{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16119/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16119","id":"gutenberg_16119","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16119","summary":null,"tags":["Block books -- Facsimiles","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Catechisms -- Spanish","Catholic Church -- Catechisms -- Tagalog","Christianity","Tagalog language -- Texts"],"text":"Produced by Jeroen Hellingman, Tamiko I. Camacho, and the\nPG Distributed Proofreaders Team\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: The Old-Tagalog characters used in this book are\nrepresented by capital letters.]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                        DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA\n\n             The First Book Printed in the Philippines.\n              Manila, 1593. A Facsimile of the Copy in\n                the Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection.\n                  Library of Congress, Washington.\n                     With an Introductory Essay\n                         By Edwin Wolf 2nd\n\n\n\n\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\n\n\nI want here to express my thanks and appreciation to Mr. Lessing\nJ. Rosenwald, through whose kindness this unique Doctrina was\npresented to the Library of Congress and with whom the idea of this\npublication originated. His interest and enthusiasm made possible\nmy work, and his friendly advice and encouragement have been both\nvaluable and heart-warming.\n\nI also wish to thank others who have given me great assistance. They\nare Dr. A.S.W. Rosenbach to whom I continually turned for advice,\nDr. Lawrence C. Wroth of the John Carter Brown Library and Dr. Leslie\nW. Dunlap of the Library of Congress who very kindly read over my\nmanuscript and gave me the benefit of their suggestions and criticisms,\nMr. David C. Mearns and Miss Elsie Rackstraw of the Library of Congress\nand Mrs. Ruth Lapham Butler of the Ayer Collection of the Newberry\nLibrary who so freely and generously made available to me the great\ncollections of works on the Philippines in their libraries, Dr. John\nH. Powell of the Free Library of Philadelphia who helped me find\nreference books of the utmost importance, and the many librarians\nwho courteously answered written queries about early Philippine\nmaterial.                                 EDWIN WOLF 2ND.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDOCTRINA CHRISTIANA\n\n\nThe first book printed in the Philippines has been the object of a hunt\nwhich has extended from Manila to Berlin, and from Italy to Chile,\nfor four hundred and fifty years. The patient research of scholars,\nthe scraps of evidence found in books and archives, the amazingly\naccurate hypotheses of bibliographers who have sifted the material\nso painstakingly gathered together, combine to make its history a\nbookish detective story par excellence.\n\nIt is easy when a prisoner has been arrested and brought to the dock to\ngive details of his complexion, height, characteristics and identifying\nmarks, to fingerprint him and to photograph him, but how inadequate\nwas the description before his capture, how frequently did false scents\ndraw the pursuer off the right track! It is with this in mind that we\nexamine the subject of this investigation, remembering that it has not\nbeen done before in detail. And, to complete the case, the book has\nbeen photographed in its entirety and its facsimile herewith published.\n\nIn studying the Doctrina Christiana of 1593 there are four general\nproblems which we shall discuss. First, we shall give a physical\ndescription of the book. Secondly, we shall trace chronologically the\nbibliographical history of the Doctrina, that is, we shall record the\navailable evidence which shows that it was the first book printed in\nthe Philippines, and weigh the testimonies which state or imply to\nthe contrary. Thirdly, we shall try to establish the authorship of\nthe text, and lastly, we shall discuss the actual printing.\n\nIt hardly needs be told why so few of the incunabula of the Philippines\nhave survived. The paper on which they were printed was one of the most\ndestructible papers ever used in book production. The native worms and\ninsects thrived on it, and the heat and dampness took their slower but\nequally certain toll. Add to these enemies the acts of providence of\nwhich the Philippines have received more than their share--earthquake,\nfire and flood--and the man-made devastations of war, combined with the\nfact that there was no systematic attempt made in the Philippines to\npreserve in archives and libraries the records of the past, and it\ncan well be understood why a scant handful of cradle-books have been\npreserved. The two fires of 1603 alone, which burned the Dominican\nconvent in Manila to the ground and consumed the whole of Binondo just\noutside the walls, must have played untold havoc upon the records of\nthe early missionaries. Perhaps the only copies of early Philippine\nbooks which exist today, unchronided and forgotten, are those which\nwere sent to Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, and may\nnow be lying uncatalogued in some library there.\n\nOne copy of this Doctrina was sent to Philip II by the Governor of\nthe Philippines in 1593; and in 1785 a Jesuit philologist, Hervas y\nPanduro, printed Tagalog texts from a then extant copy. Yet, since\nthat time no example is recorded as having been seen by bibliographer\nor historian. The provenance of the present one is but imperfectly\nknown. In the spring of 1946 William H. Schab, a New York dealer,\nwas in Paris, and heard through a friend of the existence of a 1593\nManila book. He expressed such incredulity at this information that his\nfriend, feeling his integrity impugned, telephoned the owner then and\nthere, and confirmed the unbelievable \"1593.\" Delighted and enthused,\nSchab arranged to meet him, found that he was a Paris bookseller and\ncollector who specialized in Pacific imprints and was fully aware of\nthe importance of the volume, and induced him to sell the precious\nDoctrina. He brought it back with him to the United States and offered\nit to Lessing J. Rosenwald, who promptly purchased it and presented it\nto the Library of Congress. Where the book had been before it reached\nParis we do not know. Perhaps it is the very copy sent to Philip II,\nperhaps the copy from which Hervas got his text. Indeed, it may\nhave been churned to the surface by the late Civil War in Spain,\nand sent from there to France. In the course of years from similar\nsources may come other books to throw more light upon the only too\npoorly documented history of the establishment of printing in the\nPhilippine Islands.\n\n\n\nTHE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION\n\n\nLet us first examine the book as it appears before us. The title-page\nreads:\n\n\n            Doctrina Christiana, en\n            lengua espanola ytagala, cor\n            regida por los Religiosos de las\n            ordenes Impressa con licencia, en\n            S. gabriel. de la orden de. S. Domigo\n            En Manila. 1593\n\n\nThe book, printed in Gothic letters and Tagalog [1] characters on\npaper made from the paper mulberry, now browned and brittle with age,\nconsists of thirty-eight leaves, comprising a title-page as above,\nunder a woodcut [2] of St. Dominic, with the verso originally blank,\nbut in this copy bearing the contemporary manuscript inscription,\n_Tassada en dos rreales_, signed _Juan de Cuellar_; and seventy-four\npages of text in Spanish, Tagalog transliterated into roman letters,\nand Tagalog in Tagalog characters. The size of the volume, which\nis unbound, is 9 1/8 by 7 inches, although individual leaves vary\nsomewhat due to chipping. Some of the leaves have become separated\nfrom their complements, but enough remain in the original stitching\nto indicate that the book was originally made up in four gatherings,\nthe first of twelve leaves, the second of ten, the third of ten, and\nthe fourth of six. Although the book is of the size called quarto,\nthe method of printing must have been page by page, so it is doubtful\nthat each sheet was folded twice in the usual quarto manner, but\nmore probable that it was printed four pages to a sheet of paper\napproximately 9 1/8 by 14 inches, which was folded once.\n\nThe volume is printed throughout by the xylographic method, that is to\nsay, each page of text is printed from one wood-block which was carved\nby hand. Along the inner margins of some pages are vertical lines which\nwere made by the inked edge of the block, and the grain of the wood has\ncaused striations to appear in the printed portions throughout. The\nunevenness of the impression indicates that the pages were printed\nin some primitive manner without the help of a conventional press.\n\nThe paper, which is one of the distinctive features of most old\nOriental books, has been discussed at length by Pardo de Tavera in\nhis study of early Philippine printing, and we can do no better than\ntranslate the relevant passage in full:\n\n\n    \"I have said before that the material composition of our\n    books is inferior. The imprints before 1830 were made on a\n    paper called by some rice paper, by others silk paper, and\n    by still others China paper, according to their taste. It\n    is detestable, brittle, without consistency or resistance,\n    and was called rice paper because it was supposed to be\n    made from that grain. It was the only kind then used in the\n    Philippines, not only for printing, but for all manner of\n    writing, letters, etc., and it is even recorded that in 1874\n    when tobacco was a state monopoly, cigarettes were made with\n    this paper, and that the Indians and Chinese preferred it\n    (and perhaps they still do) to rag paper or other kinds,\n    because of the horrible taste it gives the tobacco.\n\n    \"In China they commonly made paper of bamboo, but more\n    principally from cotton and a plant which travellers have cited\n    only by its common name, which they transcribe in various ways,\n    calling it _kochu_, _kotsu_, or _kotzu_. Today it is known\n    that this plant is an ulmacea (_Broussonetia papyrifera_)\n    from a mash of which they still make cloth in Japan. Cotton\n    paper is superior to it, and naturally more expensive; but\n    the paper of inferior quality which was received in Manila,\n    where nothing was imported regularly but common articles of low\n    price, was of _kotsu._ As all Chinese-made paper it was coated\n    with alum, the finer [the paper] the thicker [the coating],\n    for the purpose of whitening it and making the surface smooth,\n    a deplorable business, for it made the paper very moisture\n    absorbent, a condition fatal in such a humid climate as\n    in these islands. Moreover, as the alum used is impure and\n    contains a large proportion of iron salts, the humidity and\n    weather oxidize it which finally darkens the paper, so that\n    Philippine books present a coloration which runs the gamut\n    of tones from the color of bone to that of dark cinnamon.\" [3]\n\n\nBecause the Doctrina Christiana, which may well be translated \"The\nTeachings of Christianity,\" contains the basic elements of the religion\nwhich the missionaries were trying to spread among the unbaptized\nin the remote regions of the world, it was the most useful handbook\nthey had. A summary of the contents of the present edition shows the\nfundamental character of the work. After a syllabary comes the Pater\nNoster, the primary and most popular prayer of Christianity. Then\nfollow the Ave Maria, Credo, Salve Regina, Articles of Faith, Ten\nCommandments, Commandments of the Holy Church, Sacraments of the Holy\nChurch, Seven Mortal Sins, Fourteen Works of Charity, Confession\nand Catechism. Here in a small compass is presented the simplest,\nmost easily learned and most essential tenets of the Catholic Church.\n\nSo useful was the Doctrina considered as a guide for those who had\njust been, or were about to be, converted that the missionary fathers\nplaced it in most cases foremost among the books necessary to have\nin print in a strange land. It is generally accepted today, although\nno extant copy is known, that the first book printed in Mexico [4]\nin 1539 was a Doctrina in Mexican and Spanish. Recent research has\nshown that the second book printed by the pioneer Jesuit press at Goa,\nin India, in 1557 was St. Francis Xavier's _Doutrina Christao_ [5]\nin the Malay language, of which also no copy has yet been located. But\nthere are copies of the first book to come from a South American press,\nanother Doctrina [6] printed in the native and Spanish languages at\nLima in 1584. So the choice of this book as the first to be printed\nat Manila follows a widespread precedent.\n\nWe have then a book, the Doctrina Christiana, in Spanish and Tagalog,\ncorrected by priests of more than one order--and this is important\nin tracing the authorship of the work--and printed by the xylographic\nmethod with license at Manila at the Dominican Church of San Gabriel\nin 1593. So much we get from the title, and in itself it is a fairly\ncomplete story, but from the date of its issue until the present time\nthat very fundamental information has not been completely recorded.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY\n\n\nIn tracing our clues down through the years, we find at the very\nbeginning the most valuable evidence which has been uncovered, short\nof the book itself. From Manila on June 20, 1593, the Governor of the\nPhilippines, Gomez Perez Dasmarinas, wrote a letter to Philip II of\nSpain in which he said:\n\n\n    \"Sire, in the name of Your Majesty, I have for this once,\n    because of the existing great need, granted a license for the\n    printing of the Doctrinas Christianas, herewith enclosed--one\n    in the Tagalog language, which is the native and best of these\n    islands, and the other in Chinese--from which I hope great\n    benefits will result in the conversion and instruction of the\n    peoples of both nations; and because the lands of the Indies\n    are on a larger scale in everything and things more expensive,\n    I have set the price of them at four reales a piece, until Your\n    Majesty is pleased to decree in full what is to be done.\" [7]\n\n\nThis states unequivocally that two books were printed at Manila some\ntime before June 20, 1593, one of which was the Doctrina in Tagalog,\nand the other the same work in Chinese. Although we are chiefly\nconcerned here with the former, the fact that they were produced at\nabout the same time and probably at the same place makes it necessary\nto trace the history of both in order to reconstruct the circumstances\nsurrounding the production of the one. Of the Chinese Doctrina no\ncopy has yet come to light, and except for two 1593 references,\nthere are no records of its existence.\n\nAnother document [8] of 1593 verifies the information given in the\nletter of Dasmarinas, differing from it only in one detail. In the\nArchives of the Indies was found a manuscript account of 1593 listing\nbooks written in the Philippines, which says:\n\n\n    \"There have been printed primers and catechisms of the faith,\n    one in Spanish and Tagalog, which is the native language, and\n    the other in Chinese, which are being sent to Your Majesty,\n    the Tagalog priced at two reales and the Chinese at four,\n    which is hoped will be of great benefit.\"\n\n\nThe accounts of the printing of two Doctrinas contained in these\ndocuments confirm some of the information of the title and add a bit\nmore. First, the letter says that the book was printed by permission\ngiven by the Governor, which agrees with the \"with license\" of the\ntitle, \"for this once because of the existing great need.\" By a royal\ncedula [9] of September 21, 1556, which was promulgated again on August\n14, 1560, it had been ordered that Justices \"not consent to or permit\nto be printed or sold any book containing material concerning the\nIndies without having special license sent by our Royal Council of the\nIndies,\" and on May 8, 1584 this was implemented by the further order\n\"that when any grammar or dictionary of the language of the Indies be\nmade it shall not be published, or printed or used unless it has first\nbeen examined by the Bishop and seen by the Royal Audiencia.\" This\nlatter portion was applied specifically to the Philippines in a letter\n[10] from Philip II to the Audiencia of Manila, also dated May 8,\n1584, to which further reference will be made. It can be gathered\nfrom Dasmarinas' implied apology that he had never before given such\na license, and, since he had arrived in the Philippines in 1590, that\nno books had been printed between that time and the licensing of the\nDoctrinas. It is, moreover, likely that if any similar books had been\nprinted during the administrations of his predecessors he would have\nmentioned the fact as a precedent for acting contrary to the cedulas.\n\nAccording to Dasmarinas he had priced the books at four reales a\npiece, which followed the regular Spanish procedure, under which\nbooks were subject to price control. The Governor, it will be noted,\nalso apologized for the high price he was forced to set, giving\ngeneral high prices [11] as his excuse. Yet, while the appraisal of\nfour reales for this book was high compared to the prevailing scale\nin Spain, it was not high compared to prices allowed in Mexico. On\nJune 6, 1542 the Emperor had given the Casa de Cromberger, the first\nprinting-house in Mexico, permission [12] to sell books printed there\nat seventeen maravedis a sheet, or exactly one half a real. If we\nassume that, although the Doctrina had been printed page by page,\nit was quarto in size and so appraised on the basis of eight pages\nto a sheet, we find that the price per sheet comes to about fourteen\nmaravedis, or less than half a real. However, a contradiction occurs\nbetween the letter of Dasmarinas and this copy of the Doctrina,\nsupported by the other 1593 document. On the verso of the title, Juan\nde Cuellar, [13] the Governor's secretary and the logical person to\nsign the official valuation, gives the price as two reales, and the\n1593 account, while agreeing with the letter as far as the Chinese\nDoctrina is concerned, also lists the price of the Tagalog Doctrina\nas two reales. It is impossible to say what caused the discrepancy;\nperhaps it was a decision on Dasmarinas' part to lower the cost,\nnotwithstanding inflationary values, in order to make the book more\nreadily available for the natives who were not economically as well\noff as the Chinese, or it could be that after the letter had been\nwritten it was noticed that the Chinese volume was larger than the\nTagalog one, and some adjustment made. In any event, the price of this\nDoctrina was finally set at two reales, making it less than half the\nprice allowed in Mexico fifty years before.\n\nThe evidence of the two 1593 documents would seem conclusive with\nregard to printing in 1593, but witnesses were not long in appearing\nwho stated something quite different. The earliest of these was\nPedro Chirino, [14] a Jesuit priest, who came to the Philippines with\nDasmarinas in 1590. He went back to Europe in 1602, and while there\nhad a history of the Philippines printed at Rome in 1604. In 1606 he\nreturned to the islands, where he died in 1635. He left unpublished\nthe manuscript of another and more detailed history, dated 1610,\nwhich contains a most significant passage, where, after speaking of\nvarious early writers in native languages, he continues:\n\n\n    \"Those who printed first were; P. Fr. Juan de Villanueva of\n    the Order of St. Augustine [who printed] certain little tracts,\n    and P. Fr. Francisco de San Joseph of the Order of St. Dominic\n    [who printed] larger things of more bulk.\" [15]\n\n\nConcerning this Juan de Villanueva [16] very little indeed is\nknown. From what has been recorded it would seem that there were two\nAugustinians of the same name who were in the Philippines before\n1600. The first of these was a secular priest who came to Cebu\nabout 1566, may have taken the Augustinian habit some time after his\narrival, and died not long after 1569. The other Juan de Villanueva,\nthe date of whose arrival is unknown, was in Lubao in 1590, in Hagonoy\nin 1593, and prior of Batangas from 1596 until his death in 1599. Of\nthe two there can be no doubt but that Chirino referred to the second\none. But, apart from Chirino's note, there is no record anywhere that\nworks by him existed, nor do the Augustinian chroniclers themselves,\nexcept for the modern Santiago Vela who knew of Chirino's citation,\nmention him as a linguist or a writer. The only possibility is that\nbetween 1593 and 1599 Villanueva had printed some small xylographic\nbooks no copies and no further record of which have appeared.\n\nAs for Francisco de San Joseph, or Blancas de San Jose as he is more\nfrequently called, there are other references to his part in the\nestablishment of printing in the islands. From information doubtless\nobtained from Diego Aduarte, then in Spain, Alonso Fernandez wrote\nin his ecclesiastical history, printed at Toledo in 1611:\n\n\n    \"Father Fr. Francisco Blancas printed in the Tagalog language\n    and characters a book of Our Lady of the Rosary in the year\n    1602, which was the first book that was printed there of\n    that or any other material. After this he printed another of\n    the sacraments in the language of the Philippines, in both\n    characters, theirs and ours, from which the greatest results\n    have been achieved.\" [17]\n\n\nTwo years later the same author published at Madrid an account [18]\nof the miracles performed by the Rosary of the Virgin, in which he\nincluded a list of \"Of some writers of the Order of St. Dominic who\nwere living in this year 1612,\" and gave the same information as above,\nadding only that the printing took place in Bataan.