User:Walrasiad/liberty chest 2

Discovery
The St. Vincent panels were first discovered c.1882, covered in dirt and soot, in the scaffolding at the monastery of São Vicente de Fora ("St. Vincent Outside the Walls"), by the Portuguese painter Columbano Bordalo Pinheiro. Columbano immediately recognized the face of Prince Henry the Navigator (from its counterpart in the Paris codex of the Zurara manuscript) and had the panels removed, cleaned and hung properly. They were initially found as four panels, but it was eventually determined some had been stuck together, and subsequently separated to a total of six panels.

The first public notice of the panels came in a couple of articles by Joaquim de Vasconcelos in the Comercio do Porto newspaper in 1895, who identified also the presence of Afonso V of Portugal and his consort Isabella of Coimbra in the still-murky panels. Its first photographic reproduction appeared in the Burlington Magazine in 1909.

After some more cleanings, it became clear the painting had been crudely and garishly repainted and retouched over the intervening centuries. . In 1909, the Archbishop of Lisbon commissioned Luciano Freire (of the Academia Real de Belas-Artes) to remove the more recent layers to reveal the original painting underneath them and restore the panels to better shape. Freire only removed the superficial layers, and allowed some of the more skillfully-done corrections and retouchings to remain. However, it also revealed some botched attempts at restoration in the past, which Freire had to fix with some careful retouches of his own.

The original artist painted in oil and tempera without an underlying gesso base. Instead, the Baltic oak wood boards making up the panels were treated with a coat of brown varnish or oil, the picture drawn directly on that, and then painted in. An extensive examination of the underlying drawing, layers and corrections, using modern radiography, was conducted by a team of investigators in the early 1990s.

Since their discovery, the St. Vincent panels have become among the most contested pieces of 15th C. European art, and been subjected to repeated polemics over practically everything about them. The arrangement of the panels, their completeness, the date of composition, their intended location and where they have been over the past few centuries, the author, his nationality, the motives for the execution, the identity of the saint (or saints, or if saintly at all) depicted in the two central panels, the identities of the other people around him, the scene portrayed and its spiritual and/or secular significance, have all been vigorously disputed and remain uncertain.

Panel arrangement
The polyptych consists of six panels. They are commonly arranged and colloquially known as:


 * 1 - Panel of the Friars (Painel dos Frades)
 * 2 - Panel of the Fishermen (Painel dos Pescadores)
 * 3 - Panel of the Prince (Painel do Infante)
 * 4 - Panel of the Archbishop (Painel do Arcebispo)
 * 5 - Panel of the Knights (Painel dos Cavaleiros)
 * 6 - Panel of the Relic (Painel da Reliquia)

All panels are of practically of the same height. The two central panels ("Prince" and "Archbishop") are twice as wide as the outer panels. The intermediate outer panels ("Fishermen" and "Knights") are slightly narrower than the extreme outer panels ("Friars" and "Relics"). Both the central panels depict a central figure of a saint, and almost all the figures, throughout the panels, are turned to some degree towards the central saints, often in poses of veneration.

Although the original order arrangement of the panels is not certain, most historians have settled on this order when speaking of them. This display order was recommended by Reynaldo dos Santos for the 1940 Exposição do Mundo Português, and has since been retained by the National Museum of Ancient Art (MNAA) in Lisbon, the current home of the St. Vincent panels.

It is not certain that the St. Vincent panels originally formed a single polyptych. Indeed, at Figueiredo's recommendation in 1910, the MNAA initially displayed them as two distinct tryptychs: one combining panels 1 + 3 + 6, the other combining 2 + 4 + 5, each having one of the central saint panels in the middle. Several authors have severely criticized the 1940 shift into a single polyptych arrangement, on the grounds that a double representation of a saint in a devotional piece goes against the contemporary principles of religious art.

The proposal for the new arrangement was made already in 1926 by the Portuguese artist José de Almada Negreiros (who had reportedly sworn an oath before fellow-artists to 'crack' the mystery of the panels) and José de Bragança. Almada Negreiros pointed out that the alignment of the lines of the pavement stones at the bottom, with their rudimentary suggestion of a vanishing point (albeit not quite followed through in the upper part of the painting) implied this single polyptych panel arrangment. Other aesthetic arguments were made to defend this arrangement: e.g. the increasing scale of the foreground individuals (smaller in the central panels, gradually larger in the outer ones), that the line of priests in the background of the "Knights" and "Relics" panels should remain unbroken and that the symmetry of the compostitional lines was lost in the tryptch arrangement.

The single polyptych arrangment produces a nearly-perfect mirror-image symmetry in the distribution of people in the panels.
 * Taking the panels as two halves in the polypytch arrangement, it is evenly divided with thirty people one half (1 + 2 + 3), and thirty on the other (4 + 5 + 6).
 * The central two panels ("Prince" and "Archbishop") are nearly-perfect mirror images of each other: both have six people (5 + 1 saint) in the foreground and eleven in the background. The foreground people are distributed the same way: three people on the facing side of the saint (the lower person kneeling on one knee and a young adolescent tucked in the middle), and two people on the other side (lower person kneeling with both knees). The cluster pattern of the background people also mirror each other - doubled up near the central seam, strung out towards the wings.
 * The intermediary panels ("Fishermen" and "Knights") are nearly (but not perfectly) symmetric - "Fishermen" has 3 persons in front, 4 in back, while its opposite, "Knights" has 4 (!) in front and 4 in back. Both have a kneeling foreground person seemingly begging for foregiveness. It should be noted that one of the background people in "Fishermen" is also draped in a fishing net, and as such might be regarded properly as a foreground person, in which case the diamond-shaped arrangment of foreground people in the intermediary panels is consistent across both panels (albeit "Fishermen" would now lack a background person to make it perfectly symmetric).
 * The extreme left panel ("Friars") has 3 people in front, 3 people in back, plus one tall wooden object (plank), while the extreme right panel ("Relic") has 3 in front, 2 (!) in back plus one tall wooden object (open coffin). Although again not perfectly symmetric - one background person is off - both of the extreme panels are arranged in upside-down triangle shape (one person in middle foreground, kneeling with both knees), tall wooden object is positioned by the inner seam, etc.

A two tryptych arrangment can also be made to yield some degree of symmetry, but it is not nearly as neat as in the single six-panel polyptych.

Numerical symmetry of the outer panels could be restored to perfection simply by moving one person - e.g. one of the background figures from "Friars" to "Fishermen". It is uncertain why the artist did not do this and allowed the slight asymmetry to stand. A similar imperfection is also present in the light sources: the shadows show light coming from the same direction, the right, across all panels, with the exception of one panel, "Fishermen", where the light comes from the left. Some art critics believe that the slight exceptions and oddities that prevent perfection in composition were deliberately introduced by the artist for playful or cryptic reasons.

The aesthetic arguments for a single, long polyptych received documentary support from a letter written by an unknown author in the 1490s (discovered in Rio de Janeiro, published 1936, thus sometimes called the "Rio letter") that seemed to describe the two saint panels arranged in that double way. The Rio letter is the only pre-modern document which gives a description of the retable in the St. Vincent altar at the Patriarchal Cathedral in any recognizable detail - it explicitly refers to a double representation of St. Vincent with a very fresh and youthful face, surrounded by a multitude of nobles in "tall velvet caps". Although its wording is tricky, it does seem to suggest that the two saints were facing each other on adjoining panels.

Some commentators have suggested that a single long polyptych might not "fit" over the chapel altar. But placement might not be too much of an obstacle - particularly if we suppose only the two large central panels remained "fixed" in place and the four smaller panels were connected by hinges, forming loose adjustable "wings" that could be swung as needed to allow other large physical props (e.g. banners, processional crosses, tall candlesticks) to fit in the chapel. The wings might even allow the polyptych to close over itself. Indeed, closure might even be metaphorically implied, if we imagine the plank in "Friars" to be the cover of the coffin in "Relics" &mdash; only when the coffin is "opened" (outer wings swung out) is the Saint "revealed".

Reynaldo dos Santos conceded the possibility that an altar-top statue of St. Vincent might have stood in between the two central panels, breaking the continuity of the single polyptych and facilitating their placement in two pieces. But that is not quite a return to original two tryptychs - the order would remain as in the conventional six-panel polyptych.

Authorship and dating
In 1910, José de Figueiredo (historian, art critic and the first director of the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga in Lisbon) determined that these panels were painted by Nuno Gonçalves, a court painter of King Afonso V of Portugal who was known to be active between 1450 (when he was first appointed court painter) and 1492 (when we have confirmation of his death).

The principal clue for identification used by Figueiredo was a reference by the 16th C. humanist Francisco de Holanda who, in his, Tractato de pintura antiga (1548), referred to a Portuguese court painter who, "in a half-barbarous time" sought to adopt the style of the Italian Renaissance masters, "And this was Nuno Gonçalves, the painter of King Afonso V who painted the altar of Saint Vincent in the Cathedral of Lisbon, and I believe also by his hand, that of a Lord tied to a column, being whipped by two others, that is found in the Trinity monastery". .

Figueiredo originally suggested the panels were probably executed by Nuno Gonçalves and/or his atelier sometime between 1459 and 1464. Other date estimates have been proposed by other historians since, most of them hovering around the late 1460s, although some allow that it may have been commissioned earlier, perhaps even in the 1450s. Reynaldo dos Santos says the civil and military costumes date the painting between 1460 and 1470 and the ages of his identifications narrow that down further to between 1465 and 1467. The vast majority of scholars has accepted the late 1460s as the probable date of composition. Some recent studies have tried to push the date a bit forward, to after 1471, perhaps as late as 1478-81. There are occasional challenges to this consensus - most recently, a controversial book by Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) proposed that the panels were composed as early as 1445, just on the edge of historical possibility. (See "Fernandine thesis" below). Others have tried to push the date of completion forward into the 1490s.

(A recent dendrochronological study suggests the Baltic oak wood boards used in the St. Vincent would not have been ready for painting before 1448. However, that only sets the early bound of when painting could have started, not when it actually started - which can be decades, or even centuries later. The wide distribution of the boards used in the St. Vincent panels (no two boards from the same tree, the earliest from 1383, the latest from 1431) suggests Goncalves selected his boards from a long-term wood storage facility, rather than the latest consignment, which does not help narrow down the dating. )

As with the date, authorship has occasionally been disputed, particularly by historians who believe the painting was made outside the usual time frame. The most mentioned alternative candidate is João Eanes, a slightly older contemporary painter. Eanes may very well have initiated the work - a document from 1471 attests that Eanes was replaced by Nuno Gonçalves for some "works" commissioned in the city of Lisbon (possibly these very panels). Others have proposed other contemporary painters such as Gonçalo Eanes or João Gonçalves (sometimes speculated to be, respectively, the father and brother of Nuno Gonçalves), or Martim Vaz de Gusmão , or Vasco Fernandes (great-grandfather of the homonymous 'Grão Vasco'). Certainly, a polyptych of this size likely involved extra hands, and may have even been a collaborative effort among leading artists, so there may be an element of at least partial truth in some of these attributions, without taking overall credit away from Nuno Gonçalves.

Style and influences
The panels of St. Vincent are a unique and often puzzling piece. There is little or no precedent in Portuguese art suggesting the style and technique shown here, and there is very little continuation or development along those same lines afterwards. Some scholars suggest that Nuno Gonçalves (or whomever the actual artist was) developed this style by himself, ab ovo, and for that reason was justifiably singled out by Francisco de Holanda in his Dialogues alongside other great pioneers of European painting.

Nonetheless, the style of the painting shows some very clear influences from the Flemish "primitives" school. Among the suggested influences are Jan van Eyck, Dieric Bouts, Rogier van der Weyden and Hugo van der Goes, and contemporary Flemish-influenced Iberian painters like Bartolomé Bermejo and Jaume Huguet,. Indeed, it is sometimes conjectured that a foreign painter (perhaps even van der Weyden or van der Goes), rather than a native Portuguese, was the original artist, and some have even gone so far as to speculate that the painting is not Portuguese at all, but was made in Flanders for the Burgundian court, and represents a Burgundian scene.

