
they were embedded on the rock itself, as a
sacrificial offering to the gods to allow them to
sail by. With my eyes I saw that, enraged at
such a cursed superstition, the Spaniards set
them on fire, and burned an uncounted number;
but in less than a year there were embedded
again more than 4,000 arrows so they appeared
to us who were sailing by- hence, they called it
“Punta de las Flechas” [Arrow Point].
Only the rivers they failed to adore, like the
Parthians and Persians, who in reverence
refrained from spitting in them or washing their
hands in their waters. The Filipinos, on the
other hand, do not drink from the river,
although its water is very good, repelled both by
the number of persons without exception
bathing in it and the numberless and various
services to which it is applied. For drinking,
they make use of the various holes they dig on
the riverbank itself, which at a shallow depth
provides the water they need, like the Egyptians
when their river turned into blood.
They also used to adore individual idols
inherited from their elders, which the Visayans
used to call “diwata”, the Tagalogs “anito”.
They had idols for their fields, whose
permission they asked when crossing without
risk; an anito for the crops, to whom they
recommended that they be fertile, and besides
sacrifices, left there food to eat, anito for water,
from whom they asked for ran for their crops;
anito for the sea, to whom they recommended
their fishing and navigation, anito for their palm
trees, from whom they asked protection from
rats and birds which destroyed their crops; anito
for infants, to whom they offered at birth; and
anito when these began to suck. Among these
they included their ancestors, men and women,
whom they invoked first in their foils and
dangers. They kept small idols as souvenirs,
rather badly sculpted of stone, wood, gold, bone
or ivory, which they called “likha” or “larawan”
just as the devil propagated the false worship of
his Pluto, Pan, Neptune, Nundina, and the other
infernal monsters, with which he has tyrannized
the world, though with changed names.
They also included among their god all who
died by the knife, those devoured by the
crocodile, or killed by some lightning, whose
souls they said climbed to heaven by the
rainbow, which they call “Balangao”. Many
times during their funerals they sacrificed
slaves to serve them in a paradise of their
dreams, a superstition which seems similar to
that of the Greeks and Romans, and even of the
ancient Scots and other nations, who deeply
honor those who died in war, of whom Cicero
wrote much.
As the beginning of the earth, they had only the
sky and water, and a kingfisher between the
two. Tired of flying and finding nowhere to
perch, he decided to provoke war between sky
and the water. It ended with the victory of
heaven, which kept the water at a distance,
allowing it reach only to the shoulders, and
filled it with islands and rocks, thus allowing
the kingfisher to satisfy its desire for a perch to
build its nest.
Like Estatius producing his arcades from ashen
and laurel trunks, the Filipinos drew the first
man from a big bamboo, which we said grow
all over the east. It was only of two nodes, but
floating on the water, it reached the feet of the
kingfisher standing on the shore. Irritated that it
should touch its feet, for even the kingfishers
have a sense of their own dignity and could
avenge insults it cracked [the bamboo] open
with its beak. From one node a man came out,
from the other a woman. A serious controversy
followed recognized by many arbiters, for the
woman refused to be married to the man, her
brother. So natural is the women's decency that
even the diabolical fables of the barbarians
make the man an aggressor, the woman modest
and shy. These people strictly hold on to this
when arranging marriages, considering it the
greatest insult for a woman to initiate the
discussion, or anyone on her behalf, even if she
dies unmarried. Anyway, since the counsel of
the fishes and the birds, which affirmed they
were married without dispensation, was
unsatisfactory, they appealed to one of the gods,
namely, the earthquake, on whose advice they
married and had several children. From these
several brothers descended the various races of
peoples and states. They said that angered at
having so many idle and profitless sons in the
house, like the eagles, the two agreed that,
pretending anger, the father, intending to punish
them with a stick in his hand, something they
never had known, drove them away. Some
escaped to the clothes room, others to the closet
in the house, and from these they say the chiefs
descend; others fled outside, and these are the
freemen, whom they call “timawa”; still others
to the kitchen and under the house, and these
are the slaves, and finally others to other points,
and these are the different nations. A story to
entertain, not badly put together and spread
around.
They had their own version of the flood, glory,
punishment, and the other life, hostile demons
before whom they trembled and tremble very
much. All quite erroneous, in none with
verisimilitude, just as the ancient gentiles with
theirs, for some describe them in one way,
others another, such that one can see they are all
lies and legends without beginning or end. I
shall add only one example here as a brief
chapter of one which Fr. Cristobal Jiménez sent
me from Visayas in April 1560. It says:
I have collected important matters of the errors
of these pagans spread in 130 islands, where they
say their dead proceed. There they laugh and
sing, the old become young and live a special
life. The trees, whose roots are chains, bear
already ripe fruit, utensils, bells, and "pánicas"
are of gold; the sand on the riverbank unhusked
rice; there is a sea of milk for the children and
another of “linugao” for the old. They lived and
died, return to life, and they die so many times as
to become Iike very tiny ants. There is a sea of
blood, on whose shore are rosebushes, which for
that reason are called colored. There are islands
so thick with bones that these are the only
firewood used, and the pots used for cooking are
skulls. Our race they say descends from a
bamboo. The monkey came out of a second
bamboo or node, and so is quite like man. And
as the bamboo grew, they developed and other
animals appeared. All men die because they
disobeyed Laon, the greatest of the gods, by
killing the fish which entertained him. And all,
young and old die, because when they shook the
tree of the delicious fruit, the small and big fruits
fell.
What else shall I add? I will never end. Let
this suffice, that Your Reverence may
laugh, when your tasks allow you.
Thus far, Father Jiménez, who adds words of
the region, assuming that he was writing to
someone who would understand them. And
although there are only five of them, I want to
mention them for the pleasure of whoever may
read this: isines are pieces of cotton cloth;
panicas, golden earrings; linugao, rice with
milk or oil; tacorongas are flowers similar to
colored marshmallow plants. Their tale of the
small size to which the soul is reduced at the
end of so many Pythagorean transmigrations
corresponds to the error of the Japanese who
offer viaticum to the souls because they are
small and delicate, otherwise they will die of
exhaustion before reaching Paradise, a three
days' hike. And while we mention it once, it
reappears in all of these errors.
It will be clear that, in their time, Saint Justin
Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Eusebius of Caesarea, and, in our time, the
Mexicans and Peruvians, the learned Fr. José de
Acosta of our Society, mentioned it, all of
whom agree in a certain way with our Catholic
truth, covered and darkened by falsehood, like
an erased image of which nothing remains
except some outlines and traces. Their errors,
then, for some are predispositions towards the
faith, for others are blocks. Some are based on
the truth shining and brightening their dark
shadows; others are blinded with so much light
after keeping their eyes on the darkness of their
lies, like the stubborn pharaoh with the lights of
his magicians.
They had no special temples, like the Parthians
and Persians, no public days of general
festivities common among the ordinary people.
We saw in Tanay only that many houses had
another small one, like a small bamboo tower,
a bit quaintly built. From the main house they
pass to it through a short bridge, also of
bamboo. Here they kept their clothes and other
handicrafts, to cover the mystery of their
intamous outhouse. But as some coverts
informed me, they are really dedicated to the
anito, even if they did not sacrifice there, and it
served only to make them claim it as their own,
like the rest of their possessions. For that reason
they maintained in it something they valued,
particularly a rooster, like the ancient pagans.
They then had to have an outhouse, out of their
need to pass by it when going on a journey, as
Elias said on the others. We had them taken
down, until not one was left.
The Visayans, too, had at the entrance to their
villages a rather bad small bamboo outhouse,
which served as a place for sacrifice. In other
places, these are scattered in the forests, hidden
from the ministers of justice, especially after the
faith arrived. In general, however, it was rare to
have a common temple, unlike the ancient
pagans, nor did they come for celebrations by
law or tradition. They had no special place for
sacrifice which they offered for the entire
community; but each one individually offered a
sacrifice for his intention or whim on the village
or on the fields. They elected for it a minister,
male or female- there were a number of them
out of devotion or desire. They invited all from
their village and other from around according to
the solemnity of the sacrifice and the resources
of the one offering it. I saw in Mindanao in one
place attached outside of houses bamboo
galleries wrought not badly; but, yes, inside,
badly sculpted idols of spongy pole, like
wrought bamboo. In front I saw an earthen pot
with some embers and a little smoke, which
must have been of the sacrifice.
II. The Ministers of Their Sacrifices
Although they had no temples or feast day, they
had priests, male and female, whom the
Tagalogs call "catalonan," the Visayans
“babaylan”. He, or she, was one who with
greater shrewdness yielded to the devil to be
fooled by him, or deceive the blinded people.
Fr. Antonio Sedeño related that when he was in
Florida, he exposed before the natives one of
these cheats who had been deceiving them, by
claiming he could cure them by placing reed on
the most painful spot the patient felt and
through the mouth drew out from the opposite
part the air inside. Then he spat out three
pebbles he claimed came from the body and
were the cause of the sickness. Father once
successfully made him spit out the pebbles
before applying the reed and in this way
uncovered the falsehood.
In Eastern India there were some beans the
Portuguese say are from Malacca, and are the
physicians' Anacard. One of these, cut by a
knife point and brought near the flame of a
candle, throws off sparks, ashes, and flames
when it starts burning. These leading cheats
need nothing more to make them believe that in
those flames they see the spirits which tell them
as much as they lie, which, since they are
barbarians, people easily believe.
By this scheme, other used to concoct a
thousand tricks on the simple Filipinos,
especially in times of sickness, which afflict
and worry them very much. Then, they would
want the cure, and the one who brings or
promises it they esteem, trust, adore, and give
all they have. Actually, there are, however,
some who have a special link with the devil,
who assists and provides with a very special
help, speaks to them through their idols or
anitos, pretending they are their dead whom
they adore. At other times, they cause them to
utter things that frighten and scare those
present.
