Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo's «Prologo aos que lerem o Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares' Latin grammar

Texto

(1)HQ. HQ. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft. P. LP 6S. 6S H. HF. FL. Inhalt / Contents / Sommaire. Aufsätze / Articles Roberta Meneghel: Middle Voice — an intriguing lack in Stoic terminology ................................ 187 Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho: Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo’s “Prologo aos que lerem o Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina” and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ..... 207 Gonçalo Fernandes: A Ars minor donatiana do mosteiro de Alcobaça (séc. XIII) e a edição crítica de Holtz (1981) ........................................................... 229 Jacopo D’Alonzo: Linguaggio, imitazione ed empatia. La proposta di Johann Gottfried Herder ....... 243 Eulalia Hernández Sánchez, Mª Isabel López Martínez: Teorías de la arbitrariedad del signo en el Renacimiento español ..................... 261 María Tadea Díaz Hormigo: Una contribución a la historiografía lingüística saussureana. A propósito de la teoría de la motivación lingüística ..................................... 275 Claudia Mejía Quijano, Daniel Jaramillo Giraldo, Alexánder Pérez Zapata: La part de l’élève dans la voix du maître. Hommage aux élèves de Ferdinand de Saussure, à l’occasion du centenaire du Cours de linguistique générale .......... 287. Kurzrezensionen / Short Reviews / Notes de lecture. ...................... 307. Neuerscheinungen / New Publications / Publications récentes Ludger Kaczmarek: Collectanea — Collectabilia ................................................ 319. ISSN 0939–2815. 26.2 (2016).

(2) Begründet von Klaus D. Dutz & Peter Schmitter Herausgegeben von. Gerda Haßler (Potsdam) Angelika Rüter (Münster) in Verbindung mit David Cram (Oxford), Miguel Ángel Esparza Torres (Madrid), Stefano Gensini (Rom), Ludger Kaczmarek (Borgholzhausen), Masataka Miyawaki (Kawasaki), Jan Noordegraaf (Amsterdam), Jacques-Philippe Saint-Gérand (Clermont-Ferrand). Die Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft sind zugleich Organ der Gesellschaften “Studienkreis ‘Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft’” und “Werkverband ‘Geschiedenis van de Taalkunde’”. Veröffentlicht werden nur Originalbeiträge. Für unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte wird keine Haftung übernommen. Die Verfasser tragen für ihre Beiträge die Verantwortung.. © 2016 Nodus Publikationen. — Die in dieser Zeitschrift veröffentlichten Artikel sind. urheberrechtlich geschützt. Nachdruck oder Vervielfältigung, auch auszugsweise, verboten. Gedruckt auf chlor- und säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany.. ISSN 0939–2815. HQ P FL. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft. 6S H. HQ LP HF 6S. ___________________________________________________________________________. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho. Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo’s “Prologo aos que lerem o Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina” and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ABSTRACT This paper focuses on some key aspects of the critical review titled «PROLOGO Aos que lerem o Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina» by means of which the Oratorian Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo (1725– 1797) pretends to invalidate the Latin grammar De institvtione grammatica libri tres, first published in 1572 by the Jesuit grammarian Manuel Álvares (1526–1583). For the purposes of this paper, a choice of Figueiredo’s assertions is presented, contextualized and analyzed in the light of the Latin Philology contemporary to the Oratorian.. 1... Introducti. Seven years before the approval of the abbreviated version titled Novo methodo de grammatica latina, reduzido a compendio (11756; 111814; cf. Kemmler 2013b: 70) as one of the official Latin grammars of the Portuguese ancien régime’s education system in the 18th century by means of article 7 of the famous “Alvará” dated June 28, 1759 (Kemmler 2007: 33), the Oratorian António Pereira de Figueiredo (1725–1797) had begun with the publication of a comprehensive Latin-Portuguese grammar.1 Under the title Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina: Para o uso das Escólas da Congregaçaõ do Oratorio (Figueiredo 11752/53, 21754) the grammar’s first volume was published in 1752, the second in 1753. During the fol*. Researchers of the Centro de Estudos em Letras (CEL), Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real.. 1). Given that Figueiredo’s comprehensive grammar for Latin teachers was published under much the same title as the quite shorter pupil’s grammar, it seems adequate to apply the distinction between ars maior ~ ars minor for the two variants, in a way similarly to what Kemmler (2015: 7) established for the two main traditions of Álvares’ grammar. One might recall that the original distinction refers to the two traditions of the classical Latin grammar by Aelius Donatus (mid-4th century A.D.). __________________________________________________________________________________ Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, 26 (2016), 207–228 © Copyright 2016 by Nodus Publikationen, Münster. ISSN 0939–2815.

(3) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. 2.. Some notes for an understanding of Alvaresian grammar in Portugal. After the partial Venetian publication of the second book on syntax under the title De constrvctione octo partivm orationis Emanvelis Alvari lusitani e Societate Iesv libellus (Álvares 1571a),3 the printer and bookseller João da Barreira published in Lisbon the first complete edition of the Latin-Portuguese grammar 2) 3). According to Jordão (1863: 15), the 1777 edition is the first of the many editions that were printed by the royal printer Impressão Régia. In the same year, a second edition De constrvctione octo partivm orationis liber Emanvelis Alvari lvsitani e Societate Iesv: Cum explicationibus auctoris eiusdem (Álvares 1571b) begins with the publication of the author’s scholia.. P. Emmanvelis Alvari è Societate Iesv de institvtione grammatica libri tres (1572). As one can see in the modern facsimile edition, the licenses of the censorship process date from September 9, 1572 (Álvares 1974: fol. 1v). The grammar constitutes a big Quarto book with 243 text folios. In the tradition of Alvaresian grammar, this is what commonly was designated in Portuguese as ‘arte grande’ or ‘arte maior’, a branch of textual tradition for which Kemmler (2014, 2015) has recently been proposing the use of the Latin technical term ars maior. Shortly afterward, dated early January 1573, the licenses of a summarized version show it to have been published by the same printer under exactly the same title. In this grammar, destined to serve as a students’ manual, the author maintains the essence of the content of metagramatical description, all the while having eliminated most of the erudite scholia that are so typical for the ars maior. Constituting a small Octavo book with 148 text folios, it was commonly designated in Portuguese as ‘arte pequena’ or ‘arte menor’. Consequently, Kemmler (2014, 2015) has been proposing the Latin technical term ars minor for these summarized versions of Álvares’ grammar. One of the elements that typically appear in the ars minor’s editions is the small prefatory statement “Auctor Lectori”, directed by the author to his grammar’s readers.4 Another important term related to the Alvaresian grammar (albeit seemingly only restricted to editions published in Portugal) is the recognitio vellesiana. Since the publication of the ars maior’s 1572 editio princeps, the grammarian himself was encouraged by his superiors to continue working on an improved version of his work, and, indeed, that is what he went on doing until the end of his life, aided by several of his Jesuit brethren. The last of the Jesuits of the Évora school who were assigned the task was António Velez (1549– 1609), a native from the city of Portalegre in the Upper Alentejo. With no less than a 791 text pages in a large quarto format, his considerably increased recognitio was issued the impression license on October 14, 1595 (Álvares/Velez 1599: [ii]) — while the title page tells us that the printing process for this edition seemingly only ended four years later in 1599. Amongst a number of changes and additions, this edition stands out because of the introduction of an “Index totius operis” that presents the Latin forms (Álvares/Velez 1599: 741–791), most probably having been — as far as is currently known — the last edition of the ars maior to be published in Portugal. With a printing license dated August 7, 1603 (Álvares/Velez 1608: [ii]) António Velez also published a recognitio vellesiana of the ars minor in 1608. This quite altered edition of the pupil’s grammar occupies 172 text pages in quarto. To this augmented edition, the grammarian-editor added an “Index. FL 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. lowing century, both of the grammar’s variants had considerable editorial success (with several dozens of editions until the late 19th century). In spite of it being published without reference to the author’s name in the first two editions (Jordão 1863: 15), Figueiredo’s grammar went immediately on to constitute one of the most crucial elements in the staunch debate concerning the De institvtione grammatica libri tres by the Madeiran Jesuit Manuel Álvares (1526– 1583) during the fifties of the 18th century (cf. Freire 1964; Lima 1981; Santos 2005). In spite of their importance in a historical and methodological sense (to name but two important aspects), both of the Oratorian’s Latin grammars still have not received due attention in modern research dedicated to the history of linguistics in Portugal — which might be explained by the current decrease of attractiveness of the object language, Latin. There is, however, no doubt that, amongst the whole range of metalinguistic works that were elaborated by António Pereira of Figueiredo, both the erudition and the elevated degree of analysis the author manifests along his introductory paratext of the ars maior’s first volume confer special prominence to the “PROLOGO Aos que lerem o Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina” (Figueiredo 1752: i–cvii). With an editorial history that would end after the 1777 sixth edition of Figueiredo’s ars maior,2 this prologue, which occupies cvii pages (paginated in Roman numbers) in the first edition, is, without a doubt, one of the most elaborated paratexts to be found in old Portuguese or Latin-Portuguese metalinguistic works, having first been described in a recent paper by Kemmler/ Coelho/Fontes (2015). Leaving aside the paratext’s general presentation and taking into consideration the fact that, amongst its 107 pages, about a hundred are dedicated to the grammars published by the aforementioned 16th century Jesuit, we seek to discuss the role that the different editorial traditions of Manuel Álvares’ De institutione grammatica libri tres play in Figueiredo’s “Prologo”.. HQ. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. 4). Cf. Kemmler (2015: 9) for the Latin text and the corresponding English translation.. ___________________________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________________________. – 208 –. – 209 –.

