CTLF Corpus de textes linguistiques fondamentaux • IMPRIMER • RETOUR ÉCRAN
CTLF - Menu général - Notices

Arte de gramática da língua mais usada na costa do Brasil

Anchieta, Joseph de

DomaineTraditions non-occidentales
SecteurGrammaires amérindiennes [4755]

Anchieta, Joseph de

Datation: 1534-1597

Joseph (Ioseph) de Anchieta was born in 1534 in the ancient capital of the Canarian Archipelago, i.e. La Laguna, Tenerife. In his teenaged years, he travelled to Portugal to study at Coimbra, where he mastered both Latin and Portuguese. He joined the Jesuit Order, Companhia de Iesu, during his time in Coimbra and was sent to São Vicente, Brazil, to work with Manoel da Nóbrega in 1553 as part of the third party sent to the newly established mission (Metcalf 2014, p. 41). Together with Nóbrega, he established the Jesuit college in São Paulo de Piratininga the following year. In the ensuing period of just over a decade, he taught Latin, Portuguese and Spanish to the other Brothers, and to indigenous children, while learning the local language (Zwartjes 2011, p. 149), a language which, as his biographer Vasconcelos (1672, p. 25) suggests, “he perfected quickly” (‘brevemente perfeiçoou’). He composed poetry and dramaturgic productions in Spanish, Portuguese and Tupi during this period, and performed a number of translations (Ed. Martins 1954). It was also at this time that he composed the initial version of the first grammar of Tupi to be printed, i.e. Arte de grammatica da lingoa mais usada na costa do Brasil, for which the manuscript had been composed in the mid-1550s. According to Rodrigues (1997, p. 373), Anchieta vacated this post to finish out his work in Bahía in 1565, in part due to the contemporaneous genocide of non-“peaceful” native groups, including the Tupinikin of Piratininga with whom Anchieta was stationed, conducted by Brazil's third governor Mem de Sá (Hemming 1984, p. 515-518). He continued his work as a veritable ‘língua’ in Bahia, teaching Latin and Tupinamba and assisting Manuel Viegas (1533-1608) in the composition of a grammar of the language of the Maromomim (or Guarumins), which has been lost (Zwartjes 2011, p. 147, Rodrigues 1999, p. 166). In 1594, he retired to the Capitanía de Espíritu Santo, where he would pass away in 1597.

Titre de l'ouvrageArte de gramática da língua mais usada na costa do Brasil
Titre traduitGrammar of the most used language on the coast of Brazil
Titre courtArte de gramática da língua mais usada na costa do Brasil
Remarques sur le titreComplete title: Arte de Grammatica da Lingoa mais usada na costa do Brasil. Feyta pelo padre Ioseph de Anchieta da Cõpanhia de IESV. Com licença do Ordinario & do Prepoßito geral da Companhia de IESV.
Période|16e s.|
Type de l'ouvrageDescriptive grammar covering phonology and morphosyntax. Didactic/pedagogic grammar for learners of the ‘língua mais usada na costa do Brasil’ (Tupinamba).
Type indexéGrammaire descriptive | Grammaire didactique | Grammaire élémentaire
Édition originale1595, Coimbra, Antonio Mariz.
Édition utiliséeFirst edition: 1595. Biblioteca Brasiliana: Guita e José Mindlin.
Volumétrie[2], 58, 15 p., 5 cm (in-8°). Trigram of the Company of Jesus, with a vignette including the Latin text: Nomen Domini tvrris fortissimo.
Nombre de signes75000
Reproduction moderne3rd ed., 1876, ed. Fac-similar of Julio Platzmann. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner;
4th ed., 1933, fac-similar. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional;
5th ed., 1946, fac-similar. São Paulo: Anchieta;
6th ed., 1980, fac-similar. Salvador: Universidad Federal da Bahia Salvador;
7th ed., 1990, fac-similar, with a presentation by Carlos Drumond. São Paulo: Loyola.
Spanish ed.; 8th ed., 1999. Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica: Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional – introduction by Azevedo.
