The Mayan Franciscan Vocabularies: A Preliminary Survey

The Bocabulario de Maya Than / Viena ⁴ 

The Bocabulario de Maya Than / Viena is available to us in its present state only in a mid-18th century copy, and a very poor copy at that. There are errors not only in the Mayan glosses, something which could be explained by the fact that various copyists were involved in making the copy of the Vienna, but there are errors also in the Spanish entries, which shows a general lack of knowledge or care in making the Vienna copy. Incidentally, it should be noted that there is a rather inaccurate copy of material on folios 72-73 of the Vienna to be found on folios 83-84 of the Motul II Spanish-Mayan, written by an intrusive hand.

While there is no direct evidence that the Vienna is the earliest of the Franciscan dictionaries, there are various indications that this is in fact the case. First and foremost, while the other dictionaries mention information supplied by a grammar, called "el Arte", the Vienna makes no such mention of "el Arte". ⁵   Aside from this, it has long been known that the Vienna and the Calepino share much of the same information. There has been much discussion as to which dictionary came first, and thus which supplied the other with material. However, while René Acuña and I were working on the liturgical work published in 1620 by Fr. Juan Coronel, which, as Coronel states in his introduction to this work, is based on work done by "los padres antiguos", we have come across several examples of phrases given in Coronel which are used as illustrative examples of usage in the Vienna. In one case in particular, this example is blatantly altered in the Calepino, leading to the conclusion that the Calepino example is derived from the Vienna. ⁶ 

When the question regarding as to who was the author of the Vienna arises, the available answers are very hazy. According to Lizana's account (1995:223), the Spanish Franciscan friars had written before the end of the 16^th century "muchos sermonarios y bocabularios"; but, when he gives specifics on this point he mentions only three authors: Luis de Villalpando, Alonso de Solana, and Antonio de Ciudad Real (op. cit.: 150, 228-229, 242-244). Whatever trust Lizana's assertions may claim to deserve, these are clouded by bishop Landa's report to the Inquisition in January 19, 1578:

En esta tierra no se a hasta aora traduzido en la lengua de los naturales cossa alguna de la Sagrada Scriptura, ni tienen en la lengua más de una Doctrina Christiana que yo hize ymprimir en essa ciudad [de México] estando en ella, y también algunos sermones de mano en la mesma lengua, no ympressos. Y de éstos, porque e yo hallado algunas cossas que me an descontentado en algunos, abía ya días que los andaba haziendo recoxer para examinarlos y ver si tienen qué les quitar. Y, en lo que toca en lo que se a de advertir a los ministros, guardaremos todos el orden que se nos diere, porque el que por acá aora ay es predicar cada uno conforme a las fuerzas que en la lengua y en la sufficiencia tiene. Libros, y cosas prohibidas, con mucho cuydado se a<n> quitado a todos siempre. ⁷ 

The alleged existence of a Mayan vocabulary by Luis de Villalpando is hardly admissible. He arrived to Campeche in 1546. In the Franciscan Chapter of September, 1549, he was elected Custodian and sent to serve the guardianship at Conkal. By 1552 he had passed away. ⁸   It seems hardly likely that he had time to write such an extensive work as the Vienna dictionary. Taking these factors into consideration concerning the candidates for the Vienna's authorship, we are seemingly restricted to the two other friars mentioned by Lizana as authors of vocabularies: Alonso de Solana and Antonio de Ciudad Real. However, both of them are also unlikely candidates. Ciudad Real authored the Calepino Maya de Motul and Solana is the claimed author of a Mayan dictionary whose manuscript is actually held by the Hispanic Society of America. Is there, then, some other person who we could possibly name in our search for the author? Seemingly so.

