Module 1: Historical Method ]

Name: Villafranca Myra G.

Year and Section: ES1-1
Time Schedule: 7:30-9:00

Rubrics:
Points Statements
Ideas are thoroughly explained, highly coherent writing, almost no
5
grammatical errors.
3 Ideas are explained, coherent writing, few grammatical errors.
Ideas are poorly explained, incoherent writing, many grammatical
0
errors.

Lesson 2. Historical Criticism

Activity 1. Read the following excerpts and be able to accomplish the matrix by
comparing the two accounts using the guide questions.

Download and read:

1. https://tinyurl.com/MemoirsOfAGeneral
2. https://tinyurl.com/SeedsOfDiscontent

Alvarez, Santiago (1992), Agoncillo, Teodoro (2002).

The Katipunan and the The Revolt of the Masses:
Guide Questions Revolution: Memoirs of a The Story of Bonifacio and
General. Quezon City: the Katipunan. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University University of the Philippines
Press. Press.
How close was the Santiago was close to the event He become close to the event it’s
author to the event because he was the author, because of his deep research he was
Santiago was the first person in the close to the primary source. He is
being studied?
Filipino revolution against the an academic expert. He is not
colonialism of spaniard. Alvarez direct close to the event, but he did
Memoirs gives the katipunan a a thorough investigation for him to
motivational insights. prove the credibility.
When was the It has been published from July 24, Originally been published from
account made? 1927 to April 15, 1928 after his 1956 but it was revise and updated
involvement in the Philippine from 2002 it enhance the original
revolution against Spaniards. account.
Whowas the Ateneo De Manila, School, students University of the Press in Quezon
recipient of the and historical readers. City, School,students and historical
readers.
account?
Is there bias to be We all know that all historians are Agoncillo was also open in
accounted for? all subjective in potential bias it subjective potential bias from the
may be because of the nature of his nature of his work and belief, such
Expound.
work he was a general so it may as his ideological learning because
influence, or more likely to be he is a researcher it might influence
influenced by his beliefs and then.
experience.
Does informed From active reading and By actively reading Agoncillos
observation I can say yes his content and consider his work as a
common sense account was credible , because researcher I can say that his
make the account aside from being present from the account was credible. He conduct
event he was an active participant critical observations and consider
probable?
too, in that event. many reliable things for him to
prove the probability of the
account.
Is the account Yes, it was corroborated by other Yes, because he was a researcher so
corroborated by accounts like other sources and basically he will not rely unto 1
testimonies that offer there source he will dig deep and find
other accounts?
additional perspective. more validated source that align
Expound. with his account.