not comment further in his _Adiciones y Ampliaciones_ [52] of 1904,
yet when the same year Pérez and Güemes [53] published their additions
to and continuation of Medina, bringing his bibliography down to
1850, they resurrected the 1581 _Arte_, but added no new evidence
to prove their case. Blair and Robertson, in their tremendous,
collective history of the Philippines, did not include a list of
Philippine imprints in their bibliography, [54] but referred readers
to Medina and Retana with whom they agreed. To celebrate the three
hundredth anniversary of typographical printing in the Philippines
Artigas y Cuerva [55] wrote a study which emphasized the part played
by Blancas de San José, but did not deny the existence of the 1593
Doctrina. Retana [56] in 1911 brought his work on the subject up to
date, but retained all his major conclusions. In Palau's standard
bibliography of Spanish books we find the Doctrinas called "the two
earliest books known to have been printed in Manila." [57] Finally, the
most thorough recent work on the subject is to be found in Schilling's
[58] survey of the early history of the Philippine press published in
1937. There is little that can be added to the evidence uncovered by
these modern writers, but the appearance of the book itself enables
us to say with certainty some things which they were able only to
surmise. However, as regards the authorship and the circumstances and
place of printing we are able, from the information given on the title,
to carry the investigation somewhat further.




THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE TEXT