1

A Pointless New Biography of Prince Henry of Portugal (called 'the Navigator')1

In 2000 Sir Peter Russell, the late distinguished Hispanic scholar of Oxford University, published a biography that he had been writing, off and on, for over forty years. His book, entitled Prince Henry 'the Navigator' A Life,2 was greeted with high praise almost everywhere. For example Frank McLynn writing in The New Statesman called it "an outstanding volume that will take decades to supersede", while Simon Heffer in Country Life opined the book "magisteriala first-class work of scholarship by a life-long expert in the field. It is hard to imagine it ever being surpassed." These opinions, however, appear not to have been shared, or at least did not deter, Joo Paulo Oliveira e Costa, an historian at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, from now some nine years later undertaking to write (in Portuguese of course) another biography of Prince Henry. How well has he succeeded? One of the singular virtues of Russell was that it completely swept away all the ideological rubbish that had for years overlaid Henry (like repeated layers of varnish on an antique painting), much of which emitted from Portuguese fascist historians of the

1 2

Joo Paulo Oliveira e Costa, Henrique O Infante (Esfera; Lisbon, 2009) Peter Russell, Prince Henry 'the Navigator', A Life (New Haven and London, 2000). Hereafter simply "Russell".

2 period of the New State. It was only after Russell had cleared the way, so to speak, that it became possible to approach Henry on a more objective basis. Costa however gives Russell no credit whatsoever for this accomplishment, and indeed Portuguese historiography in general has followed suit. Sadly enough Russell's "magisterial" biography has received little attention, in fact almost none at all, in Portugal. Its appearance has been greeted in Portugal by a very mysterious silence. Truth to tell, I am not aware of the existence of a single review of it in a Portuguese historical journal at the time it first appeared or since.3 It was translated into Portuguese in 2004, but that translation, as far as I know, has also never been reviewed in Portugal in any publication, serious or otherwise, either. In short in Portugal Russell's magisterial biography has been essentially a non-book. All this is very strange. Here we have the most extensive and elaborate biography ever written of the figure that argues to be the most iconic Portuguese of all and it is utterly ignored in Portugal itself! The reasons for this I will suggest later, but the snub administered to Russell by the Portuguese historiographical establishment is clear and obvious.4

The only review that ever appeared in Portugal that I know of was written by me in 2000 and published in the local English language weekly, the Anglo-Portuguese News It is reprinted with some changes in my volume of essays, Camponeses e Colonizadores: Estudos de Historia Luso-Brasileira (Lisbon, Estampa, 2002), 283-286. In it I praised Russell's achievement and pointed out how he had debunked many of the current myths about Henry that were commonplace in Portuguese culture. This brought about a series of attacks on Russell, on me, and on my review by the Duke of Braganza and others in subsequent issues of the newspaper. I have written an article about the whole affair, yet to be published, entitled "Storm over Sagres; or How a Book Review Caused a Duke to Lose his Cool". It can be viewed on the Internet however at http://www.virginia.edu/history/user/82. I did find a couple of tributes by Portuguese historians to Russell, but neither is a review of his book: Joao Gouveia Monteiro, "Sir Peter E. Russell-the 20th Century in the Palm of His Hand," e-JPH, Vol. 5:1(2007); and Maria Cristina Pimenta, "Sir Peter Russell: The Story of a Great Passion," e-JPH (same issue). Isabel Morgado S. E. Silva wrote a review in English published by the (non-Portuguese) Journal of World History, 14:3 (2003), 411-414.. 4 Russell's earliest work on Henry was also not much appreciated. He gave a brief lecture on Henry in London in 1960, [under Portuguese government auspices, if memory serves], in which he mentioned Henry's involvement in the African slave trade. This caused the organizers of the event to attempt to buy up all copies of his lecture to prevent this dangerous information from falling into the hands of the public.

3 Now, in his new biography Costa does deign to mention Russell occasionally and lists his translated biography in his bibliography but his remarks about the book are odd and very out of focus. He says in his Introduction: "These opposing theses [he refers here to the idea that Henry was motivated almost entirely by the idea of Crusade versus the idea that he was motivated by the search for wealth and power], both inappropriate, havetheir champions in Peter Russell, defender of the complete dominance of crusading ideas, who completely ignores Dom Pedro, and in Godinho who explains Henry's activities as predominately economically motivated."5 Thus right at the beginning of his new biography Costa goes off the rails very badly. First, he chooses to put Russell and Godinho at opposite ends of an interpretive spectrum: Godinho being exaggeratedly economic in his view while Russell is characterized as exaggeratedly religious. While this may be a valid criticism of Godinho it is a travesty of Russell's position. Indeed if he wanted to set up a dichotomy between a biographer who explains Henry's motivations as almost exclusively those of crusade he should have chosen a couple of earlier Portuguese biographers, Costa Brochado6 or Joaquim Bensaude7 who made Henry into nothing but a Crusader.8 To put Russell in the camp of authors like Brochado and Bensade is ridiculous and insulting. In fact it raises the question of whether Costa might have been unable to read Russell in the original English.9 Russell, a specialist in the history of western Europe (not just

