Lesson 1.

3: Philippine Historiography

Lesson Summary
In this topic, you will learn the trends of Philippine historiography. First, you will get to
know what historiography is and its development in the country from the colonial period up to
the contemporary era. Lastly, we shall talk about different sources of Philippine history.

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
1. Name and be familiar with the works of foreign and local Philippine historiographers.
2. Trace the development of Philippine historiography and the changes it underwent in
terms of style and perspective.

Motivation Question
What documents were written that would describe the life and culture of our ancestors
during the pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial periods of our Philippine history?

Discussion
Philippine historiography can be mainly traced back during the Spanish period. It
comprises the historical and archival research and writing on the history of the archipelago
throughout Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Additionally, under Philippine historiography, Filipino
historians are constrained to view Philippine history from the standpoint of the Filipinos. As
early as the 1960s, our historians have devoted to expanding the foundations of their historical
sources and provided new and fresh interpretations that defied the traditional discourses in
history. Generally, Philippine historiography can be divided into the pre-colonial period, colonial
period: Spanish and American, and post-colonial period (Cruz, 1984).

Pre-colonial Period

There is only limited information during this era. This is because almost all records did
not survive; most of the writings were written on perishable materials such as bamboo or
leaves. Hence, the first and only written document found in the early Philippine language as of
the moment is called The Laguna Copper Inscription (LCI). The LCI is a legal document
inscribed on a copper plate in 900 CE (Postma, 1992). Before the LCI, most of the earliest
Philippine histories we had were written by westerners such as Antonio Pigafetta and
MaximilianusTransylvanus. This is referring to their narratives in Visayas and Palawan during
Ferdinand Magellan’s voyage or the remnants of his expedition (Cruz, 1984). Specifically,
Antonio Pigafetta’s chronicle about Magellan’s voyage included profound ethnographic details
on the culture of the early Filipinos. His accounts were valuable because of the firsthand
information on Philippine culture before the Spanish contact (Sebastian, n.d.).
Meanwhile, there are also books or accounts written by Spanish historians or
chroniclers, mostly friars. Many of their works were about the activities and missions of various
religious orders delegated in the Philippines. Their accounts are quite noteworthy for our history
since these missionaries brought Christianity or Catholicism in the country. Their reports are
vital because of their records of the establishment of many towns. Although most of the time,
the natives were responsible for founding the latter.
For example, the order of St. Francis was active since the 14th century in Manila, the
Tagalog provinces, Camarines, and other regions. The Franciscan, Juan de Plasencia, was
requested by Governor de Sande to provide pieces of information about the government,
administration of justice, inheritances, slaves, dowries, worship, burials, and superstition of the
colony. As a response, he wrote the “Los Costumbres de los Tagalos” (B & R, volume 7). It was
not only significant as a source of the local history of the Tagalog region but also as a guide to
the alcaldes in the settlement of cases involving the natives. Hence, it became the first civil
code of the Philippines. And so, together with the account of Fr. Felix de Huerta, Estado
geografico, topograficoestadistico, historico, religioro de Ia Santa y ApostolicaprovinciadeS.
Gregorio MagnodereligiososmenOt-es Ia regular y mas estrechaobservancia de H.S.P.S.
Francisco en las Filipinas (Cruz, 1863). Meanwhile, the Jesuit friars made valuable contributions
to understanding the Philippines in the 16th century. Fr. Pedro Chirino, who is considered as one
of the most distinguished Jesuit historians, authored the book “Relacion de las Islas Filipinas”
which was published in Rome in 1604. The book is a narrative of the life of the Filipinos before
their colonization (Sebastian, n.d).
Among the Spanish officials appointed in the Philippines, Dr. Antonio de Morga was one
of the most admired. His “Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas” is one of the most reliable sources of
information regarding the Philippines in the 16th century. Rizal even attempted to annotate this
book in his search for unbiased historical truth about the country (Schumacher, 1975). Another
well-recognized work about the pre-colonial period was the book written by Captain Miguel de
Loarca, an encomendero in the Visayas. Capt. Loarca’s“Relacion de las Islas Filipinas”
emphasized the material culture of the early Filipinos which he considered as innovative. As an
encomendero, he made a rich portrayal of the economic living of the native Filipinos (Sebastian,
n.d.).

Colonial Period

Spanish Era
Most of the early historians were Spanish friars. Hence, their accounts were
concentrated on the Spanish history of the Philippines, particularly their expeditions in the
country as a missionary. Their passion to spread Christianity has led them to study the culture
of the early Filipinos and religiously documented their observations. Their records of
observations are crucial in the understanding of the Philippine past, although, most of them
were missionary history. To name a few, we have Fr. Francisco Collin who wrote about the
Jesuit missions; Father Pedro Murillo Y. Velarde with his records on Philippine history, mission
and conquest of Mindanao, and including the map of the archipelago; Fr. Juan Delgado’s
account depicted the Philippines in terms of political, ecclesiastical, economic, social, and
cultural aspects.
Meanwhile, many secular historians had also exhibited a keen interest in the Philippines.
Apart from Dr. de Morga’s work, Jose Montero y Vidal’s work entitled “Historia General de
Filipinas DesdeDescubriementoHastraNuestros Diaz” was a good interpretation of the Spanish
Philippines. Included in his book was the Spaniard’s version of Cavite mutiny on January 20,
1872. Additionally, Thomas de Comyn, a Spanish official wrote “Estado de las Islas Filipinas en
1810.” His work is valuable because it described the colonial economy after the opening of
Manila to international world trade. On the other hand, some foreign residents wrote their
observations in the Philippines, namely, Henry Peddington, Dr. Jean Mallat, Sir John Browning,
Dr. Feodor Jagor, and John Foreman. These foreign writers offer contemporary Filipino
historians an alternative worldview in understanding our past.