In spite of the silence on this subject by the sources such as Lizana and Cogolludo in regard to his work, there is ample documentary evidence attesting to the fact that Fray Gaspar de Nájera ⁹   wrote an Arte and a Vocabulario de la lengua maya before 1582. Furthermore, he got the Royal approval for publishing them in New Spain, as the following Royal order attests:

A la Audiencia de Nueva España, para que viesen un Arte y Vocabulario para aprender la lengua de los Indios de Yucatán, y una Cartilla para enseñar a leer a los niños Indios, compuestos por fray Gaspar González de Nájera, y, siendo útiles y sin error, le dieren licencia para imprimirlos y venderlos por un tiempo de diez años (AGI, Audiencia de México, leg. 2999).

Fray Gaspar González de Nájera had gone to Spain in 1580 in order to accomplish several civil and religious assignments.¹⁰  One of them was to bring together and send back to Yucatán new Franciscan missionaries. When he was going to Spain in January 1580, Governor Guillén de las Casas commended him to the Royal court with these words:

E yo, advirtiendo a lo que se pretende, que es sabe<r> = las antigüedades y orígines destas tierras, acordé con el Prouinçial que el padre ffray Gaspar de Náxera fuese el portador désta, que es la persona más curiosa y que más sabe destas cosas, que quantos hasta oy a abido en estas proujnçias, y así podrá dar muy bastante rrelaçión de todo (AGI, Audiencia de México, leg. 104).

Given the extensive material provided in the Vienna, and its detailed mention of various deities of the Maya, the writer must have been someone of Nájera's qualifications. Added to this it should be noted that a document dated March 1582 in the Archivo de Indias says:

Fray Gaspar González de Nájera, de la Orden de San Francisco, recopiló lo que otros habían hecho, y lo ordenó en Arte y Vocabulario de la lengua [Maya], con Doctrina Christiana y Cartilla, y todo lo remitió a la Audiencia de México para que le diesen licencia de imprimirlo (fide Ana Luisa Izquierdo).¹¹

We are thus unfortunately left only with circumstantial evidence about Fray Gaspar González de Nájera and his possible role in the writing of the Vienna, but taking the above into account he seems to be the most likely candidate.

The Role of Indigenous speakers in the development of the Vienna.

Early on in the conquest several people of noble Mayan lineage befriended the Franciscan friars and most probably were very important in the development of Mayan orthography. When the Spanish arrived and established themselves in Yucatan in the mid 1500's the religious orders immediately set about converting the Maya to Christianity. One of the methods by which they hoped to do this was getting their message translated into the Mayan language. Various members of the upper class of Maya, thus people who had been educated in the use of the Mayan hieroglyphic writing system before becoming christianized, became involved in this effort. Such names as Juan Cocom,¹²  who was a close friend of Diego de Landa, and Gaspar Antonio Chi Xiu, who was a Landa's protégé, and later the Spanish court official interpreter, both of whom were related to Mayan ruling families, come to mind. A major part of this effort to get proselytizing material translated into Mayan involved forming an orthography for the Mayan language from the Latin script.¹³  This was done fairly quickly and in a surprisingly uniform manner when one considers the rather variable and sloppy orthography of the Spaniards at the time. When one compares the uneven effort at writing Mayan words in Spanish literature of the period, for example that of Landa, with the Mayan literature written by the Maya themselves, it would seem that the Maya played a very important role in helping the Spanish friars develop a Latin script orthography for the Mayan language. Unfortunately we have not come across anything which gives us an indication of how extensive this involvement was. In any case, by 1557 when the Mani land treaty was written the use of the Latin script for the Mayan language seems to have been fairly well established.

In the Vienna there is some indication that the process of developing the dictionary involved the help of indigenous speakers, but that these speakers were not always available for consultation. This is because at times there are examples of usage which appear to be of the most blatant type of Maya-Span,¹⁴  and at other times there are examples of usage which are consistent with the earlier Mayan language to be found in such works as the older parts of the Books of Chilam Balam.

Endnotes

4. It is Acuña's opinion that this Bocabulario was originally written mainly in the Franciscan convent of Maní. Personal communication.

