§ 1 Early Prose

II. 1325-1521

With prose a new period opens, since, although there are Portuguese documents of the late twelfth century and the Latin chrysalis was in an advanced stage of development even earlier, prose as a literary instrument does not begin before the fourteenth century or the end of the thirteenth at the earliest. The fragments of an early Poetica clearly show how slow and awkward were still the movements of prose at a time when poetry had attained an exceedingly graceful expression. The next two centuries redressed the balance in the favour of prose. The victory of Aljubarrota (1385) made it possible to carry on the national work begun by King Dinis—the preparation of Portugal’s resources for a high destiny. In this constructive process literature was not forgotten, and indeed its deliberate encouragement, as though it were an industry or a pine-forest, may account for the fact that it consisted mainly of prose—chronicles, numerous translations from Latin, Spanish, and other languages, works of religious or practical import. The first kings of the dynasty of Avis, who rendered noble service to Portuguese literature, were not poets, and in the second half of the fifteenth century Spanish influence, checked at Aljubarrota, succeeded by peaceful penetration in recovering all and more than all that it had lost, till it became common to hear lyrics of Boscan sung in the streets of Lisbon, and uncommon for a Portuguese poet to versify in his mother tongue. Prose was more national. King Dinis had encouraged translation into Portuguese, and among other works his grandfather King Alfonso the Learned’s Cronica General was translated by his order. The only edition that we have, Historia Geral de Hespanha (1863), is cut short in the reign of King Ramiro (cap. ccii, p. 192). The first ‘O’ of the preface in the manuscript contains the king in purple robe and crown of gold, pen in hand, with a book before him. The style is primitive, often a succession of short sentences beginning with ‘And’. In the convents brief lives of saints, portions of the Bible, prayers and regulations were written in Portuguese. Thus we have thirteenth-or fourteenth-century fragments of the rules of S. Bento, Fragmentos de uma versão antiga da regra de S. Bento, with its traces of a Latin original (e. g. os desprezintes Deos = contemnentes Deum); the Actos dos Apostolos, written in the middle of the fifteenth century by Frei Bernardo de Alcobaça and Frei Nicolao Vieira, that is, copied by them from an older manuscript; the eloquent prayers (Libro de Horas) translated by another Alcobaça monk, Frei João Claro (†1520?); the Historias abreviadas do Testamento Velho, printed from a manuscript of the fourteenth century, or of the thirteenth retouched in the fourteenth. The translation is close; the style foreshadows that of the Leal Conselheiro. The importance of these and other fragmentary versions of the Bible, in which there can rarely be a doubt as to the meaning of the words, is obvious. Extracts from the Vida de Eufrosina and the Vida de Maria Egipcia, published in 1882 by Jules Cornu from the manuscripts formerly in the Monastery of Alcobaça, now in the Torre do Tombo, show that they were written in vigorous if primitive prose (14th c.). A Lenda dos Santos Barlaam e Josaphat is perhaps a little later (end of the fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth century). The Visão de Tundalo, of which the Latin original, Visio Tundali, was written by Frei Marcos not long after the date of the vision (1140), exists in two Portuguese versions, probably both of the fifteenth century (Monastery of Alcobaça). The Vida de Santo Aleixo also exists in two codices belonging to the middle and beginning of the fifteenth century, and Dr. Esteves Pereira, who published the latter, considers that the variants point to an earlier manuscript of the beginning of the fourteenth or end of the thirteenth century. To about the same period (14th-15th c.) belong the Lenda de Santo Eloy, the Vida de Santo Amaro, the Vida de Santa Pelagia, and many similar short devout treatises and legends which concern literature less than the development of the Portuguese language. Both literature and philology are interested in the early fifteenth-century work printed by Dr. Leite de Vasconcellos from the manuscript in the Vienna Hofbibliothek: O Livro de Esopo, which consists not of direct translations from Exopo greguo of Antioch but of estorias ffremosas de animalias, told in the manner of Aesop, half a century before William Caxton and Robert Henryson, with great naturalness, vigour, and brevity.