More than twenty years after writing this, it
came to my notice, around 16l6, that on the
island of Bohol some poor women used to
deceive sick people, in order to earn some pay,
by telling them a particular leaf of a tree or a
reed inside them was causing the sickness,
which they would remover to cure them. They
carry it hidden, and touching the sick, they
showed it, telling them they had removed it
from the body. This happened to someone with
an injured foot. After saying what caused it, the
woman soon showed a piece of bamboo which
she claimed she had taken out and after paying
her, the patient could be cured. Then the leg
started to become painful and developed a hard
scar, with such great pain that for two months
the patient cried out with pain. She finally
became lame, but at her own cost, realizing how
little they benefit from such lies.
This despicable dignity is preserved by teaching
the office out of friendship or blood ties, or
leaving it as an inheritance. But it was a
profession and means of earning for lazy people
who live on someone else's sweat. Hence, after
the occasion has passed, when they were rather
curious to know what would happen- sickness,
a battle, a journey, or a voyage- people no
longer respected them; nor, except for this
reason only, were they esteemed among them,
unless besides, they have power or wealth, as
we said.
III. The Barbarity of Their Sacrifices
Since the honor of the catalonans and
babaylans did not come from respect and
reverence, their sacrifices are not offered out of
devotion or religion, but out of curiosity to
know want would result and in passing, if one
would benefit by regaining one's health. Many
times, then, if the catalonan did not ask for it,
people did not remember to offer it, although
ordinarily it was considered a matter of honor.
Hence, when they note that the sickness begins
to weaken, they called their catalonan and
asked for a sacrifice to see if the sickness was
deadly or not. The leaders again built a house
purposely for this sacrifice, big and spacious
according to their possibilities. Since many
came to help and the materials were readily at
hand, it was quickly finished.
The patient was moved in when the house was
finished, the catalonan came and a slave had to
be sacrificed (they used to kill as many as
three), or instead, a sea turtle, which abounds
here in the east, or also mollusks, gigantic, big
as shields, and had the best sea eggs. With no
altar or anything like it, they placed the offering
beside the patient, for the bed is merely a mat
of palms that they call "banig" Distributed on
the floor, they placed as many as the number of
guests small tables without a table cloth as is
customary in this Archipelago, but with
different dishes. After the catalonan had killed
the hog, she anointed the patient and those
present with its blood. Then taken out for
skinning and cleaning, it served as the first dish.
Speaking through her teeth, with her mouth still
full of the meat, she opened and examined in
everyone's view the entrails, like the ancient
augurers of Tuscany, of whom the perceptive
Pacuvius said he knew more of others’ entrails
than their own. Next, the devil took hold of her
like the ancient Pythonesses, or she pretended it
with grimaces and movements of hands and
feet, frothing in the mouth, and returning to
herself she declared the patient would live or
die. If the first, they continued eating and
chanting the epic stories of the patient's
ancestor; or to honor the anito, for whom the
feast is held, and danced until they collapsed. If
death, they migrated the prospect of death by
praising the sick, now chosen by the anito to
make him one of them, because of his good
qualities, while entrusting themselves to him
once he was in his Kingdom, and a thousand
other lies and flatteries, with which the
unfortunate person could swallow death. His
relatives and friends the catalonan commanded
to honor him, naturally, as an anito and consider
him one, while giving him more food and drink
in the short time that remained for him to live.
And if in effect he dies, as could happen by
auto-suggestion, they proceeded in the manner
we shall describe when we talk of their burials.
Whatever happened, the catalonan left with no
moderate profit. Besides the offering and the
fee for her work all who came in and all who so
wished, offered some gold, some rice, some
cotton, some chicken, threads, cloth as well as
other fruits and vegetables of the land.
Identical practices were held for war and
journeys, to know the result, following in detail
the catalonan's tricks, like Ahab, the King of
Israel, his false prophets. But even without
reason or need, although for a few times, others
used to do the same thing out or pure boasting
and vanity. These great public festivities they
called “feast of the great god”, to honor
although without knowing him, like the
Athenians who used to celebrate it under a roof
of leaves next to the house which the chief fixed
as he wanted, put up even if only temporarily,
covered as in the old days with palm leaves,
completely surrounded by tapestries in their
styles, like those of the Moors, the whole thing
sewn together from several varicolored pieces.
When those of the village and invented guests
from the area had come together the catalonan
ordered that the most beautiful and best dressed
girl to perform the duty of dancing and piercing
the hog with a lance, which was cut into pieces
and distributed like consecrated bread. Even
with other hogs were killed, and they ate it with
other dishes, this was the one most liked and
taken reverently; although, as always, there was
more drinking, accompanied by music and
dancing.
Marriage likewise is solemnized with a
sacrifice. Once the union is agreed on the dowry
given, the catalonan and the hog came like the
practice in Tuscany. The ceremonies we
described are performed, while the spouses are
seated in their room in the presence of a pair of
old women who acted as sponsor. These offered
them with their hands food and drink on the
plate and glass, a Galatian ceremony. The
groom is from their mothers, not even the wise
Athenians from their legitimate sisters,
something rather unworthy of intelligent
people. Let us not admire the Incas of Peru who
consider this a noble thing, and let us keep in
mind that the Filipinos are a more intelligent
people that the Incas and Athenians.
Chapter 12 - Usury and Slavery among the
Filipinos
With the other vices common among these
nations, effect of idolatry the source and abyss
among them, one is insatiable greed, mentioned
by the evangelist Saint John among the three
that tyrannize the world. This makes them
unmindful of the natural affection we owe one
another, uncaring of others in times of need,
without a guarantee of profit, when one's food
on traveling was consumed, as indicated.
But in lending, the father his son, a son his
mother or brother, and much less their relatives,
they would not be able to come to their aid, even
when they saw them in extreme and utter need,
without guarantee of double repayment. If one
failed to pay on the deadline, or before, unless
it had been agreed beforehand, the debtor
became a slave. It was the same when they
ransomed someone from enemies’ hands.
Hence, what the captive won was enslavement
under his relative, brother or son, and after him
his descendants.
Many enslaved themselves, like good buoys for
galleys, offering themselves to some leading
person for a moderate price. Others who failed
to obtain enough for the dowry enslaved
themselves to his future wife. Since it is the
custom for the firstborn son to belong to the
father, he has to be the mother's slave, and so on
with the third and the fifth, and the rest
accordingly, and not only the mother but also
her brothers, too, unless they were ransomed, as
we shall see later. Since the second son, the
fourth and so on belonged to the mother, they
were therefore free like her, and lords of the
father and his other brothers. But if the son is
the only one, or the third, of the last of so many
children, half belonged to the father and other
to the mother, and therefore was a half-slave.
This same arrangement was followed when
divorced, and when a slave married a free
women, or, slave of several masters- today
there are many- and they served by turns for
months, or as their masters allowed.
They also enslaved through tyranny and
cruelty, in revenge or as penalties for trifles, but
which they made pretexts for damages, or as if
they were, most of the time falsely, dishonesty,
abusively, in the manner of the impious Jezebel.
For picking up grain in the field, a root or fruit
in an orchard, or some fish in the pen, snare, or
net: or if one spoke to anyone or to his wife
strongly, or spoke a word that did not sound
proper, or, if while quarreling in one’s house a
leading man was passing by and overheard an
injurious word; if chaff from the mortar when
pounding rice fell on someone; if in front of that
house the knot of the mantle his wife was
wearing loosened, or the wind blew away what
the women use as a hat, if someone
unsuspecting pass by while one was bathing- on
these and other uncounted serious and quite
atrocious cases of this style and these
circumstances, they deprived other miserable
people of their freedom with the tyranny of the
Neros, enslaved them and their children, and
many times their wives and relatives.
They say of the King of Borno, which is in the
interior of Ethiopia near the sources of the
Niger River, that he greatly values the African
horses which in Rome are esteemed and known
as barbarian, and offers for one 15.20 slaves
eager for battle against the surrounding nations.
Our Filipinos, with fewer horses and without
the possibility of war, kept them indoors. Can
there be a worse evil than to lodge a guest from
another village or from one own, principal or
timawa, and while feasting, depart from his
house and leave him alone with his wife in order
to trap him thus, that he was soliciting her; or,
provoke him to anger and impose a penalty or
enslave him?
In their fights, they also captured those they
could. Since these were so ordinary, although
cruel acts were more often, the slaves were
uncounted, not of distant nations, but of their
own regions and villages, and even of their
relatives, against all divine and human law.
Idolatry is so heartless. They valued them
much, kept them, after gold, as their greatest
aches. Hence, there was, and today there is a
principal with 100, 200, or even 300 slaves. A
single judge emancipated more than 2,000 in
one Visayan province. He was the accountant
Bustamante, visiting the province in the
Catholic King's name, in 1581.
Although the number of slaves is not as big as
those of the Hebrews, Persians, and Romans,
who had them in the thousands, and even of our
Castilians in the sugar and livestock farms in
these Indies, since these slaves of the Filipinos
are so deared but cruelly treated, 100 slaves of
any single master would be excessive.
It is true that slaves were, as in the old days,
were almost on an equal footing with their
masters. They carry out the commands and sit
at table beside them, as if they had read about it
in Seneca. Many have a house and dwelling,
wife, children, and property, like the slaves of
the ancient Germans. I have known one, like
Zyba, Jonathan's slave, almost as rich, with his
own slaves, like his master.
Still, despite this, they take it bad not enjoying
freedom, which is worth more than all the gold
there is. Still, there are more vassals than slaves,
and hence are called “aliping namamahay”
among the Tagalogs, “namamalay” among the
Visayans. Their only obligation is to serve
annually with the certain amount of their
harvests, accompany the chief on his war
campaigns, after which the master and the
slaves share the half of the booty each, and in
peace time they are at his summons, They also
aided greatly in constructing and repairing the
house, sometimes with the crops, something
they do only for a meal, they could not be sold,
but are inherited. But if the heir was of or
transferred to another village, he could not
bring them there.
