The Historiographical Creation of “Friar Gil Lobo de Tavira”

Who or what led to this fusion the identity of Friar Gil Lobo and that of Friar Gil de Tavira? I believe that the problem arose from the pen of the chronicler Rui de Pina, when, in around 1504, he was entrusted with the task of writing the Crónica de Dom Duarte (Chronicle of King Duarte) (^{Serrão, 1977}:56). Naturally, among the narrated episodes, the chronicler describes the participation of the Portuguese embassy at the Council of Basel. Among the Portuguese representatives, the author refers to “Meestre Frey Gil Lobo da Ordem de São Francisco” ¹ (Master Friar Gil Lobo of the Order of St. Francis). This appears to have been the starting point, the beginning of the knot that would entwine the paths of these two Franciscan friars.

I believe, as we shall discover later on, that it was not Friar Gil Lobo who participated in this Portuguese embassy, but Friar Gil de Tavira. The former was Dom Duarte’s confessor, and it was in this role that he featured in a famous episode from the chronicle, in which he rebuked the monarch for his excessive sorrow following the death of Dom João I. ² The latter, Friar Gil de Tavira, was sent to the Council of Basel,³, later becoming Afonso V’s confessor, as is mentioned in the contemporary documentation.⁴ In another episode from this king’s chronicle, which will be discussed later on, he is also referred to as Dom Duarte’s confessor.⁵

Changing the ambassador’s second name seems to me to have been an honest mistake. As we already know, Rui de Pina started to write the Chronicle of Dom Duarte in 1504, roughly 70 years after the events that he narrated (^{Serrão, 1977}:56). While this chronological distance may well justify many inaccuracies in the text, it is important to bear in mind that the confusion arose from the fact that the two individuals had the same first name, and that they were both Franciscan friars and, simultaneously, royal confessors. Furthermore, they were both often referred to merely by the name of “Frey Gil”⁶ or “Egidius,”⁷ thus making it even more difficult to distinguish between the two.

The aforementioned episode from the Chronicle of Dom Afonso V, in which Friar Gil de Tavira is mentioned as being Dom Duarte’s confessor,⁸ is the only textual evidence we have to prove that he did, in fact, hold this position. We know for certain that he was Dom Afonso V’s confessor, but there is no known document indicating that he held this position in relation to his predecessor. Thus, there are two possible interpretations of this passage. Either it is a blunder on the part of Rui de Pina, no matter whether it was a real or fictional scene, or Friar Gil de Tavira was, in fact, the confessor to Dom Duarte, despite the lack of any other evidence to support this fact.

Following the clues left by Rui de Pina, I was able to discover the História Seráfica da Ordem dos Frades Menores (^{Esperança, 1666}, t. 2). In the mind of the author of this work, there is no doubt about the identity of Friar Gil Lobo de Tavira. Among other references, the work dedicates to him Chapter XXI of Volume 2, titled: “Do Mestre F. Gil Lobo, pregador de três reis, confessor de dous, mestre de hum, capelão do Papa, e Comendatário d’Alpendorada” (Mestre F. Gil Lobo, the preacher to three kings, the confessor of two, the master of one, the chaplain of the Pope, and the commendatory abbot of Alpendorada). Here, the intersection of the two identities is quite clear; however, to justify the use of two different names, he states: “Huas vezes o achamos nomeado Fr. Gil Lobo, conforme o apelido da geração, que foi nobre, outras, Fr. Gil de Tavira a respeito da cidade deste nome no Algarve, donde era natural: mas he a mesma pessoa, com estes dous sobrenomes.” (We sometimes find him named Friar Gil Lobo, in keeping with the surname of his noble lineage, and, at other times, Friar Gil de Tavira, in accordance with the city of this name in Algarve, where he was born. But he is the same person, with these two surnames) (^{Esperança, 1666}, t. 2:693).

Thanks to the sheer amount and diversity of the information collected by the author, some of the biographical data relating to this character is gathered together in this work. Once made available, this information was the source used by most authors when writing about Frei Gil Lobo de Tavira. On the one hand, in reasserting the value of the work, it is clear that the contemporary documentation was afforded sufficient consideration: on the other hand, the already-mentioned chronicles may not, however, have been read with the necessary critical eye. Furthermore, based on these chronicles, certain details were created and added to this Franciscan’s biography. The foundations for this “identity theft” were thus laid, with the consequences that will now be analyzed below.

