Readings in Philippine History

UNIT 1
UNDERSTANDING
HISTORY USING
PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY SOURCES

Figure 1. Reseña Historica de la Inauguracion de la Iglesia de San Ignacio de Loyola de Manila

en 1889. (Reseña, 1890).

1
 Readings in Philippine History

 Lesson 1

MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF HISTORY

Introduction

History is a boring subject for many. Students find it dull due to certain reasons as
previous techniques in teaching which tended to focus on memorizing the dates of historical
events, as well as the names of historical figures and the places where these events took
place. As such, it is the aim of this lesson to shed light on the meaning and relevance of
History in the daily lives of the Filipinos. Without dismissing the necessity of knowing the
answers to the basic questions of what, where, and when, studying history should be more
concerned in answering questions like ―Why a certain event happened?‖ and ―How did
it happen?‖ In the first place, why is it necessary to write history? Is it just a mere caprice
of the academician for him to brag his technical expertise? Can the study of history be useful
in understanding the different factors that led to the development of the present society?

Notwithstanding the necessity of writing history, the knowledge of identifying sources

and where to locate them are two of the basic lessons which a student of history should
learn. Sources are the primary foundation of history, needless to say in dealing with it.
Without the sources, the so-called historical narratives can be easily dismissed as historical
fiction. This lesson aims to give the students a preliminary background on the various
sources that could be employed in studying Readings in Philippine History, including certain
information on the repositories of these sources--physical or digital—so that the students
would know where to access them.

What is History?

History originated as a derivation of historia, an ancient Greek term for learning

through inquiry (Hoefferle, 2013). It is usually defined as the study of past events. Merriam
Webster Dictionary denotes that history refers to a chronological record of significant events
such as those affecting a nation or institution, often including an explanation of their causes.
The American Historical Association, on the other hand, currently defines history as the
never-ending process whereby people seek to understand the past and its many meanings.
Therefore, history is not only a mere collection of narratives compiled or collated by authors,
rather history employs a system to organize narratives. As what the Greek philosopher

2
 Readings in Philippine History

Aristotle once said, history is a systematic account of a set of natural phenomena. It is also
an investigative work because people aim to satisfy their thirst for truth. History attempts to
know the actions of human beings that were accomplished in the past (Collingwood, 1976).

In the Philippine setting, the classic definition of history is given by Zeus Salazar, a
notable historian and retired professor of the University of the Philippines. To him,
Kasaysayan, the counterpart of history in the mother tongue, is an essential narrative with to
a group of people that is characterized by uniqueness and identity. This uniqueness, as
opined by Salazar, is largely based on their own language and heritage, hence ―Ang
Kasaysayan ay salaysay na may saysay para sa isang grupo ng tao na may kakanyahan,
identidad na nakasandig sa sariling wika at kalinangan (Sebastian and Rosales, 2008).
Through this definition, Salazar reiterates that the essence of history depends on whose
history is being narrated and who the intended audiences are.

It is important to note that history is not the past, but rather a glimpse of the past.
The entirety of the past cannot be narrated and included in all of the written histories for the
main reason that not everything which happened in the past were recorded and/or
documented. Therefore, history does not create narration of past events; rather a recreation
of past events based on available materials.

The Relevance of History

Collingwood (1976) tells that history is valuable because it teaches people what they
have done and thus what man is. Through history, the present generation could assess the
feats and defeats of the previous generations and can learn not only from their errors but
also from their victories. The following relevance of history were enumerated by Peter
Stearns (1998).

 History contributes to Moral Understanding

 History helps us understand people and societies
 History provides Identity
 History is essential for Good Citizenship.

The Repositories of Historical Sources

Philippine Depositories. The foremost depository where students of history can go to is

the National Library of the Philippines (NLP). Holding a wide array of general and rare
collections on Philippine history, it includes the following units: (1) Filipiniana Division and
(2) Microfilm Section. These units, indeed, are very helpful to students in their academic
pursuits and research endeavors. Important documents such as the Historical Data Papers
and the Philippine Revolutionary Records are housed in this library.

