READINGS IN

PHILIPPINE HISTORY
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 judgments.” Such judgments of
historians on how the past should be seen make the
foundation of historical interpretation.
 THE CODE OF KALANTIAW is a
mythical legal code in the epic history MARAGTAS. Before it was
revealed as a hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan.
In fact, a historical marker was installed in the town of BATAN, Aklan
in 1956, with the following text:
"CODE OF KALANTIAW. DATU BENDEHARA KALANTIAW, third Chief
of Panay, born in Aklan, established his government in the peninsula of BATANG, AKLAN
SAKUP. Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal
code now known as CODE OF KALANTIAW containing 18 articles. DON MARCELINO ORILLA
OF ZARAGOZA, SPAIN, obtained the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which
was later translated into Spanish by RAFAEL MURVIEDO YZAMANEY."
 It was only in 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 Philippine history. He attributed the code to a historical fiction
written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled LAS ANTIGUAS LEYENDAS DE LA ISLA DE
NEGROS. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest named JOSE MARIA PAVON.
Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scott's 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 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 events change over time; thus, it is an
important skill for a student of history to track these
changes in an attempt to understand the past.
“SA AKING MGA KABATA” is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal
when he was eight years old and is probably one of Rizal's most prominent works.
There is no evidence to support the claim that this poem, with the now immortalized
lines “ANG HINDI MAGMAHAL SA KANYANG
SALITA/MAHIGIT SA HAYOP AT MALANSANG ISDA” was
written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal's authorship of the poem seems
all unassailable.
 I. III.
Kapagka ang baya’y sadyang umiibig Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita
Sa kanyang salitang kaloob ng langit, Mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda,
Sanlang kalayaan nasa ring masapit Kaya ang marapat pagyamaning kusa
Katulad ng ibong nasa himpapawid. Na tulad sa inang tunay na nagpala.

II. IV.
Pagka’t ang salita’y isang kahatulan Ang wikang Tagalog tulad din sa Latin
Sa bayan, sa nayo’t mga kaharian, Sa Ingles, Kastila at salitang anghel,
At ang isang tao’y katulad, kabagay Sapagka’t ang Poong maalam tumingin
Ng alin mang likha noong kalayaan. Ang siyang naggawad, nagbigay sa atin.

V.
Ang salita nati’y huwad din sa iba
Na may alfabeto at sariling letra,
Na kaya nawala’y dinatnan ng sigwa
Ang lunday sa lawa noong dakong una.
 There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first
published in 1906, in a book by HERMENEGILDO CRUZ. Cruz said he received the
poem from GABRIEL BEATO FRANCISCO, who claimed to have received it in 1884
from Rizal's 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.”
However, in his recent book Rizal: Makata, National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario clarifies that
the poem was not by Rizal. Almario provides pieces of evidence to prove his point, and one of these
is a letter Rizal wrote his brother Paciano in 1886. In the letter, Rizal admitted to finding it difficult to
translate into Filipino the German word freiheit, or the Spanish word libertad (freedom or liberty in
English), which Rizal found in the story of William Tell.

It was in Marcelo H. Del Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s article, El Amor Patrio (Ang Pag-Ibig sa
Tinubuang Lupa), that Rizal saw the word “malaya” or “kalayaan” as the Tagalog equivalent of the
word “libertad.”

According to Almario, since Rizal only discovered the Tagalog word kalayaan when del Pilar
translated El Amor Patrio in 1882, it was unlikely that Rizal wrote Sa Aking mga Kabata, which uses
the word kalayaan, in 1869.

