38 (p. 22). Jerome ... Sallust ... so high a charge.—Here again is the truly characteristic mingling of sacred and profane learning, both almost equally authoritative to his mind, in Azurara. Cf. Sallust, Catiline, chs. ii, viii, li; especially viii.
39 (p. 22). Phidias ("Fadyas") ... the philosopher ... chapter on wisdom.—Here Santarem has the following notes:—
[α. The "height" of which Azurara speaks is the Parthenon, or Temple of Minerva, in Athens. The famous statue of that goddess, in gold and ivory, was made by that famous sculptor (Phidias), and placed by the Athenians in that magnificent temple]. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist., Bk. xxxiv, ch. xix.
[β. The philosopher is Aristotle. It is not unworthy of note that our author cites Aristotle in this place, and prefers his authority to that of Pausanias. This preference, which may also be frequently observed in the Leal Conselheiro of King D. Duarte, proves the great esteem in which the works of the Stagyrite philosopher were held among our ancestors (as well as in other nations) during the Middle Ages. Our learned men followed him in preference to Pausanias, even when treating of the antiquities of Greece].
40 (p. 23). Great Valerius.—Here again Santarem:—[This author, cited by Azurara, is Valerius Maximus, a writer of the time of Tiberius, who wrote De dictis factisque memorabilibus in nine books. He was a native of Rome, and therefore Azurara says, "of thy city.">[ Azurara is not mistaken, as Santarem suggests, in assuming that the Roman author did not only deal with the deeds of his compatriots but also described those of foreigners. Of the main divisions of V.'s work, the first book is devoted chiefly to religious and ritual matters, the second to various civil institutions, the third and three following books to social virtues; the seventh book treats of many different subjects. This treatise was very popular in the Middle Ages, and several abridgments were made, one by Julius Paris.
41 (p. 24). What Romulus ... Manlius Torquatus ... Cocles ("Colles") ... diminishing of his praise.—On this Santarem remarks: [T. Manlius Torquatus, the dictator, is here seemingly referred to; on whom see Livy, vii, 4, and Plutarch, i].
The contrast of Cæsar's gaiety with the strictness of Henry's life refers us to ch. iv (beginning), pp. 12, 13, of this version. Azurara had but a very inadequate conception (supplement from Cadamosto, Pacheco Pereira, and Barros) of the real scope of Henry's life-work, and his remarks sometimes sink into mere flattery; but the comparisons he makes here are not misjudged. The Infant was really one of the men who, like Cæsar, Alexander, Peter I of Russia, or Mohammed, force us to think how different the history of the world would have been without them.
42 (p. 24). Captain of their Armies.—Here Santarem:—[This detail is so interesting for the history of that epoch, that we judge it opportune to indicate here, for the illustration of our text, the names of these sovereigns. The invitation given by the Pope (as recorded here) to the Infant could only have taken place after the taking of Ceuta, a campaign in which the Prince acquired immortal glory, having commanded the squadron and been first of the princes to enter the fortress. In view of this, it appears to us that only after 1415 could this proposal have been made by the Pontiff; and also it seems as if the offer must have been made to him before the unfortunate campaign of Tangier in 1437, during the time in which the Infant was exclusively occupied with the business of the Kingdom and of Africa, and with his expeditions and discoveries. From this it appears likely that the Pope who invited him to become general of his armies was Martin V, and the year of the invitation 1420 or 1421, after the embassy which, the Greek Emperor, Manuel Palaeologus, sent to the Pontiff to beg for aid against the Turks. The Emperor of Germany of whom Azurara speaks was Sigismund (Siegmund), who, by reason of his close relations with the Court of Lisbon, and with the ambassadors of Portugal at the Council of Constance, could appreciate the eminent qualities of the Infant, and form the high opinion of him which he deserved. Lastly, the Kings of Castile and England of whom Azurara speaks must be D. John II, and Henry V.]—S. Santarem is probably wrong here. "Henry VI" should be read for "Henry V;" see Introduction to vol. ii, p. xv.
43 (p. 25). Discipline ... clemency.—Azurara here imitates somewhat the formal disputations of Seneca and Cicero. We may especially compare Seneca's De Ira, De Providentia, and De Clementia ad Neronem Caesarem libri duo; also, but with rather less close a parallelism, the same writer's De Animi tranquillitate, De Constantia Sapientis. The Elder Seneca's rhetorical exercises, Controversiarum libri X, and Suasoriarum Liber, were also, as far as the form goes, models for such discussions as are here conducted. Azurara's point, of course, is that, of the two extremes, Prince Henry leaned rather to "clemency" than to "discipline;" and though he by no means neglected the latter, he was content rather to err in generosity than in severity. Precisely the opposite is the view of some modern students: e.g., Oliveira Martins, Os Filhos de D. João I, especially pp. 59-63, 210-1, 267-270, 311-346.
44 (p. 26). St. Chrysostom ... something to asperse.—As to the Prince's critics, though in a slightly different sense, cp. what Azurara says in ch. xviii (beginning). The modern criticisms of the Infant's conduct may be read in O. Martins (Os Filhos, as cited in last note). According to this view, the Infant's genius was pitiless: he cared little or nothing for the captivity and torture of D. Fernando the Constant, who died in his Moorish prison after the disaster of Tangier; for the broken heart and premature end of D. Edward; or for the fate of D. Pedro. As little did he care for the misery of the Africans killed or enslaved by his captains, or for the unhappy life of Queen Leonor, mother of Affonso V. Not only was he indifferent to these sufferings, but indirectly or directly he was the efficient cause of the same. This extreme view, as regards the slave-raiding, is much weakened by Cadamosto's testimony, and Azurara's own admission in ch. xcvi (end) of this Chronicle (see Introduction to vol. ii, p. xxv). The truth seems to lie between Azurara and Martins: between the conceptions of Henry as a St. Louis and as a Bismarck.