Readings in Philippine

History
TMF
 MODULE 1
LESSON 1: Meaning of History
LESSON 2: Sources of Historical Data
LESSON 3: Historical Criticism
 OVERVIEW
1. Introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative.
2. Presents the sources of historical data, the written and non-
written sources of history, as well as the differentiation of
primary and secondary sources of information or data
3. Discusses historical criticism, names, external and internal
criticisms.
LESSON 1
HISTORY
 I

WHAT IS HISTORY?
 WHAT IS HISTORY?
• HISTORY – Greek word historia – learning by inquiry

• It is a continuous and systematic narrative of past events as

relating to a particular people, country, period, etc.
• Usually written as a chronological account

• It is a chronicle of records and studies the past and the

legacies of the past in the present.
 WHAT IS HISTORY?
• Theories constructed by historians in investigating history:
– Factual history
• Presents the plain and basic information (when, what, who)

– Speculative history
• Goes beyond facts because it concerned about the reasons for which events happened and the
way they happened (why , how)

• Cantal, Cardinal, Espino & Galindo, 2014- “It tries to speculate

on the cause and effect of an event”
WHAT IS HISTORY?
 HISTORY

• History is a collection of facts.

• Is rather an interpretation based on the weight of the evidence.

Make a judgement – analyze,

interpret
• “popular memory” – commonly, widely misused and
misinterpreted as history
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
ABOUT HISTORY AND PRE-
HISTORY?
General definition

Documentations,
methodology

Periodization

Researchers
 WHAT IS HISTORY?
• Individuals who writes about history are called HISTORIANS.
• Seek to understand the present
• By examining what went before
• Undertake arduous historical research
• Come up with a meaningful and organized rebuilding of the past.
• Whose past are we taking about?
• Sets the purpose and framework of a MEANING and IMPACT
VALUE to a group of people about their past.
 HISTORY AS THE SUBJECTIVE
PROCESS OF RE-CREATION

• Historiography – the practice of historical writing

or the imaginative reconstruction of the past from

the data derived by that process.
 HISTORY AS THE SUBJECTIVE
PROCESS OF RE-CREATION
• Traditional method – doing historical research that focus on gathering of
documents from different libraries and archives to form a pool of evidence
needed in making a descriptive or analytical narrative.

• Modern method – historical writing does not only include examination of

documents but also the use of research methods from related areas of
study such as archeology and geography.
 LIMITATION OF HISTORICAL
KNOWLEDGE
▪ The INCOMPLETENESS of records has limited man’s knowledge of
history.
▪ without leaving any evidence or records of any kind, no artifacts
▪ If there are, no further evidence of the human setting in which to place
surviving artifacts.
▪ The history of the called HISTORY-AS-ACTUALITY – can be known to
a historian only through the surviving records (HISTORY-AS-
RECORD).
 LIMITATION OF HISTORICAL
KNOWLEDGE
▪ Evidences and records that survive the time
▪ Tell history from what they understood as a credible part of the record.
▪ Claims may remain variables
▪ as there can be historical records that could be discovered
▪ may affirm or refute those that have already presented
▪ “INCOMPLETENESS of the ‘OBJECT” that historian's study.
 HISTORY AS THE SUBJECTIVE
PROCESS OF RE-CREATION
▪ History becomes only that part of the human past which can be
meaningfully reconstructed from the available records and from
inferences regarding their setting.
▪ Historian’s aim is verisimilitude (the truth, authenticity, plausibility) about
a past
▪ Study of history is a subjective process as documents and relics are
scattered and do not together comprise the total object that the historian
is studying.
▪ Unlike the study of natural science that has objectively measurable
phenomena.
 HISTORICAL METHOD
AND HISTORIOGRAPHY
▪ Historical method is the process of critically examining and
analyzing the record and survivals of the past
▪ Historiography – the practice of historical writing or the
imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived
by that process
▪ Both of which, historians endeavors to reconstruct as much
of the past of mankind as he can.
 HISTORICAL METHOD
AND HISTORIOGRAPHY
▪ HISTORICAL ANALYSIS – is also an important element of
historical method

