1.

A. External Criticism

The False Decretals, or the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, are a good example of the
value of external criticism. The False Decretals purports to be a collection of decrees of
councils and decretals of popes (written replies on questions of ecclesiastical discipline)
from the first seven centuries. It is by analyzing the Decretals and by localizing them in
place and time, that the student is enabled to see the constant use of material which the
Popes to whom they are attributed could never have known. Letters from the Popes of the
first three centuries, for instance, contain parts of documents dating from the sixth,
seventh, and eighth centuries. The importance of a strict test for historical material is
easily recognizable when one reflects that these False Decretals, although a huge forgery,
passed for genuine all through the Middle-Ages; and when especially one touches the
delicate question of how far these forgeries contributed to papal authority in that period.
The sum total of all these operations will give the student a fair idea of how far his source
or sources may be trusted as authentic. A further question arises-whether the material
facts found in the source can be used as evidence for the work in hand.

Souce:(https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25011528.pdf?refreqid=excelsior
%3A2d3b74788d39aba5a5b40b435e67978a)

B. Internal Criticism

For openers, there is the reason why the Magna Carta was negotiated at
Runnymede Fields. The English barons and King John selected that spot “because it was
a bog,” said Starkey, “The place is moist, wet ground. It is a water meadow, so it is a
place where you can’t fight. It is jaw, jaw not war, war.”

Starkey noted that the Magna Carta was written “because the [English] barons
seized London, or rather, London surrendered to the barons.” London was where the
royal treasury was located, which meant, in Starkey’s words, “John is finished” as the
king of England.

Starkey averred that the Magna Carta “leads directly to the Bill of Rights” in the
U.S. Constitution and is a demonstration of “the reworking and re-conceptualizing” of
important principles in the Anglosphere. For example, it is in the Magna Carta where the
concept of “you will have no sovereign” first appears. He saw many “similarities
[between] modern politics and old monarchical politics” in his study of the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta was first written because of King John, who had ascended to the
English throne in 1199, and was “the most powerful ruler in Europe” for a brief time.
However, Starkey pointed out, John lost “two empires in quick succession” by losing
land in France and failing to consolidate the British Isles under his crown.

These circumstances led to “London open[ing] its gates to the rebel barons,” and
when “John loses what’s left of his treasury…his capital…he’s finished.” Starkey
continued, “[In] less than two weeks, John is negotiating at Runnymede with the barons”
while “his negotiator is his leading ecclesiastical opponent” in the Archbishop of
Canterbury. In the end, John was “forced to come to an agreement” even though the
“Magna Carta is an utterly devastating document” for the monarchy.

The original drafts of the 1215 Magna Carta are still in possession today, Starkey
said, and “it looks like a modern negotiating document.” He pointed out that, “800 years
before Microsoft, every line of the barons begins with a bullet point.” The proposals put
forward by the barons were “genuinely republican” by creating and appointing
committees for concerns such as public safety, while the document also “replace[d] the
oath of allegiance [with] the sovereign to an oath to the charter.” Also, adding insult to
injury, the barons created a “form of indenture…an ultimatum, a deadline” in order to
permit John to re-enter the city.

However, the Magna Carta did not lead to immediate peace in England. “First of
all, it leads to direct civil war. The document is so contentious that John would have no
support” in England and resorted to war. “Secondly, the fact that it has…no validity in
law” because the document it was not approved by the Church nor the Pope in Rome. “A
savage civil war” ensued, where the French intervened at the barons’ request and turned
the tide of the war.

While the “grandiose clauses” of the Magna Carta mean little, the process and
history that created it matters most, said Starkey.