As we have practically no details of the life of Nuno Gonçalves, there has been much conjecture of when and where he learned or developed his style and technique. It seems almost certain he must have gone abroad at some point. Some have speculated that the youthful Nuno Gonçalves met Jan van Eyck when the latter visited Portugal in 1428, and travelled back to Flanders with him in 1429, as part of the retinue of Isabella of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy. He probably spent a few years there in the circle of the Flemish primitives, absorbing their style and techniques. It has been suggested that Gonçalves spent some time in Tournai, apprenticed in the atelier of Robert Campin. Some scholars believe they see Gonçalves's hand in some non-Portuguese pieces, such the Pietà of Avignon.

The St. Vincent panels are a sort of collage of sixty individual portraits, arranged largely without perspective nor vanishing point, so the background figures appear nearly as large as those in the foreground. It is likely that the portraits are not all contemporaneous - Nuno Gonçalves probably composed the painting using individual portraits of courtiers he (or someone else) had painted earlier. It is believed several of the figures were long dead by the time the polyptych was composed, and probably others had aged further - which has complicated its exact dating. Some scholars have suggested that the grand festivites in Lisbon in 1451, celebrating the nuptials of Eleanor of Portugal to Frederick III of Germany, attended by an unusually large concentration of Portuguese courtiers, and counting the presence of several foreign painters from Naples, may have been particularly productive of many courtly portraits which were later used by Gonçalves for his polyptych.

The monumentality of the scale, and the crowded multitude in the scene, fits with the early Italian Renaissance painting style better than the Flemish, and some have suggested it may have been Italy, rather than Flanders, where Nuno Gonçalves might have sojourned and studied. Yet there is virtually no ornamentation nor decorative elements nor action poses so common in Italian art. Moreover, the Italian style of portraiture in the first half of the 15th C. had a strong preference for executing portraits in profile, yet only two of the sixty portraits in the St. Vincent panels (Afonso V in the panel "of the Prince", and the cleric by the crozier in the panel "of the Archbishop") are in profile. All the other persons face forward, usually with a tilt or three-quarters turned, a tell-tale indicator of Flemish influence.

Gonçalves's Flemish connection is reinforced when we contrast the remarkable success in his realistic faces and hands &mdash; the Flemish strength &mdash; with his relative failure in depicting lower human bodies (consider only the awkward legs of the kneeling king), something Italian training would not have allowed. He gets away with it by draping most of his foreground people in long robes. In Flemish art, clothing was meticulously and finely-drawn, with intricate detail, Gonçalves approach is perhaps a little more synthetic, rougher and broader, with the kind of classic sweep that recollects Donatello's sculptures more than van Eyck's intricate robes, although the robe folds of the extreme kneeling figures on the left (white robe in "Friars") and right (red robe of "Relic") are very reminiscent of van Eyck's. Gonçalves was certainly capable of detail when warranted - as evident in the dalamatic, chain mail, swords and the stunningly delicate pages of the open books in the foreground, but it gets rougher as we move towards the rear - perhaps he ran out of time to work on the details of the background figures, or perhaps he sought to give a deliberate impression of focus.

The Flemish connection is decidedly severed in the matter of background. Gonçalves's backgrounds are empty &mdash; plain streaks of empty dark hues, with none of the detailed background, landscape, architecture or furniture usually found in Flemish art. Where Flemish painting placed people in a realistic physical context, the St. Vincent panels seem to have no context at all, just empty boxes crammed with people. The panels are largely bereft of any physical props - a plank, a rope, a relic, a book and the occasional sword. The young queen (presumably Isabella of Coimbra) seems deliberately deprived of most of her jewellery.

Art critic René Huyghe (1949) proposes Gonçalves's style did not merely amalgamate two traditions, but created a distinctive one of his own, that he sought to build an atmosphere of concentration, with attention firmly placed on the individuals, their faces, free of any distractions, ornaments or props or any background elements where the eye might stray. Although all the faces in his portraits are serious, intense and emotionless, they are not dull nor repeated - each face has its own distinctiveness, with its own gaze and hints of character and psychology. In contrast with the Flemish "appearance of nature" or the Italian "appearance of the ideal", Huyghe proposes Gonçalves sought "the appearance of the human soul". And to that end, all distracting elements are thrown out - even linear perspective, which Gonçalves was apparently aware of (as shown in his floorstones, but generally neglected in the rest of his painting), may have been deliberately discarded by him as being nothing more than a decorative stunt.

Nuno Gonçalves does, however, come up with a stunt of his own: color. His colors are somber and subdued, and remarkably few. Outside the oppressive black, greys and browns, he only uses three vivid colors: red, green and purple. There is practically no blue. Yellow is only used occasionally to suggest gold when it is inevitable (e.g. swordhilts, ecclesiastical fringes), which stands in contrast to his glittery Iberian counterparts like Bermejo and Huguet who cannot help but lay on gold everywhere. The St. Vincent panels use subtle shades and combinations of colors to yield something akin to perspective, and reveal a hierarchy of importance. He works with an array of darkened colors to distinguish his chorus of faces in the rear from the dark and sepia background, and then gradually moves to the persons in the foreground, transitioning from single-colored to double- and then triple-colored outfits, with increasingly green jackets and increasingly red barrets and collars, until he reaches St. Vincent himself, who is radiantly colored and brightly contrasted, like a stained glass window in a gloomy church. The chromatic orchestration of the St. Vincent panels may be perhaps their single most admired aesthetic element. Wherever he studied, it was probably as a colorist that Gonçalves honed his skills.

Vincentine thesis
The panels depict fifty-eight persons gathered around the double and symmetric figure of what seems like a saint in red flowing robes, in the two central panels. The majority of experts who have studied this polyptych agree that the panels display several notables and social groups of the fifteenth century. They also agree that the leading members of the Portuguese ruling House of Aviz are represented on these panels, but they don't agree who is whom.

José de Figueiredo (1910) was the first to identify the central figure, the apparent saint in the two central panels ("Prince" and "Archbishop") as St. Vincent of Saragossa (São Vicente in Portuguese), the patron saint of Lisbon. According to the Vincentine thesis, the polyptych was commissioned by King Afonso V of Portugal from his court painter Nuno Gonçalves in the 1460s and it was destined as a retable piece for the altar of the chapel to the devotion of the relics of St. Vincent at the Patriarchal Cathedral of Lisbon.

The "Vicentine" thesis has been embraced by most other historians since, e.g. Sánchez Cantón (1921), Georges Kaftal (1942), Reynaldo dos Santos (1955), Adriano de Gusmão (1956), Charles Sterling (1968), Anne Francis (1979), Dagoberto Markl (1988), António Leite (1990) Dalila Rodrigues (1995), Antonio Salvador Marques (1998),  Pereira (2010) and many others. It is probably the most widely-held interpretation, albeit each author gives his own variant twist to it. It is also the 'official' view of the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga (MNAA).

St. Vincent of Saragossa was an early Christian of Roman Hispania who was tortured and killed c.304 AD in Valencia during the Diocletian persecutions. He was long venerated throughout the Iberian Peninsula. Vincent's particular connection with Portugal emerged during the Reconquista, around the time of the Siege of Lisbon in 1147 by Afonso I Henriques, the first king of Portugal. In the aftermath, Afonso I erected a temple dedicated to St. Vincent over the graves of those who died in that battle (symbolically, an "old martyr for the new martyrs") &mdash; what would evolve into the Augustinian monastery of St. Vincent Outside the Walls ("São Vicente de Fora"). A few decades later, in 1173, Afonso I arranged for the translation of the remains of St. Vincent from their resting place at Cape St. Vincent in the Algarve (still in Moorish hands) to Lisbon Afonso Henriques's acquisition of St. Vincent's relics was, at least in part, an attempt to elevate the prestige and emphasize the independence of his new Kingdom of Portugal. He may have seen the value of adopting for his fledgling kingdom a saint that could compete with - or at least not be submerged by - the massively-popular shrine of St. James the Greater at Compostela, the jewel of the Leonese-Galician kingdom he was attempting to secede from. Upon the arrival of the relics, St. Vincent promptly became the definitive patron saint of the city of Lisbon - the translation of the relics (ship with ravens) is represented on the city's coat of arms already by the mid-13th C.

Several elements of the Vicentine legend are given in the polyptych. The bearded Cistercian friar holding the plank on the first panel, the fisherman in the second panel, the coiled rope in the fourth panel, the translation coffin and a relic (apparently, a skull fragment) in the sixth panel, all point to quintessential elements of the legend of the translation of St. Vincent relics to Lisbon. However, some have criticized the absence of other elements of the legend - e.g. the ship and the ravens who guarded Vincent's tomb in the Algarve and legendarily accompanied his body to Lisbon. Religious iconography of St. Vincent usually depicts him with a gospel and a palm branch (traditional symbol of martyrdom) - the former is clearly present here, the latter absent (although the baton in the fourth panel could pass for the palm allegorically ). The Saint is also wearing a deacon's dalmatic robe - and it is known that St. Vincent was made a deacon by the Bishop of Saragossa, and is customarily depicted in such robes. His youthful and fresh, almost cherubic, face is also consonant with Vincentine tradition.

Being tied up with the original quest for Portuguese independence in the 12th Century, St. Vincent also became a preferred saint of the Aviz dynasty, whose scion, King John I of Portugal, is credited with preserving Portuguese independence from the Crown of Castile during the 1383–1385 Crisis. There are documents attesting that in 1433, shortly before his death, John I launched the erection of a presbytery and altar dedicated to St. Vincent at the Patriarchal Cathedral of Lisbon. This would drag out for years. Documents from 1451, during the reign of his grandson Afonso V, show that efforts were underway to build the chapel to St. Vincent under the direction of the master-architect João Afonso/Afonso Eanes. The process was accelerated after Jorge da Costa became Archbishop of Lisbon in 1464 and launched a more vigorous fund-raising campaign in 1467 to complete the St. Vincent altar, offering indulgences in return for donations. A document from 1469 shows King Afonso V made a substantial cash donation of 5,650 reals to the Lisbon cathedral "for the altarpiece of the martyr Saint Vincent being made there" and there is, of course, the 1471 document explicitly appointing Nuno Gonçalves to take over the "job in Lisbon" (obras de Lisboa) from João Eanes.

The existence of a magnificent retable at the altar of the St. Vincent chapel at the Patriarchal Cathedral is mentioned in only a few documents - notably the 1490s Rio letter, the 1548 reference by Francisco de Holanda and allusions by the 16th C. poet André de Resende. Physical evidence shows attempts to restore it at least twice. The first instance was probably in the 1530s/40s, to repair damage done to the retable after the heavy 1531 earthquake. The second instance is more murky and confusing. According to church records, the remains of St. Vincent were apparently "rediscovered" in the Patriarchal Cathedral in 1614, to much fanfare and celebration. How they got "lost" to begin with is unclear - perhaps a result of the 1597 or 1598 earthquakes? At any rate, a petition was submitted in 1614 to repair the tomb, altar and retable of St. Vincent, which was finally approved and ordered by Philip IV of Spain (III of Portugal) in 1631. It was probably during this last restoration when the external panels were attached to each other and their differences painted over.

The retable was mentioned again in 1642, by the Archbishop Rodrigo da Cunha, albeit a little more ambiguously (see below). A document from 1690 (found in the library of Évora in 1926) notes that the panels of the St. Vincent altar at the Patriarchal Cathedral were taken down to be replaced by a new retable, painted in the more fashionable Baroque style. What happened to them thereafter is unclear. A letter dated 1767 notes that the old panels of the retable, along with other antique pieces of the Patriarchal Cathedral, were moved in 1742 to the "quinta da Mitra em Marvila" (probably meaning the Palace of Mitra, a summer residence of the Archbishops of Lisbon). This proved to be critical to the panels' survival. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 heavily damaged the Patriarchal Cathedral of Lisbon, and destroyed most of the paintings and art pieces contained there, but the Palace of Mitra survived relatively unscathed. With the 1833 dissolution of religious orders in Portugal, the monastery of São Vicente de Fora ("St. Vincent-outside-the-walls") was turned into a palace for the Patriarch-Archbishops of Lisbon. Many of the old artifacts and ornaments that had been stored at the Mitra Palace were subsequently transferred to the new location, the panels presumably among them. Most Vincentine scholars believe this sequence sufficiently explains why the panels were eventually discovered at São Vicente de Fora by Columbano c.1882.

