RPHChapter3 PDF

revolt... Iwant to see you destroy your cedulas. be It will a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards." Pio Valenzuela Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin." in Gre...

revolt... Iwant to see you destroy your cedulas. be It will a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards." Pio Valenzuela Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin." in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 301-302. The frst place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Plata, Balintawak, the irst fivearriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first some 500 members of the Katipunan place where met on August 22. 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago. Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson,and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government should be startedon August 29, 1896.. After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificatesand shouted "Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!" From the eyewitness accounts presented above,there is indeed, marked disagreement among as to the place and time of the historical witnesses occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong. Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24. 25, or26 August 1896. Valenzuela's account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish investigator that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary sources. to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are Aceording in Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from one place to another to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain why there are several accounts of the Cry. Chapter 3|Llistorical oterpretations an PhlipoineHistory: Spaces for Conflct and Controwersies 6 on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo puts it at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. according to statements by Pio Valenzuela. Research by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in Tandang Sora'sbarn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City,on 24 August 1896. Primary Source: Aceounts of the Cry Guillermo Masangkay Source: Guillermo Masangkay. "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990). 307-309. On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak. at the house of Apolonio Samson, then the cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who remember. were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, attended, I Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela. Enrique Pacheco. and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were also present. At about nine o'clock in the morning August 26, the meeting was of opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early...Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked tothe people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to thetowns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say" "Revolt!" the people shouted as one. Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to  The retraction remainstothisday, a controversy; many scholars, of Rizal however, agree that the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidiâed to Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted to independence in 1898. Case Study 4: Where did the Cry of Rebellion happen? Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late 19th century. including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the phrase "EIGrito de Rebelion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to mark the start of these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines, this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, where they declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government. These events are important markers in the history of colonies that struggled for their independence against their colonizers. The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the irst military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry. for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commisioned a "Himno de Balintawak" to inspire the renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak na Bato failed. A monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of Epifaniode los Santos (EDSA)Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for an unknown reason. Diferent Dates and Places ftheiry Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, Cry to have happened in Balintawak on Lt. Olegario Diaz, identify the 25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the place to be in Kangkong. Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, puts the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that theCry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identiñed the Cry to have happened in Balintawak 59  Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hoursof Rizal urce: Michael Charleston Chua, "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong dokumento at pananaw." GMA News Online. published 29 December 2016. Most Illustrious Sir. the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago to report on the events during the (illegible] day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following: At 7:50 yesterday morning. Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by hiscounsel, SeñorTaviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure. asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book,which was brought to him shortly by Father March. Señor Andrade left death row at 10and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared etraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote fora long time by himself. in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing quad, Señor deland the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, Fresno informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the accused had written. At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison... dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery,the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with tears. This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to the writing of the document.  I retractwith all my heart whatever in my words, writings. publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and Iconfess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatevershe demands. I abominate Masonry.as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me. Manila 29 of December of 1896 Jose Rizal There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published inLa Voz Española and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However, the "original" ext was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance. The Balaguer Testimony Doubtson the retraction document abound,especially because only one eyewitness account of the writing of the document exist-that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times,confessed four times, attended a mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seem out of character. But since it is the only testimony of allegedly a "primary" account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been used to arguethe authenticity of the document. The Testimany fluopo de Vigilancia Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia, included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.  The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes every year. But those who were employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from this obligation from time immemorial. Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew fro such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who work on public roads. The as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement friars used the incident their dominance, which has started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically. the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 resulted to the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898. Case Study 3: Did Rizal retract? Jose Rizal is as a hero of the revolution for his writings that identified center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal's lifework was committed to this end. particularly the more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion but the friars,the main agents of injustice in the Philippine society. It is understandable therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he has written against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as "The Retraction," declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith, and retracte everything he has written against the Church. Primary Source: Rizal's Retraction Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia C.M. on l8 May 1935 I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account oftheCavite Mutiny Source: Edmund Plauchut, "The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za." in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide. Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume (Manila:National 7 Book Store, 1990), 251-268. General La a junta composed of high officials.. Torre... created including some friarsand six Spanish officials... At the same time there was ereated by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished work, it was found thatthey came to the sameconclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to introduce: 1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection. 2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations. 3. Reduction of export fees. 4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag. 5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented. 6. Changes in primary and secondary education. 7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering unnecessary the sending home of short term civil officials every time there is a change of ministry. 8. Study of direct-tax system. 9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly....The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo...put a sudden end to all dreams of the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor reforms. General were probably expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the part of the other to repress eruelly. In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manila a Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of 1871...to repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school. the day previous to the scheduled inauguration.. Chapter 3|Historical 1nterpretations in Philippine Historv: SpacesforConffict and Controversies 55  This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish residents and by the friars..the Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil governmentand of the direction and management was due to these of the university... it facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of theircountry, while the friars,on the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past. 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 education advancement of the country... According to thisaccount, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal.Soldiersand laborers of thearsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of lzquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of theschool of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club. Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and lzquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil governmentand direction and management óf educational institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity. However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvementwelcomed by most Filipinos. Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut complemented Tavera's account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.  In the Spaniard's accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated, and is part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos. lawyers, and residentsof Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they identify among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the roekets fired from Intramuros. The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872. the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with theattack.The 200-mencontingent led by Sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. lzquierdo, upon learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The revolution" was easily erushed, when the Manleños who were expected to aid the Caviteños idnot arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish. while Fathers CGomez. Burgos. and Zamora were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor. lose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law,arrested, and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. lzquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by Peninsulares. On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again. Difering Acaunts ofthe Events of t872 Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdoand Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera. a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. Primary Soure: Exeerpt from Pardo de Tavera's Account ofthe Cavite Mutiny Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny." in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274 280.  Primary Source: Exeerpts from the Official Report of Governor G Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 Source: Rafael lzquierdo "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny." in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide. Documentary Sources of Philippine History. Volume 7(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286...It seems definite that the was motivated and prepared insurrection by the native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos... 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 practice in doeuments that the Finance department gives erop 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 inthe Cavite arsenal topay tribute starting January Iand to render personal service, from which they were formerly exempted. Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned toestablish a monarchy 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... that the head selected would be D.Juse Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora... Such the plan of the rebels. those is. who guided them. and the means they countedupon for its realization. It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the "revolution":the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and being employed in Polos y Servicios, or force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly nmade the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native clergy, who,out of spite against the Spanish friars,"eonspired and supported" the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report. highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines, to installa new "hari"in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because they have God's support. aside from promises of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth. and ranks in the army. was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael lzquierdo implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other. Primary Source:Exeerpts from Montero's Account ofthe Cavite Mutiny Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documen tary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store. 1990), 269 273. The abolition of 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 [sic] of the most sacred respects towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican 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 among certain Filipinos,to rise, the idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country. At various times but especially in the beginning of 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 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, the soul of the movement,whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong infuence.  6. Monday. April l - Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no work was done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout the night before. 7. Tuesday. April 2 and Wednesday, April 3- Work on the harvest during the "next to days," i.e.. Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April. 8. Thursday,April 4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu. Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work Butuan or Limasawa:The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence (1981)lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned -the river. Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach of Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristic of Butuan's geography that seemed to be too important to be missed. It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan's death, the survivorsof his expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly describes a trip up a river. But note that this account already happened after Magellan's death. Case Study 2: What happened in the Cavite Mutiny? The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests, Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora. later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time. direetly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution toward end of the century. While the significance the is unquestioned, what made this year controversial is the different sides to the story. a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time. Spanish Acounts of theCavite Mutiny The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidalcentered on how the event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny 2. Friday. March 29 - "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 friends 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 men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan's expedition as guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta. 3. Saturday, March 30 - 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 the ships. 