1. Select the subject to investigate;

2. Collect probable sources of information on the subject;
3. Examine the sources genuineness, in part or in whole;
4. Extract credible “particulars” from sources
 HISTORICAL METHOD
AND HISTORIOGRAPHY
▪ Synthesis and analysis cannot be entirely separated
▪ They have common ground
▪ Which is the ability to understand the past through some meaningful,
evocative and convincing historical or cross-disciplinary connections
between a given historical issue and other historical contexts, periods or
themes.
 HISTORICAL DATA
▪ HISTORICAL DATA – source from ARTIFACTS that have been left by the
past
▪ Artifacts can either be:
▪ Relics or remains
▪ Testimonies of witnesses
▪ SOURCE – is an object from the past or a testimony concerning the past on which
history depend to create their own depiction of that past.
▪ It provides evidence about the existence of an event;
▪ HISTORICAL WORK or INTERPRETATION – is therefor the result of such
depiction or an argument about the event.
 HISTORICAL DATA
▪ Relics or remains offers researchers a clue about the past
▪ Artifacts can be found where relics of human happenings can be
found
▪ Coin, ruin, manuscript, book, portrait, wreckage, other archeological or
anthropological remains.

▪ Testimonies of witnesses whether oral or written, may have been

created to serve as records or they might have been created for
some other purpose
 HISTORICAL DATA
▪ Historians deals with:
▪ Dynamic or genetic (the becoming)
▪ Static (the being)

▪ And aims at being:

▪ Interpretative (explaining why and how things happened and were
interrelated)
▪ Descriptive (telling what happened, when and where, and who
took part)
 WRITTEN SOURCES OF
HISTORY
▪ Written sources are usually categorized in three (3) ways:
1. Narrative or literary
2. Diplomatic or judicial and
3. Social documents
 WRITTEN SOURCES OF
HISTORY
1. Narrative or literary
▪ Chronicles or tract presented in narrative form, written to impart a
message whose motives for their composition vary widely
▪ Example:
▪ A scientific tract – is typically composed in order to inform contemporaries or
succeeding generations;
▪ A newspaper article might be intended to shape opinion
▪ Ego document or personal narrative
▪ Novel or film
▪ Biography
 WRITTEN SOURCES OF
HISTORY
1. Narrative or literary

▪ A narrative source is therefore broader than what is usually considered

fiction (Howell & Prevenier, 2001)
 WRITTEN SOURCES OF
HISTORY
2. Diplomatic Sources
▪ Those which document/record an existing legal situation or create a new one
▪ It possess specific formal properties, such as hand and print style, the ink,
the seal, etc.
▪ It is these kinds of sources that professional historians once treated as the
purest, the “best” source.
▪ A legal document is usually sealed or authenticated to provide evidence
▪ Legal instruments issued by public authorities
▪ Private parties
 WRITTEN SOURCES OF
HISTORY
3. Social documents
▪ Information pertaining to economic, social, political, or judicial
significance.
▪ They are records kept by bureaucracies.
▪ Example:
▪ Government reports – municipal accounts, research findings and
▪ documents like parliamentary procedures, civil registry records,
property registers and records census.
 NON-WRITTEN SOURCES
OF HISTORY
There are two (2) types:
1. The material evidence and
2. the oral evidence
 NON-WRITTEN SOURCES
OF HISTORY
1. Material evidence
▪ Also known as archeological evidence
▪ Is one of the most important unwritten evidences that tell a story
about the past
▪ Example: artistic creations such as pottery, churches, jewelry,
graves, roads, etc.
 NON-WRITTEN SOURCES
OF HISTORY
1. Material evidence
1. Can reveal a great deal about the ways of life of
people the past and their culture
2. Can also reveal a great deal about the socio-cultural
interconnections of the different groups of people
especially when an object is unearthed in more than
one place.
3. Commercial exchange may be reveal by the
presence
NON-WRITTEN SOURCES
OF HISTORY
2. Oral evidence

a. Ancient people - The tales or sagas

b. For the premodern period - Folk

songs or popular rituals

c. Present age - interviews

 PRIMARY VS SECONDARY
SOURCES
1. Primary Sources
a. are original, firsthand account of an event or period that are
usually written or made during or close to the event or period.

b. These sources are original and factual

c. Their key function is to provide facts

PRIMARY VS SECONDARY
SOURCES
2. Secondary Source
a. Are material made by people long after the events
being described had taken place to provide valuable
interpretations of historical events
b. Analyzes and interprets primary sources
c. An interpretational of second-hand account of a
historical event
 HISTORICAL CRITICISMS
▪ Examines the origins of earliest text to appreciate the underlying
circumstances upon which the text came to be (Soulen & Soulen,
2001)

▪ Two important goals:

1. to discover the original meaning of the text in its primitive or
historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis
historicus.
2. to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the
author and recipients of the text.
 HISTORICAL CRITICISM
▪ Roots in the 17th century
▪ Gained popular in the 19th and 20th
Centuries (Ebeling, 1963)
HISTORICAL CRITICISMS
● Two types:
1. External criticism
▪ determines the authenticity of the source.