The Archives of the University of Santo Tomas contains rich Spanish-era collection,
especially with regards to education-related records during the Spanish Period. The
National Archives of the Philippines (NAP) also contains rich Spanish-era collection, more
particularly when it comes to government-related records of the Spanish regime. If the
students wish to conduct researches on ecclesiastical-related topics, they can go and visit
the Archdiocesan Archives of Manila which is located in Arzobispado, Intramuros. This
depository contains vast information on Church affairs. It is also here where the infamous
Retraction Letter of Rizal was found. Moreover, the Manila Observatory Archives contains

3
 Readings in Philippine History

pertinent data regarding the various weather disturbances and conditions. This is due to the
fact that the Observatorio served as the weather forecasting bureau of the Spanish colonial
government.

Other institutions of higher learning boast their rich collections of both primary and
secondary sources. Among them are the University of the Philippines Main Library in
Diliman Quezon City; the Ateneo de Manila University‘s Rizal Library and Historical
Collection of the United States Embassy in Loyola Heights, Quezon City; and, the De La
Salle University Libraries in Ermita, Manila.

Students who wish to conduct researches on ethnic groups can visit the SIL
Philippines in Horseshoe Drive, Quezon City. The said archives offer almost 2,000 titles
relating to the languages of the Philippines. The archives of the Congregation of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary (CICM), also in Quezon City, offers collections on documents
written by CICM missionaries who were posted in the northern parts of Luzon. Other
depositories are the centers established by local historical networks. These centers provide
helpful sources about the history of their towns or provinces, thus the study of local history
becomes easier.

Spanish Depositories. The following are the principal Spanish depositories which contain
tons of collections pertaining to the Spanish colonial rule in the Philippines:

1. Archivo General de Indias (Seville)

2. ArchivoHistorico Nacional (Madrid)
3. Museo Naval de la Ministerio de Marina (Madrid)
4. Real Academia de la Historia (Madrid)
5. Biblioteca Nacional de Espana (Madrid)
6. Archivo de Ministerio de AsuntosExteriores (Madrid)

The Spanish government through the Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte launched the
Portal de Archivos Españoles (PARES) which offers free access to digitized copies of
documents and other sources that can be found in Spanish Archives. Through this initiative,
students of history in the Philippines can freely access digitized documents and other
sources online.

Mexican Depository. The Philippines was a part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the
capital of which was situated in Mexico. The ties between the two Spanish territories ended
when Mexico gained its independence in 1821. Because of this, a multitude number of
sources could possibly be sitting in the Archivo General de la Nacion de Mexico which can
be very useful to students.

British Depository. For a brief period of time, that is from 1762–1764, the British occupied
Manila. It was through this invasion that some historical sources written during the Spanish
period made its way to the British Museum. As a matter of fact, Jose Rizal took some time
to research inside this facility in an attempt to annotate the Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas of
Antonio de Morga.

American Depositories. Among the main depositories in the United States of America
include the following:

1. National Archives and Records Service (NARS)

2. Library of Congress (Washington D.C.)

4
 Readings in Philippine History

3. Ayer Collection of the Newberry Library (Chicago, Illinois)

4. Lily Library (Bloomington, Indiana)
5. Harvard University
6. Stanford University
7. University of Michigan

The proliferation of online archives is also beneficial to researchers who do not have
the capacity to conduct research in any of the above-mentioned depositories. Although
many of their collections are yet to be digitized, archive.org and Project Gutenberg offer a
wide array of scanned sources which are available for download.

Classification and Types of Historical Sources

Sources are defined as artifacts that have been left by the past. They exist either as
(1) relics, (2) what we can call as remains, or (3) as the testimonies of witnesses of the past
(Howell and Prevenier, 2001). Based on this definition, the students can infer that historical
sources are not only confined to written documents but also to artifacts and ecofacts. A
basic definition from Collins English Dictionary relates artifact as ‗something made or given
shape by humans such as a tool or a work of art. On the other hand, Merriam Webster
Dictionary denotes artifact as a simple object showing workmanship or modification as
distinguished from a natural object. Basically, it is an object remaining from a particular
period. Examples are tools and ornaments.