DiffusionAlthough the grammar circulated in manuscript for from ca. 1556, it was first printed in 1595 in Coimbra by Antonio de Mariz. According to Altman (2012, p. 19), after Anchieta's death, this work was substituted with the grammar of Figueira (1621?) for being considered “more in keeping with the Latin canons” (‘considerada mais de acordo com os cânones latinos’). This is why no further prints were overseen until the late nineteenth century with the German re-edition of the American language specialist Julio Platzmann: 2nd ed., Julio Platzmann, 1874. Edição facsimilaria stereotypa. B.G. Teubner. Leipzig (Internet Archive).
According to Dahlmann (1891, p. 64), “at one time, there were hundreds of exemplars of Anchieta's Arte found spread all over the Brazilian mission” (‘Und doch war einst dieses Werk, das den Namen Anchieta's […] als Verfasser trägt, in Hunderten von Exemplaren über die weite Mission verbreitet’). According to Pero Rodrigues (1897, p. 199, cited in Navarro 2007), Anchieta's grammar had a special licence, ‘liçam’, at the College of Bahia at this early date, while Vasconcelos (1672, p. 25) goes further, stating that several Colleges of the province had allotted it a special license (‘E d[esta arte] ha liçam particular em alguns Collegios da Prouincia’). There was clearly a demand for this work that accounts for its wide distribution at this early stage.
Additionally, as demonstrated by Drumond (1990, p. 13), there are three extant copies of the first edition: One in the Biblioteca Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, another in the Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuele in Rome and another in the Arquivo da Companhia de Jesus (Epp.NN.21). Drumond does not mention the two copies housed in the Biblioteca Nacional of Spain (fondo antiguo, signature R/8815), from which a facsimile edition is published in 1999 (ed. Azevedo).
Langues ciblesAnchieta does not explicitly provide a name for the language that he describes in this Arte. There exists a current debate among scholars as to which Tupi variety is described in the printed version. It is clear that Anchieta mastered the variety spoken in Piratininga during his eleven-year stint in that territory (Rodrigues 1997, p. 373), i.e. the Tupiniquim, or simply Tupi, language. Navarro (1997, p. 660) suggests that this was the language for which Anchieta composed his grammar. Accordingly, Zwartjes (2011, p. 146) describes that this variety is “closely related to Guarani”, spoken further to the south, and thus a different variety from that spoken northwards along the coast over a massive territory, i.e. Tupinambá (ibid.). Rodrigues (1997, p. 374) suggests that during the nearly 30-year period between his transfer to Bahía, one of many territories encompassed in the Tupinambá-speaking landscape, and the printed publication of his grammar in 1595, “Anchieta seguramente la adaptó sistemáticamente al tupinambá”. He equally signals that “[su] considerable extensión geográfica a lo largo del litoral justicaba bien el título con que la publicó” (ibid.). In addition to this justification, Rodrigues (1997, p. 374, cited in Zwartjes 2011, p. 149) cites “the conservation of the final consonants of affirmative verbs” as evidence for this variety constituting the object of Anchieta's grammar.
MétalanguePortuguese, with a notable amount of intermittent terms and phrases in Latin. According to Altman (2012, p. 19), this totals 140 Latin expressions.
Langue des exemples“Língua mais usada na costa do Brasil” (Tupi).
