WHAT ARE “HISTORY” AND “HISTORICAL SOURCES”?

The Meaning of History

History – derived from the Greek noun “iotopia”: learning. It meant a systematic account
of a set of natural phenomena.

- By its most common definition, the word “history” now means “the past of
mankind” (kabuoang karunungan na nagsasalsay ng sistematiko ng penomenong
likas, kronolohikal na kaganapan)
- Greek Geschichte (which has happened) derived from geschehen (to happen):
“all history teaches”
- FORTIORI: the experience of a generation long dead; is beyond the possibility of
total recollection.
- It is normal for history to be revised out of new discoveries but should not and
never be distorted (intentionally changing the past to align with the history you
want)
- History consists of a group of people’s efforts to attain a better life. Discovering
the errors and mistakes of the past so the present and the future may not repeat
the same mistake, which can lead to a better life.

The reconstruction of the total past of the mankind thus becomes a goal historians know
full well is unattainable.

Science – scientia; designates non-chronological systematic accounts of natural

phenomena

History – reserved usually for the accounts of phenomena (especially human affairs) in
chronological order

Kasaysayan – ka/saysay/an

 Saysay – paglalahad, kabuluhan, halaga, pakinabang, layunin, pahayag

 Saysayan – komunikasyon, pagpapasa, diskurso
 Kasaysay – pinagmulan, kausap, pagmamalaki, istorya, nakaraan, pangyayari

Kasaysayan – ito ay mga salaysay ng nakaraan na may saysay sa sinasalaysayang grupo ng

tao. Mayroong definite society kung kaninong nakaraan or sinong grupo ng tao ang
apektado ng nakaraan na iyon at ang grupo ng tao na ito ang nagsasalaysay sa “kanilang”
nakaraan. A narrative about the past that is significant for a group of people. Sa kabilang
banda, ang history ay ang nakaraan ng pangkabuoang lipunan.

Mula dito, masasalamin ang tuon ng kasaysayan sa kaniyang kabuoan ay hindi

simpleng pagsasalaysay lamang kundi pagsasalaysay ng nakalipas na may katuturan para sa
pangkat ng taong pinagsasalaysayan nito. Ang tuon ng kasaysayan ay hindi sa mga
pangyayaring nakalipas lamang, kundi partikular doon sa mga makabuluhang kaganapan na
hindi makikita sa karaniwang paglalarawan ng historia dahil binibigyang-pansin lamang ang
ilang(?) study of the past.

Objectivity and Subjectivity

The facts of history are derived from testimony and therefore are facts of meaning. They
may be said to be symbolic or representative of something that once was real, but they
have no objective reality of their own.

SUBJECTIVE – the symbols or representative of something exist only in the observer’s or

historian’s mind. It is “illusory” or “based upon personal considerations” and hence either
“untrue” or “biased”; therefore, becoming inferior than objective knowledge.

OBJECTIVE – to study or gain knowledge with the intention of acquiring detached and
truthful knowledge independent of one’s personal reactions. A thing must be first an
object; it must have an independent existence outside the human mind.

Artifacts as Sources of History

Relics of Human Happenings – these objects are never the happenings or the events
themselves but rather raw materials out of which history may be based on and written.

Historian deals with the dynamic or genetic (the becoming) as well as the static (the being
or the become) and he aims at being interpretative (explaining why and how things
happened and were interrelated) as well as descriptive (telling what happened, when and
where, and who took part). Such descriptive data can be derived directly and immediately
from surviving artifacts are only a small part of the periods to which they belong. A
historical context can be given to them only if they can be placed on a human setting.

Without further evidence the human context of these artifacts can never be recaptured with any degree of certainty .

Historical Knowledge Limited by Incompleteness of the Records

Most human affairs happen without leaving vestiges or records of any kind behind them,
only a small part of what happened in the past was ever observed—that is, the recorded
past.

History-as-Actuality – the whole history of the past

History-as-Record – the only surviving records of the past

The “object” that the historian studies is not only incomplete; it is markedly variable
as/because records are lost or rediscovered.