The earliest entry of the Cronica Breve do Archivo Nacional is dated 1391, and both it and the Cronicas Breves e memorias avulsas de Santa Cruz de Coimbra are laconic annals of the first kings of Portugal, a few lines covering a whole reign. The Livro da Noa de Santa Cruz de Coimbra is an extract from the Livro das Heras of the same convent, and is, as the latter title indicates, a similar simple chronicle of events by years. It begins in Latin, then Latin and Portuguese entries alternate till 1405. From 1406 to the end (1444) they are exclusively Portuguese. The Cronica da Ordem dos Frades Menores (1209-85) is a fifteenth-century Portuguese translation of a fourteenth-century Latin chronicle, and has been carefully edited by Dr. J. J. Nunes from the manuscript in the Lisbon Biblioteca Nacional; the Vida de D. Tello (15th c.), and the Vida de S. Isabel, the Queen-consort of King Dinis (earlier 15th c.), are ‘historical’ biographies which contain more legend and less history than the Cronica da Fundaçam do Moesteiro de S. Vicente de Lixboa (Cronica dos Vicentes), a fifteenth-century version from a Latin original, Indiculum, of the eleventh century. There is far more life if equal brevity in the Cronica da Conquista do Algarve (Cronica de como Dom Payo Correa. .. tomou este reino de Algarve aos Moros)—a rapid, vivid sketch which reads almost like a chapter out of Fernam Lopez. Here at last was some one with will and power to make the dry bones live. But meanwhile history of another kind had been written from a very early date. As a first rough catalogue of names the livros de linhagens, books of descent, as they were called by their compilers, go back farther than the chronicles or religious prose, but so far as concerns their claim to literary form they belong like those to the fourteenth century. Of the four that have come down to us the Livro Velho is a jejune family register (11th-14th c.); the second is a mere fragment of the same kind. The manuscript of the third (O Nobiliario do Collegio dos Nobres) was bound up with the Cancioneiro da Ajuda, and together with the fourth, O Nobiliario do Conde D. Pedro, represents the lost original of the Livro de Linhagens of D. Pedro, Conde de Barcellos (1289-1354). The Nobiliario do Conde has been shown by Alexandre Herculano, who printed it from the manuscript in the Torre do Tombo, to be the work of various authors extending over more than a century (13th-14th), the Conde de Barcellos being but one of them. It was in fact compiled like a modern peerage, and was not intended to be final, new entries being added as time made them necessary, so that the passage diz O Conde D. Pedro em seu livro is as natural as the mention of Innocencio da Silva in a later volume of his great dictionary. But it was this son of King Dinis who with infinite diligence searched for documents far and wide, had recourse to the writings of King Alfonso X and others, and spared no pains to give the work an historical as well as a genealogical character. His researches (Ouue de catar, he says, por gram trabalho por muitas terras escripturas que fallauam das linhagens) set an excellent example to Fernam Lopez. Certainly the Livro de Linhagens is a vast catalogue of names, with at most a brief note after the name, as ‘he was a good priest’ or ‘a very good poet’; but it also gives succinct stories of the Kings of the Earth from Adam, including Priam, Alexander, Julius Caesar, and the early kings of Portugal, and it contains rare but charming intervals, green oases of legend and anecdote, such as the tale of King Lear with its happy ending, or the account of King Ramiro going to see his wife, who was a captive of the Moors. Count Pedro, by his humanity and his generous conception of what a genealogy should be, really made the book his own. It was naturally consulted by the early chroniclers, its worth was recognized by the ablest author of the Monarchia Lusitana, and recently, in the skilful hands of D. Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcellos, it has rendered invaluable service in reconstructing the lives of the thirteenth-century poets.

The Livro de Linhagens refers not only to King Lear but to Merlin, King Arthur, Lancelot, and the Isle of Avalon. Many other allusions, both earlier and later, to the Breton cycle, the matière de Bretagne, are to be found in early Portuguese literature: to the lovers Tristan and Iseult, to the cantares de Cornoalha, to the chivalry of the Knights of the Round Table. In the fourteenth century many in Portugal were baptized with the name of Lancelot, Tristan, and Percival; and Nun’ Alvarez (1360-1431) chose Galahad for his model, and came as near realizing his ideal as may be given to mortal man. In Gil Vicente’s time the name Percival had already descended to the sphere of the peasants: as Passival (i. II) in 1502 (Auto Pastoril Castelhano) and Pessival (i. 117) in 1534 (Auto de Mofina Mendes).