Figure 3. Murillo Velarde map of the Philippines, 1734 (from Library of Congress
https://www.loc.gov/item/2013585226/).

The 19th century is also the era of the formation of Filipino identity. With the opening of the
Philippines to world trade, economic development paved the way for the birth of the middle
class. This progress allowed Filipino historians to study in Europe and work for Philippine
reforms. Sebastian (n.d.) noted that the Filipino ilustradoslike Jose Rizal, Marcelo del Antonio
Luna, Ponce, Trinidad Pardo H. de Tavera, Pilar, Graciano
Ilustrados – The enlightened
ones.They are educated
Filipinos during the Spanish
period in the Philippine history.
Lopez-Jaena, Pedro Paterno, and Isabelo de los Reyes among others became the first Filipino
nationalist-historians who defended the country and the Filipinos from unfair representation
made by foreign historians.
The nationalist historiography sustained during the time of the revolution. Filipino
revolutionaries like Bonifacio, Mabini, Jacinto, Valenzuela, Artemio Ricarte, and others wrote
several articles about the Philippines that sparked the nationalistic zeal of the Filipinos.
Nonetheless, the writings of Mabini and Ricarte demonstrated an intense anti-clerical and anti-
colonial tone (Sebastian, n.d.).

American Era
The way history was written during this period can be regarded as better than the
writings during the Spanish era. Filipino ilustrados in the likes of Pedro Paterno, Rafael Palma,
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Epifanio de los Santos, Teodoro M. Kalaw, and Isabelo de los Reyes
continued to be active in the socio-political field during the American colonization. Their
immense concern in the socio-political activities of the country directed them to contribute to
the development of Philippine historiography. These Filipino ilustrados had saved numerous
information concerning Filipino society, cultures, and history. Pardo de Tavera’s valuable
Filipiniana anthology entitled “Biblioteca Filipina” published in 1903 was one of the most reliable
sources of historians in writing the history of the Philippines.
Pardo de Tavera’s Filipiniana collection was used as a reference to the infamous book of
Blair and Robertson entitled, “The Philippine Islands: 1943-1898.” On the other hand, Epifanio de
los Santos was a critic and biographer who worked on the life of Filipino heroes like Bonifacio,
Del Pilar, and Aguinaldo. His monographs regarding the revolution and the life of several heroes
became one of the bases of modern historians.
The American historians had made tremendous efforts in research to write the history of
the Philippines. Although, most of the writings of the Americans about the Philippines are still
extremely biased, there a few Americans who favorably wrote fairly for Filipinos. Blair and
Robertson’s work is considered as an authority in Philippine history. American colonial officials
also took the time to write their version of Philippine history. Some of the notable colonial
officials who contributed in the historical writing are Fred Atkinson, with his book “The
Philippine Islands”, 1903; James LeRoy who wrote “Philippine Past and Present”, 1914; George
Malcolm with his “The Commonwealth of the Philippines”, 1936; and Joseph Hayden who
worked on the book “The Philippines: A Study in National Development”, 1936. The accounts of
the colonial officials were critical to the Republic of Malolos and the Filipinos. Similar to the
accounts of Spanish friars, the history was written by the colonial officials were narratives of the
history of the United States in the Philippines. In their writings, they boast of the achievements
of the colonial administration in the country. They highlighted the changes and developments
that the Americans introduced and made it appear that the Filipinos are nothing without the
tutelage of the Americans. On the other hand, non-colonial officials in the country like Catherine
Mayo highlighted the so-called backwardness of the Filipinos.
Schumacher (1975) agreed on how these scholarships became an essential tool of
historical propaganda in the service of US colonial rule. Due to the miseducation of the Filipino
people under the American colonial regime, Filipinos were gradually trained to look on the
American colonizers as their benefactors and to allow themselves to be subjected to American
economic exploitation. The exploitation of the masses in its turn led to a new resistance, which
has widened the consciousness of the people to the source of their misery, namely, the colonial
relationship.
Post-Colonial Era

