[Transcriber's note: The Old-Tagalog characters used in this book arerepresented by capital letters. ]

 DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA

 The First Book Printed in the Philippines. Manila, 1593. A Facsimile of the Copy in the Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection. Library of Congress, Washington. With an Introductory Essay By Edwin Wolf 2nd

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want here to express my thanks and appreciation to Mr. LessingJ. Rosenwald, through whose kindness this unique Doctrina waspresented to the Library of Congress and with whom the idea of thispublication originated. His interest and enthusiasm made possiblemy work, and his friendly advice and encouragement have been bothvaluable and heart-warming. 

I also wish to thank others who have given me great assistance. Theyare Dr. A. S. W. Rosenbach to whom I continually turned for advice, Dr. Lawrence C. Wroth of the John Carter Brown Library and Dr. LeslieW. Dunlap of the Library of Congress who very kindly read over mymanuscript and gave me the benefit of their suggestions and criticisms, Mr. David C. Mearns and Miss Elsie Rackstraw of the Library of Congressand Mrs. Ruth Lapham Butler of the Ayer Collection of the NewberryLibrary who so freely and generously made available to me the greatcollections of works on the Philippines in their libraries, Dr. JohnH. Powell of the Free Library of Philadelphia who helped me findreference books of the utmost importance, and the many librarianswho courteously answered written queries about early Philippinematerial. EDWIN WOLF 2ND. 

DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA

The first book printed in the Philippines has been the object of a huntwhich has extended from Manila to Berlin, and from Italy to Chile, for four hundred and fifty years. The patient research of scholars, the scraps of evidence found in books and archives, the amazinglyaccurate hypotheses of bibliographers who have sifted the materialso painstakingly gathered together, combine to make its history abookish detective story par excellence. 

It is easy when a prisoner has been arrested and brought to the dock togive details of his complexion, height, characteristics and identifyingmarks, to fingerprint him and to photograph him, but how inadequatewas the description before his capture, how frequently did false scentsdraw the pursuer off the right track! It is with this in mind that weexamine the subject of this investigation, remembering that it has notbeen done before in detail. And, to complete the case, the book hasbeen photographed in its entirety and its facsimile herewith published. 

In studying the Doctrina Christiana of 1593 there are four generalproblems which we shall discuss. First, we shall give a physicaldescription of the book. Secondly, we shall trace chronologically thebibliographical history of the Doctrina, that is, we shall record theavailable evidence which shows that it was the first book printed inthe Philippines, and weigh the testimonies which state or imply tothe contrary. Thirdly, we shall try to establish the authorship ofthe text, and lastly, we shall discuss the actual printing. 

It hardly needs be told why so few of the incunabula of the Philippineshave survived. The paper on which they were printed was one of the mostdestructible papers ever used in book production. The native worms andinsects thrived on it, and the heat and dampness took their slower butequally certain toll. Add to these enemies the acts of providence ofwhich the Philippines have received more than their share--earthquake, fire and flood--and the man-made devastations of war, combined with thefact that there was no systematic attempt made in the Philippines topreserve in archives and libraries the records of the past, and itcan well be understood why a scant handful of cradle-books have beenpreserved. The two fires of 1603 alone, which burned the Dominicanconvent in Manila to the ground and consumed the whole of Binondo justoutside the walls, must have played untold havoc upon the records ofthe early missionaries. Perhaps the only copies of early Philippinebooks which exist today, unchronided and forgotten, are those whichwere sent to Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, and maynow be lying uncatalogued in some library there. 

One copy of this Doctrina was sent to Philip II by the Governor ofthe Philippines in 1593; and in 1785 a Jesuit philologist, Hervas yPanduro, printed Tagalog texts from a then extant copy. Yet, sincethat time no example is recorded as having been seen by bibliographeror historian. The provenance of the present one is but imperfectlyknown. In the spring of 1946 William H. Schab, a New York dealer, was in Paris, and heard through a friend of the existence of a 1593Manila book. He expressed such incredulity at this information that hisfriend, feeling his integrity impugned, telephoned the owner then andthere, and confirmed the unbelievable "1593. " Delighted and enthused, Schab arranged to meet him, found that he was a Paris bookseller andcollector who specialized in Pacific imprints and was fully aware ofthe importance of the volume, and induced him to sell the preciousDoctrina. He brought it back with him to the United States and offeredit to Lessing J. Rosenwald, who promptly purchased it and presented itto the Library of Congress. Where the book had been before it reachedParis we do not know. Perhaps it is the very copy sent to Philip II, perhaps the copy from which Hervas got his text. Indeed, it mayhave been churned to the surface by the late Civil War in Spain, and sent from there to France. In the course of years from similarsources may come other books to throw more light upon the only toopoorly documented history of the establishment of printing in thePhilippine Islands. 

THE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

Let us first examine the book as it appears before us. The title-pagereads:

 Doctrina Christiana, en lengua española ytagala, cor regida por los Religiosos de las ordenes Impressa con licencia, en S. Gabriel. De la orden de. S. Domigo En Manila. 1593

The book, printed in Gothic letters and Tagalog [1] characters onpaper made from the paper mulberry, now browned and brittle with age, consists of thirty-eight leaves, comprising a title-page as above, under a woodcut [2] of St. Dominic, with the verso originally blank, but in this copy bearing the contemporary manuscript inscription, _Tassada en dos rreales_, signed _Juan de Cuellar_; and seventy-fourpages of text in Spanish, Tagalog transliterated into roman letters, and Tagalog in Tagalog characters. The size of the volume, whichis unbound, is 9 1/8 by 7 inches, although individual leaves varysomewhat due to chipping. Some of the leaves have become separatedfrom their complements, but enough remain in the original stitchingto indicate that the book was originally made up in four gatherings, the first of twelve leaves, the second of ten, the third of ten, andthe fourth of six. Although the book is of the size called quarto, the method of printing must have been page by page, so it is doubtfulthat each sheet was folded twice in the usual quarto manner, butmore probable that it was printed four pages to a sheet of paperapproximately 9 1/8 by 14 inches, which was folded once. 

The volume is printed throughout by the xylographic method, that is tosay, each page of text is printed from one wood-block which was carvedby hand. Along the inner margins of some pages are vertical lines whichwere made by the inked edge of the block, and the grain of the wood hascaused striations to appear in the printed portions throughout. Theunevenness of the impression indicates that the pages were printedin some primitive manner without the help of a conventional press. 

The paper, which is one of the distinctive features of most oldOriental books, has been discussed at length by Pardo de Tavera inhis study of early Philippine printing, and we can do no better thantranslate the relevant passage in full:

 "I have said before that the material composition of our books is inferior. The imprints before 1830 were made on a paper called by some rice paper, by others silk paper, and by still others China paper, according to their taste. It is detestable, brittle, without consistency or resistance, and was called rice paper because it was supposed to be made from that grain. It was the only kind then used in the Philippines, not only for printing, but for all manner of writing, letters, etc. , and it is even recorded that in 1874 when tobacco was a state monopoly, cigarettes were made with this paper, and that the Indians and Chinese preferred it (and perhaps they still do) to rag paper or other kinds, because of the horrible taste it gives the tobacco. 

 "In China they commonly made paper of bamboo, but more principally from cotton and a plant which travellers have cited only by its common name, which they transcribe in various ways, calling it _kochu_, _kotsu_, or _kotzu_. Today it is known that this plant is an ulmacea (_Broussonetia papyrifera_) from a mash of which they still make cloth in Japan. Cotton paper is superior to it, and naturally more expensive; but the paper of inferior quality which was received in Manila, where nothing was imported regularly but common articles of low price, was of _kotsu. _ As all Chinese-made paper it was coated with alum, the finer [the paper] the thicker [the coating], for the purpose of whitening it and making the surface smooth, a deplorable business, for it made the paper very moisture absorbent, a condition fatal in such a humid climate as in these islands. Moreover, as the alum used is impure and contains a large proportion of iron salts, the humidity and weather oxidize it which finally darkens the paper, so that Philippine books present a coloration which runs the gamut of tones from the color of bone to that of dark cinnamon. " [3]

Because the Doctrina Christiana, which may well be translated "TheTeachings of Christianity, " contains the basic elements of the religionwhich the missionaries were trying to spread among the unbaptizedin the remote regions of the world, it was the most useful handbookthey had. A summary of the contents of the present edition shows thefundamental character of the work. After a syllabary comes the PaterNoster, the primary and most popular prayer of Christianity. Thenfollow the Ave Maria, Credo, Salve Regina, Articles of Faith, TenCommandments, Commandments of the Holy Church, Sacraments of the HolyChurch, Seven Mortal Sins, Fourteen Works of Charity, Confessionand Catechism. Here in a small compass is presented the simplest, most easily learned and most essential tenets of the Catholic Church. 

So useful was the Doctrina considered as a guide for those who hadjust been, or were about to be, converted that the missionary fathersplaced it in most cases foremost among the books necessary to havein print in a strange land. It is generally accepted today, althoughno extant copy is known, that the first book printed in Mexico [4]in 1539 was a Doctrina in Mexican and Spanish. Recent research hasshown that the second book printed by the pioneer Jesuit press at Goa, in India, in 1557 was St. Francis Xavier's _Doutrina Christão_ [5]in the Malay language, of which also no copy has yet been located. Butthere are copies of the first book to come from a South American press, another Doctrina [6] printed in the native and Spanish languages atLima in 1584. So the choice of this book as the first to be printedat Manila follows a widespread precedent. 

We have then a book, the Doctrina Christiana, in Spanish and Tagalog, corrected by priests of more than one order--and this is importantin tracing the authorship of the work--and printed by the xylographicmethod with license at Manila at the Dominican Church of San Gabrielin 1593. So much we get from the title, and in itself it is a fairlycomplete story, but from the date of its issue until the present timethat very fundamental information has not been completely recorded. 

THE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY

In tracing our clues down through the years, we find at the verybeginning the most valuable evidence which has been uncovered, shortof the book itself. From Manila on June 20, 1593, the Governor of thePhilippines, Gomez Perez Dasmariñas, wrote a letter to Philip II ofSpain in which he said:

 "Sire, in the name of Your Majesty, I have for this once, because of the existing great need, granted a license for the printing of the Doctrinas Christianas, herewith enclosed--one in the Tagalog language, which is the native and best of these islands, and the other in Chinese--from which I hope great benefits will result in the conversion and instruction of the peoples of both nations; and because the lands of the Indies are on a larger scale in everything and things more expensive, I have set the price of them at four reales a piece, until Your Majesty is pleased to decree in full what is to be done. " [7]

This states unequivocally that two books were printed at Manila sometime before June 20, 1593, one of which was the Doctrina in Tagalog, and the other the same work in Chinese. Although we are chieflyconcerned here with the former, the fact that they were produced atabout the same time and probably at the same place makes it necessaryto trace the history of both in order to reconstruct the circumstancessurrounding the production of the one. Of the Chinese Doctrina nocopy has yet come to light, and except for two 1593 references, there are no records of its existence. 

Another document [8] of 1593 verifies the information given in theletter of Dasmariñas, differing from it only in one detail. In theArchives of the Indies was found a manuscript account of 1593 listingbooks written in the Philippines, which says:

 "There have been printed primers and catechisms of the faith, one in Spanish and Tagalog, which is the native language, and the other in Chinese, which are being sent to Your Majesty, the Tagalog priced at two reales and the Chinese at four, which is hoped will be of great benefit. "

The accounts of the printing of two Doctrinas contained in thesedocuments confirm some of the information of the title and add a bitmore. First, the letter says that the book was printed by permissiongiven by the Governor, which agrees with the "with license" of thetitle, "for this once because of the existing great need. " By a royalcedula [9] of September 21, 1556, which was promulgated again on August14, 1560, it had been ordered that Justices "not consent to or permitto be printed or sold any book containing material concerning theIndies without having special license sent by our Royal Council of theIndies, " and on May 8, 1584 this was implemented by the further order"that when any grammar or dictionary of the language of the Indies bemade it shall not be published, or printed or used unless it has firstbeen examined by the Bishop and seen by the Royal Audiencia. " Thislatter portion was applied specifically to the Philippines in a letter[10] from Philip II to the Audiencia of Manila, also dated May 8, 1584, to which further reference will be made. It can be gatheredfrom Dasmariñas' implied apology that he had never before given sucha license, and, since he had arrived in the Philippines in 1590, thatno books had been printed between that time and the licensing of theDoctrinas. It is, moreover, likely that if any similar books had beenprinted during the administrations of his predecessors he would havementioned the fact as a precedent for acting contrary to the cedulas. 

According to Dasmariñas he had priced the books at four reales apiece, which followed the regular Spanish procedure, under whichbooks were subject to price control. The Governor, it will be noted, also apologized for the high price he was forced to set, givinggeneral high prices [11] as his excuse. Yet, while the appraisal offour reales for this book was high compared to the prevailing scalein Spain, it was not high compared to prices allowed in Mexico. OnJune 6, 1542 the Emperor had given the Casa de Cromberger, the firstprinting-house in Mexico, permission [12] to sell books printed thereat seventeen maravedís a sheet, or exactly one half a real. If weassume that, although the Doctrina had been printed page by page, it was quarto in size and so appraised on the basis of eight pagesto a sheet, we find that the price per sheet comes to about fourteenmaravedís, or less than half a real. However, a contradiction occursbetween the letter of Dasmariñas and this copy of the Doctrina, supported by the other 1593 document. On the verso of the title, Juande Cuellar, [13] the Governor's secretary and the logical person tosign the official valuation, gives the price as two reales, and the1593 account, while agreeing with the letter as far as the ChineseDoctrina is concerned, also lists the price of the Tagalog Doctrinaas two reales. It is impossible to say what caused the discrepancy;perhaps it was a decision on Dasmariñas' part to lower the cost, notwithstanding inflationary values, in order to make the book morereadily available for the natives who were not economically as welloff as the Chinese, or it could be that after the letter had beenwritten it was noticed that the Chinese volume was larger than theTagalog one, and some adjustment made. In any event, the price of thisDoctrina was finally set at two reales, making it less than half theprice allowed in Mexico fifty years before. 

The evidence of the two 1593 documents would seem conclusive withregard to printing in 1593, but witnesses were not long in appearingwho stated something quite different. The earliest of these wasPedro Chirino, [14] a Jesuit priest, who came to the Philippines withDasmariñas in 1590. He went back to Europe in 1602, and while therehad a history of the Philippines printed at Rome in 1604. In 1606 hereturned to the islands, where he died in 1635. He left unpublishedthe manuscript of another and more detailed history, dated 1610, which contains a most significant passage, where, after speaking ofvarious early writers in native languages, he continues:

 "Those who printed first were; P. Fr. Juan de Villanueva of the Order of St. Augustine [who printed] certain little tracts, and P. Fr. Francisco de San Joseph of the Order of St. Dominic [who printed] larger things of more bulk. " [15]

Concerning this Juan de Villanueva [16] very little indeed isknown. From what has been recorded it would seem that there were twoAugustinians of the same name who were in the Philippines before1600. The first of these was a secular priest who came to Cebúabout 1566, may have taken the Augustinian habit some time after hisarrival, and died not long after 1569. The other Juan de Villanueva, the date of whose arrival is unknown, was in Lubao in 1590, in Hagonoyin 1593, and prior of Batangas from 1596 until his death in 1599. Ofthe two there can be no doubt but that Chirino referred to the secondone. But, apart from Chirino's note, there is no record anywhere thatworks by him existed, nor do the Augustinian chroniclers themselves, except for the modern Santiago Vela who knew of Chirino's citation, mention him as a linguist or a writer. The only possibility is thatbetween 1593 and 1599 Villanueva had printed some small xylographicbooks no copies and no further record of which have appeared. 

As for Francisco de San Joseph, or Blancas de San José as he is morefrequently called, there are other references to his part in theestablishment of printing in the islands. From information doubtlessobtained from Diego Aduarte, then in Spain, Alonso Fernandez wrotein his ecclesiastical history, printed at Toledo in 1611:

 "Father Fr. Francisco Blancas printed in the Tagalog language and characters a book of Our Lady of the Rosary in the year 1602, which was the first book that was printed there of that or any other material. After this he printed another of the sacraments in the language of the Philippines, in both characters, theirs and ours, from which the greatest results have been achieved. " [17]

Two years later the same author published at Madrid an account [18]of the miracles performed by the Rosary of the Virgin, in which heincluded a list of "Of some writers of the Order of St. Dominic whowere living in this year 1612, " and gave the same information as above, adding only that the printing took place in Bataan. 

Diego Aduarte, [19] whose history of the Dominican province of thePhilippines is one of the best contemporary ones written, bears outthese statements of which he was most probably the source. Aduarte cameto the islands in company with his close friend Blancas de San Joséin 1595, went back to Spain as procurator of his order in 1607, andreturned to Manila in 1628, staying in the Orient until his death in1636. His history was continued and edited after his death by a fellowDominican, Domingo Gonçalez, who had it printed in 1640. Summarizingthe life and accomplishments of Blancas de San José, Aduarte wrote:

 "So he was sent to Bataan, which is near there [Manila], where he learned the language of the Indians, called Tagalog, which is the most common in this country and is used among the Indians for many leagues around the city. So rapid was his study of the language that he began to preach in it within three months, and could teach it to others in six. . . . And believing that he was the instrument needed to bring the holy gospel to the Indians, he spared no pains to investigate the fitness of their words, the way to use them, and all the rest so that he could succeed in mastering it. . . . He wrote many books of devotion for them, and since there was no printing in these islands, and no one who understood it or who was a journeyman printer, he planned to have it done through a Chinaman, a good Christian, who, seeing that the books of P. Fr. Francisco were sure to be of great use, bestowed so much care upon this undertaking that he finally succeeded, aided by those who told him whatever they knew about it, in learning everything necessary to do printing; and he printed these books. . . . He [Blancas de San José] printed a grammar to learn the Tagalog language, a memorial of the Christian life, a book on the four last things, another on the preparation for the communion, a confessionary, another on the mysteries of the Rosary of Our Lady, and another to teach the Tagalog Indians the Spanish language, and he left many very pious and curious works in the language of these Indians. " [20]

Blancas de San José, [21] as we have noted, came to the Philippines in1595. He was at Abucay in Bataan from 1598 until 1602, and then spentseveral years in and about Manila, preaching to the Indians and theChinese, whose language he also mastered. In 1614 he set out for Spain, but died on the voyage before reaching Mexico. Of the books which he issaid to have had printed, only two are known to be extant, the _Artey Reglas de la Lengva Tagala_ [22] and the _Librong Pagaaralan nangmanga Tagalog nang uicang Castilla_ [23] (or _Libro en qve aprendanlos Tagalos, la lengua Castellana_), both printed at Bataan in 1610, and until the discovery of the present Doctrina and the _Ordinationes_of 1604 the earliest surviving Philippine imprints known. 

We have not cited here in detail the account of Juan Lopez [24] inthe fifth part of his history of the Dominicans, because, although itwas printed nineteen years before the appearance of Aduarte's work, the information therein contained regarding the Philippines wasacknowledgedly obtained from the unfinished manuscript which Aduartehad with him in Spain. The pertinent passages add nothing to Aduarte'sinformation, and even the wording is reminiscent of his. 

The first suggestion that early Philippine books may have been printedfrom wood-blocks occurred in Quétif and Echard's bibliography ofDominican writers printed at Paris in 1719. There, after listingeight works by Blancas de San José, they add:

 "He published all these in the Philippines with the help of a Chinese Christian using Chinese blocks, for in his day European typographers had not yet arrived in those islands, nor did they have types for their language. " [25]

This was an amazing suggestion, for as far as we know thebibliographers who made it had not actually seen the books; nor is itentirely true. The first two works listed are two books we know wereprinted typographically in 1610. The sixth is _De los mysterios delRosario de nuestra Señora Tagalice_, the book referred to by Fernándezas having been printed in 1602, and generally accepted as being frommovable type, although no copy has been discovered to prove it. Andyet, it is not at all impossible that some time before 1602 Blancas deSan José had some of his writings printed from blocks. In any event, the idea, later developed by Medina and Retana, that xylography wasused before a real printing-press was established, may have come fromthis not wholly accurate note. 

