Chapter 3: Philippine History: Spaces for conflict and controversies

Making Sense of the past: Historical Interpretation

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

There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first
published in a1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from
Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizals close friend,
Saturnino Raselis. Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings and more
importantly, he never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.

Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to
Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word "Kalayaan". But it was
documented in Rizals letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilars
translation of Rizals essay "El Almor Patrio", where it was spelled as "kalayahan ".

While Rizals native tounge was Tagalog, the was educated in Spanish, starting from his
mother,Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing
himself in his native tounge.

The poems spelling is also suspect-the use of letters "k" and "w" to replace "c"and " u “,
respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written his time, it should
use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.

Many of the things we accept as true about the past might not be the case anymore; just
because these were taught to us as facts when we were younger does not mean that it is open for
interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing account of the past that need one’s
attention, important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary sources, but also the
historical interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.

Multiperspectivity

With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must
note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way of looking at historical events,
personalities, development, culture and societies from different perspective. This means that there
is multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally partial as well.
Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contain preconception. This historical
decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what
his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain
event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians may omit
significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may
impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject
was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering other
possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the way a historian may fail in
his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an approach in
history, we
must understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradiction, ambiguities
and are often the focus of dissent.

Exploring multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source material that reflect
different views of an event in history, because singular historical narrative do not provide for
space to inquire and investigate. Different source that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence, truths that these sources agree
on.

Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths-an official document may
note different aspect 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 interpretation, it provides for the audience a more
complete and richer understanding of the past.