It is easy to say that an artifact does not only refer to antiquated objects which are
usually associated with archaeological finds but to any object which were modified by
humans for their own purpose or consumption. Also, an artifact is a mute witness of the
period of its existence. On the other hand, ecofact, according to the Oxford Dictionary
pertains to an excavated piece of evidence consisting natural remains, as opposed to an
objects of human workmanship. To make it simple then, an ecofact is the direct opposite of
an artifact.

Main Types of Written Sources

Primary Source

A good definition of primary source is provided by Louis Gottschalk (1950) in his

book Understanding History. According to him, a primary source is ―the testimony of
an 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.‖ Based on this definition, a myriad of examples include the following: diaries, audio
recordings, artifacts, letters, newspaper articles and documents such as birth certificates,
marriage contracts, and death certificates. Visual sources like works of arts, photographs
and videos are also included in this category.

Secondary Source

Gottschalk (1950) defines a secondary source as ―the testimony of anyone who is

not an eyewitness–that is, one who was not present at the events of which he tells.‖ Thus,
the main difference between it and a primary source is the presence of the writer or author
or observer to the event being described. Secondary sources may include sources as

5
 Readings in Philippine History

bibliographies, commentaries, annotations, dictionaries, encyclopedias, journal articles,

magazines, monographs, and textbooks.

Unwritten Sources.

Unwritten sources include the following: (1) archaeological evidence; (2) oral
evidence; and (3) material evidence.

Types of Unwritten Sources

Archaeological Evidence. Archaeological evidence refers to remains such as artifacts and

ecofacts which help a historian in determining the culture of the area where the evidence
was found. Similarly, the ways of life of the people, including their artistic expressions, have
been etched in these materials. Archaeological pieces of evidence include tools,
ornaments, fixtures, etc.

Oral Evidence. Oral evidence pertains to folk tales, myths, legends, folk songs and popular
rituals. These sources might contain information pertaining to the culture of the people who
created them. These pieces of evidence can also give a glimpse of the people economic
activities at a given time, especially their socio-political organization and social condition.

Material Evidence. Material evidence includes photographs, art works, videos, and sound
recordings.



6
 Readings in Philippine History

 Lesson 2

TESTS OF AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY

Introduction

The usual mistake committed by a researcher, especially a budding one, is when he

considers any apparent authentic record as credible source of information. When there is
no regard for examining and establishing the originality and the competence of the source,
make no mistake that the readers of the account shall be misled or worse misinformed and
live through with it for the rest of their lives. As such, sources must be examined and should
be dealt with high regard in order to ascertain the accuracy of information for the greater
benefit of the readers.

Sources are said to be worthless if they are not used by historians. The accounts of
historians are insignificant likewise if they are not read by readers, especially the students of
history. This is the reason why every information to be used must be accurate, hence the
importance of internal and external criticisms. These criticisms are parts and parcels of the
so-called methods of history.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

1. Discern the significance of External and Internal Criticisms

2. Apply External and Internal Criticisms in the scrutiny of sources.

What is the Difference between Method [of History] and Historiography?

Method pertains to the process of thoroughly examining and critically analyzing the
records and survivals of the past. Likewise, it means the accumulation of data about the
past to be thoroughly examined and critically analyzed by a set of scientific rules so that a
certain past that is attempted to reconstruct can be determined whether it actually happened
or not.

On the other hand, Historiography refers the process of reconstructing historical data
that have already been tested by the method. Also, it means the synthesizing of historical
data into a narrative or discourse. The writing of history books, researches such as theses
and dissertations or articles for publications or for lectures in conferences and seminars
undergo historiography.

