Module 2 Lesson 1 Historical Criticisms Objectives

1. Provide ideas that guide the discipline of history;

2. Develop critical and analytical skills with exposure to primary sources; and

3. Evaluate primary sources for their credibility, authenticity and provenance 4. Opportunities
to improve critical thinking .

Lesson Proper

A. Definition

It is also known as the historical-critical method, Historical criticism is a branch of criticism that
investigates the origin of text or source in order to understand the word behind the text. The
primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text primitive or original historical context
and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks establish a reconstruction of historical situation
of the author and recipients of the text. Moreover, in order for source to be used as evidence in
history, basic matters about its form and context must be settled. These are two types of
historical criticism namely: external criticism (investigates the documents form) and internal
criticism (investigates the content of the documents).

B. Additional Goal of Historical Criticism Historical criticism seeks greater understanding of

the texts by analyzing the historical and social contexts in which they developed.

The goal of historical criticism, traditionally, has been to try to understand the text’s meaning
in its original context and to answer questions about the text, such as:

 Who wrote it?

 When was it written?
 What else what happening at the time of its writing?
 How did it come to be in the form we have it today?
 What did it mean to the people who first read or heard it?

Historical criticism has also often sought answers to the ever-elusive question of what is
called “authorial intent”: What did the author intend for this text to mean in his or her time
and place? (http://queergrace.com/historical-criticism/)

C. External Criticism

This type of criticism looks for the obvious sign of forgery or misrepresentation. This type
of criticism tests the authenticity of the sources. It is interested in the writing styles of the
eyewitness and his ignorance of the facts. The historian also analyzes the original
 manuscript; its integrity, localization and the date it was written. To ascertain if a particular
data is fabricated, forge, fake, corrupted or a hoax, that source must undergo the test of
authenticity. Since external criticism is concern with the explicit sign of misrepresentation,
it is the first test the historian employ to ascertain sources validity.

D. Test of authenticity

The first step to test a source is to determine the date of document to see whether it is
anachronistic.

Anachronism means out of time or order, something that could not have been there at that
particular time. It could be a person, thing or idea placed in a wrong time. Being able to spot
anachronism is important because it helps us test the reliability of a source. If a source is
unreliable then we probably should not use it.

Example can be found in Rizal’s allegedly first poem “ Sa Aking Mga Kabata” where we could
find the word “kalayaan”. Rizal admitted that he first encountered the word though a Marcelo
H. Del Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s essay “ El Amor Patrio”. Rizal wrote this essay in 1882 while
the poem supposedly was written by him in the year 1869.

The second step is to determine the author’s handwriting, signature or seal. We can compare
the handwriting of particular author to his other writings.

Obvious sign of forgery in include patch writing, hesitation as revealed by ink blobs, pauses in
the writing, tremor causing poor line quality and erasures. However, some people are highly
skilled in imitating others handwriting. Even a skilled forger can be caught because the act of
writing is a skill is learned through repetition until it becomes a habit. Thus, there is natural
variation in everyone handwriting. In addition, no one can duplicate all of the intricate
subconscious writing habits of another in an extended writing sample. Example of this is the
handwriting in the alleged retraction letter of Jose Rizal.

The third test in determining the authenticity of the source is by looking for the anachronistic
style.

In this test we will examine idiomatic expression or the orthography used in the documents. An
idiom is an expression, word or phrase that has a figurative meaning conventionally understood
by native speakers. When we say ‘break a leg’ we all know that it means good luck.
Orthography is a set of conventions for writing a language. It includes norms of spelling,
hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis and punctuation. When the poem Sa Aking
Mga Kabata was allegedly written in 1869, most Philippine language was widely written in a
variety of ways based on Spanish Orthography:
Early Tagalog System (taken from Doctrina Christiana,)

Ama namin, nasa Lan͠ gitca,

Ypasamba Mo ang N͠ galanmo.
Mouisaamin ang pagcaharimo.
Ypasonor mo ang loob mo Dito sa lupa para sa Lan ͠ git.

Modern Filipino orthography

Ama namin, sumasalangit Ka,
Sambahín ang Ngalan Mo.
Mapasaamin ang kaharián Mo.
Sundín ang loób Mo Dito sa lupà, para nang sa langit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_orthography

The fourth test is the anachronistic reference to events.