● Two ways to test the authenticity of the material:

○ by palaeographical - the deciphering and dating of historical manuscripts
○ diplomatic criticism - critical analysis of historical document to understand
how the document came to be, the information transmitted, and the
relationships between the facts purported in the document and reality)

● The material must be investigated based on time and place it is written.

HISTORICAL CRITICISMS
● Two types:
2. Internal criticism
▪ determines the historicity of the facts contained in
the document.
▪ value of the facts
▪ the character of the sources
▪ the knowledge of the author and
▪ the influences prevalent at the time of
writing
 HISTORICAL CRITICISMS
Two parts of Historical Criticism:
• is to determine the authenticity of the material (provenance of a source)
- determine the origin of the material, its author and sources of information
used

• is to weigh the testimony to the truth

- examine the trustworthiness of the testimonies
- determine the probability of the statement to be true.
HISTORICAL CRITICISMS SOULEN, 2001

● Other types of criticism (Soulen, 2001)

1. Source Criticism- analyze and studies the sources used by biblical authors
▪ this serves as an initial means of evaluating the accuracy of a
historical claim and situating the source in its historical context
2. Form Criticism -seeks to determine a unit’s original form and historical
context of the literary tradition
▪ identifies short units of text seeking the setting of origination
3. Redaction Criticism - regards the author of the text as editor of the source
materials
▪ the most used to destroy the credibility of scripture
▪ focuses on how the redactor shaped and moulded the narrative
4. Tradtion Criticism - attempts to trace the developmental stage of the oral
tradition from the historical emergecne to its literary presentation
5. Canonical Criticism - focuses its interpretation of the bible on the text of
biblical canon
 TEST OF AUTHENTICITY
▪ Historians uses tests
▪ examines the inks for signs of age or anachronistic chemical
composition
▪ Identify the handwriting, signature, seal, letterhead or watermark
 ANACHRONISTIC
▪ references to events or the dating of a document at a time when
the alleged writer could not possibly determine details
▪ error in chronology of events, misplacing of person, objects in the
wrong place in history
▪ ISOGRAPHIES Dictionaries or biography giving
examples of handwriting

▪ SIGILLOPRAPHERS is the historical seal that has

been subject of study of experts
A. SITE OF THE FIRST
MASS
Account of Father Francisco Collins and
Father Francisco Combes
COLLINS COMBES

Collins seemed familiar and precise with the Magellan went first to Limasaua then to Butuan
accounts of Magellan‟s voyage and for his and went back to Limasaua before sailing to
narration of Magellan‟s landing in Homonhon Cebu
Island which they spelled Humunu as written in
Pigafetta‟s Chronicle

Magellan went first to Butuan then to

Limasaua before sailing to Cebu.
Evidence that
show Limasaua as
the place where
the first mass was
held:
Francisco Albo
1491 - 1531
1. Albo's Logbook

Francisco Albo was part of

Magellan expedition. He was the
pilot (called contra maestre in
Magellan’s flagship Trinidad). He
was among the eighteen (18)
survivors of the expedition who
returned to Spain with Sebastian
Elcano on the ship Victoria. Albo
kept his own logbook during their
voyage.
Antonio Pigaffeta
1480 - 1531
2. Pigafetta's Chronicle

Antonio Pigafetta was the official

chronicler of Ferdinand Magellan; he
recorded everything he observed during
their voyages. Pigafetta’s eyewitness
account is the most detailed and only
surviving account of the first Mass in
the Philippines.