7
 Readings in Philippine History

External Criticism: The Test of Authenticity

Authenticity means originality. In history, it is more important to use original sources

than secondary sources because they provide raw data that have not been subjected to the
interpretation of historians. They also lead directly the researcher or historian to the
perception and milieu of the eyewitness in relation to the event being studied. Genuine
sources are usually the sources from which secondary materials derived their data.

Why the Test of Authenticity is done? It is done in order to determine the

genuineness of sources. It is necessary to determine real accounts from hoax stories or
those that were fabricated covertly by persons who wanted to have false claims on
documents that allegedly prove certain phenomena in the very remote past. An example to
this is the alleged Maragtas which was purported by Pedro Monteclaro. William Henry
Scott (1984) argued in his book Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine
History that Maragtas was made by Monteclaro based on suspicious oral and fabricated
written sources.

Sources are likewise fabricated in order to justify the supposed occurrence of events.
A classic case on this matter is Negative Revisionism which, in anyway, attempts to alter
history or its course by means of trying to moderate or restrain the impact of history to a
person, institution or groups.

Another reason in performing the Test of Authenticity is for the historian to detect
misleading sources. Sources that mislead purposively can misinform and, therefore,
miseducate people because they divert the value or real meaning of events. Moreover,
identifying the authorship of a source, the time of an event, including the time when the
source was written, and the space of an event are equally important. The authorship of the
source provides strong authenticity and credibility to it while time and space, together with
the prevailing practices of that period, become the bases of the context of an event, the
building blocks of a historical process. It must be noted that an event being studied must
be situated in its proper context in order to adequately comprehend, analyze and interpret its
historical value.

Internal Criticism: The Test of Credibility

After ascertaining the genuineness or originality of sources, the historian has to

perform internal criticism in order to determine their credibility. What then makes the
credibility of a source important? It is important because it tells whether the source is worthy
to use by the historian in his study. For a source to be regarded credible, the historian must
be able to discern the following:

1. Competence of the source in telling the truth

2. Willingness of the source in telling the truth
3. Adequacy of data relayed by the source
4. Reliability of the source when corroborated by other independent sources.

According to Gottschalk (1950), in examining the credibility of a source, the historian

or the skilled history researcher plays the role of a ―prosecutor, attorney for the
defense, judge, and jury all in one. But as a 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

8
 Readings in Philippine History

obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on necessary evidence,

or is from an interested witness—provided it can pass the four tests‖ enumerated above.

An independent source, even when it states certain pieces of information claimed by

another source, is a kind of source that derived its information from the occurrence of the
event itself. In other words, its author was there both in time and space and that he was
mentally mature and conscious to absorb the building blocks of an event as they happened
before his eyes. This means that an independent source is an account that did not rely on
some extrinsic informants. Certainly, secondary sources cannot be considered independent
sources because of their reliance to primary sources. In order to adequately establish the
credibility of a source, two other independent sources—written or unwritten—must
corroborate its claims.

In History, there is no such thing as objectivity or judgment-free account. Even

primary sources contain biases. Biases can be seen in the author‘s [or eyewitness‘]
perspective, affiliation, acclamation or appreciation of certain individuals and institutions,
preferences, manner of description and worse, one-sided view, etc. But biases must be
minimized in order that the account would not be considered a product of what is known as
yellow journalism.

Basic Assumptions with Sources

Here are some assumptions which can guide historians or researchers in examining
primary sources:

1. Sources like relics, artifacts, remains, documents, and witnesses are accurate when
proven to be authentic and credible. Relics, artifacts, and remains, though, are more
reliable while documents (or narratives) and witnesses are more detailed and specific.

2. The authenticity of a source increases the credibility of that source.

3. A primary source is more reliable than a secondary one.

4. The credibility of a source is increased if it is corroborated by independent sources.

5. Sources would tend to be bias, especially to its provenance or to the one who made it
or held its custody.

6. If sources like witnesses or their testimonies do not have immediate interest or direct
involvement to the event, they become more credible than those who have interest or
direct involvement.