The true slaves, among Tagalogs called
“sagigilid” and among Visayans “halom” were
the war captives, or those condemned in
punishment, or made by depts., born as slaves
in the house, and these could be sold. But the
last considered as relatives, they never sold.
They kept them in the house, and what they
earned belonged entirely to the master, which
determined the random price, for which they
made savings.
If the master sired a child with his slave, she
was freed and the infant became an heir, as is
discussed in its place. But if the slave woman
belongs to another, the infant remains a slave, if
the father refuses to acknowledge and raise it,
while the master pays its mother a half- tael of
gold in compensation for lost service due to her
pregnancy, otherwise, the infant remains a
slave.
As big fish devour the small, so, too, the slaves
destroyed one another, if anyone among them
wants a good master, all one did was to escape
from the old master and take refuge in the house
to another, who, even at a loss, could be sold at
a lower price, even if perhaps one could be
solve higher.
A Slave, if due to debt, redeemed himself by
merely paying the usurious double rate on the
deadline. Otherwise, the debt doubled by the
month, until it lasts for a year. Like other
nations, they marked the month by the moon, as
well as by the trade or southwest winds seasons,
planting, harvesting, or gleaning times. At the
end of the year, if the principal and the interest
are paid, the slave is free; it not, there is no other
solution than to be hereditary slaves, in this
manner.
Ransom for hereditary slaves is 10 gold taels,
equivalent to 80 reales de echo, besides half of
the slave's more or less house jewelry. One had
to give half of everything, even if only one out
of two pots, a price perhaps not cheaper than
that of the Romans. To make this payment, the
slave prepared a banquet for his master, even if
several come like flies to honey. The ransom is
paid during the meal, and witnesses from those
present attest that the master was satisfied and
grants the poor slave his desired freedom.
Topic: The Kartilla of Katipunan
Emilio Jacinto, the so-called the "Brains of the
Katipunan" crafted the Kartilla as he believed
in the necessity and value of a guidebook in
instructing and helping new recruits to accept
and embody the ideals of the KKK. The
guidebook provided a code of conduct with
fourteen "teachings" in which the members of
the society are required to read and to live by.
The Kartilla was basically an intellectual and
moral foundation for the katipuneros. Its
ultimate goal was to create an egalitarian
society and develop a morally upright Filipino
nation. Intellectually, its teachings provide
higher ideals of reasons as well as a new mental
paradigm for the Filipinos in creating and
defining a nation for themselves free from
colonial restraints. Morally, it echoes moral
lessons about freedom, equality and
participation as well as social or collective
justice.
Understanding the Kartilla is a great source of
Filipino moral consciousness. It provides a
meaningful insight on the Filipinos' idea on
what constitutes a good society and the ideal
individuals living in it. It is also a rich source of
ethical values in educating the Filipinos toward
broader societal goals that are essential in
changing the Philippines for the better. Thus,
the Kartilla of Emilio Jacinto is presented in this
reading.
The next reading is entitled Kartilla of the
Katipunan by Jim Richarson. It presents the
importance, teachings, and metaphors used by
Emilio Jacinto in developing the ethical and
moral fibers of the katipuneros. It also defines
the ideals of the Katipunan as an organization
and its model of a good person and society.
The Kartilla of Katipunan
Jim Richarson
Taught in schools and debated in universities,
the Kartilya is the best-known of all Katipunan
texts. Making manifest the KKK's principles
and teachings, it was printed as a
small pamphlet for new members. It is the only
document of any length set in print by the
Katipunan prior to August 1986 that is known
to be still extant.
The earliest reference to the Kartilya yet found
is in the minutes of a Supreme Assembly
meeting held in December 1895, which say the
manifesto (pahayag) will be priced at 4 kualta
per copy. Whether it is the KKK branches or the
individual recruits who are to be the charged
this amount is not clear, and nor is it known
whether the title phrase – “To those who want
to join this Katipunan" – truly means potential
recruits, or in practice should be taken to mean,
"To those who have joined this Katipunan". If
copies were sold to potential as well as actual
recruits, needless to say, there was a heightened
risk they might fall into the wrong hands.
The Kartilya was still in use during the first
phase of the revolution, and Bonifacio was
planning to print more copies shortly before he
was killed." it may still have been used during
the second phase of the revolution, for a version
survives in the Philippine Insurgent Records
that is stamped with the seal used by Artemio
Ricarte in 1899. This version contains basically
the same text as is transcribed here, but it bears
a different title -"Final Declaration on
Admission to the Katipunan (Katapusang
pamamanayag sa pagpasok sa K.)- and it omits
the famous footnote that says "the word
Tagalog means all those born in this
archipelago."
Authorship of the Kartilya has always been
credited to Emilio Jacinto, and there is little
doubt this attribution is sound: it dates back to
the Sensacional memoria of Isabelo de los
Reyes, whose sources included several senior
KKK veterans, and it has never been
challenged. Bonifacio, the story goes, had
originally intended that his “Decalogue” should
be printed and handed to new recruits, but then
read Jacinto's Kartilya and decided it was
superior. The two texts, though, are not really
comparable. Bonifacio seeks only to enumerate
the duties of Katipunan members, Jacinto
couches his primer, four times as long rather as
a statement of aspirations and ethical values.
Bonifacio lists ten obligations, Jacinto presents
twelve "guiding principles and fourteen
"teachings."
In its structure the Kartilya resembles the
declaration used in Manila's masonic lodges, a
declaration that had presumably been written in
Spain around 1889, when the grand order to
which the lodges were affiliated – the Gran
Oriente Espanol – had been founded by Miguel
Morayta. The Kartilya is addressed "To those
who want to join the Katipunan'"; the masonic
document to los profanos que deben inscribirse
en la Sociedad. The preamble of the Kartilya
echoes the masonic document's stated purpose,
which is to ensure that candidates fully
understand the association's objectives before
making a commitment they might later repent.
The division in the Kartilya between principles
(layon) and teachings (aral) broadly parallels
the division in the Gran Oriente's manifesto
between the "Programa Masonica" and the
"Codigo Masonico". And the Kartilya, finally,
like the document used in the lodges, asks
neophytes to pledge their allegiance to the
associations' objectives and to affirm with their
signature that they are becoming members of
their own free will (ninais ng loob ko).
There are also parallels between the content of
the two documents. Recruits to the lodges were
advised that masonry considera como
hermanos todos łos hombres; that they should
renounce todos los vicios; and should defender'
al oprimido. Within the katipunan, said the
Kartilya, "all are equal and true brethren."
Members had to renounce disorderly habits"
and to "defend the oppressed".
Other influences may be identified more
tentatively. The admonitions to regard a woman
as a "helpmate" rather than a "plaything", and
to "have due regard to her weakness " may he
biblical in origin. The adage that "honorable
man's word in his bond" may be traced back to
Cervantes; and the thought that "time lost is lot
forever" may have come from Benjamin
Franklin. One precept is perhaps taken from
Rizal. A "life which is not dedicated to a great
idea is useless," declares Rizal's fictional
insurrectionist Simoun in El Filibusterismo: “It
is a pebble lost in the field, when it should form
part of some building”. Life which is not
consecrated to a lofty and sacred cause" Jacinto
writes, varying in the metaphor, "is like a tree
without shade, if not a poisonous weed"
To emphasize Enlightenment influences on
Katipunan thinking, some say, effaces the
originality of documents like the Kartilya,
which may be found in the nuances of their
Tagalog and their resonance with the native
psyche, familial bonds, folk Christianity,
indigenous dissident traditions, and so on. Such
arguments may be true up to a point, but often
they seem nebulous, reliant more on wishful
assertion than on substantiating chapter and
verse. The Tagalog words that resound loudest
in the Kartilya, beyond doubt, are the
equivalents of the Enlightenment's defining
watchwords: Liberty (Kalayaan), equality
(lahat ng tao y magkakapantay), Fraternity
(kayong lahat ay magkakapatid), Reason
(Katuiran), Progress (kagalingan), and
Enlightenment itself (Kaliwanagan). Most,
perhaps all, of these Tagalog events had already
been employed by ilustrado writers like Rizal
and Del Pilar before KKK was founded. The
revolutionary originality of the katipunans lay
on its idiom, but in its objectives and its deeds.
Mga Aral nang Katipunan ng mga A.N.B.
(Teachings of the Katipunan of the Sons of the
People)
1. Ang kabuhayang hindi ginugugol sa isang
malaki at banal na kadahilanan ay kahoy na
walang lilim, kundi damong makamandag.
(A life that is not dedicated to a great and
sacred cause is like a tree without a shade, or a
poisonous weed.)
2. Ang gawang magaling na nagbubuhat sa
pagpipita sa sarili, at hindi sa talagang nasang
gumawa ng kagalingan, ay di kabaitan.
(A good deed lacks virtue if it springs from a
desıre for personal profit and not from a sincere
desire to do good.)
3. Ang tunay na kabanalan ay ang pagkakawang
gawa, ang pagibig sa kapua at ang isukat ang
bawat kilos, gawa't pangungusap sa talagang
Katuiran.
(True charisty resides in acts of compulsion, in
love for one's fellow men, and in making true
reason the measure of every move, deed, word.)
4. Maitim man at maputi ang kulay ng balat,
lahat ng tao'y magkakapantay; mangyayaring
ang isa' y higitan sa dunong, sa yaman, sa
ganda....; ngunit di mahihigtan sa pagkatao.
(Be their skin dark or pale, all men are equal.
One can be superior to another in knowledge,
wealth, and beauty...but not in being.)
5. Ang may mataas na kalooban inuuna ang puri
sa pagpipita sa sarili; ang may hamak na
kalooban inuuna ang pagpipita sa sarili sa puri.
(A person with a noble character values honor
above self-interest, while a person with an
ignoble character values self-interest above
honor.)