A False Identity and its Consequences

With the identification of Friar Gil Lobo de Tavira (apparently) established, this question never again attracted any particular attention from historians. Several texts, all dealing with a variety of different themes, briefly touched upon this character and his influence over the course of events. He was mentioned in relation to the court society (^{Gomes, 1995}:118-20) and the confessors of the royal family (^{Marques, 1993}; ^{Rodrigues, 2019}). He was also mentioned in the context of the history of culture (^{Viterbo, 1904}; ^{Dionísio, 2002}), religion (^{Martins, 1951}; ^{Lopes, 1979}), or by other Portuguese scholars from the fifteenth century (^{Costa, 1967}, 1990). Despite the numerous references to this character, none of these studies actually questioned his identity.

This subject only took on a new dimension in 1942 when, in his edition of Leal Conselheiro, Joseph Piel pointed to two chronological indicators that would make it possible to date Dom Duarte’s text (^{Piel, 1942}:IX-X). The first of these was a letter written by the monarch to Dona Leonor’s brothers, inserted in Chapter 98 and dated 24 January 1435. The second was the expression “que deos perdoe” (may God forgive [him]), associated with the name of Friar Gil Lobo, in Chapter 91. In the latter case, assuming that the expression indicated the character’s passing, it would be sufficient to ascertain the last reference made to the confessor in order to arrive at an approximate idea of the date when the text was written.

As we shall see, this reasoning would be taken up by several authors. In the case of Piel, there seems to be no doubt: “refere-se no cap. 91 a Frei Gil Lobo, seu confessor e colaborador, servindo-se da expressão que deos perdoe, que claramente indica que este franciscano tinha falecido quando o rei compilou o seu livro.” (in Chapter 91, he refers to Friar Gil Lobo, his confessor and collaborator, using the expression que Deos perdoe, which clearly indicates that this Franciscan was dead when the king compiled his book) (^{Piel, 1942}:IX). The author goes on to mention Friar Gil’s presence in the Portuguese embassy to the Basel Council. This embassy must have begun its journey in 1436, returning to the Portuguese kingdom in May, 1437. As his source for this information, Piel refers to the Diário de Jornada do Conde de Ourém (the Count of Ourém’s Travel Journal) (^{Piel, 1942}:IX).

However, this text does not allow for the identification of Friar Gil Lobo, Dom Duarte’s confessor, as the Friar Gil that is mentioned as being the Portuguese ambassador to Basel. In the Diário de Jornada do Conde de Ourém, there are three direct references to Friar Gil (^{Dias, 2003}:69, 70 and 73). In these references, it was possible to obtain some information about Friar Gil: “frei Gil, o licenciado que estava hi no Concilio por embaixador” (Friar Gil, the graduate who was at the Council in his capacity as ambassador) and “frei Gil, frade da Ordem de Sam Francisco” (Friar Gil, friar of the Order of St. Francis) (^{Dias, 2003}:69, 70). None of these references mentions a second name or the role of the royal confessor. If this Friar Gil was, in fact, the monarch’s confessor, it would be strange that such a fact was not mentioned, even once, in the whole of the text.

Taking it for granted that Friar Gil Lobo was alive in 1437, the author reaches the conclusion that the text of the Leal Conselheiro, or at least that of the Paris manuscript,⁹ would have been completed between that year and 1438 (^{Piel, 1942}:X). For Piel, it was during the last year of his reign, and of his life, that Dom Duarte concluded his Leal Conselheiro, because “talvez fosse precisamente o sentimento da morte próxima que o decidisse a fazê-lo, como que para prestar conta dos seus actos e deixar uma obra” (it was perhaps precisely his feeling of being close to death that led him to decide to do so, as if to account for his acts and to leave a body of work after his death) (^{Piel, 1942}:X).