The early Portuguese Cancioneiros contain many references to this cycle, and the Cancioneiro Colocci-Brancuti opens with five celebrated songs, imitations of Breton lais, with rubrics explaining their subjects, and mentioning King Arthur and Tristan, Iseult, Cornwall, Maraot of Ireland, and Lancelot. Whether they were incorporated in the Cancioneiro from a Portuguese Tristam earlier than the Spanish version (1343?), or, as is more probable, directly from the Old-French Historia Tristani, their presence here is a sufficient witness to the Portuguese fondness for such themes. It was but natural that a Celtic people living by the sea, delighting in vague legends and in foreign novelties, should have felt drawn towards these misty tales of love and wandering adventure, which carried them west as far as Cornwall and Ireland, and also East, through the search for the Holy Grail. It was natural that they should undergo their influence earlier and more strongly than their more direct and more national neighbours the Castilians, whose clear, definite descriptions in the twelfth-century Poema del Cid would send those legends drifting back to the dim regions of their birth. (Even to-day connexion with and sympathy for Ireland is far commoner in Galicia than in any other part of Spain.) Unhappily, most of the early Portuguese versions of the Breton legends have been lost. King Duarte in his library possessed Merlim, O Livro de Tristam, and O Livro de Galaaz. The probability that these were written in Portuguese, not in Spanish, is increased by the survival of A Historia dos Cavalleiros da Mesa Redonda e da Demanda do Santo Graall, as yet only partially published from the manuscript (2594) in the Vienna Hofbibliothek. It was written probably in the fourteenth century, perhaps at the end of the thirteenth, although the Vienna manuscript is more recent and belongs to the fifteenth century, in which the work was referred to by the poet Rodriguez de la Cámara. It is a Portuguese version of the story of the Holy Grail, and, although not a continuous translation, was evidently written with the French original (doubtfully ascribed to Robert de Boron, author of a different work on the same subject) constantly in view. Traces of French remain in its prose. This was clearly part of a larger work, perhaps of a whole cycle of works dealing with the search for the Holy Grail. The only others that we have in print are the Estorea de Vespeseano and the Livro de Josep ab Arimatia, the manuscript of which was discovered in the nineteenth century in the Torre do Tombo. This, in the same way as the Demanda do Santo Graall, is a later (16th c.) copy of a thirteenth-fourteenth-century Portuguese translation or adaptation from the French, and retains in its language signs of French origin. The incunable Estorea de Vespeseano (Lixboa, 1496) is a work in twenty-nine short chapters, which only incidentally refers to the Holy Grail, but recounts vividly the event mentioned in the Demanda: the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus. It was also known formerly as Destroyçam de Jerusalem. It is an anonymous translation, made in the middle of the fifteenth century, not from the French Destruction de Jérusalem, but from the Spanish Estoria del noble Vespesiano (c. 1485 and 1499). Dr. Esteves Pereira believes that the 1499 Spanish edition is a retranslation from the Portuguese text originally translated from the Spanish.

Tennyson’s revival of the Arthurian legend in England evoked no corresponding interest in Portugal in the nineteenth century, and the primitive and touching story as published in 1887 has left Sir Percival in the very middle of an adventure for over a generation. The descent of the Amadis romances from the noble ideal of chivalry of King Arthur’s Court is obvious, but their exact pedigree, the date and nationality of the first ancestor of the Amadis who is still with us, has been the subject of some little contention.