For almost a hundred and fifty years no historian or bibliographerwrote anything to challenge the basic affirmations of Chirino, Fernández and Aduarte. In the middle of the 18th century, LorenzoHervas y Panduro, [26] a Jesuit, was forced by the expulsion of theJesuits from Spain to seek refuge in the Papal States, and took upresidence at Cesena. There he began work on a tremendous universalhistory of the spiritual development of man, into which he wove theresults of his philosophical, social and linguistic studies. Theselast were of particular importance, and Hervas is regarded as the truefounder of the science of linguistics and comparative philology. In1785 he published the eighteenth volume of his massive work, the_Origine, formazione, meccanismo, ed armonia degl' idiomi_, in whichhe printed a Tagalog Ave Maria as written in 1593, with the note:

 "The Ave Maria in the Tagalog of 1593 is to be read in the Tagalog-Spanish Doctrina Christiana which was printed in Tagalog and roman characters by the Dominican fathers in their printing-house at Manila in the year 1593. " [27]

In 1787 he finished his twenty-first volume, _Saggio pratico_, [28]which was another philological study, including the Pater Nosterin over three hundred languages and dialects, among them Tagalog, again from the 1593 Doctrina. Here, then, is ample proof that a copyof this book was known to Hervas in 1785, and the only informationwhich his loose transcription of the title failed to give was thatthe volume was "corrected by members of the orders, " that it wasprinted with license, and that it was printed at San Gabriel. 

At the beginning of the following century two German scholars, familiarwith Hervas' writings, noted the 1593 Doctrina. Franz Carl Alter, [29]in his monograph on the Tagalog language, printed the Ave Maria fromthe text which had appeared in 1785, and Johann Christoph Adelung, [30] in his _Mithridates_, a comprehensive study of languages, included the Tagalog Pater Noster from the _Saggio pratico_ of1787. The latter also listed in a short bibliography of the Tagaloglanguage the Doctrina of 1593, giving exactly the same informationabout it that Hervas had. Neither of these men apparently saw a copyof the book, limiting themselves to extracts from Hervas, but theyperpetuated an earlier reference of the utmost importance. 

Shortly after the two Germans published their notices of the 1593Doctrina an entry appeared of a book printed at Manila in 1581. JoséMariano Beristain y Sousa, a learned Mexican writer, issued in1819-21 a bibliography of Spanish-American books, in which he listedalphabetically the authors, giving a short biography of each andadding a list of his works. Under Juan de Quiñones we find:

 "'Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Tagala, ' Imp. En Manila, 1581. " [31]

No specific authority is given for this entry, but in his sketch ofthe life of Quiñones Beristain cited as sources, Juan de Grijalva, Nicolás Antonio, Gaspar de San Agustin, and José Sicardo. It wouldseem logical that one of these must have mentioned such a work asprinted in Manila in 1581, but in tracing down the sources no suchprecise notice is found. 

Grijalva simply said that Quiñones "concerned himself with Tagalog andmade a vocabulary and grammar of it. " [32] Antonio [33] referred toGrijalva, and carried the matter no further. San Agustin, describingthe Franciscan chapter of 1578, wrote:

 "It was determined moreover in this chapter that P. Fr. Juan de Quiñones, prior of the Convent of Taal in Tagalos, and Fr. Diego de Ochoa, prior of Bacolor in Pampanga, should compose and fashion grammars, dictionaries, and confessionaries in the two languages [respectively Tagalog and Pampanga] in which they had ventured; which they executed very promptly and well, and these were of great use to those who came to these islands, for they had these by which they could study the languages. " [34]

Later, San Agustin, again mentioning Quiñones, referred to Grijalva, and added as an additional source for his information Tómas deHerrera. Sicardo [35] added nothing new. Herrera, not cited directlyby Beristain, may however have been the source from which the "Imp. " ofhis entry came. Herrera wrote:

 "He [Quiñones] was the first to have learned the Tagalog language of which he published a grammar and dictionary as an aid to the ministers of the gospel. "

If Beristain read this, he may have been misled by the Latin of"published, " [36] _in lucem edidit_, which may indeed mean printedand published, but also means quite properly published in the senseof written in manuscript and copied and circulated. We agree withSchilling [37] that this latter meaning was the one intended. Oneother statement that Quiñones' works were printed may derive fromthe same misunderstanding. About the year 1801 Pedro Bello wrote anaccount, still in manuscript and unpublished, of the writings of theAugustinians. His remarks on Quiñones, first printed by Santiago Vela[38], we believe are only an extension of Herrera's _in lucem edidit_. 

This same confusion in terminology has been used [39] to supportBeristain's claim by introducing as evidence the letter of Philip II ofMay 8, 1584. Salazar, the Bishop of Manila, probably shortly after theSynod of 1582, had written the King a letter, now unfortunately lost, in which he spoke of a decision to standardize linguistic works. Inanswer to the Bishop, the following letter in the form of a royalcedula was sent:

 "To the President and Judges of my Royal Audiencia situated in the city of Manila in the Philippine Islands. --It has been told me on behalf of Don Fray Domingo de Salazar, Bishop of that place, that it was agreed that no priest might make a grammar or vocabulary, and that if it were made it might not be published before being examined and approved by the said Bishop, because otherwise there would result great differences and disagreements in the doctrine; and this having been seen by my Council of the Indies, it was agreed that I should order this my cedula which decrees that when any grammar or vocabulary be made it shall not be published or used unless it has first been examined by the said Bishop and seen by this Audencia. " [40]

Here again the word _publicado_ is brought forth to prove that theletter referred to printed works, but here again the term is equallyapplicable to manuscript works in common use and generally available. 

Further evidence that there was no printing as early as 1581 is to befound in a letter [41] from Juan de Plasencia, a Tagalist of greatrenown, to the King, dated from Manila, June 18, 1585, in which hereported on the state of missionary work in China and Japan, and addedthat he had written a grammar and a declaration of the whole Doctrinain the most common language of the Philippines, and that he was thenmaking a dictionary, concluding by asking the King to send decreesordering those works to be printed in Mexico at the expense of theExchequer. Is it likely that Plasencia would have so written if an_Arte y Vocabulario_ had been printed four years earlier? Furthermore, San Antonio, recording the book on the customs and rites of the Indianswritten by Plasencia at the request of the Governor Santiago de Vera, and dated October 24, 1589, said that it was not printed "becauseprinting houses had not yet come to this country. " [42]

We then conclude with regard to Beristain's entry, that althoughthere existed in manuscript an _Arte y Vocabuldrio Tagalo_ by Juan deQuiñones, there is no evidence of the existence of any book printedfor him from wood-blocks or in type. Santiago de Vela [43] suggeststhe possibility that there might have been a xylographic _Arte_ of1581, but Schilling [44] questions this in the face of the completelack of reference to such a printed work by any 17th or 18th centurywriter, and the tenuous notices of Bello and Beristain; yet to saycategorically that no such work was printed would be foolhardy in theface of the scanty early records and the appearance of this Doctrina, a single copy of which has just been discovered. 

The first important work devoted solely to the early history of thePhilippine press was by T. H. Pardo de Tavera, who in 1893 publishedhis study of printing and engraving in the Philippines. He thererecorded a 1593 Doctrina, but adamantly refused to accept it on thehearsay evidence of others. His account is valuable because it showsthat there may have been a copy of the Doctrina in Java in 1885, and so we quote from it at some length:

 "A learned Dutch orientalist, Dr. J. Brandes, wrote me in 1885 from Bali-Boeleleng (Java) telling me that in 1593 at Manila there was printed a Doctrina Christiana in Spanish-Tagalog, with the proper characters for the latter language. Other orientalists, at the last Congress in London in 1891, gave me the same information. Nonetheless, no one told me where he had read such a thing, nor much less that he had managed to see such a book, although inspecting a rare book which I acquired in Paris (Alter, _Ueber die tagalische sprache_, Vienna, 1803), I saw that the author cited such a Doctrina Christiana and said that he knew of its existence through Abbé Hervas. This is an error, and without doubt such a Doctrina was in manuscript, because in 1591 [he should have said 1593] there was no press in Manila nor in any part of the archipelago, and today we know for certain and positively that the first book issued there appeared in 1610. " [45]

Pardo de Tavera was the first to call attention to Alter, and throughhim to Hervas, and in all probability the orientalists at the LondonCongress had seen the Doctrina cited by one of these or Adelung. But herejects that evidence in no uncertain terms. Mitigating somewhat hisassurance, he speaks following the above-quoted passage of printingin China, and differentiates between xylographic and typographicprinting, and since he was obviously thinking in terms of printingon a press with movable type his conclusions are not too extreme. 

In 1896 appeared José Toribio Medina's _La Imprenta en Manila_, whichwas up to then the best, most complete and most scholarly work on earlyPhilippine printing, and is today with its subsequent additions andcorrections the standard bibliography of the subject. There Medinacited most of the authorities we have already quoted, the letter ofDasmariñas, Fernández' _Historia eclesiastica_, Aduarte, Adelung, Beristain and Pardo de Tavera. Then, basing his conclusions stronglyon the Dasmariñas letter and the note of Adelung, he listed [46]as number one in his bibliography the Doctrina of 1593 in Spanishand Tagalog, and as number two the Doctrina in Spanish and Chineseof the same year. This is a verdict which has stood the test oftime, and one that is just now confirmed by the discovery of thebook itself. Two points, however, in his survey should be noted. Inhis discussion of the printing and the authorship Medina does notemphasize the Dominican origin of the book, although he does say that"it does not appear bold to us to suppose that the imprint of theseDoctrinas ought to be the Hospital of San Gabriel in this village[Binondo], " [47] and faithfully copies Adelung's imprint notice, "inthe Dominican printing-house, " in his listing of the book. The otherpoint is that he says in his introduction and repeats in his entrythat the Doctrina had a Latin as well as Spanish and Tagalog texts, an erroneous translation of Adelung's "mit lateinische und tagalischeSchrift. " He was hesitant as are all bibliographers, who must perforcerecord the probable existence of a book a copy of which they havenever seen, in committing himself as to whether it was printed fromblocks or from type or by a combination of the two methods. 

More positive and more succinct than Medina was T. E. Retana whoseearlier researches [48] into the history of the Philippines Medinaacknowledgedly made use of, and who in 1897 published his _La Imprentaen Filipinas, Adiciones y Observaciones a La Imprenta en Manila_. Hetook the material of Medina, added the evidence of Chirino andPlasencia, and resummarized the problem. The letter of Dasmariñasshowed conclusively that a Doctrina was printed in 1593. Chirino saidthat the first two whose works were printed were Juan de Villanueva andBlancas de San José. Fernández stated positively that the first bookprinted in the Philippines was the book of Our Lady of the Rosary byBlancas de San José printed at Bataan in 1602. Aduarte supported thiswithout mentioning a title, place or date of printing. If we are toaccept all these statements as incontrovertible, how can the apparentcontradictions be reconciled? The answer had already been hinted at, but Retana solved the problem with amazing acumen, and arrived atfour conclusions, which are here printed in his own words:

 "A--That the Doctrinas of 1593, though printed at Manila, were not executed in type, but by the so-called xylographic method;

 B--That the initiative for the establishment of _typography_ is owed to P. Fr. Francisco Blancas de San José;

 C--That the first _typographer_ was the Chinese Christian Juan de Vera at the instigation of the said Father San José;

 D--That the first _typographical_ printing of this Dominican author is of the year 1602. " [49]

It is not difficult to say with the book itself in front of us, that it is an example of xylographic printing, but it was a greatfeat on the part of Retana, who had never seen a copy, to resolveapparently irreconcilable differences of opinion on the part ofseveral unquestioned authorities by deducing that it was all amatter of semantics--what did _printing_ mean? As for the sprite of1581 introduced by Beristain, Retana dismissed it on the grounds ofinsufficient evidence. In a word, he concluded that the first bookissued in the Philippines was a Doctrina printed from wood-blocksin 1593. 

All subsequent writers on the subject have derived their informationfrom the sources we have already mentioned, and to a great degreehave been influenced by the findings of Medina and Retana. TheRev. Thomas Cooke Middleton [50] in 1900 confessed that he did notknow what the first book printed was. Pardo de Tavera maintained hisold intransigence, when in the introduction to his bibliography forthe Library of Congress in 1903 he wrote that Medina's affirmationthat printing took place in 1593 "loses all validity in the face ofthe categorical statement of F. Alonso Fernández. " [51] Medina didnot comment further in his _Adiciones y Ampliaciones_ [52] of 1904, yet when the same year Pérez and Güemes [53] published their additionsto and continuation of Medina, bringing his bibliography down to1850, they resurrected the 1581 _Arte_, but added no new evidenceto prove their case. Blair and Robertson, in their tremendous, collective history of the Philippines, did not include a list ofPhilippine imprints in their bibliography, [54] but referred readersto Medina and Retana with whom they agreed. To celebrate the threehundredth anniversary of typographical printing in the PhilippinesArtigas y Cuerva [55] wrote a study which emphasized the part playedby Blancas de San José, but did not deny the existence of the 1593Doctrina. Retana [56] in 1911 brought his work on the subject up todate, but retained all his major conclusions. In Palau's standardbibliography of Spanish books we find the Doctrinas called "the twoearliest books known to have been printed in Manila. " [57] Finally, themost thorough recent work on the subject is to be found in Schilling's[58] survey of the early history of the Philippine press published in1937. There is little that can be added to the evidence uncovered bythese modern writers, but the appearance of the book itself enablesus to say with certainty some things which they were able only tosurmise. However, as regards the authorship and the circumstances andplace of printing we are able, from the information given on the title, to carry the investigation somewhat further. 

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE TEXT

The title tells us that the book was "corrected" by the priests ofmore than one order, and since it was printed by the Dominicans, we can assume that the ultimate responsibility for the preparationof the text in consultation with friars of other orders also layin their hands. Our problem then is to discover what texts wereavailable to them in 1593 and who were the priests who formed theeditorial board. We have included in this study also the origins ofthe Chinese text, for the two Doctrinas appeared at the same time, and as we shall see the same Dominicans were probably responsible forthe production and preparation of both the Tagalog and the Chinesetexts. During the period under discussion there were priests of fourorders active in the islands, and so we shall speak in turn of theAugustinian, Franciscan, Jesuit and Dominican fathers who might havewritten or worked on the Doctrinas printed in 1593. 

THE AUGUSTINIANS

The first priests to come to the Philippines were six Augustinianswho accompanied Legazpi on the expedition which in 1565 establishedthe first permanent European settlement in the islands. Among themwas Martin de Rada, who was one of the most important and influentialpriests during the early days of the Spanish colony, and who was thefirst linguist of note to work in the Philippines. The first languagehe learned was Visayan, [59] native to the island of Cebú where theSpaniards first landed, but he also learned Chinese. In May 1572 hewas elected provincial of his order, and in June 1575 he went withJerónimo Marín, as ambassador to China, being "the first Spaniardwho entered into that said kingdom. " [60] In preparation for thevoyage, we are told by González de Mendoza, whose famous and popularhistory of China first printed in 1585 derives in a great measure frominformation brought back by Rada, that Rada "began with great care &studie to learne that language [Chinese], the which he learned infew daies: & did make thereof a dictionarie. " [61] Rada was then notonly the first to write in Visayan, but also the first to compile aChinese dictionary, and more important still brought back with himto Manila from China many books of which Mendoza gives a list. [62]These books, printed in the usual Chinese method from wood-blocks, could have provided models for the Spaniards in the Philippines wholacked European facilities for printing, and they may have givenbirth to the idea which resulted in the xylographic Doctrinas. 

Within the first few years several more Augustinian fathers [63]arrived whose linguistic accomplishments are briefly noted by thehistorians, but while these men were certainly pioneers in the speakingof Tagalog and Chinese, they are not recorded as having written inthe language. According to Cano, [64] the first Tagalog grammar waswritten by Agustin de Alburquerque, and Retana [65] considered himone of the possible authors of the present Doctrina. This friarreached the Philippines in 1571, accompanied Rada on his secondexpedition to China in 1576, was elected provincial in 1578, and diedin 1580. However, there is no early record saying that Alburquerquewrote any linguistic work. The statement was not made until the 19thcentury, and in contradiction Juan de Medina, who wrote in 1630, said that Juan de Quiñones "made a grammar and lexicon of the Tagallanguage, which was the first to make a start in the rules of itsmode of speech. " [66] Furthermore, in the official acts [67] of theAugustinian province we find that on August 20, 1578 Alburquerqueas provincial of the order commissioned Quiñones to write a grammar, dictionary and confessionary in the Tagalog language. The conclusionsof Santiago de Vela [68] are that it is doubtful that Alburquerquewrote any linguistic works, and if he did they were liable to havebeen rough preliminary studies [69] upon which the texts of Quiñoneswere based. In view of the lack of positive contemporary evidence[70] we believe that Alburquerque may be eliminated except as theinstigator of such works, and we return again to Juan de Quiñones. 

In so far as Quiñones [71] was the author of a grammar and dictionaryclaimed to have been printed at Manila in 1581, we have shown whatvarious writers have said, and though we must conclude that the workwas probably not printed, it is certain that he wrote in the Tagaloglanguage. Agustin Maria de Castro [72] said, although no earlierwriters support it, that Quiñones actually presented a grammar, dictionary and Doctrina in Tagalog at the Synod of 1582 for itsapproval. Our total information about this Augustinian linguist boilsdown to these essentials: that he did write a grammar and dictionaryof Tagalog about 1578-81, which may have been the earliest writtenin the Philippines; that he may have presented these and a Doctrinaat the Synod of 1582 which approved Juan de Plasencia's works; thatthere is no concrete evidence that any of these works were printed;and that Quiñones' works which were extant in manuscript in 1593might have been consulted in the preparation of the present Doctrina. 

Another member of the Order of St. Augustine who might have beenable to participate in the editing of the 1593 Doctrinas was DiegoMuñoz. Muñoz came to the islands in 1578, and died in 1594. Of himSan Agustin writes:

 "Moreover in this year [1581] the ministry for the Sangleys was founded in the convent of Tondo, and P. Fr. Diego Muñoz was named as its special minister. He devoted particular zeal to the study of the Chinese language, and preached in it with much elegance. And all the Sangleys who were going to be baptized, and there were many, had recourse to this ministry, and the teaching was continued with much vigilance and care. And there never lacked a religious of our order to apply himself to such holy work, from the time we came to this land, as our original records of the province prove. " [73]

To him is also attributed [74] a volume of manuscript panegyric sermonsin Tagalog, and because of this and his work at Tondo he may havebeen consulted by the Dominicans. We also mention Lorenzo de León, [75] who arrived in 1582, spent twelve years in the provinces, wrotea book called the _Estrella del mar_ in Tagalog, and died in 1623, and might also have helped. 