According to him as the Italian

chronicler of the Magellan
expedition, tells us that it was held at
Easter Sunday, the 31st of March 1521 ,
on an island called “Mazaua”. Two
native chieftains were in attendance;
the rajah of Mazaua and the rajah of
Butuan. After the Mass, party went up a
little hill and planted a wooden cross
upon its summit.
 Why Limawasa?
Pegafetta’s narrative Support on Pegafetta’s record
● Albo kept his own logbook
● Testimony regarding the route during their voyage
● A map was drawn and ● Albo is the pilot (contra
presented maestre) in Magella’s
flagship Trinidad
● The 2 native kings (Raja ● Albo was one of the 18
Kulambo Raja Homonhon survivors who returned to
● The seven day stay in te place Spain with Sebatian Elcano
called “Mazaua” aboard Victoria
● Is the official chronicler of
Ferdinand Magellan
● He was able to record
Law was passed in
Congress under
Republic Act 2733
declares Limasawa
Island in the Province
of Leyte is the place
where the 1st mass in
the Philippines was
held.
GomBurZa
The 12th June of every year since 1898 is a very
important event for all the Filipinos. On this particular
day, the entire Filipino nation, as well as Filipino
communities, all over the world gathers to celebrate
the Philippines Independence day. But we should be
reminded that another year is as historic as the two –
1872.
 GomBurZa
The two major events in 1872

First was the Cavite Mutiny and second was the Martyrdom of
the three Filipino Priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano
Gomes, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA).

All Filipinos must know the different sides of the story – since
this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history
– the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor
in awakening of Nationalism among the Filipinos .
FATHER MARIANO
GOMEZ
(1799-1872)
 FATHER MARIANO
GOMEZ
(1799-1872)
A native of the district of Santa Cruz, Manila, Father
Mariano was born on August 2, 1799, to a relatively
wealthy marriage. His parents were Francisco Gomez
and Martina Custodio of Filipino Chinese blood.

Father Gomez learned the ABCs from his father. He was

eight years old when he began his studies at the Colegio
de San José managed by the Jesuits. After elementary
school, he entered the Colegio de San Juan de Letrán,
where he received his Bachelor of Philosophy when he
was only fifteen years old. He enrolled at the
Universidad de Santo Tomás where he studied law,
however, after a short time; he decided to commit
himself to the noble profession of the priesthood.
FATHER MARIANO GOMEZ
(179-1872)
He founded the newspaper "THE TRUTH" in
which he published the abuses committed
by the Spanish government and by religious
orders. He linked liberalization to the
secularization movement. The reasons for
his newspaper were misunderstood by the
Spanish administration.

The enemies of Father Gomez complicated

him in the Cavite mutiny on January 20,
1872. He was arrested and accused of
having conspired against the colonial
government of Spain. A Spanish military
court practiced an erroneous judgment by
reducing that Father Gómez was guilty, for
which he was sentenced to death.
FATHER JOSE BURGOS
(1837-1872)
FATHER JOSE BURGOS
(1837-1872)
Father Jose Burgos was born in the City of
Vigan, Ilocos Sur on February 9, 1837, his
father wanted him to study law. At the age
of nine he entered the school of San Juan de
Letran where he manifested his vocation
for the priesthood. His vocation was so firm
that not even the affection and respect that
he felt for his parents were enough to keep
him from that purpose.

As a student, Burgos demonstrated great

intelligence and command of Latin. In 1855
he graduated from Bachelor of Philosophy
and shortly after he was ordained priest.
FATHER JOSE BURGOS
(1837-1872)
Other degree obtained by Burgos were
the Bachelor of Theology, Philosophy
and in Canon. When he was ordained
priest, he was in charge of the parish of
El Sagrario in Intramuros, then he held
the position of Ecclesial Prosecutor.

Father Burgos with Fathers Gomez and

Zamora were accused of having
instigated the Cavite rebellion of 1872.
the Governor-General Izquierdo
ordered the arrest of the three priest.
FATHER JACINTO
ZAMORA
(1835-1872)
 FATHER JACINTO
ZAMORA
(1835-1872)
Father Zamora comes from a wealthy family.
He was born on August 9, 1835 in Pandacan,
Manila. Don Venancio Zamora Once captain
of Pandaran and Doña Hilaria del Rosario. As
a family, he had a house on Fraternidad Street
in Pandacan, Manila

Father Zamora studied elementary school at

Pandacan and later moved to the San Juan de
Letrán school, where he obtained a Bachelor
of Arts degree. Zamora continued his studies
at the Universidad de Santo Tomás with a
degree in Theology and Canon Law,
graduated on May 6, 1858.
 FATHER JACINTO
ZAMORA
As soon as he was ordained a priest, he was
(1835-1872)
appointed as the parish priest of Marikina, later
he moved to Pasig. Zamora took an exam
equivalent to the civil service exam and passed
successfully: As a result, he was appointed to
the Manila Cathedral.