Amadis de Gaula has indeed been doubly fortunate. The successor of Lancelot, Galahad, and Tristan as a fearless and loyal knight, he early won his way in the Peninsula; he was spared by the priest and barber in the Don Quixote scrutiny, and now when Vives’ ‘pestiferous books’, those ‘serious follies’, are no longer read widely, he has received a new span of immortality as a corpse of Patroclus between the contending critics. The problem of the date and authorship has become more fascinating than the book. Champions for Spain and Portugal come forward armed for the fight: Braunfels, Gayangos, Baist are met by Theophilo Braga, Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcellos, Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo, while Dr. Henry Thomas holds the scales. The ground is thick with their arrows. And beneath them all lies the simple ingenuous story as retold by Garci Rodriguez de Montalvo in or immediately after 1492 and published in 1508, still worth reading for its freshness and for its clear good style, which Braunfels, following up the praise in Juan de Valdés’ Diálogo de la Lengua (c. 1535), declared could not be a translation. The argument, conclusive in the case of the masterpiece of prose that is Palmeirim de Inglaterra, loses its force here, since Montalvo himself tells us that he corrected the work from old originals. Naturally we are curious to know what these antiguos originales were, but the question did not arise in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: readers did not then concern themselves greatly with the origin and authorship of a book; they were content to enjoy it. Evidently Amadis was enjoyed both in Spain and Portugal. It is mentioned in the middle of the fourteenth century in the Spanish translation, by Johan Garcia de Castrogeriz, of Egidio Colonna’s De regimine principum, at the very time, that is, when the Spanish poet and chronicler, Pero López de Ayala (1332-1407), was reading Amadis in his youth. Half a century later, in the last quarter of the fourteenth century, a poem by Pero Ferrus in the Cancionero de Baena refers to Amadis as written in three books. This is one of the most definite early references to Amadis, but of course reference to the book by a Spaniard does not necessarily imply that it was written in Spanish, and indeed some of the vaguer allusions may refer to a French or Anglo-French original. The most frequent Spanish references occur in the Cancionero de Baena, which was compiled in the middle of the fifteenth century, at a period, that is, which the last Galician lyrics written in Spain connected with the time when all eyes were turned to Portuguese as the universal language of Peninsular lyrics. Because the Portuguese language was used throughout Spain in lyric poetry, it is sometimes argued as if the Portuguese had no prose, could only sing. (The more real division was not between verse and prose but between the Portuguese lyrical love literature and the Spanish epic battle literature, and the early romances of chivalry, although written in prose, belong essentially to the former.) The prose rubrics of the Portuguese Cancioneiros and the Poetica of the Cancioneiro Colocci-Brancuti are sufficient to dispel this delusion. Whether this Poetica be contemporary (13th c.) of the lyrics or later (14th c.), it offers a striking contrast between the clumsiness of its prose and the smooth perfection of the poetry for which it theorizes. Miguel Leite Ferreira’s statement (1598) that Amadis is contemporary with the lyrics is therefore remarkable. He says that the archaic (time of King Dinis) language of the two sonnets—Bom Vasco de Lobeira and Vinha Amor pelo campo trebelhando—written by his father, Antonio Ferreira (1528-69), is the same as that in which Vasco de Lobeira wrote Amadis of Gaul. We know that King Dinis encouraged not only lyric poetry but also translations into Portuguese prose, but all the early Portuguese prose works are assigned to the fourteenth, not the thirteenth century. One of the earliest, the Demanda do Santo Graall, the language of which bears a close relation to that of the Cancioneiros, still belongs to the fourteenth century. Probably the later development of prose misled Leite Ferreira into making fourteenth-century prose contemporary with thirteenth-century verse. The Infante whom he here on the strength of the passage in Montalvo’s Amadis identifies with the son of King Dinis, not with the earlier Prince Afonso (c. 1265-1312), may as Infante have expressed dislike of a certain incident (the treatment of Briolanja) in the already well-known story, and his preference would be borne in mind when the Portuguese version was written in his reign (1325-57). If the first Peninsular version of Amadis was composed in Portuguese in the middle of the fourteenth century, it may have been eagerly read as a novelty by López de Ayala. In the fourteenth century most Spaniards read, a few wrote Portuguese lyrics; and there seems to be no reason why we should rigorously confine them to the reading of verse, to the exclusion of Portuguese prose. There is no means of deciding with certainty whether López de Ayala and Ferrus read Amadis in Spanish or in Portuguese, but there are inherent probabilities in favour of Portuguese. No one without a thesis to support would deny that, generally, the cycle of the Round Table, to which Amadis is so closely related, was more congenial to the Portuguese than to the Spanish temperament, that the geographical position of Portugal facilitated its introduction, and that, in the particular case of Amadis, the style and subject of the work, certainly of the first three books, are Portuguese rather than Spanish. Melancholy incidents, sentimental phrases and tears occur on nearly every page. Some critics even discern traces of Portuguese in the language.

But if we admit that Amadis was written c. 1350, who was its author? It is noteworthy that while in Spanish it had been attributed to many persons, in Portugal tradition has persistently hovered round the name of Lobeira. Unfortunately the Lobeira authorship has given far more trouble than that of prince, Jew, or saint in Spain. Zurara, basing his statement on an earlier fifteenth-century authority, in a perfectly genuine passage of his Cronica do Conde D. Pedro de Meneses, written in the middle of the fifteenth century, ascribes Amadis to Vasco de Lobeira. In the next century Dr. João de Barros (not the historian) and Leite Ferreira agree with Zurara. There was no reason why they should say Vasco rather than Pedro or João. According to Nunez de Leam, Vasco de Lobeira was knighted on the field of Aljubarrota (1385), according to Fernam Lopez he was already a knight in 1383. If he was not a young but an old knight at Aljubarrota, it is just possible that he wrote the book thirty-five years earlier, in the same way that the historian Barros wrote Clarimundo in his youth.