(4) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. 3.. Álvares’ Latin grammar in the “Prologo” of the Novo Methodo. Although Manuel Álvares’ name already is mentioned amongst several noteworthy modern Latin grammarians in the beginning of the “Prologo”, Figueiredo (1752: ii) goes on by discussing the improvements introduced by the revisions of Jacob Voorbroek alias Jacobus Perizonius (1651–1715), which were added to Sánchez de las Brozas’ Minerva (1587). In his reasoning, if the most important international grammars can be the object of pertinent and justified criticism, the same should apply to metalinguistic production in Portugal. Following the same line of thought, the grammarian shows the true objective of his metagramatical considerations throughout his “Prologo”: Mas para que he dilatarmonos em referir exemplos estranhos, quando temos tanto á maõ os nacionaes? No grande P. Alvarez temos da presente materia tanto mais illustre, e efficaz argumento, quanto he mais conhecida, e respeitada entre nós a sua incomparavel erudiçaõ, e vulgar nas Escolas deste Reyno a sua nunca assaz louvada Arte. Foy o P. Manoel Alvarez hum homem de erudiçaõ rara, assim nas letras Gregas, como nas Latinas: Poeta insigne, Grammatico doutissimo; e como tal, merecedor de muitos, e mui honorificos elogios, que lhe fizeraõ Vossio, Scioppio, Bangio, Morhofio, Nicolao Antonio, e outros. Foy finalmente hum daquelles famosos Heroes, que no seculo XVI. illustraraõ com a sua litteratura o nosso Reyno, servindo de gloria aos nacionaes, de inveja aos estranhos, e a huns e outros de admiraçaõ. Estes taõ relevantes, e attendiveis predicados foraõ causa; para que se encarregasse a composiçaõ de huma Arte, por onde se aprendesse a Grammatica Latina nas Escolas, que de annos atraz estavaõ acertadamente entregues á direcçaõ, e magisterio da sagrada, e preclarissima Companhia de Jesus. Applicou-se o douto P. a compor esta Arte com aquelle estudo, madureza, e perfeiçaõ que se devia esperar de hum sojeito taõ abalizado neste genero de letras, e em fim do anno de 1572. a deu á luz em Lisboa, dividida em tres livros com este titulo: Emmanuelis Alvari è Societate Jesu de Institutione Grammatica Libri tres. He impressa em quarto, na Officina de Joaõ da Barreira, Impressor Regio. Passados onze annos, no de 1583. se reimprimio em Lisboa a mesma Arte, na Officina de Antonio Ribeiro; mas já alterada em muitas cousas, e pela maior parte sem os Escolios da primeira. Esta segunda vimos nós na Real Bibliotheca de Sua Magestade Fidelissima. Da primeira conserva a nossa Livraria hum exemplar. De nenhuma faz mençaõ a Bibliotheca dos Escritores da Companhia o P. Filippe Alegambe, mas somente da impressaõ Eborense de 1599, illustrada, e correcta pelo eruditissimo P. Antonio Vellez; ou porque naõ teve dellas noticia; ou porque quiz 5). For more references and information on the Velez’ augmented edition, see the paper Iken (2002) dedicated to this lexicographical Latin-Portuguese monument.. P. dar a conhecer seu Author, so pelas ediçoens mais correctas. (Figueiredo 1752: iii–iv). In his presentation of Manuel Álvares as a Latin-Portuguese grammarian, Figueiredo begins by eulogizing the historical person of the 16th century Jesuit without forgetting the international reception his grammar enjoyed, especially in 17th European grammaticography. After these very benevolent introductory words, Figueiredo informs about the known editions of Álvares’ grammar and the libraries he was able to consult. As for the reference to the Belgian Jesuit Philippe Alegambe (1592–1652), it seems obvious that Figueiredo is to referring to the Latin biographical sketch of Álvares’ life in the second edition6 of the Bibliotheca Scriptorvm Societatis Iesv, initially prepared by the Spanish hagiologist Pedro de Ribadeneira (1527–1611) published in 1643 by the Belgian Jesuit historiographer Philippe Alegambe and reedited in 1676 by the English Jesuit Nathaniel Bacon alias Nathaniel Southwell (1598–1676), that offers the following information:. FL 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. totivs artis”5 of 68 pages (with independent pagination), constituting an important paralexicographical text by offering the Latin words and their equivalents in Portuguese (Álvares/Velez 1608: 1–68).. HQ. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. EMMANVEL ALVAREZ natione Lusitanus, patria ex Insula Madera, seu Materia, pridie nonas Iunij anno salutis 1546. ætatis 20. in nostrorum numerum adscriptus est; qui cùm eximia vitæ integritate, prudentiaque præstaret, Rectoris Collegiorum Conimbricenis, Eborensis, Olyssiponensis, Præpositi etiam Domus Professæ S. Rochi munere functus est, votis 4. solemnibus illigatus ab anno 1560. sed cum non minùs tum exteris omnibus, tum verò humanioribus potissimùm litteris excelleret (qua erat humilitate, caritateque præditus) in formanda ad pietatem Iuuentute, & ad Latinam, Græcam, atque Hebraicam linguam instituenda, expoliendaque plurimos annos impendit. Demum bonorum operum plenus in Collegio Eborensi vitam cum morte commutauit die 30. Decembris anno salutis 1582. Scripsit Libros de Arte Grammatica, valdè præclaros, qui doctis viris mirifìce probantur, & quos noster Antonius Vellesius Lusitanus & ipse, commentatio illustrauit. Eboræ 1599. in 4. Quanti porro libros hos fecerint Gaspar Scioppius, & Gerardus Ioannes Vossius viri Litteraturæ humanioris admodum periti, & quibus in locis editi fuerint hi libri, vude (si lubet) in Bibliotheca Hispana Clarissimi Viri Nicolai Antonij. (Ribadeneira/Alegambe/Southwell 1676: 188). Even if the referral by the three Jesuit authors documents mostly solid knowledge concerning the Madeiran grammarian’s biography (with the exception of the year of death, which does not concur with commonly accepted tradition),7 6). 7). Figueiredo’s observation cannot refer to the first edition of the Jesuit’s biography, given that Ribadeneira/Alegambe (1676: 100), while offering somewhat rudimentary bibliographical information, do not yet supply any reference to the 1599 ars maior: «Libros de Arte Grammatica, valdè præclaros, qui doctis viris mirifìce probantur, quos & Cõmentariis copiosè Antonius Vellesius, Lusitanus & ipse, illustrauit». António Franco (1662–1732), the historiographer and biographer of the Society of Jesus in Portugal since its foundation until the beginnings of the 18th century, offers the following information on Manuel Álvares’ death: «Estando em o collegio de Évora nos ultimos tempos teve huma larga enfermidade, em que se ouve com grande exemplo. Della falleceo em trinta de Dezembro de mil quinhentos oitenta, & tres» (Franco 1719: 104).. ___________________________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________________________. – 210 –. – 211 –.