Sommaire de l'ouvrageLicença (no page numbers). Preposito geral da Companhia de iesv. (O Bisco d'Eluas. Dioguo de Sousa. Marcos Teixeira; Pereira. Diogo Lameyra. Damião Daguiar. Antonio Dalmeyda) (no page numbers, dated 19 December, 1594). Anchieta provides no introductory materials for his work. The work is organized as follows:
Cap. I: Das Letras (f. 1r-2r): Com Aduerbio (2r), Nomes com a proposição, (2r);
Cap. II: Da Orthographia, ou pronunciação (2r-6v): Nos Præteritos (2v-4r);
Cap. III: De Accentu (7r-8r*): Do Cremento (7r-8r*);
Cap. IIII: Dos Nomes (p. 8r*-10v): Da composição dos Nomes (8v*-10v);
Cap. V: Dos Pronomes […] (10v-17r): Construição destes Pronomes (11r-12r), De Acê (12r), Do Pronome Relatiuo, & Reciproco (12r-12v), Construição mais particular dos Pronomes, & Nomes (12v), Do Reiatiuo [sic], ç (12v-14r), Dos começados por t. que tem, i. por Relatiuo (14r-16r), Do vso do Reciproco, O (16r-17r);
Cap. VI: Dos Verbos (17v-20r): Gerundio in Do, & primeiro ßupino (19r), Actiuos em, âba (19r-19v); Outros passiuos (19v-20r);
Cap. VII: Annotações, na Conjugação (20r-36r): Præsente do Indicativo (21r-22r), Futuro (22r), Imperatiuo (22r-22v), Presente do Coniunctiuo (22v-24r*), Optatiuo (24r*-25r), Do Presente do Coniunctiuo ja fica dito. Præterito Imperfeito, primeiro (25r-25v), Præterito Imperfeito segundo (25v), Fvtvro (26r-26v), Infinitiuo (26v), Formação (27r), Construição do infinitiuo, & seu vso (27r-27v), Dos Gerundios (27v), In Do, Dum (27v), Vltimo supino (27v-28r), Formação do Gerundio in Do, vel Dum, ou supino (28r-28v), Dos Gerundios, & supinos negatiuos (28v), Dos Gerundios dos neutros (28v-29r), Dos Gerundios dos que não tem articulos (29r-29v), Da Construição do Gerundio in Do (29v), Dos Participios, ou verbaes in âra, âba (29v-30r*), De Bae (30v*-31r), De Bôra (31r-32r), Dos verbaes Passiuos, ou Participios Em, Ira (32r), Dos de, Mi (32r), Dos verbos dos neutros (32r-32v), Dos de âba (32v-33r), Da formação dos Præteritos, & Futuros dos nomes (33r-33v), Do vso destes futuros (33v-34r), Dos verbais Amboéra (34r), Do verbo negatiuo (34r-35r), Do Verbo passiuo (35r-35v), Do Reciproco mutuo (35v), Do Interrogatiuo (35v-36r);
Cap. VIII: Da Construição dos verbos actiuos (36r-37v);
Cap. IX: Dalgûas maneiras de verbos em que esta amphibologia se tira (37v-40r): Dos começados por, ç. com zeura (37v-38r), Dos neutros que tem, ç (38r-38v), Dos começados por, r, No (38v), Dos começados por, ix (38v), Dos começados por, i. yo (39r), Da regra do Aduerbio (39r-40r), Da Construição dos neutros (40r);
Cap. X: Das Præposições (40r-46r): Annotações sobre as præposições. Mo (41v-42r), Pe (42r), Bo (42r-42v), Bo, de ßitio (42v-43r), çupê (43r), çuî (43r-43v), çocê (43v), çupî (43v), Porupî (43v-44r), Pabê, Ndi (44r), Cecê, Riz (44r), Eìmebê, yanondê, Rirê (44v-45v), Rirê (45v-46r);
Cap. II: De sum, es, fui (46r-48r): De Ruaˆ, com os mais verbos (47r-47v), Da segunda significação de sum, que he ter ou possuir, vt est mihi filius, tenho filho (47v-48r);
Cap. XII: Dos verbos neutros feitos actiuos (48r-49v): De Vcâr (49r-49v);
Cap. XIII: Dos Activos feitos neutros (49v-52v): Dos Neutros (51r-51v), Dos verbos em, oêr (51v);
Cap. XIIII: Da Composição dos verbos (52r-52v);
Cap. XV: Da Repetição dos verbos (52v-54v): De E. in fine dictionum (53v-54r), l. vel Nhe (54r), de opab (54v);
Cap. XVI: De algûs verbos irregulars de (54v-58v): Verbais em, ára, âba (55v-57r), Doutras particulas que pedem gerundio (57r-57v), De Raê (57v), Doutros verbos irregulares (57v-58v).
*A number of sheets have been improperly paginated in Antonio de Mariz's original print – see ‘physical description’.