Criticisms and alternatives
The orthodox Vincentine thesis began being attacked by several authors in the 1920s. The art historian Virgílio Correia (1928) focused his criticism on the iconography of St. Vincent, in particular that the depicted saint seemed to be missing the usual indicators of his martyrdom - palm branch, millstone tied to the neck, saltire cross, bed of nails - as is common in depictions of St. Vincent. The coiled rope and the baton were, in his estimation, weak substitutes, the deacon's dalmatic inconclusive, the saint's cap an anomaly. Correia suggested it is possible this is not St. Vincent at all, certainly not a devotional piece. Correia's critique was launched at a time when the panels were split into separate tryptychs, and so each saint was assessed on his own devotional merits. But the 1940 combination into a single polyptych did not help matters - on the contrary, as noted by Kaftal (1942), a polyptych with a double saint was yet another violation of devotional rules.

If this is a devotional piece, there ought to be indicators of the life, sufferings and martyrdom of St. Vincent. The apparent absence of such clear indicators has sent researchers off in different directions. The reaction of scholars to the "problem of the panels" can be classified into roughly five types:
 * 1. Some rejected the iconography critique outright, and insisted there were sufficient indicators to support the Vincentine thesis, without apology or ammendments.
 * 2. Some claimed that it was not a devotional piece - or at least not quite. That the painting had a grander, more abstract and more secular meaning than a narrowly devotional piece dedicted to St. Vincent, and thus we should expect looser iconography.
 * 3. Some claimed that perhaps the polyptych was incomplete, that maybe at one point there were other panels depicting the life and martyrdom of St. Vincent in the original retable arrangment, panels that would have fulfilled that devotional function, but that they got separated along the way and went missing.
 * 4. Some claim that we are simply looking at the wrong panels and the wrong place. Yes, Nuno Goncalves did paint a retable for the altar of St. Vincent at Lisbon cathedral - but these panels aren't it. The original retable has long disappeared, and we are looking at a completely unrelated piece, probably destined for some other location.
 * 5. This isn't St. Vincent. The depicted saint is another saint. Or not a saint at all.

Missing iconography
The absence of the usual props of Vicentine iconography - ship, raven, palm, millstone, saltire - has not troubled all scholars. Some of these attributes were not commonly depicted in images of the saint until the 16th Century. Their absence in the panels is not fatal. There are contemporary images of St. Vincent merely with deacon's dalmatic and gospel, without the clunkier attributes - e.g. Piero del Pollaiolo's 1467-68 painting in the Cardinal's chapel at San Miniato al Monte in Florence.

The usual iconic attributes would also not fit well with the aesthetic style of Nuno Gonçalves. With low ornamentation, sparse props, no background details - Gonçalves was all about minimizing object clutter and focusing on human individuals. A millstone or saltire, or a boat and ravens, would be obtrusive and distracting. The few free-standing props there are - coffin, plank, rope - are carefully tucked well out of the way, in a manner that does not overlap with individuals. The held props - books, baton, relic, swords, rosary - are not numerous nor do they seem gratuitous. Effort seems to have been made to make them as unobtrusive as possible - most are held tight against the body to avoid impinging on nearby people. Even the saint's halo is minimal, and left unclosed. As Gonçalves was adhering to the realistic path, throwing in pint-sized ships, miniature millstones or saltires was not an option. Of the usual Vincentine icons, only the palm branch could realistically be added, although given the saint is already holding a gospel in one case, and a gospel and baton in the other, it would be hard to see how a palm branch could be added in without forcing an unnatural pose (something that would apall his realistic Flemish masters).

It should also be recalled that iconic attributes are usually used only to identify a standing saint when other context, activity and narrative are absent. But the panels have a context - it is not, after all, a mere picture of St. Vincent, but of the veneration of St. Vincent by other people in the panels. St. Vincent himself is performing actions – pointing out passages in the gospels to the king, and handing a baton to a soldier. It would be quite awkward to saddle him with strange objects when he is in the process of doing something else. Even just inserting a saltire or millstone in a corner would change the narrative, and make it appear as if we are witnessing the trial of St. Vincent before his persecutors.

That said, some Vincentine iconography is present. The deacon's dalmatic is almost decisive - Vincent is one of only three possible saints that are customarily depicted as such (the other two being St. Stephen and St. Lawrence). The cap is not unprecedented. Moreover, it may very well be St. Vincent is holding a palm branch in the "Archbishop" panel, albeit leafless for simplicity and to naturally fit with the narrative of the painting. (in the Pollaiolo picture, Vincent has a very reduced palm as well &mdash; made to look like a natural-looking quill). Vincent's millstone-tied-to-the-neck is implied by the coiled rope, the bed-of-nails by the wooden plank. And the coffin and relic should count as new translation icons in their own right, before ships and crows emerged in the Vincentine iconography in the 16th C. Many authors who have visited the question are satisfied that there is sufficient iconography there to identify the saint as St. Vincent.

Finally, in an interesting aside, Figueiredo (1910) minimized the importance of millstones and saltires, seeing them as a particularly Spanish iconographic tradition (as exemplified in retable of St. Vincent of Sarrià by Jaume Huguet) - perhaps unsurprising, as it was in Spain (Saragossa, Valencia) that Vincent lived and died. He notes that Portuguese iconographic tradition was more focused on the translation of his relics (crows, ship) rather than his suffering and martyrdom. Figueiredo relates the coiled rope to a Portuguese legend of how an inspired priest and two companions set out from Lisbon on a boat to retrieve St. Vincent from Valencia, but when caught in the high seas without a cable to raise the sail, a coil of rope miraculously appeared in the water, rising up from the bottom of the ocean. From this perspective, the coiled rope can be seen as an icon of triumph rather than suffering, fit to be placed among royals and nobles that are being exalted rather than condemned. When placed at the feet of soldiers apparently setting off on Holy War, the coil of rope can have a double meaning - both the prospect of martyrdom and the prospect of divine assistance in the upcoming conflict.

Missing panels
Rodrigo da Cunha, Archbishop of Lisbon, in his 1642 Historia Ecclesiastica, makes a description of the altar of St. Vincent at the Patriarchal Cathedral, the arts of which he dates to the time of Archbishop Jorge da Costa (btw 1464-1500). Costa says that in the middle stood a vaulted image (probably a statue) of St. Vincent, with palm branch in one hand, and ship in the other, and that the panels of the retable depict "the various miracles of the saint, with the principle stages of his life and martyrdom".

Cunha's comments have presented a puzzle to historians. Miracles are possibly there - earlier in his volume, Rodrigo da Cunha relates various miracles attributed to St. Vincent in Portugal - involving troubled sailors and shipwrecks, fishermen's catches, the Abbot of Alcobaça lost at sea - which is what Cunha might have seen alluded to in the left panels of the "Friars" and "Fisherman". But more perplexing is the other part of Cunha's comments: the St. Vincent polyptych does not seem to exhibit any of the phases of St. Vincent's life and death.

Some have dismissed Cunha's description as just an offhand and careless comment, Cunha not quite understanding the picture he was seeing. But other authors have pounced on this comment to suggest that the familiar polyptych currently in the museum is incomplete, that there used to be a seventh panel (or a whole series of other panels) in the retable, in between and/or adjoining the current ones, which depicted the life, sufferings and martyrdom of St. Vincent of Saragossa, as should be expected in a devotional altar. The relative abence of iconic attributes in the familiar polyptych is consequently easily explained: the millstone, saltire and other indicators of Vincent's martyrdom, would have been depicted directly in the missing panels, and thus did not need to be replicated in the remainder of the polyptych - that is, in the panels that we have today.

The "missing panels" thesis was strongly pushed by Adriano de Gusmão (1956, 1957). He conjectured that two other paintings at the MNAA, also attributed to Nuno Gonçalves by Figueiredo, and bearing an uncanny physical resemblance to the saint in the main polyptych, were part of a set of panels depicting the passion of St. Vincent that should have been in the original retable. These two (or rather one-and-a-half) paintings are Saint Vincent Tied to a Column and the half-panel Saint Vincent on a Saltire Cross. These were previously believed to be images of St. Sebastian and St. Andrew respectively, but Gusmão argued for the new identification, pointing out that the nude St. Vincent on a column and saltire are common in passions of St. Vincent, &mdash; e.g. as in the retable of St. Vincent of Sarrià (c.1455-60 image) by the contemporary Catalan painter Jaume Huguet. The "whipped Lord" mentioned by Francisco de Holanda (1548) may very well be yet another "missing" panel of the passion of St. Vincent.

There have been several speculative attempts at "reconstructing" the missing panels and imagining what the whole architectonic piece might have looked like originally. The Portuguese artist José de Almada Negreiros (1950) proposed a large piece of 10 panels - the six of the polyptych plus four others (of which only one-and-half remained - the aforementioned extra Vincents). In 1962, Almada-Negreiros upped the number to 15 panels - the aforementioned ten, plus an additional five. To get these high numbers, reconstructors often use an additional four paintings at the MNAA, attributed also to Gonçalves, albeit of different saints: in order, St. Teutonius, St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Francis - lined up below the familiar St. Vincent panels at the Vincentine altar. Almada Negreiros even insisted on inserting the famous  painting (not normally attributed to Nuno Gonçalves) as part of this structure.

Wrong panels
The 1642 Cunha passage launched another line of hypotheses which suggested that perhaps we are looking at the wrong panels. In other words, that the polyptych displayed at the musem is not the retable of the Lisbon Cathedral mentioned by Francisco de Holanda (1548) and attributed to Nuno Gonçalves. That the original Gonçalves retable, which Holanda and Cunha saw, did indeed depict the life of St. Vincent but has long disappeared (of which the above two paintings may be the only remaining fragments).

What of the polyptych at the MNAA? They are an altogether different piece, with a different destination. Reynaldo dos Santos proposes it was a retable made not for the cathedral, but rather for the monastery of São Vicente de Fora, on account that the only relics the panels show (the coffin and the skull fragment) happen to be the relics held by that monastery, and not the Patriarchal Cathedral.

Other destinations have been proposed for the St. Vincent polyptych: Vasconcelos (1895, who had no inkling of Holanda) originally thought they were destined for a royal palace, Saraiva (1925) seems to suggest the same, Henrique Loureiro (1927) proposed they were for the monastery of St. Eligius (Santo Elói) in Lisbon , Belard da Fonseca (1957) claimed they were destined to be installed in the Cardinal James's chapel at San Miniato al Monte in Florence , Almada-Negreiros (1958) came to the conclusion that they were destined for the Batalha Monastery. More recently, Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) claimed they were for the church of St. Anthony (Santo António) in Lisbon.

Nonetheless, these alternatives are merely conjectures, for there is no documentary evidence referring, or even alluding, to the presence of these panels elsewhere. Even if we entertain that the comments of Holanda in 1548 and Cunha in 1642 are referring to a different retable piece, the Rio letter of the 1490s - describing the retable at the Cathedral as a double saint surrounded by nobles in caps - seems to be unmistakeably referring to the familiar St. Vincent panels and makes it very hard to uphold these alternative hypothesis. And if it is accepted that the St. Vincent panels were indeed composed for installation at the Patriarchal Cathedral rather than somewhere else, then it should probably also reasonable to assume that the other letters and documents about a retable there (however clumsily or carelessly worded) are probably referring to it.

