Historical Interpretation

- The judgements of historians on how the past should be seen make the
foundation of historical interpretation.
- Most historical interpretations are explanations: they tell us how and why things
occurred, providing reasons, arguments and evidence. Like historical
perspectives, however, there are often several interpretations of the same topic
– and they may differ significantly.
- Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources and then draw their own
reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, a
process that in essence, “makes sense of the past.”
- Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary
source, when it was read and how it was read

Multiperspectivity
- Multiperspectivity can be defined as a way of looking at historical events,
personalities, developments, cultures and societies from different perspectives

- The historian decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more
apparent, depending on what his end is.
Two key concepts that need to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis
of problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.
It has been said that the Philippines had "one past but many histories" is true in this
case. Different authors and writers of Philippine history books vary in their description
of the Philippine's physical features, its location, number of islands, land area, river
systems, mountains, site of the first mass, and others. With these conflicting views in
certain events and situations, they are subject for debate.

TOPICS OVERVIEW

The popularity of knowing where the “firsts’ happened in

Case Study 1: history has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this
The Site of the First case study will not focus on the significance (or lack
Mass in the Philippines: thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the
Masau or Limasawa Philippines, rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in
the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading
historical events.

The site of the First Mass of the Philippines:

1. Limasawa, Leyte – March 31, 1521
2. Butuan near Agusan River – April 8, 1521
The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: The
Cavity Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests:
Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora
(GOMBURZA).
Case Study 2:
What Happened in
GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three
the Cavity Mutiny?
martyred priests and tagged as masterminds of the
Cavite Mutiny. They were executed by garrote in public
and the execution was witnessed by the young Jose
Rizal.
These events were very important milestones in
Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout
time, directly influencing the decisive events of the
Philippine revolution toward the end of the century.
 While the significance is unquestioned, what made this
year controversial are the different sided to the history,
a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources.

Different Perspectives/Version:
1. Jose Montero y Vidal – spanish historian that
centered how the event was an attempt in
overthrowing the Spanish government in the
Philippines. His account of the mutiny was criticized
as woefully biased.
2. Governor General Rafael Izquierdo – an official, a
spanish military officer – implicated the native
clergy or who were then active in the movement
toward secularization of parishes. Corroborated the
account of Montero y Vidal
3. Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera – a
Filipino Scholar and researcher, who wrote a
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.
Contradicting the account of the spanish historians
4. Edmund Plauchut – French writer complemented
Tavera’s account and analyzed the motivations of
the 1872 Cavite mutiny

One of the most controversial issues in Philippine

History is the Retraction of Jose Rizal. It is
understandable that any piece of writing from Rizal that
Case Study 3: recants everything he wrote against the friars and the
The Retraction Catholic Church could deal heavy damage to his image.
of Jose Rizal This document, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours
before his execution, was referred as “The Retraction”,
declared Rizal’s belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts
everything he wrote against the Church
Another Conflicting Views /Controversial Issues:
The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas.
Before it was revealed a hoax, it was the 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 on Aklan, established his government in the peninsula of
Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver, he
promulgated in about 1433 a penal code known as the Code of Kalantiaw
containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained
the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was 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 Sto. Tomas, defended his research on pre-
Hispanic sources in Philippine history. He attributed the code to historical fiction
wrtitten 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.

Another example was the poem written by Jose Rizal “Sa Aking Mga Kabata” 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 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.

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 ad referred to the word “kalayaan”. But it was
documented in Rizal’s letter 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 “kalayahan”.
While Rizal’s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish, starting from his
mother, Teodora Alonzo. 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 Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.