\n\nDiego Aduarte, [19] whose history of the Dominican province of the\nPhilippines is one of the best contemporary ones written, bears out\nthese statements of which he was most probably the source. Aduarte came\nto the islands in company with his close friend Blancas de San Jose\nin 1595, went back to Spain as procurator of his order in 1607, and\nreturned to Manila in 1628, staying in the Orient until his death in\n1636. His history was continued and edited after his death by a fellow\nDominican, Domingo Goncalez, who had it printed in 1640. Summarizing\nthe life and accomplishments of Blancas de San Jose, Aduarte wrote:\n\n\n    \"So he was sent to Bataan, which is near there [Manila],\n    where he learned the language of the Indians, called Tagalog,\n    which is the most common in this country and is used among the\n    Indians for many leagues around the city. So rapid was his\n    study of the language that he began to preach in it within\n    three months, and could teach it to others in six.... And\n    believing that he was the instrument needed to bring the holy\n    gospel to the Indians, he spared no pains to investigate the\n    fitness of their words, the way to use them, and all the rest\n    so that he could succeed in mastering it.... He wrote many\n    books of devotion for them, and since there was no printing\n    in these islands, and no one who understood it or who was\n    a journeyman printer, he planned to have it done through a\n    Chinaman, a good Christian, who, seeing that the books of\n    P. Fr. Francisco were sure to be of great use, bestowed so\n    much care upon this undertaking that he finally succeeded,\n    aided by those who told him whatever they knew about it,\n    in learning everything necessary to do printing; and he\n    printed these books. . . . He [Blancas de San Jose] printed\n    a grammar to learn the Tagalog language, a memorial of the\n    Christian life, a book on the four last things, another on the\n    preparation for the communion, a confessionary, another on the\n    mysteries of the Rosary of Our Lady, and another to teach the\n    Tagalog Indians the Spanish language, and he left many very\n    pious and curious works in the language of these Indians.\" [20]\n\n\nBlancas de San Jose, [21] as we have noted, came to the Philippines in\n1595. He was at Abucay in Bataan from 1598 until 1602, and then spent\nseveral years in and about Manila, preaching to the Indians and the\nChinese, whose language he also mastered. In 1614 he set out for Spain,\nbut died on the voyage before reaching Mexico. Of the books which he is\nsaid to have had printed, only two are known to be extant, the _Arte\ny Reglas de la Lengva Tagala_ [22] and the _Librong Pagaaralan nang\nmanga Tagalog nang uicang Castilla_ [23] (or _Libro en qve aprendan\nlos Tagalos, la lengua Castellana_), both printed at Bataan in 1610,\nand until the discovery of the present Doctrina and the _Ordinationes_\nof 1604 the earliest surviving Philippine imprints known.\n\nWe have not cited here in detail the account of Juan Lopez [24] in\nthe fifth part of his history of the Dominicans, because, although it\nwas printed nineteen years before the appearance of Aduarte's work,\nthe information therein contained regarding the Philippines was\nacknowledgedly obtained from the unfinished manuscript which Aduarte\nhad with him in Spain. The pertinent passages add nothing to Aduarte's\ninformation, and even the wording is reminiscent of his.\n\nThe first suggestion that early Philippine books may have been printed\nfrom wood-blocks occurred in Quetif and Echard's bibliography of\nDominican writers printed at Paris in 1719. There, after listing\neight works by Blancas de San Jose, they add:\n\n\n    \"He published all these in the Philippines with the help\n    of a Chinese Christian using Chinese blocks, for in his day\n    European typographers had not yet arrived in those islands,\n    nor did they have types for their language.\" [25]\n\n\nThis was an amazing suggestion, for as far as we know the\nbibliographers who made it had not actually seen the books; nor is it\nentirely true. The first two works listed are two books we know were\nprinted typographically in 1610. The sixth is _De los mysterios del\nRosario de nuestra Senora Tagalice_, the book referred to by Fernandez\nas having been printed in 1602, and generally accepted as being from\nmovable type, although no copy has been discovered to prove it. And\nyet, it is not at all impossible that some time before 1602 Blancas de\nSan Jose had some of his writings printed from blocks. In any event,\nthe idea, later developed by Medina and Retana, that xylography was\nused before a real printing-press was established, may have come from\nthis not wholly accurate note.\n\nFor almost a hundred and fifty years no historian or bibliographer\nwrote anything to challenge the basic affirmations of Chirino,\nFernandez and Aduarte. In the middle of the 18th century, Lorenzo\nHervas y Panduro, [26] a Jesuit, was forced by the expulsion of the\nJesuits from Spain to seek refuge in the Papal States, and took up\nresidence at Cesena. There he began work on a tremendous universal\nhistory of the spiritual development of man, into which he wove the\nresults of his philosophical, social and linguistic studies. These\nlast were of particular importance, and Hervas is regarded as the true\nfounder of the science of linguistics and comparative philology. In\n1785 he published the eighteenth volume of his massive work, the\n_Origine, formazione, meccanismo, ed armonia degl' idiomi_, in which\nhe printed a Tagalog Ave Maria as written in 1593, with the note:\n\n\n    \"The Ave Maria in the Tagalog of 1593 is to be read in the\n    Tagalog-Spanish Doctrina Christiana which was printed in\n    Tagalog and roman characters by the Dominican fathers in\n    their printing-house at Manila in the year 1593.\" [27]\n\n\nIn 1787 he finished his twenty-first volume, _Saggio pratico_, [28]\nwhich was another philological study, including the Pater Noster\nin over three hundred languages and dialects, among them Tagalog,\nagain from the 1593 Doctrina. Here, then, is ample proof that a copy\nof this book was known to Hervas in 1785, and the only information\nwhich his loose transcription of the title failed to give was that\nthe volume was \"corrected by members of the orders,\" that it was\nprinted with license, and that it was printed at San Gabriel.\n\nAt the beginning of the following century two German scholars, familiar\nwith Hervas' writings, noted the 1593 Doctrina. Franz Carl Alter, [29]\nin his monograph on the Tagalog language, printed the Ave Maria from\nthe text which had appeared in 1785, and Johann Christoph Adelung,\n[30] in his _Mithridates_, a comprehensive study of languages,\nincluded the Tagalog Pater Noster from the _Saggio pratico_ of\n1787. The latter also listed in a short bibliography of the Tagalog\nlanguage the Doctrina of 1593, giving exactly the same information\nabout it that Hervas had. Neither of these men apparently saw a copy\nof the book, limiting themselves to extracts from Hervas, but they\nperpetuated an earlier reference of the utmost importance.\n\nShortly after the two Germans published their notices of the 1593\nDoctrina an entry appeared of a book printed at Manila in 1581. Jose\nMariano Beristain y Sousa, a learned Mexican writer, issued in\n1819-21 a bibliography of Spanish-American books, in which he listed\nalphabetically the authors, giving a short biography of each and\nadding a list of his works. Under Juan de Quinones we find:\n\n\n    \"'Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Tagala,' Imp. en Manila,\n    1581.\" [31]\n\n\nNo specific authority is given for this entry, but in his sketch of\nthe life of Quinones Beristain cited as sources, Juan de Grijalva,\nNicolas Antonio, Gaspar de San Agustin, and Jose Sicardo. It would\nseem logical that one of these must have mentioned such a work as\nprinted in Manila in 1581, but in tracing down the sources no such\nprecise notice is found.\n\nGrijalva simply said that Quinones \"concerned himself with Tagalog and\nmade a vocabulary and grammar of it.\" [32] Antonio [33] referred to\nGrijalva, and carried the matter no further. San Agustin, describing\nthe Franciscan chapter of 1578, wrote:\n\n\n    \"It was determined moreover in this chapter that P. Fr. Juan\n    de Quinones, prior of the Convent of Taal in Tagalos, and\n    Fr. Diego de Ochoa, prior of Bacolor in Pampanga, should\n    compose and fashion grammars, dictionaries, and confessionaries\n    in the two languages [respectively Tagalog and Pampanga] in\n    which they had ventured; which they executed very promptly\n    and well, and these were of great use to those who came to\n    these islands, for they had these by which they could study\n    the languages.\" [34]\n\n\nLater, San Agustin, again mentioning Quinones, referred to Grijalva,\nand added as an additional source for his information Tomas de\nHerrera. Sicardo [35] added nothing new. Herrera, not cited directly\nby Beristain, may however have been the source from which the \"Imp.\" of\nhis entry came. Herrera wrote:\n\n\n    \"He [Quinones] was the first to have learned the Tagalog\n    language of which he published a grammar and dictionary as\n    an aid to the ministers of the gospel.\"\n\n\nIf Beristain read this, he may have been misled by the Latin of\n\"published,\" [36] _in lucem edidit_, which may indeed mean printed\nand published, but also means quite properly published in the sense\nof written in manuscript and copied and circulated. We agree with\nSchilling [37] that this latter meaning was the one intended. One\nother statement that Quinones' works were printed may derive from\nthe same misunderstanding. About the year 1801 Pedro Bello wrote an\naccount, still in manuscript and unpublished, of the writings of the\nAugustinians. His remarks on Quinones, first printed by Santiago Vela\n[38], we believe are only an extension of Herrera's _in lucem edidit_.\n\nThis same confusion in terminology has been used [39] to support\nBeristain's claim by introducing as evidence the letter of Philip II of\nMay 8, 1584. Salazar, the Bishop of Manila, probably shortly after the\nSynod of 1582, had written the King a letter, now unfortunately lost,\nin which he spoke of a decision to standardize linguistic works. In\nanswer to the Bishop, the following letter in the form of a royal\ncedula was sent:\n\n\n    \"To the President and Judges of my Royal Audiencia situated\n    in the city of Manila in the Philippine Islands.--It has been\n    told me on behalf of Don Fray Domingo de Salazar, Bishop of\n    that place, that it was agreed that no priest might make a\n    grammar or vocabulary, and that if it were made it might not\n    be published before being examined and approved by the said\n    Bishop, because otherwise there would result great differences\n    and disagreements in the doctrine; and this having been seen\n    by my Council of the Indies, it was agreed that I should\n    order this my cedula which decrees that when any grammar or\n    vocabulary be made it shall not be published or used unless\n    it has first been examined by the said Bishop and seen by\n    this Audencia.\" [40]\n\n\nHere again the word _publicado_ is brought forth to prove that the\nletter referred to printed works, but here again the term is equally\napplicable to manuscript works in common use and generally available.\n\nFurther evidence that there was no printing as early as 1581 is to be\nfound in a letter [41] from Juan de Plasencia, a Tagalist of great\nrenown, to the King, dated from Manila, June 18, 1585, in which he\nreported on the state of missionary work in China and Japan, and added\nthat he had written a grammar and a declaration of the whole Doctrina\nin the most common language of the Philippines, and that he was then\nmaking a dictionary, concluding by asking the King to send decrees\nordering those works to be printed in Mexico at the expense of the\nExchequer. Is it likely that Plasencia would have so written if an\n_Arte y Vocabulario_ had been printed four years earlier? Furthermore,\nSan Antonio, recording the book on the customs and rites of the Indians\nwritten by Plasencia at the request of the Governor Santiago de Vera,\nand dated October 24, 1589, said that it was not printed \"because\nprinting houses had not yet come to this country.\" [42]\n\nWe then conclude with regard to Beristain's entry, that although\nthere existed in manuscript an _Arte y Vocabuldrio Tagalo_ by Juan de\nQuinones, there is no evidence of the existence of any book printed\nfor him from wood-blocks or in type. Santiago de Vela [43] suggests\nthe possibility that there might have been a xylographic _Arte_ of\n1581, but Schilling [44] questions this in the face of the complete\nlack of reference to such a printed work by any 17th or 18th century\nwriter, and the tenuous notices of Bello and Beristain; yet to say\ncategorically that no such work was printed would be foolhardy in the\nface of the scanty early records and the appearance of this Doctrina,\na single copy of which has just been discovered.\n\nThe first important work devoted solely to the early history of the\nPhilippine press was by T.H. Pardo de Tavera, who in 1893 published\nhis study of printing and engraving in the Philippines. He there\nrecorded a 1593 Doctrina, but adamantly refused to accept it on the\nhearsay evidence of others. His account is valuable because it shows\nthat there may have been a copy of the Doctrina in Java in 1885,\nand so we quote from it at some length:\n\n\n    \"A learned Dutch orientalist, Dr. J. Brandes, wrote me in 1885\n    from Bali-Boeleleng (Java) telling me that in 1593 at Manila\n    there was printed a Doctrina Christiana in Spanish-Tagalog,\n    with the proper characters for the latter language. Other\n    orientalists, at the last Congress in London in 1891, gave\n    me the same information. Nonetheless, no one told me where\n    he had read such a thing, nor much less that he had managed\n    to see such a book, although inspecting a rare book which\n    I acquired in Paris (Alter, _Ueber die tagalische sprache_,\n    Vienna, 1803), I saw that the author cited such a Doctrina\n    Christiana and said that he knew of its existence through Abbe\n    Hervas. This is an error, and without doubt such a Doctrina was\n    in manuscript, because in 1591 [he should have said 1593] there\n    was no press in Manila nor in any part of the archipelago,\n    and today we know for certain and positively that the first\n    book issued there appeared in 1610.\" [45]\n\n\nPardo de Tavera was the first to call attention to Alter, and through\nhim to Hervas, and in all probability the orientalists at the London\nCongress had seen the Doctrina cited by one of these or Adelung. But he\nrejects that evidence in no uncertain terms. Mitigating somewhat his\nassurance, he speaks following the above-quoted passage of printing\nin China, and differentiates between xylographic and typographic\nprinting, and since he was obviously thinking in terms of printing\non a press with movable type his conclusions are not too extreme.\n\nIn 1896 appeared Jose Toribio Medina's _La Imprenta en Manila_, which\nwas up to then the best, most complete and most scholarly work on early\nPhilippine printing, and is today with its subsequent additions and\ncorrections the standard bibliography of the subject. There Medina\ncited most of the authorities we have already quoted, the letter of\nDasmarinas, Fernandez' _Historia eclesiastica_, Aduarte, Adelung,\nBeristain and Pardo de Tavera. Then, basing his conclusions strongly\non the Dasmarinas letter and the note of Adelung, he listed [46]\nas number one in his bibliography the Doctrina of 1593 in Spanish\nand Tagalog, and as number two the Doctrina in Spanish and Chinese\nof the same year. This is a verdict which has stood the test of\ntime, and one that is just now confirmed by the discovery of the\nbook itself. Two points, however, in his survey should be noted. In\nhis discussion of the printing and the authorship Medina does not\nemphasize the Dominican origin of the book, although he does say that\n\"it does not appear bold to us to suppose that the imprint of these\nDoctrinas ought to be the Hospital of San Gabriel in this village\n[Binondo],\" [47] and faithfully copies Adelung's imprint notice, \"in\nthe Dominican printing-house,\" in his listing of the book. The other\npoint is that he says in his introduction and repeats in his entry\nthat the Doctrina had a Latin as well as Spanish and Tagalog texts,\nan erroneous translation of Adelung's \"mit lateinische und tagalische\nSchrift.\" He was hesitant as are all bibliographers, who must perforce\nrecord the probable existence of a book a copy of which they have\nnever seen, in committing himself as to whether it was printed from\nblocks or from type or by a combination of the two methods.\n\nMore positive and more succinct than Medina was T.E. Retana whose\nearlier researches [48] into the history of the Philippines Medina\nacknowledgedly made use of, and who in 1897 published his _La Imprenta\nen Filipinas, Adiciones y Observaciones a La Imprenta en Manila_. He\ntook the material of Medina, added the evidence of Chirino and\nPlasencia, and resummarized the problem. The letter of Dasmarinas\nshowed conclusively that a Doctrina was printed in 1593. Chirino said\nthat the first two whose works were printed were Juan de Villanueva and\nBlancas de San Jose. Fernandez stated positively that the first book\nprinted in the Philippines was the book of Our Lady of the Rosary by\nBlancas de San Jose printed at Bataan in 1602. Aduarte supported this\nwithout mentioning a title, place or date of printing. If we are to\naccept all these statements as incontrovertible, how can the apparent\ncontradictions be reconciled? The answer had already been hinted at,\nbut Retana solved the problem with amazing acumen, and arrived at\nfour conclusions, which are here printed in his own words:\n\n\n    \"A--That the Doctrinas of 1593, though printed at Manila, were\n    not executed in type, but by the so-called xylographic method;\n\n    B--That the initiative for the establishment of _typography_\n    is owed to P. Fr. Francisco Blancas de San Jose;\n\n    C--That the first _typographer_ was the Chinese Christian\n    Juan de Vera at the instigation of the said Father San Jose;\n\n    D--That the first _typographical_ printing of this Dominican\n    author is of the year 1602.\" [49]\n\n\nIt is not difficult to say with the book itself in front of us,\nthat it is an example of xylographic printing, but it was a great\nfeat on the part of Retana, who had never seen a copy, to resolve\napparently irreconcilable differences of opinion on the part of\nseveral unquestioned authorities by deducing that it was all a\nmatter of semantics--what did _printing_ mean? As for the sprite of\n1581 introduced by Beristain, Retana dismissed it on the grounds of\ninsufficient evidence. In a word, he concluded that the first book\nissued in the Philippines was a Doctrina printed from wood-blocks\nin 1593.\n\nAll subsequent writers on the subject have derived their information\nfrom the sources we have already mentioned, and to a great degree\nhave been influenced by the findings of Medina and Retana. The\nRev. Thomas Cooke Middleton [50] in 1900 confessed that he did not\nknow what the first book printed was. Pardo de Tavera maintained his\nold intransigence, when in the introduction to his bibliography for\nthe Library of Congress in 1903 he wrote that Medina's affirmation\nthat printing took place in 1593 \"loses all validity in the face of\nthe categorical statement of F. Alonso Fernandez.\" [51] Medina did\nnot comment further in his _Adiciones y Ampliaciones_ [52] of 1904,\nyet when the same year Perez and Gueemes [53] published their additions\nto and continuation of Medina, bringing his bibliography down to\n1850, they resurrected the 1581 _Arte_, but added no new evidence\nto prove their case. Blair and Robertson, in their tremendous,\ncollective history of the Philippines, did not include a list of\nPhilippine imprints in their bibliography, [54] but referred readers\nto Medina and Retana with whom they agreed. To celebrate the three\nhundredth anniversary of typographical printing in the Philippines\nArtigas y Cuerva [55] wrote a study which emphasized the part played\nby Blancas de San Jose, but did not deny the existence of the 1593\nDoctrina. Retana [56] in 1911 brought his work on the subject up to\ndate, but retained all his major conclusions. In Palau's standard\nbibliography of Spanish books we find the Doctrinas called \"the two\nearliest books known to have been printed in Manila.\" [57] Finally, the\nmost thorough recent work on the subject is to be found in Schilling's\n[58] survey of the early history of the Philippine press published in\n1937. There is little that can be added to the evidence uncovered by\nthese modern writers, but the appearance of the book itself enables\nus to say with certainty some things which they were able only to\nsurmise. However, as regards the authorship and the circumstances and\nplace of printing we are able, from the information given on the title,\nto carry the investigation somewhat further.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUTHORSHIP OF THE TEXT\n\n\nThe title tells us that the book was \"corrected\" by the priests of\nmore than one order, and since it was printed by the Dominicans,\nwe can assume that the ultimate responsibility for the preparation\nof the text in consultation with friars of other orders also lay\nin their hands. Our problem then is to discover what texts were\navailable to them in 1593 and who were the priests who formed the\neditorial board. We have included in this study also the origins of\nthe Chinese text, for the two Doctrinas appeared at the same time,\nand as we shall see the same Dominicans were probably responsible for\nthe production and preparation of both the Tagalog and the Chinese\ntexts. During the period under discussion there were priests of four\norders active in the islands, and so we shall speak in turn of the\nAugustinian, Franciscan, Jesuit and Dominican fathers who might have\nwritten or worked on the Doctrinas printed in 1593.