Wrong saint
The apparently missing Vincentine iconography has provoked speculation that the saint depicted in the panels is not St. Vincent, and maybe not even a saint at all. The conjecture was launched and achieved its apex in the 1920s. Although the Vicentine thesis prevailed, this criticism has nonetheless been revived intermittently since.

The anonymous author of the 1490s Rio letter identified the saintly figure in the panels as St. Vincent. However, estimating the age of the saint to be seventeen, the author of the letter speculates (erroneously) that King John II, in his grief, had recently ordered a certain court painter called Mota, to repaint the saint's face with the physiognomy of his own teenage son and heir, Afonso, Prince of Portugal, who was killed in a tragic accident in 1491. However, radiographic analysis in the early 1990s show no modifications of the saint's face.

The first modern commentator on the panels, Joaquim de Vasconcelos (1895), suggested the depicted saint was actually an image of King Edward of Portugal (father of the kneeling Afonso V), glorified in the imagery of his namesake Edward the Confessor, the Saint-King of England. This identification did not take root, and was dropped after José de Figueiredo articulated the St. Vincent identification in 1910.

In 1925, José Saraiva rejected the "Vicentine" hypothesis and proposed instead that the saint depicted was actually Ferdinand the Holy Prince. Saraiva's "Fernandine" thesis was picked up by José de Bragança, who revived it occasionally in the press over the next several decades. It was resurrected most recently in 2000, in a much-debated study by Jorge Filipe de Almeida and Maria Manuela Barroso de Albuquerque. As the Fernandine thesis is arguably the most notable challenger of the Vincentine thesis, it will be considered in more detail below.

A competing thesis contends that the depicted saint is not male, but female, and that it represents St. Catherine of Alexandria, who was widely venerated in the Late Middle Ages, and whose attribute King Afonso V took as a personal device. The St. Catherine thesis was first proposed by Alfredo Leal in 1917, who went on to suggest that the painter might have used the the physiognomy of Isabella of Coimbra (the wife of Afonso V) as his model for St. Catherine's face. The St. Catherine thesis was endorsed by Henrique Loureiro (1927), but he proposed that the likeness was based on Afonso V's sister, Catherine of Portugal. (The Catherinist thesis has a melancholic postcript - the controversy over the identification provoked Loureiro to commit suicide in 1929. )

Other less-familiar hypotheses include the 1926 thesis of the Marquis of Jácome Correia, who argued the saint was St. James the Lesser. More recently, Castello-Branco (1994) argued that they are the twin saints Crispin and Crispinian.

There are several theses that propose the saint in the central panels is not a saint at all. In 1927, "Armando Lassancy" (pseudonym of Armando de Sousa Gomes) proposes it was merely a mystical magical-Christian portrayal of the late queen Isabella of Coimbra, depicted as a "Fairy Queen" (Isabella died at the age of 22). Another thesis that emerged in the 1950s was that it was a glorified depiction of Afonso V's cousin, James of Coimbra, the young Cardinal-Archbishop of Lisbon, who died in exile at the tender age of 25, and that the panels were intended for his funerary chapel in San Miniato al Monte in Florence. The Cardinal James hypothesis was first proposed in the monumental five-volume study by António Bélard da Fonseca (1957-1967). In a curious amalgamation, José dos Santos Carvalho (1965) combined this thesis with the Fernandine thesis, suggesting the two central panels were painted at vastly different times (c.1468 and c.1448 respectively), and that in one panel it is Cardinal James, and in the other, it is a depiction of Ferdinand the Holy. Osório Castro (1988) proposed it was Charles, Prince of Viana, the fiancé of Catherine of Portugal. Finally, Conceição Silva (1981) argued it was not any particular saint or human figure but merely an symbolic representation of the Holy Spirit.

Fernandine hypothesis
Of all the alternative challenges to the orthodox Vicentine thesis, the one that has gained most traction is probably the "Fernandine" thesis, that identifies the double saint as Ferdinand the Holy Prince. A royal prince of the House of Aviz, Ferdinand died in 1443, at the age of 40, in a Moroccan prison in Fez, where he had languished since the fiasco of the 1437 Siege of Tangier. A popular saintly cult around Ferdinand arose in Portugal not long after his death, encouraged by the ruling House of Aviz.

The "Fernandine" thesis was first articulated by José Saraiva (1925), found some vocal supporters like José de Braganca, and was recently resurrected by Almeida and Alburquerque (2000). Proponents of the Fernandine thesis tend to push the dating of the panels backwards in time from the 1460s/70s to the 1440s - between 1443 and 1447, the central panels narrowed down precisely to 1445. The usual Fernandine story is that shortly after hearing of the death of his brother in 1443, the regent Peter of Coimbra commissioned the panels as a funerary homage to Ferdinand. Fernandine theorists believe the St. Vincent panels were composed to capture the mournful spirit of the country after hearing the news of the prince's death, and were intended for either Batalha or some other church, for the veneration of the emerging saintly cult. There is no documentary evidence that Peter ever commissioned any paintings. However, Peter was the executor of Ferdinand's estate and is known to have funded (in 1443) a yearly mass to be said at Ferdinand's chapel at Batalha Monastery. Peter also ransomed (in 1448) some of Ferdinand's servants and fellow-prisoners from Fez. One of these, Ferdinand's secretary Frei João Álvares succeeded in smuggling (in 1451) Ferdinand's entrails and organs out of Fez, which were promptly interred in the tomb at Ferdinand's Batalha chapel. Ferdinand's bones and bodily remains were only retrieved in 1473 (or perhaps 1472) in the course of negotiations with Fez after the Portuguese conquest of Asilah and Tangier. The bodily remains were subsequently interred in Ferdinand's reserved Batalha tomb, with great ceremonies attended by the great nobles and prelates of the realm.

Another possible commissioner might be his other brother Henry the Navigator, arguably the chief proponent of the saintly cult of Ferdinand as a "Holy Prince", martyred for Portugal's imperial cause. Henry is said to have presided over the 1451 burial of Ferdinand's entrails at Batalha. In the 1450s, before his own death in 1460, Henry commissioned the painting of a tryptych of Ferdinand to be placed at his own (Henry's) chapel at Batalha, and to have commissioned Frei João Álvares to write a chronicle of the life, suffering and martyrdom of Ferdinand as a piece of Christian hagiography (finished c. 1460).

A third possible commissioner of the panels might be his sister Isabella of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy, a patroness of many Flemish painters. In 1467, she dispatched Frei João Álvares to Rome to petition the pope for permission to establish a chapel dedicated to Ferdinand at the Church of St. Anthony in Lisbon, and for an anniversary mass to be said in his honor. As part of this campaign, Isabella is believed to have commissioned an unknown writer to compose another hagiography in Latin, the Magister et gesta. Although Pope Paul II assented to Isabella's request in 1470, both would die shortly after (1471) and as a result the process stopped dead in its tracks - the chapel was never built, nor were any further religious honors granted.

Despite Isabella's efforts, Ferdinand the Holy Prince was never beatified nor canonized by the Catholic Chuch. As a result, the popular cult of Ferdinand fell foul of ecclesiastical restrictions on cults of non-saints. There is no evidence that the Ferdinand cult was ever taken inside a regular church (outside Batalha), except for a reported retable (since lost, and perhaps never made) at the Our Lady of the Olive Grove in Guimarães, set up in anticipation of the recovery of the bodily remains in 1472/73.

However much highlight it has been given in popular press, and however sympathetic commentators have been, the "Fernandine" thesis, the notion that St. Vincent panels are a funerary homage to Ferdinand the Holy, continues to be regarded as doubtful by most professional scholars. The difficulties with the Ferdinand thesis can be roughly classified into matters of iconography, timing and politics.

If the Vicentine thesis was weak on iconography, the Fernandine thesis seems even weaker. Depictions of Ferdinand the Holy usually portray him as a miserable prisoner, dressed in a long black cloak, bearded, haggard, dishevelled, in leg irons and chains, as can be found, for example, in the 1450s tryptych of Ferdinand in the the chapel of Henry the Navigator at Batalha Monastery, or the illumination in the Martirium pariter et gesta chronicle. It stands in stark contrast to the depiction of the radiant, fresh and cherubic-looking saint in the St. Vincent panels. Ferdinand's iconic attributes - leg irons, chains, a hoe (for his prison labor) - are nowhere to be seen in the St. Vincent panels. The only alternative image we have of Ferdinand is from the 17th C. as an armored soldier - which the saint here clearly is not.

The standard Fernandist reply is that such imagery is necessarily post-1451, whereas they date the panels in 1445. That is, that the conception - and thus imagery - of Ferdinand as a miserable bearded, chained prisoner would not have been known before Frei João Álvares returned from Fez and wrote his chronicle describing the captivity. As the panels were painted before that, the painter was free to innovate in his depiction of Ferdinand - and might have indeed borrowed or been inspired by Vicentine-like iconography, the most prominent martyr he knew.

More controversial is that the central figure is wearing a saint's halo, yet Ferdinand was never beatified nor canonized. Nor is he commonly depicted with a halo in his iconography - with one exception, an image made for the 1695 Acta Sanctorum by the Bollandists (although he is still represented there as bearded and chained). The Bollandists say their 1695 image is derived from woodcuts, which they conjecture were derived in turn from a retable at Batalha. Saraiva (1925) argues that the retable referred to by the Bollandists is a reported (now lost) 1539 retable painted by Cristóvão de Rodrigues, commissioned in the will of Eleanor of Viseu (the widow of John II), for Ferdinand's own chapel there. Although the Bollandists explicitly say that Ferdinand did not have a halo in the woodcuts, Saraiva nonetheless conjectures that the original 1539 retable might have had a halo, that may have been a common part of Fernandine iconography and that its inclusion was not an illicit 1695 Bollandist innovation. Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) take a different tack, and suggest that the shape of the halo (openly radiating rather than closed) means to suggest only unbeatified candidates for sainthood, not actual saints (although this argument has been vigorously repudiated) The deacon's dalmatic and maniple also contradicts Ferdinand, who was only a layperson. Saraiva (1925) suggests it is an embellishment by the painter meant to indicate his mastership of the Knightly Order of Aviz (although he was only a lay administrator, not a master). Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) suggest it is not a deacon's dalmatic, but merely an acolyte's vestment. Fernandines take the coil of rope as a reminder of how Ferdinand's corpse was hung from the battlements of Fez for humiliating public display after his death, and the open coffin a reference to the coffin which was later hung from the same battlements. (the translation of the body in the coffin not having taken place until 1470s, well after the painting was supposedly made). The baton is interpreted alternately as a insinuator of the hoe of his prison labors, or as a 'baton' indicating mastership of the Order of Aviz. . They also claim the saint's cap, similar to the caps worn by the royals in the panels, intends to indicates kinship.

The relic in the rightmost panel is more troublesome, as there were no relics of Ferdinand in Portugal at this time. While almost all scholars identify it as a skull fragment, most likely a parietal bone, Saraiva believes it looks more like a piece of entrails. That still does not resolve the date problem - as Alvares only brought the entrails back in 1451, whereas Fernandines assert the panels were painted in 1445. Saraiva speculates that either this particular panel was painted later or that some parts of Ferdinand's entrails might have been smuggled out of Fez earlier, before Alvares was ransomed. . Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) take a different track, and suggest this is not a relic of Ferdinand, but rather it is a relic of St. Anthony, picked up in Padua by Peter of Coimbra in 1428 during his travels, and deposited at St. Anthony's church in Lisbon by this time.

Fernandines suggest the scene depicts a funeral mass for Ferdinand the Holy attended by the royal family, nobles, clergy and people of Lisbon. This has run into numerous criticisms, e.g. Where are the indicators of death? Where is the grief? Why are the congregants not in mourning apparel? Where are the liturgical elements? Where is the priest conducting the mass and the eucharist (bread and wine)? Fernandines have tried to reply to these criticisms. Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) assert this is an irregular Missa Sicca, a hurried "dry mass" conducted by Ferdinand himself, where the relic of St. Anthony stands in for bread and wine. Critics, however, call this proposition a "monstrosity from the liturgical point of view" as even a Missa Sicca has to be presided by an ordained priest in sacerdotal vestments, not a layman, and that it would be highly unlikely for the high prelates and clergy of Lisbon to consent to being depicted in a painting attending such an "irregular" mass.