5. Landa's letter of 1578 quoted below states that there were no existing Artes at the time. This contradicts Lizana's assertion that an "Arte" was put together by Luis de Villalpando (Lizana, 1995:71) and perfected by Landa (Lizana, 1995:170). It is presumable, then, that the Arte mentioned in the Calepino Maya de Motul (221v, 225v) was that written by González de Nájera in the early 1580's. See below.

6. Coronel 1620a:190r: ca v lapah vba Iudio huntul ichil Christianosob, tu mucul muculil cuchi, vchebal yilic v nuucul v kuil thanob,
   BMTV: Çeremonias, como de misa y coro: kuil than. ¶ Mesclóse un judío entre los christianos desimuladamente, para ber las ceremonias que tenían: u lapah uba judio huntul ichil christianob ti mucul muculil, uchebal yilic u nuucul u kuil thanob cuchi.
   CMM: Lap.ah.ab: encaxar, meter o entremeter, poner y mezclar vna cosa entre otras, y esconderla assi…. ¶ v lapah v paalil ychil v paalil cristianoob: mezclo o metio su muchacho y entremetiole entre los de los cristianos.

7. Landa's Documento Numero Cuatro in Relación de las cosas de Yucatán (1966:168). An interesting question may be, was Landa's report dealing with the entire bulk of Mayan manuscripts which possibly existed at the time? For an approximate answer, it is advisable to read Viana's report on similar matters addressed to Maestro Bermejo in September 18, 1577 (AGNM, Inquisición, vol. 83, exp. 24, fols. 305-306).

8. López de Cogolludo (1957:269, 343).

9. This name is also given as Naxara, Náxara, Naxera and Náxera.

10. Bio-bibliographical references to this friar are, among others: Valle, Bibliografía maya (1949:40); Streit, Bibliotheca Missionorum (1924, 2:318); Adams, "A Bio-bibliography of Franciscan Authors in Colonial Central America", in The Americas, VIII-4 and IX-1 (1952), etc. Nájera is also mentioned in the Relaciones Histórico-Geográficas de la Gobernación de Yucatán (1983, 1: XLI, 166, 402, 416, 430, 445), as well as in López de Cogolludo, Bk. III, chap. 4. More about fray Gaspar de Nájera, below.

11. The quest of these manuscripts in the Spanish archives as well as in those of México has been unsuccessful up to now. It is Acuña's opinion that a search in the Portuguese archives might be more productive. There is a major possibility that Nájera was Portuguese by birth (personal communication).

12. Landa, 1966:21: Que el sucesor de los Cocomes, llamado don Juan Cocom, después de bautizado, fue hombre de gran reputación y muy sabio en sus cosas y bien sagaz y entendido en las naturales, y fue muy familiar del autor de este libro, fray Diego de Landa,…

13. A possible candidate for the invention of special characters for the Yucatecan Mayan language is fray Francisco de la Parra. For dates in Yucatan (1552) see Lizana (1995:176) and López de Cogolludo (1971, 1:387). Worth mentioning too is fray Juan de Herrera (Lizana, 1995:206).
    

    Another possibility is that as Creoles began to enter in the Franciscan order they brought with them their extensive knowledge of the "mother" (quite literally) tongue. See for example Lizana, 1995:223: Otro religioso, llamado fray Juan Velásquez, huuo en esta santa Prouincia, el qual era nacido en esta tierra y, assí, fue grande lengua de los naturales y excelente ministro, porque tenía partes muy bastantes que en él concurrían para serlo. Quanto a lo primero, era grande sieruo de Dios, muy obseruante de su Regla; lo segundo, sabía bastantemente latinidad y era excelente lengua yucateca por ser criollo y hauer trabajado con los maestros de la lengua que de España vienen, que la han puesto en arte y perfección, y escrito muchos sermonarios y bocabularios, como después diremos.

14. The term Maya-Span was developed by René Acuña and me to indicate that the language in which a particular passage is written was written by a Spanish speaker who was not well versed in the Mayan language.

Previous Page  |  Index Page  |  Next Page

Return to top of page