History as the Subjective Process of Re-creation

One’s own memories are abstract images, not realities, and one’s reconstructions of
others’ memories are likely to be even more abstract. History-as-actuality can be nothing
more than a mental image or a series of mental images based upon an application of his
own experience. The historian’s aim is verisimilitude, a subjective process rather than
experimental certainty with regard to an objective reality; trying to get as close an
approximation to the truth about the past as constant correction of his mental images will
allow.

Once the historian understood this, his responsibility shifts from the obligation to acquire a
complete knowledge of the irrecoverable past by means of the surviving evidence, to that
of re-creating a verisimilar image of as much of the past as the evidence makes
recoverable.

Historical Method and Historiography Defined

Historical Method – the process of critically examining and analyzing the records and
survivals of the past

 Deals with the sources

 Evaluate the sources
 Make judgement if possible

Historiography – the imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by that
process (the writing of history)

By which means, the historian endeavors to reconstruct as much of the past of mankind as
he can. He must be sure that his records really come from the past and are in fact what
they seem to be and that his imagination is directed towards re-creation and not creation.

Imagination in Historiography

The historian is not permitted to imagine things that could not reasonably have happened,
but he is frequently required to imagine things that must have happened. The historian
must limit his imagination about history once there are no more sufficient evidence to
support his claims.
History of Historical Method

--

Historical Analysis under Four Headings:

1. The selection of the subject for investigation

2. The collection of probable sources of information on that subject
3. The examination of those sources for genuineness
4. The extraction of credible particulars from the sources proved genuine

Sources

One of the things a historian needs when determining and gaining knowledge about
history are the different sources or records kept. This includes official records in archives,
courthouses, libraries, private papers etc. These sources a historian will gather will fall
under a certain subject to limit his sources and to not overwhelm himself with too much
information. The more precise his delimitations of persons, area, time, and function, the
more relevant his sources are likely to be.

The Distinction Between Primary and Other Original Sources

Primary Source – the testimony of an eyewitness/witness, or of a mechanical device; that is

of one who or that which was present at the events of which he or it tells. A product of a
contemporary of the events it narrates. They need to be original only in the sense of
underived or first-hand as to their testimony. In primary source, one can determine it is
primary once one looks into the content of the source rather than the format. For example,
not all documentaries are secondary source and not all are also primary. One must analyze
whether the source is primary or secondary.

 Written documents - artifacts

 Images - oral testimonies

Secondary Source – the testimony of anyone who is not an eyewitness—that is of

someone who was not present at the event he’s telling. It is not “less” than the primary
source.

Original can be synonymous to a manuscript or archival and it is a word used to denote five
different conditions: A document may be original

1. Because it contains fresh and creative ideas;

2. It is not translated from the language in which it was first written;
3. It is in its earliest, unpolished stage;
4. Its text is the approved text, unmodified and untampered with;
 5. It is the earliest available source of information it provides

These 5 meanings of the word may overlap but they are not synonymous. However, it is
best used by the historian in only 2 senses:

1. To describe a source, unpolished, uncopied, untranslated, as it issued from the

hands of the author
2. A source that gives the earliest available information because earlier sources
have been lost.

Primary Particulars Rather Than Whole Primarily Sources Sought

Source are important to the historian because they contain particulars (or at least suggest
leads to primary particulars). The particulars they furnish are trustworthy because of the
reliability of the narrator as a witness of those particulars.

The Document

Document – docere: to teach; a written source of historical information as contrasted with

oral testimony or with artifacts, pictorial survivals, and archeological remains. It is
synonymous to source.

Two Types of Document Criticism:

1. External Criticism – checking the authenticity of the document; its physical

format
2. Internal Criticism – checking the credibility of the document
a. How close was the author to the event?
b. When was the account made?
c. Ability to tell the truth
d. Willingness to tell the truth
e. Is the account corroborated by other accounts?
i. Corroboration – a process of interview wherein the interviewees are
interviewed separately yet their stories align with one another (it is
likely that the event happened that way); the technique that evaluates
the quality of the answers by considering the trustworthiness of the
sources from which the answers are extracted.