The second difficulty is more logistical: Nuno Gonçalves was only appointed royal painter in 1450. Saraiva (1925) resolves this by proposing the panels were painted by earlier painters - Gonçalo Eanes or possibly João Gonçalves, while Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) speculate Nuno Gonçalves was actually appointed royal painter well before 1450. What about the evidence of it being installed at St. Vincent's altar at the Patriarchal Cathedral c.1470? Fernandines claim it wasn't, that those panels were different - Saraiva is not clear where it was supposed to be placed (just not the Patriarchal Cathedral), while Almeida and Albuquerque say it was to be installed at the Church of St. Anthony in Lisbon.

Dating it so early also stumbles on political difficulties. Throughout the 1440s, the ruling dynasty in the Kingdom of Portugal was bitterly divided between at least two factions - one led by Peter of Coimbra, the other by his older half-brother, Afonso of Barcelos (1st Duke of Braganza), with the sidelined queen-mother Eleanor of Aragon as another spoiling factor. Upon his death in 1439, Edward of Portugal had appointed his consort, Eleanor, as regent for the young Afonso V of Portugal. Peter, with the help of his brother John of Reguengos seized the regency away from her in 1440. Afonso of Barcelos-Braganza emerged shortly after as the leader of the opposition, and finally drove Peter out of power in 1448. The two parties met at the Battle of Alfarrobeira in 1449, when the Petrists were decisively defeated - Peter was killed and his family driven into exile.

For a painting to be commissioned during these tumultuous times, one portraying the various notables of the ruling house, the painter would have been navigating a political minefield. Fernandists have argued that, being painted in the 1440s, it was a determinedly Petrist painting, exalting Peter's regency, and the ascension of the Braganzas after 1449 may help explain why it subsequently disappeared (although physical evidence of later attempted retouches and restorations prove it must have been on display somewhere). But this causes new problems of identification. It would be almost inconceivable to imagine a painting commissioned on Peter's orders would give pride of place to Eleanor of Aragon or the House of Braganza, which many scholars, Vincentine and Fernandine alike, believe to be depicted there.

Another problem with the dating is the saintly cult of Ferdinand itself. It may be premature to see it already so advanced in 1445. It is hard to raise a cult without a body or relics - which only arrived later. Alvares's account and the Martirium pariter et gesta were still many years away. There is no evidence of the existence of a cult of Ferdinand before that. The first request for church approval of religious honors was only made after 1467 by Isabella, yet in the 1445 panels Ferdinand is supposedly standing there already (and controversially) sporting a saintly halo. Once again, it is almost inconceivable prelates of the Catholic Church would consent to being painted in their ecclesiastical finery alongside such an irregular, if not outright sacrilegous, representation of a royal prince. Moreover, while Peter certainly felt deeply for the loss of his brother, there are good reasons to doubt he would have approved of a saintly cult in his lifetime. From the beginning, Peter was vehemently opposed to the Tangier expedition, urged withdrawl from North Africa, and did everything in his power to secure Ferdinand's release. Peter could hardly have seen Ferdinand's death as martyrdom for a holy cause he disapproved of. It was Henry the Navigator, not Peter, who was the moving force behind the erection of the saintly cult of Ferdinand in the 1450s, who masterminded the acquisition of the relics, who commissioned the hagiographies, who pushed for the "martyrdom" narrative, precisely to deflect attention away from the fact (according to the Petrists) that Ferdinand was a victim of the military pretensions, incompetence and finally treachery of Henry and the Braganza brood. In Petrist eyes, Ferdinand was a political victim, and to portray him as a holy martyr would only serve his political enemies.

Even if the iconography, logistics, timing and political problems were not as problematic as they are, ultimately, the Fernandine hypothesis stumbles on lack of evidence. Such a monumental piece was not made to kept hidden or secret. While there are ample commentaries referring to a grand polyptych for St. Vincent, there is, conversely, simply no documentary evidence at all suggesting a grand polyptych for Ferdinand was ever commissioned, displayed or seen by anyone. The Fernandine thesis relies almost entirely on conjecture. That conjecture may be appealing and maybe even plausible, but so long as not even a single contemporary scribble has been found alluding to it, it remains a speculative exercise, an interesting but fringe view, unlikely to displace the orthodox Vincentine thesis.

Secular hypotheses
The failure of the Fernandine theorists to find hard proof to substantiate their thesis did not, however, end its appeal. The Fernandine thesis proposed a connection between a painting and one of the great tragic episodes of Portuguese history. To return to the mundane Vicentine thesis - some saint surrounded by some nobles - was almost a let-down. The St. Vincent panels were too grand to be reduced to such a bland interpretation. It needed grander meaning to match its monumentality, it needed to become an epic of Portuguese history, not merely a religious painting.

Cortes scene
The historian Vitorino Magalhães Godinho (1959) was arguably the first to discard the saint question and focus on the scene itself. The identity of the saint does not matter - what matters are the people around him, the wider meaning of the panels, and where it fits, and what it means, and how it affects our understanding of Portuguese history. Driving Godinho's shift was the observation that the two central panels ("Prince" and "Archbishop") seem to depict primarily political-military scenes &mdash; in the first, the members of the royal house of Aviz, in the latter a coterie of noble knights in armor. As a result, Godinho suggests the St. Vincent panels are not a piece of religious devotional art, but rather a piece of secular political art. In this, the saint is merely an auxiliary rather than central figure. As a result, exactness of the religious iconography should not be expected, indeed, the identification of the saint is almost beside the point.

What secular event? Godinho (1959) proposed it was the assembly of the Portuguese Cortes in Lisbon in 1446, gathered to witness the transition of power from the regent Peter of Coimbra to his young charge King Afonso V of Portugal. By their clothing, the four groups of people in the two central panels can be identified as the estates of the realm gathered at the Cortes :&mdash; the royals (foreground of "Prince"), the commoners (background of "Prince"), the nobles (foreground of "Archbishop") and the clergy (background of "Archbishop"). Godinho proposes the Saint is merely an intermediary figure, receiving (not giving) the baton of power from the resigning regent Peter in the "Archbishop" panel, and then overseeing Afonso V's assumption of government in the Prince panel. The saint stands not only as a witness to the transition, but also as a guarantor of the solemn oaths professed there - Afonso V's oath of office, and the oaths of loyalty from the estates of the Cortes. The relic depicted in the rightmost panel, held by a man in the red robes of a civil procurator, would be the sacred object upon which oaths were customarily sworn at the time.

While any religious figure would do to enable this primarily secular event, Godinho admits it is most probably St. Vincent. The choice would be quite fitting – the 1446 Cortes were held in Lisbon (of which St. Vincent is the patron saint), it was the eve of the 300th anniversary of the 1147 siege of Lisbon (when the figure of St. Vincent first became associated with the city and Kingdom of Portugal), and the relic on which the Cortes's oaths were sworn were most probably Vincent's skull fragment brought in from the monastery of S. Vicente de Fora. Finally, Godinho speculates this might have been commissioned by the Lisbon city hall and meant to be displayed there.

Military propaganda
The historian Jaime Cortesão (c.1958) proposes a different secular event: the send off of Portuguese troops for military adventures in Morocco). Here again, the saint is not the central theme, but plays merely a supporting role to an overall secular event. In the panel of the "Archbishop", with its armored soldiers with assault lances, the saint is handing a baton of command to the military expedition leader and extracting crusader vows from the armored soldiers with assault lances to pursue Holy War against "the Moors" in North Africa.  Much the same vows are being extracted from the king in the "Prince" panel.

Three military expeditions could fit the bill - 1458, 1463 and 1471, all three of which were personally led by King Afonso V of Portugal. Adhering to the conventional Vincentine timing, that the panels were composed in the late 1460s, Cortesão proposes the panels are a propaganda piece to prepare and motivate the last 1471 campaign.

All three campaigns were directed towards capturing Tangier, albeit with different results (Tangier was finally seized only in the last 1471 campaign). As a result, Cortesão emphasizes that the memory of Ferdinand the Holy Prince, who was captured in the 1437 siege of Tangier

As such, the memory of Ferdinand the Holy Prince

campaign led by Afonso V against Tangier which ended up seizing Ksar es-Seghir instead; the 1463 expedition against Tangier led by Afonso V, which failed

There were four such notable conflicts in this period - the disastrous 1437 siege of Tangier commanded by Henry the Navigator during the reign of Edward of Portugal, and, during the reign of Afonso V, the 1458 campaign against Tangier, which ended up seizing Ksar es-Seghir instead, the 1463 failed campaign against Tangier (in which Afonso V nearly lost his life) and the 1471 campaign which the Portuguese finally seized Asilah and Tangier.

(possibly related to the Moroccan-Portuguese conflicts). In this, the saint seems more an auxiliary rather than central figure. In Godinho's proposal, both scenes are actually two sides of a single political event involving the Aviz dynasty - the Cortes of Lisbon of 1446, when the regent Peter of Coimbra was supposed to transition power to his young charge Afonso V, with St. Vincent merely in an intermediary role, "receiving" (not giving) the baton of power from Peter in the "Archbishop" panel, and then overseeing Afonso V's oath of office in the Prince panel. In other words, the saint is merely brought in to enable a primarily secular civic event. It is not a piece of sacred art, but primarily profane art. Why choose St. Vincent? Because the 1446 Cortes were set in Lisbon, and it was the eve of the 300th anniversary of the 1147 siege of Lisbon (when the figure of St. Vincent first became associated with the city.) Godinho speculates this might have been commissioned by and for the Lisbon city hall



Almost at the same time as Godinho, the historian Jaime Cortesão (c.1958) proposed a "synthesis" of Vincentine and Fernandine interpretations, and imbued it with an abstract but overt overall historical significance. Cortesão's sets his "secular" event to be Portuguese military adventures in Morocco. . The saint may explicitly be St. Vincent, Cortesão admitted, but the overall painting is about Ferdinand - or rather, the painting is about the Portuguese imperial-crusading mission in North Africa, in which the spirit of Ferdinand the Holy, the martyr of that mission, is being channeled allegorically via the figure of St. Vincent, the ancient martyr. He points to the coincidence that sculpted representations of both Ferdinand the Holy Prince and St. Vincent are at either end of the decorative frame of the axial door of the Jerónimos Monastery, suggesting the two were naturally paired together.

Cortesão claims the St. Vincent panels were composed in the late 1460s, in preparation for the forthcoming 1471 expedition to capture Asilah and Tangier. Cortesão shifts the function of the St. Vincent panels - it is not a devotional piece (as the Vincentines argued), nor a funerary piece (as the Fernandines insisted), but a votive piece, to exhort the vows of holy warriors to set off on crusade and avenge the death of Ferdinand the Holy. The religious function fades into the background, and the military-political one comes forth. The incompleteness or inadequacy of iconography of the particular saint matters little, as the painting is mixing the traditions of two different saints, and exploiting both of them to a secular end. The Kingdom of Portugal, the Portuguese nation and Portuguese imperialism, Cortesão contends, is what is being "baptized" in holiness, not St. Vincent nor Ferdinand in particular.