Nonetheless, the poem delivers a very patriotic message, particularly about the use of one’s native
language as a way of expressing love for one’s own country. This poem was later set to music by
Pedro Gatmaitan Santos, a composer from Bulacan.
But it was documented in Rizal's letters that he first encountered the word through a
Marcelo H. del Pilar's translation of Rizal's essay “EL AMOR PATRIO," where it was
spelled as “KALAYAHAN." While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog, he 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 tongue.
 The poem's 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 during his time, it should use
the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.
Many of the things we accepted 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 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 ensure that 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. This can be defined as a way of
looking at historical events, personalities,
developments, cultures, and societies from different
perspectives. This means 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.
Dr Robert Stradling defines multiperspectivity as “a way of viewing,
and a predisposition to view, historical events, personalities,
developments, cultures and societies from different perspectives
through drawing on procedures and processes which are
fundamental to history as a discipline”

Multiperspectivity is a characteristic of narration or

representation, where more than one perspective is
represented to the audience.
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.
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 truths—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.
Case Study 1: 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
Catholic mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a
historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and
interpretation in reading historical events.
Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first mass. In fact,
this has been the case for three centuries, culminating in the
erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which
commemorates the expedition’s arrival and celebration of mass on
April 8, 1521.
It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that
historians refer to in identifying the site of the first mass. One is the
log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan’s ship ,
Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with
Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the
world. The other, and the more complete, was the account by
Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First Voyage
Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of Magellan
Expedition and an eyewitness of the Events, particularly, of the first
Mass.
 PRIMARY SOURCE
FRANCISCO ALBO’S LOG
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course
from Ladrones, they saw the 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 southwards to another small

island named Suluan, and there they anchored. There they saw
some canoes but these fled at the Spaniards’ approach. This island
was at 9 and two-thirds degrees North-latitude.
3. Departing from those two islands, 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 from shallows. (Albo
does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafetta’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 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 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 small islands.

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 channel and then 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 islands
of Suluan and Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu. there where
so many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but
has to go (as they did) in a round-about way.
It must be noted that in Albo’s account, the location
of Mazava fits the location of the Island of Limasawa,
at southern tip of Leyte ,9°54’N. Also, Albo does not
mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the
cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen
three islands to the west and southwest, which also
fits the southern end of Limasawa.
PRIMARY SOURCE: PIGAFETTA’S
TESTIMONY ON THE ROUTE OF
MAGELLAN’S EXPEDITION
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521-Magellan’s expedition sighted a
“highland” named “ Zamal ” which was some 300 leagues
westward of Ladrones(now the Marianas) Island.

2. Sunday, March 17-landed on “another island which was

uninhabited” . There they set up two tents for the sick
members of the crew and andhad a sow killed for them.
The name of the Island was “Humunu” (Homonhon).
Located at 10 degrees North Latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the
entire archipelago the “Islands of Saint Lazarus,” It was Sunday in
the Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the Mass and the
Liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John. Which tells of
the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

4. Monday, March 18-In the afternoon, They saw a boat coming

towards them with the nine men in it. An 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. They saw there some indications that there
was a gold in these Island. Consequently Magellan
renamed the Island and called it the “ Watering place of
Good Omen” (Acquada la di bouni segnialli)

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 the following 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 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
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 manuscript 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 Arctic Pole (i.e.,
North) and in a longitude of one hundred 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 Island.

12. Thursday, April 4-they left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. Guided by
the tither by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. They
route took them 5 Islands (Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and
Gatighan.”

13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three Islands of the

Camotes Group (Poro, Pasihan and Ponson). Here the Spanish
ships stop to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them. The
Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai – a thing
that excited admiration of the king of Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards
“Zubu.”
15. Sunday, April 7 –at noon they entered the harbor of “Zubu”
(Cebu). It had taken them three days to negotiate the journeyfrom
Mazaua to Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta’s testimonies

coincide and corroborate each other. Pigafetta gave more details in
what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.
PRIMARY SOURCE: PIGAFETTA AND
THE SEVEN DAYS IN MAZAUA
1. Thursday, March 28 – In the morning they anchored near an Island
where they had seen a light the night before a small boat (boloto)
came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as
presents. The natives 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. In
the afternoon, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to
shore, anchoring near the native king’s village this Thursday was un
holy week ,Holy Thursday.
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
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 at the
Mass and at the planting 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 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 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. Monday, April 1 — 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 two 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. Bernard 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 survivors of 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.
 END OF
DISCUSSION