Costa, 23 Costa Brochado, Dom Henrique O Navegador (Lisbon, 1960) 7 Joaquim Bensade, A Cruzada do Infante D. Henrique (Lisbon, Agncia Geral das Colonas, 1942) 8 Costa doesn't even list the work of these historians in his bibliography. 9 Costa references only the Portuguese translation of Russell in the few notes there are and the translation may well not convey the subtlety of Russell's treatment of various topics.
6

4 Portugal) in the late Middle Ages, understood and wrote from the intellectual perspective of Henry, something Costa is unable to do. Henry did not think in modern economic terms, rather his outlook was summed up in the traditional duo of "honor and profit" (honra e proveito). That is to say, he was always greedy for income and eager to increase his financial resources for the power these gave him but he was not economically minded in the modern sense and that is how Russell presents him. In fact Russell calibrates the balance between Henry's crusading zeal (always his term) and his financial interests very carefully contrary to what Costa maintains. He presents Henry's decisions (and this is one of the great merits of his biography) from the point of view and the mentality of Henry that he has penetrated profoundly through his unmatched ability to draw out the meaning and implications of documents,10 something Costa seems unable to do. And when Costa says that Russell is "totalmente omisso acerca de Dom Pedro" that is also clearly not the case. Russell discusses the question of Dom Pedro's involvement in Henry's activities in some detail but concludes, in contrast to Vitorino M Godinho, that there is no evidence at all that Pedro, not Henry, began the discoveries for which Henry then fraudulently took credit.11 Since Russell has clearly combed through the entirely of the evidence during his many years of study, Costa's accusation is ridiculous but very much in tune with his evident attempt to minimize Russell's work and accomplishment.

One suspects Russell's unique ability to understand the sense of the documents he discusses comes at least in part from the fact that he was also an expert in late medieval Iberian literature, which Costa is not. 11 This can be verified by a mere glance at Russell's Index (something sadly lacking in Costa biography) where there are a very large number of references to Dom Pedro. See also Russell, 373, n. 2 where he agrees with the assessment of Lon Bourdon, ed.. Chronique de Guine (Paris, 1994), 28, that the idea that Pedro, not Henry, began the discoveries "ne repose malheureusement sur rien."

10

5 In short, Costa avoids giving much credit, if any, to Russell's great biography.12 A Portuguese historian might have been excused for doing this during the period of the fascist Salazar regime when praise for a "warts and all" study of Henry would have violated the myths used to prop up the regime,13 but now that Salazarist demons have supposedly been exorcised from Portuguese intellectual life this is more puzzling. One has to wonder if Costa's minimization of Russell might have something to do with possibly having borrowed ideas from him or even mined his work's elaborate end notes for references to documents that he could then present as his own discoveries. Of course we cannot know for sure; all that can be said with certainty is that prior to Russell's biography of the year 2000, Portuguese historiography was markedly barren with respect to any detailed study of Prince Henry using all the available documentation. But, mirabile dictu, not long after a Portuguese translation of Russell's work with its copious notes appeared (2004), we suddenly have Costa's book, the first reasonably comprehensive biography of Henry written by a Portuguese historian in decades, if not ever.14 Now to get a better idea of what Costa may have added to what Russell accomplished let us take a look at the way each historian presents (1) the captivity of the Infante Fernando (1437); and (2) Henry's seafaring expeditions down the Mauritanian coast to capture slaves (1443-1448).

This is also clear from the fact that at the conclusion of his book, Costa lauds the industrious documentarian and transcriber, A. J. Dias Dinis without pointing out that these documents lay largely unused for years until Russell took them and gave them life in his biography. Nor is there, among all his "agradecimentos", a single mention of Russell in his "Nota Prvia." 13 See footnote 2. 14 In his Guia do Estudante de Histria Medieval Portuguesa (1964), Oliveira Marques could only cite one thin little biography of Henry by Vitorino Nemsio. Nothing of any importance by a Portuguese historian has appeared since then until this biography by Costa.