(5) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. Do que temos dito se vê a falsidade, com que o moderno Autor da Arte Explicada escreveo na sua Prefaçaõ: ser a Arte do P. Alvarez a luz primeira que em Portugal nos amanheceo, para a noticia da Latinidade: de tal sorte, que antes della se publicar, o Latim entre nós era taõ alheio da sua pureza, como proprio da ignorancia. Pois he certo, que muito antes do P. Alvarez eraõ conhecidas, e praticadas neste Reyno muitas Artes de Grammatica Latina, como a de Estevaõ Cavalleiro, Mestre de Resende, impressa em Lisboa no anno de 1516. a de D. Maximo de Sousa, Conego Regular de S. Cruz, impressa em Coimbra no anno 1535. a de Nicolao Clenardo, de naçaõ Flamenga, porém Mestre, e Professor publico em Portugal, impressa em Braga no anno 1538. a de Jeronimo Cardoso, impressa em Lisboa no anno 1557. a de Fernando Soares Mestre do Serenissimo Duque de Bragança, impressa no mesmo anno, em Coimbra. (Figueiredo 1752: iv–v). As a means of a response to the above statement by João de Morais Madureira Feijó (1689–1741), Figueiredo documents knowledge of most of the Latin-Portuguese grammars that had been published previous to the Álvares’ work. Thus, he refers to the works by the grammarian Estevão Cavaleiro (Noua grammatices Marie matris dei virginis ars cuius author est magister Stephanus eques lusitanus, 1516), the Augustinian friar Máximo de Sousa (Institutiones tum lucide, tum compendiose latinarum literarum, 1535), Nicolaes Cleynaerts (Jnstitutiones Grammaticæ Latinæ, 1538) and Jerónimo Cardoso (Grammaticae introductiones breuiores & lucidiores, 1552; Institutiones in linguam latinam breviores et lucidiores 1557), as well as Fernando Soares Homem (Grammatices duo Compendia eo modo in methodum contracta ut nihil redundet, aut desit, 1557). Without a doubt this sample of his knowledge of 16th century Latin-Portuguese grammaticography is impressive, but the Oratorian could even have referred to an additional number of grammarians whose works were published in Portugal in the 16th century: Duarte Pinhel (Latinæ Grammatices Compendia, 1543), Jan van Pauteren (Carmina Ioannis Despauterij De arte grammatica cum quibusdam alijs ad puerorum institutionem necessarijs, 1555) and Ruy López de Segura (Grammaticae institutiones a Roderico Lopez a Sigura nuper aeditae, 1563).8 Only in the following paragraph does the Oratorian grammarian come around to exposing the true program of his prologue, meant to render visible the errors and mistakes, which he himself, as an 18th century grammarian, judges to have observed through the handling and the analysis of several copies of Álvares’ grammar: 8). For more information on the 16th century Latin-Portuguese grammars, see Kemmler (2013: 159–160), Ponce de León Romeo (2015) and the respective references in this paper.. ___________________________________________________________________________ – 212 –. P FL 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. the bibliographical information falls quite short of what can be found in the source of the Jesuit’s biographers, Bibliotheca Hispana nova sive Hispanorum scriptorum qui ab anno 1500 ad 1684 floruere notitia by Nicolás Antonio (1783: 341) — that supplies the same doubtful year of death.. HQ. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. Tornando à Arte do P. Alvarez: quem vendo no seu frontispicio o nome de taõ grande homem, naõ esperaria huma Arte livre do mais leve defeito, erro e imperfeiçaõ? Mas o contrario mostrou a experiencia, e haõ de mostrar os muitos erros, descuidos, e faltas notaveis, que abaixo referiremos; das quaes humas se foraõ emendando pelo tempo adiante, outras se conservaõ ainda nas impressoens de Evora. A esta relaçaõ nos move unicamente o grande desejo que temos, de que por ella aprendaõ, e conheçaõ os Leitores a summa difficuldade, que comsigo traz a composiçaõ de huma Arte: e á vista do que nella errou o mayor Grammatico, e o mais famigerado Mestre, se naõ admirem do que neste Novo Methodo lhes parecer menos acertado. De caminhos verseha a cegueira, e preoccupaçaõ daquelles, que cuidaõ, que os acertos só se pódem, e devem buscar nas Artes, por onde estudaraõ: e que das outras só se podem aprender erros, e desacertos. (Figueiredo 1752: v–vi). To advance an explanation for the elevated number of topics he finds to be worthy of criticism in the editions of the Jesuit’s grammar, Figueiredo starts by recognizing (albeit in a rhetorical sense) how difficult a task the elaboration of a grammar is — a feature we believe is meant to serve as a captatio benevolentiae for the author’s Novo Methodo. Proceeding, Figueiredo (1752: vj–xlvii) devotes himself to an indication and detailed discussion of what he identifies as being mistakes or debatable information that can be found in the Alvaresian ars maior of 1572. For this effect, the 18th century philologist regularly goes on to offer bibliographical references that refer to the respective folio of the editio princeps.9 The Oratorian shows himself to be quite concerned with the philological pertinence of the statements that can be found in Álvares’ Latin-Portuguese grammar. To offer but an example of this kind of comment, let us take a look at Figueiredo’s observations concerning Álvares’ marginal note on the Latin forms ambo and duo.10 Adverte o P. Alvarez, serem mais do verso, que da prosa, os accusativos masculinos Ambo, e Duo. So nos exemplares de Tito Livio achou delles Gronovio mais de quatorze exemplos. De Cataõ, Cicero, Varraõ, Cesar, Vitruvio, Sallustio, Ulpiano, Papiniano, Justino, Suetonio, Vegecio, e outros; saõ innumeraveis, os que observaraõ outros modernos Criticos. Tantos se naõ costumaõ vulgarmente apontar dos Poetas. O que supposto, parece vãa, e superflua, aquella precauçaõ, ou advertencia do P. Alvarez: a qual elle todavia pretende confirmar, dando injustamente por corrupta em Cicero a mesma liçaõ, que achada nos melhores, e mais venerandos Codices Mss. (como o Florentino, o Greviano, o Palatino) representaõ com 9). In the Oratorian’s nomenclature, ‘pag. 1’ it is to indicate the folio recto and ‘pag. 2’ the folio verso, Thus, in the footnote ‘(2) fol. 6. pag. 1’, Figueiredo (1752: vi) refers to the paradigm of the adjective breuis he is discussing, which indeed can be found in Álvares (1974: fol. 6r). 10) Álvares (1974: fol. 7r): «Duo, & Ambo accusandi casus generis masculini potius ad Poëtas, quã ad alios scriptores pertinent. Cic., Appio, lib. 3, epistola quarta, Duos enim duarǊ aetatǊ plurimi facio eadͅ ratione Cn. Pompeium filiæ tuæ socerum, & M. BrutǊ generǊ tuǊ. sic enim habent libri correcti, non duo, vt quidã legit».. ___________________________________________________________________________ – 213 –.