6. Sa taong may hiya, salita'y panumumpa.
(An honorable man's word is his bond.)
7. Huag mong sasayangin ang panahun, ang
yamang nawala'y magyayaring magbalik
nguni't panahong nagdaan na'y di namuli pang
magdadaan. Value of time
(Don't waste lime; lost wealth may be
recovered, but time lost is lost forever.)
8. Ipagtanggol mo ang inaapi, at kabakahin ang
umaapi.
(Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor.)
9. Ang taong matalino'y ang may paiingat sa
bawat sasabihin, at matutong ipaglihim ang
dapat ipaglihim.
(An intelligent man is he who takes care in
everything he says and keeps quiet about whal
must be kept secret.)
10. Sa daang matinik ng kabuhayan, lalaki ay
siyang patnugot ng asawa't mga anak; kung
ang umaakay ay tungo sa sama, ang
palulunguhan ng iaakay ay kasamaan din.
(Along the thorny path of life, the man leads the
way and his wife and children follow. If the
leader goes the way of perdition, then so do
those who are led.)
11. Ang babai ay huag mong tignang isang
bagay na libangan lamang, kundi isang katuang
at karamay sa mga kahirapan nitong
kabuhayan; gamitan mo ng buong pagpipitagan
ang
kaniyang kahinaan, at alalahanin ang inang
pinagbuhata’t nagiwi sa iyong kasangulan.
(Do not regard a woman as a mere plaything,
but as helpmate and partner in the hardships of
this existence. Have due regard to her
weakness, and remember the mother who
brought you into this world and nurtured you in
your infancy.)
12. Ang di mo ibig na gawin sa asawa mo, anak
at kapatid, ay huag mong gagawin sa asawa,
anak, at kapatid ng iba.
(What you would not want done to your wife,
daughter, and sister, do not do to the wife,
daughter, and sister of another.)
13. Ang kamahalan ng tao y wala sa pagkahari,
wala sa tangus ng ilong at puti ng mukha, wala
sa pagkaparing kahalili ng Dios wala sa mataas
na kalagayan sa balat ng lupa, wagas at tunay
na mahal na tao, kahit laking gubat at walang
nababatid kundi ang sariling wika, yaong may
magandang asa, may isang pangungusap, may
dangal at puri; yaong di napaaapit di nakikiapi,
yaong marunong magdamdam at marunong
lumingap sa baying tinubuan.

(A man s worth does not come from him being
a king, or in the height of his nose and the
whiteness of his face, or in him being priest, a
REPRESENTATIVE OF GOD, or his exalted
position on the face of this earth. Pure and truly
noble is he who, though born in the forest and
able to speak only his own tongue, behaves
decently, is true to his word, has dignity and
honor, who is not an oppressor and does not
abet oppressors, who knows how to cherish and
look after the land of his birth.)
14. Paglaganap ng mga aral na ito at
maningning na sunikat ang araw ng manal na
Kalayaan dito sa kaabaabang Sangkalupuan, at
sabugan ng matamis nyang liwanag ang
nangagkaisang magkalahi't magkakapatid ng
ligaya ng walang katapusan, ang mga ginugol
na bunay, pagud, at mga tiniis na kahirapa y
labis nang nalumbasan. Kung lahat ng ito'y
mataruk na ng nagiibig pumasuk at maakala
niyang matutupad ang mga tutungkuin,
maifatala ang kaniyang ninanasa sa kasunod
nito.
(When these doctrines have spread and the
brilliant sun of beloved liberty shines on these
poor Islands, and sheds its sweet light upon a
united race, a people in everlasting happiness,
then the live lost, the struggle and the suffering
will have been more than recompensed.)
Unit III “ONE PAST BUT MANY
HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE
HISTORY
TOPIC: The site of the first Mass in the
Philippines
The site of the First Mass in the Philippines is
one of the historical controversies in Philippine
historiography. Two competing schools of
thought provide different evidences on where
the seed Christianity was planted. According to
the first school of thought, the first mass
happened in Limasawa Island in the Province of
Leyte. As claimed by the second school of
thought. It was celebrated in Mazaua Butuan,
Agusan del Norte.
People debating on the first mass story find it as
a religious and geographical matter.
Religiously, it marks the birthplace of
Christianity in the Philippines. Geographically,
it challenges the “accuracy” of Spanish
narratives about the Philippines spaces and
places and their movements between the places.
In March 1998, however, the disputed issue was
officially settled when the National historian
Institute (NHI) declared Limasawa to be the site
of the first catholic mass. Despite the foregoing
verdict, the pro-Masao group has not stopped
from asserting its claim until today. But as a
Filipino, what is the significance of this first
Eucharistic celebration issue? The value of this
controversy rest on the fact that the conduct of
the first Holy Mass is associated with the
introduction of Christianity on Philippines soil.
Historically, it corrects geographical distortion
contained in the Philippine historiography.
Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the first
Mass in the Philippines;
A Reexamination of Evidence
Miguel A, Bernad
Here is a controversy regarding the site of the
first Mass ever celebrated on the Philippine soil.
Pigafetta tells us that is was held on Easter
Sunday, the 31st of March 1521, on an island
called “Mazaua.” Two native chieftains were in
attendance: the Rajah of Mazaua and the Rajah
of Butuan. After the Mass the party went up a
little hill and planted a wooden cross upon the
summit. The subject of controversy is the
identity of this place with Pigafetta called
“Mazaua” there are two conflicting claims as to
its identity; one school of thought point top the
little island south of Leyte which on the map is
called Limasawa; the other school rejects that
claim and point instead to the beach called
Masao at the mouth of the Agusan River in the
northern Mindanao, near what was then the
village (now the city) of Butuan. In this paper
we shall try to reexamine and reassess the
evidence for these two claims. And we shall
begin with the Butuan tradition.
I. The Butuan Tradition
The Butuan claims rests upon a tradition that
was almost unanimous and unbroken for three
centuries namely the 17th, the 18th and the 19th.
The monument was brick pillar on which was a
marble slab that contained an inscription which
be translated as follow.
To the Immortal Magellan” the People of
Butuan with their Parish Priest and the Spaniard
resident therein, to commemorate his arrival
and the celebration of the First Mass on this site
on the 8th of April 1521. Erected in 1872, under
the District Governor Jose Ma. Carvallo.
The monument was erected apparently at the
instigation of the parish priest of Butuan, who
at the time was a Spanish friar of the Order of
Augustinian Recollects. The date given for the
first Mass (8 April 1521) may be an obvious
error, or it may be clumsy and anachronistic
attempt to translate the original date in terms of
the Gregorian calendar. In any case that
monument is a testimonial to the tradition that
remained vigorous until the end of the 19 th
century, namely, that Magellan and his
expedition landed at Butuan and celebrated
there the first mass ever offered in Philippine
soil.
The other Jesuit writer of the mid-17th century
was Father Francisco Combès S.J. (1620-1665)
who, like Colin, had lived and worked as a
missionary in the Philippines, and whose
Historia de Mindanao y Jolo was printed in
Madrid in 1667, two years after the author’s
death and five years after Colin’s work was
published. Combès History of Mindanao was
also reissued 230 years afterwards in a
handsome edition edited by Wenceslao Retana
assisted by father Pastells. In his account of
Magellan voyage, Combès give a somewhat
different version of the route take by the
Discoverer. Here is his account:
The first time that royal standard of the Faith
were seen to fly in this island (of Mindanao)
was when the Archipelago was first discovered
by the Admiral Alonso (sic) de Magallanes. He
followed a new and difficult route [across the
pacific], entering by the Strait of Siargao,
formed by that island and that of Leyte, and
landing at the island of Limasawa which is at
the entrance of that Strait. Amazed by the
novelty and strangeness of the [Spain] nation
and the ships. Barbarians of that island
welcomed them and gave them good
refreshments.
While at Limasawa, enjoying rest and
good treatment, they heard of the River of
Butuan, whose chieftain was more powerful.
His reputation attracted our men thither to see
for themselves or be disillusioned, their
curiosity sharpened by the fact that the place
was nearby. The barbarians [chief] lived up to
our men’s expectations, providing them with
the food they needed… Magellan contented
himself with having them do reverence to the
cross which is erected upon a hillock as a sign
to future generations of their alliance… the
solemnity with which the cross was erected and
the deep piety shown by the Spaniards, and by
the native following the example of the
Spaniards, engendered great respect for the
cross.
The Evidence for Limasawa
We now come to the evidence in favor of
Limasawa. The evidence may be outlined as
follows:
1. The evidence of Albo’s logbook
2. The evidence of Pigafetta
a. Pigafetta’s testimony
regarding the route
b. The evidence of Pigafetta map
c. The two native kings
d. The seven days at “Mazaua”
e. An argument from omission
3. Summary of the evidence of Albo and
Pigafetta
4. Confirmatory evidence of the Legaspi
Expedition
I. The evidence of Albo’s logbook
Francisco Albo joined the Magellan
expedition as a pilot (“contramaestre”)
in Magellan’s flagship “Trinidad”. He
was one of the eighteen survivors who
returned with Sebastian Elcano on the
“Victoria” after having
circumnavigated the world. Albo began
keeping his own diary – merely only a
log-book - on the voyage out, while
they were sailing southward in the
Atlantic along the coast of South
America. Off Brazil. His account of
their entry into Philippine waters (or, as
it was then called, the archipelago of
san Lazaro… may be reduced to the
following points:
1. On the 16th of March (1512) as they sailed in
a westerly course from the Ladrones, they
saw land towards the northwest; but owing
to many shallow places they did not
approach it. They found later that its name
was Yunagan.
2. They went instead that same day southward
to another small island named Suluan, and
 there they anchored. There they saw some
canoes but these fled at the Spaniard’s
approach. This island was at 9 and two –
third degree North latitude.
