Portuguese literature
of Camões, ‘not only the greatest lyric poet of his country, but one
of the greatest lyric poets of all time’[22]; with Fernam Mendez
Pinto’s travels, ‘as diverting a book of the kind as ever I read’[23];
or Corrêa’s _Lendas_, Frei Thomé de Jesus’ _Trabalhos_, or the
incomparable prose of Manuel Bernardes--know that, extraordinary as
were Portugal’s achievements in discovery and conquest, her literature
is not unworthy of those achievements. Unhappily the Portuguese, with
a notorious carelessness,[24] have in the past set the example of
neglecting their literature, and even to-day scarcely seem to realize
their great possessions and still greater possibilities in the realm of
prose.[25] The excessive number of writers, the excessive production
of each individual writer, and the _desleixo_ by which innumerable
books and manuscripts of exceptional interest have perished, are all
traceable to the same source: the lack of criticism. A nation of
poets, essentially lyrical,[26] with no dramatic genius but capable
of writing charmingly and naturally without apparent effort, needed
and needs a severely classical education and stern critics, to remind
them that an epic is not rhymed history nor blank verse mangled prose,
that in bucolic poetry the half is greater than the whole, and to
bid them abandon abstractions for the concrete and particular and
crystallize the vague flow of their talent. But in Portugal, outside
the circle of writers themselves, a reading public has hitherto
hardly existed, and in the close atmosphere resulting the sense of
proportion was inevitably lost, even as a stone and a feather will
fall with equal speed in a vacuum. The criticism has been mainly
personal,[27] contesting the originality or truthfulness of a writer,
without considering the literary merits of his work. To deprecate such
criticism became a commonplace of the preface, while numerous passages
in writers of the sixteenth century show that they feared their
countrymen’s scepticism, expressed in the proverb _De longas vias mui
longas mentiras_, which occurs as early as the thirteenth century.[28]
The fear of slovenly or prolix composition was not present in the same
degree. But these are defects that may be remedied partly by individual
critics, partly by the increasing number of readers. Meanwhile this
little book may perhaps serve to corroborate the poet Falcão de
Resende’s words:
Engenhos nascem bons na Lusitania
E ha copia delles.[29]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] A few Portuguese sixteenth-century writers in touch with Italy may
have known of their existence. But they were neglected as _rusticas
musas_. The references to King Dinis as a poet by Antonio Ferreira
and once in the _Cancioneiro Geral_ do not of course imply that his
poems were known and read. André de Resende seems to have been more
interested in tracing an ancestor, Vasco Martinez de Resende, than
in the poets among whom this ancestor figured (see C. Michaëlis de
Vasconcellos, _Randglosse_ XV in _Ztft. für rom. Phil._, xxv. 683).
[2] _Illud vero poemation quod vulgo circumfertur de Lessa ... nunc
vera cum plurimum illud appetant_ ... (Soares, _Theatrum_). Cf. F.
Rodriguez Lobo, _Primavera_, ed. 1722, pp. 240, 356, 469; Eloy de Sá
de Sottomayor, _Ribeiras do Mondego_, f. 27 v., 28 v., 120-1, 186;
_Canc. Geral_ of A. F. Barata (1836-1910), p. 235; Jeronimo Bahia, _Ao
Mondego_ (_Fenix Ren._, ii. 377-9). Cf. Brito, _Mon. Lus._ 1. ii. 2: _O
rio Leça celebre pelas rimas de nosso famoso poeta_.
[3] The documents of the Torre do Tombo are now in the able keeping of
Dr. Pedro de Azevedo and Snr. Antonio Baião.
[4] Even its title was inaccurately given, as _O Fiel Conselheiro_
(Bernardo de Brito), _De Fideli Consiliario_ (N. Antonio, _Bib.
Vetus_, ii. 241), _Del Buen Consejero_ (Faria e Sousa); correctly by
Duarte Nunez de Leam. A _Conselheiro Fiel_ by Frei Manuel Guilherme
(1658-1734) appeared in 1727.
[5] _De que não ha noticia_ (Goes, _Cronica de D. João_, cap. 6).
[6] _D. Francisco Manuel de Mello. Esboço biographico._ Coimbra, 1914,
an admirably clear and very important work, in which much light from
new documents is thrown on Mello’s life.