Zamora belongs to the highest hierarchy and

was above the other priests including the
friars. Zamora was a member of the Committee
of Reformers, with Fathers Burgos and Gómez.
He was a courageous and ardent priest. He
worked hard for the secularization of the
Filipino clergy and fought for the rights of
Filipino priests. Father Zamora was accused in
connection with the rebellion of 1872 and that
cost him his life.
 SPANISH-FILIPINO CASTE
SYSTEM
PENINSULARES INSULARES ILLUSTRADOS
(THE
ENLIGHTENED
Pure blooded Pure blooded Spanish
Spanish descent descent born and ONES)
living in the
born in Spain and Wealthy Group of
Philippines. They are
sent to Spanish a rank below the individuals born in the
colonies to govern. peninsulares. Philippines and were
They are the highest able to study abroad.
class in the
Philippines,
entrusted with the
offices of high rank.
 SPANISH-FILIPINO CASTE
SYSTEM
CHINESE/SPANIS INDIO SANGLEY
H MESTIZOS

People with Native/Pure Pure Blooded

mixed racial blooded Filipinos. Chinese living in
origins and the Philippines.
economically
sufficient.
Mestizo is a term
given to
individuals
b. Cavite Munity
 Spanish Viewpoint of the Mutiny
The two Spaniards, Jose Montero Vidal, a
prolific Spanish Historian, and Governor
General Rafael Izquierdo deemed that
the event of 1872 was earlier and was
thought as a big conspiracy among
educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or
native lawyers, residents of Manila and
Cavite and the native clergy.
 Spanish Viewpoint of the Mutiny
They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila
and Cavite planned to liquidate high- ranking
Spanish officers to be followed by the
massacre of the friars. According to Vidal and
Izquierdo, on the day of January 20, 1872,
Sampaloc, Manila celebrated the feast of the
Virgin of Loreto, as a tradition. They
celebrated the occasion with usual fireworks
displays.
 Spanish Viewpoint of the Mutiny
Apparently, those in Cavite misidentified the fireworks as
the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon,
the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant La Madrid
launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and
seized the arsenal in Fort San Felipe.

When the news reached Gov. Gen. Izquierdo, he ordered the

reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to suppress the
revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
anticipated support from Manila did not come ashore.
 Spanish Viewpoint of the Mutiny
Main leaders including Sergeant La Madrid were
killed in the battle, while the GOMBURZA were tried
by a court-martial and were condemned to die by
strangling (Garote).

Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.

Rigodor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos
were suspended by the Audiencia (High Court) from
the practice of law, arrested and sentenced with life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island.
 Spanish Viewpoint of the Mutiny
Furtheremore, Gov. Gen. Izquierdo dissolved the
native regiments of artillery and ordered the formation
of artillery force to be composed exclusively of
Peninsulares (Spanish-born Spaniard or mainland
Spaniard residing in newly colonized countries).
 Filipino Viewpoint of the Mutiny
A Filipino scholar and researcher, Dr. Trinidad Pardo
de Tavera, wrote the Filipino version of the incident in
Cavite. From his point of view, the event was an
ordinary mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and
laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be
frustrated with the end of their privileges.
 Filipino Viewpoint of the Mutiny
Ultimately, Tavera pointed Gov. Izquierdo responsible
for cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of
privileges of the workers and native army members of
the arsenal and the exclusion of the creation of
school of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the
general believed to be a cover-up for the organization
of a political club.
 Filipino Viewpoint of the Mutiny
On January 20, 1872, headed by Sergeant La Madrid, about
200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, the
residents of Cavite, rose in arms and killed the commanding
officer and Spanish officers in sight.