\n\n\n\nTHE AUGUSTINIANS\n\n\nThe first priests to come to the Philippines were six Augustinians\nwho accompanied Legazpi on the expedition which in 1565 established\nthe first permanent European settlement in the islands. Among them\nwas Martin de Rada, who was one of the most important and influential\npriests during the early days of the Spanish colony, and who was the\nfirst linguist of note to work in the Philippines. The first language\nhe learned was Visayan, [59] native to the island of Cebu where the\nSpaniards first landed, but he also learned Chinese. In May 1572 he\nwas elected provincial of his order, and in June 1575 he went with\nJeronimo Marin, as ambassador to China, being \"the first Spaniard\nwho entered into that said kingdom.\" [60] In preparation for the\nvoyage, we are told by Gonzalez de Mendoza, whose famous and popular\nhistory of China first printed in 1585 derives in a great measure from\ninformation brought back by Rada, that Rada \"began with great care &\nstudie to learne that language [Chinese], the which he learned in\nfew daies: & did make thereof a dictionarie.\" [61] Rada was then not\nonly the first to write in Visayan, but also the first to compile a\nChinese dictionary, and more important still brought back with him\nto Manila from China many books of which Mendoza gives a list. [62]\nThese books, printed in the usual Chinese method from wood-blocks,\ncould have provided models for the Spaniards in the Philippines who\nlacked European facilities for printing, and they may have given\nbirth to the idea which resulted in the xylographic Doctrinas.\n\nWithin the first few years several more Augustinian fathers [63]\narrived whose linguistic accomplishments are briefly noted by the\nhistorians, but while these men were certainly pioneers in the speaking\nof Tagalog and Chinese, they are not recorded as having written in\nthe language. According to Cano, [64] the first Tagalog grammar was\nwritten by Agustin de Alburquerque, and Retana [65] considered him\none of the possible authors of the present Doctrina. This friar\nreached the Philippines in 1571, accompanied Rada on his second\nexpedition to China in 1576, was elected provincial in 1578, and died\nin 1580. However, there is no early record saying that Alburquerque\nwrote any linguistic work. The statement was not made until the 19th\ncentury, and in contradiction Juan de Medina, who wrote in 1630,\nsaid that Juan de Quinones \"made a grammar and lexicon of the Tagal\nlanguage, which was the first to make a start in the rules of its\nmode of speech.\" [66] Furthermore, in the official acts [67] of the\nAugustinian province we find that on August 20, 1578 Alburquerque\nas provincial of the order commissioned Quinones to write a grammar,\ndictionary and confessionary in the Tagalog language. The conclusions\nof Santiago de Vela [68] are that it is doubtful that Alburquerque\nwrote any linguistic works, and if he did they were liable to have\nbeen rough preliminary studies [69] upon which the texts of Quinones\nwere based. In view of the lack of positive contemporary evidence\n[70] we believe that Alburquerque may be eliminated except as the\ninstigator of such works, and we return again to Juan de Quinones.\n\nIn so far as Quinones [71] was the author of a grammar and dictionary\nclaimed to have been printed at Manila in 1581, we have shown what\nvarious writers have said, and though we must conclude that the work\nwas probably not printed, it is certain that he wrote in the Tagalog\nlanguage. Agustin Maria de Castro [72] said, although no earlier\nwriters support it, that Quinones actually presented a grammar,\ndictionary and Doctrina in Tagalog at the Synod of 1582 for its\napproval. Our total information about this Augustinian linguist boils\ndown to these essentials: that he did write a grammar and dictionary\nof Tagalog about 1578-81, which may have been the earliest written\nin the Philippines; that he may have presented these and a Doctrina\nat the Synod of 1582 which approved Juan de Plasencia's works; that\nthere is no concrete evidence that any of these works were printed;\nand that Quinones' works which were extant in manuscript in 1593\nmight have been consulted in the preparation of the present Doctrina.\n\nAnother member of the Order of St. Augustine who might have been\nable to participate in the editing of the 1593 Doctrinas was Diego\nMunoz. Munoz came to the islands in 1578, and died in 1594. Of him\nSan Agustin writes:\n\n\n    \"Moreover in this year [1581] the ministry for the Sangleys\n    was founded in the convent of Tondo, and P. Fr. Diego Munoz\n    was named as its special minister. He devoted particular\n    zeal to the study of the Chinese language, and preached in\n    it with much elegance. And all the Sangleys who were going\n    to be baptized, and there were many, had recourse to this\n    ministry, and the teaching was continued with much vigilance\n    and care. And there never lacked a religious of our order\n    to apply himself to such holy work, from the time we came to\n    this land, as our original records of the province prove.\" [73]\n\n\nTo him is also attributed [74] a volume of manuscript panegyric sermons\nin Tagalog, and because of this and his work at Tondo he may have\nbeen consulted by the Dominicans. We also mention Lorenzo de Leon,\n[75] who arrived in 1582, spent twelve years in the provinces, wrote\na book called the _Estrella del mar_ in Tagalog, and died in 1623,\nand might also have helped.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FRANCISCANS\n\n\nAlthough the first Franciscans did not arrive in the Philippines\nuntil June 24, 1577, the writings of the linguists of that order\nare more fully recorded. Among the earliest was Juan de Plasencia\nwho, the Franciscans claim, wrote the first Tagalog grammar. He was\nfortunate in meeting soon after his arrival Miguel de Talavera, [76]\nwho had come with his parents on the expedition of Legazpi. Miguel,\nthen quite young, became in a manner of speaking the disciple of\nPlasencia, and while the father taught him Latin, he in turn taught\nPlasencia the elements of Tagalog which he had picked up. For two years\nPlasencia ministered in the provinces of Tayabas, Laguna, and Bulacan\nwhere he used and perfected his knowledge of the native language. On\nMay 20, 1579, when the provincial Pedro de Alfaro left for China,\nhe named Plasencia acting provincial during his absence. A reference\nto the earliest linguistic writings of the Franciscans occurs in an\naccount by Santa Ines of the chapter meeting held in the Convent of\nLos Angeles in July 1580, which was presided over by Plasencia:\n\n\n    \"The third and last thing that was determined in this chapter\n    was that a grammar and dictionary of the Tagalog language\n    should be made and a translation of the Doctrina Christiana\n    completed. And since Fr. Juan de Plasencia, the president of\n    this same chapter, excelled all in the language, he was given\n    this responsibility, and he accepted it, and immediately set to\n    work. And then after great study, much lack of sleep and care,\n    together with fervent prayers and other spiritual duties,\n    of not little importance in the good profit of such work,\n    he reduced the language to a grammar, made a catechism,\n    a very full dictionary, and various translations.\" [77]\n\n\nBut the most important record of his writings is contained in\nthe description of the Synod called by Bishop Salazar in 1582. In\nMarch, 1581, Domingo de Salazar, the first Bishop of Manila and the\nPhilippines, had arrived. The problems which faced him were manifold,\nparticularly those of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the treatment of the\nnatives by government administrators, and the means by which the gospel\ncould best be spread. A synod was called to resolve these points. One\nmatter of the utmost importance was the approval of standard Tagalog\ntexts, and Juan de la Concepcion gives the following account of what\ntranspired in this connection:\n\n\n    \"His excellency presided at the meetings. At them the most\n    learned topics were discussed and the most learned persons\n    were present--the Dominican father Salvatierra, the most\n    outstanding scholars among the Augustinians and Franciscans,\n    the Jesuit fathers Sedeno and Sanchez, and the Licentiate\n    Don Diego Vasquez de Mercado as dean of the new cathedral. At\n    this convention or diocesan synod it was discussed whether the\n    Indians were to be ministered to in their native language, or\n    if they would be obliged to learn Spanish, and it was decided\n    to instruct them in their native tongue. The divine office,\n    the Doctrina Christiana, which Father Fr. Juan de Plasencia\n    had translated into the Tagalog language, was approved. His\n    work, the _Arte y Vocabuldrio Tagalo_, was judged most useful\n    because of the ease by which it permitted an understanding\n    and thorough knowledge of so foreign a language.\" [78]\n\n\nThe already quoted account of Santa Ines continues with a similar\ndescription of the Synod, and says that when the problem of teaching\nthe natives was brought up only Plasencia could resolve it.\n\n\n    \"Since, having seen his catechism and the translation which he\n    had made in Tagalog of the grammar and dictionary, those who\n    were at the Synod and understood anything of the language could\n    do nothing but admire the fitness of the terms, their efficacy\n    and strength. And they said that, without the particular\n    help of heaven, it seemed impossible that in so short a time\n    and with so few years in the country he could have done such\n    excellent work. And then, having approved them, they ordered\n    that various copies be made, particularly of the translation\n    of the Doctrina, so that with them and with no other would\n    the ministers teach the Indians, and so it was approved,\n    in order that there might be uniformity in all parts of the\n    Tagalog country. This translation is that which has come down\n    to this day, except that it is more polished.\" [79]\n\n\nIt must have been shortly after the handbooks of Plasencia received\nthe seal of ecclesiastical approval that Salazar wrote the King\nspeaking of the action taken, and got back in answer the cedula, quoted\nbefore, giving the Bishop and Audiencia the right of censorship over\nsuch works. The question of chronological precedence [80] between\nQuinones and Plasencia is not important, for the specific approval\nof Plasencia's texts by the Synod, attended by Quinones himself,\nshows that Plasencia's books were accepted, and in conformity with\nthe ruling of the Synod would have been the only texts allowed to be\nused generally in the Philippines.\n\nAnother reference to writers in the native tongues in an anonymous\nmanuscript of 1649 introduces the names of other linguists:\n\n\n    \"The first missionaries left many writings in the Tagalog\n    and Bicol languages, the best of which are those left by\n    Fathers Fray Juan de Oliver, Fray Juan de Plasencia, Fray\n    Miguel de Talavera, Fray Diego de la Asuncion, and Fray\n    Geronimo Monte. Mention is here made of the above fathers\n    because they were the first masters of the Tagalog language,\n    and since their writings are so common and so well received\n    by all the orders. They have not been printed, because they\n    are voluminous, and there are no arrangements in this kingdom\n    for printing so much.\" [81]\n\n\nMiguel de Talavera we have spoken of before. That he helped Plasencia\nin the compilation of his earliest works in Tagalog is clear, and\nto him in part must be attributed the miracle of the production by\nPlasencia of the texts \"in so short a time and with so few years\nin the country.\" Martinez says specifically that Talavera \"was the\nfirst interpreter among our priests, and greatly helped Fr. Juan\nde Plasencia in the composition of the _Arte y Vocabulario_.\" [82]\nJuan de Oliver was in somewhat the same relationship to Plasencia,\nbut instead of helping with the initial attempts, he carried on from\nwhere Plasencia left off. Oliver came to the Philippines on the same\nexpedition which brought Bishop Salazar in 1581. According to Huerta\n[83] he worked in various Tagalog villages, and mastered the Tagalog\nand Bicol languages, in which he wrote twenty-two works, which Huerta\nlists. Of these three are of particular interest to us. The first\nentry says that he \"corrected the Tagalog grammar written by Fr. Juan\nde Plasencia, and added the adverbs and particles;\" [84] the second\nthat \"he perfected and augmented the Spanish-Tagalog dictionary,\nwritten by the said Fr. Juan de Plasencia;\" and the sixteenth lists\na _Catecismo de doctrina Cristiana esplicado_.\n\nSeveral authors, attempting to establish the priority of Quinones'\ndictionary, question the existence of one by Plasencia at the Synod\nof 1582 in the face of his own statement in 1585 that he \"was then\nmaking a dictionary.\" [85] To us there seems to be no inconsistency,\nif Plasencia in 1585 was referring to a revision, unquestionably\nmade with his knowledge and help, by Juan de Oliver. In short, it\nis reasonable to assume that Plasencia, burdened with administrative\nduties from 1583 to 1586, during which time he was custodian of his\norder, secured the aid of Oliver in reediting and continuing his\nlinguistic studies. Plasencia died in 1590.\n\nThe other two Franciscans listed by the anonymous historian of\n1649 are elsewhere recorded as having written various works in\nTagalog. To both Diego de la Asuncion [86] and Geronimo Montes y\nEscamillo [87] were attributed grammars and dictionaries, and the\nlatter also wrote a _Devotional tagalog_, said to have been printed\nat Manila in 1610. In speaking of these early linguistic texts, it is\nnot necessary to believe that each was a completely original work,\nbut rather that they were based upon a recognized model, which was\nat first the Talavera-Plasencia-Oliver text, and that the individual\nmissionaries used their experience in the field to produce, as it\nwere, new editions. That this was the case is borne out by the notes\nof Pablo Rojo to his bibliography of Plasencia where speaking of the\ngrammar and dictionary he says that \"perfected by other missionaries,\nthey have been the base for such grammars and dictionaries of Tagalog\nas have been written, but in the form in which they came from the\nhands of their author, they have not come down to us.\" [88] More\nimportant still is Rojo's statement [89] that he found a portion of\nPlasencia's Doctrina which had been believed lost, and from which he\nquotes the Pater Noster. Since he does not say where the manuscript\nwas or how it was known to be Plasencia's text, we cannot put too\nmuch reliance on the statement, but the text as there printed, while\nsimilar to that of the present Doctrina, is not identical.\n\n\n\nTHE JESUITS\n\n\nBefore passing on to the Dominicans we shall mention briefly the\nlinguists of the Society of Jesus. In the early days there were not\nmany Jesuits in the Philippines. However, there were some linguists\namong them, chiefly of the Visayan tongue, in which they are said to\nhave printed a Doctrina [90] as early as 1610. Limiting ourselves to\na note of those who knew Chinese and Tagalog, we find that the first\nmentioned by Chirino as an outstanding master of one of these was\nFrancisco Almerique, who arrived with Santiago de Vera in 1583. Shortly\nthereafter he \"began the study of the Chinese language in his zeal\nto aid in the conversion of the many Chinese who came to Manila and\nwhom we in the Philippines call Sangleys.\" [91] And Colin says \"his\nprincipal occupation was with the Tagalog Indians, being the first of\nthe Company to learn their language.\" [92] Nothing further is said of\nhis accomplishments in these languages, but his knowledge would have\nbeen available in 1593, for he was then still active in the islands.\n\nChirino himself landed at Manila in 1590 shortly after Dasmarinas,\nand went almost immediately to Taytay where he learned Tagalog and\nwas joined in 1592 by Martin Henriquez. At the time Juan de Oliver\nwas preaching in that district, and it is exceedingly probable that\nhe helped the newcomers with the language, for Chirino speaks of him\nin terms of highest praise. Henriquez \"learned the language in three\nmonths and in six wrote a catechism in it, a confessionary, and a\nbook of sermons for all the gospels of the year in the said idiom,\"\n[93] but he died on February 3, 1593 at Taytay. How thoroughly Chirino\nhimself had grasped the fundamentals of Tagalog is evident from his\nthree chapters [94] on the language and letters of the natives in\nwhich he prints the Ave Maria in Tagalog and reproduces the Tagalog\nalphabet--its first appearance in a European publication. But Chirino,\nwho remained in the provinces until 1595, would have mentioned his\nparticipation and that of Henriquez in the Doctrina of 1593, so we\nrecord them as possible but not probable consultants.\n\n\n\nTHE DOMINICANS\n\n\nHad Aduarte written that the first books printed at Manila were two\nDoctrinas issued by the Dominicans at San Gabriel in 1593, and given\nsome details of their production, we could conclude our study with\na quotation from him, but nowhere does he mention them. In fact,\nhis inference was that the first book was that printed for Blancas\nde San Jose, and yet we know that this Doctrina preceded anything\nthat Blancas de San Jose could have written, since he did not come\nto the Philippines until 1595. We can assume, as Retana did, that\nby printing Aduarte meant printing from movable type, but this does\nnot explain away the fact that Aduarte, who recorded in detail events\nof far less significance, did not speak of the Doctrinas at all. The\nbest--and it is a most unsatisfactory best--that we can do is ascribe\nthe omission to the frailty of man, and record that there is no notice\nof the Dominican Doctrina of 1593 in the most complete contemporary\nDominican history of the Philippines.\n\nThe first members of the Order of St. Dominic [95] to land in the\nPhilippines were Bishop Salazar and his assistant, Christoval de\nSalvatierra. But they were fully occupied with the administration of\nthe bishopric and could not devote themselves to regular missionary\nwork. It was not until July 25, 1587 that working Dominican\nmissionaries came. Then fifteen [96] under the leadership of Juan de\nCastro arrived, and established the first Dominican province [97]\nof the Philippines and China, thus consummating the hope expressed\nas early as 1579. [98]\n\nIn consultation with the other orders it was decided that the\nDominicans should be given the ministry of the territories of\nPangasinan and Bataan, which had theretofore been spiritually\nexploited by few priests. Almost immediately, on September 15, 1587,\nthe vicariate of Bataan was founded and settled. In speaking of it,\nAduarte stressed the importance of a knowledge of the language of the\nnatives, which there would have been Tagalog, to the success of the\nmission. Domingo de Nieva, one of the four members of the mission,\nlearned it rapidly and well, and soon began to preach to the Indians\nin their own tongue. His aptitude for languages and its usefulness to\nthe Dominicans must have been very great, for Aduarte in listing the\npriests who originally volunteered in Spain makes few comments about\nindividuals, but of Nieva he remarks that he \"was afterwards of great\nimportance because of the great ease and skill with which he learned\nlanguages, whether Indian or Chinese.\" [99] Unfortunately Nieva was\nonly a deacon, and so could not hear confession, a fact which was\ngreatly deplored, because during that first year no other priest\nmastered the language sufficiently well to do it, but in September\n1588 he reached the requisite age and was ordained. About that time\nthe friars in Bataan--one had died and another was ailing--were joined\nby Juan de la Cruz, \"who, being young, succeeded very well with the\nlanguage,\" [100] and also succeeded in surviving the climate.\n\nEarly in 1588 Juan Cobo [101] arrived from Mexico. Shortly thereafter,\non June 12, 1588, the Dominican chapter held its first convocation. It\nelected Juan de Castro the first provincial, adopted the general\nordinances [102] already made in Mexico, gave the convent at Manila\nthe title of priory, and designated as parts of the province four\nvicariates. Of primary importance was the appointment then of Juan\nCobo to the mission for the Chinese.\n\nFrom the very earliest days of the Spanish occupation of Manila,\nthe governors had had trouble with the Chinese and Sangleys. [103]\nThese people had long conducted a profitable trade between China\nand the Philippines, and many had settled permanently near Manila,\nwhile others stayed there regularly between trading voyages. The\nChinese merchants were in full control of the shops of the city, and\nso monopolized retail trade that the early governors legislated [104]\nagainst them to give the Spaniards a chance to establish themselves\nin business. In 1588 there were as many as seven thousand of them in\nand around Manila.\n\nNo one had objected to the Pangasinan and Bataan assignments, but when\nit was suggested that the Dominicans also assume the responsibility for\nthe ministry over the Chinese and Sangleys in the suburbs of Manila,\nthe Augustinians vehemently resented what they considered an invasion\nof their prior rights. Aduarte omits any account of a disagreement,\nmerely saying that since the Chinese had had no one to minister to\nthem the Dominicans assumed that responsibility, but in a letter [105]\nfrom the Licentiate Gaspar de Ayala to Philip II, dated from Manila,\nJuly 15, 1589, full details of the squabble are given. From this source\nwe learn that the Augustinians had a convent in the village of Tondo\nin the Chinese district. There they had ministered to the natives in\ntheir own language, but had rather neglected their Chinese-speaking\nparishioners. Consequently after the arrival of the Dominicans the\nAudiencia passed an ordinance requiring that the Bishop appoint\nministers of one order to administer to the Chinese in their own\nlanguage within thirty days. To meet the deadline the Augustinians\nbegan to study Chinese at breakneck speed, but when the Bishop came\nto Tondo to hear one of the friars, who was supposed to know the\nlanguage, preach in it, there was some trouble as a result of which\nthe Augustinian would not, or indeed could not, preach. Naturally,\nwhen it was decided to award the territory to the Dominicans, the\nAugustinians accused the Bishop of favoritism towards his own order.