Miko Johnson Ong Co
Orillos-Juan
Topic: History of History as a Discipline
Refer to the reading materials that were posted in your respective FB groups.
TOPICS
A. Definition of History
B. Emphasis of History in the
Western World
C. Traditional History
D. Nouvelle Histoire (New
History)
E. Definition/Etymology of
Kasaysayan as an indigenous
tradition in the Philippines
F. Types/Forms of Kasaysayan
11725702 KASPIL1 Dr.
Matrix-Notecards for the Reading Materials
NOTES / SOURCES
History has different etymologies, but according to Aristotle, it is “a
systematic account of a set of natural phenomena, whether or not
chronological ordering was a factor in the account.” It can be distinguished
as history-as-actuality and history-as-record, and mostly we know is the
latter as history has been formed by historians based on their imaginations
through analysis and observation on particulars, which are not by
themselves the historical event but merely results thereof. In order to
reconstruct history, both the historical method and historiography is
required.
The history of the Western world is often put emphasis on the history of
other countries, much like how the history of the stay of Spain in the
Philippines became “their” history instead of ours. The political and socio-
economic implications the Spaniards had made it seem as if it was their
history, being able to influence the Filipinos’ historical view and allowing
them to “succumb” to their culture, traditions, and basically the stigma to
live like them.
Traditional history calls for objectivity. It makes use of historical narratives
and explanations. The central themes are often about politics or famous
writers or stories about “great” or “noble” men.
Nouvelle Histoire (New History) is an approach that rejected the traditional
history, which comprised of the historical narratives, explanations of
historical events, objectivity-centered papers, and basically anything
deemed "inactive” to the methods of teaching students.
The etymology of kasaysayan is like the German Geschichte which means
story, or salaysay in Tagalog, an extended form of saysay. Basically, for
the indigenous natives, any event with significance or relevance is
kasaysayan and during their time, their belief in myths and gods. They
also viewed kasaysayan as cyclical in the sense of the eternal recurrence
of natural and human phenomena.
For our ancestors, their kasaysayan was revolving on the eternal
recurrence of natural and human phenomena, which led to myths and
legends. These myths and legends were what constituted the
“significance” of their lives. After the Spaniards came, a new type of
kasaysayan enlightened Filipinos, which is a linear system of change and
movement. Events were happening differently from time to time, and the
Hispanic colonial view was recognized by the whole archipelago. This was
in a bipartite view. The last form of kasaysayan was in a tripartite view
when Filipinos realized the political separation between Indios and
Spanish “elites,” which called for different propagandas. The kasaysayan

G. Historie/Historia/History vs.
Kasaysayan
Implications on the Study of
Philippine History
H. Elements of History
I. Historical Sources
Primary vs. Secondary
Written & Non-written
J. Historical Criticism: External
Criticism
K. Historical Criticism: Internal
Criticism
at this time was focused on Filipinos having their own capability to
progress, not being dictated by the historical ideologies of another country,
making their own events meaningful and as “Filipinos in the Philippines”
not “Spain in the Philippines.”
History is defined as merely investigation, whereas kasaysayan
emphasizes the meaning. History will only tell what happened, but
kasaysayan tells the story and its relevance on succeeding events or any
aspect. This led to a different way of studying the Philippine history, which
is through understanding the historical ideologies or beliefs of our
ancestors, which were initially personally influenced until the arrival of the
Spaniards, and fast forward until the rise of the propagandistas, that led to
their actions in creating history.
In order for something to be recognized as history, it must be able to be
accounted for in a human setting. History can be divided into two: history-
as-actuality and history-as-record. Regardless of the two, history will
require sources, be it original, primary or secondary. These sources can
be documents, artifacts, pictures, and other records, from which history is
derived upon through recreation of events that have resulted to the
sources. The sources have their authors or makers, and the date to which
they were made.
Primary sources are testimonies from first-hand witness. Primary sources
need not be original sources, so long as they came from observations of
the event at that moment when the event occurred. On the other hand,
secondary sources are not testimonies of first-hand witnesses, but
witnesses of passed on information.
A written source is anything documented on paper, be it an official paper
or any manuscript, so long as it is written. On the other hand, a non-
written source is any oral testimony, artifact, picture or archeological
remains that serve relevant to historians in determining historical events.
An external criticism of a historical fact would only require the identification
of the supposed author as well as the approximate date.
An internal criticism of a historical fact would require a series of internal
guesses to prove the authenticity of the author and the date. First, a
historian must be able to ask the right questions, which are in the form of
Interrogative Hypothesis. In identifying the author, one must be able to tell
whether the author was able to tell the truth through his nearness to the
event in terms of his location and time, his competence, degree of
attention, use of leading questions, if he is an intellectual or simply a
commoner, and his egocentrism. Next important investigation is if he is
willing to tell the truth through the checking of whether the author’s intent
was to mislead his audience, if he was part of say a judiciary process that
deprived him the right to explain all the details, and the like. The historian
must also check the conditions that favor a more credible testimony, such
as when the author is uninterested, leading to an unbiased work, whether
his statements were in contrary to his expectations, and other more.
Furthermore, the historian should also check for hearsay or secondary

L. Practical Uses of History
M. Practical Uses of Historical
Criticism
evidences since passed on information is not the credible. However, if the
primary source were honest and complete while the hearsay source were
competent to record everything, hearsay evidences can still be recognized
by historians as relevant. Lastly, corroboration is also important, especially
in checking whether there have been testimonies of two or more reliable
sources. However, since in recent observations it was discovered that
most witnesses consist of one person only, exemptions are permitted.
The practical uses of history are in order to determine the reasons behind
the occurrences of different events that might shed enlightenment to
current events, such as let’s say explanations of the reasons of wars in the
past that led to the continuous disagreement and unhealthy relationship
between two countries, to learn from the mistakes our ancestors have
committed and better