Reading the panels as a near-secular national historical epic, rather than religious devotional art, found great resonance among the Portuguese public, and further elevated the popular iconic status of the St. Vincent panels. Such readings placed Nuno Gonçalves in a category similar to the 16th C. poet Luís de Camões. The St. Vincent panels were no longer merely a masterful painting, any more than the Os Lusíadas was merely a wonderful poem &mdash; they were national epics, glorifying a nation and its history. Nuno Gonçalves was promptly given a place on the Padrão dos Descobrimentos, a monument erected in 1960 to celebrate the Age of Discovery. Gonçalves, who may never have done or sought to do anything more than to quietly paint saints in his atelier, was suddenly set up in the company of navigators, conquistadors and vice-roys of India, drafted into their imperial mission. (It might be significant to remember that the Portuguese colonial wars were going on throughout the 1960s, and the Portuguese Estado Novo was keen on cultivating icons of nationalism and overseas glory; there was even a running joke at the time that Nuno Gonçalves had the foresight to paint the dictator himself, Salazar, in the panels - as a background figure in "Fisherman" ). Competing secular-historical readings have permeated much of the discussion about the St. Vincent panels since Godinho and Cortesão, with the religious question often relegated to a secondary concern, if considered at all. However, many art critics have resisted some of the wilder secular theses. Whatever "political" message is read into them, it cannot be forgotten that it was a retable that sat over an altar in a church, it was not painted to adorn a royal palace or civic building, so claims of abstractness or mixed iconography are a little suspect for what is intended as a piece of religious art.

Jorge Segurado (1984) embraced Cortesão's thesis, but segmented the iconography and proposed that both saints are represented separately in two halves -Ferdinand the Holy Prince is on the left ("Prince" panel), among his family, while St. Vincent is on the right ("Archbishop" panel), together with the outer panels relating other Vicentine symbols (rope, relic, etc.). Iconography is kept distinct in Segurado's thesis, but it raises the question of why a retable for the altar of St. Vincent seems to partition evenly rather than give priority to St. Vincent. One resolution is functional, an attempt to canonize Ferdinand informally or surreptitiously via association with St. Vincent, after having failing to persuade the pope to canonize him properly.

Identifications
As can be expected, the array of interpretations have predictably produced a wide and often conflicting variety of identifications of the fifty-eight individuals gathered around the double saint. There is no consensus on whom is whom - although some identifications have wider acceptance than others. Some authors believe the identifications are of particular individuals of the artist's time and have sought to name each one, others believe many of them are not supposed to be identified, that they depict long-dead legendary figures or just archetype representatives of a social group.

While many serious scholars believe identifications are a hopeless enterprise, incapable of resolution, that they may not even be intended to be identified, it has not stopped most commentators from trying to attach names to faces for at least some of the figures.

Panel of the Friars
There is no settled identifications of any figures in this panel. The white robes of the three clerics in the foreground indicate that they are Cistercian monks, and thus most commonly assumed to be monks from the royal monastery of Alcobaça. The Alcobaça connection may seem perplexing - as no relics of St. Vincent (nor Ferdinand for that matter) were deposited there, nor is Alcobaça associated with the Aviz dynasty (whose family necropolis is Batalha Monastery, a Dominican convent). But tales of the 1173 translation of the Vicentine relics and associated miracles often involved monks from that monastery, e.g. the tale of the Cistercian abbot of Alcobaça on a foundering salt ship who was rescued by a miracle attributed to St. Vincent. The bearded monk holding the plank (figure No. 3 in the key) is associated with the tale of an Alcobaça monk taken captive by Moors, who escaped his captors' ship by jumping overboard on a plank.

A popular alternative theory is that these figures are Augustinian canons regular from the monastery of St. Vincent Outside the Walls (S. Vicente de Fora), where some relics of St. Vincent were indeed held, although their outfits bely them. Nonetheless, some have proposed at least the kneeling monk in the foreground could be Nuno Alvares de Aguiar, the prior of St. Vincente de Fora, who had previously been abbot of the Cistercian abbey of Santa Maria de Aguiar (in Riba-Coa) and was made first bishop of Tangier in 1471. The bearded monk in the background has sometimes been identified as Ferdinand the Holy Prince on account of similar appearance in iconography, but again the clothes bely that.

The wooden plank, as previously noted, has been sometimes identified as St. Vincent's bed of nails (on acount of apparent small nail holes), but also commonly identified as the cover of the open coffin in the right extreme panel ("Relic"), or the plank upon which the Cistercian monk escaped overboard, or even the trunk of a Christian cross. Attention is occasionally drawn to the dark shadow peeking in the left rear (seemingly in the hands of figure No.4), which some have proposed is a relic of St. Vincent covered in black cloth.

Some of the wilder political theories have ignored the monastic clothing, and proposed that these figures are secular. For example, Santos Carvalho (1965), who quixotically attempted to identify absolutely everyone in the panels, proposed that the figures in this panel represent some of the past dead greats of the royal dynasty (both legitimate and illegitimate lines). Specifically, Santos Carvalho claimed that No. 1. is the late King Edward of Portugal (died 1438 at age of 46), No. 2 is Afonso of Barcelos (1st. Duke of Braganza) (d.1461 at age of 90), No.3 is Ferdinand the Holy Prince (d.1443 in Fez, at age 41), No. 4 is Pedro de Noronha (Archbishop of Lisbon) (died 1452 at age of 56), No. 5 is his brother Fernando de Noronha (2nd Count of Vila Real and captain of Ceuta) (died 1445, c.65) and No. 6 is Frei Nuno de Góis, the Prior of Crato (d. 1442 in old age). These identifications have not been supported by any other authors.

Panel of Fishermen
There are no settled identifications in here either. This panel is dominated by the lowest social group in the panels - fishermen, assumed so on account of their humble clothing and what is clearly a fishing net wrapped around the shoulders of three of the figures - No. 8, 9 and 10.

A very probable hypothesis associates this panel again with stories of sea-related miracles attributed to St. Vincent in Portugal. St. Vincent was the patron saint of fishermen and sailors and it was routine for fishermen to cast their nets into the sea and appeal to St. Vincent for his favor, who would allegedly intercede and secure them a good catch. The posture of the bending man in the front (No.7), sometimes believed to be a Franciscan friar, or a vagabond, is probably also just a fisherman, as he holds a string of fishbone beads. He may be bent over in the act of kissing the soil and giving thanks to St. Vincent for helping him find solid ground, after his troubled boat was nearly lost at sea - saving from shipwrecks was a common Vincent-attributed miracle. (the string of fishbone beads may be evocative of the beads used by sailors's wives to count the days absent at sea).

Some scholars have interpreted metaphoric meanings in the symbols - the net symbolizing the "fisher of souls", the prostrated man representing abject "forgiveness", etc. Historically-oriented commentators tend to overlook the miracles aspect and suggest the fishermen are included as a mere courtesy in a polyptych otherwise dominated by the higher classes. That three are surrounded by a single net might suggest some sort of professional brotherhood or organization - Figueredo proposed it might be the Lisbon guild of Espírito Santo (founded 1428 and based in the parish of Santo Estevão), which took St. Vincent as their patron saint. But it has also been suggested that they might be the notorious "Companhia de Lagos", a slave-trading company founded in 1444 in Lagos, with the blessing of Henry the Navigator, who undertook a series of slave-raids on the bay of Arguin in 1444-46. Figueiredo (1910) proposes the three enclosed by the net are the founders (No.8) Lançarote de Freitas, (No.9) Gil Eanes and (No.10) Estêvão Afonso, and the three back figures the other captains of the first Lagos fleet of 1444, (No.11) Rodrigo Álvares, (No. 12) João Bernaldez and (No.13) João Dias. Santos Carvalho (1965) almost concurs, but considers they represent a different selection of Portuguese captains from the Henrican age of discoveries. In his identification, (No.7) the kneeling person is merely a metaphoric representation of Portugal, the three in the net are (No.8) the Lagos company leader Lançarote, (No.9) Soeiro da Costa (alcaide of Lagos, father-in-law of Lançarote) and (No. 10) - Vicente Dias (one of the captains in Lançarote's fleet), and the three in the rear are  (No.11) Gonçalo Velho (discoverer of the Azores), (No. 12) João Gonçalves Zarco (co-discoverer of Madeira), and (No. 13) Gomes Pires (captain of the royal caravel in Lançarote's fleet). Needless to say, most (if not all) these men were already dead by the late 1460s, when this panel was probably painted, but Carvalho posits that this panel in particular might have been painted as early as 1448. (for the curious, No. 10 was the figure deemed to be a likeness of the 20th C. Portuguese dictator Salazar).

Panel of the Prince
This panel is richer in identifications, and almost all scholars believe the foreground figures are members the ruling royal House of Aviz.

The most common (Vincentine) thesis identifies the saint (figure No.14) as St. Vicent, in a tutoring role to a kneeling king. The open book is the Gospel of St. John, and the saint is pointing out a passage which can actually be read as John 14:28-31, part of the Last Supper discourses, when Jesus Christ is gives out his final mission instructions to the Apostles. The particular passage is one where Jesus anticipates his death, but comforts his Disciples with the note that He is happy to be reunited with His Father but nonetheless promises to return. Scholars have interpreted the choice of passage variously - emphasizing the rewards of sacrifice and martyrdom (for St. Vincent or Ferdinand), or an instruction to the king about his dynastic duties, or offering comfort in someone else's death (Ferdinand's? Isabella's?).

The opposing page, which only gives fragments of words, has been suggested to be a liturgical passage from the Roman Missal, the preface of the Pentecost mass. . It is for votive masses of the Holy Spirit, commonly celebrated in red vestments (as the saint is wearing). It may have a similar function in this context as a Red Mass, that is, a mass for rulers, lawmakers and judges, asking for divine guidance in their judgments.

The king receiving the instruction, kneeling on one knee (No. 15), is commonly identified as Afonso V of Portugal. Born in 1432, Afonso would have been in his thirties in the late 1460s, which corresponds well enough to the age of the king here. The young woman in red (No.16), kneeling across from him, is commonly believed to be Afonso's wife, the queen Isabella of Coimbra. She had died in 1455 at the age of twenty-two (a plausible age for the woman represented here). Although she was long-dead in the late 1460s, the painter could have worked from a prior portrait. Her gesture opening her skirt to reveal a green under-garment has been interpreted as a sign of her recent motherhood (she died only a few months after giving birth to the royal heir). The adolescent (No. 17) standing by the king is that royal heir, Prince John (future John II of Portugal). Born in 1455, John would have been ten to twelve years of age in 1465-67. The age of the boy has been a critical determinant of the dating the panels as a whole, as it offers little flexibility in dating (some have pushed his age down to eight, others forward to fourteen, but those are really the outer limits of possibility given the boy's features). Note that Prince John is clad in green, like his father (Afonso V) and the undergarment of his mother (Isabella), but unlike the others. Green was the color of Order of Aviz, and the associated royal dynasty.

The choice of the Gospel of John, by coincidence or intention, echoes Isabella of Coimbra's reported fascination with St. John the Evangelist. Isabella was responsible for renaming the budding order of canons regular of the Holy Saviour (São Salvador) of Vilar de Frades (what is now Areias de Vilar), into the canons of St. John the Evangelist (|Cónegos Seculares de S. João Evangelista). And, of course, she chose the name John for her son. Hovering above the royals is an older man with a moustache and a dark Burgundian chaperon and across from him, an older woman in a widow's outfit (some see a habit of either Poor Clares or Third Franciscans). Most commentators assume the man to be Henry the Navigator and, mirroring him, Isabella of Burgundy, the uncle and aunt of Afonso V respectively. This is perhaps the most common interpretation, at least until recently, albeit not without its difficulties (see below).

The background figures are more complicated. The only common identification is the figure on the extreme left (No.20), which because of his direct gaze, as if looking at a mirror, many have assumed to be a self-portrait of the artist, Nuno Gonçalves. The rest are usually unindentified. Some believe them to be other members of the royal court, among which are the members of the House of Braganza (an illegitimate branch of the House of Aviz). However, given their relatively mundane clothing, others contend they are not nobles but rather common people, perhaps representatives of the burghers of Lisbon. This identification is particularly embraced by "social group" theorists, who take the two central panels ("Prince" and "Archbishop") as together representing the four estates of the realm - the royals (foreground of "Prince"), the commoners (background of "Prince"), the nobles (foreground of "Archbishop") and the clergy (background of "Archbishop").