\n\nThe whole situation is best described in the report on the Chinese\nmade by Salazar to the King on June 24, 1590:\n\n\n    \"When I arrived in this land, I found that in a village called\n    Tondo--which is not far from this city, there being a river\n    between--lived many Sangleys, of whom some were Christians,\n    but the larger part infidels. In this city were also some\n    shops kept by Sangleys, who lived here in order to sell the\n    goods which they kept here year by year. These Sangleys were\n    scattered among the Spaniards, with no specific place assigned\n    to them, until Don Gonzalo Ronquillo allotted them a place\n    to live in, and to be used as a silk-market (which is here\n    called _Parian_), of four large buildings. Here, many shops\n    were opened, commerce increased, and more Sangleys came to this\n    city.... When I came, all the Sangleys were almost forgotten,\n    and relegated to a corner. No thought was taken for their\n    conversion, because no one knew their language or undertook\n    to learn it on account of its great difficulty; and because\n    the religious who lived here were too busy with the natives of\n    these islands. Although the Augustinian religious had charge\n    of the Sangleys of Tondo, they did not minister to or instruct\n    them in their own language, but in that of the natives or this\n    land; thus the Sangley Christians living here, were Christians\n    only in name, knowing no more of Christianity than if they\n    had never accepted it.... Then I appealed to all religious\n    orders to appoint some one of their religious to learn the\n    language and take charge of the Sangleys. Although all of them\n    showed a desire to do so, and some even began to learn it,\n    yet no one succeeded; and the Sangleys found themselves with\n    no one to instruct them and take up their conversion with the\n    necessary earnestness, until, in the year eighty-seven, God\n    brought to these islands the religious of St. Dominic.\" [106]\n\n\nSo we find, as the Dominicans undertook their mission, a large\nsettlement of Chinese, including both a settled and a floating\npopulation, concentrated in the Parian, across the Pasig river from\nthe main city of Manila.\n\nThe dominating figure of the Chinese mission from the time of his\narrival in the Philippines was Juan Cobo. In a letter, written by him\nfrom the Parian of Manila, July 13, 1589, probably to ecclesiastical\nauthorities in Mexico, he gives an account of the early days of\nthe mission:\n\n\n    \"The Order took a site next to this Parian, since there was\n    not a single house between Santo Domingo and the Parian. And\n    because of this opportunity the Order presently charged\n    itself with the Chinese, both Christians and infidels. And\n    upon P. Fr. Miguel de Benavides and P. Fr. Juan Maldonado was\n    imposed the responsibility for the care of the Chinese and for\n    learning their language. P. Fr. Miguel was less occupied with\n    other matters than Fr. Juan Maldonado, so that he progressed\n    in the language enough to begin to catechize in it. This was\n    the first year the Order was in Manila.\n\n    \"Presently in the second year when I came, the Order moved\n    P. Fr. Miguel and myself into another separate house at the\n    other edge of the Parian. So that there stood between Santo\n    Domingo and San Gabriel, which is the name of this church\n    of the Chinese, the whole of the Parian of the Sangleys. And\n    there a poor little church was built under the protection of\n    San Gabriel, to whom it fell by lot, and a poor house where\n    we two lived. We entered into it at the beginning of September\n    1588. This was the first church for the Chinese built, and we\n    believe that there is today not another parish church [for\n    the Chinese] but that.... And P. Fr. Miguel catechized them\n    and preached to them in their Chinese language, and taught\n    the doctrine in it. I myself did not yet know the language,\n    but the Lord has been served, so that in a short time I\n    progressed in it.\" [107]\n\n\nThe account of Aduarte is not so accurate in some details, but\nit supplies others not mentioned by Cobo. The first mission which\nBenavides and Maldonado (or de San Pedro Martyr as he was later known)\nbuilt was near the village of Tondo, in a new settlement specially\nfounded for Christian Chinese, called Baybay, and it was named for Our\nLady of the Purification. The second mission which was established\nby Benavides and Cobo was at first a palm-leaf hut. The name of San\nGabriel was decided upon by making lots with the names of various\nsaints on them and then drawing. San Gabriel came out three times in\na row, and \"all were persuaded that the Lord was pleased to have the\npatronage belong to this holy archangel.\" Soon, because of the good\nworks of the fathers who established a hospital there for the care\nof the sick and poor, the demands upon the hut became so great that\na larger building was planned. At first it was to have been erected\non the site of the hut, but the inhabitants protested that a stone\nbuilding so near native houses might do them great damage in the\nevent of an earthquake, so the friars went to the other side of the\nriver, and there built a temporary building of wood which was later\ncompleted in stone. It was here then that the Doctrina was printed,\nin the Church of San Gabriel, near the Parian of Manila, at the edge\nof the Chinese settlement.\n\nUnder the care of Benavides and Cobo the mission flourished,\nand the two fathers became increasingly proficient in the Chinese\nlanguage. When the provincial Juan de Castro began making preparations\nfor an inspection tour of his Chinese vicariate in 1590, he chose as\nhis companion Miguel de Benavides. The account of the events leading\nup to this expedition is given in the already quoted letter of Salazar\non the Chinese:\n\n\n    \"Of the Dominican religious who came to these islands, four\n    are engaged in ministering to the Sangleys. Two of these\n    four officiate in the Church of San Gabriel, which, together\n    with the house where the religious live, stands close to the\n    Parian. Another church with its house is on the promontory\n    of Baybay, near Tondo--which a river divides, separating it\n    from Manila. Two of the four have learned the language of\n    the Sangleys so well, and one of these two how to write also\n    (which is the most difficult part of the language), that the\n    Sangleys wonder at their knowledge.... After due consideration\n    of the matter, the Dominican fathers and myself decided that\n    it was necessary to go to China.... Thus we decided upon the\n    departure, sending at present no more than two religious: Fray\n    Miguel de Benavides, who was the first to learn the language\n    of the Sangleys; and Father Juan de Castro, who came as vicar\n    of the religious and who was made provincial here. We preferred\n    these two, as one is well acquainted with the language, and the\n    other is much loved and esteemed by the Sangleys on account of\n    his venerable gray locks and blessed old age; and we know that\n    in that land old people are much respected and revered.\" [108]\n\n\nThey sailed on May 22, 1590, but Juan de Castro before he left\nappointed Cobo acting superior of the province with full authority\nduring his absence, and in the latter's place as head of the Chinese\nmission sent Juan de San Pedro Martyr.\n\nThere is no doubt but that at this time Benavides and Cobo were\nthe two outstanding Chinese linguists among the Spaniards in\nthe Philippines. To Benavides has been attributed [109] a Chinese\ndictionary, and Schilling [110] uses the already quoted letter of Cobo\nto prove that he also wrote a Doctrina in Chinese, but, granting that\nsuch works were written by him, there is no evidence that they were\nwritten in Chinese characters, and not in Chinese transliterated into\nroman letters. The available evidence points to the fact that Cobo\nwas the only one who could then write in Chinese characters. Salazar\nin his above quoted letter had said that \"one of these two [have\nlearned] how to write also,\" and in the same letter he continued,\n\"Fray Juan Cobo, the Dominican religious--who, as I have said before,\nknows the language of the Sangleys and their writing, and who is most\nesteemed by them--is sending to Your Majesty a book, one of a number\nbrought to him from China.\" [111] Further witness to Cobo's amazing\nknowledge of Chinese writing is given by Aduarte:\n\n\n    \"He knew three thousand Chinese characters, each different\n    from all the rest, for the Chinese have no definite number\n    of letters nor alphabet.... He translated a number [of\n    Chinese books]; for like those of Seneca, though they are\n    the work of heathens, they contain many profound sayings\n    like ours. He taught astrology to some of them whom he found\n    capable of learning; and to bring them by all means to their\n    salvation also taught them some trades that are necessary\n    among Spaniards, but which, not being used by the Chinese,\n    they did not know--such as painting images, binding books,\n    cutting and sewing clothes, and such things--doing all to\n    win men to God.\" [112]\n\n\nFinally, as a more definite proof that Cobo could have been the\nauthor of the Chinese Doctrina of 1593, we have the record [113] of a\n_Catecismo de la Doctrina Cristiana en Lengua China_ written by him,\nas well as many other works in Chinese.\n\nIn May 1590, then, the most accomplished Sinologist yet to work in\nthe Philippines was in charge of the Dominican province. \"His first\nact,\" wrote Aduarte, \"was to strengthen the ministry to the Chinese by\nappointing to it Father Domingo de Nieva, a priest of great virtue and\nvery able--which was tremendously important there--and one who best\nmastered that language, as well as that of the Indians in which he\nhad had experience; and he worked in both of them, and wrote much\nto the great advantage of those who came after him.\" [114] It is\nsurprising that no previous writer has emphasized the presence of\nDomingo de Nieva, whose proficiency in Tagalog we have already noted,\nat San Gabriel during the years when the printing of the Doctrinas\nmust have been planned and executed. His works are cited by Fernandez,\n[115] and after giving a summary of his career, Aduarte added:\n\n\n    \"He wrote much in the language of the Indians and other things\n    in the language of the Chinese for whom he had printed in\n    their language and characters a memorial upon the Christian\n    life, with other brief tracts of prayer and meditation, in\n    preparation for the holy sacraments, of confession and the\n    sacred communion. He was an enemy of sloth, and so worked\n    much in Chinese, in which he wrote a practically new grammar\n    of the Chinese language, a vocabulary, a manual of confession\n    and many sermons, in order that those who had to learn this\n    language might find it less difficult.\" [116]\n\n\nMedina [117] records these various works as Manila imprints of unknown\ndate, and to this indefinite information about them we can add nothing\npositive. However, it is apparent that some time before 1606, when\nNieva died on his way to Mexico, he had had books printed, and since\nthey were in Chinese they must have been printed from wood-blocks,\nfor at that early date it would have been impossible to have cast the\nnumber of characters necessary to print in Chinese with movable type.\n\nWith Nieva was Maldonado, or San Pedro Martyr. He had been one of the\nfirst associates of Benavides in the first Chinese mission at Baybay,\nbut after the arrival of Cobo he had been sent by order of the first\nchapter to Pangasinan. When Cobo was appointed acting provincial\nSan Pedro Martyr was again assigned to the Chinese ministry. He had\nlearned Tagalog, and after his return to the Parian \"he learned more\nwords of the Chinese language than any other member of the order,\nthough he was not successful with the pronunciation.\" [118]\n\nOn May 31, 1592, the Governor received a letter from the Emperor of\nJapan demanding that an ambassador be sent to offer him the fealty\nof the Philippines. Juan Cobo, as the best speaker of Chinese, was\nchosen to represent the Spaniards, and he left Manila on July 29,\n1592. After successfully convincing the Japanese Emperor of the amity\nof the Spaniards, he left to come back to Manila, but his ship was\nwrecked in November on the coast of Formosa, and there Cobo was killed\nby hostile natives. Meanwhile Benavides had gone back to Spain with\nBishop Salazar in 1591, and did not return to the Philippines until\nafter his appointment as Bishop of Nueva Segovia in 1595.\n\nThat left as the only two remaining experts in the Chinese language,\nDomingo de Nieva and Juan de San Pedro Martyr, both of whom were at\nSan Gabriel in 1592. _Moreover, both of them knew Chinese and Tagalog._\nA text in Tagalog was available, based on the Talavera-Plasencia-Oliver\nmodel, which had circulated freely, and this, we believe, was further\nedited--hence the \"corrected by the religious of the orders\"--by these\ntwo Dominicans. In their editorial work they may have been helped\nby Juan de la Cruz, who, we have noted, was sent to Bataan in 1588,\nthere learned Tagalog, and \"succeeded so perfectly with it that Father\nFr. Francisco San Joseph, who was afterwards the best linguist there,\nprofited by the papers and labors of P. Fr. Juan de la Cruz.\" [119]\nJuan de Oliver, the pioneer Franciscan Tagalist was still living and\navailable for consultation, and the polylingual Jesuit, Francisco\nAlmerique, also was in Manila at the time. A Chinese text had been\nwritten by Juan Cobo, and both Nieva and San Pedro Martyr were capable\nof preparing this for publication, again possibly aided by Almerique,\nand also Diego Munoz, if as an Augustinian he had been willing to\ncooperate with the Dominicans. Nothing remained to be done but have\nthe blocks cut and the impressions pulled.\n\n\n\nTHE PRINTING OF THE BOOKS\n\n\nThe stage was set for the production of the Doctrinas. That there\nwere Chinese xylographic models upon which the books could be based\nis evidenced by the account of Mendoza of the considerable number of\nChinese books brought to Manila by Martin de Rada as early as 1575. A\nmore likely model was a bilingual text in Spanish and Chinese which\nCobo describes in his letter of July 13, 1589, where speaking of the\nJesuits in China he says:\n\n\n    \"Moreover the Father of the Company who was in China wrote and\n    printed in Chinese letters a whole book of the unity of God,\n    the creation of the world, and the commandments explained;\n    and in this book has gotten as far as the incarnation of\n    the Son of God. Concerning this I am not speaking of things\n    heard, for I have it, and am thus certain of it, as of all\n    the things that happened. How far I have progressed with the\n    Chinese letters I shall say later. This book was printed in\n    China in 1584. It circulates freely in China whence we have\n    our copy, and because of the writing, contrary to what others\n    have misleadingly said about the Chinese, they have done him\n    no ill: from which it may be inferred that the lion is not\n    so wild as they paint him.\" [120]\n\n\nThere is no direct evidence to support our belief that it was during\nthe brief period after Castro returned, probably late in 1590, and\nrelieved Cobo of his executive responsibilities, and June 1592 when he\nleft for Japan, that Cobo began intensive plans for the production of\nbilingual texts. His recorded interest in such books, his influence\nwith the Chinese, his energy and his own linguistic aptitude would\nnaturally have stimulated him to undertake the task. Whether he\nactually began work on the blocks from which the books were printed,\nor merely suggested the feasibility of the idea, we do not know,\nbut we feel sure that Juan Cobo was the father of the production of\nbooks in the Philippines.\n\nThere is no need here to go into the history of printing in China;\nthe method used there and its antiquity have been fully described\nby others. [121] That there were Chinese in Manila who understood\nthis age-old process would seem obvious from the reports of skilled\ncraftsmen whose presence was noted by all the writers of the period. We\nhave already quoted a reference to Juan Cobo's teaching them European\ntrades, and Salazar in his already cited letter speaks of them further:\n\n\n    \"They are so skillful and clever, that, as soon as they see\n    any object made by a Spanish workman, they reproduce it with\n    exactness. What arouses my wonder most is, that when I arrived\n    no Sangley knew how to paint anything; but now they have\n    so perfected themselves in this art that they have produced\n    marvelous works with both the brush and the chisel.... What has\n    pleased all of us here has been the arrival of a bookbinder\n    from Mexico. He brought books with him, set up a bindery,\n    and hired a Sangley who had offered his services to him. The\n    Sangley secretly, and without his master noticing it, watched\n    how the latter bound books, and lo, in less than [lacuna in\n    MS.] he left the house, saying that he wished to serve him\n    no longer, and set up a similar shop.\" [122]\n\n\nTo turn over a manuscript copy of a book to a Chinaman who had already\nsome familiarity with the production of books in China, or who with a\ngiven text could carve the blocks according to tradition, was then not\na matter of great difficulty. There were Chinese books which showed\nwhat the result would be; there were Spanish books, definitely some\nfrom Mexico, which provided samples of European characters and format.\n\nWho cut the blocks--that is exactly what Chinaman--we do not know,\nnor do we know who handled the presswork, but it is logical to assume\nthat the whole process took place under the supervision of the fathers\nof San Gabriel, Juan Cobo if work had begun before 1592, and certainly\nNieva and San Pedro Martyr. One further aide may have been the lay\nbrother, Pedro Rodriguez, who had been sent to San Gabriel with Nieva,\nand who was a handyman or skilled mechanic, for Aduarte credits him\nwith rebuilding and restoring the hospital.\n\nIn speaking of the book printed for Blancas de San Jose, Aduarte said\nthat the printing had been done by \"a Chinaman, a good Christian,\"\n[123] but in this particular account he does not give the Chinaman's\nname. Yet, where he describes the founding of a second church of San\nGabriel in Binondo, sometime after March 28, 1594 [124] and before\nJune 15, 1596 when it was admitted to the chapter, he tells in some\ndetail of printing done by Juan de Vera. [125]\n\n\n    \"There have been in this town [Binondo, then called Minondoc]\n    many Chinese of very exemplary lives. Juan de Vera was\n    not only a very devout man, and one much given to prayer,\n    but a man who caused all his household to be the same. He\n    always heard mass, and was very regular in his attendance at\n    church. He adorned the church most handsomely with hangings\n    and paintings, because he understood this art. He also,\n    thinking only of the great results to be attained by means\n    of holy and devout books, gave himself to the great labor\n    necessary to establish printing in this country, where there\n    was no journeyman who could show him the way, or give him an\n    account of the manner of printing in Europe, which is very\n    different from the manner of printing followed in his own\n    country of China. The Lord aided his pious intentions, and\n    he gave to this undertaking not only continued and excessive\n    labor, but all the forces of his mind, which were great. In\n    spite of the difficulties, he attained that which he desired,\n    and was the first printer in these islands; and this not from\n    avarice--for he gained much more in his business as a merchant,\n    and readily gave up his profit--but merely to do service to\n    the Lord and this good to the souls of the natives.\" [126]\n\n\nIt is interesting to note that this narrative, which is in substance\nsimilar to that about the books of Blancas de San Jose, nowhere\nmentions the name of the priest in connection with Vera. It is probable\nthat Juan de Vera was, as Retana believed, the first typographer, and\nit may be that he also printed the Doctrinas of 1593. It is impossible\nto say with certainty, but it is not too fanciful to suppose that\nJuan de Vera tried xylographic printing under the supervision of\nNieva and San Pedro Martyr, and after some experimenting achieved\ntypography in the time of Blancas de San Jose.\n\nSince we have here dealt with a volume printed entirely from\nwood-blocks it does not seem necessary to discuss in detail the\nsubsequent typographical books. However, just as this goes to press,\na copy of the _Ordinationes Generales prouintiae Sanctissimi Rosarij\nPhilippinarum_, [127] printed at Binondo by Juan de Vera in 1604,\nhas been discovered, and also presented by Mr. Rosenwald to the\nLibrary of Congress. This is the volume described by Remesal [128]\nas being printed \"in as fine characters and as correctly as if in\nRome or Lyon.\" No copy of the book had been described since his day,\nalthough Medina [129] and Retana [130] both listed it from references\nwhich probably derived from Remesal. Its discovery--almost unbelievable\ncoming so close on the heels of that of the Doctrina--helps to close\nthe gap between the latter and the two Bataan imprints [131] of 1610,\nthe _Arte y Reglas de la Lengva Tagala_ and the _Librong Pagaaralan\nnang manga Tagalog nang uicang Castilla_.