In 1948, José Hermano Saraiva disputed Joseph Piel’s proposed dating for the writing of the Leal Conselheiro, stating that, in that last year, between 1437 and 1438, the monarch would have had other concerns that would have kept him from his literary activity (^{Saraiva, 1948}:322). He was referring to the failed expedition to Tangier and its consequences, namely the fact that the Infante Dom Fernando was taken hostage. He also questioned the validity of the formula “que deos perdoe,” addressed to Friar Gil Lobo, as a chronological marker of the text, as it could be a later addition made by a scribe or copyist, thus making it an insecure indicator for dating the manuscript (^{Saraiva, 1948}:323).

Despite these uncertainties, but following the lead of the character Friar Gil Lobo de Tavira, the author mentions that he would still have been alive in 1442, based on a privilege registered at the chancery of Dom Afonso V, in favor of his brother-in-law, who was living in Tavira (^{Saraiva, 1948}:322). However, this document does not refer to Friar Gil Lobo, Dom Duarte’s confessor, but to Friar Gil, who was certainly from Tavira. This Friar would already have been Dom Afonso V’s confessor and master, and not the confessor of his predecessor. Devaluing the expression “que deos perdoe,” as a later addendum, the author concludes by stating that “o Leal Conselheiro é anterior a 1436” (the Leal Conselheiro was written before 1436) (^{Saraiva, 1948}:323).

In the twenty-first century, João Dionísio and Bernardo de Sá Nogueira (2007) have once again analyzed the issue of the manuscript’s dating. In an article divided into two parts, following the clues left by Piel (1942), the authors reached conclusions that were the key to understanding this text’s objectives. In the first part, under the direction of João Dionísio, in addition to revisiting the historiography surrounding the manuscript’s dating and trajectory, considerations were made about the identity of the character Friar Gil Lobo de Tavira. In the second part, edited by Bernardo Sá Nogueira, the aim was to ascertain the origin and meaning of the expression “que deos perdoe,” which was an essential question, as we shall see.

In this first part, João Dionísio ends up attributing to the expression the same meaning as the one that had already been advanced by Piel, stating that “a fórmula ‘que Deus perdoe’ não deixa margem de dúvida de que o indivíduo a que ela se refere já tinha falecido no momento em que é produzida” (the expression “que deos perdoe” leaves no doubt that the individual to whom the phrase refers had already passed away at the time of its production) (^{Dionísio; Nogueira, 2007}:122). This statement is strongly supported by the second part of the article. Here, Nogueira lists dozens of quotes from documents containing that expression, in which it was used to refer to dead people. The author also mentions that there seems to have been an equivalence between the expressions “cuja alma Deus haja” (whose soul may God have) and “a que Deus perdoe,” to indicate the passing away of an individual (^{Dionísio; Nogueira, 2007}:123).

About the dating of the manuscript P,¹⁰ João Dionísio mentions that this would have to be brought forward to 1451, as Friar Gil Lobo, “já depois de Dom Duarte ter falecido, foi confessor do infante Dom Pedro, durante a regência, e ainda de Afonso V, encontrando-se ainda vivo nesse ano” (after Dom Duarte passed away, was already the confessor of the Infante Dom Pedro, during the period of his regency, and also of Afonso V, since he was still alive during that year) (^{Dionísio; Nogueira, 2007}:123). The author bases his statement on a plea made to the pontiff on 23 February 1451, in which Friar Gil de Tavira requested confirmation of the possession of the monastery of São João de Alpendurada. However, an analysis of this document, reproduced in the appendix (see Doc. 1), does not prove any of those statements.

In this document, there is no reference to Friar Gil Lobo, nor to the role of confessor. In fact, Friar Gil de Tavira (“fratris Egidii de Tavira, ordinis fratrum Minorum professoris, in theologia licenciati”) is mentioned as the commendatory abbot at the monastery of São João de Alpendurada. The friar would have been interested in confirming the legitimacy of the proceedings brought against the late Dom André, the Bishop of Mégara, which allowed him to obtain the commandery of the monastery. Similarly, even if we acknowledge the confusion between those two Franciscan friars, there is also no reference in that document to the Infante Dom Pedro or to Dom Afonso V.

