Danielle Eve Amoguis BSIT-2A

Module 3
Lesson 2

 Analysis (Let’s Think About it!)

1.) What is the significance of case study 1, that of Francisco Albo’s
log and the account of Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno
al mondo (First Voyage Around the World)?

Francisco Albo and Antonio Pigaffeta were both survivors and

eyewitnesses to the first mass held in the Philippines. Both of their works
contain the location of where the first mass held. Albo’s log mainly
focuses on the location of the expedition on certain dates and he did not
mention about the first mass. He only mentions the planting of the cross
upon a mountain top from which could be seen three islands to the west
and southwest which fits the southern end of Limsawa. However, since
Pigaffeta’s account is more complete and firmer than Albo’s log,
researchers used Pigaffeta’s account to conclude the location of the first
mass. Pigaffeta stated in his account that the first mass was held in
MazuaS on Easter Sunday, March 31.

2.) What is the significance of case study 2, i.e., the Cavite Mutiny?

The case study 2 of what happened in the Cavite Mutiny shows two
faces. The two faces were the biased perspective of the Spaniards, like
Jose Montero y Vidal and the Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo and the
perspective of the Filipinos and the unbiased eyewitnesses of the event,
like Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Edmund Plauchut. As Filipinos we
need to know the different sides and perspective of the story taken place
in the 1872 Cavity Mutiny as it holds another tragic yet meaningful part
our history. This event led to the awakening of nationalism among
Filipinos and to which Jose Rizal dedicated his books Noli me Tangere
and El Filibusterismo to, the GOMBURZA.
3.) What is the background of each author of the above mentioned
sources:
a. Francisco Albo;

Francisco Albo was born on the island of Rhodes and was the
pilot of the Victoria, the only ship to complete the first
circumnavigation. He kept a log of the voyage called Diario o
derrotero and is considered a primary source but the content is
limited and not as detailed as Antonio Pigafetta’s account.

b. Antonio Pigafetta;

Antonio Pigafetta was a Ventian scholar and explorer that

accompanied Magellan with his circumnavigation. His account is
considered the only primary source as it was narrated lucidly and
detailed as it had the dates of the events.

c. Jose Montero y Vidal

Jose Montero y Vidal was a prolific Spanish historian and writer

who specialized in documenting important events in the
Philippines. He was the one who documented the Cavite Mutiny in
1872.
d. Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo

Gov. Gen Rafael Izquierdo was a Spanish Military Officer,

politician and statesman, who was appointed by King Amadeo of
Spain as Governor-General of the Philippines. His report of the
Cavite Mutiny event was magnified and used it to implicate the
native clergy.
e. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera

He was a Filipino scholar, researcher and physician. Trinidad

Pardo de Tavera wrote about the Cavite Mutiny in the perspective
of the Filipinos. His uncle, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, was a patriot
and one of Filipino lawyers who were suspended from practicing
law and was arrested.

f. Edmund Plauchut.

Edmund Plauchut was a French journalist, writer and traveler who

left France in 1850 to join French trade operation in Manila,
Philippines. He was an eyewitness of the execution of the three
martyr priests and wrote an account on the Cavite Mutiny. His
account compliments Tavera’s account as it confirms that the
event happened due to the discontentment of the arsenal workers
and soldiers in Cavite fort.

4.) What is the context of each document in relation to the

controversial site of the first Catholic Mass in the Philippines?

Each of the documents had its flaws. The context of the location of the
first catholic mass was flawed since the locations navigated by the
Spaniards were inaccurate. From the video shown the maps drawn were
not accurate which I can understand since they did not have the sufficient
sources to claim what they were documenting was right. With Pigaffeta’s
account stating it was held in Butuan, he did not have proof of it being
there but Albo’s log described the place and it fits the description of
Limsawa.
5.) What is the context of each document in relation to the
conflicting accounts of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872?

The different perspectives gives us an idea of how Filipinos were

maltreated by the Spaniards. The accounts of Montero and the Gov. Gen.
were biased since it was seen from the Spanish perspective. After the
Cavite Mutiny, the Spanish government had to instill fear among the
Filipinos to prevent this from happening again and that is why the
GOMBURZA was executed. In the accounts of Travera and Plauchut
were the perspective of an eyewitness and Filipinos, which showed that
the Cavite Mutiny was a response to the injustice the Filipinos were
suffering from the Spanish regime.

6.) What is the contribution of Albo’s log and Pigafetta’s accounts

on the controversial site of the first Mass in the Philippines
towards understanding Philippine history especially in its 500 th
Year of Christianity?