\n\nThe full story of the early typographical products of the Philippines\nmust wait upon another occasion, for the questions posed by the scanty\nrecords and the handful of surviving books are extremely knotty. Where\ndid the type come from? Medina suggested it was imported from Macao;\nRetana believed it to have been cut in the Philippines. Fernandez\nsaid that the first works of Blancas de San Jose were printed at\nBataan and the two 1610 books have that place of printing, yet in\n1604 the _Ordinationes_ issued from Binondo. Remesal wrote that this\nbook was printed by Francisco de Vera, and the book itself bears the\nname of Juan. Indeed, the history of the early typographers and the\noutput of their presses, as it has so far been written, presents many\nproblems, but they are problems which we feel are outside the scope\nof this study.\n\nTo summarize what we have learned of the earliest printing in the\nPhilippines: we have the possibility, but not a likely one, that\nan _Arte_ by Juan de Quinones was printed xylographically in 1581;\nwe know that in the first half of the year 1593 two Doctrinas were\nprinted xylographically--although we have no way of telling which\ncame first--one in Tagalog from the Talavera-Plasencia-Oliver text,\nand one in Chinese written by Juan Cobo, both edited and printed under\nthe supervision of Domingo de Nieva and Juan de San Pedro Martyr;\nwe surmise that between 1593 and 1602 other works were also printed\nxylographically, such as the small tracts of Juan de Villanueva and\nsome of the books of Blancas de San Jose, Nieva and others; and in\n1602 was printed by Juan de Vera, in all likelihood from movable\ntype, the book of Our Lady of the Rosary by Blancas de San Jose. The\nknown facts are not many, and we can only hope that time and further\nresearch will discover new ones to make the history of the earliest\nPhilippine imprints more complete and more satisfactory.\n\n\nPhiladelphia, January 20, 1947                 EDWIN WOLF 2ND.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe most frequently cited authorities will be referred to as follows:\n\nADUARTE--Diego Aduarte, _Historia de la Provincia del Sancto Rosario de\nla Orden de Predicadores en Philippinas, Iapon, y China_, Manila, 1640.\n\nB. & R.--Emma Helen Blair and James Alexander Robertson, _The\nPhilippine Islands 1493-1898_, Cleveland, 1903-09.\n\nCANO--Gaspar Cano, _Catalogo de los Religiosos de N.P.S. Agustin de\nla Provincia del Smo. Nombre de Jesus de Filipinas_, Manila, 1864.\n\nCHIRINO--Pedro Chirino, _Relacion de las Islas Filipinas_, Rome, 1604.\n\nCOLIN--Francisco Colin, _Labor Evangelica, Ministerios Apostolicos\nde los Obreros de la Compania de Jesus, Fundacion, y Progressos de\nsu Provincia en las Islas Filipinas_ (ed. Pablo Pastells), Barcelona,\n1900-02.\n\nHUERTA--Felix de Huerta, _Estado Geografico, Topografico, Estadistico,\nHistorico-Religioso, de la Santa y Apostolica Provincia de S. Gregorio\nMagno ... de N.S.P.S. Francisco, en las Islas Filipinas_, Binondo,\n1865.\n\nMEDINA--Jose Toribio Medina, _La Imprenta en Manila desde sus Origenes\nhasta 1810_, Santiago de Chile, 1896.\n\nMEDINA (Juan de)--Juan de Medina, _Historia de los Sucesos de la\nOrden de N. Gran P. S. Agustin de estas Islas Filipinas_, Manila, 1893.\n\nP. & G.--Angel Perez and Cecilio Gueemes, _Adiciones y Continuacion de\n\"La Imprenta en Manila\" de D.J.T. Medina_, Manila, 1904.\n\nPEREZ--Elviro Jorde Perez, _Catalogo Biobibliografico de los Religiosos\nAgustinos de la Provincia del Santisimo Nombre de Jesus de las Islas\nFilipinas_, Manila, 1901.\n\nREMESAL--Antonio de Remesal, _Historia de la provincia de S. Vincente\nde Chyapa y Guatemala de la orden de nro glorioso padre Sancto\nDomingo_, Madrid, 1619.\n\nRETANA--Wenceslao Emilio Retana y Gamboa, _La Imprenta en Filipinas\nAdiciones y Observaciones a La Imprenta en Manila de D.J.T. Medina_,\nMadrid, 1897.\n\nSAN AGUSTIN--Gaspar de San Agustin, _Conquistas de las Islas\nPhilipinas_, Madrid, 1698.\n\nSAN ANTONIO--Juan Francisco de San Antonio, _Chronicas de la Apostolica\nProvincia de S. Gregorio de Religiosos Descalzos de N.S.P. Francisco\nen las Islas Philipinas_, Manila, 1738-44.\n\nSANTA INES--Francisco de Santa Ines, _Cronica de la Provincia de San\nGregorio Magno de Religiosos descalzos de N.P. San Francisco en islas\nFilipinas, China, Japon, etc. escrita ... en 1676_, Manila, 1892.\n\nSANTIAGO VELA--Gregorio de Santiago Vela, _Ensayo de una Biblioteca\nIbero-Americana de la Orden de San Agustin_, Madrid, 1913-31.\n\nSCHILLING--Dorotheus Schilling, _Vorgeschichte des Typendrucks auf\nden Philippen_, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, 1937, pp. 202-16.\n\nTORRES--Pedro Torres y Lanza, _Catalogo de los documentos relativos\na las Islas Filipinas existentes en el Archivo de Indias de Seville_,\nBarcelona, 1925-34.\n\nVINAZA--Cipriano Munoz y Manzano, Conde de la Vinaza, _Escritos de\nlos Portugueses y Castellanos referentes a las lenguas de China y el\nJapon_, Lisbon, 1892.\n\n\n\n\n\nThis facsimile of the Doctrina Christiana printed at Manila in 1593\nwas printed by Edward Stern & Company, Inc., Philadelphia, in an\nedition of twenty-five hundred copies, and published by the Library\nof Congress, February 1947. The type used on the title page and for\nheadings is Forum, and that in the text Italian Old Style.\n\n\n\n\n        Doctrina Christiana, en\n        lengua espanola ytagala, cor\n        regida por los Religiosos de las\n        ordenes Impressa con licencia, en\n        S. gabriel. de la orden de. S. Domigo\n        En Manila. 1593\n\n\n\n\n\n        Tassada endos rreales\n            Juandecuellaz\n\n\n\n\n\n        A. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. ij. l. m. n. o.\n        p. q. rr. s. s. t. u. v. x. y. z. z.\n        vocales. a. e. i. o. u.\n        Ba. be. bi bo bu. Ca ce ci. co. cu.\n        Da. de di do du. Fa fe fi fo fu.\n        Gua gue gui guo gu. Ha he hi.\n        ho hu. Ja je ji jo ju. La le li.\n        lo lu. Ma me mi mo mu. Na.\n        ne ni no nu. Pa pe pi po pu.\n        Qua que qui quo qu. Ra re.\n        ri ro ru. Sa se si so su. Ta te ti.\n        to tu. Ua ue ui uo uu. Xa xe xi.\n        xo xu. Ya ye yi yo yu. Za ze zi.\n        zo zu.\n\n        Ban ben bin bon bun. Can cen\n        cin con cun. Dan den din don.\n        dun. Fan fen fin fon fun. Guan\n        guen guin guon gun. Han hen\n        hin hon hun. Jan jen jin jon jun.\n        Lan len lin lon lun. Man me\n        min mon mun. Nan nen nin non.\n        nun. Pan pen pin pon pun. Qua\n        quen quin quon qun. Ran ren\n        rin ron run. San sen sin son su.\n        Tan ten tin ton tun. Uan uen.\n        uin uon. uun. Xan xen xin xon\n        xun. Yan yen yin yon yun. Zan\n        zen zin zon zun.\n\n        Ba be bi bo bu. Ca ce ci co cu.\n        Da de di do du. Fa fe fi fo fu.\n        Guan guen guin guon gun. Ha.\n        he hi ho hu. Ja je ji jo ju. La le.\n        li lo lu. Ma me mi mo mu. Na.\n        ne ni no nu. Pa pe pi po pu. Qua.\n        que qui quo qu. Ra re ri ro ru. Sa.\n        se si so su. Xa xe xi xo xu. Ya ye.\n        yi yo yu. Za ze zi zo zu.\n\n        \u0137El abc. en legua tagala.\n\n        A O E HA PA KA SA LA TA NA BA MA GA DA YA\n        NGA WA.\n\n\n\n        \u0137El paternoster.\n        PADRE nuestro que estas en\n        Los cielos, sanctificado sea el tu\n        nombre. Venga anos el tu reyno.\n        hagase tu voluntad, asi en la tierra\n        como en el cielo. El pan nuestro\n        de cada dia da noslo oy. Y per\n        donanos nuestras duedas. asi como\n        nosotros las perdonamos a\n        nuestros deudores. Y no nos de\n        xes caer en la tentacion. Das\n        libranos de mal. Amen.\n\n\n\n        Ang ama namin.\n        Ama namin nasa langit ca\n        y pasamba mo ang ngala\n        mo, mouisa amin ang pagcahari\n        mo. Y pasonor mo ang loob mo.\n        dito sa lupa para sa langit, bigya\n        mo cami ngaion nang amin caca\n        nin. para nang sa araoarao. at pa\n        caualin mo ang amin casalana,\n        yaing uinaualan bahala nami\n        sa loob ang casalanan nang\n        nagcasasala sa amin. Houag\n        mo caming ceuan nang di cami\n        matalo nang tocso. Datapo\n        uat ya dia mo cami sa dilan ma\n        sama. Amen Jesus.\n\n\n\n        A MA NA MI. NA SA LA NGI KA. I PA SA BA\n        MO. A NGA LA MO. MO WI SA A MI. A\n        PE KA HA RI MO. I PE SO NO MO. A LO O MO.\n        DI TO SA LU PA. PA RA SA LA NGI. BI YA MO KA MI.\n        NGA O. NA A MI KA KA NI. PA RA NA SA A RA A RA.\n        A PA KA WA I MO. A A MI KA SA LA NA. YA YA\n        WI NA WA LA BA HA LA NA MI SA LO O. A KA SA LA NA.\n        NA NA KA SA SA LA SA A MI. HO WA MO KA MI E WA. NA\n        DI KA MI MA TA LO NA TO SO. DA TA PO WA. I A\n        YA MO KA MI. SA DI LA MA SA MA. A ME SE SO.\n\n\n\n        El aue Maria.\n        Dios te salue Maria. lle\n        na degracia. El senor es\n        contigo. bendita tu, estretodas\n        las mugeres. Y bendito el fructo.\n        deus  vientre Jesus. Santa Ma\n        ria uirgen y madre de Dios rue\n        ga por nosotros peccadores. aora\n        y en la ora denuestra muerte\n        amen. Jesus.\n\n\n\n        Ang aba guinoo Ma\n        Aba guinoo Maria ma\n        toua cana, napopono ca\n        nang gracia. ang panginoon di\n        os, ce, nasayyo. Bucor cang pinag\n        pala sa babaying lahat. Pinag\n        pala naman ang yyong anac si\n        Jesus. Santa Maria yna nang,\n        dios, ypanalangin mo camima\n        casalanan ngaion at cun mama\n        tai cami. Amen Jesus.\n\n\n\n        A BA GI NO O MA RI YA. MA TO WA KA NA. NA PO\n        PO NO KA NA GA RA SI YA. A PA NGI NO O DI\n        YO NA SA I YO. BO KO KA PI NA PA LA. SA BA BA YI.\n        LA HA. PI NA PA LA NA MA. A I YO A NA SE SE SO.\n        SA TA MA RI YA. I NA NA DI YO. I PA NA LA NGI MO\n        KA MI. MA KA SA LA NA. NGA O. A KU MA MA TA KA MI.\n        A ME SE SO.\n\n\n\n        El credo en Romace\n\n        Creo en dios padre, todo\n        poderoso. Criador del cie\n        lo y dela tierra. Y en Jesuchristo,\n        su unico hijo senor nro. Que fue\n        concebido del elpiritusancto. Y\n        Y nacio de la uirgen sancta Ma\n        ria. Padescio so el poder depocio\n        Pilato. Fue crucificado, muer\n        to, y sepultado, descendio alos\n        infiernos, y altercero dia resuscito,\n        dentre, los muertos. Subio a los cie\n        los, y esta asentado ala diestra de\n        dios padre todo poderoso, dende\n        uerna ajuzgar alos uiuos y alos\n        muertos. Creo en el espiritusato.\n        y la sancta yglesia catholica, la\n        comunio de los sanctos. La remi\n        sion de los peccados. La refuree\n        cion de la carne. La uida perdu\n        rable, que nunca seacaba. Ame.\n\n\n\n        Ang sumagpalataia\n\n        Sumasangpalataia aco sa di\n        os ama, macagagaua sa lahat,\n        mangagaua nang langit at nang lu,\n        pa. Sumasangpalataia aco naman\n        cai Jesuchristo yysang anac nang\n        dios panginoon natin lahat. Nag\n        catauan tauo siya salang nang es\n        piritusancto. Ypinanganac ni Sa\n        cta Maria uirgen totoo. Nasacta\n        otos ni poncio Pilato. Ypinaco\n        sa cruz. Namatai, ybinaon, nana\n        og sa manga infierno, nang ma\n        ycatlong arao nabuhai na naguli.\n        naquiat sa langit nalolocloc sa ca\n        nan nang dios ama, macagagaua\n        sa lahat. Sa caparito hohocom sa\n        nabubuhai, at sa nanga matai na\n        tauo. Sumasangpalataia aco na\n        man sa dios Espiritusancto. At\n        mei sancta yglesia catholica, at\n        mei casamahan ang manga satos.\n        At mei ycauauala nang casala\n        nan. At mabubuhai na maguli\n        ang na nga matai na tauo. At\n        mei buhai na di mauala mag pa\n        rating saan. Amen Jesus.\n\n\n\n        SU MA SA PA LA TA YA A AKO. SA DI YO A MA.\n        MA KA GA GA WA SA LA HA. MA GA GA WA NA LA NGI.\n        A NA LU PA. SU MA SA PA LA TA YA A KO NA MA. KA SE SO.\n        KI RI TO. I I SA A NA NA DI YO. PA NGI NO O NA TI\n        LA HA. NA KA TA A TA WO SI YA. LA LA NA E PI RI TO SA TO.\n        I PI NA NGA NA. NI SA TA MA RI YA. BI SE TO TO O. NA SA\n        TA O TO NI PO SI YO. PE LA TO. I PI NA KO SA KU RU.\n        NA MA TA. I BI NA O. NA NA O SA MA NGA I PE NO. NA MA\n        I KA LO A RA. NA BU HA NA NA O LI. NA YA SA LA NGI.\n        NA LO LO LO SA KA NA. NA DI YO A MA. MA KA GA GA WA SA\n        LA HA. SA KA PA RI TO. HO HO KO. SA NA BU BU HA. A SA\n        NA NGA MA TA NA TA WO. SU MA SA PA LA TA YA A KO NA\n        MA SA DI YO E PI RI TU SA TO. A MA SA TA I LE SI\n        YA KA TO LI KA. A MA KA SA MA HA. A MA NGA SA TO.\n        A MA I KA WA WA LA. NA KA SA LA NA. A MA BU BU HA\n        NA MA U LI. A NA NGA MA TA NA TA WO. A MA BU HA\n        NA DI NA MA WA LA. MA PA RA TI SA A. A ME SE SO.\n\n\n\n        La salue Regina\n\n        Salue te dios reyna y ma\n        dre demisericordia, uida\n        dulcura y esperanca nra. Dios\n        te salue atillamamos los deste\n        ruados hijos de Gua. Atisuspi\n        ramos gimiendo yllorando en\n        aqueste ualle de lagrimas. Ga\n        pues abogada nuestra, buelue\n        anostros ellos tus misericor\n        diosos ojos. Y despues dea.\n        queste destierro muestra nos aje\n        sus bendito fruto de tu ueintre. O\n        clemente. O piadosa. O dulce uir\n        gen Maria. Ruega por nos sata\n        madre de dios quescamos dig\n        nos de las promisiones de Chris\n        to Amen.\n\n\n\n        Ang aba po.\n\n        Aba po sancta. Mariang ha\n        ri yna nang aua. Ycao ang\n        yquinabubuhai namin, at ang pi\n        nananaligan. Aba ycao nga ang\n        tinatauag namin pinapapanao\n        na tauo anac ni Gua. ycao din\n        ang ypinagbubuntun hininga na\n        min nang amin pagtangis dini sa\n        lupa baian cahapishapis. Ay\n        aba pintacasi namin, ylingo mo\n        sa amin ang mata mong maauai.\n        At saca cun matapos yering pag\n        papanao sa amin. ypaquita mo\n        sa amin ang yyong anac si Jesus.\n        Ay Sancta Maria maauain, ma\n        alam, uirgen naman totoo, yna\n        nang Dios. Cami ypanalangin\n        mo, nang mapatoloi sa amin\n        ang panga ngaco ni Jesuchristo.\n        Amen Jesus.\n\n\n\n        A BA PO SA TA MA RI YA HA RI. I NA NA A WA\n        I KA A I KI NA BU BU HA NA MI. A A PI\n        NA NA NA LI GA. A BA I KA NGA. A TI NA TA WA NA MI. PI\n        NA PA PA NA NA TA WO. A NA NI E BA. I KA DI. A I PI\n        NA BU BU TU HI NI NGA NA MI. NA A MI PA TA NGI. DI NI\n        SA LU PA. BA YA KA HA PI HA PI. A A BA. PI TA KA\n        SI NA MI. I LI NGO MO SA A MI. A MA TA MO MA A WA\n        I. SA KA KU MA TA PO. YA RI PA PA PA NA SA A MI.\n        I PA KI TA MO SA A MI. A I YO A NA SI SE SO. SA TA\n        MA RI YA. MA A WA I. MA A LA. BI SE NA MA TO TO O.\n        I NA NA DI YO. KA MI I PA NA LA NGI MO. NA MA PA\n        TO LO SA A MI. A PA NGA NGA KO. NI SE SO KI TO.\n        A ME SE SO.\n\n\n\n        Los Articulos dela fee,\n        son catorze. Los siete pertenesce\n        ata diuinidad, ylos otros siete\n        a la humanidad denro senor Je\n        suchristo Dios y hombre uerda\n        dero. ylos siete que pertenescen\n        ala diuinidad son estos.\n\n        El primero, creer en un so\n        lo dios todo poderoso.\n        El segundo creer que es dios pa\n        dre. El tercero, creer qes dios hi\n        jo. El quarto, creer que es Dios\n        Espiritusancto. El quinto, creer\n        que es criador. El sexto, creer\n        qes satuador. El septimo, creer\n        que es glorificador.\n\n        Los que pertenescenatasa\n        ta humanidad. Son estos.\n\n        El Primero, creer que nues\n        tro senor Jesuchristo, en quato\n        hombre fue concebido del sptri\n        tu sancto. El segundo, que nascro\n        del uientre uirginal de la uirgen\n        sancta Maria, siendo ella uirge\n        antes del parto, yenelparto, y des\n        pues del parto. El tercero, que\n        rescibio muerte y pasion porsal\n        uar anosotros peccadores. El quar\n        to: que descendio alos infiernos,\n        ysacolas animas de los sanctos\n        padres que asta estauan esperan\n        do su sancto aduenimiento. El\n        quinto, que resuscito altercero\n        dia. El sexto, creer que subio\n        alos cielos, yseassento ala dies\n        tra de dios padre todo poderoso.\n        El septimo, que uerna ajuzgar\n        alos uinos y alos muertos. Con\n        uiene asaber, alos buenos paradar\n        la gloria, porq guardaron susma\n        damientos: yalos malos pena\n        percurable porque nolos guar\n        daron. Amen:\n\n\n\n        Ang pono nang sinasangpa\n        lataianan nang manga chris\n        tiano labin apat na bagai. Ang\n        pitong naona ang sabi ang Dios\n        ang pagcadios niya. Ang pitog\n        naholi ang sabi,a, ang atin pangi\n        noon Jesuchristo ang pagcatauo\n        niya. Ang pitong naona ang sa\n        bi, ce ang Dios ang pagca dios ni\n        ya ay yceri.\n\n        Ang naona sumangpalataia\n        sa ysang Dios totoo. Ang ycalua,\n        sumangpalataia, ycering dios si\n        yang ama. Ang ycatlo, Sumapalataia.\n        ycering dios siyang anac. Ang\n        ycapat sumangpalataia, ycering\n        dios siyang spiritusancto. Ang\n        ycalima, sumangpalataia, ycerig\n        dios siyang mangagaua nang la\n        hat. Ang ycanim, sumangpala\n        taia ycering dios siyang naca\n        uauala nang casalanan. Ang\n        ycapito sumangpalataia ycering\n        dios siyang nacalulualhati.\n\n        Ang pitong naholi ang\n        sabi ce ang ating pagninoon\n        Jesuchristo ang pagcatauo ni\n        ya ay yari.\n\n        Ang naona sumangpala\n        taia ang atin pagninoon\n        Jesuchristo, ypinaglehe ni San\n        cta Maria lalang nang spiritu\n        sancto. Ang ycalua sumang\n        palataia, ang atin pagninoon\n        Jesuchristo y pinanganac ni\n        sancta maria uirgen totoo, na\n        dipa nanganac, nang macapa\n        nganac na uirgen din totoo.\n        Ang ycatlo sumangpalataia,\n        ang atin panginoon Jesuchris\n        to nasactan, ypinaco sa cruz.\n        namatai sacop nang atin casa\n        lanan. Ang ycapat sumang\n        palataia, ang atin panginoon Je\n        suchristo nanaog sa manga in\n        fierno, at hinango doon ang ca\n        loloua nang manga sanctos nag\n        hihintai nang pagdating niya.\n        Ang ycalima sumangpalataia\n        ang atin panginoon Jesuchristo,\n        nang magycatlong arao nabu\n        hai nanaguli. Ang ycanim su\n        mangpalataia ang atin pangino\n        on Jesuchristo nacyat sa langit\n        nalolocloc sa canan nang dios\n        ama macagagaua sa lahat. Ang\n        ycapito sumangpalataia ang a\n        tin panginoon Jesuchristo saca\n        parito hohocom sa nabubuhai at\n        sa nangamatai na tauo. Ang ba\n        nal na tauo gagantihin niya nag\n        caloualhatian nang langit, ang\n        nacasonor silla nang caniyang\n        otos. Ang di banal pacasasamin\n        sa infierno ang di silla sumonor\n        nang otos niya. Ame. Jesus.\n\n\n\n        A PO NO NA SI NA SA PA LA TA YA NA. NA\n        MA NGA KI NI TI YA NO. LA BI A PA NA\n        BA GA. A PI TO NA O NA. A SA BI I A DI YO. A\n        PA KA DI YO NI YA. A PI TO NA HO LI. A SA BI I.\n        A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. A PA KA TA WO NI YA.\n        A PI TA NA O NA. A SA BI A DI YO. A PA KA DI YO\n        NI YA. A PA DI.\n\n        A NA O NA. SU MA PA LA TA YA SA I SA DI\n        YO TO TO O. A I KA WA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI\n        YO. SI YA A MA. A I KA LO. SU MA PA LA TA YA.\n        YA RI DI TO. SI YA A NA. A I KA PA. SU MA PA LA\n        TA YA. YA RI DI YO. S YA E PI DI TO SA TO A I\n        KA LI MA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI TO. SI YA MA GA\n        GA WA NA LA HA. A I KA NI. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI\n        DI TO. SI YA NA KA WA WA LA NA KA SA LA NA. A I KA PI\n        TO. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI YO. SI YA NA KA LU\n        LU WA HA TI.\n\n        A PI TO NA HU LI. A SA BI I A A TI PA NGI\n        NO O SE SO KI TO. A PA KA TA WA NI YA. A YA RI.\n        A NA O NA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA\n        NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. I PI NA LE HE. NI SA TA MA RI\n        YA. LA LA NA E PI RI TO SA TO. A I KA WA. SU MA\n        PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. I PI\n        NA NGA NA. NI SA TO MA RI YA. BI SE TO TO O. NA DI PA\n        NA NGA NA. NA MA KA PA NGA NA NA. BI SE DI TO TO O.\n        A I KA LO. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI\n        NO O SE SO KI TO. NA SA TA. I PI NA KO SA KU RU. SA\n        KO NA A TI KA SA LA NA. A I KA PA. SU MA PA LA TA YA.\n        A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. NA NA O. SA MA NGO\n        I PE NO. A HI NA NGO DO O. A KA LO LO WA NA MA\n        NGA SA TO. NA HI HI TA. NA PA RA TI NI YA. A I KA\n        LI MA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O. SE SO\n        KI TO. NA MA I KA LO A RA. NA BU HA NA NA U LI.\n        A I KA NI. SU MA SA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO\n        O SE SO KI TO. NA YA SA LA NGI. NA LO LO LO SA KA\n        NA. NA DI YO A MA. MA KA GA GA WA SA LA HA. A I KA PI TO.\n        SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO.\n        SA KA PA RI TO. HO HO KO. SA NA BU BU HA. A SA NA NGA\n        MA TA NA TA WO. A BA NA NA TA WO. GA GA TI HI NI YA.\n        NA KA LU WA HA TI A NA LA NGI. A NA KA SO NO SI LA\n        NA KA NI YA O TO. A DI BA NA PA KA SA SA I. SA I\n        PE NO. A DI SI LA SO MO NO. NA O TO NI YA. A ME.\n        SE SO.\n\n\n\n        Los mandamientos de la\n        lei de dios son diez. Los tres\n        pertenescen alhonor de Dios.\n        ylos otros siete al prouecho del\n        proximo.\n\n        El primero, amarasa dios\n        sobre todas las cosas. El\n        segundo, no jurarasu sancto nom\n        bre en uano. El tercero, sanctisi\n        caras las siestas. El quarto, hon\n        rraras atu padre y madre. El\n        quinto, no mataras. El sexto\n        nofornicaras. El septimo, no hur\n        taras. El octauo, noscuantarafal*\n        so testimonio. El noueno, no\n        dessearas la muger de suproxi\n        mo. El dezeno, nocobdiciaras,\n        los bienes agenos. Estos diez\n        mandamientos se encierran e\n        dos, amarasa dios sobre todas\n        las cosas. y atu proximo como\n        ati mesmo.