draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
1690s, and possibly added to or modified by Martín Iriarte in the early 1750s. Other than these<br />
two missionaries, known for their Omagua linguistic ability, no clear candidates as contributors to<br />
the Omagua texts emerge.<br />
The survival <strong>of</strong> the Old Omagua ecclesiastical texts is in certain respects surprising, since in<br />
the latter phases <strong>of</strong> their explusion in 1767-8 the Maynas Jesuits destroyed most <strong>of</strong> the linguistic<br />
descriptions and ecclesiastical materials that they had developed, in order that they not fall into<br />
the hands <strong>of</strong> other religious orders (see Chapter 8 and footnote 5). The actual <strong>manuscript</strong>s that<br />
have come down to us appear to have done so by three different routes. Although much about their<br />
histories remains obscure, the Catechism Fragment’s survival appears to have centrally involved<br />
Ignacio Franciscis, the survival <strong>of</strong> the Lord’s Prayer centrally involved Joaquín Camaño, and the<br />
remaining texts appear to have been preserved by Manuel Uriarte.<br />
As described in §5.1.1, the Catechism Fragment was published by González Suárez after a copy<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>manuscript</strong> was given to him as part <strong>of</strong> a collection <strong>of</strong> ecclesiastical texts uncovered in Quito.<br />
Where this collection was discovered is unclear, but it may have been held in private hands. In<br />
any case, Suárez identified the handwriting <strong>of</strong> the Catechism Fragment as Franciscis’, based on its<br />
similarity to a document that he confidently identifies as written by Franciscis. Ignacio Franciscis<br />
worked briefly in San Joaquín de Omaguas with Manuel Uriarte in 1761, and we deduce that he<br />
copied a catechism text available there, and and brought it back to Quito, where he himself ended<br />
up before the expulsion (see §5.1.1 and footnote 350). Franciscis is almost certainly not the author<br />
<strong>of</strong> the catechism fragment, however, since he was in San Joaquín de Omaguas for only four months.<br />
In fact, it appears, given the highly linguistically disparate nature <strong>of</strong> the ecclesiastical texts in his<br />
handwriting in this collection, that Franciscis was actively collecting texts in different languages,<br />
copying them wherever he found them.<br />
The text <strong>of</strong> the Lord’s Prayer published by Hervás y Panduro was probably given to him by<br />
Joaquín Camaño (see §4.1), who was one <strong>of</strong> Hervás y Panduro’s main sources for linguistic information<br />
about South American languages (Clark 1937). Although Camaño never worked with<br />
Omaguas, he was clearly quite knowledgeable about the language, suggesting that he had access to<br />
materials on it. Where Camaño obtained the text is unknown at this point, but it is worth noting<br />
that Camaño lived in Faenza, Italy subsequent to the expulsion (Fúrlong Cárdiff 1955:14-15), close<br />
to Iriarte and Uriarte, who lived in nearby Ravenna (Bayle [1952]1986:82). As we discuss below,<br />
it is clear that Uriarte preserved several texts, and may have given Camaño the copy <strong>of</strong> the Lord’s<br />
Prayer. This might explain why this text does not appear in the appendix to Uriarte’s diaries.<br />
The remaining ecclesiastical texts survived as part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>manuscript</strong> <strong>of</strong> Uriarte’s diaries, but it<br />
is not entirely clear that Uriarte brought the texts back to Europe from Maynas. Uriarte claims to<br />
have re-written his diaries in their entirety following the expulsion, since he supposedly destroyed<br />
the original during the Jesuit expulsion, but he does explicitly indicate that he was able to smuggle a<br />
single ecclesiastical text in Tikuna with him back to Italy (Uriarte [1776]1986:239). This latter text<br />
forms part <strong>of</strong> the set <strong>of</strong> indigenous ecclesiastical texts found with his diary. It is curious, however,<br />
that he mentions smuggling only the Tikuna text, and not any <strong>of</strong> the other <strong>manuscript</strong>s appearing<br />
with his diary, raising the possibility that they may have been brought to Europe by others (e.g., by<br />
Iriarte), and then bundled with the diary <strong>manuscript</strong>. It is possible, <strong>of</strong> course, that Uriarte re-wrote<br />
the catechism from memory, but he presumably would not have been able to do so for the other<br />
ecclesiastical texts bundled with his diary, meaning that these other texts must have found their<br />
way to Europe by some means. We also doubt that the two catechism versions we compare in §9.4<br />
would be so similar if Uriarte had rewritten the Full Catechism from memory after several years’<br />
living in Italy, and some fifteen years after having ceased working with the Omaguas. In this light,<br />
it is important to recall that someone, possibly Uriarte, provided Bazán with the grammatical and<br />
lexical data that informed Hervás y Panduro’s and Gilii’s works, suggesting that some Jesuit or<br />
155