(6) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. Figueiredo declares himself to be opposed to Álvares’ somewhat restrictive reading of the use of ambo and duo, two of the Latin nomina anomala. Given that, in the extent of his own research, he was able to identify a considerable number of classic Latin sources, Figueiredo (1752: xi) condemns the short Alvaresian statement on this matter. He stresses that his considerations are based on ‘modern critics’; in other words, in the present editorial context of Cicero’s epistolary work, known as M. Tullii Ciceronis epistolarum libri XVI. ad familiares. Amongst its many editors, he mentions the Italians Piero Vettori (1499–1585) and Leonardo Malaspina (d. 1571),11 the French Robert Estienne (1503?–1559) and Antoine François Prévost (1697–1763), the Belgian Jan Gruter alias Gruterus (1560–1627), the Germans Johann Georg Graeve alias Graevius (1632–1703) and Johann Friedrich Gronow alias Gronovius (1611– 1671), the Dutch Cornelis Schrevel alias Cornelius Schrevelius (1608–1661), Isaac Verburg alias Verburgius (1684–1745) and Gerrit Janszoon Vos alias Gerhardus Johannes Vossius (1577–1649). Figueiredo shows to have good knowledge of several editions of Álvares’ grammar, which becomes obvious in the example of his comments on one of the rules meant for students to memorize the gender of nouns: Antes que passemos a diante, naõ será fóra de proposito trasladar aqui esta Regra, Est communis duam, da sorte que a traz a Arte Lisbonense, e depois della a Veneziana: para que conferindo os Leitores curiosos huma ediçaõ com outra, e ambas com a pequena vulgar Eborense, que hoje corre: lhes sirva esta Regra coimo de exemplar das muitas emendas, e alteraçoens, que nas Impressoens posteriores tem padecido a Arte Lisbonense. Diz pois assim a Arte Lisbonense: Est commune duûm sexum quod claudit utrunque. Articulo gemino, veluti bos, fortis, & hostis.12 Est commune duûm vates, antistes, & hostis, Affinis; miles, cum cive, cliente, sacerdos, Dux, canis, atque comes, bos, sus, autorque, parensque; Municipi conjux, adolescens, augur adhærent. Daqui naõ passaõ os versos da Arte de Lisboa. A de Veneza, impressa pouco depois, no anno 1575, diz assim: Est commune duûm, sexum quod claudit utrunque.. HQ P FL. applauso dos eruditos as ediçoens mais celebres, e correctas do mesmo Cicero: como a de Victorio, a de Roberto Estevaõ, a de Grutero, a de Grevio, a de Gronovio, a de Schrevelio, a de Verburgio, a de Prevost: pelas quaes estaõ Vossio, Malaspina, e outros Criticos. (Figueiredo 1752: ix). 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. Articulo gemino veluti bos, fortis, & hostis. Antistes, juvenis, vates, patruelis, & infans, Affinis, miles, cum cive, cliente, sacerdos, Et comes, atque canis, sus, dux, autorque, parensque, Municipi conjux, adolescens, augur adhærent.13 Estes saõ os versos da Arte Veneziana. A pequena vulgar de Evora, que hoje anda nas maõs de todos, sabem muito bem os que por ella aprendem; trazer muito mais emendada, alterada, e acrescentada, a presente regra: por isso omittimos aqui os seus versos, e passamos outra vez á Lisbonense. (Figueiredo 1752: xii–xiii). As can be seen in the following citation, it is by no way an exaggeration by Figueiredo when he states that the rule would be considerably increased in the 1599 ars minor printed in Évora: EST commune duûm, sexum quod claudit vtrumq[ue]. Articulo gemino: veluti Bos, Fortis, & Hostis, Affinis, Custos; Index, cum Vate Sacerdos, Obses, & Antistes, Iuuenis, Cernes atq[ue] Satelles, Dux, Canis, atq[ue] Parens, Ciuis, Popularis, & Hospes, Conq[ue] tubernalis Vindex, Sus, Exul, & Auctor, Miles, & Interpres, cum Indice Testis, & Auspex, Artifici Princeps, Hæres, Paruelis, & Infans, Municipi Coniux, Adolescens, Augur adhærent. Péruigil, atque Vigil, tandem cum Nemine Felis. (Álvares/Velez 1608: 61). It can be observed that, in the ars minor’s 1608 recognitio vellesiana, the rule in question suffered an increase from six to ten verses — to which Velez also added a marginal scholion that almost occupies half of the space of the rules themselves.14 13). Besides identifying the edition Leonardi Malaspinae In epistolas M. Tvllii Ciceronis ad Aticvm, Brvtvm, et Q. fratrem, emendationes ac suspiciones by Malaspina (1563), we were not able to obtain any additional information on the author. 12) As a matter of fact, only the first two lines are part of the proper text of Álvares (1974: fol. 64v), while the remaining four lines can be found in the following scholion in Álvares (1974: fol. 65r).. Just as indicated, this text can be found in the Venetian ars maior. It is, however, worth noticing that there are some divergences in the punctuation of these verses (separated by a scholion) — the bold types that show changes of graphic and typographic nature are ours: Est commune duùm, sexum quod claudit vtrunque Articulo gemino veluti, bos, fortis, & hostis. [...] Antistes, iuuenis, vates, patruelis, & infans, Affinis, miles, cum ciue, cliente, sacerdos, Et comes, atque canis, sus, dux, autorq[ue], parensq[ue], Municipi, coniux, adolescens, augur adhærent (Ávares 1575: fol. 154) The changes in the text of the third and fifth verses seem to be a result of an intervention Figueiredo himself. While the fifth verse is the same since the editio princeps of the Lisbon ars minor lisboeta, the third verse is as follows: Additur antistes, vates, patruelis, & infans, (Álvares 1573: fol. 46 r). 14) The consulted editions lead to a belief that the typographic composition may have been reworked early on in the editorial tradition of the artes minores printed in Évora. Thus, the textual components, which, in Álvares/Velez (1608), undoubtedly were scholia with a marginal character, came to be part of the proper text of the grammar in the subsequent editions (Álvares/Velez 1659: 105–106; Álvares/Velez 1744: 121).. – 214 –. – 215 –. 11). ___________________________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________________________.

(7) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. Para que os Leitores formem o devido conceito, de quaõ graves, e solidos sejaõ estes fundamentos: lhes advertimos aqui, que os Codices Mss. de que se valeo Harduino, passaraõ de 16. todos, ou quazi todos de boa nota, e muitos de taõ veneranda antiguidade, que de dous Regios hum tinha quasi 500. annos, outro passava de 800. dos Colbertinos hum tinha 500. annos, dous 400. o Parisiense dos PP. Jesuitas, contava quasi 600. annos: o da Bibliotheca de Thuano tinha 800. Tudo consta do catalogo dos Mss. que o mesmo Harduino poz no primeiro tomo, em ambas as Impressoens. (Figueiredo 1752: xix). In this paragraph, the Oratorian refers to the philological edition Caii Plinii Secundi Historiæ naturalis libri XXXVII (11685, 5 volumes; 21723, 2 volumes) by the Roman naturalist Gaius Plinius Secundus Maior alias Pliny the Elder (ca. 23–79 AD) that had been elaborated by the French Jesuit Jean Hardouin (1646–1729). To support his argument, Figueiredo bases himself on the number and the antiquity of the handwritten codices Hardouin himself affirms to have consulted, albeit without questioning the variable degree of trustworthiness of those codices that only a critical study might show.15 Along the same path, it is a little further on that Figueiredo directs the following rhetorical question to his ‘illustrated’ readers: Os que sabem conhecer, que cousa sejaõ ediçoens correctas, e como taes celebradas pelos homens mais intelligentes nesta materia, reguladas, e fundadas no testemunho de muitos Codices Mss. antigos, de boa nota, e contestes entre si: digaõ agora, se aquella liçaõ alii volvocem appellant he taõ segura, como ostentava o P. Alvarez: e como devia ser para se provar convincentemente o nome Volvox. (Figueiredo 1752: xx). This passage corresponds to the conclusion of a quite lengthy discussion by Figueiredo about the following statement of Álvares’ inside of a more elaborate scholion dedicated to the Latin nouns that end in <-x>:16 Voluocis meminit, idӴ lib. 17. c. vlt. Alij voluocem appellant animal prærodens pubescentes vuas: non est itaque barbarü vt quidam putat. (Álvares 1974: fol. 73r). 15). Although it is done not too systematically, the inventory of Hardouin’s sources of can be found (amongst other observations) in the editor’s foreword “Lectori” in Plinius Secundus (1685,I: [xiii–xlii]; see also, with some changes, Plinius Secundus (1723,I: [ix–xviii]). 16) Figueiredo (1752: xvii) opens his opposition to Álvares’ reading with the following words: «Para prova do nome Volvox, que na Regra X, dato fœmineis, exceptuara por masculino, cita o P. Alvarez no Escolio este lugar de Plinio [...]. Com este unico texto dá o doutissimo P. por taõ bem provado o nome Volvox; que delle, como de huma autoridade incontestavel, tirou mui confiadamente por conclusaõ, naõ ser barbaro o nome Volvox, como alguem cuidara».. P. As a matter of fact, Álvares refers to the last chapter of Plinius’ book 17, offering precisely the version that can be found in a 16th century edition organized by the Italian humanist Alessandro Benedetti (1452–1512) in 1510 (Plinius Secundus 1510: fol. 380r). We do not know when the first divergent versions of this reading were introduced in the subsequent editions of Plinius’ work, but, without a doubt, special importance falls to Hardouin’s renowned edition in which he introduces the version “Alii volucre appellant animal prærodens pubescentes uvas [...]” (Plinius Secundus 21723,II: 91), offering, further on, the following explanation in his “Notae et emendationes”:. FL 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. Along his paratext, Figueiredo voices his concerns about the criterion of a philological work that, in his understanding, must oblige any author of a grammar of classic Latin to study the entirety of sources based on manuscripts and trustworthy editions.. HQ. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. XLII Alii volucre appellant animal. ] Sic MS S. Reg. 1. 2. Colb. 1. 2. 3. Th. & ceteri omnes: Volvocem, ut in libris impressis legitur, plane nullus. Quin & Columella, lib. de arboribus, cap. 15 volucram vocat. Genus est animalis, inquit, volucra appellantur: id fere prærodit teneros adhuc pampinos & uvas: quod ne fiat, falces, quibus vineam putaveris, peracta putatione sanguine ursino linito: Vel si pellem fibri habueris, in ipsa putatione quoties falcem acueris, ea pelle aciem detergito, atque ita putare incipito. (Plinius Secundus 21723,II: 95). It seems that Hardouin’s reading might have convinced the subsequent critics of the Roman naturalist, as one can verify, amongst many other sources, in the famous critical edition made by the German Latinist Karl Friedrich Theodor Mayhoff (1841–1914) based on the earlier Teubnerian edition by Ludwig von Jan (1807–1869). As before, the author of this edition choose ‘volucre’, relegating the variant accusative ‘uoluocem’ of the manuscript tradition to the critical apparatus (Plinius Secundus 1892: 140). Even so, in spite of the great assertiveness of Hardouin and other editors, one may observe that, at least until the 18th century, there still were works that did not seem to have recognized the readings of the 17th century and subsequent philologists on this subject matter. As an example, it might be enough to take a look at the Septem Linguarum Calepinus, published in a reviewed and increased edition by the Italian Latinists Jacopo Facciolati (1682–1769) and Egidio Forcellini (1688–1768) in order to be used after 1718 in Padua’s Episcopal Seminary: Volvox, ocis, m. [...], vermis teneros vitium pampinos, & pubescentes uvas erodens, qui alias dicitur volucra, convolvulus, involvulus. Plin. l. 17. c. 28. Alii volvocem appellant animal prærodens pubescentes uvas: quod ne ascidat, falces cum sint exacutæ, fibrina pelle detergent, atque ita putant. (Calepinus 81758: 467). Similarly, still in the thirties of the 19th century, the French zoologist Charles Athanase Walckenaer (1771–1852) mentions an insect with the Latin name ‘Volvox’ (Walckenaer 1835: 725). In the following chapter, he dedicates himself to an insect with the classical names ‘Volucra’ and ‘Eruca’ but cannot help but recognize that most of the modern editions of Plinius the Second reject the version ‘volvox’; all the while, the great 16th century Swiss naturist Conrad Gessner (1516–1565) had already explained himself as being against the sub-. ___________________________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________________________. – 216 –. – 217 –.

(8) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. O accusativo Sardeis, escrito por Ei, que tambem nega o P. Alvarez, se encontra neste lugar de Quinto Curcio: Qui Sardeis prodiderat: como trazem com outras muitas as dez ediçoens, que consultamos, a saber: a de Joaõ Meursio, Antuerpiæ, 1632. a de Joaõ Frinshemio, Argenorati, 1640. duas dos Elsivirios, ambas impressas em Amsterdaõ, huma no anno 1658. outra no anno 1644. a de Arnoldo Leers, Roterodami, 1675. a do doutissimo Jesuita, Tuilier, Parisiis, 1678. a Blaviana, cum notis variorum, Amstelod. 1684. a de Joaõ Verdussen, Antuerpiæ, 1691. a de Henrique Snakemburg, Lugd. Batavor, 1724. a de Stubelio, Amstelodami, 1740. muitas das quaes saõ das mais correctas, que até agora se tem dado á luz. (Figueiredo 1752: xxvi). The Alvaresian statement the Oratorian criticizes on this occasion occurs inside of a scholion dedicated to the Greek accusatives of the third declension and reads as follows: Sardis semper per, i, scribitur nominãdi accusandi & vocãdi casibus, scribitur enim apud Græcos non per Ή΍, sed per i, ΗΣΕΈ΍ΉΖ inde ΗΣΕΈ΍Ζ vt ΔϱΏ΍ΉΖ ΔϱΏ΍Ζ vide Magnum Etymol. Tralleis, Syrteis, Alpeis ijsdem casibus per, i, vel ei, scribi possunt, nam apud Græcos per diphthongum Ή΍ scribütur. (Álvares 1974: fol. 89v). For this subject matter, we will not treat it further as our present task cannot be the discussion of the pertinence, or not, of the preference Álvares gives to the accusative ‘sardis’ to the detriment of the form ‘sardeis’ that, according to Figueiredo, can be found in the classic source of Quintus Curtius Rufus. It seems, however, quite obvious to us that Manuel Álvares himself could never possibly have taken into consideration either the mentioned critical editions in general or even any other element of more recent bibliography. In this aspect, the criticism and the reasoning of the Oratorian philologist seem to fail, since the observations that seek to denounce the omission of important sources cannot include sources published after the criticized author’s death. It would be, evidently, quite another thing if Figueiredo had applied his criticism to Jesuits tasked with adapting and modernizing Álvares’ grammar according to the philological reality of their times — but, in fact, he does nothing to mitigate his criticism in this sense. ___________________________________________________________________________ – 218 –. FL. P. Concerning Álvares’ second book on syntax, Figueiredo opens his considerations with the following introduction, in which he offers auxiliary references:. 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. stitution of ‘volvox’ by ‘volucra’ (Walckenaer 1835: 725). Further on in his study, the zoologist concludes that the animal called ‘Ips’ or ‘Iks’ by the Greeks was nothing else but the insect classified in modern times as ‘eumolpus vitis’ (Walckenaer 1836: 250), an animal known in Portuguese as ‘eumolpo’, in German as ‘Rebenfallkäfer’ and in English as ‘Western grape root worm’. From the beginning, the reading of the “Prologo” shows that the most compelling criticism by the Oratorian is related to the editions that served as a source for the 16th century Jesuit. However, it is impossible not to notice that the majority of the editions he refers to (as an obvious reflex of the incessant labors of philologists in the task of the establishment of trustworthy classic texts since the Renaissance) are all quite recent for the 18th century grammarian:. HQ. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. Na Syntaxe se offereciaõ muitas coisas, que notar. Mas deste trabalho nos eximio em grande parte o douto, e moderno Grammatico Manuel de Sousa Coelho, bem conhecido nesta corte pelas suas obras, parte impressas, parte Mss. Portanto aqui so faremos de novo alguns reparos sobre varios pontos, e doutrinas, que na Syntaxe figurada traz esta Arte. Entra o doutissimo P. a ensinar, que cousa, e quaõ feio da oraçaõ nseja o solecismo, e hum dos exemplos que elle aponta, he dizer Eo intus. E outro: Ne hoc fecit: em lugar de Ne hoc quidem fecit. O solecismo, que na primeira oraçaõ se suppoem, todo está em dar ao adverbio Intus, significaçaõ de movimento, dizendo Eo intus, quando parece que só se podia dizer: Eo intrò. Naõ ignoramos, que nesta, como em outras muitas cousas, seguio o P. Alvarez a 17 Quintiliano: porém enganou-se com elle. Porque Intus naõ só he adverbio de quietaçaõ, e se diz daquillo, que está no interior de alguma cousa; mas tambem he adverbio de movimento, e se diz daquillo, que vai para o interior, ou sahe de dentro de alguma cousa (Figueiredo 1752: xxxix–xl). The author mentioned by Figueiredo is Manuel Coelho de Sousa (and not Manuel de Sousa Coelho), a grammarian (d. 1736) whom the Oratorian mentions as having authored several printed and manuscript books on Latin linguistics. Besides his Exame da syntaxe e reflexoens sobre as suas regras (1729)18 mentioned by Figueiredo, Sousa is known to have published the following two works dedicated above all to the parts of speech in Latin: Explicaçaõ das partes da oraçaõ com todas as suas circunstancias, etymologias e intelligencias, confórme o uso dos Authores e opiniões dos melhores Grammaticos (1721) and Resumo para os principiantes da explicação das oito partes da oração, com algumas noticias mais necessarias para a construição d’ella, a que vulgarmente chamam Syntaxinha (1726). Concerning Figueiredo’s considerations on this matter, it is indeed noteworthy that they are not only of a philological but also of a linguistic nature; in other words, he identifies the form intus of Álvares (1974: fol. 186v) not only as an adverb of place but also as an adverb of movement.19 17). With the following footnote «(116) Quintilianus lib. 1. cap. 5. pag. 64. Lugd. Batav. 1720», Figueiredo (1752: xxxix) identifies the source as Quintilianus (1720: 64). In the work of the Latin rhetorician, Álvares affirms to have used as a base for his observations, one can find the following passage on solecism: «Nam & an & aut, coniunctiones sunt: male tamen interroges hic, aut ille sit. Et ne ac non, adverbia: qui tamens dicat pro illo, Ne feceris, Non feceris, in idem indicat vitium: quia alterum negandi est, alterum vetandi. Hoc amplius intro & intus, loci adverbia: Eo tamen intus, & Intro sum, soloecismi sunt». 18) For more information, see the paper Rogelio Ponce of León Romeo (2005) dedicated to this work. 19) One might do well to observe that the opinion on the nature of ‘intus’ even today is not completely unanimous, as can be seen in Lindsay (1894: 561, 585) and, more recently, in Pinkster (2005: 32, 146).. ___________________________________________________________________________ – 219 –.