12

First, the Captivity of Fernando15

To begin let us give Costa the credit he deserves for making clear the inexcusable behavior of Henry, indeed his moral depravity, with regard to the redemption of his brother held hostage in Morocco.16 But in reading Costa one gets the impression he is the first biographer to adequately point out the cold heartlessness of Henry's behavior with regard to his brother's sufferings in captivity and his central role in bringing them about. Completely passed over is Russell's priority in this matter and all that he wrote about it nine years earlier in his biography. Instead Costa simply takes credit for ideas that first appeared in Russell almost a decade before. Further, Costa seems almost apologetic about what he has to say, evidencing a painful reluctance to admit Henry's vile behavior (which he downplays) as well as his ensuing lying and smarmy maneuvering in an attempt to cover his rear. Much of Henry's more contemptible wigglings, as detailed by Russell, he simply omits to tell. And he definitely fails to point out that Henry's betrayal of Fernando was a clear precursor to his later betrayal of his brother Pedro at the time of Alfarrobeira whom he pretended to support while negotiating with his enemies behind his back. When Henry had gotten what he wanted from them, he abruptly and expediently abandoned his brother. In this regard, Costa is clearly inferior in all respects to Russell and adds nothing whatsoever to his account.17
15 16

Russell, 167-194 and Costa, 213-242. The expedition was an abject failure and in order to permit the Portuguese to withdraw their troops Henry negotiated an agreement with Salah ben Salah in which his brother, Fernando, was turned over as hostage to insure compliance with the terms. 17 Another interesting omission in Costa is his failure to mention Henry's parecer outlining his reasoning in favor of the Tangier expedition (Monumenta Henricina (ed. A. J. Dias Dinis (Coimbra, 1960-1974), V, no. 101).Hereafter simply "MH". Russell terms it "incoherent." and it reveals Henry to be so emotively eager to wage war on Muslims that the urge seems to addle his brain. As Russell dryly remarks, the document "does little to enhance Henry's intellectual reputation" (Russell, 156).

Second, Henry's Expeditions Down the coast of Africa18

Here what immediately strikes the reader, above all, is the degree to which Costa downplays Henry's slaving activities. He has, of course, to admit that Henry's forays down the coast brought back quite a few slaves, but he makes sure to treat them as "just one" of the commodities in which Henry trafficked by repeatedly mentioning the seals ("lobos marinhos") that were slaughtered, the gold dust obtained, not to mention the "ovos de ema", etc. In fact, reading Costa one is left with the impression that Henry was much more eager to obtain seals and other things than human slaves when of course exactly the opposite is true. Likewise, Costa's account attributes far more importance to Henry's zeal for the "guerra santa" than to his greed for slaves as emphasized by Russell.19 To present Henry's glorious "explorations" down the Mauritanian coast as primarily motivated by slave raiding would not do. In short, Costa's whole attitude is to distract readers as much as possible from Henry's role as the prime mover, essentially the creator, of the Afro-Atlantic slave trade that became a virtual Portuguese monopoly in the following century. And although Costa notes that Henry's expeditions down the coast of Mauretania petered out when the area of Guinea Bissau was reached because the natives there were better able to defend themselves from seizure and attack and thus the possibility of slave capture plummeted, he fails to see that this fact makes it uncomfortably clear that Henry's expeditions had slaving as their prime goal, not any geographical curiosity or capture of seals.20 Thus it is Russell, not

18 19

Russell, 239-263 and Costa, 275-311. Thus contradicting completely his initial charge that Russell's biography exaggerated Henry's crusading motivations. See footnote 4. 20 Costa, 288

8 Costa, who shows that economic motivations and greed for the "proveito" of slave raiding were Henry's principal motivations in sponsoring these voyages and that conversion and crusade served primarily as rationalizations for this. Certainly one will not find in Costa any lapidary insight about the inate hypocrisy involved in this slave trading such as Russell's witty comment that "in Henryspeak enslavement and conversion were interchangeable terms."21 Instead Costa adheres to the tedious traditional presentation of Henry as a "visionary"22 with a "revolutionary character"23 whose African voyages "ripped open new horizons" thus "changing the world irreversibly" and "set off the Geographical Revolution" [capitals his]24, in short he simply reiterates the old nationalistic, reactionary/fascist "hype" of Henry as the greatest discoverer ever, the geographical "revolutionary/visionary" who ushered in the modern world, no less.25 ********** The one area in which Costa might well have improved on Russell and given us something new he utterly ignored. What is definitely missing in Russell is a discussion of Henry's sexuality. Instead Russell merely restates the conventional view that he was "chaste" and virginal. Here, if he had had the courage, Costa might have added something to Russell and made a genuine contribution to Henry's life story but sadly enough, he has done nothing in this regard. One cannot be sure but one suspects this may be due to the deepseated Portuguese tradition of homophobia that Costa