THE FRANCISCANS

Although the first Franciscans did not arrive in the Philippinesuntil June 24, 1577, the writings of the linguists of that orderare more fully recorded. Among the earliest was Juan de Plasenciawho, the Franciscans claim, wrote the first Tagalog grammar. He wasfortunate in meeting soon after his arrival Miguel de Talavera, [76]who had come with his parents on the expedition of Legazpi. Miguel, then quite young, became in a manner of speaking the disciple ofPlasencia, and while the father taught him Latin, he in turn taughtPlasencia the elements of Tagalog which he had picked up. For two yearsPlasencia ministered in the provinces of Tayabas, Laguna, and Bulacanwhere he used and perfected his knowledge of the native language. OnMay 20, 1579, when the provincial Pedro de Alfaro left for China, he named Plasencia acting provincial during his absence. A referenceto the earliest linguistic writings of the Franciscans occurs in anaccount by Santa Inés of the chapter meeting held in the Convent ofLos Angeles in July 1580, which was presided over by Plasencia:

 "The third and last thing that was determined in this chapter was that a grammar and dictionary of the Tagalog language should be made and a translation of the Doctrina Christiana completed. And since Fr. Juan de Plasencia, the president of this same chapter, excelled all in the language, he was given this responsibility, and he accepted it, and immediately set to work. And then after great study, much lack of sleep and care, together with fervent prayers and other spiritual duties, of not little importance in the good profit of such work, he reduced the language to a grammar, made a catechism, a very full dictionary, and various translations. " [77]

But the most important record of his writings is contained inthe description of the Synod called by Bishop Salazar in 1582. InMarch, 1581, Domingo de Salazar, the first Bishop of Manila and thePhilippines, had arrived. The problems which faced him were manifold, particularly those of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the treatment of thenatives by government administrators, and the means by which the gospelcould best be spread. A synod was called to resolve these points. Onematter of the utmost importance was the approval of standard Tagalogtexts, and Juan de la Concepcion gives the following account of whattranspired in this connection:

 "His excellency presided at the meetings. At them the most learned topics were discussed and the most learned persons were present--the Dominican father Salvatierra, the most outstanding scholars among the Augustinians and Franciscans, the Jesuit fathers Sedeño and Sanchez, and the Licentiate Don Diego Vasquez de Mercado as dean of the new cathedral. At this convention or diocesan synod it was discussed whether the Indians were to be ministered to in their native language, or if they would be obliged to learn Spanish, and it was decided to instruct them in their native tongue. The divine office, the Doctrina Christiana, which Father Fr. Juan de Plasencia had translated into the Tagalog language, was approved. His work, the _Arte y Vocabuldrio Tagalo_, was judged most useful because of the ease by which it permitted an understanding and thorough knowledge of so foreign a language. " [78]

The already quoted account of Santa Inés continues with a similardescription of the Synod, and says that when the problem of teachingthe natives was brought up only Plasencia could resolve it. 

 "Since, having seen his catechism and the translation which he had made in Tagalog of the grammar and dictionary, those who were at the Synod and understood anything of the language could do nothing but admire the fitness of the terms, their efficacy and strength. And they said that, without the particular help of heaven, it seemed impossible that in so short a time and with so few years in the country he could have done such excellent work. And then, having approved them, they ordered that various copies be made, particularly of the translation of the Doctrina, so that with them and with no other would the ministers teach the Indians, and so it was approved, in order that there might be uniformity in all parts of the Tagalog country. This translation is that which has come down to this day, except that it is more polished. " [79]

It must have been shortly after the handbooks of Plasencia receivedthe seal of ecclesiastical approval that Salazar wrote the Kingspeaking of the action taken, and got back in answer the cedula, quotedbefore, giving the Bishop and Audiencia the right of censorship oversuch works. The question of chronological precedence [80] betweenQuiñones and Plasencia is not important, for the specific approvalof Plasencia's texts by the Synod, attended by Quiñones himself, shows that Plasencia's books were accepted, and in conformity withthe ruling of the Synod would have been the only texts allowed to beused generally in the Philippines. 

Another reference to writers in the native tongues in an anonymousmanuscript of 1649 introduces the names of other linguists:

 "The first missionaries left many writings in the Tagalog and Bicol languages, the best of which are those left by Fathers Fray Juan de Oliver, Fray Juan de Plasencia, Fray Miguel de Talavera, Fray Diego de la Asuncion, and Fray Gerónimo Monte. Mention is here made of the above fathers because they were the first masters of the Tagalog language, and since their writings are so common and so well received by all the orders. They have not been printed, because they are voluminous, and there are no arrangements in this kingdom for printing so much. " [81]

Miguel de Talavera we have spoken of before. That he helped Plasenciain the compilation of his earliest works in Tagalog is clear, andto him in part must be attributed the miracle of the production byPlasencia of the texts "in so short a time and with so few yearsin the country. " Martínez says specifically that Talavera "was thefirst interpreter among our priests, and greatly helped Fr. Juande Plasencia in the composition of the _Arte y Vocabulario_. " [82]Juan de Oliver was in somewhat the same relationship to Plasencia, but instead of helping with the initial attempts, he carried on fromwhere Plasencia left off. Oliver came to the Philippines on the sameexpedition which brought Bishop Salazar in 1581. According to Huerta[83] he worked in various Tagalog villages, and mastered the Tagalogand Bicol languages, in which he wrote twenty-two works, which Huertalists. Of these three are of particular interest to us. The firstentry says that he "corrected the Tagalog grammar written by Fr. Juande Plasencia, and added the adverbs and particles;" [84] the secondthat "he perfected and augmented the Spanish-Tagalog dictionary, written by the said Fr. Juan de Plasencia;" and the sixteenth listsa _Catecismo de doctrina Cristiana esplicado_. 

Several authors, attempting to establish the priority of Quiñones'dictionary, question the existence of one by Plasencia at the Synodof 1582 in the face of his own statement in 1585 that he "was thenmaking a dictionary. " [85] To us there seems to be no inconsistency, if Plasencia in 1585 was referring to a revision, unquestionablymade with his knowledge and help, by Juan de Oliver. In short, itis reasonable to assume that Plasencia, burdened with administrativeduties from 1583 to 1586, during which time he was custodian of hisorder, secured the aid of Oliver in reediting and continuing hislinguistic studies. Plasencia died in 1590. 

The other two Franciscans listed by the anonymous historian of1649 are elsewhere recorded as having written various works inTagalog. To both Diego de la Asuncion [86] and Gerónimo Montes yEscamillo [87] were attributed grammars and dictionaries, and thelatter also wrote a _Devotional tagalog_, said to have been printedat Manila in 1610. In speaking of these early linguistic texts, it isnot necessary to believe that each was a completely original work, but rather that they were based upon a recognized model, which wasat first the Talavera-Plasencia-Oliver text, and that the individualmissionaries used their experience in the field to produce, as itwere, new editions. That this was the case is borne out by the notesof Pablo Rojo to his bibliography of Plasencia where speaking of thegrammar and dictionary he says that "perfected by other missionaries, they have been the base for such grammars and dictionaries of Tagalogas have been written, but in the form in which they came from thehands of their author, they have not come down to us. " [88] Moreimportant still is Rojo's statement [89] that he found a portion ofPlasencia's Doctrina which had been believed lost, and from which hequotes the Pater Noster. Since he does not say where the manuscriptwas or how it was known to be Plasencia's text, we cannot put toomuch reliance on the statement, but the text as there printed, whilesimilar to that of the present Doctrina, is not identical. 

THE JESUITS

Before passing on to the Dominicans we shall mention briefly thelinguists of the Society of Jesus. In the early days there were notmany Jesuits in the Philippines. However, there were some linguistsamong them, chiefly of the Visayan tongue, in which they are said tohave printed a Doctrina [90] as early as 1610. Limiting ourselves toa note of those who knew Chinese and Tagalog, we find that the firstmentioned by Chirino as an outstanding master of one of these wasFrancisco Almerique, who arrived with Santiago de Vera in 1583. Shortlythereafter he "began the study of the Chinese language in his zealto aid in the conversion of the many Chinese who came to Manila andwhom we in the Philippines call Sangleys. " [91] And Colin says "hisprincipal occupation was with the Tagalog Indians, being the first ofthe Company to learn their language. " [92] Nothing further is said ofhis accomplishments in these languages, but his knowledge would havebeen available in 1593, for he was then still active in the islands. 

Chirino himself landed at Manila in 1590 shortly after Dasmariñas, and went almost immediately to Taytay where he learned Tagalog andwas joined in 1592 by Martin Henriquez. At the time Juan de Oliverwas preaching in that district, and it is exceedingly probable thathe helped the newcomers with the language, for Chirino speaks of himin terms of highest praise. Henriquez "learned the language in threemonths and in six wrote a catechism in it, a confessionary, and abook of sermons for all the gospels of the year in the said idiom, "[93] but he died on February 3, 1593 at Taytay. How thoroughly Chirinohimself had grasped the fundamentals of Tagalog is evident from histhree chapters [94] on the language and letters of the natives inwhich he prints the Ave Maria in Tagalog and reproduces the Tagalogalphabet--its first appearance in a European publication. But Chirino, who remained in the provinces until 1595, would have mentioned hisparticipation and that of Henriquez in the Doctrina of 1593, so werecord them as possible but not probable consultants. 

THE DOMINICANS

Had Aduarte written that the first books printed at Manila were twoDoctrinas issued by the Dominicans at San Gabriel in 1593, and givensome details of their production, we could conclude our study witha quotation from him, but nowhere does he mention them. In fact, his inference was that the first book was that printed for Blancasde San José, and yet we know that this Doctrina preceded anythingthat Blancas de San José could have written, since he did not cometo the Philippines until 1595. We can assume, as Retana did, thatby printing Aduarte meant printing from movable type, but this doesnot explain away the fact that Aduarte, who recorded in detail eventsof far less significance, did not speak of the Doctrinas at all. Thebest--and it is a most unsatisfactory best--that we can do is ascribethe omission to the frailty of man, and record that there is no noticeof the Dominican Doctrina of 1593 in the most complete contemporaryDominican history of the Philippines. 

The first members of the Order of St. Dominic [95] to land in thePhilippines were Bishop Salazar and his assistant, Christoval deSalvatierra. But they were fully occupied with the administration ofthe bishopric and could not devote themselves to regular missionarywork. It was not until July 25, 1587 that working Dominicanmissionaries came. Then fifteen [96] under the leadership of Juan deCastro arrived, and established the first Dominican province [97]of the Philippines and China, thus consummating the hope expressedas early as 1579. [98]

In consultation with the other orders it was decided that theDominicans should be given the ministry of the territories ofPangasinan and Bataan, which had theretofore been spirituallyexploited by few priests. Almost immediately, on September 15, 1587, the vicariate of Bataan was founded and settled. In speaking of it, Aduarte stressed the importance of a knowledge of the language of thenatives, which there would have been Tagalog, to the success of themission. Domingo de Nieva, one of the four members of the mission, learned it rapidly and well, and soon began to preach to the Indiansin their own tongue. His aptitude for languages and its usefulness tothe Dominicans must have been very great, for Aduarte in listing thepriests who originally volunteered in Spain makes few comments aboutindividuals, but of Nieva he remarks that he "was afterwards of greatimportance because of the great ease and skill with which he learnedlanguages, whether Indian or Chinese. " [99] Unfortunately Nieva wasonly a deacon, and so could not hear confession, a fact which wasgreatly deplored, because during that first year no other priestmastered the language sufficiently well to do it, but in September1588 he reached the requisite age and was ordained. About that timethe friars in Bataan--one had died and another was ailing--were joinedby Juan de la Cruz, "who, being young, succeeded very well with thelanguage, " [100] and also succeeded in surviving the climate. 

Early in 1588 Juan Cobo [101] arrived from Mexico. Shortly thereafter, on June 12, 1588, the Dominican chapter held its first convocation. Itelected Juan de Castro the first provincial, adopted the generalordinances [102] already made in Mexico, gave the convent at Manilathe title of priory, and designated as parts of the province fourvicariates. Of primary importance was the appointment then of JuanCobo to the mission for the Chinese. 

From the very earliest days of the Spanish occupation of Manila, the governors had had trouble with the Chinese and Sangleys. [103]These people had long conducted a profitable trade between Chinaand the Philippines, and many had settled permanently near Manila, while others stayed there regularly between trading voyages. TheChinese merchants were in full control of the shops of the city, andso monopolized retail trade that the early governors legislated [104]against them to give the Spaniards a chance to establish themselvesin business. In 1588 there were as many as seven thousand of them inand around Manila. 

No one had objected to the Pangasinan and Bataan assignments, but whenit was suggested that the Dominicans also assume the responsibility forthe ministry over the Chinese and Sangleys in the suburbs of Manila, the Augustinians vehemently resented what they considered an invasionof their prior rights. Aduarte omits any account of a disagreement, merely saying that since the Chinese had had no one to minister tothem the Dominicans assumed that responsibility, but in a letter [105]from the Licentiate Gaspar de Ayala to Philip II, dated from Manila, July 15, 1589, full details of the squabble are given. From this sourcewe learn that the Augustinians had a convent in the village of Tondoin the Chinese district. There they had ministered to the natives intheir own language, but had rather neglected their Chinese-speakingparishioners. Consequently after the arrival of the Dominicans theAudiencia passed an ordinance requiring that the Bishop appointministers of one order to administer to the Chinese in their ownlanguage within thirty days. To meet the deadline the Augustiniansbegan to study Chinese at breakneck speed, but when the Bishop cameto Tondo to hear one of the friars, who was supposed to know thelanguage, preach in it, there was some trouble as a result of whichthe Augustinian would not, or indeed could not, preach. Naturally, when it was decided to award the territory to the Dominicans, theAugustinians accused the Bishop of favoritism towards his own order. 

The whole situation is best described in the report on the Chinesemade by Salazar to the King on June 24, 1590:

 "When I arrived in this land, I found that in a village called Tondo--which is not far from this city, there being a river between--lived many Sangleys, of whom some were Christians, but the larger part infidels. In this city were also some shops kept by Sangleys, who lived here in order to sell the goods which they kept here year by year. These Sangleys were scattered among the Spaniards, with no specific place assigned to them, until Don Gonzalo Ronquillo allotted them a place to live in, and to be used as a silk-market (which is here called _Parián_), of four large buildings. Here, many shops were opened, commerce increased, and more Sangleys came to this city. . . . When I came, all the Sangleys were almost forgotten, and relegated to a corner. No thought was taken for their conversion, because no one knew their language or undertook to learn it on account of its great difficulty; and because the religious who lived here were too busy with the natives of these islands. Although the Augustinian religious had charge of the Sangleys of Tondo, they did not minister to or instruct them in their own language, but in that of the natives or this land; thus the Sangley Christians living here, were Christians only in name, knowing no more of Christianity than if they had never accepted it. . . . Then I appealed to all religious orders to appoint some one of their religious to learn the language and take charge of the Sangleys. Although all of them showed a desire to do so, and some even began to learn it, yet no one succeeded; and the Sangleys found themselves with no one to instruct them and take up their conversion with the necessary earnestness, until, in the year eighty-seven, God brought to these islands the religious of St. Dominic. " [106]

So we find, as the Dominicans undertook their mission, a largesettlement of Chinese, including both a settled and a floatingpopulation, concentrated in the Parián, across the Pasig river fromthe main city of Manila. 

The dominating figure of the Chinese mission from the time of hisarrival in the Philippines was Juan Cobo. In a letter, written by himfrom the Parián of Manila, July 13, 1589, probably to ecclesiasticalauthorities in Mexico, he gives an account of the early days ofthe mission:

 "The Order took a site next to this Parián, since there was not a single house between Santo Domingo and the Parián. And because of this opportunity the Order presently charged itself with the Chinese, both Christians and infidels. And upon P. Fr. Miguel de Benavides and P. Fr. Juan Maldonado was imposed the responsibility for the care of the Chinese and for learning their language. P. Fr. Miguel was less occupied with other matters than Fr. Juan Maldonado, so that he progressed in the language enough to begin to catechize in it. This was the first year the Order was in Manila. 

 "Presently in the second year when I came, the Order moved P. Fr. Miguel and myself into another separate house at the other edge of the Parián. So that there stood between Santo Domingo and San Gabriel, which is the name of this church of the Chinese, the whole of the Parián of the Sangleys. And there a poor little church was built under the protection of San Gabriel, to whom it fell by lot, and a poor house where we two lived. We entered into it at the beginning of September 1588. This was the first church for the Chinese built, and we believe that there is today not another parish church [for the Chinese] but that. . . . And P. Fr. Miguel catechized them and preached to them in their Chinese language, and taught the doctrine in it. I myself did not yet know the language, but the Lord has been served, so that in a short time I progressed in it. " [107]

The account of Aduarte is not so accurate in some details, butit supplies others not mentioned by Cobo. The first mission whichBenavides and Maldonado (or de San Pedro Martyr as he was later known)built was near the village of Tondo, in a new settlement speciallyfounded for Christian Chinese, called Baybay, and it was named for OurLady of the Purification. The second mission which was establishedby Benavides and Cobo was at first a palm-leaf hut. The name of SanGabriel was decided upon by making lots with the names of varioussaints on them and then drawing. San Gabriel came out three times ina row, and "all were persuaded that the Lord was pleased to have thepatronage belong to this holy archangel. " Soon, because of the goodworks of the fathers who established a hospital there for the careof the sick and poor, the demands upon the hut became so great thata larger building was planned. At first it was to have been erectedon the site of the hut, but the inhabitants protested that a stonebuilding so near native houses might do them great damage in theevent of an earthquake, so the friars went to the other side of theriver, and there built a temporary building of wood which was latercompleted in stone. It was here then that the Doctrina was printed, in the Church of San Gabriel, near the Parián of Manila, at the edgeof the Chinese settlement. 

Under the care of Benavides and Cobo the mission flourished, and the two fathers became increasingly proficient in the Chineselanguage. When the provincial Juan de Castro began making preparationsfor an inspection tour of his Chinese vicariate in 1590, he chose ashis companion Miguel de Benavides. The account of the events leadingup to this expedition is given in the already quoted letter of Salazaron the Chinese:

 "Of the Dominican religious who came to these islands, four are engaged in ministering to the Sangleys. Two of these four officiate in the Church of San Gabriel, which, together with the house where the religious live, stands close to the Parián. Another church with its house is on the promontory of Baybay, near Tondo--which a river divides, separating it from Manila. Two of the four have learned the language of the Sangleys so well, and one of these two how to write also (which is the most difficult part of the language), that the Sangleys wonder at their knowledge. . . . After due consideration of the matter, the Dominican fathers and myself decided that it was necessary to go to China. . . . Thus we decided upon the departure, sending at present no more than two religious: Fray Miguel de Benavides, who was the first to learn the language of the Sangleys; and Father Juan de Castro, who came as vicar of the religious and who was made provincial here. We preferred these two, as one is well acquainted with the language, and the other is much loved and esteemed by the Sangleys on account of his venerable gray locks and blessed old age; and we know that in that land old people are much respected and revered. " [108]

They sailed on May 22, 1590, but Juan de Castro before he leftappointed Cobo acting superior of the province with full authorityduring his absence, and in the latter's place as head of the Chinesemission sent Juan de San Pedro Martyr. 

There is no doubt but that at this time Benavides and Cobo werethe two outstanding Chinese linguists among the Spaniards inthe Philippines. To Benavides has been attributed [109] a Chinesedictionary, and Schilling [110] uses the already quoted letter of Coboto prove that he also wrote a Doctrina in Chinese, but, granting thatsuch works were written by him, there is no evidence that they werewritten in Chinese characters, and not in Chinese transliterated intoroman letters. The available evidence points to the fact that Cobowas the only one who could then write in Chinese characters. Salazarin his above quoted letter had said that "one of these two [havelearned] how to write also, " and in the same letter he continued, "Fray Juan Cobo, the Dominican religious--who, as I have said before, knows the language of the Sangleys and their writing, and who is mostesteemed by them--is sending to Your Majesty a book, one of a numberbrought to him from China. " [111] Further witness to Cobo's amazingknowledge of Chinese writing is given by Aduarte:

 "He knew three thousand Chinese characters, each different from all the rest, for the Chinese have no definite number of letters nor alphabet. . . . He translated a number [of Chinese books]; for like those of Seneca, though they are the work of heathens, they contain many profound sayings like ours. He taught astrology to some of them whom he found capable of learning; and to bring them by all means to their salvation also taught them some trades that are necessary among Spaniards, but which, not being used by the Chinese, they did not know--such as painting images, binding books, cutting and sewing clothes, and such things--doing all to win men to God. " [112]

Finally, as a more definite proof that Cobo could have been theauthor of the Chinese Doctrina of 1593, we have the record [113] of a_Catecismo de la Doctrina Cristiana en Lengua China_ written by him, as well as many other works in Chinese. 