(9) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. Without wanting to get lost in too detailed a comment about the observations by our 18th century grammarian, it must be noted that he commits a mistake when referring to the 1583 edition as the second overall edition of the Alvaresian grammar. Indeed, there can be no doubt that the first edition of Álvares’ ars minor was printed in Lisbon in 1573 (cf. Kemmler 2015) while another Lisbon edition was published with Spanish equivalents of the verbal paradigms (Álvares 1578). The 1583 edition mentioned by Figueiredo, however, retakes the Portuguese paradigms while continuing the textual evolution of the ars minor that can be observed from the beginning of this separate editorial tradition. After continuing with some observations (along a little more than a page) about what he considers as being mistakes of the 1583 ars minor, Figueiredo goes on to render his judgment on the 1599 recognitio vellesiana: Mas deixando outros muitos erros, e faltas da segunda Arte Lisbonense, passemos já a dizer alguma cousa da Velleziana de Evora, que actualmente se está reimprimindo em Lisboa. Nesta Arte impressa em Evora no anno 1599. em quarto saõ quasi innumeraveis as emendas, e alteraçoens, que nella experimentou a primeira Lisbonense. Dellas apontaremos aqui alguns exemplos em obsequio dos curiosos: a muitos dos quaes naõ sera talvez facil combinar, ou conferir entre si estas duas ediçoens; por ser hoje mais rara a primeira Lisbonense: (Figueiredo 1752: xlix). After these introductory words, the Oratorian dedicates himself, during the next three pages, to an exhibition of some of what he considers the more important alterations and improvements that the 1599 Évora edition introduced in relation to the 1572 editio princeps. These considerations are followed by what Figueiredo (1752: lii–lix) identifies as mistakes in the scholia that were added to the Alvaresian grammatical corpus by António Velez in his recognitio vellesiana: Na referida impressaõ Eborense de 1599. se achaõ os doutissimos Escolios do P. Antonio Vellez, hum dos mayores Grammaticos, que tem tido este Reyno, e a quem se deve o melhor da Arte vulgar. Mas naõ cuide por isso alguem estarem estes Escolios livres de toda a falta, e imperfeiçaõ: ou ter o P. Vellez visto, e examinado tudo, quanto pertencia ás materias, de que tratou, e serem muito seguros, e solidos todos os fundamentos da sua doutrina: porque o contrario mostraremos nos aqui com alguns exemplos: (Figueiredo 1752: lii) ___________________________________________________________________________ – 220 –. P. Similarly, as can be seen in the paragraph dedicated to Manuel Álvares as a grammarian, this part of the “Prologo” also begins with a captatio benevolentiae, through which our author seeks to contextualize the great reformer of the Alvaresian Latin grammar both as a grammarian and a 16th century erudite. Beyond that, the 18th century grammarian offers a very detailed and thoroughly documented discussion of mistakes and problematic questions, which occupies around 31 pages in Figueiredo (1752: lxii–xciv), ending this chapter with the following conclusion:. FL. Temos referido summariamente os erros, e faltas da primeira Arte Lisbonense. Quantas fossem agora as emendas, mudanças, e alteraçoens, que esta primeira Arte Lisbonense experimentou nas ediçoens posteriores; (como na Veneziana, na Patavina, na segunda Lisbonense, e na Velleziana de Evora) naõ he preciso apontar miudamente. Referiremos sómente algumas. A segunda Arte Lisbonense he impressa em oitavo no anno 1583. onze annos depois da primeira, da qual se aparta já em muitas cousas: (Figueiredo 1752: xlvii). 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. After these and other observations on aspects of the 1572 ars maior’s figurative syntax, Figueiredo starts to dedicate himself to the grammar’s other editions:. HQ. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. Outros muitos lugares, ou autoridades pouco seguras, e convincentes, se encontraõ a cada passo nestes Escolios (porque o seu Autor se valeo quasi sempre de ediçoens pouco, ou nada exactas) com as quaes se podem enganar, e se enganaraõ já muitos. Mas deixando para outro lugar mais extensa crize, e mais prolixo exame destes Escolios; passemos já a dizer alguma cousa sobre a pequena Arte em oitavo, pela qual ha tantos annos estuda quasi todo este Reyno: (Figueiredo 1752: lix). Having offered his thoughts on the three 16th century editions that serve as a basis for his considerations, Figueiredo goes on to consider the textual constitution of the 1608 ars minor, printed in Évora like all the following Portuguese editions: Nesta Arte impressa tantas vezes em Evora, deputada, e escolhida entre todas, para o uso das Escolas deste Reyno: nesta Arte, digo, se vê hoje taõ mudada, e alterada, a primeira forma que no anno 1572. deu á luz o P. Manoel Alvarez, que se alguem tiver esta pequena de Evora por Arte diversa das Lisbonenses, naõ julgaremos absurda esta persuasaõ. No texto pela mayor parte concorda esta pequena Arte vulgar com a grande de Evora, de que acabamos de falar. Dizemos pela mayor parte; porque em algumas cousas differem estas Artes huma da outra, como facilmente poderá ver quem as conferir. Com tudo para naõ deixarmos passar sem prova nada do que dizemos, apontaremos aqui alguns exemplos desta diferença: (Figueiredo 1752: lix-lx). While talking about the differences between the editions he consulted, Figueiredo does not make absolutely clear whether he understood that he was dealing with two different editorial traditions. After all, he continues verifying some differences between the divergent editions of the ‘arte pequena’ (ars minor) and the original lesson of the ‘arte grande’ (ars maior). It seems somewhat surprising that the grammarian opts to not to pronounce himself on the constitution of the beginning of a divergent tradition with Manuel Álvares’ paratext ‘Auctor lectori’ or the other parts added by António Velez. Following the subsequent analysis of the recognitiones vellesianas of the ars maior (Álvares/Velez 1599) and of the ars minor (Álvares/Velez 1608) which occupies a little more than 1½ pages in Figueiredo (1752: lx–lxi), the summary evaluation by our 18th century grammarian results none too favorable: Nesta Arte impressa tantas vezes em Evora, deputada, e escolhida entre todas, para o uso das Escolas deste Reyno: nesta Arte, digo, se vê hoje taõ mudada, e. ___________________________________________________________________________ – 221 –.