For example if the event cited in the document is prior to the actual event, then the document
must be forge or fake.

The fifth test of authenticity is the provenance or custody of the document. Provenance is the
place of origin of earliest known history of documents. It traces the roots of any source.

The other two test of authenticity is the semantics and hermeneutics.

Semantics is the linguistic study of meaning. In this test semantics determine the meaning of
the text and words of the source. We may ask: is the meaning of the statements different from
its literal meaning? Hermeneutics on the other hand is theory and methodology of
interpretation.

Hermeneutics is more than interpretation or method used when immediate comprehension

fails. In historical criticism we determine ambiguities which are a word or expression that can
be understood in two or more possible ways. Historians may look also if the statement is meant
to be ironic (i.e. mean other than what it says).

E. Internal Criticism

This type of criticism looks for deeper or more intense study of sources. Usually historians first
apply external criticism before undergoing the test of credibility because of internal criticisms
implicit character. It is important that the document must be verisimilar or as close as what
really happened from a critical examination of best available resources. It refers to the accuracy
of the content of a document. Internal criticism has to do with what the document says. It
investigates the content or substance of a document and the author’s point of view. This type
of criticism tests the credibility of the source.

F. Test of Credibility

 The first step is the identification of the author.

It determines if the witness is reliable or if he is consistent by comparing his other works. In

this steps historian also examine the mental processes of the witness, if he is capable of telling
the truth, or if he is mentally challenge. Finally we will look for his personal attitudes, if he is
telling something beyond what he saw or bragging about it. Many historian use some kind of
rubric to test the credibility of the author.

 The second step in testing the credibility of the eyewitness is to determine the
approximate date.

Example of this is again Rizal’s poem “Sa aking mga kabata”. He wrote that poem when he is
only eight years old and that poem is with rhythm and meter. To think that when Rizal was 8
years old the primary education in the Philippines was nonexistent.

 The third step in testing the credibility of the source is its ability to tell the truth.

Historians examine how near an eyewitness is to the event. The closer a source is to the event
which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description
of what actually happened Historian also look for the competence of the eyewitness. Basically
they look for the background of the author like education, health, age or social status. The last
test for this step is the degree of the attention of the eyewitness.

Whether the sources witness the event only partly or if he witnesses the event from the start to
finish.

 The fourth step is the willingness to tell the truth. If the eyewitness is coerced, forced or
somebody threaten him to tell something then his account is not valid. If the
eyewitness wants to hide something for personal reason

 The last step is to look for corroboration. This particular step rest upon the independent
testimony of two or more reliable sources.

The words independent testimony must be emphasize. For instance, if the soldier who fought
the battle, a general who oversaw the battle and a doctor who treated those wounded who
fought the battle, all recorded the same fact or all agree about an event, historians consider
that event proven.

References

A. Textbooks
 Candelaria Jhon Lee P. and Veronica C. Alphorha. Readings in Philippine history - Rex
Book Store 2018
 Solmerano, Ernesto Thaddeus et. al. Readings in Philippine History. Fast Books
Educational Supply Inc. 2018
 Torres, Jose Victor, Batis; Sources in Philippine History. C&E Publishing, Inc. 2018

B. Other References
 Rizal’s Poems. National Historical Institute. 2002

 Selected Writing of Rizal. Technology Supply Inc. 1999

 Bull, Sylvia and Joseph Schattauer Paillé (July 6, 2015) What is Historical Criticism?
Queer Grace Retrieved. August 5, 2020 from http://queergrace.com/historical-criticism/
 De Veyra, Lourd (2017) Greatest Hoaxes in Philippine History. History with Lourd.
News 5 Everywhere. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2020 from   https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=H1lShfwt930
 Gottschalk, Louis. A Primer of Historical Method. Alfred A. Knopf 1950
 Howell, Martha and Walter Prevenier. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to
Historical Method. Cornell University Press 2001
 Navarro, Atoy M. Ang Bagong Kasaysayan sa Wikang Filipino. Palimbagan ng Lahi.
2000
 Orillos-Juan, Florina. Historical Method. Commission on Higher Education. Aug. 12,
2016. De La Salle University -Manila
 Module|Technical Working Committee | 2020
 Scott, William Henry. Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History.
New Day Publication 1984