^* Translated by Jane Herrick.

¹ Paris, 1960. We recommend by the same author, now professor at the University of Poitiers, Les sermons de Vieira, Etude du style (Paris, 1959). M. Cantel has carefully gathered the most complete bibliography that exists on Vieira. Only a few other works will be mentioned here: de Azevedo, João Lúcio, História de António Vieira (2 vols.; 1st ed., Lisbon, 1918 Google Scholar; 2nd ed., Lisbon, 1931), which, in spite of its date, remains fundamental for the biography; the publication of M. Hernâni Cidade on the defense of Vieira before the tribunal of the Inquisition, Vieira, P. António, Defesa perante o Tribunal do Santo Ofício (2 vols.; Bahia, 1957)Google Scholar; and for Vieira’s missionary activity in Brazil, Kiemen, Mathias C. O.F.M., The Indian Policy of Portugal in the Amazon Region, 1614–1693 (Washington, 1954), pp. 79–117.Google Scholar

It seems that the historical and sociological problems raised by the different forms of messianism (in the widest sense of the term) are now undergoing a revival of interest and curiosity. For the past, one should mention (outside those which concern P. Tenorio, of whom mention will be made later) : Phelan, John Leddy, The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1956),Google Scholar with the reviews in Bulletin Hispanique [Bordeaux], LIX (1957), 101–106, and in Revue du Nord [Lille], XLII (1960), 241–248; and Bataillon, Marcel, Annuaire du Collège de France, 1950, pp. 229–234, 1953,Google Scholar pp. 277–284; “La herejía de Fray Francisco de la Cruz” etc. in Miscellánea Fernando Ortiz (Havana, 1955), pp. 135–146, and “Evangélisme et millénarisme au Nouveau Monde” in Courants religieux et humanisme à la fin du XV^e et au début du XVI^e siècle [Colloque de Strasbourg, 9–11 mai 1957] (Paris, 1959), pp. 25–36. For our era one can refer to Numbers 4 (July-December, 1957), 5 (January-June, 1958), and 7 (January-June, 1959) of the Archives de Sociologie des Religions of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris) where the following articles are of interest to the Luso-Brazilian world: Métraux, Alfred, “Les Messies de l’Amérique du Sud” (Number 4, pp. 108–112)Google Scholar; de Queiroz, Maria Isaura Pereira, “L’influence du milieu social interne sur les mouvements messianiques brésiliens” and “Classification des messianismes brésiliens” (Number 5, pp. 3–30, 111–120)Google Scholar; and Bastide, Roger, “Le messianisme raté” (Number 5, pp. 31–37).Google Scholar One knows that these movements have acquired the right to be included in Brazilian literature thanks to two particularly well-known works: the historical-sociological study of Euclides da Cunha, Os Sertões (1st ed., 1902) and the novel by José Lins do Rêgo, Pedra Bonita (1st ed., 1938).

² Cantel, op. cit., p. 56. Cf. de Guibert, Joseph S.J., La spiritualité de la Compagnie de Jésus (Rome, 1953), p. 317.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Revista portuguesa de história, V(1951), 357, and Cantel, op. cit., p. 57. The Memorial of Pero Roiz Soares (Manuel Lopes de Almeida, ed.; Coimbra, 1953) which covers the years 1569–1628 is full of prodigies. For Spain during the first half of the seventeenth century, the late Dr. Gregorio Marañón has brought out certain aspects of this atmosphere in his great work El Conde-Duque de Olivares (1st. ed.; Madrid, 1936). This situation explains the strong campaign of Feijó in the following century against false prodigies and false miracles.

⁴ On all these points, cf. de Azevedo, Jõao Lúcio, História de António Vieira (1918), 1, 78–141, 168–169Google Scholar; Cartas do Padre António Vieira, edited by de Azevedo, João Lúcio, (3 vols.; Coimbra, 1925, 1926, and 1928), 1, 92–93, 105–107Google Scholar; III, 782–783 (letter to P. Iquazafigo, April 30, 1686); and the publications of Cidade, M. Hernâni: Padre António Vieira, Estudo biográfico e crítico (2nd ed.; Lisbon, 1940), pp. 45–61 Google Scholar; Vieira, Padre António, Obras escolhidas (Sá da Costa) (Lisbon, [1951]), 4,Google Scholar passim; and Defesa perante o Tribunal etc., I, xiii–xiv, xxviii–xxix; II, 147, 385–386.

⁵ This whole passage is based on the correspondence of Vieira with Duarte Ribeiro de Macedo from March 6 to July 10, 1679. Cf. Cartas do Padre António Vieira, III, 360–361, 370–371, 377, 379–381, 401, 406. The Father “Sanchez de Çartoza” who appears on page 370 (letter of March 28, 1679) must be the same as “Carçosa” or “Çarçosa” mentioned in the Defesa, I, 225 (cf. the correction II, 395), that is, actually, FatherZarzosa, Marcos O.F.M., noted in Archivo Ibero-Americano (Madrid), 2^a epoca, 15 (1955), 395,Google Scholar861, who eventually became General of the Franciscan Order.

On P. Tenorio, see the articles of Eguiluz, P. Antonio O.F.M., “Fr. Gonzalo Tenorio, O. F. M., y sus teorías escatológicoprovidencialistas sobre las Indias,” Missionalia Hispanica, 16 (1959), 257–322 Google Scholar (on the stay in Spain see especially p. 261, n. 7); and “Father Gonzalo Tenorio, O. F. M., and his Providentialist Eschatological Theories on the Spanish Indies,” The Americas, XVI (April, 1960), 329–356. See also the bibliography in Archivo Ibero-Americano, 2^a. Epoca, XV (1955), 466–479, 715–716.

Contrary to what Vieira believed, Tenorio did not seem to have made a particular place for Portugal in his eschatological speculations. On the contrary, as is natural, it is for Spain and for the Spanish Indies that he reserves the leading role in the definitive installation of the divine kingdom. However, the analogy can be noticed between the title of one of his works, Clavis regia ad aperiendum ostium intelligentiae etc. (abbreviated Clavis regia scripturarum), and the Clavis prophetarum of Vieira. On this question see the preface by Cidade, M. Hernâni, to volume eight of the Obras escolhidas of Vieira (Lisbon, [1953]), pp. xxxiii–xxxv, xxxix.Google Scholar

⁶ In addition to the Bible and the Church Fathers, they were Joachim of Flora, Malachy, Methodius, Blessed Amedeus, Génébrard, Cornelius a Lapide, etc. The “Juan de Aquitania” of Tenorio is probably Jean de Roquetaillade, used so extensively by Vieira. Cantei, op. cit., pp. 22–23, 27, 124.

⁷ In recent reading I have come across the tradition of the four empires, in a completely different perspective from that of Vieira, in the treatises of Palacios Rubios (1450–1524) and P. Matías de Paz, O.P. (ca. 1470–1519). Cf. De las islas del mar Océano by Juan López de Palacios Rubios and Del dominio de los Reyes de España sobre los indios by Fray Matías de Paz, edited by Silvio Zavala and Agustín Millares Cario (México, 1954), pp. 72–73, 79, 240. Palacios Rubios also speaks of the fifth empire (p. 80).

⁸ On this point see the provocative remarks of Professor Marcel Bataillon in his course at the Collège de France in 1952-1953, and in particular, these concerning Vieira:

Annuaire du Collège de France, 53^e année (Paris, 1953), p. 280.