As usual, Santos Carvalho (1965) attempted a precise identification of the background people that has not usually been supported by other writers. Sticking to the overall theme of royals, he considers figures Nos. 21, 22 and 23 to be members of the House of Braganza. The scion, the late Afonso of Barcelos (1st Duke of Braganza), who dominated Afonso V's government during the 1450s, having already been given in the "Friars" panel, Carvalho proposes that his sons and grandson are represented here - specifically (No. 21) Afonso of Ourém, (Marquis of Valença) (died 1460 at age of 58), (No.22) his brother Ferdinand of Arraiolos (2nd Duke of Braganza) (who would have been in his mid-sixties in 1465-67) and (No. 23) Ferdinand's son, the future 3rd Duke, Ferdinand of Guimarães (who would have been in his late thirties at the time).

For the rest, Santos Carvalho picks another semi-royal family, the Noronhas, who were descended from illegitimate branches of the defunct Burgundian dynasties of both Portugal and Castile. Having dealt with Pedro and Fernando de Noronha in the "Friars" panel, Carvalho proposes here (No.26) the third brother Sancho de Noronha (Count of Odemira), and also (No. 27) Fernando de Noronha's son Pedro de Menezes (Marquis of Vila Real, who was captain of Ceuta during the 1460s, who would have been around forty here), and (No.28) Pedro de Noronha's natural son Rodrigo de Noronha (Bishop of Lamego, confessor of Afonso V). The Noronhas were connected by marriage to the Menezes family, hereditary standard-bearers (alferes-mor) of the realm, highly active in the North Africa. So Carvalho decides to identify here the figures of (No.24) Duarte de Menezes (3rd Count of Viana, the first captain of Alcácer-Ceguer, who died in 1464, aged 50, while in the process of saving the king's life at Benacofu), and beside him (No.29) his son Henrique de Menezes (4th Count of Viana and first captain of Arzila, who would have been in his early twenties in the late 1460s). To cap off the remainder, Carvalho identifies (No.25) as Dr. Nuno Gonçalves, namesake of the painter, a doctor of law and future arch-chancellor of the realm and (No. 30) as Ruy de Sousa, the knight who saved the king's standard at Benacofu (who would have been in his early forties in the late 1460s).

It might be worth noting that the Noronhas and Menezes, while related, were also rivals, often bitterly. Both sought to lay claim to the inheritance of the scion Pedro de Menezes, 1st Count of Vila Real, the first captain of Ceuta, who died back in 1437 and the failure of the 1463-64 Portuguese campaign against Tangier is often ascribed to their mutual jealousy. Politically, the Noronhas were closely allied with the Braganzas, and one of their sisters, Constança de Noronha, was the second wife of Afonso of Barcelos (the 1st Duke). The Noronhas were the earliest instigators of intrigues against Peter of Coimbra during the regency years of the 1440s and worked actively with the Braganzas (some suspect murderously) to prevent the swap of Ceuta for the captive prince Ferdinand the Holy. So the inclusion of the Noronhas here alongside the Braganzas would be natural. By contrast, the Menezes were most closely connected with Henry the Navigator, and like Henry, vacillated between the Braganzan and Petrist parties during the regency years, and, again like Henry, ultimately decided to line against Peter at the Battle of Alfarrobeira in 1449.

Some authors (albeit not Carvalho) believe the widow in the foreground normally identified as Isabella of Burgundy (No.19) to be none other than the aforementioned Constança de Noronha. Widowed in 1461, she joined the Third Order of St. Francis, which some believe is the habit being worn by the widow. Constança would have been around seventy in the late 1460s. However, not being closely related to the other foreground figures and widely despised at the time, her presence on these panels would have raised some eyebrows.

Fernandine identifications
The Fernandine thesis, first articulated by Jose Saraiva (1925) and recently resurrected by Almeida and Albuquerque (2000), proposes distinctive identifications for the figures in the "Panel of the Prince". The most obvious difference is the saint (figure No. 14) which according to their thesis is identified as Ferdinand the Holy Prince. This presents an age problem - as the saint has a very young and fresh-looking face, almost an adolescent, whereas Ferdinand died in 1443 at the age of 40. However, this could have been done from a prior portrait - indeed, it would have to, as Ferdinand was in Moroccan captivity since 1437, so there would have been no portraits of him in Portugal later than the age of 34. The painter might not have had anything but some adolescent portrait of him to work from.

Since the Fernandines believe the painting was done in the mid-1440s, within Peter's regency period, the identities of all the other figures must change accordingly. The young boy (No. 17) evidently could not be prince John (not being born yet), so they propose instead that it must be the young king Afonso V. Born in 1432, Afonso V who would have been aged thirteen in 1445 (as contended by both Saraiva and Almeida-Albuquerque). This would be on the limits of possibility, given the boys young features. If Afonso V is the boy, then the kneeling king (No.15) would be someone else - Almeida-Albquerque suggest his late father Edward of Portugal (d.1438, at age of 47), while Saraiva prefers his uncle, the regent Peter of Coimbra (aged 53 in 1445). Both of these identifications have been criticized on grounds of age - the kneeling king looks much younger than the proposed late forties/mid fifties. While the painter might have had no choice but to use a younger portrait of Edward (he was dead), Peter was alive and available for a live sitting, so there was no reason to impose such a younger version of him. (Almeida-Albuquerque identify Peter of Coimbra in a different panel - (No.32) in the "Panel of the Archbishop", but that knight looks much younger than Peter's fifty-three.)

Similar age criticisms mar the other Fernandine identifications. For example, Almeida-Albuquerque suggest the young queen (No.16) is Edward's wife, the widow Eleanor of Aragon, who would have been aged 40 &mdash; far too old for the youthful woman depicted, and politically impossible for this period (Eleanor was overthrown and banished during Peter's regency.) Saraiva goes in the opposite direction, and identifies her as Isabella of Coimbra, aged 13 at the time, a proposition deemed far too young, particularly as she would have been the same age as the depicted boy, her alleged consort Afonso V.

Fernandines stick to identifying the man-in-chaperon (No.18) as Henry the Navigator - aged 51 in 1445, a plausible age for the man depicted. But the older widow (No.19) is a stickier problem. Almeida-Albuquerque adhere to identifying her as Isabella of Burgundy. The Duchess of Burgundy was 47 in 1445, a plausible age, but she was not readily available for a sitting at that age (she had left Portugal definitively as a young woman) and, more damaging, she was not yet a widow at this time (her husband only died in 1467). Saraiva identified her instead as Isabella of Braganza, approximately aged 43 in 1445, the widow of John of Reguengos (who had died in 1442). While age and status might be right, this choice was criticized for not being sufficienty justified - she was not that closely-related to the other figures in the foreground to merit such a highlighted appearance. Saraiva argues she represents the "missing" brother John of Reguengos to complete the five brothers of the Illustrious Generation - Edward (via son Afonso V), Peter (himself), Henry (himself), John (via widow Isabella) and Ferdinand (the saint).

Semi-Fernandine Joao Cortesao

Other identifications
For completeness, it might be worth mentioning some alternative identifications from other alternative (but non-Fernandine) theses. Early writer Vasconcelos (1895) originally saw the king-boy pair as Afonso V of Portugal and his younger brother Ferdinand of Viseu c.1450 - although only two years separated their ages. This was the view also proposed by Magalhães Godinho (1959), who dates the panels around 1446-48, proposing the thirty-looking king and twenty-looking queen were merely fourteen to sixteen years old, and the boy was his younger brother Ferdinand around the age of twelve or thirteen (naturally alongside Henry, who had adopted young Ferdinand as his heir). The "Cataranist" theorist Alfredo Leal (1917), who argued a 1458 date of composition, proposed it was Afonso V and his nephew John, Duke of Viseu (Ferdinand of Viseu's son, then ten years old) and the young twenty-something woman as Philippa of Coimbra (another daughter of Peter of Coimbra). Fellow "Catarinist" Henrique Loureiro (1927) identified the boy as the young John, Prince of Antioch.

Perhaps the most peculiar is Jorge de Sena's (1963) cheeky proposal that the scene is actually set in the Duchy of Burgundy, that the kneeling "king" is Charles the Bold (who would have been in his thirties, like Afonso V), and kneeling across from him is his recently-deceased second wife Isabella of Bourbon (she died in 1465 in her late twenties). Hovering above the couple are his parents, Philip the Good (died 1467, aged 71) and mother Isabella of Burgundy, and the boy is Charles's half-brother Anthony, bastard of Burgundy (whom, although in his forties and older than Charles, is represented in this scene as a boy to emphasize his illegitimate status). But all this, as Sena himself admits, is probably a little excessive, "too good to be true". Nonetheless, Sena insists the painting was commissioned in Burgundy-Flanders by Isabella and painted by a Flemish painter (possibly Rogier van der Weyden).

Problem of Henry's face
The usual attribution of the two standing figures of Henry the Navigator (No.18) and Isabella of Burgundy (No. 19) in the Panel of the Prince has been increasingly questioned. The identification of the man with the moustache and distinctive round round chaperon as Henry was the first identification made by observers and went largely unquestioned until the 1960s. It is immediately consonant with popular conceptions of Henry's likeness - as found in numerous pictures and statues of Prince Henry today. However, there are strong reasons to doubt this is him.

First of all, there are no confirmed portraits of Prince Henry. The best we have is the effigy of Henry on his tomb in the Batalha Monastery, supposedly sculpted in his lifetime, which shows him without moustache and a considerably longer hairstyle than the one depicted here. However, there is another image of the man-in-the-chaperon in the frontispiece of an undated 15th C. copy of Gomes Eanes de Zurara's Crónicas dos Feitos de Guiné (manuscript discovered in 1839 and currently held by the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris ). Zurara's chronicle is believed to have been written around 1453, although there is uncertainty as to when this particular codex was written, and when the frontispiece was added. The 1841 editor, the Viscount of Santarem, asserts that the frontispiece must have been done around 1450, claiming it showed Henry "in mourning" for the death of his brother Peter of Coimbra in 1449 (ironically, the very brother he lined up against and for whose death he was partly responsible - although Henry did later lead the procession of 1455 interring Peter's remains at Batalha).

The image in the Paris frontispiece is a practically exact mirror image of the portrait in the St. Vincent panels, and the basis of the identification for most scholars up until recently. Some contend the frontispiece portrait (where Henry seems quite younger) was done first, and that Nuno Gonçalves based his St. Vincent image on that existing image. This is not implausible - Henry the Navigator died in 1460, before the panels were begun, so Gonçalves must have been using some prior portrait, and used artistic license to "age" him in the panels. However, others don't see an age difference but rather a staggering quality difference and suggest it was the other way around, that the panel portrait came first, and some later poorer artist simply copied the image in the St. Vincent panels to make the frontispiece for the codex. He merely looks younger because it is a plainer picture - the frontispiece artist wasn't skilled enough, or cared enough, to include the wrinkles and other ageing features found in the panels. This would date the frontispiece down to at least the 1470s, if not later. Some have tried to split the difference, and suggest both Gonçalves and the frontispiece painter based their images from a common third source, some long-lost portrait of Henry.

Lending credence to the precedence of the panels is the very style the hat is worn. Burgundian chaperons were worn with the hanging sash on the right (as in the panels) rather than the left (as in the frontispiece). Also the frontipiece shows the buttons on the shirt fastened in feminine style, right over left (rather than left over right, the masculine style of the time, as seen on Henry and all the other men in the panels, and still extant today). These fashion errors strongly suggest the frontispiece could not have been drawn from a live sitting of Henry. Others have made note of the anachronistic elements of Henry's motto - Talant de bien faire ("Hunger for good deeds") - on the frontispiece, which has signs of being tampered with. The frontispiece spells "faire" but Henry's tomb in Batalha correctly spells "fere" (as per the spelling custom of the time), while the font of the Gothic letter "A" was not developed until the mid-16th Century. Taken together, scholars have contended the frontispiece was not done until quite later, a rather poor amateurish copy of the image in the panels. If true, then the frontispiece's credibility as an identifier of Henry the Navigator is considerably marred - as the later amateur painter would have little idea of what Henry actually looked like. A mid-16th C. date for the frontispiece would not be unlikely. The chronicler João de Barros, writing in 1552 says he found the pages of Zurara's chronicle "scattered" through the royal archives and had to collect it himself "with no small trouble". If the frontispiece was commissioned to illustrate the compiled work, it might only have been made after Barros put it together again - that is, the 1550s or so, a very late date indeed. It has been shown that the leaf carrying the frontispiece was added only after the volume was bound. If the frontispiece is not a reliable contemporary identifier of Henry, this consequently leaves the identification of the man-in-the-chaperon in the St. Vincent's panel wide open to discussion.