7. If all independent sources agree to a certain event, then the event becomes usually
acceptable or factual.

8. Testimonies of witnesses are credible if the witnesses are mentally and emotionally fit
at the time of the interview or declaration.

9. The source that does not conform to its milieu is considered a fabricated source.

9
 Readings in Philippine History

What to Consider with Disagreeing or Hostile Sources?

Disagreeing or hostile sources are difficult to deal with, particularly when there is no
enough evidence that deal with the event being studied. Here are some tips that a historian
needs to consider when dealing with them:

1. If two sources disagree with each other and there is no way wherein one could be
examined over the other and vice-versa, the source with more logical reasoning and
which accords common sense would be considered.

2. If sources or witnesses do not agree on certain points, the source that gives more
proofs to its authenticity and credibility becomes more reliable.

3. If the source or witness is hostile, it becomes less credible. Corroboration to other

independent and types of sources would be more necessary.

4. A source or witness that holds orientation from one school of thought or philosophy—
e.g., Marxism—is usually argumentative or hostile with other sources. Thus, the
milieu of the source or the events tackled must be examined by looking at other
sources that convey the same theme and that do not hold orientation from any school
of thought.

Ethics in Historical Research

There are certain values that must be observed in doing historical writing or
research. It is expected that a historian should exude the following:

 Conscious as to where he is coming from (biases, e.g., point of view,

presuppositions, personal values, prior knowledge, etc.)

 Objective and accurate in examining and analyzing his sources.

 Impartial and rational in interpreting his data and in synthesizing his work.

 Open to the use of all available and relevant sources, including those that contradict
his arguments.

 Free from the influence and subjection of others; he must subject himself only to the
truth.

 Conscientious in properly citing his sources.

 Thankful to those who helped him in pursuing his research in one way or another.

 Adhere himself to the highest integrity of scholarship by avoiding academic or

intellectual dishonesty such as plagiarism, fabrication, deception, cheating or
sabotage.

 Engage himself in a scientific scholarship through the proper application of the

established methods of the discipline.

10
 Readings in Philippine History

 Establish a serious and rational familiarity with sources and a critical dialogue with
other historians and the reading public.

 Secure all forms of sources and allow them to be used by other historians.

 Offer authentic pieces of evidence to any serious claims or arguments.

 Refrain from duplicating what has been done before.

 Acknowledge indebtedness from other historians or those who extended assistance.

 Exude respect for criticisms from peers and other historians.

 Abstain from unreasonable interpretation of his data in order to achieve his intended
purpose.

 Show respect to other viewpoints.

 Avoid irresponsible use of sources in order to deliberately mislead readers, conceal

incidents in the past or modify history for one‘s benefit.

It must always be borne in mind that History is a relevant and moralizing discipline
that is why it must always be objective and 
accurate.




References

Block, M. (1953). The historian‘s craft. Alfred A. Knopf.

Gottschalk, L. (1950). Understanding History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

11
 Readings in Philippine History

Gripaldo, E. M., Boquiren, R. R., Miranda, E. A., Jose, R. T., Ignacio, V. S., Ambrosio, D. L.
… Mata, R. C. (2009). Kasaysayan ng Filipinas at mga institusyong Filipino. Sentro
ng Wikang Filipino. Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Howell, M., & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable sources: An introduction to historical
methods. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Pascual, M. (n.d.) Ethics in historical research [PowerPoint Slides].

Scott, W. H. (1984). Prehispanic source materials for the study of Philippine history. New
Day Publishers.

12
 Readings in Philippine History

 Lesson 3

TESTS OF AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY:

THE TEJEROS CONVENTION OF 1897

Introduction

The Kataas-taasang Kagalang-galangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan or

simply the Katipunan suffered a debacle when its factions, Magdiwang and Magdalo could
not resolve their conflict. These factions, each which started as Sanguniang Balangay¸
were eventually elevated into the rank of Sangguiniang Bayan because of the rapid growth
of membership, emanating from the repugnance of the Filipinos to the colonial system and
conditions. The Kataas-taasang Sanggunian subsequently allowed these factions to
establish their respective balangays that would be beneficial to their expansion. With
Mariano Alvarez as its leader, the Magdiwang established itself in Noveleta while the
Magdalo, led by Baldomero Aguinaldo, was founded in Kawit (Richardson, 2013).