\n\n\n\n        Ang otos nang Dios,ce,\n        sangpouo.\n\n        Ang naona, ybigin mo ang\n        dios lalo sa lahat. Ang y\n        calua, houag mo sacsihin ang\n        dios cundi totoo. Ang ycatlo\n        mangilin ca cun domingo at cu\n        siesta. Ang ycapat, ygalang mo\n        ang yyong ama, at ang yyong\n        yna. Ang ycalima houag mog\n        patayin ag capoua mo tauo. ag yca\n        nim, houag cag maquiapir sa di mo\n        asaua. Ang ycapito houag cang mag\n        nacao, ag ycaualo houag mog paga\n        uagaua nanguica ang capoua mo\n        tauo houag ca naman magsono\n        galing. Ang ycasiam houag cang\n        mag nasa sa di mo asaua. Ang y\n        capolo, houag mong pagnasa\n        ang di mo ari. Ytong sang\n        pouong Otos nang Dios da\n        laua ang inouian. Ang ysa\n        ybigin mo Ang Dios lalo\n        lalo sa lahat. Ang ycalua ybig\n        in mo naman ang capoua mo tauo\n        parang ang catauan mo. Amen.\n        Jesus.\n\n\n\n        A O TO NA DI YO. I SA PO WO\n        A NA O NA. I BI I MO A DI YO. LA LO SA LA\n        HA. A I KA WA. HO WA MO SA SE HI A DI YO\n        KU DI TO TO O. A I KA LO. MA NGI LI KA. KU DO MI GO.\n        A KU PI TA. A I KA PA. I GA LA MO. A I YO A MA.\n        A A I YO I NA. A I KA LI MA. HO WA MO PA TA\n        YI A KA PO WA MO TO WO. A I KA NI. HO WA KA MA KI\n        A PI SA DI MO A SA WA. A I KA PI TO. HO WA KA\n        MA NA KA. A I KA WA LO. HO WA MO PA GA A GA A NA\n        WI KA. A KA PO WA MO TA WO. HO WA KA NA MA MA SO.\n        NO NGA LI. A I KA SI YA. HO WA KA MA NA SA. SA\n        DI MO A SA WA. A I KA PO LO. HO WA MO PA NA SA HI\n        A DI MO A RI. I TO SA PO WO. O TO NA DI YO. DA WA\n        A I NO WI A. A I SA. I BI I MO A DI YO. LA\n        LO SA LA HA. A I KA WA. I BI I MO NA MA. A KA\n        PO WA MO TA WO. PA RA NA KA TA A MO. A ME SE SO.\n\n\n\n        Los mandamientos de las sa\n        cta madre yglesia, son cinco.\n\n        El primero. ourmissa ente\n        ra los domingos y siestas\n        de guardar. El segundo, con\n        fesar alomenos una vez en el\n        ano. El tercero, comulgar de\n        necessidad por pascua florida.\n        El quarto, ayunar quando lo\n        manda la sancta madre ygtia.\n        El quinto, pagar diezmos y\n        primicias.\n\n        Ang otos nang sancta y\n        gtia yna natin ceylima.\n\n        Ang naona, maqui~nig nag\n        missa houag meilisan\n        cun domingo at sa siesta, pina\n        ngingilinan. Ang ycalua, mag\n        confesar miminsan man taon\n        taon, at cun mey hirap na yca\n        mamatai. Ang ycatlo, mag\n        comulgar cun pascua na yqui\n        nabuhai na naguli nang atin pa\n        nginoon Jesuchristo. Ang ycapat,\n        magayunar cun magotos ang sa\n        cta yglesia yna natin. Ang y\n        calima papamagohin ang Dios\n        nang dilan pananim, at ang scey\n        capoua yhayin sa dios. Amen.\n\n\n\n        A O TO NA SA TA I LE SI YA. I NA NA TI A\n        A LI MA.\n        A NA O NA. MA KI YI NA MI SA. HO WA MA LI SA.\n        KU DO MI GO. A SA PI TA. PI NA NGI\n        NGI LI NA. A I KA WA. MA KO PI SA. MI MI SA MA.\n        TA O TA O. A KU MA HI RA NA I KA MA MA TA. A I\n        KA LO. MA KO MU GA. KU PA KU WA. NA I KI NA BU HA\n        NA NA U LI. NA A TI PA NGI NO O. SE SO KI TO.\n        A I KA PA. MA A YU NA. KU MA O TO. A SA TA\n        I LE SI YA. I NA NA TI. A I KA LI MA. PA PA\n        MA GO HI A DI YO. A DI LA PA NA NI. A A\n        SA I KA PU WO. I HA YI MO SA DI YO. A ME.\n\n\n\n        Los sacramentos de la san\n        cta madre ygtia son siete.\n\n        El primero baptismo. El segu\n        do confirmacion. El tercero Pe\n        nitencia. El quarto, comunio.\n        El quinto extrema uncion. El\n        septimo, orden de matrimonio.\n\n\n\n        Pito ang mahal natanda\n        ycauauala nang casalanan ang\n        ngalan sacramentos.\n\n        Ang naona ang baptismo. Ag\n        ycalua ang confirmar. Ang y\n        catlo ang confesar. Ang yca\n        pat ang comulgar. Ang ycali\n        ma ang extrema uncion. Ang\n        ycanim ang orden nang sacerdo\n        te. Ang ycapito ang pagcasal.\n        Itong daluan holi pinatotooba\n        nang dios ang tauo piliin ang\n        balan ybig. Amen.\n\n\n\n        PI TO A MA HA NA TA DA. A KA WA WA LA NA KA SA\n        LA NA. A NGA LA SA KA RA ME TO.\n        A NA O NA. A BA TI MO. A I KA WA. A KU PI MA.\n        A I KA LO. A KO PI SA. A I KA PA. A KO MU GA.\n        A I KA LI MA. A E TE RE MA. U SI YO. A I\n        KA NI. A O DE NA SA SE DO TI. A I KA PI TO.\n        A PA KA SA. I TO DA WA HO LI. PI NA LO LO O BA.\n        NA DI YO A TA WO. PI LI I. A BA LA I BI.\n\n\n\n        Los peccados mortales\n        son siete.\n\n        El primero soberuia. El se\n        gundo Euaricia. El tercero,\n        Luxuria. El quarto yra. El\n        quinto, Gula*. El sexto Embi\n        dia. El septimo Accidia.\n\n        Ang ponong casalanan, y\n        capapacasama nang caloloua\n        cey pito.\n\n        Ang capalaloan. Ang caramo\n        tan. Ang calibogan. Ang ca\n        galitan. Ang caiamoan sapag\n        caen at sapag inum. Ang capa\n        naghilian. Ang catamara.\n\n\n\n        A PO NO KA SA LA NA. I KA PA PA KA SA\n        MA NA KA LO LO WA. A PI TO.\n        A KA PA LA LO A. A KA RA MO TA. A KA LI\n        BO GA. A KA GA LI TA. A KA YA MO A. SA PA KA\n        E. A SA PA I NU. A KA PA NA HI LI A.\n        A KA TA MA RA.\n\n\n\n        Las obras demisericordia,\n        que qualquier chistiano deue\n        cumplirson catorze. Las siete\n        spirituales, y las otras siete cor\n        porales. las siete corporales son\n        estas.\n\n        Ujsitar los enfermos. Dar de\n        comer al que hahabre. Dar de\n        beuer al que hased. Recte\n        mir al que esta captiuo. Deltir\n        al desnudo, que lo hamenester.\n        Dar posada a los peregrinos.\n        Enterrar los muertos.\n\n        Las otras siete obras de\n        misericordia spirituales, son\n        estas. Ensenas alos sim\n        ples queno saben. Dar consejo\n        al quelo hamenester. Castigar\n        al que hamenester castigo. Per\n        donar al que erro contrati. Su\n        friutas injurias de tu proximo\n        conpaciencia, al doliente, yatsa\n        nuedo. Consolar los tristes, y\n        desconsolados, Rogardios\n        por los uiuos y por los muertos.\n        Amen.\n\n\n\n        Ang cauaan gaua labin apat ag\n        pitong naona paquinabang nag\n        catauan, ang pitong naholi pa\n        quinabang nang caloloua. Ang\n        pitong naona paquinabang na\n        catauan ay yari.\n\n        Dalauin ang mei hirap. Paca\n        nin ang nagogotom. Painumi\n        ang nauuhao. Paramtan ang ua\n        lan damit. Tubsin ang nabihag.\n        Patoloyin ang ualan totoloya.\n        Ybaon ang namatai.\n\n        Ang pitong naholi paquina\n        bang nang caloloua\n        ay yari.\n\n        Aralan ang di nacaaalam. A\n        ralan ang napaaaral. Ang ta\n        bo sala, ce, papagdalitain. Ual\n        in bahala sa loob ang casalana\n        nang naccasasala sa iyo. Houag\n        ypalaman sa loob ang pagmo\n        mora nang tauo sa iyo. Aliuin\n        ang nalulumbai. Ipanalangin\n        sa dios ang nabubuhai at ang\n        nanga matai na christiano.\n        Amen Jesus.\n\n\n\n        A KA A WA A GA WA. LA BI A PA. A PI\n        TO NA O NA. PA KI NA BA NA KA TA A.\n        A PI TO NA HO LI. PA KI NA BA. NA KA LO LO\n        WA. A PI TO NA O NA. PA KI NA BA NA KA TA A.\n        A YA RI. DA LA WI A ME HI RA. PA KA NA.\n        A NA GO GO TO. PA I NO MI. A NA U U HA. PA\n        RA TA. A WA LA DA MI. TU SI A NA BI HA. PA\n        TO LO YI. A WA LA TO TO LO YA. I BA O. A\n        NA MA TA. A PI TO A HO LI. PA KI NA\n        BA NA KA LO LO WA. A YA RI.\n        A RA LA. A DI NA KA A A LA. A RA LA.\n        A NA PA A A RA. A TA WO SA LA. PA PA DA\n        LI TA I. WA I BA HA LA SA LO O. A KA SA LA\n        NA. NA NA KA SA SA LA. SA I YO. HO WA I PA\n        LA MA SA LO O. A PA MO MO RA. A TA WO SA\n        I YO. A LI WI. A NA LU LU BA. A PA NA LA\n        NGI SA DI YO. A NA BU BU HA. A A NA\n        NGA MA TA NA KI NI TI YA NO. A ME SE SO.\n\n\n\n        La confesion en Romance\n\n        Jopeccador mucho herrado me\n        confieso adios yasancta Maria,\n        ya san Pedro ya san Pablo,\n        ya los bien aueuturados, san\n        Miguel harchangel, ya san\n        Juan baptista; ya todos los sanc\n        tos, yauos padre que peque mu\n        cho con el pensamientoi conla\n        palabra, y conta obra, por mi cul\n        pa por mi culpa, por mi guan cul\n        pa, por en de ruego a la bien aue\n        turada uirgen sancta Maria,\n        y alos bien auenturados apos\n        toles san Pedro y san Pablo,\n        y asanct Juan baptista, ya todos\n        los sanctos y sanctas querue\n        quen por mi anuestro senor. Je\n        suchristo. Amen.\n\n\n\n        Acoy macasalanan nagcoco\n        pesal aco sa atin panginoon di\n        os macagagaua sa lahat at cai\n        sancta Maria uirgen totoo\n        at cai sanct Miguel archangel,\n        cai sanct Juan baptista sa san\n        ctos apostoles cai sanct Pedro,\n        at cai sanct Pablo at sa lahat\n        na sanctos at sa iyo padre,\n        ang naccasala aco sa panidim,\n        sa pag uica at sa paggaua aco nga\n        ce, sala aco,i, mei casalanan, aco,\n        i, salan lubha siyang ypmagsisi\n        sico caiangaiata nananalan\n        ngin aco cai sancta Maria\n        uirgen totoo at cai, S. Miguel archa\n        gel, at cai, S.Juan baptista, at sa san\n        ctos apostoles, cai S. Pedro at cai, S.\n        Pablo at sa lahat na sanctos, nag aco\n        a. ypanalangin nila sa atin pangi\n        noo dios ycao nama padre aco,i.\n        ypanalangin mo at haman caha\n        lili canang dios dito aco,i, ca\n        lagan mo sa casalanan co, at\n        parusahan mo aco. Amen, Jesu.\n\n\n\n        A KO MA KA SA LA NA. A KO NA KO KO PI SA\n        SA A TI PA NGI NO O DI YO. MA KA GA GA\n        WA SA LA HA. A KA SA TA MA RI YA. BI SE TO TO O.\n        KA SA MI GE. A KA SI. KA SA SU WA BA TI TA. SA SA\n        TO A PO TO LI. KA SA PE RO. A KA SA PA LO.\n        A SA LA HA NA SA TO. A SA I YO PA RE. A NA\n        KA SA LA A KO. SA PA NI RI. SA PA WI KA. A\n        SA PA GA WA. A KO NGA A SA LA. A KO MA KA\n        SA LA NA. A KO SA LA LO HA. SI YA I PI NA SI SI\n        SI KO. KA YA NGA YA TO. NA NA NA LA NGI A KO\n        KA SA TA MA DI YO. BI SE TO TO O. KA SA MI GO.\n        A KA SI. A SA SO WA BA TI TA. A SA SA TO A\n        PO TO LI. KA SA PI RO. A KA SA PE LA.\n        A SA LA HA NA SA TO. NA A KO I PA NA LA\n        NGI NI LA. SA A TI PA NGI NO O DI YO. I KA\n        NA MA PA RE. A KO I PA NA LA NGI MO. A HA\n        MA KA HA LI LI KA. NA DI YO DI TO. A KO KA LA\n        GA MO. SA KA SA LA NA KO. A PA RU SA HA MO\n        A KO. A ME SE SO.\n\n\n\n        Las preguntas en Romace\n        P. Eres christiano? R. si porlami\n        sericordia de Dios. P.que cosa es\n        christiano? R. El hombre bapti\n        zado que cree lo que ensena di\n        os, yla sancta yglesia madre nra.\n        P. qua les la senal del christiano\n        R. la sancta cruz. P. Aquien\n        adoran los christianos? R. a nro\n        senor Dios. P. que cosa es dios?\n        R. la primera causa, el princi\n        pio de todas las cosas, El que hi\n        co todas las cosas, y el no tiene\n        principio nifin. P. quantos dio\n        ses ay? R. un solo dios. P. qua\n        tas personas. R. tres P. como\n        se llama la primera? R. Dios\n        padre. P. como se llama la seu\n        da? R. Dios hijo. P. como se lla\n        ma la tercera? R. Dios spiritu\n        sancto. P. son por uenturatres\n        Dioses. R. no sontres dioses.\n        las personas son tres, ysolo ai\n        un dios. P. qual de las tres per\n        sonas se hizo hombre? R. la se\n        gunda persona que es el hijo.\n        P. como se hizo hombre? R. por\n        obra del spiritu sancto, en las\n        entranas de sancta Maria uirge\n        antes del parto, ydespues del\n        parto. P. para q se hizo hombre?\n        R. para podermorir en rescate\n        de los peccados de todos los\n        hombres. P. qual es erantos\n        peccados de los hombres? R.\n        el peccado de nuestros prime\n        ros padres. Adan y Eva, del\n        qual todos participamos, y fue\n        ra de esto, los peccados actua\n        les conque ofenden a dios ca\n        da dia. P. como rescato a los ho\n        bres? R. murio en la cruz y to\n        mo asucargo los peccados de\n        todos los hombres. P. despues\n        de muerto nro senor Jesuchris\n        to que hizo su alma? R. baxo\n        a los infiernos junta con la diui\n        nidad, ysaco las animas de los\n        sanctos padres que estauan a\n        guardando su sancto adueni.\n        miento. P. El cuerpo de nuestro\n        senor Jesuchristo fue sepultado?\n        R. si P. resuscito. R. si P.qua\n        do? R. al tercero dia, de su muer\n        te. P. que dose aca en la tierra nu\n        estro senor Jesuchristo? R. no,\n        sino subro a los cielos, despues\n        de quarenta dias de su. R. esurrec\n        cion y esta asentado ala diestra\n        de dios padre todo poderoso.\n        P. que asiento tiene alla en el\n        cielo? R. El mas abentaxado\n        de todos. P. ay dia enque uedra\n        ajuzgar uinos y muertos. R. si,\n        P. quando? R. no se sabe. P.\n        El alma del hombre aca base\n        quando muere el hombre? R.\n        no muere con el cuerpo como\n        en los otros animales, si no so\n        to el cuerpo muere y el alma\n        uiue para siempre. P. ande uol\n        uer adinir todos los que muere\n        buenos y malos? R. ande uol\n        uer adinir y juntar se el cuerpo\n        con el alma para ser juzgados\n        de chirsto nuestro senor. P.\n        despues de. R. esuscitados los\n        cuerpos de los hombres ande\n        uoluer amorir? R. no P.que\n        dara dios en premio a los bue\n        nos. R. la gloria del cielo al\n        la ueran adios y se alegraran\n        y regozi jaran para siempre ja\n        mas. P. que castigo dara dios\n        a los malos? R. echar los a en\n        el infierno allatendran torme\n        los y dolores para simpre ja\n        mas. P. que esta sancta ygle\n        sia. R. todos los hombres\n        christianos que creen en di\n        os, juntamente consu cabe\n        ca, Jesuschristo que esta en\n        el cielo, ysuuicauio en la tierra\n        que es el papa del Roma. P. En es\n        ta sancta yglesia y cosas que\n        quiten peccados? R. si P. que\n        cosas son? R. el baptisimo a\n        los no christianos, y la confe\n        sion a los ya christianos que\n        peccaron si searrepienten de\n        suspeccados de ueras ytiene\n        uoluntad de nunca mas boluer\n        apeccar. P. En esta sancta yglia\n        ay comunion de los sanctos? R.\n        si. P. que esta comunion de los\n        sanctos? R. la participacion\n        de los buenos christianos en las\n        buenas obras y sacramentos.\n        P. quando leuanta la ostia el pa\n        dre en la missa para quela ado\n        rentos christianos quien esta\n        asti? R. Jesuchristo nro senor\n        dios y hombre uerdadero como\n        esta en el cielo. P. En el caliz\n        quien esta? R. la sangre uer\n        dadera de nro senor Jesuchris\n        to como aquella que deruamo\n        en la cruz. P. que esta el chris\n        tiano obligado a hazer, para\n        saluarse? R. hazer y cumplir.\n        los diez mandamientos de dios\n        y los de la sancta madre yglesia.\n\n\n\n        Ang tanongan.\n\n        Tanongan. Christiano cana?\n        Sagot. Oo.t aua nang atin pa\n        nginoon dios. T. ano caia ang\n        christiano? S. ang binagan su\n        masangpalataia sa aral nang\n        dios at nang sancta yglesia\n        yna natin. T. alin caia ang tan\n        da nang christiano? S. ang sacta\n        cruz. T. sino caia ang sinasam\n        ba nang manga christiano? S.\n        ang atin panginoon dios. T.\n        ano caia ang dios? S. ang onag\n        mola. ang caona onahan sa lahat,\n        ang mei gaua sa lahat, siya,e,\n        ualan pinagmolan ualan caha\n        ganan. T. ylan ang dios? S. ysa\n        lamang. T. ylan ang personas?\n        S. tatlo. T. anong ngalang nang\n        naona? S. ang dios ama. T. anog\n        ngalan nang ycalua? S. ang di\n        os anac. T. anong ngalan nag\n        ycatlo? S. ang dios spiritusacto.\n        T. tatlo caia ang dios? S. dile\n        tatlo ang dios, ang personas\n        siyang tatlo, ang dios ysa\n        lamang. T. alin sa tatlong per\n        sonas ang nagcatauan tauo?\n        S. ang ycaluang persona nang\n        sanctissima trinidad ang dios a\n        nac. T. anong pagcatauan tauo\n        niya? S. pinaglalangan siya nag\n        dios spiritusancto satian ni sacta\n        Maria uirgen totoo nang dipa\n        nanganac siya. nang macapanga\n        nac na virgen din totoo. T. ayat\n        nagcatauan tauo siya? S, nang ma\n        yari mamatai siya tubus sacasa\n        lanan nang lahat na tauo. T. atin\n        caia ang casalanan nang tauo?\n        S. ang casalanan nang atin magu\n        gulang si Adan at si Eva nagin\n        casalanan natin, naramai pala ta\n        yo sapagcacasala nila sa pangino\n        on dios. bucor naman doon ang sa\n        diling casalanan nang balan nang\n        tauo nagcasasala sa dios arao\n        arao. T. Anong pagtubus niya\n        sa tauo? S. nagpacamatai siya\n        sa cruz, at sinacop niya ang san\n        libotan bayan. T. nang namatai\n        na ang atin  panginoon Jesuchris\n        to sa cruz, anong guinaua nang\n        caloloua niya? S, nanaog sama\n        nga infiernos pati nang pagca\n        dios niya, at hinango doon ag\n        caloloua nang manga sanctos\n        padres naghihintai nagpagda\n        ting niya. T. ang catauan ni\n        Jesuchristo ybinaon? S. oo. T.\n        nabuhai nanaguli? S. oo. T. ca\n        ylan? S. nang magycatlong\n        arao nangpagcamatai niya. T.\n        humabilin dito sa lupa ang atin\n        panginoon Jesuchristo? S. di\n        le humabilin dito sa lupa, nac\n        yat sa langit nang magycapat\n        napoung arao nang pagcabu\n        hai niyang naguli, at nalolocloc\n        sa canan nang dios ama maca\n        gagaua sa lahat. T. anong pagca\n        locloc niya doon sa langit? S.\n        pinalalo siya nang dios ama ni\n        ya sa lahat. T. mei arao na yhoho\n        com sa nangabubuhai, at sana\n        ngamatai natauo? S. oo T. caila?\n        S. dile naaalaman. T. sino caia,\n        ang hocom? S. ang atin pangino\n        on Jesuchristo. T. ang caloloua\n        natin mamatai caia cun mama\n        tai ang catauan natin? S. dile ma\n        matai ang caloloua natin para\n        nang sa haiop, ang catauan la\n        mang mamatai, ang caloloua\n        mabubuhai magparating man\n        saan. T. mabubuhai caia mag\n        uli ang nangamatai natauo, ba\n        nal man, tampalasan man. S, oo\n        mabubuhai din maguli, at papa\n        soc na moli ang caloloua sa ca\n        tauan nang hocoman silang\n        dalua nang atin panginoon Je\n        suchristo. T. cun mabuhai na\n        maguli ang catauan nang ma\n        nga tauo mamatai pa caiang mo\n        li? S. dile. T. ano ygaganti\n        nang dios sa manga banal na\n        tauo. S. ang caluualhatian\n        sa langit doon maquiquita ni\n        la ang dios, at matotoua at ma\n        liligaia, at luluualhati magpa\n        rating man saan. T. ano ypa\n        rurusa niya sa manga tauo tan\n        palasan? S, yhoholog niya sa\n        ynfierno doon maghihirap sila\n        at maccacasaquet magparatig\n        man saan. T. ano caia ang san\n        cta yglesia? S. ang lahat nata\n        uo christiano sumasangpala\n        taia sa dios pati nang pononi\n        la si Jesuchristo,e, nasa langit\n        dito sa lupa ang cahalili niya\n        ang sancto Papa sa Roma?\n        T. dito sa sancta yglesia mei\n        ycauauala nang casalanan?\n        S, oo, T, ano caia ang ycauaua\n        la nang casalanan? S, ang\n        pinagbinag sa dipa christianos\n        at ang pagcoconfesal nang ma\n        nga christianos mei casalana,\n        cun magsising masaquet at\n        mei loob na di moli maccasa\n        la sa dios magparating man\n        saan. T, dito sasancta yglesia\n        mei casamahan ang manga\n        sanctos? S, oo, T, ano caia\n        ang casamahan nang manga\n        sanctos? S, ang pagpapaquina\n        bang nang manga Christianos\n        banal na tauo, sa gaua maga\n        ling sangpon nang sasacra\n        mentos. T, Nang binubuhat\n        ang ostia nang padre sapagmi\n        misa sino caia ang naroon?\n        S, ang atin panginoon Jesu\n        Christo Dios totoo, at tauog\n        totoo, para doon sa langit. T, sa\n        caliz sino caia ang naroon? S,\n        Ang dugong totoo nang atin\n        panginoon Jesuchristo, capara\n        niun nabohos sa cruz nang na\n        matai siya. T, ano caia ang ga\n        gauin nang manga Christiano\n        nang macaparoon sa langit? S,\n        Ang susundin nila ang sang\n        po, uong otos nang dios, pati\n        nang otos nang sancta yglesia\n        yna natin.\n\n\n\n        TA NO NGA.\n\n        KI NI TI YA NO KA NA. O O A WA NA A\n        TI PA NGI NO O DI YO. A NO KA YA\n        A KI NI TI YA NO. A BI YA GA NA TA WO. SU MA\n        SA PA LA TA YA. SA A RA NA DI YO. A NA SA\n        TA I LE SI YA. I NA NA TI. A LI KA YA\n        A TA DA NA KI NI TI YA NO. A SA TA KU RU.\n        SI NO KA YA. A SI NA SA BA. NA MA NGA KI NI\n        TI YA NO. A A TI PA NGI NO O DI YO. A\n        NO KA YA A DI YO. A O NA MO LA. A KA O\n        NA O NA HA SA LA HA. A MA GA WA SA LA HA.\n        SI YA WA LA PI NA MO A. WA LA KA HA GA NA.\n        I LA A DI YO. I I SA LA MA. I LA A\n        PE SO NA. TA LO. A NO NGA LA NA NA O NA. DI\n        YO A MA. ANO NGA LA NA I KA WA. DI YO A MA.