Source: (https://www.academia.org/the-truth-about-the-magna-carta/)

2. A. Contextual Analysis

Mi Ultimo Adios is a historical piece of literature written by Rizal during his

imprisonment under the oppression of the Spaniards. It was written in Fort Santiago a
night before his execution at Luneta Park. That’s the reason why the poem is entitled “Mi
Ultimo Adios” which literally mean My Last Farewell.
This famous literary piece was written due to the given social situation where in
he witnessed the slavery, cruelty and brutality towards his beloved fellowmen. Rizal
expresses his willingness to die for his motherland and bids goodbye to his love ones, his
country and to all people whom he cared for.
 He wishes that the youth of today will continue what he had just started for the
independence that he had fight for and he is also thankful of some Filipino’s who had just
committed their lives for the love of their motherland.
Source:(https://acasestudy.com/the-analysis-of-mi-ultimo-adios-using-historical-and-
sociological-approach/)
B. Content Analysis
The Kartilya was the moral and intellectual foundation used to guide the actions
of Katipuneros. Upon joining the Katipunan, members were required to read the Kartilya
and adhere to its code of conduct. Changing the way people thought and acted was
paramount to the early Katipuñeros; they understand that was the only way to truly
change the Philippines for the better. Play-acting as and implicitly referencing the
Katipunan without fully understanding their political and moral context and goals
essentially degrades the breadth of what they were trying to achieve.

Then again, we always forget that the Katipunan, upon inception and in action,
was not the mass movement it is commonly mooted as, but one of the middle class, even
the upper middle class. In the context of 19th century Philippines, these men were highly
educated and socially mobile. They were critically thinking, well read, and (in some
cases) well-traveled individuals who conceptualized a new Philippines. One founded on
egalitarianism, even while recognizing that social differences will exist.

Of course the Katipunan was not the only organization working towards
independence. They built on the ideological and political foundation constructed by men
and women who sacrificed much for their dreams of independence. They were not an
organization that sprung fully formed from among the masa, nor were they an
organization that operated independently of contemporaries and predecessors.

The actual lessons of the Revolution, the hard work of reformism, the need to
define politically and ideologically end goals, the paramount urgency of education and
inculcating broader values, is ignored in favor of the Adoration of Revolt, the Cult of the
Revolutionary, the Primacy of Personality. I would argue that our misunderstanding of
the 19th century feeds directly into some of the public factionalism and fracturing we
witness today. What is in interesting is when studying the works of Emilio Jacinto,
Apolinario Mabini, Marcelo H Del Pilar, and (most importantly) Jose Rizal, we discover
exhortations towards intellectualism, not just militancy and violence. In many cases, such
as with Rizal, he pushes the need to change the way Filipinos critically think and engage
with issues before armed revolt. It is a distinction that is either glossed over or outright
ignored in many of today’s texts. These men were intellectual giants who espoused a new
understanding citizenship and engagement that eludes us still. The shame is they
understood that lasting change takes place in the hearts and minds of men first, and what
they subsequently build after. Not in spontaneous displays of strength of arms, the might
of the sword, and the fleeting nature of purely personality based revolutionary action. We
seemingly favor the latter, while forgetting the former.
 There are clear connections between the Revolution, the Katipunan, the Reformist
Movement, the events in 1872, the Assembly of Reformists in 1863, the Carlist
Movement in Spain, the Latin American revolutions, the Mutiny of 1823, the socio-
economic reforms of Jose Basco y Vargas, the economic explosion of the 19th century,
and even the British Invasion. The connections stretch back even to the decision in the
Manila Synod of 1582 to retain local languages. Context is key, it is critical whether
looking at history or contemporary issues.

Maybe that is the enduring lesson and challenge of the Kartilya and Katipunan, of
the Revolution and Republic, of Rizal, of Aguinaldo and Bonifacio. The intriguing idea
that we have to evolve past resorting consistently to superficially structured armed revolt
and uprising, of militancy, intransigency, and violence, but learn to seek higher ideals of
Reason, and Right and Light, and utilize them in favor of a greater purpose, dedicated to
an enlightened concept of Filipinas.

Source: (https://iwriteasiwrite.tumblr.com/post/88543751092/the-real-kartilya-of-the-
katipunan-by-emilio)