In May 1590, then, the most accomplished Sinologist yet to work inthe Philippines was in charge of the Dominican province. "His firstact, " wrote Aduarte, "was to strengthen the ministry to the Chinese byappointing to it Father Domingo de Nieva, a priest of great virtue andvery able--which was tremendously important there--and one who bestmastered that language, as well as that of the Indians in which hehad had experience; and he worked in both of them, and wrote muchto the great advantage of those who came after him. " [114] It issurprising that no previous writer has emphasized the presence ofDomingo de Nieva, whose proficiency in Tagalog we have already noted, at San Gabriel during the years when the printing of the Doctrinasmust have been planned and executed. His works are cited by Fernández, [115] and after giving a summary of his career, Aduarte added:

 "He wrote much in the language of the Indians and other things in the language of the Chinese for whom he had printed in their language and characters a memorial upon the Christian life, with other brief tracts of prayer and meditation, in preparation for the holy sacraments, of confession and the sacred communion. He was an enemy of sloth, and so worked much in Chinese, in which he wrote a practically new grammar of the Chinese language, a vocabulary, a manual of confession and many sermons, in order that those who had to learn this language might find it less difficult. " [116]

Medina [117] records these various works as Manila imprints of unknowndate, and to this indefinite information about them we can add nothingpositive. However, it is apparent that some time before 1606, whenNieva died on his way to Mexico, he had had books printed, and sincethey were in Chinese they must have been printed from wood-blocks, for at that early date it would have been impossible to have cast thenumber of characters necessary to print in Chinese with movable type. 

With Nieva was Maldonado, or San Pedro Martyr. He had been one of thefirst associates of Benavides in the first Chinese mission at Baybay, but after the arrival of Cobo he had been sent by order of the firstchapter to Pangasinan. When Cobo was appointed acting provincialSan Pedro Martyr was again assigned to the Chinese ministry. He hadlearned Tagalog, and after his return to the Parián "he learned morewords of the Chinese language than any other member of the order, though he was not successful with the pronunciation. " [118]

On May 31, 1592, the Governor received a letter from the Emperor ofJapan demanding that an ambassador be sent to offer him the fealtyof the Philippines. Juan Cobo, as the best speaker of Chinese, waschosen to represent the Spaniards, and he left Manila on July 29, 1592. After successfully convincing the Japanese Emperor of the amityof the Spaniards, he left to come back to Manila, but his ship waswrecked in November on the coast of Formosa, and there Cobo was killedby hostile natives. Meanwhile Benavides had gone back to Spain withBishop Salazar in 1591, and did not return to the Philippines untilafter his appointment as Bishop of Nueva Segovia in 1595. 

That left as the only two remaining experts in the Chinese language, Domingo de Nieva and Juan de San Pedro Martyr, both of whom were atSan Gabriel in 1592. _Moreover, both of them knew Chinese and Tagalog. _A text in Tagalog was available, based on the Talavera-Plasencia-Olivermodel, which had circulated freely, and this, we believe, was furtheredited--hence the "corrected by the religious of the orders"--by thesetwo Dominicans. In their editorial work they may have been helpedby Juan de la Cruz, who, we have noted, was sent to Bataan in 1588, there learned Tagalog, and "succeeded so perfectly with it that FatherFr. Francisco San Joseph, who was afterwards the best linguist there, profited by the papers and labors of P. Fr. Juan de la Cruz. " [119]Juan de Oliver, the pioneer Franciscan Tagalist was still living andavailable for consultation, and the polylingual Jesuit, FranciscoAlmerique, also was in Manila at the time. A Chinese text had beenwritten by Juan Cobo, and both Nieva and San Pedro Martyr were capableof preparing this for publication, again possibly aided by Almerique, and also Diego Muñoz, if as an Augustinian he had been willing tocooperate with the Dominicans. Nothing remained to be done but havethe blocks cut and the impressions pulled. 

THE PRINTING OF THE BOOKS

The stage was set for the production of the Doctrinas. That therewere Chinese xylographic models upon which the books could be basedis evidenced by the account of Mendoza of the considerable number ofChinese books brought to Manila by Martin de Rada as early as 1575. Amore likely model was a bilingual text in Spanish and Chinese whichCobo describes in his letter of July 13, 1589, where speaking of theJesuits in China he says:

 "Moreover the Father of the Company who was in China wrote and printed in Chinese letters a whole book of the unity of God, the creation of the world, and the commandments explained; and in this book has gotten as far as the incarnation of the Son of God. Concerning this I am not speaking of things heard, for I have it, and am thus certain of it, as of all the things that happened. How far I have progressed with the Chinese letters I shall say later. This book was printed in China in 1584. It circulates freely in China whence we have our copy, and because of the writing, contrary to what others have misleadingly said about the Chinese, they have done him no ill: from which it may be inferred that the lion is not so wild as they paint him. " [120]

There is no direct evidence to support our belief that it was duringthe brief period after Castro returned, probably late in 1590, andrelieved Cobo of his executive responsibilities, and June 1592 when heleft for Japan, that Cobo began intensive plans for the production ofbilingual texts. His recorded interest in such books, his influencewith the Chinese, his energy and his own linguistic aptitude wouldnaturally have stimulated him to undertake the task. Whether heactually began work on the blocks from which the books were printed, or merely suggested the feasibility of the idea, we do not know, but we feel sure that Juan Cobo was the father of the production ofbooks in the Philippines. 

There is no need here to go into the history of printing in China;the method used there and its antiquity have been fully describedby others. [121] That there were Chinese in Manila who understoodthis age-old process would seem obvious from the reports of skilledcraftsmen whose presence was noted by all the writers of the period. Wehave already quoted a reference to Juan Cobo's teaching them Europeantrades, and Salazar in his already cited letter speaks of them further:

 "They are so skillful and clever, that, as soon as they see any object made by a Spanish workman, they reproduce it with exactness. What arouses my wonder most is, that when I arrived no Sangley knew how to paint anything; but now they have so perfected themselves in this art that they have produced marvelous works with both the brush and the chisel. . . . What has pleased all of us here has been the arrival of a bookbinder from Mexico. He brought books with him, set up a bindery, and hired a Sangley who had offered his services to him. The Sangley secretly, and without his master noticing it, watched how the latter bound books, and lo, in less than [lacuna in MS. ] he left the house, saying that he wished to serve him no longer, and set up a similar shop. " [122]

To turn over a manuscript copy of a book to a Chinaman who had alreadysome familiarity with the production of books in China, or who with agiven text could carve the blocks according to tradition, was then nota matter of great difficulty. There were Chinese books which showedwhat the result would be; there were Spanish books, definitely somefrom Mexico, which provided samples of European characters and format. 

Who cut the blocks--that is exactly what Chinaman--we do not know, nor do we know who handled the presswork, but it is logical to assumethat the whole process took place under the supervision of the fathersof San Gabriel, Juan Cobo if work had begun before 1592, and certainlyNieva and San Pedro Martyr. One further aide may have been the laybrother, Pedro Rodriguez, who had been sent to San Gabriel with Nieva, and who was a handyman or skilled mechanic, for Aduarte credits himwith rebuilding and restoring the hospital. 

In speaking of the book printed for Blancas de San José, Aduarte saidthat the printing had been done by "a Chinaman, a good Christian, "[123] but in this particular account he does not give the Chinaman'sname. Yet, where he describes the founding of a second church of SanGabriel in Binondo, sometime after March 28, 1594 [124] and beforeJune 15, 1596 when it was admitted to the chapter, he tells in somedetail of printing done by Juan de Vera. [125]

 "There have been in this town [Binondo, then called Minondoc] many Chinese of very exemplary lives. Juan de Vera was not only a very devout man, and one much given to prayer, but a man who caused all his household to be the same. He always heard mass, and was very regular in his attendance at church. He adorned the church most handsomely with hangings and paintings, because he understood this art. He also, thinking only of the great results to be attained by means of holy and devout books, gave himself to the great labor necessary to establish printing in this country, where there was no journeyman who could show him the way, or give him an account of the manner of printing in Europe, which is very different from the manner of printing followed in his own country of China. The Lord aided his pious intentions, and he gave to this undertaking not only continued and excessive labor, but all the forces of his mind, which were great. In spite of the difficulties, he attained that which he desired, and was the first printer in these islands; and this not from avarice--for he gained much more in his business as a merchant, and readily gave up his profit--but merely to do service to the Lord and this good to the souls of the natives. " [126]

It is interesting to note that this narrative, which is in substancesimilar to that about the books of Blancas de San José, nowherementions the name of the priest in connection with Vera. It is probablethat Juan de Vera was, as Retana believed, the first typographer, andit may be that he also printed the Doctrinas of 1593. It is impossibleto say with certainty, but it is not too fanciful to suppose thatJuan de Vera tried xylographic printing under the supervision ofNieva and San Pedro Martyr, and after some experimenting achievedtypography in the time of Blancas de San José. 

Since we have here dealt with a volume printed entirely fromwood-blocks it does not seem necessary to discuss in detail thesubsequent typographical books. However, just as this goes to press, a copy of the _Ordinationes Generales prouintiae Sanctissimi RosarijPhilippinarum_, [127] printed at Binondo by Juan de Vera in 1604, has been discovered, and also presented by Mr. Rosenwald to theLibrary of Congress. This is the volume described by Remesal [128]as being printed "in as fine characters and as correctly as if inRome or Lyon. " No copy of the book had been described since his day, although Medina [129] and Retana [130] both listed it from referenceswhich probably derived from Remesal. Its discovery--almost unbelievablecoming so close on the heels of that of the Doctrina--helps to closethe gap between the latter and the two Bataan imprints [131] of 1610, the _Arte y Reglas de la Lengva Tagala_ and the _Librong Pagaaralannang manga Tagalog nang uicang Castilla_. 

The full story of the early typographical products of the Philippinesmust wait upon another occasion, for the questions posed by the scantyrecords and the handful of surviving books are extremely knotty. Wheredid the type come from? Medina suggested it was imported from Macao;Retana believed it to have been cut in the Philippines. Fernándezsaid that the first works of Blancas de San José were printed atBataan and the two 1610 books have that place of printing, yet in1604 the _Ordinationes_ issued from Binondo. Remesal wrote that thisbook was printed by Francisco de Vera, and the book itself bears thename of Juan. Indeed, the history of the early typographers and theoutput of their presses, as it has so far been written, presents manyproblems, but they are problems which we feel are outside the scopeof this study. 

To summarize what we have learned of the earliest printing in thePhilippines: we have the possibility, but not a likely one, thatan _Arte_ by Juan de Quiñones was printed xylographically in 1581;we know that in the first half of the year 1593 two Doctrinas wereprinted xylographically--although we have no way of telling whichcame first--one in Tagalog from the Talavera-Plasencia-Oliver text, and one in Chinese written by Juan Cobo, both edited and printed underthe supervision of Domingo de Nieva and Juan de San Pedro Martyr;we surmise that between 1593 and 1602 other works were also printedxylographically, such as the small tracts of Juan de Villanueva andsome of the books of Blancas de San José, Nieva and others; and in1602 was printed by Juan de Vera, in all likelihood from movabletype, the book of Our Lady of the Rosary by Blancas de San José. Theknown facts are not many, and we can only hope that time and furtherresearch will discover new ones to make the history of the earliestPhilippine imprints more complete and more satisfactory. 

Philadelphia, January 20, 1947 EDWIN WOLF 2ND. 

The most frequently cited authorities will be referred to as follows:

ADUARTE--Diego Aduarte, _Historia de la Provincia del Sancto Rosario dela Orden de Predicadores en Philippinas, Iapon, y China_, Manila, 1640. 

B. & R. --Emma Helen Blair and James Alexander Robertson, _ThePhilippine Islands 1493-1898_, Cleveland, 1903-09. 

CANO--Gaspar Cano, _Catalogo de los Religiosos de N. P. S. Agustin dela Provincia del Smo. Nombre de Jesus de Filipinas_, Manila, 1864. 

CHIRINO--Pedro Chirino, _Relacion de las Islas Filipinas_, Rome, 1604. 

COLÍN--Francisco Colín, _Labor Evangélica, Ministerios Apostólicosde los Obreros de la Compañia de Jesus, Fundacion, y Progressos desu Provincia en las Islas Filipinas_ (ed. Pablo Pastells), Barcelona, 1900-02. 

HUERTA--Felix de Huerta, _Estado Geográfico, Topográfico, Estadístico, Histórico-Religioso, de la Santa y Apostólica Provincia de S. GregorioMagno . . . De N. S. P. S. Francisco, en las Islas Filipinas_, Binondo, 1865. 

MEDINA--José Toribio Medina, _La Imprenta en Manila desde sus Orígeneshasta 1810_, Santiago de Chile, 1896. 

MEDINA (Juan de)--Juan de Medina, _Historia de los Sucesos de laOrden de N. Gran P. S. Agustin de estas Islas Filipinas_, Manila, 1893. 

P. & G. --Angel Pérez and Cecilio Güemes, _Adiciones y Continuacion de"La Imprenta en Manila" de D. J. T. Medina_, Manila, 1904. 

PÉREZ--Elviro Jorde Pérez, _Catálogo Biobibliográfico de los ReligiososAgustinos de la Provincia del Santísimo Nombre de Jesús de las IslasFilipinas_, Manila, 1901. 

REMESAL--Antonio de Remesal, _Historia de la provincia de S. Vincentede Chyapa y Guatemala de la orden de nro glorioso padre SanctoDomingo_, Madrid, 1619. 

RETANA--Wenceslao Emilio Retana y Gamboa, _La Imprenta en FilipinasAdiciones y Observaciones á La Imprenta en Manila de D. J. T. Medina_, Madrid, 1897. 

SAN AGUSTIN--Gaspar de San Agustin, _Conquistas de las IslasPhilipinas_, Madrid, 1698. 

SAN ANTONIO--Juan Francisco de San Antonio, _Chronicas de la ApostolicaProvincia de S. Gregorio de Religiosos Descalzos de N. S. P. Franciscoen las Islas Philipinas_, Manila, 1738-44. 

SANTA INÉS--Francisco de Santa Inés, _Crónica de la Provincia de SanGregorio Magno de Religiosos descalzos de N. P. San Francisco en islasFilipinas, China, Japón, etc. Escrita . . . En 1676_, Manila, 1892. 

SANTIAGO VELA--Gregorio de Santiago Vela, _Ensayo de una BibliotecaIbero-Americana de la Orden de San Agustin_, Madrid, 1913-31. 

SCHILLING--Dorotheus Schilling, _Vorgeschichte des Typendrucks aufden Philippen_, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, 1937, pp. 202-16. 

TORRES--Pedro Torres y Lanza, _Catálogo de los documentos relativosá las Islas Filipinas existentes en el Archivo de Indias de Seville_, Barcelona, 1925-34. 

VIÑAZA--Cipriano Muñoz y Manzano, Conde de la Viñaza, _Escritos delos Portugueses y Castellanos referentes á las lenguas de China y elJapón_, Lisbon, 1892. 

This facsimile of the Doctrina Christiana printed at Manila in 1593was printed by Edward Stern & Company, Inc. , Philadelphia, in anedition of twenty-five hundred copies, and published by the Libraryof Congress, February 1947. The type used on the title page and forheadings is Forum, and that in the text Italian Old Style. 

 Doctrina Christiana, en lengua española ytagala, cor regida por los Religiosos de las ordenes Impressa con licencia, en S. Gabriel. De la orden de. S. Domigo En Manila. 1593

 Tassada endos rreales Juandecuellaz

 A. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Ij. L. M. N. O. P. Q. Rr. S. S. T. U. V. X. Y. Z. Z. Vocales. A. E. I. O. U. Ba. Be. Bi bo bu. Ça çe çi. ço. çu. Da. De di do du. Fa fe fi fo fu. Gua gue gui guo gu. Ha he hi. Ho hu. Ja je ji jo ju. La le li. Lo lu. Ma me mi mo mu. Na. Ne ni no nu. Pa pe pi po pu. Qua que qui quo qu. Ra re. Ri ro ru. Sa se si so su. Ta te ti. To tu. Ua ue ui uo uu. Xa xe xi. Xo xu. Ya ye yi yo yu. Za ze zi. Zo zu. 

 Ban ben bin bon bun. Çan çen çin çon çun. Dan den din don. Dun. Fan fen fin fon fun. Guan guen guin guon gun. Han hen hin hon hun. Jan jen jin jon jun. Lan len lin lon lun. Man me min mon mun. Nan nen nin non. Nun. Pan pen pin pon pun. Quã quen quin quon qun. Ran ren rin ron run. San sen sin son su. Tan ten tin ton tun. Uan uen. Uin uon. Uun. Xan xen xin xon xun. Yan yen yin yon yun. Zan zen zin zon zun. 

 Bã be bi bõ bu. Çã çe çi çõ çu. Dã de di dõ du. Fã fe fi fõ fu. Guan guen guin guon gun. Hã. He hi hõ hu. Jã je ji jõ ju. Lã le. Li lõ lu. Mã me mi mõ mu. Nã. Ne ni nõ nu. Pã pe pi põ pu. Quã. Que qui quõ qu. Rã re ri rõ ru. Sã. Se si sõ su. Xã xe xi xõ xu. Yã ye. Yi yõ yu. Zã ze zi zõ zu. 

 ¶El abc. En legua tagala. 

 A O E HA PA KA SA LA TA NA BA MA GA DA YA NGA WA. 

 ¶El paternoster. PADRE nuestro que estas en Los cielos, sanctificado sea el tu nombre. Venga anos el tu reyno. Hagase tu voluntad, asi en la tierra como en el cielo. El pan nuestro de cada dia da noslo oy. Y per donanos nuestras duedas. Asi como nosotros las perdonamos á nuestros deudores. Y no nos de xes caer en la tentacion. Das libranos de mal. Amen. 

 Ang ama namin. Ama namin nasa langit ca y pasamba mo ang ngalã mo, mouisa amin ang pagcahari mo. Y pasonor mo ang loob mo. Dito sa lupa parã sa langit, bigyã mo cami ngaion nang amin caca nin. Para nang sa araoarao. At pa caualin mo ang amin casalanã, yaing uinaualan bahala nami sa loob ang casalanan nang nagcasasala sa amin. Houag mo caming ceuan nang di cami matalo nang tocso. Datapo uat ya dia mo cami sa dilan ma sama. Amen Jesus. 

 A MA NA MI. NA SA LA NGI KA. I PA SA BA MO. A NGA LA MO. MO WI SA A MI. A PE KA HA RI MO. I PE SO NO MO. A LO O MO. DI TO SA LU PA. PA RA SA LA NGI. BI YA MO KA MI. NGA O. NA A MI KA KA NI. PA RA NA SA A RA A RA. A PA KA WA I MO. A A MI KA SA LA NA. YA YA WI NA WA LA BA HA LA NA MI SA LO O. A KA SA LA NA. NA NA KA SA SA LA SA A MI. HO WA MO KA MI E WA. NA DI KA MI MA TA LO NA TO SO. DA TA PO WA. I A YA MO KA MI. SA DI LA MA SA MA. A ME SE SO. 

 El aue Maria. Dios te salue Maria. Lle na degracia. El senõr es contigo. Bendita tu, estretodas las mugeres. Y bendito el fructo. Deus vientre Jesus. Santa Ma ria uirgen y madre de Dios rue ga por nosotros peccadores. Aora y en la ora denuestra muerte amen. Jesus. 

 Ang aba guinoo Ma Aba guinoo Maria ma toua cana, napopono ca nang graçia. Ang panginoon di os, ce, nasayyo. Bucor cang pinag pala sa babaying lahat. Pinag pala naman ang yyong anac si Jesus. Santa Maria yna nang, dios, ypanalangin mo camima çasalanan ngaion at cun mama tai cami. Amen Jesus. 

 A BA GI NO O MA RI YA. MA TO WA KA NA. NA PO PO NO KA NA GA RA SI YA. A PA NGI NO O DI YO NA SA I YO. BO KO KA PI NA PA LA. SA BA BA YI. LA HA. PI NA PA LA NA MA. A I YO A NA SE SE SO. SA TA MA RI YA. I NA NA DI YO. I PA NA LA NGI MO KA MI. MA KA SA LA NA. NGA O. A KU MA MA TA KA MI. A ME SE SO. 