3. Departing from those two island, they sailed
westward to an uninhabited island of Gada
where they took in a supply of wood and
water. The sea around that island was free
shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of
this island, but form Pigafetta’s testimony,
this seems to be the “Acquada” or
Homonhon, at 10 degree North latitude
4. From that island they sailed westward
towards a large island named Seilani which
was inhabited and was known to have gold.
(Seilani – or, as Pigafetta calls it “Ceylon” –
was the island of Leyte.)
5. Sailing southward along the coast of that
large island of Seilani, they turned
southwest to small island called “Mazava.”
That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two
– thirds degrees north.
6. The people of that island of Mazava were
very good. There the Spaniards planted a
cross upon a mountain - top , and from there
they were shown three island to the west and
southwest, where they told there was much
gold “they showed us how the c=gold was
gathered, which came in small pieces like
peas and lentils.
7. From Mazava they sailed northward again
toward Seilani they followed the coast of
Seilani in a northwesterly direction,
ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where
they saw three small island.
8. From there they sailed westward some 10
leangues, and they saw three islets, where
they dropped anchor for the night. In the
morning they sailed southwest some 12
leagues, down to a latitude of 10 and one -
third degree. There they entered a channel
between two island, one of which was called
”Matan” and the other “Subu”
9. They sailed down that channel and turned
westward and anchored at the town (la villa)
of Subu where they stayed many days and
obtained provisions and entered into a
peace-pact with the local king.
10. The town of Subu was on an east – west
direction with the island of Suluan and
Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu,
there were so many shallows that the boats
could not go westward directly but had to go
(as they did) in a round-about away.
The Evidence from Pigafetta
The most complete account of the Magellan
expedition is that by Antonio Pigafetta
entitled Primo viaggio intomo al mondo
(First Voyage around the World). Like
Albo, he was a member of the expedition
and was therefore an eyewitness of the
principal event which he describes,
including the first Mass in what is now
known as the Philippine Archipelago., but
which Magellan called the islands of Saint
Lazarus. Of Pigaffeta’s work there are two
excellent English Translation, one
Robertson (from Italian) and another by
Skelton (from French)
(a) Pigafetta’s Testimony Regarding the Route
The route taken by the Magellan expedition
may be reconstructed if we follow Pigafetta;s
account day by day. Here is a summary of his
account.
1. Saturday, 16 March 1512. – Magellan’s
expedition sighted a “high lnad” named
“Zamal” which was some 300 league
westward of Ladrones (now the
Maraian) Island.
2. Sunday, March 17. “The following
day” after sighting Zamal Island, they
landed on “another island which was
uninhabited” and which lay “to the
right” of the above-mentioned Island of
“Zamal.” (To the right here would
mean on their starboard going south or
southwest.) They set up two tents for
the sick members of the crew and had a
sow killed for them. The name of this
Island was “Humunu” (Homonhon).
This island was located at 10 degrees
North latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17)
Magellan named the entire archipelago
the “Island of Saint Lazarus”, the
reason being that it was the Sunday in
the Lenten season when the Gospel
assigned the Mass and liturgical Office
was the eleventh chapter of St. John,
which tells of the Raising of Lazarus
from the dead.
4. Monday, 18 March. – In the afternoon
of their second day on that island, they
saw a boat coming towards them with
nine men in it. A exchange of gifts was
effected. Magellan asked for food
supplies, and the men went away,
promising to bring rice and other
supplies in “four days”.
5. There were two spring of water on that
island of Homonhon. Also they saw
there some indication that there was
gold in these islands Consequently
Magellan renamed the island and called
it the “Watering Place of Good Omen”
(Acqauda la di bouni segnialli).
6. Friday, 22 March - at noon the native
returned. This time they were in two
boats, and they brought food supplies.
7. Magellan’s expedition stayed eight
days at Homonhon: from Sunday, 17
March, top the Monday of the
Following week, 25 March.
8. Monday, 25 March. – In the afternoon,
the expedition weighed anchor and left
the island of Homonhon. In the
ecclesiastical calendar, this day (25
March) was the Feast-day of the
Incarnation, also called the feast of the
Annunciation and therefore “Our
Lady’s Day.” On this day, as they were
about to weigh anchor, an accident
happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the
water but was rescued. He attributes his
narrow escape from death as a grace
obtained through the intercession of the
Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast-day.
9. The route taken by the expedition after
leaving Homonhon was toward the
west southwest, between four islands:
namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson
and Albarien.” Very probably
“Cenalo” is a misspelling in the Italian
Manuscript for what Pigafetta in his
map calls “Ceiolon” and Albo called
“Seilani.”: namely the island of Leyte.
”Hiunanghan” (a misspellinh of
Hiniunangan) seemed to Pegafetta to
be a separate island, but it is actually on
the mainland of Leyte (i.e “Ceylon”).
On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta’s
Ibusson) is an island of Leyte’s South
Trip.
10. Thursday. 28 March. – In the morning
of Holy Thursday, 28 March, they
anchored off an island where the
previous night they had/
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua
Island. What they did during those
seven days, we shall discuss in a
separate section bellow, entitled “seven
Days at Mazaua.”
12. Thursday, 4 April. – They left Mazaua,
bound for Cebu. They were guided
thither by the king of Mzaua who sailed
in his own boat. Their route took them
past five “Islands”: namely: “Ceylon,
Bohol, Cnighan, Baibai, and
Gatighan.”
13. At Gatighan, They sailed westward to
the three islands of the Camotes
Groups, namely. Pora, Pasihan and
Ponson. (Pigafetta calls the “Polo,
Ticobon, and Pozon.”) Here the
Spanish ships stopped to allow the king
of Mazaua to catch up with them, since
the Spanish ships were much faster
than the native balanghai – a thing that
excited the administration of the king
of Mazavua.
14. From the Camotes Island they sailed
(south-westward) toward to “Zubu”.
15. Sunday, 7 April. – At noon on Sunday,
the 7th of April, they entered the
harbour of “Zubu” (Cebu). It had taken
them three days to negotiate the
journey from mazaua northward to the
Camotes Island and then southward to
Cebu.
(b) The evidence of Pigafetta’s Map
Both the Ambrosian and the Nancy
codies of Pigafetta’s narrative are
illustrated with maps, or more
precisely, diagrams or sketches.
Pigafetta was no cartographer and his
map has probably no value as
navigational charts. But they are
extremely useful in helping to identify
the island which he mentions in the
narrative, and they help to establish the
relative positions (and even the relative
sizes) of those island.
One such map (Blair and Robertson,
vol. 33) shows the Irge island of Samar
(in the map it is spelt Zzamal) and the
smaller island of suluan, Abarien,
Hiunangan, and “Humunu”
(Homonhon), which is also describe as
“Aguada ly boni segnaly.”
A second map (BR 33) is really
adouble map. One map shows the
island of Mindanao or Maguindanao
(the map spell it Mamgdanao). It shows
on the northern shore a deep
indentation which is recognizably
 Panguil Bay. To the west of that is
“Cippit”. To the extreme east,
bordering on the Pacific, are Butuan,
Calagan, and Benasan (spelt in the map
Butuam. Calagam, Benasam). The
other map shows the southern tip of
Zamboanga, the island of Basilan, and
the Sulu archipelago.
A third map (BR33) is the one most
pertinent to our present investigation,
because it shows the island of Mazaua
(the map spells it Mazzana) in relation
to the “island of “Ceilon” and “Baibai”
(i.e Leyte) and to those of Bohol,
Gatighan and the three island of the
Camotes group (in the map called
Polon, Pozon and Tocobob).
From a comparison of these maps, the
following inferences seems justified:
1. Mazaua (Mazzana in the map) is a
small island which lies off the
southwest tip of the large island of
Ceilon (Southern Leyte), and is to the
east of the island of Bohol. It lies near
passage between bohal and the westen
coast of “Ceilon” (Leyte).
2. The island of Mazaua in Pigafetta’s
map, therefore lies in a position
roughly equivalent to the actual
position of the island of Limasawa.
3. In no way can Mazua be identified with
Butuan, which is situated in another
and much larger island (which we now
call Mindanao), the same island in
which “Calagan”, “Cippit”, and
“Mamgdanao” are also located.
(c) The Two Kings
There is confirmation evidence in the
presence of two native “kings” or
rajahs at Mazaua during the Magellan
visit. One was the “king” of Mazaua –
who later guided the Magellan
expedition to Cebu. The other was a
relative (“one of his bother” as
Pigafetta says), namely the king of
rajah of Butuan.
Of this latter individual, Pigafetta says
that he was “one finest looking man”
that he had seen in those parts (We shall
have more to say about him later). At
the moment, the relevant fact is that he
was a visitor to Mazaua. His territory
was Butuan, which was in another
island:
(d) Seven Days at Mazaua
In that island of “Mazaua” – which
according to both Pigafetta and Albo
was situated at a latitude of and two-
thirds degree north - the Magellan
expedition stayed a week. “We
remained there seven days,” says
Pigafetta. What did they do during
those seven days?
Was it possible (as some writers have
suggested) that the expedition left
Mazaua, went south to Butuan, offered
Nass there, and thened to Mazaua
before, proceeding to Cebu?
The answering must be sought in
Pigafetta’s day-by-day account of
those seven days. Here is the summary
of his account:
1. Thursday, 28 March. – In the morning they
anchored near an island where they had seen a
light the night before. A small boat (boloto)
came with eight native, to whom Magellan
threw some trinkets as presents. The native
paddled away, but two hours later two larger
boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the
native king sat under an awning of mats. At
Magellan’s invitation some of the natives went
up the Spanish ship, but the native king
remained seated in his boat. An exchange of
gifts was effected. In the afternoon of the day,
the Spanish ship[s weighed anchor and came
closer to shore, anchoring near the native king’s
village. This Thursday, 28 march was Thursday
in Holy week: i.e Holy Thursday.