Most foreigners remarked that the Filipinos had no civilization before the Spanish
colonization. With that, Filipino historians felt obliged to contest this unsolicited generalization
(Caroll, 1961). From 1950-early 90s was considered as great eras in the history of Philippine
historical writing. These periods had produced dedicated Filipino historians who tried to re-
direct the writing of Philippine history. Compared to the writings during the Spanish and
American era, the writings of history during the post-war era can be considered revolutionary for
the effort of Filipino historians to write the history of the Philippines using a Filipino perspective.
Aside from the historians mentioned in the discussion, the Philippines has produced Filipino
historians who worked hard to come up with historical writings that can be used for a better
understanding of the Philippines and its people. Together with their foreign counterparts,
Filipino historians produced scholarly works explaining the Philippines and its people.
In the early 50s, Filipino historians in the American era continued to dominate the
writings of history. Most of them were mainly traditional historians. Most likely, they grounded
their principles from the positivist tradition “No document, no history.” Prominent scholars in the
field of history like Conrado Benitez, Dr. Nicolas Zafra, Dr. Gregorio Zaide, Dr. Domingo
EufronioAlip, and Dr. Antonio Molina profoundly depended on documents as their unit of
analysis in writing history. On the other hand, William Henry Scott and Dr. LandaJocano were
the leading researchers who specialized in the subjects regarding the pre-colonial civilization of
the country. They used various sources like the colonial documents, ethnographic accounts, and
archaeological data in their reconstruction of the past.
After World War 2, History writings were influenced by the cold war. The Philippines, an
ally of the United States, tried to fight against communism by favoring the achievements of the
colonizers in Philippine history. Historian Gregorio Zaide, Fr. Horacio de la Costa, and Fr. Jose
Arcilla had written their history books in a clerical perspective. Most of the writings during this
period are the history of the colonies in the Philippines such as Renato Constantino’s “The
Philippines: A Past Revisited” published in 1975. Constantino attempted to look at Philippine
history using the Filipino lens. However, he adopted for himself a western framework—a non-
Filipino tradition (Schumacher, 1975).
Moreover, Chandler (1987) argued that the most important trends of the Philippine
historiography happened in the mid-1970s. There has been an emerging point of interest in
regional history. A group of younger historians explored the wealth of regional and local
experience thereby moving away from a Manila-centric focus on national and colonial
institutions. They detailed rich and fascinating mosaics that previously ignored by both Filipino
and foreign scholars (see John A. Larkin, the Pampangans: Colonial society in a Philippine
province).
Afterward, the post-EDSA period gave a new direction for Filipino historians. The move
to use Filipino as a medium of instruction had gained support from different historians. With
this development, Zeus Salazar and the advocates of the “pantayongpananaw” gave a new
direction to the study of history. Using Filipino as a medium, they defined history as “ang
kasaysayan ay isangsalaysaytungkolsanakalipasna may saysaysaisanggrupo ng tao.” With this
definition, the study of Philippine history is redirected to what the people believe to be important
to them. This is the reason for the study of oral traditions, culture, and local history which are
privileged in the discourse of the pantayongpananaw.
Filipino historians like Diokno, Salazar, Agoncillo, Ileto, Guerrero, Ocampo, and others
work hard to counter the colonial historiography that dominated Philippine historiography for a
long time. The accumulation of new data and the development of new theories gave Filipino
historians many aspects of Philippine history that were left unsolved. Historians, with the help
of other fields of disciplines like anthropology, psychology, archaeology, linguistics, and others
faithfully restored the Philippines' past using a Filipino perspective (Sebastian, n.d.)

Learning Tasks/Activities
 List down 5 historiographers each from the periods of Philippine History (pre-
Colonial, Spanish colonial, American colonial, and post-colonial periods)

Assessment
I. Identify the period of historiography does the historiographer and/or the historical account
belong to. Write Prfor pre-colonial, Sfor Spanish colonial, A for American colonial, and PC for
post-colonial.
___1. Fr. Pedro Chirino
___ 2. Laguna Copperplate Inscription
___ 3 Zeus Salazar
___ 4. Ileto’s Pasyon and Revolution
___ 5. Sucessos de las Islas Felipinas Annotated by Rizal
___ 6. Pardo de Tavera’s Filipiniana collections
___ 7. James LeRoy’s “Philippine Past and Present”
___ 8. Fr. Juan de Plasencia
___ 9. Relascion de las Islas Felipinas
___ 10. Looking Back series by Ambeth Ocampo

II. Essay. Compose a comprehensive single essay that answers the following questions. Write
in paragraph form consisting of 300 words at most.
1. What were the developments in Philippine historiography? What major changes in the
style and perspective did it underwent.
2. Why is it important to be familiar with Philippine historiography and the perspectives
they inject? Explain.

Instructions on how to submit student output

For type-written documents, write the answers only on an 8.5”x 11” bond paper 1inch
marginsall sides, single line spacing, with a font style of Times New Roman at size 12. The
student should write their name, class schedule, subject, course instructor, and lesson number
as the header of the document.
For handwritten documents, you still have to follow the parameters above for the paper size,
margins, and header. Your penmanship must be legible and just the right size.

For online submission, you may send the document (in .pdf format) to the email address of the
instructor on the last weekday of the third week of September 2020.
For offline submissions, you may send the
hardcopy of the document in a bundle with the other
required documents for Module 1, in the third week
of September 2020. You may place it in a sealed
brown envelope with your name, student
number, subject, class schedule, and the course
instructor. Send the bundled documents to
the Department of Liberal Arts and Behavioral
Sciences, Visayas State University, Baybay City,
6521-A.