 El credo en Romãce

 Creo en dios padre, todo poderoso. Criador del çie lo y dela tierra. Y en Jesuchristo, su unico hijo senõr nro. Que fue conçebido del elpiritusancto. Y Y naçio de la uirgen sancta Ma ria. Padesçio so el poder depõcio Pilato. Fue crucificado, muer to, y sepultado, descendio alos infiernos, y alterçero dia resuscito, dentre, los muertos. Subio a los cie los, y esta asentado ala diestra de dios padre todo poderoso, dende uerna ajuzgar alos uiuos y alos muertos. Creo en el espiritusãto. Y la sancta yglesia catholica, la comuniõ de los sanctos. La remi sion de los peccados. La refuree çion de la carne. La uida perdu rable, que nunca seacaba. Ame. 

 Ang sumãgpalataia

 Sumasangpalataia aco sa di os ama, macagagaua sa lahat, mangagaua nang langit at nang lu, pa. Sumasangpalataia aco naman cai Jesuchristo yysang anac nang dios panginoon natin lahat. Nag catauan tauo siya salang nang es piritusancto. Ypinanganac ni Sã cta Maria uirgen totoo. Nasactã otos ni poncio Pilato. Ypinaco sa cruz. Namatai, ybinaon, nana og sa manga infierno, nang ma ycatlong arao nabuhai na naguli. Naquiat sa langit nalolocloc sa ca nan nang dios ama, macagagaua sa lahat. Sa caparito hohocom sa nabubuhai, at sa nanga matai na tauo. Sumasangpalataia aco na man sa dios Espiritusancto. At mei sancta yglesia catholica, at mei casamahan ang manga sãtos. At mei ycauauala nang casala nan. At mabubuhai na maguli ang na nga matai na tauo. At mei buhai na di mauala mag pa rating saan. Amen Jesus. 

 SU MA SA PA LA TA YA A AKO. SA DI YO A MA. MA KA GA GA WA SA LA HA. MA GA GA WA NA LA NGI. A NA LU PA. SU MA SA PA LA TA YA A KO NA MA. KA SE SO. KI RI TO. I I SA A NA NA DI YO. PA NGI NO O NA TI LA HA. NA KA TA A TA WO SI YA. LA LA NA E PI RI TO SA TO. I PI NA NGA NA. NI SA TA MA RI YA. BI SE TO TO O. NA SA TA O TO NI PO SI YO. PE LA TO. I PI NA KO SA KU RU. NA MA TA. I BI NA O. NA NA O SA MA NGA I PE NO. NA MA I KA LO A RA. NA BU HA NA NA O LI. NA YA SA LA NGI. NA LO LO LO SA KA NA. NA DI YO A MA. MA KA GA GA WA SA LA HA. SA KA PA RI TO. HO HO KO. SA NA BU BU HA. A SA NA NGA MA TA NA TA WO. SU MA SA PA LA TA YA A KO NA MA SA DI YO E PI RI TU SA TO. A MA SA TA I LE SI YA KA TO LI KA. A MA KA SA MA HA. A MA NGA SA TO. A MA I KA WA WA LA. NA KA SA LA NA. A MA BU BU HA NA MA U LI. A NA NGA MA TA NA TA WO. A MA BU HA NA DI NA MA WA LA. MA PA RA TI SA A. A ME SE SO. 

 La salue Regina

 Salue te dios reyna y ma dre demisericordia, uida dulçura y esperança nra. Dios te salue atillamamos los deste ruados hijos de Gua. Atisuspi ramos gimiendo yllorando en aqueste ualle de lagrimas. Ga pues abogada nuestra, buelue anostros ellos tus misericor diosos ojos. Y despues dea. Queste destierro muestra nos aje sus bendito fruto de tu ueintre. O clemente. O piadosa. O dulce uir gen Maria. Ruega por nos sãta madre de dios quescamos dig nos de las promisiones de Chris to Amen. 

 Ang aba po. 

 Aba po sancta. Mariang ha ri yna nang aua. Ycao ang yquinabubuhai namin, at ang pi nananaligan. Aba ycao nga ang tinatauag namin pinapapanao na tauo anac ni Gua. Ycao din ang ypinagbubuntun hininga na min nang amin pagtangis dini sa lupã baian cahapishapis. Ay aba pintacasi namin, ylingo mo sa amin ang mata mong maauai. At saca cun matapos yering pag papanao sa amin. Ypaquita mo sa amin ang yyong anac si Jesus. Ay Sancta Maria maauain, ma alam, uirgen naman totoo, yna nang Dios. Cami ypanalangin mo, nang mapatoloi sa amin ang panga ngaco ni Jesuchristo. Amen Jesus. 

 A BA PO SA TA MA RI YA HA RI. I NA NA A WA I KA A I KI NA BU BU HA NA MI. A A PI NA NA NA LI GA. A BA I KA NGA. A TI NA TA WA NA MI. PI NA PA PA NA NA TA WO. A NA NI E BA. I KA DI. A I PI NA BU BU TU HI NI NGA NA MI. NA A MI PA TA NGI. DI NI SA LU PA. BA YA KA HA PI HA PI. A A BA. PI TA KA SI NA MI. I LI NGO MO SA A MI. A MA TA MO MA A WA I. SA KA KU MA TA PO. YA RI PA PA PA NA SA A MI. I PA KI TA MO SA A MI. A I YO A NA SI SE SO. SA TA MA RI YA. MA A WA I. MA A LA. BI SE NA MA TO TO O. I NA NA DI YO. KA MI I PA NA LA NGI MO. NA MA PA TO LO SA A MI. A PA NGA NGA KO. NI SE SO KI TO. A ME SE SO. 

 Los Articulos dela fee, son catorze. Los siete pertenesçe ata diuinidad, ylos otros siete a la humanidad denrõ senõr Je suchristo Dios y hombre uerda dero. Ylos siete que pertenesçen ala diuinidad son estos. 

 El primero, creer en un so lo dios todo poderoso. El segundo creer que es dios pa dre. El tercero, creer qes dios hi jo. El quarto, creer que es Dios Espiritusancto. El quinto, creer que es criador. El sexto, creer qes satuador. El septimo, creer que es glorificador. 

 Los que pertenesçenatasa ta humanidad. Son estos. 

 El Primero, creer que nues tro senõr Jesuchristo, en quãto hombre fue conçebido del sptri tu sancto. El segundo, que nasçro del uientre uirginal de la uirgen sancta Maria, siendo ella uirge antes del parto, yenelparto, y des pues del parto. El terçero, que rescibio muerte y pasion porsal uar anosotros peccadores. El quar to: que desçendio alos infiernos, ysacolas animas de los sanctos padres que asta estauan esperan do su sancto aduenimiento. El quinto, que resuscito alterçero dia. El sexto, creer que subio alos cielos, yseassento ala dies tra de dios padre todo poderoso. El septimo, que uerna ajuzgar alos uinos y alos muertos. Con uiene asaber, alos buenos paradar la gloria, porq guardaron susmã damientos: yalos malos pena percurable porque nolos guar daron. Amen:

 Ang pono nang sinasangpa lataianan nang manga chris tiano labin apat na bagai. Ang pitong naona ang sabi ang Dios ang pagcadios niya. Ang pitõg naholi ang sabi, a, ang atin pangi noon Jesuchristo ang pagcatauo niya. Ang pitong naona ang sa bi, ce ang Dios ang pagca dios ni ya ay yceri. 

 Ang naona sumangpalataia sa ysang Dios totoo. Ang ycalua, sumangpalataia, ycering dios si yang ama. Ang ycatlo, Sumãpalataia. Ycering dios siyang anac. Ang ycapat sumangpalataia, ycering dios siyang spiritusancto. Ang ycalima, sumangpalataia, ycerig dios siyang mangagaua nang la hat. Ang ycanim, sumangpala taia ycering dios siyang naca uauala nang casalanan. Ang ycapito sumangpalataia ycering dios siyang nacalulualhati. 

 Ang pitong naholi ang sabi ce ang ating pãgninoon Jesuchristo ang pagcatauo ni ya ay yari. 

 Ang naona sumangpala taia ang atin pagninoon Jesuchristo, ypinaglehe ni San cta Maria lalang nang spiritu sancto. Ang ycalua sumang palataia, ang atin pagninoon Jesuchristo y pinanganac ni sancta maria uirgen totoo, nã dipa nanganac, nang macapa nganac na uirgen din totoo. Ang ycatlo sumangpalataia, ang atin panginoon Jesuchris to nasactan, ypinaco sa cruz. Namatai sacop nang atin casa lanan. Ang ycapat sumang palataia, ang atin panginoon Je suchristo nanaog sa manga in fierno, at hinango doon ang ca loloua nang manga sanctos nag hihintai nang pagdating niya. Ang ycalima sumangpalataia ang atin panginoon Jesuchristo, nang magycatlong arao nabu hai nanaguli. Ang ycanim su mangpalataia ang atin pangino on Jesuchristo nacyat sa langit nalolocloc sa canan nang dios ama macagagaua sa lahat. Ang ycapito sumangpalataia ang a tin panginoon Jesuchristo saca parito hohocom sa nabubuhai at sa nangamatai na tauo. Ang ba nal na tauo gagantihin niya nãg caloualhatian nang langit, ang nacasonor silla nang caniyang otos. Ang di banal pacasasamin sa infierno ang di silla sumonor nang otos niya. Ame. Jesus. 

 A PO NO NA SI NA SA PA LA TA YA NA. NA MA NGA KI NI TI YA NO. LA BI A PA NA BA GA. A PI TO NA O NA. A SA BI I A DI YO. A PA KA DI YO NI YA. A PI TO NA HO LI. A SA BI I. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. A PA KA TA WO NI YA. A PI TA NA O NA. A SA BI A DI YO. A PA KA DI YO NI YA. A PA DI. 

 A NA O NA. SU MA PA LA TA YA SA I SA DI YO TO TO O. A I KA WA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI YO. SI YA A MA. A I KA LO. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI TO. SI YA A NA. A I KA PA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI YO. S YA E PI DI TO SA TO A I KA LI MA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI TO. SI YA MA GA GA WA NA LA HA. A I KA NI. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI TO. SI YA NA KA WA WA LA NA KA SA LA NA. A I KA PI TO. SU MA PA LA TA YA. YA RI DI YO. SI YA NA KA LU LU WA HA TI. 

 A PI TO NA HU LI. A SA BI I A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. A PA KA TA WA NI YA. A YA RI. A NA O NA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. I PI NA LE HE. NI SA TA MA RI YA. LA LA NA E PI RI TO SA TO. A I KA WA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. I PI NA NGA NA. NI SA TO MA RI YA. BI SE TO TO O. NA DI PA NA NGA NA. NA MA KA PA NGA NA NA. BI SE DI TO TO O. A I KA LO. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. NA SA TA. I PI NA KO SA KU RU. SA KO NA A TI KA SA LA NA. A I KA PA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. NA NA O. SA MA NGO I PE NO. A HI NA NGO DO O. A KA LO LO WA NA MA NGA SA TO. NA HI HI TA. NA PA RA TI NI YA. A I KA LI MA. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O. SE SO KI TO. NA MA I KA LO A RA. NA BU HA NA NA U LI. A I KA NI. SU MA SA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. NA YA SA LA NGI. NA LO LO LO SA KA NA. NA DI YO A MA. MA KA GA GA WA SA LA HA. A I KA PI TO. SU MA PA LA TA YA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. SA KA PA RI TO. HO HO KO. SA NA BU BU HA. A SA NA NGA MA TA NA TA WO. A BA NA NA TA WO. GA GA TI HI NI YA. NA KA LU WA HA TI A NA LA NGI. A NA KA SO NO SI LA NA KA NI YA O TO. A DI BA NA PA KA SA SA I. SA I PE NO. A DI SI LA SO MO NO. NA O TO NI YA. A ME. SE SO. 

 Los mandamientos de la lei de dios son diez. Los tres pertenesçen alhonor de Dios. Ylos otros siete al prouecho del proximo. 

 El primero, amarasa dios sobre todas las cosas. El segundo, no jurarasu sancto nom bre en uano. El terçero, sanctisi caras las siestas. El quarto, hon rraras atu padre y madre. El quinto, no mataras. El sexto nofornicaras. El septimo, no hur taras. El octauo, noscuantarafal* so testimonio. El noueno, no dessearas la muger de suproxi mo. El dezeno, nocobdiçiaras, los bienes agenos. Estos diez mandamientos se ençierran e dos, amarasa dios sobre todas las cosas. Y atu proximo como ati mesmo. 

 Ang otos nang Dios, ce, sangpouo. 

 Ang naona, ybigin mo ang dios lalo sa lahat. Ang y calua, houag mo sacsihin ang dios cundi totoo. Ang ycatlo mangilin ca cun domingo at cu siesta. Ang ycapat, ygalang mo ang yyong ama, at ang yyong yna. Ang ycalima houag mõg patayin ãg capoua mo tauo. ãg yca nim, houag cãg maquiapir sa di mo asaua. Ang ycapito houag cang mag nacao, ãg ycaualo houag mõg paga uãgauã nanguica ang capoua mo tauo houag ca naman magsonõ galing. Ang ycasiam houag cang mag nasa sa di mo asaua. Ang y capolo, houag mong pagnasa ang di mo ari. Ytong sang pouong Otos nang Dios da laua ang inouian. Ang ysa ybigin mo Ang Dios lalo lalo sa lahat. Ang ycalua ybig in mo naman ang capoua mo tauo parang ang catauan mo. Amen. Jesus. 

 A O TO NA DI YO. I SA PO WO A NA O NA. I BI I MO A DI YO. LA LO SA LA HA. A I KA WA. HO WA MO SA SE HI A DI YO KU DI TO TO O. A I KA LO. MA NGI LI KA. KU DO MI GO. A KU PI TA. A I KA PA. I GA LA MO. A I YO A MA. A A I YO I NA. A I KA LI MA. HO WA MO PA TA YI A KA PO WA MO TO WO. A I KA NI. HO WA KA MA KI A PI SA DI MO A SA WA. A I KA PI TO. HO WA KA MA NA KA. A I KA WA LO. HO WA MO PA GA A GA A NA WI KA. A KA PO WA MO TA WO. HO WA KA NA MA MA SO. NO NGA LI. A I KA SI YA. HO WA KA MA NA SA. SA DI MO A SA WA. A I KA PO LO. HO WA MO PA NA SA HI A DI MO A RI. I TO SA PO WO. O TO NA DI YO. DA WA A I NO WI A. A I SA. I BI I MO A DI YO. LA LO SA LA HA. A I KA WA. I BI I MO NA MA. A KA PO WA MO TA WO. PA RA NA KA TA A MO. A ME SE SO. 

 Los mandamientos de las sã cta madre yglesia, son cinco. 

 El primero. Ourmissa ente ra los domingos y siestas de guardar. El segundo, con fesar alomenos una vez en el anõ. El tercero, comulgar de necessidad por pascua florida. El quarto, ayunar quando lo manda la sancta madre ygtiã. El quinto, pagar diezmos y primiçias. 

 Ang otos nang sancta y gtiã yna natin ceylima. 

 Ang naona, maqui~nig nãg missa houag meilisan cun domingo at sa siesta, pina ngingilinan. Ang ycalua, mag confesar miminsan man taon taon, at cun mey hirap na yca mamatai. Ang ycatlo, mag comulgar cun pascua na yqui nabuhai na naguli nang atin pa nginoon Jesuchristo. Ang ycapat, magayunar cun magotos ang sa cta yglesia yna natin. Ang y calima papamagohin ang Dios nang dilan pananim, at ang scey capoua yhayin sa dios. Amen. 

 A O TO NA SA TA I LE SI YA. I NA NA TI A A LI MA. A NA O NA. MA KI YI NA MI SA. HO WA MA LI SA. KU DO MI GO. A SA PI TA. PI NA NGI NGI LI NA. A I KA WA. MA KO PI SA. MI MI SA MA. TA O TA O. A KU MA HI RA NA I KA MA MA TA. A I KA LO. MA KO MU GA. KU PA KU WA. NA I KI NA BU HA NA NA U LI. NA A TI PA NGI NO O. SE SO KI TO. A I KA PA. MA A YU NA. KU MA O TO. A SA TA I LE SI YA. I NA NA TI. A I KA LI MA. PA PA MA GO HI A DI YO. A DI LA PA NA NI. A A SA I KA PU WO. I HA YI MO SA DI YO. A ME. 

 Los sacramentos de la san cta madre ygtiã son siete. 

 El primero baptismo. El segu do confirmacion. El tercero Pe nitencia. El quarto, comuniõ. El quinto extrema uncion. El septimo, orden de matrimonio. 

 Pito ang mahal natanda ycauauala nang casalanan ang ngalan sacramentos. 

 Ang naona ang baptismo. Ag ycalua ang confirmar. Ang y catlo ang confesar. Ang yca pat ang comulgar. Ang ycali ma ang extrema uncion. Ang ycanim ang orden nang saçerdo te. Ang ycapito ang pagcasal. Itong daluan holi pinatotoobã nang dios ang tauo piliin ang balan ybig. Amen. 

 PI TO A MA HA NA TA DA. A KA WA WA LA NA KA SA LA NA. A NGA LA SA KA RA ME TO. A NA O NA. A BA TI MO. A I KA WA. A KU PI MA. A I KA LO. A KO PI SA. A I KA PA. A KO MU GA. A I KA LI MA. A E TE RE MA. U SI YO. A I KA NI. A O DE NA SA SE DO TI. A I KA PI TO. A PA KA SA. I TO DA WA HO LI. PI NA LO LO O BA. NA DI YO A TA WO. PI LI I. A BA LA I BI. 

 Los peccados mortales son siete. 

 El primero soberuia. El se gundo Euaricia. El tercero, Luxuria. El quarto yra. El quinto, Gula*. El sexto Embi dia. El septimo Accidia. 

 Ang ponong casalanan, y capapacasama nang caloloua cey pito. 

 Ang capalaloan. Ang caramo tan. Ang calibogan. Ang ca galitan. Ang caiamoan sapag caen at sapag inum. Ang capa naghilian. Ang catamarã. 

 A PO NO KA SA LA NA. I KA PA PA KA SA MA NA KA LO LO WA. A PI TO. A KA PA LA LO A. A KA RA MO TA. A KA LI BO GA. A KA GA LI TA. A KA YA MO A. SA PA KA E. A SA PA I NU. A KA PA NA HI LI A. A KA TA MA RA. 

 Las obras demisericordia, que qualquier chistiano deue cumplirson catorze. Las siete spirituales, y las otras siete cor porales. Las siete corporales son estas. 

 Ujsitar los enfermos. Dar de comer al que hahãbre. Dar de beuer al que hased. Recte mir al que esta captiuo. Deltir al desnudo, que lo hamenester. Dar posada a los peregrinos. Enterrar los muertos. 

 Las otras siete obras de misericordia spirituales, son estas. Ensenãs alos sim ples queno saben. Dar consejo al quelo hamenester. Castigar al que hamenester castigo. Per donar al que erro contrati. Su friutas injurias de tu proximo conpaciencia, al doliente, yatsa nüdo. Consolar los tristes, y desconsolados, Rogardios por los uiuos y por los muertos. Amen. 

 Ang cauaan gaua labin apat ãg pitong naona paquinabang nãg catauan, ang pitong naholi pa quinabang nang caloloua. Ang pitong naona paquinabang nã catauan ay yari. 

 Dalauin ang mei hirap. Paca nin ang nagogotom. Painumi ang nauuhao. Paramtan ang ua lan damit. Tubsin ang nabihag. Patoloyin ang ualan totoloyã. Ybaon ang namatai. 

 Ang pitong naholi paquina bang nang caloloua ay yari. 

 Aralan ang di nacaaalam. A ralan ang napaaaral. Ang ta bõ sala, ce, papagdalitain. Ual in bahala sa loob ang casalanã nang naccasasala sa iyo. Houag ypalaman sa loob ang pagmo mora nang tauo sa iyo. Aliuin ang nalulumbai. Ipanalangin sa dios ang nabubuhai at ang nanga matai na christiano. Amen Jesus. 