The rebels were expecting support from the majority of the

army but, unfortunately, it did not happen. This report of
mutiny reached the authorities in Manila and Gov. Gen.
Izquierdo instantly ordered the reinforcement of Spanish
troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially
declared restrained.
 Filipino Viewpoint of the Mutiny
Tavera at the time believed that the Spanish friars and
Gov. Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
control by amplifying it as full-blown conspiracy
concerning not only the native army but also involved
residents of Cavite and Manila, and essentially the
native clergy to take over the Spanish government in
Philippines.
 Filipino Viewpoint of the Mutiny
It is important to note that during the time the Central
Government in Madrid announced its intention to
remove the friars of all the powers of involvement in
matters of civil government and the course and
organization of educational institutions. This
gathering of events was, believed by Tavera, urged
friars to do something severe in their awful aspiration
to maintain power in the Philippines.
c. Retraction of
Jose Rizal 1935
 RETRACTION OF JOSE
RIZAL
Some historians believed that Jose Rizal retracted his Anti -
Catholic ideas through a document before he was executed.

“I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,

publications and conduct has been contrary to my character
as a son of Catholic Church”

The “original” text was discovered in the Archdiocesan

archives on May 18,1935, after it disappeared for 39 years
from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot
 RETRACTION OF JOSE
RIZAL
DR. RICARDO PASCUAL
• One of the person who was given a permission by
the archbishop to examine the document
• Pascual scrutinized the document thoroughly and
came up with a book that questioned its authenticity
• The slants of the handwriting
• The number of commas in the letter
• The number of sentences in the paragraph
 RETRACTION OF JOSE
RIZAL
• Fr. Vicente Balaguer (Only eyewitness) - Confession,
Mass, Communion and prayed the rosary.

• Frederico Moreno - Account was according to one

of the guards Jose Rizal really did mention The
Retraction and he did mention the 2 Jesuit priest
and Maure and Del Fresco who signed as a witness
for the Retraction.
D. Cry of Balintawak
 CRY OF BALINTAWAK
Cry of Balintawak is regarded as the starting
signal for the Philippine revolution. The real
date when the uprising happened is still not
clear. Some witnesses' states that it happened
on an earlier date and different places.
Historians have difficulty pinpointing on when
the uprising began. Some said that it is when
Katipuneros have gathered while others said it
is the shredding of cedula personal.
DIFFERENT VERSIONS
ACCOUNTED
• Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s Controversial “Cry of Pugad
Lawin” (August 23, 1896)
This controversial version of the “Cry of the Pugad
Lawin” has been authorized by no other than Dr. Pio
Valenzuela, who happened to be the eyewitness himself of the
event. In his first version, he said that the prime staging point
of the Cry was in Balintawak on Wednesday of August 26,
1896. He held this account when the happenings or
events are still vivid in his memory. On the other hand,
later in his life and with a fading memory, he wrote his
Memoirs of the Revolution without consulting the written
documents of the Philippine revolution and claimed that
the “Cry” took place at Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896.
• Santiago Alvarez’s The “Cry of Bahay
Toro” (August 24, 1896)
This version of the “Cry” was written by
Santiago Alvarez, a well-known Katipunero from
Cavite and a son of Mariano Alvarez. Santiago
is a relative of Gregoria de Jesus, who happened
to be the wife of Andres Bonifacio. Unlike the author
of the first version mentioned (Valenzuela), Santiago
Alvarez is not an eyewitness of this event. As a result,
this version of him is not given of equal value as
compared with the other versions for authors of other
accounts are actually part of the historic event.
• Gregoria de Jesus’ Version of the First “Cry”
(August 25, 1896)
This version was written by no other than the “Lakambini of
the Katipunan” and wife of Andres Bonifacio, Gregoria de
Jesus. She has been a participant of this event and became
the keeper of the secret documents of the Katipunan. After the
Revolution in August 1896, she lived with her parents in
Caloocan then fled to Manila when she was told that
Spanish authorities wanted to arrest her. Eventually, she
joined her husband in the mountains and shared adversities
with him. In her account, the First “Cry” happened near
Caloocan on August 25, 1896.
• Guillermo Masangkay’s The “Cry of
Balintawak” (August 26, 1896)

This version is written by the Katipunan

General Guillermo Masangkay. He is an
eyewitness of the historic event and a childhood
friend of Bonifacio. According to him, the first
rally of the Philippine Revolution happened on
August 26, 1896, at Balintawak.
END OF LESSON 1