2. Friday, 29 march. – “Next day. Holy Friday,”
Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a
small boat to ask the king if he could provide
the expedition with food supplies, and to say
that they had come as friend and not as enemies.
In reply the king himself came in a boat with six
or eight men, and this time went up Magellan’s
ship and the two man embraced. Another
exchange of gift was made. The native king and
his companions returned ashore, bringing with
them two members of Magellan’s expedition as
guest for the night. One of the two was
Pigafetta.
3. Saturday, 30 March. – Pigafetta and his
companion had spent the previous evening
feasting and drinking with the native king and
his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that,
 although it was Good Friday, they had to eat
meat. The following morning (Saturday)
Pigafetta and his companion took leave of their
hosts and returned to ships.
4. Sunday, 31 March. – “Early in the morning of
Sunday, the last of March and Easter day”,
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men
to prepare for the mass. Later in the morning
Magellan landed with some fifty men and mass
was celebrated, after which a cross was
venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned
to the ship for the noon – day meal, but in the
afternoon they returned ashore to plant the cross
on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance
both of the mass and at the planning of the cross
were the king of Mazaua and the king of
Butuan.
5. Sunday, 31 March. – On that day same
afternoon, whi9le on the summit of the highest
hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports
he should go to in order to obtain more
abundant supplies of food than were available
in that island. They replied that there were three
ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu and
Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with
the most trade. Magellan then said that he
wished to go to Zubu and to depart the
following morning. He asked for someone to
guide him tither. The king replied to the pilots
would be available “any time.” But later that
evening the kings od Mazaua changed his mind
and said that he would himself conduct
Magellan to Zubu but that he would first have
to bring the harvest in. he asked Magellan to
send him men to help with the harvest.
6. Monday, 1 April. – Magellan sent men ashore
to help with the harvest, but no work was done
that day because the two kings were sleeping of
their drinking bout of the night before.
7. Tuesday, 2 April, and Wednesday, 3 April. –
Work on the harvest during the “next two
days.” Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd
of April.
(e) An Argument from Omission
If “Mazaua” were Butuan, or in the vicinity
if Butuan, ther is a curios omission in
Pigafetta’s account which would be
difficult to explain. Butuan is a riverine
settlement. It is situated on the Agusan
River. The beach called Masao is in the
delta of the river. If the Magellan
expedition were at that delta, and if the
Mass were celebrated there, why is there no
mention of the river?
The Legazpi Expedition
There is confirmatory evidence from the
documents of the Legazpi expedition, which
sailed into the Philippine water in 1565, forty-
four years after Magellan. One of the places that
Legazpi and his pilots were anxious to visit was
precisely Mazaua, and to this end they inquired
about “Mazaua” from Camotuan and his
companions, natives of the village of the
Cabalian at the southeaster end of the island of
Leyte, guided by these native, the Legazpi ships
rounded the island of “Panae” (Panaon), which
was separated from Leyte by a narrow strait,
and anchor4ed off “Mazaua” –---- but they
found the inhabitants to be hostile, aparrently as
a result of Portuguese depredations that had
occurred in the four-decade interval between
the Legazpi and the Magellan expedition.
IV. The Geography of “Mazaua”
The question may be asked: If “Mazaua” is the
little island of Limasawa, why did Magellan go
there? Why go to an insignificant little island;
why not instead to the larger island? The answer
must be sought in geography. He was coasting
southward down the eastern coast of Leyte
(Albo’s “Seilani”; Pigafetta’s “Ceylon”) with
Hibuson Island on his left. This took him down
to the southern tip of Panaon. The wind was
blowing westward from the pacific. It was late
march and April in this part of the Philippines,
the east wind is strong. It is what the people of
Limasawa call the “Dumagsa”, the east wind.
Sailing with the wind, Magellan’s vessels
would find themselves going west or southwest,
toward the island of Limasawa. Having seen a
light on the island one night, they deeded the
following day to anchor off it.
It is unfortunately that in the controversy that
has arisen between the supporters of Butuan
and those Limasawa, this question of
geography has been given little notice.
If the island of Limasawa is the “Mazaua” of
Pigafettaand and the “Masava” of Albo, why
then is now called Limasawa? Were Pigafetta
and Albo wrong? Or were the historian and
map-maker wrong from the 17th century
onward?
We do not have the answer to that question.
Except to state that in the southern part of
Leyte, the island is istill refrred to by the
fisherfolk as “Masaoa”, not Limasawa.
V. Why Then the Butuan Tradition?
How then did the strong three-century tradition
in favour of Butuan arise? Here we are in the
realm of conjecture, but a number of reasons
could be adduced to account for the tradition.
First, it must be remembered that the tradition
is based on second-hand information. One
author repeats (and often distorts) what
previous author have written, and is in turn
copied (and distorted) by subsequent authors. In
such a chain, one author making a mistake
could easily start a tradition that could last three
centuries.
A second reason is suggested by Pastells.
Magellan and his men got to know the rajah of
Butuan at Masaua. According to Pigafetta. That
rajah was at Masaua only on a visit. But it is
easy to see how the fact that Magellan had
known the rajah of Butuan could be
misunderstood by later historians as meaning
that he had known him at Butuan.
There is a third reason. It must be remembered
that the Butuan Tradition, while erroneous as to
the site of the first Mass, is not entirely without
validity. Magellan expedition, Magellan’s
death, visited several places Mindanao, very
probably including Butuan.
Issues for Discourse
1. Will Butuan lose its historical and
cultural value if the first mass not
happened in it? Why?
2. Do you think it was beneficial or
detrimental for the Filipino to be
Christianized by the Spaniards? Why?
TOPIC: THE CAVITE MUTINY
The Cavity Mutiny is one of the events in the
annals of Philippine history that had numerous
controversies. Differing accounts in reference
to this event show that each account presents
different sides of the story. Significantly, the
accounts were written those who lived at the
time of the event (first-hand accounts) and
those who had received their information from
contemporaries of the events or who, because
of their relationship to such men (second-hand
accounts).
Reexamining whose "story" is more credible
and reliable about the Cavite Mutiny is very
important and critical as this event resulted to
the martyrdom of the three priests
(GOMBURZA) and ushered in the Philippine
Revolution of 1898. Among all accounts,
however, John N. Schumacher (1972), who
made an extensive reexamination of the
primary and secondary sources of the event,
points two valid and reliable documents. One is
that of Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera,
a Filipino scholar and researcher and the other
is that of Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific
Spanish historian.
According to Schumacher, "the account of
Pardo de Tavera, prescinding from the
emotional anti-friar tone that pervades it, gives
evidence of being the most reliable, even
though fairly general, account except for its
failure to recognize that De la Torre had also
been suspicious of the Filipino reformists. That
of Montero, apart from its anti-Filipino tone and
its supposition of a revolutionary conspiracy,
contains the most details and, to all
appearances, most reliable account of the actual
course of the revolt itself, as well as of the
execution of the three priests."
In this context, the following accounts of
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Jose Montero y viu
and the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo
on the Cavite Munity of 1872 were considered
for this reading. These persons have different
interpretations about the mutiny because they
interpreted it for different purposes. Each of
them used their own their reference in
analyzing the event and every reader is enjoined
to discriminate closely claims and supporting
evidences.
Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of
1872
By Jose Montero y Vidal
The Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny of
1872 was written by the Spanish historian, Jose
Montero y Vidal, in his book entitled Historia
General de Filipinas (Madrid, 1895, Vol. III, pp
566-595. This narrative of Montero y Vidal,
normally a good historian, was so woefully
biased that Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera
commented that he, "in narrating the Cavite
episode, does not speak as a historian; he speaks
as a Spaniard bend on perverting the facts at his
pleasure; he is mischievously partial"
Unsupported by positive documentary
evidence, this Spanish historian exaggerated the
mutiny of a few disgruntled native soldiers and
laborers into a revolt to overthrow Spanish rule
- a seditious movement and involved the
innocent Filipino patriotic leaders including
Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, Jose Ma.
Basa, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, and others. Montero y Vidal's version
of the Cavite episode of 1872 in English
translation follows:
With the establishment in Spain of a
government less radical than the one that
appointed La Torre, the latter was relieved from
his post. His successor D. Rafael de lzquierdo,
assumed control of the government of these
islands April 4, 1871. The most eventual
episode in his rule was the Cavite Revolt of
1872.
The abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the
laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption
from the tribute was, according to some, the
cause of the insurrection. There were, however,
other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a
secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an
unbridled press against monarchical principles,
attentatory of the most sacred respects towards
the dethroned majesty; the democratic and
republic books and pamphlets; the speeches and
preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in
Spain; the outbursts of the American publicists
and the criminal policy of the senseless
Governor whom the Revolutionary government
sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into
practice these ideas were the determining
circumstances which gave rise, among certain
Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their
independence. It was towards this goal that they
started to work, with the powerful assistance of
a certain 7 of the native clergy, who out of spite
toward the friars, made common cause with the
enemies of the mother country.
At various times but especially in the beginning
of the year 1872, the authorities received
anonymous communications with the
information that a great uprising would break
out against the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at
Cavite left for the South, and that all would be
assassinated, including the friars. But nobody
gave importance to these notices. The
conspiracy had been going on since the days of
La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the
principal leaders met either in the house of the
Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora,
and these meetings were usually attended by the
curate of Bacoor (Cavite), the soul of the
movement, whose energetic character and
immense wealth enabled him to exercise a
strong influence.
The garrison of Manila, composed mostly of
native soldiers, were involved in this
conspiracy, as well as a multitude of civilians.
The plan was for the soldiers to assassinate their
officers, the servants, their masters, and the
escort of the Captain-General at Malacańang, to
dispose of the governor himself. The friars and
other Spaniards were later to have their turn.
The pre-concerted signal among the
conspirators of Cavite and Manila was the
firing of rockets from the walls of the city. The
details having been arranged, it was agreed that
the uprising was to break out in the evening of
the 20th of January, 1872. Various
circumstances, however, which might well be
considered as providential, upset the plans, and
made the conspiracy a dismal failure.