A rift began between the two factions when differences between Andres Bonifacio
and Emilio Aguinaldo regarding the strategy of confronting Spain became obvious.
Bonifacio, the Supremo, based his decisions on the consensus of prominent katipuneros
while Aguinaldo believed on a centralized institution in effectively carrying out plans (May,
2017). This, and the series of defeats he suffered against the Spaniards, caused his
reputation as leader of the Katipunan to dwindle in favor of Aguinaldo, apart from the
continuing suspicion and jealousy that would characterize the members of the Magdiwang
and Magdalo. His engagements with the Spaniards, no matter how extraordinary and
perilous the battles were, considering the armaments they had, spawned the gradual loss of
esteem and confidence as evidenced by the disrespect of certain members of the Magdalo
Council in his attempt to solve their predicament. Though the conflict was limited in Cavite
and certain parts of Batangas, it affected the solidarity of the Katipunan until the demise of
Bonifacio and his brother in May 1897.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

1. Apply External and Internal Criticisms in the scrutiny of sources.

2. Distinguish the varying claims of sources and determine which claim becomes
more credible.

The Books and Their Authors

The sources to be used in discussing the Tejeros Convention are the books
Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General by Santiago V. Alvarrez (1992) and
The Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan by the late historian
Teodoro Agoncillo (2005).

13
 Readings in Philippine History

Santiago V. Alvarez and His Background

Born in Cavite in 1872, Santiago Alvarez was a member of the Magdiwan Council by
serving as Captain-General of its forces. Because of his unfaltering courage and tenacity,
he valiantly fought the Spaniards in the Battle of Noveleta in 1896 with his father, General
Mariano Alvarez, and cousin, General Pascual Alvarez. This led to the death of two
Spanish officers and the capture of the civil guards and their weapons. He likewise
participated in various assaults in Maragondon, Magallanes, Alfonso, Silang, Imus, San
Francisco de Malabon and the coastal towns of Naic and Tanza. He earned the nom de
guerre Kidlat ng Apoy or Kapitan Apoy among the revolutionary forces due to his
extraordinary bravery in the Battle of Dalahican where he decisively defeated the Spaniards.
Although discriminated by Emilio Aguinaldo, Alvarez continued to support the revolutionary
cause until his retirement from the battlefield when the Americans finally defeated the
Filipino insurgents.

Alvarez enrolled at the University of Santo Tomas yet he later transferred to San
Juan de Letran where he obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree. Subsequently, he took up
law at the Liceo de Manila. He took part in the reorganization of the Nacionalista Party
which aimed at securing independence from the United States of America in its appropriate
time (Filipinos in History, 1995).

In the Preface of his book, he said the following about his participation in the
Katipunan and the Revolution.

14
 Readings in Philippine History

The Book and Its Content

The book Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General by Santiago V.

Alvarez was published by the Ateneo de Manila University in 1992 and reprinted in 1996.
With the original Tagalog text, the book contains the English translation by Paula Carolina
Malay. The Tagalog text was initially published in the 1920s by the Tagalog weekly
Sampagita. The book relates what other Filipino and American historians have disregarded
without deprecating the struggle for independence (Alvarez, 1996).

The book narrates the personal

experiences and observations of its
author as a general during the Philippine
Revolution of which both Katipunan and
the government that succeeded it
championed with great vigor. He
narrated the events that took place prior
to the outbreak of the revolution, the
activities of the Katipunan, the election at
Tejeros and the events that culminated
the revolution after the untimely death of
Andres Bonifacio, the Supremo of the
Sons of the People, using authentic and
credible.

Below is an excerpt (pp. 82-88)

taken from the book for your reading
convenience.