[7] It would be interesting to know how many English-speaking persons
have ever heard of the great men and writers that were King Dinis,
Fernam Lopez, Bernardim Ribeiro, Diogo Bernardez, Heitor Pinto, Frei
Thomé de Jesus, Ferreira de Vasconcellos, Frei Luis de Sousa, Antonio
Vieira, Manuel Bernardes. Their neglect has been largely due to the
absence of good or easily available texts; there is still nothing to
correspond to the Spanish _Biblioteca de Autores Españoles_ or the
many more modern Spanish collections. But is not even Camões still ‘an
abused stranger’, as Mickle called him in 1776?
[8] See F. de Figueiredo, _O que é a Academia das Sciencias de Lisboa_
(1779-1915) in _Revista da Historia_, vol. iv, 1915.
[9] His valuable study on Zurara, which has not been superseded by any
later work on the subject, is dated 1896.
[10] She has, indeed, laid the Portuguese people under an obligation
which it will not easily redeem. That no formal recognition has been
bestowed in England on her work (as in another field on that of Dr.
José Leite de Vasconcellos, of Snr. Braamcamp Freire, and of the late
Dr. Francisco Adolpho Coelho) is a striking example of our insularity.
[11] It does not include living writers. Its dates must be received
with caution.
[12] It has been found necessary to publish the bibliography separately.
[13] e. g. King Sancho II’s _Foros da Guarda_, printed, from a 1305
manuscript, in vol. v (1824) of the _Collecção de Ineditos_, or the
_Foros de Santarem_ (1385). The _Livro Vermelho do Senhor D. Affonso
V_, printed in the _Collecção de Livros Ineditos_, vol. iii (1793), is
also full of interest.
[14] e.g. the fourteenth-century _Livro de Cetreria_ of PERO MENINO;
MESTRE GIRALDO’S _Tratado das Enfermidades das Aves de Caça_ and
_Livro d’Alveitaria_; the _Arte da Cavallaria de gineta e estardiota_
(1678) by ANTONIO GALVAM DE ANDRADE (1613?-89); _Correcçam de abusos
introduzidos contra o verdadeiro methodo da medicina_ (2 pts., 1668-80)
by the Carmelite FREI MANUEL DE AZEVEDO (†1672); _Agricultura das
Vinhas_ (1711) by Vicente Alarte (i.e. SILVESTRE GOMEZ DE MORAES
(1643-1723)); _Compendia de Botanica_ (2 vols., 1788) by FELIX DE
AVELLAR BROTERO (1744-1828).
[15] Many will be found in _Portugalia_ and the _Revista Lusitana_.
[16] In the beginning of the sixteenth century Galician is already
despised in Portugal, and became more so as Portuguese grew more
latinized. Cf. Gil Vicente, ii. 509: _Pera que he falar galego Senão
craro e despachado?_; Chiado, _Auto das Regateiras: Eu não te falo
galego_.
[17] _Por ser lingua mais jêral_ (Vera, _Lovvores_), _mais universal_
(Sousa de Macedo). _Os grandes ingenios não se contentão de ter por
espera de seu applauso a hũa só parte do mundo_ (D. Francisco de
Portugal). Cf. Osorio, writing in Latin, _De Rebus_, p. 4, and Pedro
Nunez’ reason for translating his _Libro de Algebra_ into Spanish: _he
mais comum_, and the advice given to Luis Marinho de Azevedo to write
in Spanish or Latin as _mais geral_ (_Primeira Parte da Fundação,
Antiguidades e Grandezas da mvi insigne cidade de Lisboa. Prologo_).
Faria e Sousa condemns the practice of writing Spanish _glosas_ to a
Portuguese _mote_, and declares that he himself wrote in Spanish _con
gran pesar mío_. Frei Antonio da Purificaçam considered that had he
written his _Cronica_ in Latin or Spanish _fora digno de grande nota_,
in this following Frei Bernardo de Brito, who indignantly rejected
the exhortation to use Latin or Spanish (_Mon. Lus._ i, _Prologo_),
although he wrote under Spanish rule. Bernarda Ferreira de Lacerda
wrote in Spanish _por ser idioma claro y casi comun_. Simão Machado
explains why he wrote _Alfea_ in Spanish as follows (f. 72 v.): _Vendo
quam mal aceitais As obras dos naturais Fiz esta em lingoa estrangeira
Por ver se desta maneira Como a eles nos tratais._
[18] Portuguese spelling is a vexed and vexing question, complicated by
the positive dislike of the Portuguese for uniformity (the same word
may be found spelt in two ways on the same page both in modern and
ancient books; the same person will spell his name Manoel and Manuel).