 A KA A WA A GA WA. LA BI A PA. A PI TO NA O NA. PA KI NA BA NA KA TA A. A PI TO NA HO LI. PA KI NA BA. NA KA LO LO WA. A PI TO NA O NA. PA KI NA BA NA KA TA A. A YA RI. DA LA WI A ME HI RA. PA KA NA. A NA GO GO TO. PA I NO MI. A NA U U HA. PA RA TA. A WA LA DA MI. TU SI A NA BI HA. PA TO LO YI. A WA LA TO TO LO YA. I BA O. A NA MA TA. A PI TO A HO LI. PA KI NA BA NA KA LO LO WA. A YA RI. A RA LA. A DI NA KA A A LA. A RA LA. A NA PA A A RA. A TA WO SA LA. PA PA DA LI TA I. WA I BA HA LA SA LO O. A KA SA LA NA. NA NA KA SA SA LA. SA I YO. HO WA I PA LA MA SA LO O. A PA MO MO RA. A TA WO SA I YO. A LI WI. A NA LU LU BA. A PA NA LA NGI SA DI YO. A NA BU BU HA. A A NA NGA MA TA NA KI NI TI YA NO. A ME SE SO. 

 La confesion en Romançe

 Jopeccador mucho herrado me confieso adios yasancta Maria, ya san Pedro ya san Pablo, ya los bien aueuturados, san Miguel harchangel, ya san Juan baptista; ya todos los sanc tos, yauos padre que peque mu cho con el pensamientoi conla palabra, y conta obra, por mi cul pa por mi culpa, por mi guan cul pa, por en de ruego a la bien aue turada uirgen sancta Maria, y alos bien auenturados apos toles san Pedro y san Pablo, y asanct Juan baptista, ya todos los sanctos y sanctas querue quen por mi anuestro senõr. Je suchristo. Amen. 

 Acoy macasalanan nagcocõ pesal aco sa atin panginoon di os macagagaua sa lahat at cai sancta Maria uirgen totoo at cai sanct Miguel archangel, cai sanct Juan baptista sa san ctos apostoles cai sanct Pedro, at cai sanct Pablo at sa lahat na sanctos at sa iyo padre, ang naccasala aco sa panidim, sa pag uica at sa paggaua aco nga ce, sala aco, i, mei casalanan, aco, i, salan lubha siyang ypmagsisi sico caiangaiata nananalan ngin aco cai sancta Maria uirgen totoo at cai, S. Miguel archã gel, at cai, S. Juan baptista, at sa san ctos apostoles, cai S. Pedro at cai, S. Pablo at sa lahat na sanctos, nãg aco ã. Ypanalangin nila sa atin pangi noõ dios ycao namã padre aco, i. Ypanalangin mo at haman caha lili canang dios dito aco, i, ca lagan mo sa casalanan co, at parusahan mo aco. Amen, Jesu. 

 A KO MA KA SA LA NA. A KO NA KO KO PI SA SA A TI PA NGI NO O DI YO. MA KA GA GA WA SA LA HA. A KA SA TA MA RI YA. BI SE TO TO O. KA SA MI GE. A KA SI. KA SA SU WA BA TI TA. SA SA TO A PO TO LI. KA SA PE RO. A KA SA PA LO. A SA LA HA NA SA TO. A SA I YO PA RE. A NA KA SA LA A KO. SA PA NI RI. SA PA WI KA. A SA PA GA WA. A KO NGA A SA LA. A KO MA KA SA LA NA. A KO SA LA LO HA. SI YA I PI NA SI SI SI KO. KA YA NGA YA TO. NA NA NA LA NGI A KO KA SA TA MA DI YO. BI SE TO TO O. KA SA MI GO. A KA SI. A SA SO WA BA TI TA. A SA SA TO A PO TO LI. KA SA PI RO. A KA SA PE LA. A SA LA HA NA SA TO. NA A KO I PA NA LA NGI NI LA. SA A TI PA NGI NO O DI YO. I KA NA MA PA RE. A KO I PA NA LA NGI MO. A HA MA KA HA LI LI KA. NA DI YO DI TO. A KO KA LA GA MO. SA KA SA LA NA KO. A PA RU SA HA MO A KO. A ME SE SO. 

 Las preguntas en Romãce P. Eres christiano? R. Si porlami sericordia de Dios. P. Que cosa es christiano? R. El hombre bapti zado que cree lo que ensenã di os, yla sancta yglesia madre nrã. P. Qua les la senãl del christiano R. La sancta cruz. P. Aquien adoran los christianos? R. A nrõ senõr Dios. P. Que cosa es dios? R. La primera causa, el princi pio de todas las cosas, El que hi ço todas las cosas, y el no tiene principio nifin. P. Quantos dio ses ay? R. Un solo dios. P. Quã tas personas. R. Tres P. Como se llama la primera? R. Dios padre. P. Como se llama la seu da? R. Dios hijo. P. Como se lla ma la tercera? R. Dios spiritu sancto. P. Son por uenturatres Dioses. R. No sontres dioses. Las personas son tres, ysolo ai un dios. P. Qual de las tres per sonas se hizo hombre? R. La se gunda persona que es el hijo. P. Como se hizo hombre? R. Por obra del spiritu sancto, en las entranãs de sancta Maria uirge antes del parto, ydespues del parto. P. Para q se hizo hombre? R. Para podermorir en rescate de los peccados de todos los hombres. P. Qual es erantos peccados de los hombres? R. El peccado de nuestros prime ros padres. Adan y Eva, del qual todos participamos, y fue ra de esto, los peccados actua les conque ofenden a dios ca da dia. P. Como rescato a los hõ bres? R. Murio en la cruz y to mo asucargo los peccados de todos los hombres. P. Despues de muerto nrõ senõr Jesuchris to que hizo su alma? R. Baxo a los infiernos junta con la diui nidad, ysaco las animas de los sanctos padres que estauan a guardando su sancto adueni. Miento. P. El cuerpo de nuestro senõr Jesuchristo fue sepultado? R. Si P. Resuscito. R. Si P. Quã do? R. Al terçero dia, de su muer te. P. Que dose aca en la tierra nu estro senõr Jesuchristo? R. No, sino subro a los çielos, despues de quarenta dias de su. R. Esurreç cion y esta asentado ala diestra de dios padre todo poderoso. P. Que asiento tiene alla en el cielo? R. El mas abentaxado de todos. P. Ay dia enque uedra ajuzgar uinos y muertos. R. Si, P. Quando? R. No se sabe. P. El alma del hombre aca base quando muere el hombre? R. No muere con el cuerpo como en los otros animales, si no so to el cuerpo muere y el alma uiue para siempre. P. Ande uol uer adinir todos los que muere buenos y malos? R. Ande uol uer adinir y juntar se el cuerpo con el alma para ser juzgados de chirsto nuestro senõr. P. Despues de. R. Esuscitados los cuerpos de los hombres ande uoluer amorir? R. No P. Que dara dios en premio a los bue nos. R. La gloria del cielo al la ueran adios y se alegraran y regozi jaran para siempre ja mas. P. Que castigo dara dios a los malos? R. Echar los a en el infierno allatendran torme los y dolores para simpre ja mas. P. Que esta sancta ygle sia. R. Todos los hombres christianos que creen en di os, juntamente consu cabe ça, Jesuschristo que esta en el cielo, ysuuicauio en la tierra que es el papa del Roma. P. En es ta sancta yglesia y cosas que quiten peccados? R. Si P. Que cosas son? R. El baptisimo a los no christianos, y la confe sion a los ya christianos que peccaron si searrepienten de suspeccados de ueras ytiene uoluntad de nunca mas boluer apeccar. P. En esta sancta yglia ay comunion de los sanctos? R. Si. P. Que esta comunion de los sanctos? R. La partiçipaçion de los buenos christianos en las buenas obras y sacramentos. P. Quando leuanta la ostia el pa dre en la missa para quela ado rentos christianos quien esta asti? R. Jesuchristo nrõ senõr dios y hombre uerdadero como esta en el cielo. P. En el caliz quien esta? R. La sangre uer dadera de nrõ senõr Jesuchris to como aquella que deruamo en la cruz. P. Que esta el chris tiano obligado a hazer, para saluarse? R. Hazer y cumplir. Los diez mandamientos de dios y los de la sancta madre yglesia. 

 Ang tanongan. 

 Tanongan. Christiano cana? Sagot. Oo. T aua nang atin pã nginoon dios. T. Ano caia ang christiano? S. Ang binãgan su masangpalataia sa aral nang dios at nang sancta yglesia yna natin. T. Alin caia ang tan da nang christiano? S. Ang sãcta cruz. T. Sino caia ang sinasam ba nang manga christiano? S. Ang atin panginoon dios. T. Ano caia ang dios? S. Ang onãg mola. Ang caona onahan sa lahat, ang mei gaua sa lahat, siya, e, ualan pinagmolan ualan cahã ganan. T. Ylan ang dios? S. Ysa lamang. T. Ylan ang personas? S. Tatlo. T. Anong ngalang nang naona? S. Ang dios ama. T. Anõg ngalan nang ycalua? S. Ang di os anac. T. Anong ngalan nãg ycatlo? S. Ang dios spiritusãcto. T. Tatlo caia ang dios? S. Dile tatlo ang dios, ang personas siyang tatlo, ang dios ysa lamang. T. Alin sa tatlong per sonas ang nagcatauan tauo? S. Ang ycaluang persona nang sanctissima trinidad ang dios a nac. T. Anong pagcatauan tauo niya? S. Pinaglalangan siya nãg dios spiritusancto satian ni sãcta Maria uirgen totoo nang dipa nanganac siya. Nang macapanga nac na virgen din totoo. T. Ayat nagcatauan tauo siya? S, nang mã yari mamatai siya tubus sacasa lanan nang lahat na tauo. T. Atin caia ang casalanan nang tauo? S. Ang casalanan nang atin magu gulang si Adan at si Eva nagin casalanan natin, naramai pala ta yo sapagcacasala nila sa pangino on dios. Bucor naman doon ang sa diling casalanan nang balan nang tauo nagcasasala sa dios arao arao. T. Anong pagtubus niya sa tauo? S. Nagpacamatai siya sa cruz, at sinacop niya ang san libotan bayan. T. Nang namatai na ang atin panginoon Jesuchris to sa cruz, anong guinaua nang caloloua niya? S, nanaog sama nga infiernos pati nang pagca dios niya, at hinango doon ãg caloloua nang manga sanctos padres naghihintai nãgpagda ting niya. T. Ang catauan ni Jesuchristo ybinaon? S. Oo. T. Nabuhai nanaguli? S. Oo. T. Ca ylan? S. Nang magycatlong arao nangpagcamatai niya. T. Humabilin dito sa lupa ang atin panginoon Jesuchristo? S. Di le humabilin dito sa lupa, nac yat sa langit nang magycapat napoung arao nang pagcabu hai niyang naguli, at nalolocloc sa canan nang dios ama maca gagaua sa lahat. T. Anong pagca locloc niya doon sa langit? S. Pinalalo siya nang dios ama ni ya sa lahat. T. Mei arao na yhoho com sa nangabubuhai, at sana ngamatai natauo? S. Oo T. Cailã? S. Dile naaalaman. T. Sino caia, ang hocom? S. Ang atin pangino on Jesuchristo. T. Ang caloloua natin mamatai caia cun mama tai ang catauan natin? S. Dile ma matai ang caloloua natin para nang sa haiop, ang catauan la mang mamatai, ang caloloua mabubuhai magparating man saan. T. Mabubuhai caia mag uli ang nangamatai natauo, ba nal man, tampalasan man. S, oo mabubuhai din maguli, at papa soc na moli ang caloloua sa ca tauan nang hocoman silang dalua nang atin panginoon Je suchristo. T. Cun mabuhai na maguli ang catauan nang ma nga tauo mamatai pa caiang mo li? S. Dile. T. Ano ygaganti nang dios sa manga banal na tauo. S. Ang caluualhatian sa langit doon maquiquita ni la ang dios, at matotoua at ma liligaia, at luluualhati magpa rating man saan. T. Ano ypa rurusa niya sa manga tauõ tan palasan? S, yhoholog niya sa ynfierno doon maghihirap sila at maccacasaquet magparatig man saan. T. Ano caia ang san cta yglesia? S. Ang lahat nata uo christiano sumasangpala taia sa dios pati nang pononi la si Jesuchristo, e, nasa langit dito sa lupa ang cahalili niya ang sancto Papa sa Roma? T. Dito sa sancta yglesia mei ycauauala nang casalanan? S, oo, T, ano caia ang ycauaua la nang casalanan? S, ang pinagbinãg sa dipa christianos at ang pagcoconfesal nang ma nga christianos mei casalanã, cun magsising masaquet at mei loob na di moli maccasa la sa dios magparating man saan. T, dito sasancta yglesia mei casamahan ang manga sanctos? S, oo, T, ano caia ang casamahan nang manga sanctos? S, ang pagpapaquina bang nang manga Christianos banal na tauo, sa gauã maga ling sangpon nang sasacra mentos. T, Nang binubuhat ang ostia nang padre sapagmi misa sino caia ang naroon? S, ang atin panginoon Jesu Christo Dios totoo, at tauõg totoo, para doon sa langit. T, sa caliz sino caia ang naroon? S, Ang dugong totoo nang atin panginoon Jesuchristo, capara niun nabohos sa cruz nang na matai siya. T, ano caia ang ga gauin nang manga Christiano nang macaparoon sa langit? S, Ang susundin nila ang sang po, uong otos nang dios, pati nang otos nang sancta yglesia yna natin. 

 TA NO NGA. 

 KI NI TI YA NO KA NA. O O A WA NA A TI PA NGI NO O DI YO. A NO KA YA A KI NI TI YA NO. A BI YA GA NA TA WO. SU MA SA PA LA TA YA. SA A RA NA DI YO. A NA SA TA I LE SI YA. I NA NA TI. A LI KA YA A TA DA NA KI NI TI YA NO. A SA TA KU RU. SI NO KA YA. A SI NA SA BA. NA MA NGA KI NI TI YA NO. A A TI PA NGI NO O DI YO. A NO KA YA A DI YO. A O NA MO LA. A KA O NA O NA HA SA LA HA. A MA GA WA SA LA HA. SI YA WA LA PI NA MO A. WA LA KA HA GA NA. I LA A DI YO. I I SA LA MA. I LA A PE SO NA. TA LO. A NO NGA LA NA NA O NA. DI YO A MA. ANO NGA LA NA I KA WA. DI YO A MA. A NO NGA LA NA I KA LO. DI YO E PI RI TO SA TO. TA LO KA YA A DI YO. DI LE TA LO A DI YO. A PE SO NA SI YA TA LO. A DI YO I SA LA MA. A LI SA TA LO PE SO NA. A NA KA TA A TA WO. A I KA WA PE SO NA. NA SA TI SI MA TI NI DA. NA DI YO A NA. A NO PA KA TA A TA WO NI YA. PI NA LA LA NGA SI YA. NA DI YO E PI RI TO SA TO. SA TI YA NI SA TO MA RI YA. BI SE TO TO O. NA DI PA NA NGA NA. SI YA. NA MA KA PA NGA NA NA. BI SE RI TO TO O. A A NA KA TA A TA WO SI YA. NA MA YA RI MA MA TA SI YA. TU BU SA KA SA LA NA. NA LA HA NA TA WO. A LI KA YA A KA SA LA NA NI LA. A O NA KA SA LA NA. NA MA GU GU LA NA TI. SI A DA. A SI E BA. NA GI KA SA LA NA NA TI . NA RA MA PA LA TA YO. SA PA KA KA O LA NI LA SA DI YO. BO KO NA MA DO O. A SA DI LI A SA LA NA. NA BA LA NA TA WA. NA KA SA SA LA SA DI YO. A RA A RA. TI NU BU NI SE SO KI TO. A LA HA NA TA WO. O O. A NO PA TU BU NI YA SA MA NGA TA WO. A PA KA MA TA SI YA SA KU RU. A SI NA KO NI YA. A SA LI BU TA BA YA. NA NA MA TA NA A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO SA KU RU. A NO GI NA WA NA KA LO LO WA NI YA. NA NA O SA MA NGA I PE NO. PA TI NA PA KA DI YO NI YA. A HI NA NGO DO O. A KA LO LO WA NA MA NGA SA TO PA RE. NA HI NI TA A PA RA TI NI YA. A KA TA A NI SE SO KI TO. I BI NA O. O O. NA BU HA NA NA U LI. O O. KA I LA. NA MA I KA LO A RA. A PA KA MA TA NI YA. HU MA BI LI DI TO SA LU PA. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. DI LE HU MA BI LI DI TO SA LU PA. NA YA SA LA NGI. NA MA I KA PA NA PO WO A RA. A PA KA BU HA NI YA NA O LI. A NA LO LO LO SA KA NA NA DI YO A MA. A KA GA GA WA SA LA HA. A NO PA KA LO LO NI YA. DO O SA LA NGI. PI NA LO LO SI YA NA DI YO A MA NI YA. SA LA HA. MA A RA NA I HO HO. SA MA BU BU HA A SA NA NGA MA TA NA TA WO. O O. KA I LA. DI LE NA A A LA MA. SI NO KA YA A HO KO. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. A KA LO LO WA NA TI. MA MA TA KA YA. KO MA MA TA A KA TA A NA TI. DI LE MA MA TA A KA LO LO WA NA TI. PA RA NA SA I BA HA YO. A KA TA A NA LA MA. A MA MA TA. A KA LO LO WA MA BU BU HA. MA PA RA TI MA SA A MA BU BU HA KA YA MA O LI. A NA NGA MA TA NA TO WO. BA NA MA. TA PA LA SA MA. O O NA BU BU HA RI MA U LI. A PA PA SO NA MO LI. A KA LO LO WA SA KA TA A NI YA. NA HO KO MA SI LA DA WA. NA A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. KU MA BU HA NA MA O LI. A KA TA A NA MA NGA TA WO. MA MA TA PA KA YA MO LI. DI LE. ANO I GA GA TI NA DI YO SA MA NGA BA NA NA TA WO. A KA LU WA HA TI A A SA LA NGI. DO O MA KI KI TA NI LA A DI YO. A MA TO TO WA. A MA LI LI GA YA. A LU LU WA HA TI. MA PA RA TI MA SA A. A NO I PA RU RU SA NA DI YO A MA NGA TA WO TA PA LA SA. I HO HO LO NI YA. SA I PE NO. DO O MA HI HI RA SI YA. A MA KA KA SA KI. MA PA RA TI MA SA A. A NO KA YA A SA TA I LE SI YA. A LA HA NA TA WO KI NI TI YA NO. SU MA SA PA LA TA YA SA DI YO. PA TI NA PO PO NI LA SI SE SO KI TO. NA SA LA NGI. A DI TO SA LU PA. A KA HA LI LI NI YA. A SA TO PA PA. DI TO SA SA TA I LE SI YA. MA I KA WA WA LA NA KA SA LA NA. A NO KA YA A I KA WA WA LA NA KA SA LA NA. A PA BI YA SA DI PA KI NI TI YA NO. A A PA KO KO PI SA. A MA NGA KA NI TI YA NO. MA KA SA LA NA. KU MA SI SI MA SA KI. A MA LO O. NA DI MO LI MA KA SA LA SA DI YO MA PA RA TI MA SA A. DI TO SA SA TA I LE SI YA. MA KA SA MA HA. A MA NGA SA TO. O O. A NO KA YA A KA SA MA HA. NA MA NGA SA TO. A PA PA PA KI NA BA. NA MA NGA KI NI TI YA NO. BA NA NA TA WO. SA GA WA MA GA LI. SA PO NA SA SA KA RA ME TO. NA BI NU BU HA A O TI YA NA PA RE. SA PA MI MI SA. SI NO KA YA A NA RO O. A A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. DI YO TO TO O. A TA WO TO TO O. PA RA DO O SA LA NGI. SA KA LI. SI NO KA YA A NA DO O. A DU GO TO TO O. NA A TI PA NGI NO O SE SO KI TO. KA PA RA NI U NA BO HO SA KU RU. NA NA MA TA SI YA. ANO KA YA. A GA GA I NA MA NGA KI NI TI YA NO. NA MA KA PA RO O SA LA NGI. A SU SU DI NI YA. A SA PO WO O TO NA DI YO. PA TI NA O TO NA SA TA I LE SI YA. I NA NA TI. 