4. Sunday, March 31 - "Early in the morning of Sunday. the last of March and Easter day." Magellan sent the priest ashore with some nto 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 eross on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance Mass and at the planting both at the of the cross were the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan. 5. Sunday. March 31 -On that same afternoon, while 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 relied that there were three ports to cho0se 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 thither. The kings replied that the pilots would be available "any time." But later that evening the king of 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. Friday. - March 22 At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and they brought food supplies. 7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday.March 17,to the Monday of thefollowing week, March 25. 8. Monday, March 25 - In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the island of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar. this day (March 25) was the feast-day of the Incarnation. also called the feast of the Annunciationand therefore "OurLady'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 attributed his narrow escape from death as 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 manuseript for what Pigafetta in his map calls "Ceilon" and Albo calls "Seilani": namely the island of Leyte. "Hiunanghan" (a misspelling of Hinunangan)seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but is actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e., "Ceylon").On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta's Ibusson) is an island east of Leyte's southern tip. Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing "toward the west southwest" past those islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward towards Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast southward, passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and Hiunangan Bay on their starboard., and then continued southward. then turning westward to "Mazaua." 10. Thursday. March 28 -In the morning of Holy Thursday. March 28, they anchored off an island where the previous night they had seen a light or a bonfire. That island "lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the Aretie Pole (i.e., North) and in a longitude of onehundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua." 11. They remained seven days on Mazaua lsland. 3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited "Gada" where they took island of in a supply of wood and water. The sea around that island was free from shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafeta's testimony, this seems to be the "Acquada" or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude.) 4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island names Seilani that was inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani - or, as Pigafetta calls it, "Ceylon" - was the island of Leyte.) 5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a small island called "Mazava." That island is also at a latitude of 9and 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 islands to the west and southwest, where they were told there was much gold. "They showed us how the gold was gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils." 7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani They followed the coast of Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three smallislands. 8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there 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 islands, one of which was called Matan" and the other "Subu." 9. They sailed down that and then turned westward and channel anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-puct with the local king. 10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu. there where so many shallows that the boats could not gn west ward directly but has to go (as they did) in a round-about way. societies from different perspectives. Thismeans that there is a multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition. biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent. depending on what his/her end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many ways a historian may fail in his or her of the historical inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity asan approach in history, we must understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions. ambiguities, and are oftentimes the focus of dissent. Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event in history, because singular historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate. Different sources that counter each other may create space for more investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on. Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truthss-an official document may note different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of an ordinary person on the same event. Different historical agents create different historical truths,and while this may be a burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship. Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations. it provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer understanding of the past. Case Study l:Where did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines? The popularity of knowing where the "firsts" happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the first Catholie mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical events. Making Senseof the Past: Historical Interpretation. History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as "the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past." He also "the history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgments." Such judgments of historians on how the past should be seen make the foundation ofhistorical interpretation. Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw their own reading so that their intended audience may understand historical events, a process that, in essence, "makes sense of the past." The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a general audience, and without the proper training and background, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may do more harm than good-a primary source may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting to more problems. Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. As students of history, we must be well-equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical eventschange over time, thus it is an important skill for a student of history totrack these changes in an attempt to understand the past. Many of the things we as "true" about the past might not be accepted the case anymore: just because these were taught to us as "facts" when we were younger does not mean that it is set in stone -history is, after all, a construct. And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing accounts of the past that need one's attention, and can impact the way we view our country's history and identity. It is important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary source, but also the historical interpretation of the same, to ensurethat the current interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past. Multiperspectivity With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must note is multiperspectivity. Thiscan be defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and  Chapter 3 Historical Interpretations in Philippine History:Spaces for Conflict and Controversies Learning Objectives To interpret historical events using primary soures. To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a historical text. To identify the advantages and disadvantages of not employing critical tools in interpreting historical events through primary sOurces. To demonstrateability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources. In this chapter, we will analyze four historiographical problems in Philippine history in an attempt to apply what we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the process of historical inquiry. Earier. we have been introduced to history as a discipline. the historical method, and the content and context analysis of primary soures. Two key concepts that to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity. 41