If he lived on through the reigns of Pedro I (1357-67) and Fernando (1376-83), and acquired new distinction in battle in the reign of the latter, this might account for Zurara’s assertion that he wrote Amadis in the reign of Fernando. But the chief obstacle to the authorship of Vasco is the existence in the Cancioneiro Colocci-Brancuti (Nos. 230 and 232 A) of a song by Joan de Lobeira, Leonoreta, fin roseta, which reappears with slight variations in Montalvo’s Amadis (Lib. II, cap. xi: este villancico). It would seem then that Joan, not Vasco, wrote Amadis. Joan de Lobeira, or Joan Pirez Lobeira, flourished in the second half of the thirteenth century, and so we have Amadis dating not only from the reign of King Dinis but from the first half of his reign. But does the existence of the poem entail that of a prose romance? The early mention of Tristan, e.g. by Alfonso X, does not necessarily imply the existence of a thirteenth-century Peninsular Tristan in prose. May we not accept the poem, written in the stirring metre, dear to men of action, used by Alfonso X (C. M. 300), as merely a proof of the popularity of the story, fondness for an episode perhaps treated in greater detail in the Anglo-French original than in Montalvo’s version? Certainly it is in the highest degree improbable that a Spaniard, writing at the end of the fifteenth century, should extract a poem from the Portuguese Cancioneiros and insert it in his prose; but the improbability disappears if in the middle of the fourteenth century a Portuguese (Vasco de Lobeira), perhaps drawn to the story by the poem of his ancestor, incorporated it in his romance. The late Antonio Thomaz Pires in 1904 discovered at Elvas the will of a João de Lobeira, mercador, who died there in 1386, and in Dr. Theophilo Braga’s latest opinion there were three Portuguese versions of Amadis: that of the father, this João de Lobeira, written in the time of King Dinis (a long-lived race these Lobeiras!), that of the son, Vasco, and a third by Pedro de Lobeira in the first half of the fifteenth century. The threefold authorship of this family heirloom is even more cruu de creer than the theory that a single Lobeira—Vasco—wrote it in the middle of the fourteenth century. A certain note of disapproval of Amadis as fabulous, shared by Portuguese and Spanish writers, perhaps indicates a fairly late date: its irresponsible fiction would be less excusable if it was written in an age which was beginning to attach serious importance to nobiliarios and ‘true’ chronicles. Moreover, if the Portuguese adaptation of an Anglo-French legend had been even remotely as developed as the form in which we now have it, the Infante Afonso must have seen at once that the faithfulness of Amadis was absolutely essential to the story. But especially the fact that the Portuguese Cancioneiros, familiar with Tristan and the matière de Bretagne, are silent on the subject of Amadis is significant.

In Gottfried Baist’s argument, based on a rigid division between early lyric poetry (as Portuguese) and early prose (as Spanish), the Leonoreta lyric, far from being a stumbling-block, is actually a sign of the Spanish origin of Amadis: as a fragment (14th c.) of a prose Tristan exists in Spanish, and five Portuguese Tristan lais figure in the Cancioneiro Colocci-Brancuti, so the Leonoreta poem belongs to a Spanish Amadis in prose. But although the priority and relations of early Portuguese and Spanish prose works are intricate and have not yet been thoroughly studied, it is clear that in many cases versions have been more carefully preserved in conservative Spain, while the Portuguese through neglect, fire, and earthquake have perished, and also that the natural tendency and development of prose, in view of the growing power of Castille and the greater pliancy of the Portuguese, was from Portuguese to Spanish, not from Spanish to Portuguese. And in one instance at least we have an early Portuguese prose work of the first importance, the Demanda do Santo Graall, which with its gallicisms can by no stretch of imagination be accounted a version from the Spanish. It is plainly legitimate to hold that the story of Amadis was first reduced to book form in the Peninsula in precisely the same way as was the story of Galahad, i.e. as a fourteenth-century Portuguese adaptation with the French text in view. Nicholas d’Herberay des Essarts, we know, claimed to have discovered fragments of Amadis en langage picard, Jorge Cardoso (1606-69) declared that Pero Lobeira translated Amadis from the French, and Bernardo Tasso, whose Amadigi appeared in 1560, believed (non è dubbio) Amadis to be derived da qualche istoria di Bretagna. Nor would the Portuguese, for all their familiarity with the story and topography of the Breton cycle, be likely to compose original works dealing with Vindilisora (Windsor) or Bristoya (Bristol). Unhappily, however deep may be our conviction (a conviction which stands in no need of antedating Hebrew versions of the 1508 Amadis) that the Peninsular Amadis was originally Portuguese, it has now ceased to belong to Portuguese literature; another instance, if we may beg the question, of the gravitation to Spain. The Portuguese text, of which a copy, according to Leite Ferreira, existed in the library of the Duques de Aveiro in the sixteenth century (1598), and, according to the Conde da Ericeira, in the library of the Condes de Vimieiro in the seventeenth (1686), is still missing, as it was in 1726.