Cite Russell, 84; also 214-216. Costa, 133 23 Costa, 276 24 Costa, 276-277 25 Russell's claim in the Taylorian Special Lecture of 1960 that Henry was the object of a massive personality cult obviously did not endear him to the fascist historians fo the Salazar period.
22

21

9 apparently shares.26 In fact he gives the subject the briefest sideways glance, as if it were a live wire that might intellectually electrocute him if he touched it. Starting off from a premise that is wildly incorrect and completely contradicted by the sources, he flatly claims that: "during his 66 years of life [Henry] left no evidence of any affectionate relationship with any other human beingthe insinuations to the contrary have no documentary basis."27 This assertion is resoundingly contradicted by the testimony of one of O Infante's companions in battle at Ceuta, a Frenchman, Antoine de la Salle. Because of its pertinence it deserves quotation in full: And we shall recount the sorrow, the sighs and the tears that day and night the noble Lord Henry expressed over the death of his good servant who had raised him with such loving care and most honorablyand in particular [we will speak] of the aforementioned Lord Henry who despite the insistence of his father, his brothers or anyone else did not put aside his deep mourning. And when anyone sought to comfort him, he replied, to the king, his brothers and everyone else, "Ah sir! Ah! my brothers, Ah! all of your, my friends, how could any heart not be heavy at the loss of one so good, so loyal, so valiant, for such a good friend and servant as this one was to me, who day and night guided me" Whereupon his tears, cries and profound affliction would begin anew, and he remained in that state several days, for never was seen such sorrow as this. And to show how much he loved him and was beholden to him, after the year of
26

It would seem that the only Portuguese in history who were homosexual were gays who got arrested by the Inquisition, thus leaving evidence that cannot be denied. It is obviously to the Inquisition's credit that it managed to find all the gays that there were in Portugal, leaving no others to be found. 27 Costa, 68. Costa doesn't tell us where he found the "insinuations" he refers to, but one suspects he has in mind the essay of Harold B. Johnson, " Descoberta do Carcter do Infante D. Henrique: Uma Abordagem Freudiana," in Dois Estudos Polmicos (Fenestra:Tucson, 2004), 11-43, a study he never mentions either in footnotes or in his bibliography.

10 mourning he had observed for his mother the queen, he wore black for three months more, paying no attention to his beard or hair. In fact his grief seemed so excessive that Henry was finally reproved by his deceased friend's mother who told him "Ha!, Lord, what is all this? Where is your royal virtue, your dignity and your youth, to thus weep and mourn like a woman? This is very improper of you."28 Subsequent to this blunder, Costa goes on to miss (or purposely ignore?) an entire series of indications of Henry's emotional and sexual interest in other men. Nonetheless there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence clearly pointing in that direction, evidence detailed in a recent study of the topic that was readily available to Costa but that he chose to ignore.29 Here is some of the evidence.30 1. There is the admonition to him from his brother, King Duarte, that he should not give pleasure to men beyond what can be done with virtue and that he should not displease God to please another creature. 2. Costa completely passes over Zurara's statement in the introduction to the chronicle of Guin that Henry had unnamed "vices". Zurara makes it clear that he would prefer not to describe them, but adds that because he is an historian he has a professional duty to tell the truth. So instead of revealing precisely what these vices are he wiggles

28

Antoine de la Salle, Le Reconfort de Madame de Fresne, ed. Ian Hill (University of Exeter, 1979), 2932. Costa does not list this source in his bibliography and seems completely ignorant of it. 29 I.e., Johnson, unless his oblique reference to"insinuations" refers to Johnson. See note 24. 30 Here as background to the argument I make, it should be made clear that there was no legal impediment to Henry's being married since his status as administrator of the Order of Christ was that of a layman. Nor was there any physical impediment as is shown by the papal dispensations secured by his father that presume his marriageability. One therefore has to conclude that his rejection of any intimate female contact was entirely a personal choice.