In the district of Sampaloc, the fiesta of the
patron saint, the Virgin of Loreto, was being
celebrated with pomp and splendor. On the
night of the 20th, fireworks were displayed and
rockets fired into the air. Those in Cavite
mistook these for the signal to revolt, and at
nine thirty in the evening of that day two
hundred native soldiers under the leadership of
Sergeant La Madrid rose up in arms,
assassinated the commander of the fort and
wounded his wife.
The military governor of Cavite, D. Fernando
Rojas, dispatched two Spaniards to inform the
Manila authorities of the uprising but they were
met on the way be a group of natives belonging
to the Guias established by La Torre, who put
them instantly to death. At about the same time,
an employee of the arsenal, D. Domingo
Mijares, left Cavite in a war vessel for Manila,
arriving there at midnight. He informed the
commandant of Marine of what had occured,
and this official immediately relayed the news
to Governor Izquierdo.
Early the next morning two regiments, under
the command of D. Felipe Ginoves, Segundo
cabo, left for Cavite on board the merchant
vessels Filipino, Manila Isabela I and Isabela
II. Ginoves demanded rendition and waited the
whole day of the 21st for the rebels to surrender,
without ordering the assault of their position in
order to avoid unnecessary shedding of blood.
After waiting the whole day in vain for the
rendition of the rebels, Ginoves launched an
assault against the latter's position, early in the
morning of the 22nd, putting to the sword the
majority of the rebels and making prisoners of
the rest. On the same day an official
proclamation announced the suppression of the
revolt.
As a result of the declarations made by some of
the prisoners in which several individuals were
pointed out as instigators, Don Jose Burgos and
D. Jacinto Zamora, curates of the Cathedral, D.
Mariano Gomez, curate of Bacoor (Cavite),
several other Filipino priesis, Antonio Maria
Regidor, lawyer and Regidor of the
Ayuntamiento, D. Joaquin Pardo Tavera,
Consejero de Administración, Pedro Carillo,
Gervacio Sanchez and Jose Mau de de Leon,
lawyers Enrique Paraiso and Jose and Pio Basa,
employees, and Crisanto Reyes, Maximo
Paterno and several other Filipinos, were
arrested.
The council of war, which from the beginning
look charge of the causes in connection with the
Cavite uprising, passed the sentence of death on
forty-one of the rebels. On the 27th of January
the Captain-General fixed his "cumplase" on
the sentence. On the 6th of the following month,
eleven more were sentenced to death, but the
Governor General, by decree of the day
following, commuted this sentence to life
imprisonment. On the 8th, the sentence of death
was pronounced on Camerino and ten years
imprisonment of eleven individuals of the
famous "Guias de la Torre," for the
assassination of the Spaniards who, on the night
of January 20th, were sent to Manila to carry
news of the uprising.
The same council on the 15th of February,
sentenced to die by strangulation the Filipino
priests, D. Jose Burgos, D. Jacinto Zamora, and
D. Mariano Gomez, and Francisco Saldua; and
Maximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraiso and
Crisanto de los Reyes to ten years
imprisonment. Early in the morning of the
seventeen of February, an immense multitude
appeared on the field of Bagumbayan to witness
the execution of the sentence. The attending
force was composed of Filipino troops, and the
batteries of the fort were aimed at the place of
execution, ready to fire upon the least sign of
uprising. Gomez was executed first, then
Zamora, then Burgos, and lastly, Saldua.
On the 3rd of April, 1872, the Audience
suspended from the practice of law the
following men: D. Jose Basa y Enriquez, D.
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, D. Antonio Ma.
Regidor, D. Pedro Carillo, D. Gervacio Sanchez
and D. Jose Mauricio de Leon.
Izquierdo had requested the sending to Manila
of Spanish troops for the defense of the fort as
most of these found here were natives. In
pursuance of Izquierdo's request, the
government, by decree of April 4, 1872,
dissolved the native regiment of artillery and
ordered the creation of an artillery force to be
composed exclusively of Peninsulares. The
latter arrived in Manila in July, 1872. On the
occasion of the arrival of the troops, the Sto.
Domingo Church celebrated a special mass at
which high officials of the government, the
religious corporations, and the general public,
attended, upon invitation by the Governor and
Captain-General of the Philippines.
Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of
1872
Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera
The Filipino version of the bloody incident of
Cavite in 1872 was written by Dr. Trinidad H.
Pardo de Tavera, Filipino scholar, scientist, and
historical researcher. According to him, this
incident was merely a mutiny by the native
Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite
arsenal against the harsh policy of despotic
Governor and Captain-General Rafael de
Izquierdo (1871-1873) which abolished their
old-time privileges of exemption from paying
the annual tribute and from rendering the polo
(forced labor). The loss of these privileges was
naturally resented by the soldiers and laborers.
Some of them, impelled by volcanic wrath, rose
in arms on the night of January 20, 1872, and
killed the commanding officer of the Cavite
Arsenal and other Spanish officers. This was
easily suppressed by the Spanish troops which
were rushed from Manila. This turbulent
incident, which was magnified by the Spanish
officials and friars into a revolt for Philippine
independence, is narrated by Pardo de Tavera,
as follows:
The arrival of General Izquierdo (1871-1873)
was the signal for a complete change in the
aspect of affairs. The new governor soon made
it clear that his views were different from those
of La Torre - that there would be no change in
the established form of government - and he at
once announced that he intended to govern the
people "with crucifix in one hand and a sword
in the other."
His first official act was to prohibit the founding
of a school of arts and trades, which was being
organized by the efforts and funds raised by
natives of standing in the community, but the
founding of which did not tally with the views
of the religious orders. Governor Izquierdo
believed that the establishment of the new
school was merely a pretext for the organization
of a political club, and he not only did not allow
it to be opened but made a public statement
accusing the Filipinos who had charge of the
movement. All of those who had offered their
support to ex-Governor La Torre were classed
as personas sospechosas (suspects), a term that
since that time has been used in the Philippine
Islands to designate any person who refused to
servilely obey the wishes and whims of the
authorities. The conservative element in the
islands now directed the governmental policy,
and the educated Filipinos fell more and more
under the displeasure and suspicion of the
governor.
The peace of the colony was broken by a certain
incident which, though unimportant in itself,
was probably the origin of the political agitation
which, constantly growing for thirty years,
culminated in the overthrow of the Spanish
sovereignty in the Philippine Islands. From
time immemorial the workmen in the arsenal at
Cavite and in the barracks of the artillery and
engineer corps has been exempt from the
payment of the tribute tax and from obligation
to work certain days each year on public
improvements. General Izquierdo believed the
time opportune for abolishing these privileges
and ordered that in the future all such workmen
should pay tribute and labor on public
improvements. This produced great
dissatisfaction among the workmen affected
and the men employed in the arsenal at Cavite
went on a strike, but, yielding to pressure and
threats made by the authorities, they
subsequently returned to their labors.
The workmen in the Cavite arsenal were all
natives of that town and of the neighboring
town of San Roque. In a short while the
dissatisfaction and discontent with the
government spread all over that section and
even the entire troops became disaffected. On
the night of January 20, 1872, there was an
uprising among the soldiers in the San Felipe
fort, in Cavite, and the commanding offer and
other Spanish officers in charge of the fort were
assassinated. Forty marines attached to the
arsenal and 22 artillerymen under Sergeant La
Madrid took part in this uprising, and it was
believed that the entire garrison in Cavite was
disaffected and probably implicated. But if the
few soldiers who precipitated the attack
believed they would be supported by the bulk
of the army and that a general rebellion against
Spain would be declared in the islands, they
were deceived. When the news of the uprising
was received in Manila, General Izquierdo sent
the commanding general to Cavite, who
reinforced the native troops, took possession of
the fort, and put the rebels to the sword.
Sergeant La Madrid has been blinded and badly
burned by the explosion of a sack of powder
and, being unable to escape, was also cut down.
A few of the rebels were captured and taken to
Manila and there was no further disturbance of
the peace or insubordination of any kind.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was
used as a powerful lever by the Spanish
residents and by the friars. During the time that
General La Torre was chief executive in the
Philippine Islands the influential Filipinos did
not hesitate to announce their hostility to the
religious orders, and the Central Government in
Madrid has announced its intention to deprive
the friars in these islands of all powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and
of the direction and management of the
university. Moret, the colonial minister, had
drawn up a scheme of reforms by which he
proposed to make a radical change in the
colonial system of government which was to
harmonize with the principles for which the
revolution ' in Spain had been fought. It was due
to these facts and promises that the Filipinos
had great hopes of an improvement in the
affairs of their country, while the friars, on the
other hand, feared that their power in the colony
would soon be completely a thing of the past.
The mutiny in Cavite gave the conservative
element - that is, those who favored a
continuation of the colonial modus vivendi - an
opportunity to represent to the Spanish
Government that a vast conspiracy was afoot
and organized throughout the archipelago with
the object of destroying the Spanish
sovereignty. They stated that the Spanish
Government in Madrid was to blame for the
propagation of pernicious doctrines and for the
hopes that had been held out from Madrid to the
Filipino people, and also because of the
leanings of ex-Governor La Torre and of other
public functionaries who had been sent to the
Philippine Islands by the Government that
succeeded Queen Isabella. The fall of the new
rulers in Spain within a few days, as well as
other occurrences, seemed to accentuate the
claims made by the conservative element in the
Philippine Islands regarding the peril which
threatened Spanish sovereignty in the islands; it
appeared as though the prophecies were about
to be fulfilled. The Madrid authorities were not
able to combat public opinion in that country;
no opportunity was given nor time taken to
make a thorough investigation of the real facts
or extent of the alleged revolution; the
conservative element in the Philippine Islands
painted the local condition of affairs in somber
tints; and the Madrid Government came to
believe, or at least to suspect, that a scheme was
being concocttu throughout the islands to shake
off Spanish sovereignty. Consistent with the
precedents or their colonial rule, the repressive
measures adopted to quell the supposed
insurrection wer strict and sudden. No attempt
appears to have been made to ascertain whether
or n0t u innocent suffered with the guilty, and
the only end sought appeared to be to inspire
tero in the minds of all by making examples of
a certain number, so that none in the uui should
attempt, nor even dream of any attempt at
secession.