(10) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. Figueiredo complains that, in almost 180 years since its publication (from 1572 to 1752), despite all the “emendas, alterações, mudanças, e addições” carried out either by Manuel Álvares himself or by António Velez, or even by other unknown Jesuit brethren, the Jesuit grammarians still had not been able to accomplish the desirable improvement of the ars minor he identifies as “pequena Arte vulgar”. This paragraph is followed by a very detailed and thoroughly documented discussion in which the 18th century grammarian indicates mistakes and discusses problematic questions. All in all, this detailed study occupies about 31 pages in Figueiredo (1752: lxii–xciv) and finishes with the following conclusion: Outras muitas faltas, ou erros notaveis desta pequena Arte, (a mayor parte dos quaes, e dos já referidos, se achaõ na grande de Evora, que actualmente se reimprime em Lisboa) se podiaõ aqui apontar [...] mas alem de que em outra parte havemos de referir ainda outros muitos defeitos desta nunca assaz louvada Arte: por hora bastaõ os que já referimos para clara, e convincente prova, do que com a sua relaçaõ intentamos unicamente mostrar; que he a summa difficuldade, que traz comsigo o tratar da Grammatica Latina. Pois para evitar tantos erros, e acautelar tantas faltas, naõ foy bastante a grande erudiçaõ, e cuidadosa diligencia, dos que ha tantos annos trabalhaõ por expurgar, e aperfeiçoar esta sua Arte taõ douta, e taõ benemerita da estimaçaõ, e applauso de todos. (Figueiredo 1752: xciii–xciv). In this conclusion on Álvares’ grammar (which occupies a hundred pages in Figueiredo 1752: iv–civ), the Oratorian emphasizes the gravity and the frequency of the “faltas, ou erros notaveis”, most of which can be found in the Évora ars minor (but also in the 1599 ars maior).20 In the same paragraph, the grammarian retakes the previously mentioned topos of the difficulty of an elaboration of a Latin grammar — which, again, may once more serve as an attempt of a captatio benevolentiae for his Novo Methodo.. 20). The mentioned reissue of a new version of the ars maior, said to have been prepared in Lisbon in the 1750s, does not seem to have been concluded, so that there is no knowledge regarding at what point the mistakes pointed out by Figueiredo might have been corrected.. ___________________________________________________________________________ – 222 –. HQ P. 4.. Conclusion. Since the publication of the first part of the Latin-Portuguese grammar titled Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina: Para o uso das Escólas da Congregaçaõ do Oratorio in 1752, the “PROLOGO Aos que lerem o Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina” (Figueiredo 1752: i–cvii) constituted part of the essence of the grammar’s editorial tradition for 25 years, that is, along the first six editions during the Pombaline period (11752/53, 21754, 31756, 41760, 51765, 6 1777). With a total of 107 pages, this paratext clearly is worthy of special attention by modern historians of Portuguese and Latin-Portuguese linguistics. The detailed comments and the rich bibliographical references that are supplied throughout the “Prologo” evidence Figueiredo’s strong concern with offering a philological work that, in his perspective, should lead any author of a grammar of classic Latin to study all sources, manuscripts as well as trustworthy editions. Considering the systematic approach of the critical observations he dedicates to Álvares’ grammar (be it through the first editions in which the intervention of the grammarian himself may be supposed or be it through the variants of the recognitio vellesiana of 1599 and 1608), it seems to us, however, that Figueiredo, at least partially, has omitted some concern with objectivity in his philological work. His remarkably anti-Alvaresian ideological stance allows us, in effect, to understand that not all of his observations are always appropriate. Actually, our 18th century grammarian does not merely limit himself to offering an analysis of the linguistic pertinence of certain solutions in Álvares’ grammar. Rather, he takes advantage for his analysis of the whole wealth of bibliographical material he has at his disposal. Thus, even if his criticism may be pertinent from a philological point of view given the extent of Latin studies until the mid-18th century, there is a lack of balance because Figueiredo shows to have had access to 17th and even 18th century works with new readings, variants and innovative solutions that none of the two 16th century Jesuits could possibly have foreseen or considered. The resolved and peremptory style Figueiredo uses to ‘dismantle’ part of Álvares’ grammar with the purpose of presenting his own Latin-Portuguese grammar as innovative and authorized by the most recognized authorities in contemporary classic philology could not help but create irritations amongst the defenders of the Alvaresian grammar, giving occasion to publications like the Anti-Prologo Critico (1753) by Francisco Duarte (cf. Silva 1858–1958,VI: 60; 1858–1958,IX: 284) and many other printed or unpublished contributions that take part in the debate studied by Freire (1964). In spite of the dominance of the Portuguese education system by the Society of Jesus, it is quite well known that the use of the Alvaresian grammar in. FL. alterada, a primeira forma que no anno 1572. deu á luz o P. Manoel Alvarez, que se alguem tiver esta pequena de Evora por Arte diversa das Lisbonenses, naõ julgaremos absurda esta persuasaõ. No texto pela mayor parte concorda esta pequena Arte vulgar com a grande de Evora, de que acabamos de falar. Dizemos pela mayor parte; porque em algumas cousas differem estas Artes huma da outra, como facilmente poderá ver quem as conferir. Com tudo para naõ deixarmos passar sem prova nada do que dizemos, apontaremos aqui alguns exemplos desta diferença. (Figueiredo 1752: lix-lx). 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________________________ – 223 –.

(11) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. P. References Álvares, Manuel 1571 DE CONSTRVCTIONE / OCTO PARTIVM / Orationis. / EMANVELIS ALVARI / Lusitani e Societate IESV / libellus / Nunc primum in lucem editus. // Venetiis, apud Michaelem Tramezinum, Anno / post Christum natum. M. D. LXXI. / Cum priuilegio Pont. Max. Senatus Veneti, / & Regni Neapolitani. /// [fol. 30 r] VENETIIS, / Apud Michaelem Tramezzinum. / M D L XX. 2 1571b DE CONSTRVCTIONE / OCTO PARTIVM / ORATIONIS / LIBER / EMANVELIS ALVARI LVSITANI / E SOCIETATE IESV / Cum explicationibus auctoris eiusdem. / Ne turbata uolӁt rapidis oracula uentis, / Nunc folio uates commodiore sonat. // Cum priuilegio Summi Pontificis, & Illustriß. / Senatus Veneti ad annos XX. / Necnon Illustriß. Proregis Regni Neapolitani. /// VENETIIS, Apud Michaelem Tramezinum / M D L XX I. 1573 EMMANVELIS / ALVARI È SOCIE- / TATE IESV / DE INSTITVTIONE / GRAMMATICA / LIBRI TRES. // OLYSSIPONE. / Excudebat Ioannes Barrerius / Typographus Regius. / M. D. LXXIII. / Cum Priuilegio. 1575 EMMANVELIS / ALVARI / E` SOCIETATE / IESV, / De Institvtione Grammatica / Libri Tres. // Venetijs, Apud Franciscum de Franciscis Senensem. / M. D. LXXV. 1578 EMMANVELIS / ALVARI È / SOCIETATE / IESV, / DE INSTITVTIONE / GRAMMATICA / LIBRI TRES. // OLYSIPPONE. / Excudebat Ioannes Riberius, expensis / Ioannis Hispani Bibliopolæ. / Cum facultate Inquisitorum. / 1578. 1583 EMMANVELIS / ALVARI È / SOCIETATE / IESV, / DE INSTITVTIONE / GRAMMATICA / LIBRI TRES. // OLYSIPPONE. / Excudebat Antonius Riberius, expensis / Ioannis Hispani Bibliopolæ. / Cum facultate Inquisitorum. / 1583. 1974 Gramática Latina: Fac-símile da edição de 1572, com introdução do Dr. J[osé] Pereira da Costa, Funchal: Junta Geral do Distrito Autónomo do Funchal.. FL 6S H. 6S. HF. LP. Portugal was never completely peaceful. Indeed, one of the characteristics that deserved more criticism for Álvares’ grammar by the Latin-Portuguese grammarians since the early 17th century was the use of Latin as a metalanguage while all grammarians since Pedro Sanchez (1610) proposed the use of Portuguese. Because of this, we think that it might not be considered improper that, even around the mid-18th century, the largest bone of contention for contemporary Latinists should have been the question of the metalanguage in the Jesuit educative system. In a final evaluation of the criticism Figueiredo applied to Álvares’ grammars, we feel that it is, after all, quite believable that our 18th century grammarian should have been acutely aware that he was about to start a ferocious debate about what was to be considered the most adequate Latin-Portuguese grammar for his time. This leads us to believe that the remarkably overall negative judgment concerning all of the editions of the Alvaresian grammar studied by Figueiredo cannot be considered merely as a result of an innocent philological approach of several historical grammars. Indeed, if the Oratorian used philological study for his ends, he does not show any shame in using the fruits of more recent philology against the 16th century author and the first editions of his grammar, thus being able to paint the Madeiran Jesuit’s grammar as outdated, inferior and full of mistakes. As Figueiredo did not undertake any study on the pertinence of Álvares’ work in comparison to the state of the art of Latin philology in the second half of the 16th century, we obviously cannot know whether his evaluation would have been any different. There can, finally, be no doubt, that the negative image the Oratorian painted of the LatinPortuguese Jesuit grammar was able to prevail, dominating — in certain measure even up to present times — the perception of Manuel Álvares’ grammar and of his followers.. HQ. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________________________. Álvares, Manuel / Velez, António 1599 EMMANVELIS / ALVARI, E SOCIE- / TATE IESV / DE INSTITVTIONE GRAMMATICA / LIBRI TRES, / ANTONII VELLESII, EX EADEM SOCIETATE IESV / IN EBORENSI ACADEMIA PRÆFECTI STVDIORVM / OPERA, Aucti, & illustrati. // EBORAE / Excudebat Emmánuel de Lyra Typographus. / Cum facultate Inquisitorum, & Ordinarij. / M. D. XCIX. 1608 EMMANVELIS / ALVARI, / E’ SOCIETATE / IESV, / De Institutione Grammatica Libri tres. / Antonij Vellesij Amiensis ex eadem Societate IESV in Eborensi / Academia Præfecti studiorum, / OPERA / AVCTI ET ILLVSTRATI. // EBORAE / Excudebat Emmanuel de Lyra Vniuersitatis Typogr. / M. DC. VIII. / Cum facultate Inquisitorum. 1659 EMMANVELIS / ALVARI, / E SOCIETATE / IESV, / DE INSTITUTIONE GRAM- / matica libri tres. / Antonij Vellesij Amiͅsis ex eadem Societate IESV Ebo- / rensis Academiæ Præfecti Studiorum operâ / AVCTI, & ILLUSTRATI. // Cum facultate Sanctæ Inquisitionis, Ordinarij, & Regis / EBORAE Ex Typographiâ Academiæ. An. 1659. 1744 EMMANVELIS / ALVARI, / E’ SOCIETATE / IESV, / DE INSTITUTIONE GRAMMATICA / LIBRI TRES. / Antonij Vellesij Amiensis ex eadӁ Societate IESV / ___________________________________________________________________________. – 224 –. – 225 –. Rolf Kemmler / Susana Fontes / Sónia Coelho Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro Departamento de Letras, Artes e Comunicação Centro de Estudos em Letras Quinta de Prados PT – 500–801 Vila Real / Portugal eMail: kemmler@utad.pt / sfontes@utad.pt / ccoelho@utad.pt.