 Laus Deo

NOTES

[1] Tagalog characters are said to be similar to old Javanese, IgnacioVillamot, _La Antigua Escritura Filipina_, Manila, 1922, p. 30. Theywere replaced under the Spanish occupation by roman letters, andare not now used. The best definitive grammar is Frank R. Blake's _AGrammar of the Tagalog Language_, New Haven, 1925, where, p. 1, hedefines the language as follows: "Tagálog is the principal languageof Luzon, the largest island of the Philippine Archipelago. It isspoken in Manila and in the middle region of Luzon. Tagálog, likeall the Philippine languages about which anything is known, belongsto the Malayo-Polynesian family of speech, which embraces the idiomsspoken on the islands of Polynesia, Melanesia, and Malaysia, on theMalay peninsula, and on the island of Madagascar. "

[2] The woodcut, showing St. Dominic beneath a star holding a lily anda book, the usual symbols of this saint, and clad in the white habitand black cloak of his order, seems to be of oriental workmanship, differing vastly from contemporary Spanish and Mexican cuts of thesame type. The clouds, for instance, are characteristically Chinese, and the buildings in the background more reminiscent of easterntemples than European churches. 

[3] T. H. Pardo de Tavera, _Noticias sobre La Imprenta y el Grabadoen Filipinas_, Madrid, 1893, pp. 9-10. Dard Hunter in _Papermakingthrough Eighteen Centuries_, New York, 1930, pp. 109-16, describespapermaking in China, and mentions the use of "makaso" or "takaso, "both species of the paper mulberry, as material for the makingof paper. The paper mulberry's scientific name is _Broussonetiapapyrifera_. Later, on p. 141, he speaks of the use by the Chineseof gypsum, lichen, starch, rice flour and animal glue for sizing. 

[4] The best short summaries in English of the beginnings of printingin Mexico are Henry R. Wagner's introduction to the exhibitioncatalogue of _Mexican Imprints 1544-1600 In the Huntington Library_, San Marino, 1939, pp. 3-10; and Lawrence C. Wroth, _Some Reflectionson the Book Arts in Early Mexico_, Cambridge (Mass. ), 1945. 

[5] J. B. Primrose, _The First Press in India and Its Printers_, The Library, 4th Series, 1939, XX, pp. 244-5. 

[6] José Toribio Medina, _La Imprenta en Lima_, Santiago de Chile, 1904-17, no. 1, p. 3. 

[7] A contemporary copy of this letter--the original is not known--layforgotten and unnoticed in the Archives of the Indies (1-1-3/25, no. 52), Torres, III, no. 4151, p. 83, until discovered there byPascual de Gayangos, who called it to the attention of W. E. Retana, who first printed it in _La Politica de Espana en Filipinas_, no. 97, Oct. 23, 1894. It was later rediscovered independently by Medina whoalso printed it in his _La Imprenta en Manila_, p. Xix. Gómez PérezDasmariñas, formerly corregidor of Murcia and Cartagena in Spain, was appointed governor of the Philippines in 1589, landed at Manilain May 1590, and remained in office until his death in October 1593. 

[8] _Relacion de lo que se ha escrito y escribe en las Filipinasfecho este año de 1593_, an apparently inedited MS. In the A. Of I. , Index 9, no. 81, from which the passage was quoted by Retana in hisedition of Antonio de Morga's _Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas_, Madrid, 1909, p. 425, and Manuel Artigas y Cuerva, _La Primera Imprenta enFilipinas_, Manila, 1910, p. Xi. This may be the MS. Listed by Torres, III, no. 4229, p. 91, as _Breve sumario y memorial de apuntamientosde lo que se ha escrito y escribe en las Islas Filipinas_, undatedbut probably 1593. 

[9] _Recopilacion de las Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias_, Madrid, 1681, I, ff. 123v-124r, where they are Laws 1 and 3, Title XXIV, Book I. 

[10] Medina, p. Xxviii, from. _Libro de provisiones reales_, Madrid, 1596, I, p. 231. 

[11] Inflation in the Philippines was discussed in a report sent byBishop Salazar to the King in 1583, B. & R. , V, pp. 210-11, translatedfrom Retana, _Archivo del bibliófilo filipino_, Madrid, 1895-97, III. No 1. 

[12] Henry R. Wagner, _The House of Cromberger_, in _To DoctorR[osenbach]_, Philadelphia, 1946, pp. 234 & 238, where he givessome interesting comparative figures: in 1542 the Casa de Crombergercould charge 17 maravedís a sheet; in Spain in 1552 Lopez de Gómara's_Historia de las Indias_ was appraised at 2 maravedís a sheet; andin Mexico Vasco de Puga's _Provisiones_ of 1563 was permitted to sellat the tremendous figure of one real or 34 maravedís a sheet. 

[13] Juan de Cuellar was mentioned in the Letter of Instruction givenby Philip II to Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas on August 9, 1589, as amongthose "who are men of worth and account" in the Philippines and whoshould be provided for and rewarded accordingly, B. & R. , VII, p. 151, translated from the original MS. In the A. Of I. (105-2-11), Torres, III, no. 3567, p. 17. Cuellar received a commission from Dasmariñasand signed various documents during his administration as secretaryand notary. Antonio de Morga, _Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas_, Mexico, 1609, f. 13v, reports that Cuellar was one of two survivors of the shipon which Dasmariñas sailed in October 1593 as part of an expeditionto conquer the fort of Terrenate in Maluco. On the second day out, while the ship was weather-bound at Punta del Acufre, the Chineserowers mutinied, and only Cuellar, there described as the governor'ssecretary, and the Franciscan father, Francisco de Montilla, survivedthe ensuing massacre. They were set ashore on the coast of Ylocos, andmade their way back to Manila. A similar account appears in Chapter XVIof Leonardo de Argensola's, _Conqvista delas Islas Malvcas_, Madrid, 1609. We have been able to find no subsequent record of Cuellar. 

[14] Colín, I, pp. 501, 507-14, 561-6. 

[15] Pedro Chirino, _Primera parte de la Historia de la provinciade Philipinas de la Compañia de Ihs_, unpublished MS. Of 1610, from which the present passage was quoted by Retana, col. 25. For anaccount of the MS. See Santiago Vela, VI, p. 435n. Schilling, p. 214, demonstrates that according to the original punctuation the meaningis that the first printers were Villanueva and Blancas de San José, but with the shifting of a semi-colon it could be read to mean that thefirst printers were of the Order of St. Augustine. We can see no reasonto shift the semi-colon, and have retained it in its original place. 

[16] Retana, col. 26, said that he was able to find no informationregarding Villanueva except for the listing of his name by Cano, p. 43, as having arrived in the Philippines at an unknown date. Thedestruction of the early records of the Augustinians when the Englishsacked Manila in 1762 accounts for the paucity of information, butthere are a few references which throw some little light on the twoVillanuevas. San Agustin, p. 212, says that when Herrara sailed forMexico in 1569 he left in Cebú only "P. Fr. Martin de Rada and twovirtuous clerics, the one named Juan de Vivero, and the other Juande Villanueva, who had come with Felipe de Salcedo. " Salcedo hadcome back to Cebú in 1566. Francisco Moreno, _Historia de la SantaIglesia Metropolitana de Filipinas hasta 1650_, Manila, 1877, p. 226, states that Villanueva came in 1566, and died shortly after 1569. SanAntonio, I, p. 173, writes, "Another cleric was the Licentiate DonJuan de Villanueva, of whom the only thing known is that he was achurchman and lived but a short time--and that after the erection ofthe church. " This refers to the foundation of the church in Manila in1571. Of the other Villanueva our information comes from Perez, p. 63. 

[17] Alonso Fernández, _Historia Eclesiastica de Nvestros Tiempos_, Toledo, 1611, pp. 303-4. The book referred to here is called _De losmysterios del Rosario de nuestra Señora_ by Jacques Quétif and JacquesEchard, _Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum_, Paris, 1719, II, p. 390;and _Devotion del Santisimo Rosario de la Bienaventurada Virgen_by Vicente Maria Fontana, _Monvmenta Dominicana_, Rome, 1675, p. 586. 

[18] Fernández, _Historia de los insignes Milagros qve la MagestadDiuina ha obrado por el Rosario santissimo de la Virgen soberana, suMadre_, Madrid, 1613, f. 216. I have been unable to locate a copy ofthis book in the United States, but the passage is printed in Retana, _Aparato Bibliográfico de la Historia General de Filipinas_, Madrid, 1906, I, pp. 64-5. It was first cited in modern times by Pedro Vindel, _Catálogo_, Madrid, 1903, III, no. 2631. 

[19] A sketch of the life of Aduarte was added to his historyby Gonçalez, II, pp. 376-81, and a notice also appears in RamonMartínez-Vigil, _La Orden de Predicadores . . . Seguidas del Ensayo deuna Bibliotheca de Dominicos Españoles_, Madrid, 1884, p. 229. 

[20] Aduarte, II, pp. 15-18. 

[21] Artigas, _op. Cit. _, pp. 3-22, stresses the part played byhim in establishing printing and gives much information regardingthis father. There, referring to the _Acta Capitulorum Provincialiumprovinciae Sanctissimi Rosarii Philippinarum_, Manila, 1874-77, Artigastraces the career of Blancas de San José as follows: in Abucay fromMay 24, 1598 until April 27, 1602; at San Gabriel in Binondo fromApril 27, 1602 until May 4, 1604; as Preacher-General of the orderat the Convent of Santo Domingo in Manila from 1604 to 1608; backat Abucay from April 26, 1608 until May 8, 1610; and at San Gabrielagain from May 8, 1610 until May 4, 1614. 

[22] Medina, no. 8, p. 7. A copy of this book and an unique copy ofthe recently discovered _Ordinationes_ of 1604, see note 127, arein the Library of Congress. Both books are entirely typographical, and the Tagalog in the 1610 volume has been transliterated. These twoand the present Doctrina are, so far as I have been able to find out, the only Philippine imprints before 1613 in the United States. 

[23] Medina, no. 14, p. 11. The text was written by Thomas Pinpin, who appears as the printer of the former book, and a confessionaryby Blancas de San José, who probably edited the volume, is included. 

[24] Juan Lopez, _Quinta Parte de la Historia de San Domingo_, Valladolid, 1621, ff. 246-51. 

[25] Quétif and Echard, _op. Cit. _, II, p. 390. This same statement wasmade in Antonio de León Pinelo, _Epitome de la Biblioteca Oriental yOccidental, Nautica, y Geografica_ (ed. Antonio González de Barcia), Madrid, 1737-38, col. 737, and was reprinted almost word for wordby José Mariano Beristain y Sousa, _Bibliotheca Hispano-AmericanaSeptentrional_, Mexico, 1883-97, I, p. 177. 

[26] A fairly complete biography is given by Viñaza, pp. 112-7, where he points out that several of the major Jesuit biographers haveerroneously stated that Hervas went to America some time before 1767. 

[27] Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro, _Origine, formazione, meccanismo, ed armonia degli' idiomi_, Cesena, 1785, p. 88. 

[28] Hervas, _Saggio Pratico delle lingue, Con prolegomeni, euna raccolta di orazioni Dominicali in più di trecento lingue, e dialetti_, Cesena, 1787, pp. 128-9. Although Schilling, p. 208, says that Hervas had a copy of the 1593 Doctrina before him, which"had been lent or given" by Bernardo de la Fuente, Hervas merely saysthat he took his information "from the best documents, which showedthe grammar; and the Tagalog and Visayan dictionary were given me byMessrs. D. Antonio Tornos and D. Bernardo de la Fuente. " There is nodoubt, however, but that Hervas had a copy of the Doctrina, or accurateand extensive transcripts from a copy known to one of his friends. 

[29] Franz Carl Alter, _Ueber die Tagalische Sprache_, Vienna, 1803, p. Vii. Alter speaks of having had extensive correspondencewith Hervas. 

[30] Johann Christoph Adelung, _Mithridates oder allgemeineSprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprach probe in beynahefünfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten_, Berlin, 1806, I, pp. 608-9. 

[31] Beristain, _op. Cit. _, II, p. 464. The first edition was publishedin 1819-21, but we have used the second for our quotations. 

[32] Juan de Grijalva, _Cronica de la orden de N. P. S. Augustin deNueva Espana_, Mexico, 1624, f. 199v. 

[33] Nicolás Antonio, _Bibliotheca Hispana Nova_, Madrid, 1783, I, p. 764. The first edition was Rome, 1672, but I could locate no copyin this country. 

[34] San Agustin, p. 352. On pp. 443-4 referring to Grijalva andHerrera, he says merely that Quiñones "was very learned in the Tagaloglanguage, and wrote a grammar and dictionary of it. "

[35] "He succeeded in learning that language with such perfection thathe composed a treatise, as a light and guide for the new missionaries, and a vocabulary, with which in a short time they could instruct thoseislanders in the mysteries of the faith, " Medina, p. Xxvii, assumedthat this referred to José Sicardo, _La Cristiandad del Japon_, Madrid, 1698, where he could find nothing about Quiñones, but Beristain citedspecifically his _Historias de Filipinas y Japon_, which Santiago Vela, VI, p. 441, thinks must be his additions to Grijalva, including a lifeof Quiñones, which San Agustin used and quoted from. The quotationhere is from San Agustin, p. 442, where Sicardo is given as the source. 

[36] Tomas de Herrera, _Alphabetvm Avgvstinianvm_, Madrid, 1644, I, p. 406, according to P. & G. , p. Xxiv. 

[37] Schilling, p. 204. 

[38] Pedro Bello, _Noticia de los escritores y sus obras impresasy manuscritas en diferentes idiomas por los religiosos agustinoscalzados hasta 1801_, unpublished MS. , from which the citation isgiven by Santiago Vela, VI, p. 441. 

[39] P. & G. , pp. Xxv-xxvi. 

[40] Medina, p. Xxviii, who gives as source the A. Of I. And _Librode provisiones reales_, Madrid, 1596, I, p. 231. In his note Medinasays that this cedula was not in the _Recopilacion_, but referringback to the note on p. Xxiv, we find that he there prints a law ofthe same content and date, cited as Law 3, Title XXIV, Book 1 of the_Recopilacion_, where we have seen it, with the extremely significantaddition, "it shall not be published, _or printed_, or used. " Ifthis phrase was not included in the original cedula sent to Manila, but added when printed as applying to all the Indies, it is importantevidence that the King felt an admonition against printing unnecessarywhere no facilities for printing existed. 

[41] Retana, col. 10, cited from the original MS. In the A. OfI. (68-1-42), Torres, II, no. 3211, p. 150. 

[42] San Antonio, II, p. 297. This work, treated at length by SanAntonio, is proof of the high esteem in which Plasencia was held asa Tagalist. It was incorporated in a document of Governor FranciscoTello, dated July 13, 1599, now in the A. Of I. (67-6-18), and firstprinted in the appendix to Santa Inés, II, pp. 592-603, and translatedin B. & R. , VII, pp. 173-96. 

[43] Santiago Vela, VI, pp. 442-3. His study of the questionable _Arte_of 1581 is the most thorough and detailed yet written. 

[44] Schilling, p. 205. 

[45] Pardo de Tavera, _op. Cit. _, pp. 8-9. After quoting the latterpart of this passage, Medina, p. Xviii, adds a quizzical note, "I want to cite the opinion of so distinguished a student ofthe Philippines because it shows how tangled and confused is theinformation concerning the primitive Philippine press, even amongmen best informed on the subject. "

[46] Medina, nos. 1 and 2, p. [3]. 

[47] Medina, p. Xix. 

[48] Retana had published many of his findings in _La Politico deEspaña en Filipinas_, Madrid, 1891-98; in his edition of JoaquínMartínez de Zuñiga, _Estadismo de las Islas Filipinas_, Madrid, 1893;and in the _Archivo del Bibliófilo Filipino_, Madrid, 1895-97. 

[49] Retana, cols. 7-8. We shall speak of Juan de Vera later. 

[50] Thomas Cooke Middleton, _Some Notes on the Bibliography of thePhilippines_, Philadelphia, 1900, pp. 32-33. 

[51] Pardo de Tavera, _Biblioteca Filipina_, Washington, 1903, pp. 9-10. 

[52] Medina, _La Imprenta en Manila desde sus Orígenes hasta 1810Adiciones y Ampliacones_, Santiago de Chile, 1904. 

[53] P. & G. , pp. Xxi-xxvi. 

[54] B. & R. , LIII, p. 11. 

[55] Artigas, _op. Cit. _ He admitted that the celebration should havebeen held in 1902. 

[56] Retana, _Orígenes de la Imprenta Filipina_, Madrid, 1911. Retanahad also published between 1897 and 1911 several other books whichcontained some information about the early Philippine press, the_Aparato Bibliográfico_ in 1906 and his edition of Morga in 1909, both of which have already been cited. 

[57] Antonio Palau y Dulcet, _Manuel del Librero Hispano-Americano_, Barcelona, 1923-37, III, p. 72. 

[58] Schilling, _op. Cit. _

[59] Chirino, p. 3, writes that he was "the first who made convertsto Christianity in the Philippines, preaching to them of Jesus Christin their own tongue--of which he made the first vocabulary, whichI have seen and studied;" and Juan de Medina (who originally wrotehis history in 1630), p. 54, says that in visiting Cebú in 1612 he"saw a lexicon there, compiled by Father Fray Martin de Rada, whichcontained a great number of words. " Grijalva, _op. Cit. _, f. 124V, writes that Rada "by the force of his imaginative and excellent abilitylearned the Visayan language, as he had learned the Otomi in this land[Mexico], so that he could preach in it in five months. "

[60] Pérez, p. 5. 

[61] Juan González de Mendoza, _The Historie of the great and mightiekingdom of China . . . Translated out of Spanish by R. Parke_, London, 1588, p. 138. The original edition of 1585 said he made an "arte yvocabulario. " We must take the phrase "in few daies" in a comparativesense, but that an Augustinian, probably Rada, knew some Chinese asearly as July 30, 1574 is shown by a letter from Governor Lavezaristo the King from Manila, sending him "a map of the whole land ofChina, with an explanation which I had some Chinese interpretersmake through the aid of an Augustinian religious who is acquaintedwith the elements of the Chinese language, " B. & R. , III, p. 284, from the original MS. In the A. Of I. (67-6-6), Torres, II, no. 1868, p. 10-11. Antonio de León Pinelo, _Epitome de la Biblioteca Orientali Occidental, Nautica i Geographica_, Madrid, 1629, p. 31, alsorecords Rada's Chinese grammar and dictionary. Santiago Vela, VI, pp. 444-60, gives a full history of Rada and his writings. He wentto China a second time in May 1576, and in 1578 accompanied La Sandeon his expedition to Borneo, dying on the way back to Manila in Juneof that year. 

[62] González de Mendoza, _op. Cit. _, pp. 103-5. 

[63] Diego Ordoñez Vivar came to the Philippines in 1570, filledvarious ministries there, and according to Agustin Maria de Castrowas in Japan in 1597, where he witnessed the martyrdom of theFranciscans; he died in 1603, Pérez, p. 10. Juan de Medina, p. 74, says, "Father Diego de Ordoñez learned this language [Tagalog] veryquickly. " Alonso Alvatado had been on the unsuccessful 1542 expeditionof Villalobos, and returned to the Philippines in 1571. Pérez, p. 11, records that he became familiar with the Tagalog language, was thefirst prior of Tondo, ministered to the Chinese there, and was thefirst Spaniard to learn the Mandarin dialect. He was elected provincialin 1575, and died at Manila the following year. Jéronimo Marín cameto the islands with Alvarado, acquired skill in the Visayan, Tagalogand Chinese languages, accompanied Rada on his first expedition toChina, was in Tondo in 1578, and later returned to Spain to recruitnew missionaries for the province, dying in Mexico in 1606, Pérez, pp. 11-12. 