11 out of his dilemma by giving hints, such as when he compares Henry to a known bisexual, Caesar, or when he cites John Chrysostom's statement that no man is without vices, doubtless expecting his more cultivated readers to be aware that Chrysostom was obsessed with the subject of homosexuality and wrote a vast amount about it. 3. Costa, indeed, never points out the fact that Henry was extremely eager to craft his public image to his liking (as Russell makes clear), and that to do so, he very likely got rid of a chronicle (by Cerveira) that may have revealed things about him he did not want known. Instead he collaborated with the royal historian Zurara to retell his life story in a chronicle whose composition he closely supervised. This makes it hardly surprising then that there is no explicit evidence (i.e., "smoking gun") in the record that openly states that Henry was homosexual.31 Indeed, how could anyone expect any such thing when homosexuality at the time was a crime meriting the death penalty?32 4. When Henry opined about what causes unhappiness in life he mentioned a long list of things including the company of women, marriage, as well as drinking, sleeping, singing, looking, listening, telling jokes, but, significantly enough, nowhere did Henry express any objection to the company of men. In fact quite the contrary. As an expert on Henry's personal living arrangements has written: "accustomed to abandoning rules of excessive decorum that were usually characteristic of an important feudal lord, [Henry] with a rich establishment, as well as being a bachelor without children, was

One needs, I think, to see the question of homosexuality in personages of the highest rank during the Middle Ages as being rather like that among movie stars today. Quite a few are gay, but they manage to disguise the fact very well. Is Costa nave enough to think that Henry, who so closely controlled his image, would have permitted written evidence of his sexuality to appear? Exactly the contrary. 32 Need one mention what happened to an English king (Edward II) publicly outted as an homosexual?

31

12 habituated to the gay and spontaneous conviviality of his (male) servants. He was much attached to them and a great number of them lived with him."33 5. In this regard one might mention in addition that Costa fails to note the constant presence of a large number of young houseboys ("criados") around Henry and whom Zurara describes as having been "brought up in his bedchamber"34. 6. In addition he seems blind to the (homo)sexual symbolism of Henry's divisa with its proliferation of acorns, a well-known classic symbol for the penis35 as well as to the fact that, 7. Henry fits perfectly into the classic psychoanalytical category of a "phallic-narcicist" whose relationship with women is typically disturbed by attitudes of depreciation of the feminine sex. Sex for such types often involves fellatio as well as a maternal attitude toward younger men. While one cannot expect a Portuguese historian to have had the advantage of having undergone psychoanalysis, one would think that any historian with a modern mentality would have some familiarity with Freudian psychology and concepts; and when confronted by a man who stayed unmarried throughout his life and who at age 42 openly sneered at the "company of women", would immediately have to suspect homosexual inclinations or at least want to investigate the matter. 8. To try to explain, as does Costa, that Henry didn't get married because "the holy war was more important him than the possibility of marriage" is simply laughable since being married would not have prevented him from pursuing "the holy war" in the least. Henry had plenty of time on his hands to devote to "the holy war" as revealed by his brother's

33

Joao Silva de Sousa, A Casa Senhorial do Infante D. Henrique (Lisbon, 1991), 315: " Com os moos da cmara, de ordinrio criados em sua Casa, eis que surgem seus familiares, comensais, e colaos" 34 See Johnson, 31, fn. 59, for details. 35 Johnson, 38-40.

13 complaint that he wasted most of his day eating, sleeping, and saying mass. Apparently Costa decided it was best to ignore the subject completely and not go into a topic that is very "touchy" in a society where attitudes toward homosexuality are supremely hypocritical.36 9. In short everything about Henry's affective or emotional life is banished from his biography as unfit to mention and what haunts this book is the old ghost of the fascist/reactionary image of the "chaste", sexless, and ever-virginal Henry so beloved by the Estado Novo.37 In conclusion one can say that although Russell's work is somewhat longer and more detailed than Costa's, the extra time it demands of the reader will be rewarded by the incomparably more subtle, nuanced and well documented account of Prince Henry's life that his biography provides, not to mention his sensitivity of style as well as his refreshing wit and irony. Russell was well equipped to give us the real Henry, warts and all, completely freed from the fascist/reactionary myths so long prevalent and without the traditional deference to Portuguese nationalistic preoccupations. Only with regard to Henry's sexuality does Russell disappoint and Costa has done nothing whatsoever to remedy that.

Harold B. Johnson University of Virginia

As anyone who has lived in Portugal for much time can testify, homosexuality is widespread in fact but seldom if ever discussed in public. Rather it is swept under the rug, as was the pedophilic abuse of orphan boys at the Casa Pia for so many years. 37 Even the eminent Portuguese historian, V. M. Godinho, could not help but express doubt that Henry remained a virgin all his life although he seems not to have picked up on the homoeroticism in the evidence. Of course Godinho was an historian at odds with the Salazar regime and thus didn't feel obliged to adhere to the "chaste and virginal" line of interpretation. See Vitorino M. Godinho, Documentos Sobre a Expansao Portuguesa (Lisbon, 1965), III, 365-366: " fortemente improvvel que o Infante se conservasse vrgem toda a vida."
36

14