Figure 2. The book Katipunan and

the Revolution. Photo
by M. Pascual

Excerpt from the Katipunan and the Revolution by Santiago V. Alvarez.

15
Readings in Philippine History

16
Readings in Philippine History

17
Readings in Philippine History

18
Readings in Philippine History

19
Readings in Philippine History

21
 Readings in Philippine History

Teodoro A. Agoncillo and His Background

The late Teodoro Agoncillo was an eminent Filipino historian who authored
numerous books and articles on Philippine history and literature. He is known for his History
of the Filipino People (8 editions, 1960, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1977, 1984, 1986, 1990),
Malolos: The Crisis of the Republic, The Fateful Years: Japan‘s Adventures in the
Philippines (2 Vols., 1965), The Burden of Proof: The Vargas-Laurel Collaboration
Case (1984) and more. His Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan
which is regarded as a classic work in Philippine historiography gained him prominence.

The book initially espoused the idea of a nationalist historiography by contending that
the writing of Philippine must be in the Filipino point-of-view (Quibuyen, 2008). He regarded
that the masses made the revolution successful while the Ilustrados were forced to join it
upon seeing its imminence to success. As such, the book has made an impact among
scholars when it comes to studying the revolution as a product of the collective struggle of
the masses (Aguilar, 2020).

Agoncillo earned his Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy at the University of the

Philippines in 1934 and obtained a master‘s arts degree the year after. He taught at Far
Eastern University, then at Manuel L. Quezon University, before he accepted the invitation
of Dean Tomas Fonacier to teach at the Department of History of the University of the
Philippines where he also served as chairman (Ocampo, 2016). In 1985, he was named
National Scientist of the Philippines by the late President Ferdinand Marcos for his
outstanding contributions in history.

The Book and Its Content

The book Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan was
initially published by the College of Liberal Arts of the University of the Philippines in 1956.

22
 Readings in Philippine History

Then the second edition and printing were

respectively printed in 2002 and 2005. The
book is an in-depth discussion on the
Katipunan and the life history of its Supremo
Andres Bonifacio through the use of
pertinent primary sources concerning the
Philippine Revolution against Spain.
Between the two, however, Agoncillo gave
more emphasis on the Katipunan because of
his belief that ―Bonifacio can best be
seen and appreciated against the backdrop
of the revolutionary society‖, apart from the
scarcity of materials about the life of the
Supremo (Agoncillo, 2005). Just like its
sequel, the book began as notes and was a
project initiated outside the University of the
Philippines (Ocampo, 2016).

Below is an excerpt (pp. 206-217)

taken from the chapter of the book titled
Seeds of Discontent for your reading
convenience.

Figure 3. The book Revolt of the

Masses. Photo by M. Pascual
.

Excerpt from the Katipunan and the Revolution by Santiago V. Alvarez.

23
Readings in Philippine History

24
Readings in Philippine History

25
Readings in Philippine History

26
Readings in Philippine History

27
Readings in Philippine History

28
Readings in Philippine History

29
Readings in Philippine History

30
Readings in Philippine History

31
 Readings in Philippine History



References

Agoncillo, T. A. (2005). Revolt of the masses: The story of Bonifacio and the
Katipunan.
Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Alvarez, S. V. (1996). Katipunan and the revolution:

Memoirs of a general (P.C. Malay, Trans.).
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.

Filipinos in History. (1995). National Historical Institute.

May, G. A. (2007). Warfare by "pulong" Bonifacio, Aguinaldo,

32
 Readings in Philippine History

and the Philippine revolution against Spain. In

Philippine studies (Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 449-477).
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42633930.

Ocampo, A. R. (2016). Talking history: Conversations with

Teodoro A. Agoncillo. University of Santo Tomas
Publishing House.

Quibuyen, F. C. (2008). A nation aborted: Rizal, American

hegemony and Philippine nationalism (Rev. Ed.).
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Richardson, J. (2013) Light of Liberty: Documents and

Studies on the Katipunan, 1892- 1897. Manila:
Ateneo de Manila.

33