(12) Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo and his thoughts on Manuel Alvares’ Latin grammar ___________________________________________________________________________. 6S. HF. Calepinus, Ambrosius 8 1758 Septem Linguarum Calepinus, hoc est lexicon latinum, variarum linguarum interpretatione adjecta in usum seminarii patavini. Editio sexta emendatior, & auctior, Volumen secundum. Patavii: Typis Seminarii; Apud Joannem Manfrè. [Figueiredo, António Pereira de] 1752 NOVO / METHODO / DA / GRAMMATICA / LATINA, / Para o uso das Escólas da Congregaçaõ / do Oratorio. / NA REAL CASA / DE / N. SENHORA DAS NECESSIDADES, / Ordenado, e composto pela mesma Con- / gregaçaõ. // LISBOA, / Na Officina de MIGUEL RODRIGUES. / Impressor do Emin. Senh. Card. Patriarca. / M. DCC. LII. / Com as licenças necessarias, e Privilegio Real. Franco, António 1719 Imagem da virtude em o noviciado da Companhia de Jesus no Real Collegio de Jesus de Coimbra em Portugal: Na qual se contem as vidas, & sanctas mortes de muitos homens de grande Virtude; que naquella Sancta caza se criaram. Primeiro tomo. Evora: Com as licenças necessarias na Officina da Universidade. Freire, António 1964 “A Gramática Latina do Padre Manuel Álvares e seus impugnadores”. As Grandes Polémicas Portuguesas: Vol. I. Dir. por Artur Anselmo. Lisboa: Editorial Verbo, págs. 333–389. Gravina, Giovanni Vincenzo 1713 Jani Vincentii Gravinae JCti & Antecessoris Romani Orationes et opuscula: Quorum series conspicitur post praefationem. Trajecti ad Rhenum: Apud Gulielmum vande Water, Acad. Typogr. Iken, Sebastião 2002 “Index totius artis (1599–1755): algumas reflexões sobre o índice lexicográfico latino-português da gramática de Manuel Álvares, elaborado por António Velez”. Estudos de história da gramaticografia e lexicografia portuguesas. Ed. por Rolf Kemmler, Barbara Schäfer-Prieß, Axel Schönberger. Frankfurt am Main: Domus Editoria Europaea, 53–83 (Beihefte zu Lusorama. 1.9.). Jordão, Levi Maria 1863 “Elogio do Padre Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo, recitado na sessão publica da Academia no dia 20 de Fevereiro de 1859”. Historia e Memorias da Academia Real das Sciencias: Classe de Sciencias Moraes, Politicas, e Bellas Letras II/2 (Nova Serie), 31 págs. Kemmler, Rolf 2007 A Academia Orthográfica Portugueza na Lisboa do Século das Luzes: Vida,. HQ P. Antonio, Nicolás 1783 Bibliotheca Hispana nova sive Hispanorum scriptorum qui ab anno 1500 ad 1684 floruere notitia. Tomus primus. Matriti: Apud Joachimum de Ibarra Typographum Regium.. 2013a. FL. EBORAE, Ex Typographiæ Academiæ. Ann. 1744. / Cum facultate S. Inquisitionis, Ordinarii, & Regis.. 6S H. LP. HQ. Rolf Kemmler, Susana Fontes, Sónia Coelho ___________________________________________________________________________. 2013b 2014 2015. obras e actividades de João Pinheiro Freire da Cunha (1738–1811). Frankfurt am Main: Domus Editoria Europaea. (Beihefte zu Lusorama. 1.12.). “Para uma melhor compreensão da história da gramática em Portugal: a gramaticografia portuguesa à luz da gramaticografia latino-portuguesa nos séculos XV a XIX”. Veredas: Revista da Associação Internacional de Lusitanistas 19 (junho de 2013), 145–176. “A primeira gramática da língua portuguesa impressa no Brasil: a Arte de grammatica portugueza (1816) de Inácio Felizardo Fortes”. Confluência: Revista do Liceu Literário Português 44/45 (1.º e 2.º semestres 2013), 61–81. “De institvtione grammatica libri tres (Lisboa, 1573): a edição princeps da ars minor de Manuel Álvares”. Revista Portuguesa de Humanidades: Estudos Linguísticos 17/1 (2013). 43–58. “The first edition of the ars minor of Manuel Álvares’ De institvtione grammatica libri tres (Lisbon, 1573)”. Historiographia Linguistica. 42/1: 1–19.. Kemmler, Rolf / Coelho, Sónia / Fontes, Susana 2015 “O «Prologo aos que lerem o Novo Methodo da Grammatica Latina» de António Pereira de Figueiredo (1725–1797) e a sua importância para a historiografia linguística portuguesa”. Revista Portuguesa de Humanidades: Estudos Linguísticos 18/1 (2014), 41–56. Lima, Ebion de 1981 “Os Oratorianos e a polémica da gramática latina no século XVIII”. Boletim da Biblioteca da Universidade de Coimbra. 36: 57–72. Lindsay, W[allace] M[artin] 1894 The Latin language; an historical account of Latin sounds, stems and flexions, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Malaspina, Leonardo 1563 Leonardi Malaspinae In epistolas M. Tvllii Ciceronis ad Aticvm, Brvtvm, et Q. fratrem, emendationes ac suspiciones, Index rerum & verborum, Venetiis, apud Io. Bapt. Somascum. Pinkster, Harm 2005 On Latin Adverbs. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; Amsterdam Academic Archive. Plinius Secundus, Caius 1510 C. Plini Secundi veronensis historiae natvralis libri decem et septem, primi voluminis, ab Alexandro Benedicto Ve. Physico Emendatiores redditi, [Lyon]: [Balthazar de Gabiano]. 1685,I Caii Plinii Secundi Naturalis Historiæ libri XXXVII: Interpretatione et notis illustravit Joannes Harduinus Soc. Jesu, jussu Regis Christianissimi Ludovici Magni in usum Serenissimi Delphini, Parisiis: Apud Franciscum Muguet, Regis & Illustrissimi Archiepiscopi Typographum. [vols. II–V com o título C. Plinii Secundi naturalis historiæ, com as mesmas referências bibliográficas] 2 1723 Caii Plinii Secundi Historiæ naturalis libri: Quos interpretatione et notis illustravit Joannes Harduinus e Societate Jesu, jussu Regis Christianissimi Ludovici Magni. ___________________________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________________________. – 226 –. – 227 –.