Documentation – signifies the process of proof based upon any kind of source whether
written, oral, pictorial, or archeological

The Human and the Personal Document

The Human Document – an account of individual experience which reveals the individual’s
actions as a human agent and as a participant in SOCIAL LIFE. (from sociologist)

The Personal Document – any self-revealing record that intentionally or unintentionally

yields information regarding the structure, dynamics and functioning of the author’s
MENTAL LIFE. (from psychologist)

The two kinds of documents seem to have one essential characteristic in common: a
human, personal reaction to the events with which they deal. To both sociologist and
psychologist, it is the degree of subjectivity in these documents that distinguishes them
from other documents.

The difference between first-person and third-person document is not of major significance

1. Often an apparently third-person documents is in fact first-person

2. Genuinely third-person documents in so far as they are “historicable” must
ultimately rest on first-hand observation
3. Every document must exhibit to a greater or lesser extent the author’s
philosophies and emphases, likes and dislikes, and hence betrays the author’s
inner personality.

Whether a document is to be examined for what it reveals about its subject or for what it
reveals about its author—thus depends upon the examiner’s rather than the author’s
intention.

HISTORIAN’S TASK IN THE PHILIPPINES

Written by Fr. John Schumacher

 An American priest who wrote a history about the Philippines; a Jesuit in the
Philippines to teach in Ateneo; Rizal became the highlight of his story/work
because Rizal is also an Ateneo student
 One must have a background review about the author of a literature because the
experiences, values and principles of a person may reflect on his work.
 In his story, Rizal’s work pointed out controversial issue between the
political/state and religious existing in the Philippines
o The state wanted to publish Pres. of UP Rafael Palma’s work about
Rizal’s life. In 1949, namamayani yung komunismo sa South East Asia.
 Para maiwasan ng mga tao ang pagkakaroon ng ideyang komunismo,
naisip nilang ituro ang nasyonalismo/pagiging nasyonalista
o The bishops became against of lending or using government funds to
publish this book (Palma’s work) because it shows “anti-catholicism”
(exposing the wickedness of the friars: an ironic idea as someone that
serves under God)
o In 1956, naisabatas ang batas Rizal (3 units subject to take in college
about Rizal’s life)
o Rizal visited London Library for Antonio Morga’s (Spanish) book:
Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (published 1609) or Events in the
Philippine Islands: consists a history of the Philippines and the hopes
and dreams of the Spaniards for the Philippine. Nabigyan ni Rizal ng
POV ang mga Filipino kahit pa naisulat ito ng isang Kastila.

People with common origin and common experiences will constitute our national
identity.

 Naniniwala si Rizal na kailangan munang alamin ng mga tao ang nakaraan para
magkaroon ng koneksyon sa isa’t isa, wherein that connection will ignite unity
among the people. Once the people have this unity, the people will attain
national identity.

Lack of documentation is lack of history

 The Philippines cannot sustain or preserve documentaries due to its climate,

however according to John Schumacher, this shall not limit the Philippine’s
eagerness to learn their history as they may use the documentaries of other
States that is also pertaining to the Philippines or who have mentioned the
Philippines. The Filipino’s can learn the history or something from the history of
the Philippines by “reading between the lines” on these documentaries.

Cracks in Parchment Curtain and Other Essays in Philippine History by William Henry
Scott
  Implying that Filipinos may look upon these “cracks” to find the Filipinos in other
state’s/race’s documentaries. One should know how to question the documents
to reveal the potential messages of the document.

The Problems of Philippine History (observed by John Schumacher)

 Problem of overstudy – there’s much focus on a certain topic (isang topic,

maraming nag-aaral; napapabayaan na yung pag-aaral sa iba pang topic na
mahalaga din naman)
o Ex: Overstudying the Revolution of the Philippines – elitist history;
different regions had different approaches to the Revolution of the
Philippines yet it has been overlooked and the focus lies only within the
Luzon. The history never told anything about how other regions in the
Philippines reacted to this act.
 Problem of Generalization
 Problem of Method – can history be objective? History deals with people who are
naturally subjective. History can only be objective if the people will lessen, if not
eradicate, their emotions
o History should be supported by evidences
o The people must expand their horizons in dealing with the sources
(malawak na pang-unawan and open for information that could change
your opinion/position)

Historian’s Tasks in the Philippines

 The people’s history

 The Filipino people must be the primary agents of their history.
 The fidelity to the truth
The Philippine history should be written from the point of view of the masses, and it’s
about giving voice to the voiceless; it’s about giving face to the faceless.