\n        A NO NGA LA NA I KA LO. DI YO E PI RI TO\n        SA TO. TA LO KA YA A DI YO. DI LE TA LO A DI\n        YO. A PE SO NA SI YA TA LO. A DI YO I SA\n        LA MA. A LI SA TA LO PE SO NA. A NA KA TA A\n        TA WO. A I KA WA PE SO NA. NA SA TI SI MA TI\n        NI DA. NA DI YO A NA. A NO PA KA TA A TA WO\n        NI YA. PI NA LA LA NGA SI YA. NA DI YO E PI\n        RI TO SA TO. SA TI YA NI SA TO MA RI YA.\n        BI SE TO TO O. NA DI PA NA NGA NA. SI YA. NA MA\n        KA PA NGA NA NA. BI SE RI TO TO O. A A NA KA\n        TA A TA WO SI YA. NA MA YA RI MA MA TA SI YA.\n        TU BU SA KA SA LA NA. NA LA HA NA TA WO. A LI KA\n        YA A KA SA LA NA NI LA. A O NA KA SA LA NA.\n        NA MA GU GU LA NA TI. SI A DA. A SI E BA.\n        NA GI KA SA LA NA NA TI . NA RA MA PA LA TA YO.\n        SA PA KA KA O LA NI LA SA DI YO. BO KO NA MA DO\n        O. A SA DI LI A SA LA NA. NA BA LA NA TA WA.\n        NA KA SA SA LA SA DI YO. A RA A RA. TI NU\n        BU NI SE SO KI TO. A LA HA NA TA WO. O O. A NO\n        PA TU BU NI YA SA MA NGA TA WO. A PA KA MA TA\n        SI YA SA KU RU. A SI NA KO NI YA. A SA LI BU\n        TA BA YA. NA NA MA TA NA A A TI PA NGI NO O\n        SE SO KI TO SA KU RU. A NO GI NA WA NA KA LO LO WA\n        NI YA. NA NA O SA MA NGA I PE NO. PA TI NA\n        PA KA DI YO NI YA. A HI NA NGO DO O. A\n        KA LO LO WA NA MA NGA SA TO PA RE. NA HI NI TA\n        A PA RA TI NI YA. A KA TA A NI SE SO KI TO.\n        I BI NA O. O O. NA BU HA NA NA U LI. O O. KA I\n        LA. NA MA I KA LO A RA. A PA KA MA TA NI YA.\n        HU MA BI LI DI TO SA LU PA. A A TI PA NGI NO\n        O SE SO KI TO. DI LE HU MA BI LI DI TO SA LU PA.\n        NA YA SA LA NGI. NA MA I KA PA NA PO WO A\n        RA. A PA KA BU HA NI YA NA O LI. A NA LO\n        LO LO SA KA NA NA DI YO A MA. A KA GA GA WA\n        SA LA HA. A NO PA KA LO LO NI YA. DO O SA LA\n        NGI. PI NA LO LO SI YA NA DI YO A MA NI YA.\n        SA LA HA. MA A RA NA I HO HO. SA MA BU BU HA\n        A SA NA NGA MA TA NA TA WO. O O. KA I LA. DI LE\n        NA A A LA MA. SI NO KA YA A HO KO. A A\n        TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. A KA LO LO WA NA TI.\n        MA MA TA KA YA. KO MA MA TA A KA TA A NA TI.\n        DI LE MA MA TA A KA LO LO WA NA TI. PA RA NA SA I\n        BA HA YO. A KA TA A NA LA MA. A MA MA TA. A KA\n        LO LO WA MA BU BU HA. MA PA RA TI MA SA A\n        MA BU BU HA KA YA MA O LI. A NA NGA MA TA NA TO WO.\n        BA NA MA. TA PA LA SA MA. O O NA BU BU HA RI\n        MA U LI. A PA PA SO NA MO LI. A KA LO LO\n        WA SA KA TA A NI YA. NA HO KO MA SI LA DA WA.\n        NA A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. KU MA BU HA\n        NA MA O LI. A KA TA A NA MA NGA TA WO. MA MA TA\n        PA KA YA MO LI. DI LE. ANO I GA GA TI NA DI YO\n        SA MA NGA BA NA NA TA WO. A KA LU WA HA TI A A SA LA\n        NGI. DO O MA KI KI TA NI LA A DI YO. A MA TO\n        TO WA. A MA LI LI GA YA. A LU LU WA HA TI. MA PA\n        RA TI MA SA A. A NO I PA RU RU SA NA DI YO\n        A MA NGA TA WO TA PA LA SA. I HO HO LO NI YA.\n        SA I PE NO. DO O MA HI HI RA SI YA. A MA KA\n        KA SA KI. MA PA RA TI MA SA A. A NO KA YA A\n        SA TA I LE SI YA. A LA HA NA TA WO KI NI TI YA NO.\n        SU MA SA PA LA TA YA SA DI YO. PA TI NA PO\n        PO NI LA SI SE SO KI TO. NA SA LA NGI. A DI\n        TO SA LU PA. A KA HA LI LI NI YA. A SA TO PA\n        PA. DI TO SA SA TA I LE SI YA. MA I KA WA WA LA\n        NA KA SA LA NA. A NO KA YA A I KA WA WA LA\n        NA KA SA LA NA. A PA BI YA SA DI PA KI NI TI\n        YA NO. A A PA KO KO PI SA. A MA NGA KA\n        NI TI YA NO. MA KA SA LA NA. KU MA SI SI MA SA KI.\n        A MA LO O. NA DI MO LI MA KA SA LA SA DI YO\n        MA PA RA TI MA SA A. DI TO SA SA TA I LE SI\n        YA. MA KA SA MA HA. A MA NGA SA TO. O O. A NO\n        KA YA A KA SA MA HA. NA MA NGA SA TO. A PA PA\n        PA KI NA BA. NA MA NGA KI NI TI YA NO. BA NA NA\n        TA WO. SA GA WA MA GA LI. SA PO NA SA SA KA RA ME TO.\n        NA BI NU BU HA A O TI YA NA PA RE. SA PA MI\n        MI SA. SI NO KA YA A NA RO O. A A TI PA\n        NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. DI YO TO TO O. A TA WO\n        TO TO O. PA RA DO O SA LA NGI. SA KA LI. SI NO\n        KA YA A NA DO O. A DU GO TO TO O. NA A TI PA\n        NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. KA PA RA NI U NA BO HO SA KU\n        RU. NA NA MA TA SI YA. ANO KA YA. A GA GA I\n        NA MA NGA KI NI TI YA NO. NA MA KA PA RO O SA\n        LA NGI. A SU SU DI NI YA. A SA PO WO O TO NA DI\n        YO. PA TI NA O TO NA SA TA I LE SI YA.\n        I NA NA TI.\n\n\n        Laus Deo\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n[1] Tagalog characters are said to be similar to old Javanese, Ignacio\nVillamot, _La Antigua Escritura Filipina_, Manila, 1922, p. 30. They\nwere replaced under the Spanish occupation by roman letters, and\nare not now used. The best definitive grammar is Frank R. Blake's _A\nGrammar of the Tagalog Language_, New Haven, 1925, where, p. 1, he\ndefines the language as follows: \"Tagalog is the principal language\nof Luzon, the largest island of the Philippine Archipelago. It is\nspoken in Manila and in the middle region of Luzon. Tagalog, like\nall the Philippine languages about which anything is known, belongs\nto the Malayo-Polynesian family of speech, which embraces the idioms\nspoken on the islands of Polynesia, Melanesia, and Malaysia, on the\nMalay peninsula, and on the island of Madagascar.\"\n\n[2] The woodcut, showing St. Dominic beneath a star holding a lily and\na book, the usual symbols of this saint, and clad in the white habit\nand black cloak of his order, seems to be of oriental workmanship,\ndiffering vastly from contemporary Spanish and Mexican cuts of the\nsame type. The clouds, for instance, are characteristically Chinese,\nand the buildings in the background more reminiscent of eastern\ntemples than European churches.\n\n[3] T.H. Pardo de Tavera, _Noticias sobre La Imprenta y el Grabado\nen Filipinas_, Madrid, 1893, pp. 9-10. Dard Hunter in _Papermaking\nthrough Eighteen Centuries_, New York, 1930, pp. 109-16, describes\npapermaking in China, and mentions the use of \"makaso\" or \"takaso,\"\nboth species of the paper mulberry, as material for the making\nof paper. The paper mulberry's scientific name is _Broussonetia\npapyrifera_. Later, on p. 141, he speaks of the use by the Chinese\nof gypsum, lichen, starch, rice flour and animal glue for sizing.\n\n[4] The best short summaries in English of the beginnings of printing\nin Mexico are Henry R. Wagner's introduction to the exhibition\ncatalogue of _Mexican Imprints 1544-1600 In the Huntington Library_,\nSan Marino, 1939, pp. 3-10; and Lawrence C. Wroth, _Some Reflections\non the Book Arts in Early Mexico_, Cambridge (Mass.), 1945.\n\n[5] J.B. Primrose, _The First Press in India and Its Printers_,\nThe Library, 4th Series, 1939, XX, pp. 244-5.\n\n[6] Jose Toribio Medina, _La Imprenta en Lima_, Santiago de Chile,\n1904-17, no. 1, p. 3.\n\n[7] A contemporary copy of this letter--the original is not known--lay\nforgotten and unnoticed in the Archives of the Indies (1-1-3/25,\nno. 52), Torres, III, no. 4151, p. 83, until discovered there by\nPascual de Gayangos, who called it to the attention of W.E. Retana,\nwho first printed it in _La Politica de Espana en Filipinas_, no. 97,\nOct. 23, 1894. It was later rediscovered independently by Medina who\nalso printed it in his _La Imprenta en Manila_, p. xix. Gomez Perez\nDasmarinas, formerly corregidor of Murcia and Cartagena in Spain,\nwas appointed governor of the Philippines in 1589, landed at Manila\nin May 1590, and remained in office until his death in October 1593.\n\n[8] _Relacion de lo que se ha escrito y escribe en las Filipinas\nfecho este ano de 1593_, an apparently inedited MS. in the A. of I.,\nIndex 9, no. 81, from which the passage was quoted by Retana in his\nedition of Antonio de Morga's _Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas_, Madrid,\n1909, p. 425, and Manuel Artigas y Cuerva, _La Primera Imprenta en\nFilipinas_, Manila, 1910, p. xi. This may be the MS. listed by Torres,\nIII, no. 4229, p. 91, as _Breve sumario y memorial de apuntamientos\nde lo que se ha escrito y escribe en las Islas Filipinas_, undated\nbut probably 1593.\n\n[9] _Recopilacion de las Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias_, Madrid,\n1681, I, ff. 123v-124r, where they are Laws 1 and 3, Title XXIV,\nBook I.\n\n[10] Medina, p. xxviii, from. _Libro de provisiones reales_, Madrid,\n1596, I, p. 231.\n\n[11] Inflation in the Philippines was discussed in a report sent by\nBishop Salazar to the King in 1583, B. & R., V, pp. 210-11, translated\nfrom Retana,  _Archivo del bibliofilo filipino_, Madrid, 1895-97,\nIII. no 1.\n\n[12] Henry R. Wagner, _The House of Cromberger_, in _To Doctor\nR[osenbach]_, Philadelphia, 1946, pp. 234 & 238, where he gives\nsome interesting comparative figures: in 1542 the Casa de Cromberger\ncould charge 17 maravedis a sheet; in Spain in 1552 Lopez de Gomara's\n_Historia de las Indias_ was appraised at 2 maravedis a sheet; and\nin Mexico Vasco de Puga's _Provisiones_ of 1563 was permitted to sell\nat the tremendous figure of one real or 34 maravedis a sheet.\n\n[13] Juan de Cuellar was mentioned in the Letter of Instruction given\nby Philip II to Gomez Perez Dasmarinas on August 9, 1589, as among\nthose \"who are men of worth and account\" in the Philippines and who\nshould be provided for and rewarded accordingly, B. & R., VII, p. 151,\ntranslated from the original MS. in the A. of I. (105-2-11), Torres,\nIII, no. 3567, p. 17. Cuellar received a commission from Dasmarinas\nand signed various documents during his administration as secretary\nand notary. Antonio de Morga, _Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas_, Mexico,\n1609, f. 13v, reports that Cuellar was one of two survivors of the ship\non which Dasmarinas sailed in October 1593 as part of an expedition\nto conquer the fort of Terrenate in Maluco. On the second day out,\nwhile the ship was weather-bound at Punta del Acufre, the Chinese\nrowers mutinied, and only Cuellar, there described as the governor's\nsecretary, and the Franciscan father, Francisco de Montilla, survived\nthe ensuing massacre. They were set ashore on the coast of Ylocos, and\nmade their way back to Manila. A similar account appears in Chapter XVI\nof Leonardo de Argensola's, _Conqvista delas Islas Malvcas_, Madrid,\n1609. We have been able to find no subsequent record of Cuellar.\n\n[14] Colin, I, pp. 501, 507-14, 561-6.\n\n[15] Pedro Chirino, _Primera parte de la Historia de la provincia\nde Philipinas de la Compania de Ihs_, unpublished MS. of 1610,\nfrom which the present passage was quoted by Retana, col. 25. For an\naccount of the MS. see Santiago Vela, VI, p. 435n. Schilling, p. 214,\ndemonstrates that according to the original punctuation the meaning\nis that the first printers were Villanueva and Blancas de San Jose,\nbut with the shifting of a semi-colon it could be read to mean that the\nfirst printers were of the Order of St. Augustine. We can see no reason\nto shift the semi-colon, and have retained it in its original place.\n\n[16] Retana, col. 26, said that he was able to find no information\nregarding Villanueva except for the listing of his name by Cano,\np. 43, as having arrived in the Philippines at an unknown date. The\ndestruction of the early records of the Augustinians when the English\nsacked Manila in 1762 accounts for the paucity of information, but\nthere are a few references which throw some little light on the two\nVillanuevas. San Agustin, p. 212, says that when Herrara sailed for\nMexico in 1569 he left in Cebu only \"P. Fr. Martin de Rada and two\nvirtuous clerics, the one named Juan de Vivero, and the other Juan\nde Villanueva, who had come with Felipe de Salcedo.\" Salcedo had\ncome back to Cebu in 1566. Francisco Moreno, _Historia de la Santa\nIglesia Metropolitana de Filipinas hasta 1650_, Manila, 1877, p. 226,\nstates that Villanueva came in 1566, and died shortly after 1569. San\nAntonio, I, p. 173, writes, \"Another cleric was the Licentiate Don\nJuan de Villanueva, of whom the only thing known is that he was a\nchurchman and lived but a short time--and that after the erection of\nthe church.\" This refers to the foundation of the church in Manila in\n1571. Of the other Villanueva our information comes from Perez, p. 63.\n\n[17] Alonso Fernandez, _Historia Eclesiastica de Nvestros Tiempos_,\nToledo, 1611, pp. 303-4. The book referred to here is called _De los\nmysterios del Rosario de nuestra Senora_ by Jacques Quetif and Jacques\nEchard, _Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum_, Paris, 1719, II, p. 390;\nand _Devotion del Santisimo Rosario de la Bienaventurada Virgen_\nby Vicente Maria Fontana, _Monvmenta Dominicana_, Rome, 1675, p. 586.\n\n[18] Fernandez, _Historia de los insignes Milagros qve la Magestad\nDiuina ha obrado por el Rosario santissimo de la Virgen soberana, su\nMadre_, Madrid, 1613, f. 216. I have been unable to locate a copy of\nthis book in the United States, but the passage is printed in Retana,\n_Aparato Bibliografico de la Historia General de Filipinas_, Madrid,\n1906, I, pp. 64-5. It was first cited in modern times by Pedro Vindel,\n_Catalogo_, Madrid, 1903, III, no. 2631.\n\n[19] A sketch of the life of Aduarte was added to his history\nby Goncalez, II, pp. 376-81, and a notice also appears in Ramon\nMartinez-Vigil, _La Orden de Predicadores ... seguidas del Ensayo de\nuna Bibliotheca de Dominicos Espanoles_, Madrid, 1884, p. 229.\n\n[20] Aduarte, II, pp. 15-18.\n\n[21] Artigas, _op. cit._, pp. 3-22, stresses the part played by\nhim in establishing printing and gives much information regarding\nthis father. There, referring to the _Acta Capitulorum Provincialium\nprovinciae Sanctissimi Rosarii Philippinarum_, Manila, 1874-77, Artigas\ntraces the career of Blancas de San Jose as follows: in Abucay from\nMay 24, 1598 until April 27, 1602; at San Gabriel in Binondo from\nApril 27, 1602 until May 4, 1604; as Preacher-General of the order\nat the Convent of Santo Domingo in Manila from 1604 to 1608; back\nat Abucay from April 26, 1608 until May 8, 1610; and at San Gabriel\nagain from May 8, 1610 until May 4, 1614.\n\n[22] Medina, no. 8, p. 7. A copy of this book and an unique copy of\nthe recently discovered _Ordinationes_ of 1604, see note 127, are\nin the Library of Congress. Both books are entirely typographical,\nand the Tagalog in the 1610 volume has been transliterated. These two\nand the present Doctrina are, so far as I have been able to find out,\nthe only Philippine imprints before 1613 in the United States.\n\n[23] Medina, no. 14, p. 11. The text was written by Thomas Pinpin,\nwho appears as the printer of the former book, and a confessionary\nby Blancas de San Jose, who probably edited the volume, is included.\n\n[24] Juan Lopez, _Quinta Parte de la Historia de San Domingo_,\nValladolid, 1621, ff. 246-51.\n\n[25] Quetif and Echard, _op. cit._, II, p. 390. This same statement was\nmade in Antonio de Leon Pinelo, _Epitome de la Biblioteca Oriental y\nOccidental, Nautica, y Geografica_ (ed. Antonio Gonzalez de Barcia),\nMadrid, 1737-38, col. 737, and was reprinted almost word for word\nby Jose Mariano Beristain y Sousa, _Bibliotheca Hispano-Americana\nSeptentrional_, Mexico, 1883-97, I, p. 177.\n\n[26] A fairly complete biography is given by Vinaza, pp. 112-7,\nwhere he points out that several of the major Jesuit biographers have\nerroneously stated that Hervas went to America some time before 1767.\n\n[27] Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro, _Origine, formazione, meccanismo,\ned armonia degli' idiomi_, Cesena, 1785, p. 88.\n\n[28] Hervas, _Saggio Pratico delle lingue, Con prolegomeni, e\nuna raccolta di orazioni Dominicali in piu di trecento lingue,\ne dialetti_, Cesena, 1787, pp. 128-9. Although Schilling, p. 208,\nsays that Hervas had a copy of the 1593 Doctrina before him, which\n\"had been lent or given\" by Bernardo de la Fuente, Hervas merely says\nthat he took his information \"from the best documents, which showed\nthe grammar; and the Tagalog and Visayan dictionary were given me by\nMessrs. D. Antonio Tornos and D. Bernardo de la Fuente.\" There is no\ndoubt, however, but that Hervas had a copy of the Doctrina, or accurate\nand extensive transcripts from a copy known to one of his friends.\n\n[29] Franz Carl Alter, _Ueber die Tagalische Sprache_, Vienna,\n1803, p. vii. Alter speaks of having had extensive correspondence\nwith Hervas.\n\n[30] Johann Christoph Adelung, _Mithridates oder allgemeine\nSprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprach probe in beynahe\nfuenfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten_, Berlin, 1806, I, pp. 608-9.\n\n[31] Beristain, _op. cit._, II, p. 464. The first edition was published\nin 1819-21, but we have used the second for our quotations.\n\n[32] Juan de Grijalva, _Cronica de la orden de N.P.S. Augustin de\nNueva Espana_, Mexico, 1624, f. 199v.\n\n[33] Nicolas Antonio, _Bibliotheca Hispana Nova_, Madrid, 1783, I,\np. 764. The first edition was Rome, 1672, but I could locate no copy\nin this country.\n\n[34] San Agustin, p. 352. On pp. 443-4 referring to Grijalva and\nHerrera, he says merely that Quinones \"was very learned in the Tagalog\nlanguage, and wrote a grammar and dictionary of it.\"\n\n[35] \"He succeeded in learning that language with such perfection that\nhe composed a treatise, as a light and guide for the new missionaries,\nand a vocabulary, with which in a short time they could instruct those\nislanders in the mysteries of the faith,\" Medina, p. xxvii, assumed\nthat this referred to Jose Sicardo, _La Cristiandad del Japon_, Madrid,\n1698, where he could find nothing about Quinones, but Beristain cited\nspecifically his _Historias de Filipinas y Japon_, which Santiago Vela,\nVI, p. 441, thinks must be his additions to Grijalva, including a life\nof Quinones, which San Agustin used and quoted from. The quotation\nhere is from San Agustin, p. 442, where Sicardo is given as the source.\n\n[36] Tomas de Herrera, _Alphabetvm Avgvstinianvm_, Madrid, 1644, I,\np. 406, according to P. & G., p. xxiv.\n\n[37] Schilling, p. 204.\n\n[38] Pedro Bello, _Noticia de los escritores y sus obras impresas\ny manuscritas en diferentes idiomas por los religiosos agustinos\ncalzados hasta 1801_, unpublished MS., from which the citation is\ngiven by Santiago Vela, VI, p. 441.\n\n[39] P. & G., pp. xxv-xxvi.\n\n[40] Medina, p. xxviii, who gives as source the A. of I. and _Libro\nde provisiones reales_, Madrid, 1596, I, p. 231. In his note Medina\nsays that this cedula was not in the _Recopilacion_, but referring\nback to the note on p. xxiv, we find that he there prints a law of\nthe same content and date, cited as Law 3, Title XXIV, Book 1 of the\n_Recopilacion_, where we have seen it, with the extremely significant\naddition, \"it shall not be published, _or printed_, or used.\" If\nthis phrase was not included in the original cedula sent to Manila,\nbut added when printed as applying to all the Indies, it is important\nevidence that the King felt an admonition against printing unnecessary\nwhere no facilities for printing existed.\n\n[41] Retana, col. 10, cited from the original MS. in the A. of\nI. (68-1-42), Torres, II, no. 3211, p. 150.\n\n[42] San Antonio, II, p. 297. This work, treated at length by San\nAntonio, is proof of the high esteem in which Plasencia was held as\na Tagalist. It was incorporated in a document of Governor Francisco\nTello, dated July 13, 1599, now in the A. of I. (67-6-18), and first\nprinted in the appendix to Santa Ines, II, pp. 592-603, and translated\nin B. & R., VII, pp. 173-96.\n\n[43] Santiago Vela, VI, pp. 442-3. His study of the questionable _Arte_\nof 1581 is the most thorough and detailed yet written.\n\n[44] Schilling, p. 205.\n\n[45] Pardo de Tavera, _op. cit._, pp. 8-9. After quoting the latter\npart of this passage, Medina, p. xviii, adds a quizzical note,\n\"I want to cite the opinion of so distinguished a student of\nthe Philippines because it shows how tangled and confused is the\ninformation concerning the primitive Philippine press, even among\nmen best informed on the subject.\"\n\n[46] Medina, nos. 1 and 2, p. [3].\n\n[47] Medina, p. xix.\n\n[48] Retana had published many of his findings in _La Politico de\nEspana en Filipinas_, Madrid, 1891-98; in his edition of Joaquin\nMartinez de Zuniga, _Estadismo de las Islas Filipinas_, Madrid, 1893;\nand in the _Archivo del Bibliofilo Filipino_, Madrid, 1895-97.\n\n[49] Retana, cols. 7-8. We shall speak of Juan de Vera later.\n\n[50] Thomas Cooke Middleton, _Some Notes on the Bibliography of the\nPhilippines_, Philadelphia, 1900, pp. 32-33.\n\n[51] Pardo de Tavera, _Biblioteca Filipina_, Washington, 1903,\npp. 9-10.\n\n[52] Medina, _La Imprenta en Manila desde sus Origenes hasta 1810\nAdiciones y Ampliacones_, Santiago de Chile, 1904.\n\n[53] P. & G., pp. xxi-xxvi.\n\n[54] B. & R., LIII, p. 11.\n\n[55] Artigas, _op. cit._ He admitted that the celebration should have\nbeen held in 1902.\n\n[56] Retana, _Origenes de la Imprenta Filipina_, Madrid, 1911. Retana\nhad also published between 1897 and 1911 several other books which\ncontained some information about the early Philippine press, the\n_Aparato Bibliografico_ in 1906 and his edition of Morga in 1909,\nboth of which have already been cited.\n\n[57] Antonio Palau y Dulcet, _Manuel del Librero Hispano-Americano_,\nBarcelona, 1923-37, III, p. 72.\n\n[58] Schilling, _op. cit._\n\n[59] Chirino, p. 3, writes that he was \"the first who made converts\nto Christianity in the Philippines, preaching to them of Jesus Christ\nin their own tongue--of which he made the first vocabulary, which\nI have seen and studied;\" and Juan de Medina (who originally wrote\nhis history in 1630), p. 54, says that in visiting Cebu in 1612 he\n\"saw a lexicon there, compiled by Father Fray Martin de Rada, which\ncontained a great number of words.\" Grijalva, _op. cit._, f. 124V,\nwrites that Rada \"by the force of his imaginative and excellent ability\nlearned the Visayan language, as he had learned the Otomi in this land\n[Mexico], so that he could preach in it in five months.\"\n\n[60] Perez, p. 5.