Objectif de l'auteurAnchieta does not provide a preface, a message to the reader, an introduction, etc., in which he explicitly reveals his intentions in composing this Arte. According to Leite (1950, vol. 2, p. 549, cited in Barros 1995, p. 8), Anchieta answers to a general call for a Tupi Arte directed at novices within the mission, explicitly voiced by Navarro in 1553. In a letter that Anchieta sent to sick members of the Companhia de Jesus, ‘Irmãos enfermos’, to be sent to Brazil in 1554, he concedes that there is nobody who would profit from it there (‘Não o ponho em arte porque não ha cá a quem aproveite’. Anchieta 1554, p. 86), referring to Piratininga, where he was stationed. He does, however, confirm that it would benefit those who are sent by the Companhia with a knowledge of (Latin) grammar (‘[…] aproveitar-se-ão os que de lá vierem e souberem gramatica’) (ibid.), and these novices would form the user base for his work. Navarro (2014, p. 5) confirms that the draft of this grammar had already been brought to Bahia in 1555 to be used as a base text for teaching Tupi to novice Jesuits who came to Brazil, forming a cornerstone of their college curriculum, in place of Greek as the second language of study after Latin (Navarro 2007, p. IV). The grammar was being used by professor Antonio Blazques at the College of Bahia by the following year (Barros 1995, p. 8). According to Anchieta's associate, Pe. João de Melo (anon. 1933, p. 22), by the time Anchieta returned, ca. 1565, it was required for novices to read the Arte at home (‘Logo que o Padre aqui chegou, ordenou que em casa se lêsse a arte da língua brasílica, que compôs o irmão Joesph [Anchieta]’). Pe. Melo also confirms that this work was intended to be coupled with lessons in person, with Anchieta as the primary instructor at this point (‘o mesmo Padre, [Anchieta], é o mestre’), which holds considering Anchieta's emphasis on oral usage in the text. For instance, in his grammar, Anchieta (1595, f. 8v) claims that the first three chapters, which deviate considerably from traditional Greco-Latin grammar (Zwartjes 2011, p. 155), are designed specifically for beginners to know how to pronounce the language (‘Isto das letras, orthographia, pronunciação, &c. accento, seruira pera saberem pronunciar […] os que començão aprender’). He was successful at composing the earliest primary text for Tupi instruction, and it would remain so until being abandoned for the more user-friendly Arte de grammatica da lingva brasilica (1621?) of Figueira.
Intérêt généralUnlike subsequent Tupi grammarians of the colonial period, Anchieta provides a number of observations as regards dialectical distinctions on the morphophonemic level. These observations have proven invaluable for historical linguistic reconstructions, Proto-Tupi-Guarani, and for dialectological surveys.
From a historiographical perspective, Anchieta's exceptional work can be viewed mainly as a “morphosyntax of the Tupinambá language” (Zwartjes 2002, p. 33). In this vein, and in addition to the observations made above, he makes frequent and unorganized references to idiosyncrasies noted in phonetic articulation, engendering a series of unorthodox subchapters specific to his grammar and the language that he is describing. This demonstrates his contention with the use of the Latin model, such as the Alvaristic model adopted by later missionaries (Zwartjes 2002, Navarro 2014), to describe languages whose grammars deviate strongly from Latin and Greek. Such organizational divergence is coupled with explicit statements, such as “there are always certain exceptions that usage will clarify” (‘sempre ha algumas excepções que o uso ensinará’) (f. 8v), and subchapters like “Do vso destes futuros.” (f. 33v-34r), in which he adopts an asynchronous descriptivist tone.
Parties du discoursAlthough he does adhere to the canonical order of presentation, Anchieta deviates from the Greco-Latin grammar tradition, as regards representing the eight ‘sacred’ parts of speech, in a number of ways. For instance, he organizes his work conventionally, viz. beginning with phonology/orthography, preceding chapters regarding morphology as follows, declinable: noun (Chapter IV), pronoun (V), verb (VI-IX), indeclinable: preposition (X). González-Luis (1992, p. 237) notes that Anchieta even positions his markedly brief comments on adverbs and conjunctions in the final sections of his work, i.e. among the other indeclinable parts of speech. Conversely, Zwartjes (2011, p. 151) points to “many observations concerning morphophonemic rules in all […] sections of the grammar”, which render the work unsystematic and potentially confusing for novices. Anchieta is conscious of his deviations from the European model, and chooses to design an independent format particular to Tupi. This is exemplified in his not including a declension table for the noun, stating instead that “nouns do not have case or number, except for vocative” (1595, f. 8r), but providing a sub-chapter entitiled “On the Composition of Nouns” (‘Da Composição dos Nomes’) (f. 8v-10v); a practice that is also applied to pronouns (f. 11r-12r) and verbs (f. 52r-52v).
In summary, his work lacks the traditional introductory chapter devoted to ‘rudimenta’ (Zwartjes 2002, p. 33), not to mention chapters explicitly dedicated to the adverb, participle, preposition, interjection and conjunction, while also missing a final section clearly devoted to syntax. In like manner, he neglects to define the grammatical terms for the parts of speech that he does include in his grammar.