Both Albo and Pigaffeta’s works contained the Philippines rich history
and our culture before we were colonized by their country. Though their
navigation was inaccurate thus naming some of the sites were wrong, we
had the chance to visualize how the mass went through Pigaffeta’s
account. And how this first mass marked the birth of Roman Catholicism
in the Philippines.

7.) What is the contribution of the differing accounts of the Cavity

Mutiny in 1872, i.e. the so-called Spanish accounts (Montero
and Izquierdo) and that of Pardo de Tavera’s and Edmund
Plauchut’s accounts in awakening Filipino nationalism?

Each of the accounts made were an eye opener since we got to see
the reason why the Cavite Mutiny happened. They held information about
the Cavite Mutiny in different perspectives and how this event led to the
awakening of Filipino nationalism. Both Monetero and Izquierdo’s
accounts were biased and Izequierdo used it to his advantage. With
Tavera and Plauchut’s accounts it unveiled the truth to why the event
happened.

 Application (Let’s Do It!)

1. Online Portfolio Writing Prompt. In 200 words or more, write a
reflection on the theme, “The importance of identifying bias and
agenda in historical interpretation.”

In order to know about history we need to have different sources

and perspectives. We need to see the event in the eyes of the historians
to know what is true and what is fabricated. Bias interpretations can also be
helpful since they focus only on their own perspective, with this we can
know what that person’s thoughts and beliefs are on that particular event.
But they can become very negative with the other side. Like how
Izquierdo’s account where he magnifies the event and puts the blame on
the Filipinos and embellished and fabricated lies. That is why we need to
find different sources to unveil which is true and which is not. Historians
need to be unbiased and have balanced opinions on what they are
documenting. We should be able to see the event in different angles not
just one.

We have different beliefs and thoughts which is why interpret

things differently from others. Both historians and readers need to be
skeptical. As a historian, they should have an agenda and select sources
that fits their agenda. Their agenda shows how they want their work to be
interpreted by the reader. What they intended to let the reader to know
about. And as a reader, they should also have an agenda, they need to
be clear on what they want to know. Getting different sources both biased
and unbiased to know analyze and understand the whole situation and
find support different claims. By reading different sources and identifying
the bias and agenda of the interpreter or historian we can see it in different
angles to further understand history
2. Organizing Facts. Students will create a table organizing the
arguments for and arguments against these two sites to explain
why the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, in
1998, decided that the site is in Limasawa.

Arguments Limasawa Butuan

Pro In Albo’s log he In Pigffeta’s account he
described the place to stated that the location
be a mountain top which of the first mass is
could be seen three Mazaua. To which the
islands to the west and historian Gabriel Atega
southwest which fits the argued that the shift
description of the from Butuan to
southern end of Limasawa occured after
Limasawa. the publication of
Robertson’s notes
therefore the first mass
was held in Butuan.
Contra Malvar stated that the Pigaffeta pointed out in
authentic Pigaffeta his account that it was
manuscript did not only after Magellan’s
contain the word death were they able to
Limasawa. Pigaffeta did go to Butuan. He vividly
state that the place was describes the trip in a
identified as Mazua to river.
which Malvar said is an
island near Butuan. With
the earthquakes the
island fused with the
mainland in 1902, today
Mazaua is thought to be
Marangay Masao which
is located in Butuan
City.
3. Identifying Agenda. Students will identify the agenda apparent
in the accounts of Cavite Mutiny by carefully reading the primary
sources and filling in the table below.

Montero and Izquierdo Pardo de Tavera and

Accounts Plauchut’s Accounts
Agenda Their agenda was to Their agenda was to
blame the Filipinos for unveil the truth behind
the Cavity Mutiny and the cause of the Cavite
claiming that they have Mutiny. The cause was
done nothing wrong to the injustice, this due to
cause this event. Izquierdo’s policies such
as the removal of
privileges enjoyed by
the laborers.
Quotes from accounts Montero highlighted that From their accounts
that support the it was an attempt of the they established the
identified agenda Filipinos to overthrow reason of the event
the Spanish which was injustice.
government. However, Filipinos were
with Izquierdo’s account discontent with how they
he magnified the event were treated. Izequierdo
and made use of it to policies and abolished
implicate the native the privileges enjoyed
clergy and reported to by the workers of
the King of Spain that Cavite. To which the
they wanted to friars and Izqueirdo took
overthrow the Spanish advantage of the
government to have situation fearing that the
their own ruler or king in Filipinos would gain the
the likes of Father power to overthrow the
Burgos and Zamora. government and
presented it to the
Spanish government as
a revolution to destroy
the Spanish
sovereignty. Which
Tavera confiremed that
the Spanish government
believed everything from
the reports of the friars
and Izquierdo and did
not even bother to
investigate the other ide
of the story.