Many of the best known Filipinos were
denounced to the military authorities, and
they,the sons of Spaniards born in the islands
and men of mixed blood (Spanish and Chinese),
as well as the Indians of pure blood, as the
Philippine Malays were called, were persecuted
and punished without distinction by the military
authorities. Those who dared to oppose
themselves to the friars were punished with
special severity; among others may be
mentioned the priests Burgos, a half-blood
Spaniard, Zamora, a half-blood Chinaman, and
Gomez, a pure-blood Tagalog, who had
vigorously opposed the friars in the litigation
over the curacies in the various provinces. The
three priests mentioned were condemned to
death by a military court-martial, and Antonio
M. Regidor, a lawyer and councilman of
Manila, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, lawyer and
members of the administrative council, P.
Mendoza, curate of Santa Cruz, Guevarra,
curate of Quiapo, the priests Mariano Sevilla,
Feliciano Gomez, Ballesteros, Jose Basa, the
lawyers Carillo, Basa, Enriquez, Crisanto,
Reyes, Maximo, Paterno, and many others were
sentenced to life imprisonment on the Marianas
Islands. The Government thus secured its object
of terrorizing the Filipino people, but the
punishments meted out were not only unjust but
were from every point of view unnecessary, as
there had not been the remote intention on the
part of anyone to overthrow the Spanish
sovereignty. On the contrary, the attitude of
Moret, Labra, Becerra, and other high officials
in the Madrid Government had awakened in the
breasts of the Filipinos a lively friendship for
the home government, and never has the ties
which bound the colony to Spain been as close
as they were during the short interval between
the arrival of General La Torre and the time
when General Izquierdo, in the name of the
home government, was guilty of the atrocities
mentioned above, of which innocent men were
made victims.
A careful study of the history and documents of
that time brings to light the part which the
religious orders played in that sad drama. One
of the results of the so-called revolution of
Cavite was to strengthen the power of the friars
in the Philippine Islands in such manner that the
Madrid Government, which up to that time had
contemplated reducing the power of the
religious orders in these islands, was obliged
not only to abandon its intention, but to place a
yet greater measure of official influences at the
service of the friars, and from that time they
were considered as an important factor in the
preservation of the Spanish sovereignty in the
colony.
This influence was felt throughout the islands,
and not only were the friars taken into the
confidence of the Government, but the Filipino
people looked upon the religious orders as their
real masters and as the representatives,
powerful and unsparing, of the Spanish
Kingdom.
But there were other results following upon the
unfortunate policy adopted by Governor
Izquierdo. Up to that time there had been no
intention of secession from Spain, and the only
aspiration of the people was to secure the
material and educational advancement of the
country. The Filipino people had never blamed
the Spanish nation for the backward condition
in which the islands existed, nor for the
injustices committed in the islands by the
Spanish officials; but on the contrary it was the
custom to lay all the blame for these things on
the individual officers guilty of
maladministration, and no attempt had been
made to investigate whether or not the evils
under which the islands suffered were due to
fundamental causes. The persecutions which
began under Governor Izquierdo were based on
the false assumption that the Filipino people
were desirous of independence, and although
this was an unfounded accusation, there were
many martyrs to the cause, among whom were
found many of the most intelligent and well-to-
do people, without distinction of color or race
or nationality, who were sentenced to death, to
imprisonment, or were expatriated because they
were believed to aspire to the independence of
these islands. The fear which the people felt of
the friars and of the punishments meted out by
the Government was exceeded only by the
admiration which the Filipino people has for
those who did not hesitate to stand up for the
rights of the country. In this manner, the
persecutions to which the people were
subjected served as a stimulus and an educative
force, and from that time the rebellion was
nursed in secret and the passive resistance to the
abuses of the official power became greater day
by day.
No attempt was made to allay the ill-feeling
which existed between the Filipinos and the
Spaniards, especially the friars, caused by the
mutiny in Cavite and the cruel manner in which
the punsihment was meted out. Many years
would have been necessary to heal the wounds
felt by the large number of families whose
members were made the victims of the unjust
sentences of the military courts-martial.
Nothing was done by the Government to blot
out the recollection of these actions; on the
contrary, it appeared to be its policy to
continually bring up the memory of these
occurrences as a reminder to the mal-contents
of what they had to expect; but the only thing
accomplished was to increase the popular
discontent. It was from that time that every
disagreement between the Spaniards and
Filipinos, however trivial, was given a racial or
political character; everytime a friar was
insulted or injusred in any way, it was claimed
to be an act of hostility to the Spanish nation.
Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on
the Cavite Mutiny
Rafael Izquierdo
Governor General Rafael Izquierdo reported to
the Spanish Minister of War, dated Manila,
January 23, 1872, blaming the Cavite Mutiny
on the native clergy, some local residents,
intellectuals, and even El Eco Filipino, a
Madrid-based reformist newspaper.
Significantly, he calls the military mutiny as
"insurrection", an "uprising", and a
"revolution". The textof the report is as follows:
From the summary of information received-that
is, from the declaration made before the fiscal it
seems definite that the insurrection was
motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by
the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those
known here as abogadillos. Some are residents
of Manila, others from Cavite, and some from
the nearby provinces.
The instigators, to carry out their criminal
project, protested against the injustice of the
government in not paying the proVinces for
their tobacco crop, and against the usury that
some (officials) practice in (handling)
documents that the Finance department gives
crop owners who have to sell them at a loss.
They encouraged the rebellion by protesting
what they called the injustice of having obliged
the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute
starting January 1 (1872) and to render personal
service, from which they were formerly
exempted.
To seduce the native troops, they resorted to
superstitions with which the indios are so prone
to believe; persuading them that the Chief of
State (hari) would be an ecclesiastic and the rest
or the clergy who baked the uprising would
celebrate daily for its success. Thus the
rebellion could not fail because God was with
them; and those who would not revoltmthey
would kill immediately. Taking advantage of
the ignorance of those classes and the
propensity of the Indio to steal, they offered (to
those who revolted) the wealth of the Spaniards
and of the regular clergy, employment and
ranks in the army; and to this effect they said
that fifteen native batallions would be created,
in which the soldiers who revoltea would have
jobs as officers and chiefs. The lawyers and
abogadillos would direct the affar's of
government of the administration and of justice.
Up to now it has not been clearly determined if
they planned to establish a monarchv or a
republic, because the indios have no word in
their language to describe this different form of
government, whose head in Tagalog would be
called hari; but it turns out that they would place
at the head of the government a priest; and there
were great probabilities nay, a certainty that the
head selected would be D. Jose Burgos, or D.
Zacinto Zamora parish priests of S. San Pedro
of Manila.
All the Spaniards, including the friars, would be
executed except for the women; and their
belongings confiscated. Foreigners would be
respected.
This uprising has roots, and with them were
affiliated to a great extent the regiments of
infantry and artillery, many civilians and a large
number of mestizos, indios and some
illustrados from the provinces.
To start the revolution, they planned to set fire
to the district of Tondo. Once the fire was set
and while the authorities were busy putting it
out, the regiment of artillery with the help of the
part of the infantry would seize Fort Santiago of
this Capital (they would then) uo cannons to
inform the rebels of Cavite (of their success).
The rebels in Cavite counted on the artillery
detachment that occupied the fort and on the
navy helped by 500 natives led by the pardoned
leader Camerino. This person and his men,
located at the town of Bacoor and separated
from the fort of San Felipe by a small arm of the
sea, would cross the water and reach the fort
where they would find arms and ammunition.
The rebels (in Cavite) made the signals agreed
upon by means of lanterns, but the native
civilians (in Bacoor) although they tried it,
failed because if the vigilance of the (Spanish)
navy that had placed there a gunboat and armed
vessels.
Loyalists who went to arrest the parish priests
of Bacoor found an abandoned vessel loaded
with arms, including carbines and revolvers.
The uprising should have started in Manila at
midnight abetted by those in Cavite, but the
rebels of this city went ahead of time. The civil-
military governor of Cavite and the
commanders of Regiment 7 took very timely
precautions; they knew how to keep the soldiers
loyal (although these hadd been compromised)
and behaved with valor and gallantry, obliging
the rebels to take refuge in the fort of San
Felipe.
Such is your Excellency, the plan of the rebels,
those who guided them, and the means they
Counted upon for its realization. For a long time
now, through confidential information and
others ofa vaguer character, I have been told
that since 1869- taking advantage of a group
tnat had left behind plans for an uprising, but
was carried out because of the earthquake of
1862 there existed in Manila a junta or center
that sought and found followers; and that 4s a
pretext they had established a society for the
teaching of arts and trades. Months ago I
Suspended it indirectly, giving an account to
Your Excellency in my confidential report No.
113 dated August 1, (1871) to which Your
Excellency has not yet replied.
It has also been said that this center or junta
received inspiration from Madrid, where
newspapers of advanced ideas flourish; to
sustain them subscriptions are (locally)
solicited; in effect, newspapers such as El Eco
Filipino were sent here from Madrid, which
were distribted by persons now imprisoned,
whose articles thundered against everything
that be found here.
As in the case of my worthy predecessor, I have
continously received anonymous letters, but
because I was confident that I could put down
and punish any uprising, I gave no credit to
these reports) in order not to cause alarm; and
instead continued a vigilant watch whenever
possible within the limited means at my
command. I had everything ready (for any
untoward possibility), taking into account the
limited peninsular force which composes the
army.