Addressing the question of their Franciscan identification, João Dionísio states that “a identidade de frei Gil de Tavira é deixada clara num documento de aproximadamente um ano e meio antes” (the identity of Friar Gil de Tavira was made clear in a document approximately one and a half years earlier) (^{Dionísio; Nogueira, 2007}:123). Mention is made of the granting of the privilege of royal protection to the monastery of São João de Alpendurada by Dom Afonso V, dated 13 August 1449 (see Doc. 2). Here too, the document is unable to confirm the author’s statements, as will be demonstrated below.

At the beginning, we read the following: “por os muytos serviços que frey Gill de Tavira, abade do mosteiro de sam Joham d’Alpendorada tem fectos a elRey meu senhor e padre, cuja alma Deus aja, e a nos, em sendo nosso pregador e confessor e meestre” (for the many services that Friar Gil de Tavira, abbot of the monastery of São João de Alpendurada, rendered to the King, my lord and father, whose soul may God have, and to us, as our preacher and confessor and master) (see Doc. 2). As we have seen, the text does not refer to Friar Gil Lobo, but clearly mentions Friar Gil de Tavira. The latter is said to have rendered “muytos serviços” (many services) to Dom Duarte, not mentioning which ones, and to Dom Afonso V, as his “pregador, confessor e meestre” (preacher, confessor, and master).

These “many services” rendered by Friar Gil de Tavira to the deceased monarch are not likely to include his duties as a confessor. For these, we have no documentary evidence, except for the reference by Rui de Pina, which has already been analyzed. I believe that these services included Friar Gil de Tavira’s attendance at the Basel Council.¹¹ And such services would not have been minor ones, given the great responsibility inherent in this mission.

As stated and regarding the relationship with Dom Afonso V, the functions of Friar Gil de Tavira are evident in the text: “nosso pregador, confessor e meestre” (Our preacher, confessor, and master). Here, contrary to what may be thought, the possessive adjective “nosso” (our) may refer only to Dom Afonso V, for two reasons. On the one hand, because this term is used twice more in the text, referring on both occasions to the monarch; on the other hand, if Friar Gil de Tavira, born in 1391, had been Dom Duarte’s master, he would already have been very old, which seems unlikely, to say the least.

In the second part of the article, under the direction of Sá Nogueira, there are numerous examples of the use of the formula “que deos perdoe.” With these documentary references dating back to the reign of Dom Dinis and to subsequent chronicles, the author seeks to identify the origin and the meaning attributed to this expression, concluding that “é possível indicar o reinado de Dom Afonso IV como época de génese da mesma” (it is possible to indicate the reign of Dom Afonso IV as the time of its origin) (^{Dionísio; Nogueira, 2007}:130). Furthermore, in relation to the meaning of the phrase, the author mentions that “associado ao contexto de ocorrência, sobretudo confirmações de actos jurídicos praticados por antecessores, trata-se aparentemente de propiciar o perdão por Deus para os pecados dos reis passados” (associated with the context of the occurrence, especially the confirmations of legal acts practiced by predecessors, it is apparently a matter of providing God’s forgiveness for the sins of past kings) (^{Dionísio; Nogueira, 2007}:127). I stress that, at the end of the article, the meaning of the formula “que deos perdoe” unequivocally refers to someone who has already passed away.

The date established in this article for the last reference to Friar Gil de Tavira is 1451. Recently, following in the footsteps of Piel (1942) and the conclusions reached by João Dionísio and Bernardo Sá Nogueira (2007), and based on a document preserved at the Portuguese National Library, referring to the monastery of São João de Alpendurada, Filipe Alves ^{Moreira, 2018}) managed to change that date to May 1, 1458. Consequently, there is an extension of the possible chronological period for the writing of the manuscript of the Leal Conselheiro (^{Moreira, 2018}:127).

As already mentioned, attempts to date that manuscript based on the dating of the last reference to Friar Gil de Tavira are only valid if it is accepted that this is the same person as Friar Gil Lobo. However, I shall prove that these are two different individuals. This document presented by Moreira (2018) did, in fact, make it possible to identify one final reference to Friar Gil de Tavira. But this cannot be associated with the date of the death of another Franciscan friar, Friar Gil Lobo, Dom Duarte’s confessor, on which the dating of the royal manuscript depends.