Innovations term.According to Rodrigues (1997, p. 392), Anchieta was the first author to use a number of linguistic terms in written Portuguese: contrato, penúltimo, ípsilon, mono-, di-, tri-, polissílabo, vocativo, instrumental, posposição, numeral, ordinal, comparativo.
Zwartjes (2011, p. 158) informs us that Anchieta uses the verbs ‘incluir’ and ‘excluir’ in describing the functioning of pronouns in Tupi, albeit not their adjectival forms, ‘inclusive’/‘exclusive’, as used tody. Although these terms are used in contemporary Quechua grammars (ibid.), it is likely that these terms were selected independently within the separate traditions.
Additionally, Rodrigues (1997, p. 389-391) concedes two further terminological innovations found in Anchieta's grammar: his ‘adverb rule’ (‘regla del adverbio’) (Arte, f. 39v) and his inventive chapter XV, ‘On the repetition of verbs’ (‘Da repetição dos verbos’) (1595, f. 52v-53v). In the case of this first innovation, Anchieta dedicates an entire subsection of his seemingly miscellaneous chapter IX, offering the “Da regra do Aduerbio.” as its header. Rodrigues (1997, p. 389) describes that Anchieta is referring to what we call the ‘circumstantial mode’ (‘modo circunstancial’) in modern theory whereby a verb adopts a special declensional form, for first and third person conjugations, when a circumstantial complement, e.g. a temporal, locational adverbial complement, etc., is incorporated in the topic position. Anchieta (1595, f. 39v) also recognizes that such a form is not only found with adverbs, but also with prepositions, gerunds and supinum complements; therefore, he selects ‘regla del adverbio’ as a general term for his readers. Given that such symptomatic features of an agglutinating language constituted novelties in the domain of missionary grammar, the depth of his understanding here is impressive.
In the case of his acknowledgement of reduplication in verbs in Tupi, Rodrigues (1997, p. 390) demonstrates that his presentation is no less remarkable. Firstly, he concedes that Anchieta's presentation accounts for both disyllabic and monosyllabic reduplication, the former accounting for the frequentative reading, the second constituting a plural expression (ibid.). As stated above, Anchieta dedicates an entire chapter to this intriguing, yet often puzzling, morphological phenomenon without sparing any detail.
Corpus illustratif‘Língua mais usada na costa do Brasil’ (Tupinambá). Anchieta provides few paradigms in his grammar. He does not provide any examples or practice exercises – this is primarily a descriptive grammar.
Indications compl.
Influence subieAnchieta arrived on one of the earliest colonial evangelization expeditions in Brazil, belonging to the third wave of Jesuits sent there (Metcalf 2014, p. 41). Therefore, although Anchieta was the first to have a Tupi grammar printed, he was not the first to acquire a workable knowledge of the language. This had started, most notably, with Father João de Azpilcueta of the original Companhia de Jesus mission in Bahia, who “acquired enough facility with the Tupi-Guarani language […] to model the missionary approach first envisioned by the Jesuits” (Metcalf 2014, p. 33). By the time of Anchieta's arrival, a body of so-called ‘línguas’ with a knowledge of the local Tupi tongues had already begun to form in the missionary community (Barros 1995, p. 4, 12-14). According to Leite (1965, p. 40, cited in Zwartjes 2011, p. 148), there were already manuscript dictionaries and grammars in (limited) circulation around the time that Anchieta finished the first draft of his work, ca. 1556 (González-Luis 1994, p. 231), namely those of a fellow instructor at Piratininga, António Rodrigues (fl. 1553) (Leite 1965). Given that there exist no extant copies of these documents, we cannot say with any degree of certainty whether these works had a direct influence on the redaction of Anchieta's Arte.Although it is clear from Anchieta's biography and works that he had become a master of (Latin) grammar, he does not mention any Classic grammarians in his grammar, as his contemporaries did (Altman 2012, p. 18). We cannot exclude the possibility that Anchieta was familiar with at least some of the popular works that defined the European vulgar grammar tradition of his time, i.e. Nebrija, (Spanish); Barros, Oliveira (Portuguese), but he does not mention any of these authors either (Altman, ibid., Zwartjes 2012, p. 28).