In proper names their owners’ spelling has been retained, although
no one now writes Prince Henry the Navigator’s name as he wrote it:
Anrique. Thus Mello (modern Melo); Nunez (13th c.), Nunes (19th c.);
Bernardez (16th c.), Bernardes (17th-18th c.). The late Dr. Gonçalves
Vianna himself adopted the form Gonçalvez Viana. In quoting ancient
Portuguese texts the only alteration made has been occasionally to
replace _y_ and _u_ by _i_ and _v_.
[19] _Este desejo (de sempre ver e ouvir cousas nouas) he moor que
nas outras nações na gente Lusitana._ André de Burgos, _Ao prudente
leitor_ (_Relaçam_, Evora, 1557). It is displayed in their fondness for
foreign customs, for the Spanish language, for India to the neglect of
Portugal, the description of epic deeds rather than of ordinary life,
high-flown language as opposed to the common speech (_da praça_), &c.
Antonio Prestes calls the Portuguese _estranho no natural, natural no
estranjeiro_.
[20] In Spain it has had fervent admirers, notably Gracián. More
recently Juan Valera spoke of it as _riquísima_, and Menéndez y Pelayo
explored this wealth.
[21] F. Denis, _Résumé_ (1826), p. xx.
[22] Wilhelm Storck, _Luis de Camoens’ Sämmtliche Werke_, Bd. I (1880).
[23] Dorothy Osborne to Sir William Temple.
[24] For a good instance of this _descuido portugues_ see Manuel
Pereira de Novaes, _Anacrisis Historial_ (a history of the city of
Oporto in Spanish), vol. i (1912), _Preámbulo_, p. xvii. It is lamented
by the editors of the _Cancioneiro Geral_ (1516) and _Fenix Renascida_
(1716).
[25] Portuguese literature begins for most Portuguese with Camões and
Barros, and its most charming and original part thus escapes them. Cf.
F. Dias Gomes, _Obras Poeticas_ (1799), p. 143: Camões ‘without whom
there would have been no Portuguese poetry’; and ibid., p. 310: Barros
‘prepared the beautiful style for our epic writers’. Faria e Sousa’s
homely phrase as to the effect of Camões on preceding poets (_echólos
todos a rodar_) was unfortunately true.
[26] Much of their finest prose is of lyrical character, personal,
fervent, mystic. As to philosophy proper the greatest if not the only
Portuguese philosopher, Spinoza, a Portuguese Jew, left Portugal as a
child, and Francisco Sanchez (_c._ 1550-_c._ 1620), although probably
born at Braga, not at _a soberba_ Tuy, lived in France and wrote in
Latin. He tells us that he in 1574 finished his celebrated treatise
_Quod nihil scitur_, published at Lyon in 1581, in which, at a time of
great intolerance, he revived and gave acute and curious expression
to the old theory that nothing can be known. To modern philosophy Dr.
Leonardo Coimbra (born in 1883) has contributed a notable but somewhat
abstruse work entitled _O Criacionismo_ (Porto, 1912).
[27] Or political, or anticlerical, or anything except literary.
The critics seem to have forgotten that an _auto-da-fé_ does not
necessarily make its victim a good poet, and that even a priest
may have literary talent. A few literary critics, as Dias in the
eighteenth, Guilherme Moniz Barreto in the nineteenth century, are
only exceptions to the rule. It has been the weakness of Portuguese
criticism, more lenient than the gods and booksellers of ancient Rome,
to suffer _mediocres_ gladly.
[28] _C. da Vat._ 979 (cf. Jorge Ferreira, _Eufrosina_, v. 5: _como
dizia o Galego: de longas vias longas mentiras_).
[29] _Poesias, Sat._ 2. The remark of Garrett still holds good: _Em