From all of this, we must bear in mind some information that has been made clear. The meaning of the expression “que deos perdoe” has been unmistakably proven. It refers to a person who belongs to the past, someone who has passed away. The only reference to Friar Gil Lobo as an ambassador to the Council of Basel is contained in the chronicle of Dom Duarte. Just as the only known reference to Friar Gil de Tavira as Dom Duarte’s confessor is to be found in the chronicle of Dom Afonso V. Both these pieces of information are taken from Rui de Pina’s work, neither of which has any known documentary support.

Solving the Problem: Two Different Men

Returning to this paper’s initial statement, the character who has been referred to as “Friar Gil Lobo de Tavira” was not just one single person. In fact, there were two people: Friar Gil Lobo and Friar Gil de Tavira. As mentioned before, this identification is the main objective of this text. Therefore, it is important to consider the arguments that justify our starting point.

Let us begin with what should be the first indication of these men’s different identities: their names. Friar Gil Lobo and Friar Gil de Tavira have the same first name, but different surnames. It is not possible to find even one contemporary document in which a single individual makes use of both names; in other words, it is not possible to find anyone who is identified as Friar Gil Lobo de Tavira. This only happens, perhaps for the first time, in 1666, in the aforementioned História Seráfica (^{Esperança, 1666}). Similarly, I did not find any document in which these two men appeared simultaneously, which, itself alone, would not be enough to justify their individuality.

The second aspect to be considered is the lack of any documentary evidence, as already mentioned, that could confirm that Friar Gil Lobo was one of Dom Duarte’s ambassadors to the Basel Council.¹² Except for the chronicle of Dom Duarte and his subsequent narratives, all contemporary documents, both Portuguese and pontifical, refer to Friar Gil de Tavira as a member of the embassy. Furthermore, the latter is never referred to as Dom Duarte’s confessor, which would be relevant information, and would certainly be included in the various petitions that he addressed to the pontiff.¹³ Once again, the only source of this information is the chronicle of Dom Afonso V.

Finally, a third aspect arises, perhaps the most illuminating of all, and one which supports the first two: an unpublished document, dated 7 November 1439, from King Afonso V’s Chancery (see Doc. 3). It is a confirmation granted by the monarch, under the authority of his mother, Queen Leonor, of a privilege conferred during the reign of Dom Duarte. This privilege, dated 15 May 1436, is granted to Martim Gomes, resident in Estremoz, and refers to his position as a scribe of the municipal construction works. He is presented as being “irmão de frey Gil Lobo nosso confessor que Deus perdoe” (the brother of Friar Gil Lobo, our confessor, may God forgive him).¹⁴

According to this document, Friar Gil Lobo passed away before 15 May 1436. Another document, inserted in the same folio, and also dated 7 November, 1439, similarly refers to Martim Gomes, and mentions that he was the brother of “frey Gil Lobo que foy confessor do muy alto e virtuoso e da gloriosa memoria el Rei meu senhor e padre cuja alma Deus aja” (Friar Gil Lobo, who was a confessor to the very high and virtuous King, my Lord and father, of glorious memory, whose soul may God receive).¹⁵ Although not as explicit as the first document in reporting the Franciscan’s death, this document nonetheless confirms the family ties between the two individuals, and reinforces Friar Gil Lobo’s position as Dom Duarte’s past confessor.

Bearing in mind that we have identified a reference to the date of Friar Gil Lobo’s death as being prior to 15 May 1436, he cannot therefore be identified as Friar Gil de Tavira for several reasons. Firstly, because there are secure records relating to Friar Gil de Tavira’s activity until 1464.¹⁶ I am referring to the prazos (leases) that he granted as the abbot of the monastery of São João de Alpendurada. This information, the last reference to Friar Gil de Tavira, means that there is at least a thirty-year gap between the deaths of the two Franciscans.

Secondly, if Friar Gil Lobo died in 1436 or earlier, it is not possible for him to have participated in the Portuguese embassy in Basel. The party began its journey in January 1436 and reached its destination in December of the same year (^{Dias, 2003}:9). For this reason, even if Dom Duarte ever considered appointing his confessor to this diplomatic mission (of which we have no documentary evidence), then such an intention was never, in fact, realized. Even if he had died during the trip, the absence of any such mention, either in the Diário da Jornada do Conde de Ourém or in contemporary documentation, is unusual.