[64] Cano, p. 12. Santiago Vela, I, p. 85, expresses the opinion thatCano's statement was an overenthusiasm, and is not valid. 

[65] Retana, col. 9. 

[66] Juan de Medina, p. 156. 

[67] Santiago Vela, I, p. 85, where he cites the first book of the_Gobierno_ of the Augustinian province. 

[68] Santiago Vela, I, pp. 84-6 treats of the whole question in detail. 

[69] A Doctrina in Tagalog, attributed to Alburquerque by AgustinMaria de Castro in his unpublished _Osario_, is said by Santiago Vela, I, p. 85, to have been arranged and perfected by Quiñones, and wasprobably that presented by him to the Synod of 1582, if indeed hedid present such a work then. For an account of the MS. _Osario_, see Schilling, p. 205n. 

[70] Pérez, p. 20n, quotes Vicente Barrantes, _El teatro tagalo_, Madrid, 1890, p. 170, as saying that "according to the Augustinianwriters" Alburquerque compiled an _Arte de la Lengua Tagala_ between1570 and 1580, the manuscript of which disappeared when the Englishsacked Manila in 1762. It may be that Barrantes referred to Canoor possibly Castro, but it must be emphasized that no contemporaryhistorian, as far as has been discovered up to this time, has madesuch a statement. 

[71] Quiñones came to the Philippines in 1577 and spent his time inmissions in and about Manila. He was named prior of Manila in 1586, and provincial vicar in 1587 in which year he died, Pérez, p. 19, and Santiago Vela, VI, pp. 433-4. 

[72] Again Castro, as cited by Santiago Vela, VI, p. 435, is the onlyauthority for this, although San Agustin, p. 391, lists Quiñones'name among those present at the Synod. 

[73] San Agustin, p. 381. It should be noted that this statement isin direct contradiction to those we shall cite later in connectionwith the controversy between the Augustinians and Dominicans overthe Chinese ministry. The convent at Tondo had been founded in 1571, so San Agustin here must refer specifically to the Chinese mission. 

[74] Pérez, p. 22. 

[75] Pérez, p. 29. 

[76] Huerta, pp. 443 & 500-01. In 1580, under the influenceof Plasencia, Talavera took the habit of the Franciscan order andpreached throughout the Philippines until his death in 1616. Huertalists six works in Tagalog by him, all of them devotionary tracts, the last of which he notes was printed at Manila in 1617, and islisted by Medina, no. 20, pp. 14-5. His works are also recorded byLeon Pinelo, _op. Cit. _, 1737-38, II, f. 919r. 

[77] Santa Inés (written originally in 1676), p. 211. Virtually thesame information is given by San Antonio, I, pp. 532-3 & 563. 

[78] Juan de la Concepcion, _Historia general de Philipinas_, Manila, 1788-92, II, pp. 45-6. Schilling, p. 203n, maintains that the earlywriters were mistaken in believing that the Synod was held in 1581. OnOctober 16, 1581 the Bishop called a meeting of ten priests at theConvent of Tondo to discuss the execution of the decree about slaves, Torres, II, pp. Cxliv-v. No laymen were present and no other topic wasdiscussed. The decisions of this meeting were sent in a letter fromSalazar to the King, dated from Tondo, October 17, 1581, translatedin B. & R. , XXXIV, pp. 325-31, from the original MS. In the A. OfI. (68-1-42), Torres, II, no. 2686, p. 95. The following year a realSynod was held, this time including lay government officials as wellas priests, at which was discussed a variety of subjects. RobertStreit, _Bibliotheca Missionum_, Aachen, 1928, IV, pp. 327-31, citesa MS. Account of it by the Jesuit father Sanchez who was present; andValentín Marín, _Ensayo de una Síntesis de los trabajos realizadospor las Corporaciones Religiosas Españoles de Filipinas_, Manila, 1901, I, pp. 192 et seqq. , cites another MS. , then in the Archivesof the Archiepiscopal Palace of Manila, _Memoria de una junta quese hizo a manera de concilio el año de 1582, para dar asiento a lascosas tocantes al aumento de la fe, y justificacíon de las conquistashechas y que adelante se hicieron por los espanoles_, from which hequotes extensively. With reference to the Synod see further LorenzoPérez, _Origen de las Misiones Franciscanas en el extremo oriente_, in Archivo Ibero-Americano, 1915, III, pp. 386-400. 

[79] Santa Inés, p. 212. Again similar accounts are to be found inSan Antonio, I, pp. 563-6, in far more detail and phrased in evenmore laudatory terms, and the fullest early biography of Plasenciais given by San Antonio, II, pp. 512-79. Modern surveys appear inMarín, _op. Cit. _, II, pp. 573-82, and Lorenzo Pérez, _op. Cit. _, pp. 378 et seqq. 

[80] Chirino, _Primera parte_, quoted by Retana, col. 24, implied thatQuiñones and Plasencia wrote at about the same time: "The first whowrote in these languages were, in Visayan, P. Fr. Martin de Rada, andin Tagalog, Fr. Juan de Quiñones, both of the Order of St. Augustine, and at the same time Fr. Juan de Oliver and Fr. Juan de Plasenciaof the Order of St. Francis, of whom the latter began first, but theformer [wrote] many more things and very useful ones. " However, SanAntonio, I, p. 532, wrote perhaps with bias in favor of his own order, "Although the Augustinian fathers had come earlier and did not lackpriests fluent in the idiom, the language had not yet been reduced toa grammar, so that it could be learned by common grammatical rules, nor was there a general vocabulary of speech; except that each onehad his own notes, to make himself understood, and everything wasunsystematized. "

[81] _Entrada de la seraphica Religion de nuestro P. S. Franciscoen las Islas Philipinas_, MS. Of 1649, first published in Retana, _Archivo_, I, no. III, translated in B. & R. , XXXV, p. 311. 

[82] Medina, p. 15, quoting from Martínez whom we are unable to trace. 

[83] Huerta, pp. 492-3. Oliver died in 1599. San Antonio, II, p. 531, says that Plasencia was the first to write a catechism (calledin Tagalog "Tocsohan"), and Oliver was the first to translate theexplanation of the Doctrina. Oliver's works are noted by León Pinelo, _op. Cit. _, 1737-38, II, col. 730, and Barrantes, _op. Cit. _, p. 187. 

[84] Sebastian de Totanes, _Arte de la Lengua Tagala_, Manila, 1850, p. V, (first edition printed in 1745) says of Oliver that "up tothe present day our province reveres him as the first master ofthis idiom. "

[85] See note 42. 

[86] Huerta, p. 517. Nothing is known of Diego de la Asuncionexcept that he wrote five works in Tagalog including an _Arte_ and_Diccionario_. Huerta was unable to find any record of him in themission lists, the capitularies or the death records, but that he wasin the Philippines before 1649 we can be sure of from the notice ofhim in the manuscript of that date. 

[87] Huerta, p. 495. Montes y Escamilla came to the islands in 1583and remained there until his death in 1610. Five works in Tagalogare attributed to him, an _Arte_, _Diccionario_, _Confesionario_, _Devocional tagalog_, and a _Guia de Pecadores_. The _Devocional_is listed by Medina, no. 16, p. 12. 

[88] Pablo Rojo, _Fr. Juan de Plasencia_, _Escritor_, Appendix 3 ofSanta Inés, II, p. 590. An early reference by Fernández, _HistoriaEclesiastica_, p. 300, speaking of the Franciscan missionary successesamong the natives, says, "They learned the Doctrina Christiana whichthe priests translated into Tagalog. "

[89] Rojo, in Santa Inés, II, pp. 590-1, says that the Doctrinathen being used among the Tagalogs was the same as that written byPlasencia except for modernization in accordance with the changeswhich had taken place in the language since his time. 

[90] Medina, no. 15, p. 11. 

[91] Chirino, p. 14. 

[92] Colin, II, p. 325. 

[93] Chirino, p. 27. 

[94] Chirino, chaps. XV-XVII, pp. 34-41. 

[95] On May 13, 1579, Philip II wrote to the Governor of thePhilippines, "Fray Domingo de Salazar, of the Dominican order, andbishop of the said islands, has reported to us that he is going toreside in these islands; and that he will take with him religious ofhis order to found monasteries, and to take charge of the conversionand instruction of the natives, " B. & R. , IV, p. 141, translatedfrom the original MS. In the Archivo-Historico Nacional, _Cedularioindico_, t. 31, f. 132V, no. 135. Twelve of the twenty who set outfrom Europe with Salazar died before reaching Mexico, and the otherswere so sick that all but one remained there, so when Salazar landedat Manila in March 1581 he was accompanied by twenty Augustinians, eight Franciscans, and only one Dominican, Christoval de Salvatierra. 

[96] For these and other general facts I have used Aduarte andRemesal where they are supported by the other historians, Juan dela Concepcion, San Antonio, San Agustin, Juan de Medina and SantaInés. It should be noted that Remesal acknowledged as his source formuch of the material on the Philippines the unpublished MS. Historyof the Franciscan, Francisco de Montilla. The fifteen Dominicans wereJuan de Castro, Alonso Ximenez, Miguel de Benavides, Pedro Bolaños, Bernardo Navarro, Diego de Soria, Juan de Castro the younger, MarcosSoria de San Antonio, Juan de San Pedro Martyr (or Maldonado), JuanOrmaza de Santo Tomás, Pedro de Soto, Juan de la Cruz, Gregorio deOchoa, Domingo de Nieva, and Pedro Rodriguez. 

[97] By a bull of October 20, 1582 Pope Gregory XIII confirmed theappointment already obtained from Pablo Constable de Ferrara, Generalof the Dominican Order, making Juan Chrisóstomo vicar-general of thePhilippine Islands and China, and giving him authority to establisha province there, B. & R. , V, pp. 199--200, translated from Hernaez, _Coleccion de bulas_, Brussels, 1879, I, p. 527, where it is printedfrom the original MS. In the Vatican, Bular. Dom. , t. 15, p. 412. 

[98] In 1580 the Dominicans of Mexico had begun plans forthe establishment of a province in the Orient, and sent JuanChrisóstomo to Europe to obtain the necessary permission from layand ecclesiastical authorities. The Jesuit Alonso Sanchez, who hadbeen sent to Spain to explain the situation in the Philippines, was at court, and told the King and Council of the Indies--quitesubverting his mission--that there was no need for more priestsand particularly no need for a new order there. Chrisóstomo wasdiscouraged, but the scheme was revivified by Juan de Castro whofinally secured a letter from Philip II on September 20, 1585 endorsingthe plan. Twenty-two volunteers sailed from Spain on July 17, 1586. InMexico the Dominicans again found Sanchez propagandizing against themission and also encountered the efforts of the Viceroy to persuadethe friars to remain there. Notwithstanding, twenty friars subscribedto a set of ordinances at the Convent of Santo Domingo in Mexico onDecember 17, 1586. Of the twenty, fifteen went to the Philippines, three went directly to China, and Juan Chrisóstomo, who was ill andweak, and Juan Cobo, who had business there, stayed behind in Mexico. 

[99] Aduarte, I, p. 9. 

[100] Aduarte, I, p. 70. 

[101] Juan Cobo had stayed behind in Mexico on business, and duringhis stay had been so moved by the scandals of the government therethat he preached publicly against them, as a result of which hewas banished by the Viceroy. He brought with him from Mexico afellow-reformer and exile, Luis Gandullo, and four other recruitsfor the Philippine mission. 

[102] These are printed in the _Ordinationes_ of 1604, see note 127, and by Remesal, pp. 677--8, who says that "these ordinances wereprinted in as fine characters and as correctly as if in Rome or Lyon, by Francisco de Vera, a Chinese Christian, in the town of Binondo inthe year 1604 through the diligence of Fr. Miguel Martin. "

[103] Sangley, a term used by the natives to designate Chinese, was derived from the Cantonese _hiang_ (or _xiang_) and _ley_meaning a "travelling merchant. " It was adopted by the Spaniardsand in most instances used interchangeably with Chinese. If anydistinction existed it was that a Sangley was a permanent residentof the Philippines--quite contrary to the derivation of the word--ora Chinese of partially native blood. See San Agustin, p. 253. 

[104] Particularly the Memorial to the Council of the Indies sent withSanchez, April 20, 1586, translated in B. & R. , VI, pp. 167-8, from theoriginal MS. In the A. Of I. (1-1-2/24), Torres, II, no. 3289, p. 159. 

[105] B. & R. , VII, pp. 130-1, translated from the original MS. Inthe A. Of I. (67-6-18), Torres, III, no. 3556, pp. 15-6. See thestatement of San Agustin quoted on p. 22, which gives the irreconciledAugustinian view. Most of the contemporary witnesses, however, seemto agree with the Dominicans. 

[106] B. & R. , VII, pp. 220-3, translated from Retana, _Archivo_, III, pp. 47-80, and there printed from the original MS. In the A. OfI. (68-1-32), Torres, III, no. 3698, p. 32. 

[107] Remesal, pp. 681-2. 

[108] B. & R. , VII, pp. 223-5, as in note 106. 

[109] Martínez-Vigil, _op. Cit. _, p. 246, lists as written byBenavides a _Vocabularium sinense facillimum_, and Vinaza, p. 17, cites his entry. 

[110] Schilling, p. 210, says that in his letter Cobo himselfrecorded that "Benavides wrote the first Chinese catechism in thePhilippines. " He does not however differentiate between writing inChinese characters and writing transliterated Chinese, and moreover"hizo doctrina" may only mean that he taught the doctrine, notnecessarily that he wrote one. 

[111] B. & R. , VII, p. 238, as in note 106. 

[112] Aduarte, I, p. 140. 

[113] Aduarte, I, p. 140, says, before the previously quoted passage, that Cobo "put the Doctrina Christiana in the Chinese language, "and Viñaza, pp. 17-23, lists seven books by him, including the famoustranslation of the Chinese classic, _Beng-Sim-Po-Cam_, the originalMS. Of which, with an introductory epistle by Benavides, dated fromMadrid, December 23, 1595, is in the Biblioteca Nacional at Madrid; an_Arte de las letras chinas_; _Vocabulario chino_; _Catecismo o doctrinachristiana en chino_; (cited from León Pinelo, _op. Cit. _, 1737-38, I, col. 142); _Tratado de astronomia en chino_; _Linguae sinica ad certamrevocata methodum_ (called by Martinez-Vigil, _op. Cit. _, p. 263, "thefirst works or work on the Chinese language"); and _Sententiae plures_, excerpted from various Chinese books. See also Beristain, _op. Cit. _, I, p. 316, and Quétif and Echard, _op. Cit. _, II, pp. 306-7. 

[114] Aduarte, I, p. 122. 

[115] Fernandez, _Historia Eclesiastica_, p. 304, "In the Chineselanguage and letters, P. Fr. Domingo de Nieva, of San Pablo ofValladolid, printed a memorial of the Christian life; and P. FrayTomas Mayor, of the province of Aragon, from the Convent and Collegeof Orihuela, the Symbol of Faith. " In his _Historia de los InsignesMilagros_, f. 217, Fernández states that both these works were printedat Bataan. Since Mayor did not arrive in the islands until 1602 hiswork is not pertinent to the present discussion. Mayor's book was seenbut inadequately described by Jose Rodriguez, _Biblioteca Valentina_, 1747, p. 406, from a copy then in the Library of the Dominican Conventat Valencia, but now lost. Medina records it under the year 1607, no. 6, p. 6. See also León Pinelo, _op. Cit. _, 1737--38, II, f. 919r, and Antonio, _op. Cit. _, I, p. 330. 

[116] Aduarte, I, p. 342. 

[117] Medina, nos. 399-402, pp. 261-2. 

[118] Aduarte, I, pp. 255-8. San Pedro Martyr moved back and forth agood deal. The first year in the Philippines he was with Benavides atBaybay; the second year he was in Pangasinan. In 1590 he was orderedto the Chinese mission in Cobo's place by Castro before he left forChina. When Castro got back and Cobo could resume his old station, San Pedro Martyr went to the vicariate of Bataan "the language ofwhich he learned very well, " and when Cobo left for Japan in 1592, San Pedro Martyr went back to San Gabriel. 

[119] Aduarte, I, p. 323. 

[120] Remesal, p. 683. 

[121] See Hermann Hülle, _Über den alten chinesischen Typendruck undseine Entzvicklung in den Ländern des Fernen Ostens_, N. P. , 1923;Thomas Francis Carter, _The Invention of Printing in China and itsSpread Westward_, New York, 1925; and Cyrus H. Peake, _The origin anddevelopment of printing in China in the light of recent research_, in the Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 1935, X, pp. 9-17. 

[122] B. & R. , VII, pp. 226, as in note 106. 

[123] Aduarte, II, pp. 15-18. 

[124] Medina, p. Xix, supposed that the Doctrina was printed inthe Hospital of San Gabriel in Minondoc, but Aduarte, I, p. 107, says that when the village of Baybay became overcrowded, it becamenecessary to spread the Chinese Christian settlement to a new sitedirectly across the river, where land was given them by Don LuisPérez Dasmariñas, the son and successor of Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas, and there a second church of San Gabriel was built. According to aninscription on a painting of Don Luis, exhibited at the St. LouisFair of 1904 and illustrated in B. & R. , XXX, p. 228, he bought theland from Don Antonio Velada on March 28, 1594, so that San Gabrielof Minondoc could not have been the place where the 1593 volumes wereprinted. Marin, _op. Cit. _, II, p. 617, says that San Gabriel wasmoved several years after its foundation to Binondo at the requestof the city, and was rebuilt twice. It is apparent that San Gabrielin the Parian was abandoned after the church in Binondo was built. 

[125] Juan de Vera was probably a comparatively common name at thistime, because upon baptism the natives and Chinese assumed any Spanishname they pleased, and since Santiago de Vera was governor from 1584 to1590, his last name would have been very popular. Aduarte, I, p. 86, mentions an Indian chief, Don Juan de Vera, who helped the Dominicansin Pangasinan, and Retana, col. 23, quotes from a document sent bythe Audiencia of the Philippines to the King, August 11, 1620, theappointments as official interpreters of one Juan de Vera on June 15, 1598, and the same or another Juan de Vera on October 9, 1613. 

[126] Aduarte, I, p. 108. 

[127] The title-page of this unique book is as follows: [row oftype ornaments] / _Ordinationes Generales_ / prouinciæ SanctissimiRosarij / [type ornament] Philippinarum. [type ornament] / Factæ peradmodum Reuerendum patrem fratrem / Ioanem de Castro, primum vicariumgeneralem e- / iusdem prouintiæ. De consilio, & vnanimi con / sensuomnium frattu, qui primit_9_ in pro / uintiam illam se contulerunt, euan / gelizandi gratia. / Sunt que semper vsque in hodiernum diem inom- / nibus eiusdem prouintiæ capitulis infalibiliter / acceptatæ, inuiolabiliter ab omnibus / fratribus obseruandæ. / Binondoc, perIoannem de Vera china / Christianum. Cum licentia. 1604. / [row oftype ornaments]. The volume, an octavo bound in maroon levant moroccoby Sangorski and Sutcliffe, consists of eight leaves, as follows:title-page as above, on the verso the permission signed at Manila, June 24, 1604, by Fr. Miguel Martin de San Jacinto, prior provincial ofthe Dominican Province of the Philippines; the text of the ordinancesin Latin on eleven pages, with the device of the Dominican order onthe verso of the last page; blank. 

[128] See note 102. 

[129] Medina, _Adiciones y Ampliacixones_, p. [5]. 

[130] Retana, cols. 77-8, where he gives as his source Hilario Ocio, _Reseña biográfica de los religiosos de la provincia del SantisimoRosario de Filipinas_, Manila, 1891, I, p. 63. Ocio did not citeRemesal as his source, but the information, including the printer'sname as Francisco de Vera, is the same. 

[131] Both title-pages are reproduced in Francisco Vindel, _ManualGráphico-Descriptivo del Bibliófilo Hispano-Americano_, Madrid, 1930--34, IX, p. 22, and VII, p. 181 respectively.