Influence exercéeIt is undeniable that the Arte of Anchieta is foundational to the Companhia de Jesus' grammar tradition, being the first to be deemed worthy of the tedious and expensive process of being printed in Portugal and distributed throughout the Brazilian mission. Despite forming a cornerstone of this flourishing institution, this grammar was met with mixed criticism. One of his most notable critics is his successor, Luis Figueira (1575-1643), who composed the Arte de grammatical da lingua Brasilica (1621?). Although he had certainly used Anchieta's grammar (Zwartjes 2011, p. 164, 2002; Rodrigues 1997), Figueira neglects to mention his predecessor by name, instead reducing him to a member of the failing tradition that he intends to mend (“naõ [ha] arte, nem mestres, que por arte ensinem [a língua brasílica]”) (Figueira 1621, p. iii). Zwartjes (2011, p. 163) also notes that Anchieta's work was probably consulted by Antonio de Araújo in composing his Cathecismo (1618), the first of its kind to contain a section on phonology and pronunciation. Therefore, in light of the restricted print culture that defined the early Brazilian mission, Anchieta's grammar was profoundly influential in its time.
According to Meliá (1992, p. 26-27), Anchieta's work was not only fundamental for establishing a Tupi grammar tradition in Brazil, but it also acted as a foundational document for Spanish Jesuits working with its sister language, Guarani. Meliá demonstrates that “in using Anchieta's Arte, the Jesuits of Paraguay were in a position to make the necessary corrections that they recorded in Guarani” (“Al usar la gramática de Anchieta, los jesuitas del Paraguay estaban en condiciones de hacer las correcciones necesarias que registraban en el guaraní”. 1992, p. 27). Access to Anchieta's work in Paraguay is not surprising, considering the fact that the college library at Bahia supplied most of the Jesuit school libraries in the region, i.e. including Paraguay, with texts (Grover 1993, p. 271). Consequently, Bossong (2009, p. 228) notes that Alonso de Aragona (1585-1629), who composed the first Guarani grammar, Breve introducción para aprender la lengua Guaraní (ca. 1625), was familiar with Anchieta's work. He also indicates its indirect influence on the subsequent, prolific work of Antonio Ruiz de Montoya (1585-1652), Tesoro de la lengua guarani (1639) (also see Rodrigues 1997, p. 385-387).
This influence on later grammarians, however, is not restricted to studies on Tupi languages; as Zwartjes notes (2011, p. 180), Mamiani (1652-1730), who composed a grammar for the Kipeá-Karirí language (1699) in Brazil, “was familiar with the New World Tupi grammars of the ‘antigos’”.
More recently, Anchieta's Arte has proven fundamental to our understanding of the development of certain features on a diachronic level. As Rodrigues observes (1944, p. 336-337), Anchieta's observations of regional variations in phonetic articulation (1595, f. 1v) are essential to our understanding of Proto-Tupi and Proto-Guarani and the differences that characterize their developments respectively. Another example is Barbosa Rodrigues' (1890, cited in Altman 2012, p. 42) ‘Chart demonstrating the adulteration of the [Tupi(nambá)] language by pronunciation and orthography’ (“Quadro em que se mestra adulteração da língua pela pronuncia e pela orthographia”), which focuses primarily on phonetic shifts in certain vocabulary items, comparing Anchieta's grammar with later works. Put in other terms, Anchieta's Arte is invaluable to the study of Old Tupi(-Guarani).
Renvois bibliographiquesAA.VV. 1933; Altman C. 2012; Anchieta J. de 1595; Aragona A. de 1979; Araújo A. de 1618; Azevedo L. A. 1999; Barros M. C. 1995; Dahlmann J. 1891; Drumond C. 1990; Figueira L. 1621; González-Luis F. 1992; Grover M. L. 1993; Hemming J. 1984; Leite S. 1950; Leite S. 1965; Mamiani L. V. 1699; Marins M. de L. de Paulo 1954; Meliá B. 1992; Metcalf A. C. 2014; Navarro E. de Almeida 1997; Navarro E. de Almeida 2007; Navarro E. de Almeida 2014; Oliveira Batista R. de 2005; Rodrigues A. D. 1997; Rodrigues J. B. 1890; Rodrigues P. 1897; Ruiz de Montoya A.. 1639; Vasconcelos S. de 1672; Zwartjes O. 2002; Zwartjes O. 2011

Case, Justin · Zwartjes, Otto

Création ou mise à jour2017-10