\n\n[61] Juan Gonzalez de Mendoza, _The Historie of the great and mightie\nkingdom of China ... Translated out of Spanish by R. Parke_, London,\n1588, p. 138. The original edition of 1585 said he made an \"arte y\nvocabulario.\" We must take the phrase \"in few daies\" in a comparative\nsense, but that an Augustinian, probably Rada, knew some Chinese as\nearly as July 30, 1574 is shown by a letter from Governor Lavezaris\nto the King from Manila, sending him \"a map of the whole land of\nChina, with an explanation which I had some Chinese interpreters\nmake through the aid of an Augustinian religious who is acquainted\nwith the elements of the Chinese language,\" B. & R., III, p. 284,\nfrom the original MS. in the A. of I. (67-6-6), Torres, II, no. 1868,\np. 10-11. Antonio de Leon Pinelo, _Epitome de la Biblioteca Oriental\ni Occidental, Nautica i Geographica_, Madrid, 1629, p. 31, also\nrecords Rada's Chinese grammar and dictionary. Santiago Vela, VI,\npp. 444-60, gives a full history of Rada and his writings. He went\nto China a second time in May 1576, and in 1578 accompanied La Sande\non his expedition to Borneo, dying on the way back to Manila in June\nof that year.\n\n[62] Gonzalez de Mendoza, _op. cit._, pp. 103-5.\n\n[63] Diego Ordonez Vivar came to the Philippines in 1570, filled\nvarious ministries there, and according to Agustin Maria de Castro\nwas in Japan  in  1597,  where  he  witnessed the martyrdom of the\nFranciscans; he died in 1603, Perez, p. 10. Juan de Medina, p. 74,\nsays, \"Father Diego de Ordonez learned this language [Tagalog] very\nquickly.\" Alonso Alvatado had been on the unsuccessful 1542 expedition\nof Villalobos, and returned to the Philippines in 1571. Perez, p. 11,\nrecords that he became familiar with the Tagalog language, was the\nfirst prior of Tondo, ministered to the Chinese there, and was the\nfirst Spaniard to learn the Mandarin dialect. He was elected provincial\nin 1575, and died at Manila the following year. Jeronimo Marin came\nto the islands with Alvarado, acquired skill in the Visayan, Tagalog\nand Chinese languages, accompanied Rada on his first expedition to\nChina, was in Tondo in 1578, and later returned to Spain to recruit\nnew missionaries for the province, dying in Mexico in 1606, Perez,\npp. 11-12.\n\n[64] Cano, p. 12. Santiago Vela, I, p. 85, expresses the opinion that\nCano's statement was an overenthusiasm, and is not valid.\n\n[65] Retana, col. 9.\n\n[66] Juan de Medina, p. 156.\n\n[67] Santiago Vela, I, p. 85, where he cites the first book of the\n_Gobierno_ of the Augustinian province.\n\n[68] Santiago Vela, I, pp. 84-6 treats of the whole question in detail.\n\n[69] A Doctrina in Tagalog, attributed to Alburquerque by Agustin\nMaria de Castro in his unpublished _Osario_, is said by Santiago Vela,\nI, p. 85, to have been arranged and perfected by Quinones, and was\nprobably that presented by him to the Synod of 1582, if indeed he\ndid present such a work then. For an account of the MS. _Osario_,\nsee Schilling, p. 205n.\n\n[70] Perez, p. 20n, quotes Vicente Barrantes, _El teatro tagalo_,\nMadrid, 1890, p. 170, as saying that \"according to the Augustinian\nwriters\" Alburquerque compiled an _Arte de la Lengua Tagala_ between\n1570 and 1580, the manuscript of which disappeared when the English\nsacked Manila in 1762. It may be that Barrantes referred to Cano\nor possibly Castro, but it must be emphasized that no contemporary\nhistorian, as far as has been discovered up to this time, has made\nsuch a statement.\n\n[71] Quinones came to the Philippines in 1577 and spent his time in\nmissions in and about Manila. He was named prior of Manila in 1586,\nand provincial vicar in 1587 in which year he died, Perez, p. 19,\nand Santiago Vela, VI, pp. 433-4.\n\n[72] Again Castro, as cited by Santiago Vela, VI, p. 435, is the only\nauthority for this, although San Agustin, p. 391, lists Quinones'\nname among those present at the Synod.\n\n[73] San Agustin, p. 381. It should be noted that this statement is\nin direct contradiction to those we shall cite later in connection\nwith the controversy between the Augustinians and Dominicans over\nthe Chinese ministry. The convent at Tondo had been founded in 1571,\nso San Agustin here must refer specifically to the Chinese mission.\n\n[74] Perez, p. 22.\n\n[75] Perez, p. 29.\n\n[76] Huerta, pp. 443 & 500-01. In 1580, under the influence\nof Plasencia, Talavera took the habit of the Franciscan order and\npreached throughout the Philippines until his death in 1616. Huerta\nlists six works in Tagalog by him, all of them devotionary tracts,\nthe last of which he notes was printed at Manila in 1617, and is\nlisted by Medina, no. 20, pp. 14-5. His works are also recorded by\nLeon Pinelo, _op. cit._, 1737-38, II, f. 919r.\n\n[77] Santa Ines (written originally in 1676), p. 211. Virtually the\nsame information is given by San Antonio, I, pp. 532-3 & 563.\n\n[78] Juan de la Concepcion, _Historia general de Philipinas_, Manila,\n1788-92, II, pp. 45-6. Schilling, p. 203n, maintains that the early\nwriters were mistaken in believing that the Synod was held in 1581. On\nOctober 16, 1581 the Bishop called a meeting of ten priests at the\nConvent of Tondo to discuss the execution of the decree about slaves,\nTorres, II, pp. cxliv-v. No laymen were present and no other topic was\ndiscussed. The decisions of this meeting were sent in a letter from\nSalazar to the King, dated from Tondo, October 17, 1581, translated\nin B. & R., XXXIV, pp. 325-31, from the original MS. in the A. of\nI. (68-1-42), Torres, II, no. 2686, p. 95. The following year a real\nSynod was held, this time including lay government officials as well\nas priests, at which was discussed a variety of subjects. Robert\nStreit, _Bibliotheca Missionum_, Aachen, 1928, IV, pp. 327-31, cites\na MS. account of it by the Jesuit father Sanchez who was present; and\nValentin Marin, _Ensayo de una Sintesis de los trabajos realizados\npor las Corporaciones Religiosas Espanoles de Filipinas_, Manila,\n1901, I, pp. 192 et seqq., cites another MS., then in the Archives\nof the Archiepiscopal Palace of Manila, _Memoria de una junta que\nse hizo a manera de concilio el ano de 1582, para dar asiento a las\ncosas tocantes al aumento de la fe, y justificacion de las conquistas\nhechas y que adelante se hicieron por los espanoles_, from which he\nquotes extensively. With reference to the Synod see further Lorenzo\nPerez, _Origen de las Misiones Franciscanas en el extremo oriente_,\nin Archivo Ibero-Americano, 1915, III, pp. 386-400.\n\n[79] Santa Ines, p. 212. Again similar accounts are to be found in\nSan Antonio, I, pp. 563-6, in far more detail and phrased in even\nmore laudatory terms, and the fullest early biography of Plasencia\nis given by San Antonio, II, pp. 512-79. Modern surveys appear in\nMarin, _op. cit._, II, pp. 573-82, and Lorenzo Perez, _op. cit._,\npp. 378 et seqq.\n\n[80] Chirino, _Primera parte_, quoted by Retana, col. 24, implied that\nQuinones and Plasencia wrote at about the same time: \"The first who\nwrote in these languages were, in Visayan, P. Fr. Martin de Rada, and\nin Tagalog, Fr. Juan de Quinones, both of the Order of St. Augustine,\nand at the same time Fr. Juan de Oliver and Fr. Juan de Plasencia\nof the Order of St. Francis, of whom the latter began first, but the\nformer [wrote] many more things and very useful ones.\" However, San\nAntonio, I, p. 532, wrote perhaps with bias in favor of his own order,\n\"Although the Augustinian fathers had come earlier and did not lack\npriests fluent in the idiom, the language had not yet been reduced to\na grammar, so that it could be learned by common grammatical rules,\nnor was there a general vocabulary of speech; except that each one\nhad his own notes, to make himself understood, and everything was\nunsystematized.\"\n\n[81] _Entrada de la seraphica Religion de nuestro P. S. Francisco\nen las Islas Philipinas_, MS. of 1649, first published in Retana,\n_Archivo_, I, no. III, translated in B. & R., XXXV, p. 311.\n\n[82] Medina, p. 15, quoting from Martinez whom we are unable to trace.\n\n[83] Huerta, pp. 492-3. Oliver died in 1599. San Antonio, II, p. 531,\nsays that Plasencia was the first to write a catechism (called\nin Tagalog \"Tocsohan\"), and Oliver was the first to translate the\nexplanation of the Doctrina. Oliver's works are noted by Leon Pinelo,\n_op. cit._, 1737-38, II, col. 730, and Barrantes, _op. cit._, p. 187.\n\n[84] Sebastian de Totanes, _Arte de la Lengua Tagala_, Manila, 1850,\np. v, (first edition printed in 1745) says of Oliver that \"up to\nthe present day our province reveres him as the first master of\nthis idiom.\"\n\n[85] See note 42.\n\n[86] Huerta, p. 517. Nothing is known of Diego de la Asuncion\nexcept that he wrote five works in Tagalog including an _Arte_ and\n_Diccionario_. Huerta was unable to find any record of him in the\nmission lists, the capitularies or the death records, but that he was\nin the Philippines before 1649 we can be sure of from the notice of\nhim in the manuscript of that date.\n\n[87] Huerta, p. 495. Montes y Escamilla came to the islands in 1583\nand remained there until his death in 1610. Five works in Tagalog\nare attributed to him, an _Arte_, _Diccionario_, _Confesionario_,\n_Devocional tagalog_, and a _Guia de Pecadores_. The _Devocional_\nis listed by Medina, no. 16, p. 12.\n\n[88] Pablo Rojo, _Fr. Juan de Plasencia_, _Escritor_, Appendix 3 of\nSanta Ines, II, p. 590. An early reference by Fernandez, _Historia\nEclesiastica_, p. 300, speaking of the Franciscan missionary successes\namong the natives, says, \"They learned the Doctrina Christiana which\nthe priests translated into Tagalog.\"\n\n[89] Rojo, in Santa Ines, II, pp. 590-1, says that the Doctrina\nthen being used among the Tagalogs was the same as that written by\nPlasencia except for modernization in accordance with the changes\nwhich had taken place in the language since his time.\n\n[90] Medina, no. 15, p. 11.\n\n[91] Chirino, p. 14.\n\n[92] Colin, II, p. 325.\n\n[93] Chirino, p. 27.\n\n[94] Chirino, chaps. XV-XVII, pp. 34-41.\n\n[95] On May 13, 1579, Philip II wrote to the Governor of the\nPhilippines, \"Fray Domingo de Salazar, of the Dominican order, and\nbishop of the said islands, has reported to us that he is going to\nreside in these islands; and that he will take with him religious of\nhis order to found monasteries, and to take charge of the conversion\nand instruction of the natives,\" B. & R., IV, p. 141, translated\nfrom the original MS. in the Archivo-Historico Nacional, _Cedulario\nindico_, t. 31, f. 132V, no. 135. Twelve of the twenty who set out\nfrom Europe with Salazar died before reaching Mexico, and the others\nwere so sick that all but one remained there, so when Salazar landed\nat Manila in March 1581 he was accompanied by twenty Augustinians,\neight Franciscans, and only one Dominican, Christoval de Salvatierra.\n\n[96] For these and other general facts I have used Aduarte and\nRemesal where they are supported by the other historians, Juan de\nla Concepcion, San Antonio, San Agustin, Juan de Medina and Santa\nInes. It should be noted that Remesal acknowledged as his source for\nmuch of the material on the Philippines the unpublished MS. history\nof the Franciscan, Francisco de Montilla. The fifteen Dominicans were\nJuan de Castro, Alonso Ximenez, Miguel de Benavides, Pedro Bolanos,\nBernardo Navarro, Diego de Soria, Juan de Castro the younger, Marcos\nSoria de San Antonio, Juan de San Pedro Martyr (or Maldonado), Juan\nOrmaza de Santo Tomas, Pedro de Soto, Juan de la Cruz, Gregorio de\nOchoa, Domingo de Nieva, and Pedro Rodriguez.\n\n[97] By a bull of October 20, 1582 Pope Gregory XIII confirmed the\nappointment already obtained from Pablo Constable de Ferrara, General\nof the Dominican Order, making Juan Chrisostomo vicar-general of the\nPhilippine Islands and China, and giving him authority to establish\na province there, B. & R., V, pp. 199--200, translated from Hernaez,\n_Coleccion de bulas_, Brussels, 1879, I, p. 527, where it is printed\nfrom the original MS. in the Vatican, Bular. Dom., t. 15, p. 412.\n\n[98] In 1580 the Dominicans of Mexico had begun plans for\nthe establishment of a province in the Orient, and sent Juan\nChrisostomo to Europe to obtain the necessary permission from lay\nand ecclesiastical authorities. The Jesuit Alonso Sanchez, who had\nbeen sent to Spain to explain the situation in the Philippines,\nwas at court, and told the King and Council of the Indies--quite\nsubverting his mission--that there was no need for more priests\nand particularly no need for a new order there. Chrisostomo was\ndiscouraged, but the scheme was revivified by Juan de Castro who\nfinally secured a letter from Philip II on September 20, 1585 endorsing\nthe plan. Twenty-two volunteers sailed from Spain on July 17, 1586. In\nMexico the Dominicans again found Sanchez propagandizing against the\nmission and also encountered the efforts of the Viceroy to persuade\nthe friars to remain there. Notwithstanding, twenty friars subscribed\nto a set of ordinances at the Convent of Santo Domingo in Mexico on\nDecember 17, 1586. Of the twenty, fifteen went to the Philippines,\nthree went directly to China, and Juan Chrisostomo, who was ill and\nweak, and Juan Cobo, who had business there, stayed behind in Mexico.\n\n[99] Aduarte, I, p. 9.\n\n[100] Aduarte, I, p. 70.\n\n[101] Juan Cobo had stayed behind in Mexico on business, and during\nhis stay had been so moved by the scandals of the government there\nthat he preached publicly against them, as a result of which he\nwas banished by the Viceroy. He brought with him from Mexico a\nfellow-reformer and exile, Luis Gandullo, and four other recruits\nfor the Philippine mission.\n\n[102] These are printed in the _Ordinationes_ of 1604, see note 127,\nand by Remesal, pp. 677--8, who says that \"these ordinances were\nprinted in as fine characters and as correctly as if in Rome or Lyon,\nby Francisco de Vera, a Chinese Christian, in the town of Binondo in\nthe year 1604 through the diligence of Fr. Miguel Martin.\"\n\n[103] Sangley, a term used by the natives to designate Chinese,\nwas derived from the Cantonese _hiang_ (or _xiang_) and _ley_\nmeaning a \"travelling merchant.\" It was adopted by the Spaniards\nand in most instances used interchangeably with Chinese. If any\ndistinction existed it was that a Sangley was a permanent resident\nof the Philippines--quite contrary to the derivation of the word--or\na Chinese of partially native blood. See San Agustin, p. 253.\n\n[104] Particularly the Memorial to the Council of the Indies sent with\nSanchez, April 20, 1586, translated in B. & R., VI, pp. 167-8, from the\noriginal MS. in the A. of I. (1-1-2/24), Torres, II, no. 3289, p. 159.\n\n[105] B. & R., VII, pp. 130-1, translated from the original MS. in\nthe A. of I. (67-6-18), Torres, III, no. 3556, pp. 15-6. See the\nstatement of San Agustin quoted on p. 22, which gives the irreconciled\nAugustinian view. Most of the contemporary witnesses, however, seem\nto agree with the Dominicans.\n\n[106] B. & R., VII, pp. 220-3, translated from Retana, _Archivo_,\nIII, pp. 47-80, and there printed from the original MS. in the A. of\nI. (68-1-32), Torres, III, no. 3698, p. 32.\n\n[107] Remesal, pp. 681-2.\n\n[108] B. & R., VII, pp. 223-5, as in note 106.\n\n[109] Martinez-Vigil, _op. cit._, p. 246, lists as written by\nBenavides a _Vocabularium sinense facillimum_, and Vinaza, p. 17,\ncites his entry.\n\n[110] Schilling, p. 210, says that in his letter Cobo himself\nrecorded that \"Benavides wrote the first Chinese catechism in the\nPhilippines.\" He does not however differentiate between writing in\nChinese characters and writing transliterated Chinese, and moreover\n\"hizo doctrina\" may only mean that he taught the doctrine, not\nnecessarily that he wrote one.\n\n[111] B. & R., VII, p. 238, as in note 106.\n\n[112] Aduarte, I, p. 140.\n\n[113] Aduarte, I, p. 140, says, before the previously quoted passage,\nthat Cobo \"put the Doctrina Christiana in the Chinese language,\"\nand Vinaza, pp. 17-23, lists seven books by him, including the famous\ntranslation of the Chinese classic, _Beng-Sim-Po-Cam_, the original\nMS. of which, with an introductory epistle by Benavides, dated from\nMadrid, December 23, 1595, is in the Biblioteca Nacional at Madrid; an\n_Arte de las letras chinas_; _Vocabulario chino_; _Catecismo o doctrina\nchristiana en chino_; (cited from Leon Pinelo, _op. cit._, 1737-38, I,\ncol. 142); _Tratado de astronomia en chino_; _Linguae sinica ad certam\nrevocata methodum_ (called by Martinez-Vigil, _op. cit._, p. 263, \"the\nfirst works or work on the Chinese language\"); and _Sententiae plures_,\nexcerpted from various Chinese  books. See also Beristain, _op. cit._,\nI, p. 316, and Quetif and Echard, _op. cit._, II,  pp. 306-7.\n\n[114] Aduarte, I, p. 122.\n\n[115] Fernandez, _Historia Eclesiastica_, p. 304, \"In the Chinese\nlanguage and letters, P. Fr. Domingo de Nieva, of San Pablo of\nValladolid, printed a memorial of the Christian life; and P. Fray\nTomas Mayor, of the province of Aragon, from the Convent and College\nof Orihuela, the Symbol of Faith.\" In his _Historia de los Insignes\nMilagros_, f. 217, Fernandez states that both these works were printed\nat Bataan. Since Mayor did not arrive in the islands until 1602 his\nwork is not pertinent to the present discussion. Mayor's book was seen\nbut inadequately described by Jose Rodriguez, _Biblioteca Valentina_,\n1747, p. 406, from a copy then in the Library of the Dominican Convent\nat Valencia, but now lost. Medina records it under the year 1607,\nno. 6, p. 6. See also Leon Pinelo, _op. cit._, 1737--38, II, f. 919r,\nand Antonio, _op. cit._, I, p. 330.\n\n[116] Aduarte, I, p. 342.\n\n[117] Medina, nos. 399-402, pp. 261-2.\n\n[118] Aduarte, I, pp. 255-8. San Pedro Martyr moved back and forth a\ngood deal. The first year in the Philippines he was with Benavides at\nBaybay; the second year he was in Pangasinan. In 1590 he was ordered\nto the Chinese mission in Cobo's place by Castro before he left for\nChina. When Castro got back and Cobo could resume his old station,\nSan Pedro Martyr went to the vicariate of Bataan \"the language of\nwhich he learned very well,\" and when Cobo left for Japan in 1592,\nSan Pedro Martyr went back to San Gabriel.\n\n[119] Aduarte, I, p. 323.\n\n[120] Remesal, p. 683.\n\n[121] See Hermann Huelle, _Ueber den alten chinesischen Typendruck und\nseine Entzvicklung in den Laendern des Fernen Ostens_, N.P., 1923;\nThomas Francis Carter, _The Invention of Printing in China and its\nSpread Westward_, New York, 1925; and Cyrus H. Peake, _The origin and\ndevelopment of printing in China in the light of recent research_,\nin the Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 1935, X, pp. 9-17.\n\n[122] B. & R., VII, pp. 226, as in note 106.\n\n[123] Aduarte, II, pp. 15-18.\n\n[124] Medina, p. xix, supposed that the Doctrina was printed in\nthe Hospital of San Gabriel in Minondoc, but Aduarte, I, p. 107,\nsays that when the village of Baybay became overcrowded, it became\nnecessary to spread the Chinese Christian settlement to a new site\ndirectly across the river, where land was given them by Don Luis\nPerez Dasmarinas, the son and successor of Gomez Perez Dasmarinas,\nand there a second church of San Gabriel was built. According to an\ninscription on a painting of Don Luis, exhibited at the St. Louis\nFair of 1904 and illustrated in B. & R., XXX, p. 228, he bought the\nland from Don Antonio Velada on March 28, 1594, so that San Gabriel\nof Minondoc could not have been the place where the 1593 volumes were\nprinted. Marin, _op. cit._, II, p. 617, says that San Gabriel was\nmoved several years after its foundation to Binondo at the request\nof the city, and was rebuilt twice. It is apparent that San Gabriel\nin the Parian was abandoned after the church in Binondo was built.\n\n[125] Juan de Vera was probably a comparatively common name at this\ntime, because upon baptism the natives and Chinese assumed any Spanish\nname they pleased, and since Santiago de Vera was governor from 1584 to\n1590, his last name would have been very popular. Aduarte, I, p. 86,\nmentions an Indian chief, Don Juan de Vera, who helped the Dominicans\nin Pangasinan, and Retana, col. 23, quotes from a document sent by\nthe Audiencia of the Philippines to the King, August 11, 1620, the\nappointments as official interpreters of one Juan de Vera on June 15,\n1598, and the same or another Juan de Vera on October 9, 1613.\n\n[126] Aduarte, I, p. 108.\n\n[127] The title-page of this unique book is as follows: [row of\ntype ornaments] / _Ordinationes Generales_ / prouinciae Sanctissimi\nRosarij / [type ornament] Philippinarum. [type ornament] / Factae per\nadmodum Reuerendum patrem fratrem / Ioanem de Castro, primum vicarium\ngeneralem e- / iusdem prouintiae. De consilio, & vnanimi con / sensu\nomnium frattu, qui primit_9_ in pro / uintiam illam se contulerunt,\neuan / gelizandi gratia./ Sunt que semper vsque in hodiernum diem in\nom- / nibus eiusdem prouintiae capitulis infalibiliter / acceptatae,\ninuiolabiliter ab omnibus / fratribus obseruandae. / Binondoc, per\nIoannem de Vera china / Christianum. Cum licentia. 1604. / [row of\ntype ornaments]. The volume, an octavo bound in maroon levant morocco\nby Sangorski and Sutcliffe, consists of eight leaves, as follows:\ntitle-page as above, on the verso the permission signed at Manila,\nJune 24, 1604, by Fr. Miguel Martin de San Jacinto, prior provincial of\nthe Dominican Province of the Philippines; the text of the ordinances\nin Latin on eleven pages, with the device of the Dominican order on\nthe verso of the last page; blank.\n\n[128] See note 102.\n\n[129] Medina, _Adiciones y Ampliacixones_, p. [5].\n\n[130] Retana, cols. 77-8, where he gives as his source Hilario Ocio,\n_Resena biografica de los religiosos de la provincia del Santisimo\nRosario de Filipinas_, Manila, 1891, I, p. 63. Ocio did not cite\nRemesal as his source, but the information, including the printer's\nname as Francisco de Vera, is the same.\n\n[131] Both title-pages are reproduced in Francisco Vindel, _Manual\nGraphico-Descriptivo del Bibliofilo Hispano-Americano_, Madrid,\n1930--34, IX, p. 22, and VII, p. 181 respectively.","title":"Doctrina Christiana: The first book printed in the Philippines, Manila, 1593.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":30198}