Adding doubt is the statue of Henry the Navigator at Jerónimos Monastery, which was sculpted c.1516 by João de Castilho under the directions of King Manuel I of Portugal. Henry appears here as a bushy bearded knight, armored with sword in hand. He looks nothing like the man in Burgundian chaperon shown in the panels. Presuming both Castilho and Manuel I had seen the St. Vincent panels at the Lisbon cathedral, and Manuel in particular was probably told which of his illustrious family members were whom, it is unlikely they would have undertaken such a radically different-looking statue. On the other hand, it is possible that the model of Henry that Castilho used was the clean-shaved effigy of Henry on his Batalha Monastery tomb, and that the beard was added by artistic license (given the fashion for bushy beards in the early 1500s).

Finally, there are functional questions. If the man-in-the-chaperon is indeed Henry, there remains the problem of explaining why he is depicted there in compositional terms. Why is a bachelor uncle and a widowed aunt from a distant duchy hovering over the king and queen? There are two potential explanations - the first is that Henry and Isabella might have been the financial sponsors of the painting, in which case Nuno Gonçalves may have been obliged to give them a position of honor. But Henry, as noted, died in 1460, before the paintings were presumably begun and there is no provisions in his will allocating money to that end. This brings up the possibility that the St. Vincent panels were begun earlier in the 1450s, which would reinforce a second possible reason: in the 1450s, Henry and Isabella were the sole surviving members of the legitimate branch of the House of Aviz. Their brothers, the other members of the the "Illustrious Generation", were all already dead by the 1450s - Edward in 1438, Peter in 1449, John in 1442 and Ferdinand in 1443. So it would make sense to place all living members of Aviz together. But a 1450s dating runs up against the insurmountable barrier of the young Prince John - who would have been an infant or toddler in the 1450s. The compositional arrangement is too careful to suggest he could have been a later addition.

Peter hypothesis
If not Henry, then who? If any uncle is to be depicted together with the royal couple, it probably ought to be Peter, Duke of Coimbra, the regent of the king and father of his queen. This would suggest the widow mirroring him as Peter's wife, Isabella of Urgell (died 1459, at age fifty), who is known to have become a Third Franciscan after the death of her husband in 1449. Isabella of Urgell is occasionally forwarded independently as a candidate for the widow figure, so it is not incongruous. Identifying Peter in place of Henry would also be consonant to the thesis (most frequently articularted by Fernandines) that the scene here depicts a transition of power, in this case from regent Peter to Afonso V. Despite the plausibility of his wife, few if any authors have seriously considered Peter as a candidate for the man-in-the-chaperon.

Edward hypothesis
A perhaps more plausible hypothesis that has grown in acceptance in recent years is that the man-in-the-chaperon is none other than Afonso V's father, King Edward of Portugal and the woman mirroring him is his wife, Eleanor of Aragon. Both were long dead in the late 1460s - Edward died in 1438 aged 47 while Eleanor lived on, a widow, until she died in 1445, at the age of 43. Both would have been painted in the panels from prior portraits. The ages of the two figures in the panels might seem a little older than their forties, but it is not outlandish, particularly when we remember that in the Middle Ages, people aged quicker. Moreover, the clothing and haircuts do better fit an earlier period: chaperons were more fahionable earlier (e.g. Burgundian duke Charles the Bold doesn't wear one in his 1460 portrait nor after), and "Henry's" short haircut is decidedly archaic (cut high on the scalp, as customary in the 1420s-30s, in contrast to the longer 1450s-60s hairstyles of everyone else in the panels). So its not implausible that Nuno Gonçalves derived that image from a 1430s portrait of King Edward. The physiognomy is also consistent. Chronicler Ruy de Pina reports that Edward wore "little beard" (pouca barba), possibly implying a moustache and the 1490s Rio letter describes a picture of Edward of Portugal at S. Domingos church showing Edward "with no more beard than a moustache"

And the Paris frontispiece? This, as noted, could be a later confused picture from the 16th Century. Alternatively, it could be an intentional picture of Edward. A significant, critical part of the events described by Gomes Eanes de Zurara in his chronicle took place during the reign of King Edward (r.1431-1438). It would not be unusual for a portrait of the king to adorn a chronicle of events that happened during his reign. The sole wariness is the motto - which was truly Henry's own - but has signs of being tampered with. It has been argued that the original motto on the frontispiece may have been Edward's motto Tant que serey ("As long as I live"), which was only adjusted later into Henry's Talant de bien faire. The tampering may have been innocent - as Zurara's chronicle is openly hagiographic of Henry the Navigator, and only Henry's motto is reported within it, some later person may have thought the frontispiece was a mistake and sought to correct it.

The replacement of Henry and Isabella with Edward and Eleanor brings a much more intuitive compositional symmetry to the "Prince" panel. All the figures in the foreground are royals, and only royals, of the Aviz dynasty. The ruling kings are all on the right of the saint (Edward, Afonso V and heir John II), their consorts on the left, mirrored exactly - kneeling Isabella of Coimbra mirroring her kneeling husband Afonso V, standing Eleanor of Aragon mirroring her standing husband Edward. It is natural that the prior monarchs would be hovering over the current ones, and the future one - three generations of the royal Aviz dynasty, emphasizing continuity. The open passage of the Gospel of John ("I will be going to the Father", "the Father is greater than I") gains additional meaning in this intergenerational context.

The Edwardian interpretation has the advantage of expelling all extraneous relatives (who are duly consigned to other panels). There is no more need to go cherry-picking among relatives, for guessing why this uncle, or aunt, or cousin, or sister-in-law was included to the exclusion of another one. And it readily resolves one of the bigger difficulties of this panel - having to explain why Afonso V's brother, Ferdinand of Viseu, the king's closest kin and second most important person in the kingdom, isn't apparently there in the inner family circle. The Edwardian identification resolves it simply: it is a panel with ruling kings and queens only. No relatives, not even the king's brother, are present here. In this light, the Panel of the Prince perhaps ought to be called the "Panel of Kings".

The principle difficulty of the Edwardian interpretation - besides abandoning the long-held and long-cherished identification of Henry - is the presence of Eleanor of Aragon. Dony (1967), who mulled over the "grey infanta" at some length, called the Eleanor option "unthinkable" on political grounds. Deprived of the regency by Peter of Coimbra in 1439, Eleanor went into exile in Castile in 1440, and continued scheming to regain power, including urging a Castilian armed intervention, until her death in Toledo four years later. No painting done during Peter's regency (1439-1449), the time frame argued by the Fernandines, would have depicted Eleanor in any shape or form. But after that her prospects improve. A painting of the late 1460s, would find it less objectionable to include her, and may indeed help explain one of the possible functions ascribed to the St. Vincent panels as a whole: advertising the reconciliation and unification of the House of Aviz, which had been bitterly divided since 1438, a reconciliation labored for by Afonso V's beloved Queen Isabella of Coimbra just before her death in 1455.

Function of the "Prince" panel
The function of the Panel of the Prince - showing various members of the Aviz dynasty gathered around a saintly figure - has been much contemplated and again interpretations vary. Early scholars tended to see it merely as a representation of the royal family venerating St. Vincent, emphasizing the relationship beween the saint and the ruling House of Aviz. But Godinho (1959) challenged that interpretation and argued that something bigger must be going on. The two central panels - "Prince" and "Archbishop" - can be seen to depict a gathering of the four estates of the realm - royals, commoners, nobles and clergy, the latter in their best attire. There are only a few occasions which call for such an large and solemn national assembly, e.g. the coronation of a king.

Godinho proposed the event depicted was not quite a coronation, but rather the transition of power from the regent Peter of Coimbra to his young charge, the King Afonso V. This event took place in 1446 when Afonso V achieved majority - or would have happened, had Afonso V not agreed to extend his uncle's regency for a few years more, so Godinho dates it around 1446-48. The saint is only an auxiliary figure, with the instrumental function of drawing oaths and promises of justice and good governance from the king assuming power, and offering to tutor the king from the Gospel and/or on behalf of the "nation" (the Portuguese Cortes).

Godinho's view accords best with the Fernandine interpretation of Saraiva (1925), who also argued for a composition date around 1445-49, and placed Peter of Coimbra on his knee, alongside the young boy Afonso V, and gave a similar interpretation of what it meant to represent (Saraiva's ages fit 1446 better than Godinho's identifications, who less convingly proposes the kneeling man is the teenage Afonso V and the boy his brother Ferdinand of Viseu).

Fellow-Fernandines Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) argue the "event" is a different one - the death of Ferdinand the Saint. What is depicted is a funerary mass for Fedinand the Saint conducted in 1445, two years after his death in captivity in Fez. or rather a celebratory mass of

ost modern scholars step back from seeing it merely as devotional, and believe it has some other more secular significance. But they differ on exactly what.

Fernandine author Saraiva (1925), who dates it in the 1440s and the young boy as Afonso V, argues it heralds the political transition of power from the regent Peter to his charge Afonso V that occured (or was meant to occur) in 1446 when the boy reached fourteen, and the function largely tutelary. Fellow-Fernandines Almeida and Albquerque (2000) almost agree, but displace Peter to the next panel, and instead put the focus of the Prince panel as a funerary mass for Ferdinand the Saint Prince, conducted by Ferdinand himself, for his relatives (although three of the five in attendance were either dead or abroad at the time, and the person conducting the mass was himself dead). Many see its function - indeed the whole function of the panels - as militaristic. That is, they see oaths being extracted from kings committing to adventures overseas, "taking the cross" for holy war in North Africa, as it were. They see pretty much the same scene played out in the "Panel of the Prince" as is found in the more overtly militaristic "Panel of the Archbishop". It is impicit Almeida and Albuquerque (2000), who although stressing its veneration of Ferdinand aspect, do take note of the giving of oaths by the young monarch Afonso V (his late father at his side) to avenge his uncle's martyrdom in North Africa sometime in the future (there were no campaigns, or plans for one, during the regency period of the 1440s; the next campaign was only lanched in 1458). Synthesis authors like Cortesao (1958), who date it in the late 1460s are more overt in the militarism but with different persons and date - oaths are being taken by Afonso V and future John II in preparation for an imminent North African adventure - the Asilah-Tangier campaign of 1471. The fact that both king and boy are holding swords has been argued to lend to the martial interpretation.

The military theme was also argued by many Vincentine authors, some of whom pushed the date earlier to allow it to mean the campaigns of 1458 and/or 1463/4. e.g. Figueiredo (1910) thought it was meant for the 1458 campaign; Gusmão (1952), who insisted on two separate tryptychs, assigns the "Archbishop" panel being in preparation for 1458 campaign, which ended with the conquest for Ksar es-Seghir (Alcacer-Ceguer) and the "Prince" panel being done in the mid-1460s as a ceremony of thanksgiving for Afonso V's escape from near-death in a Moroccan ambush in the Benacofu hills (south of ceuta) in 1464.

But not all authors agree Others, however, see a more foreign military than internal political function implied here - seeing pretty much the same theme in the Panel of the Prince as in the more overtly militaristic Panel of the Archbishop.

More recent interpretations turn to domestic politics.

The critical year in the political story is perhaps 1455, when Isabella of Coimbra died. From 1449 until then, Afonso V's government was dominaned by the Afonso of Barcelos (Duke of Braganza).

The foreground figures - Afonso V, Isabella of Combra and Prince John - are all royals.

Henry the Navigator died in 1460, so if the panels were assumed

) of Gomes Eanes de Zurara's Crónicas dos Feitos de Guiné, written in 1453. While Zurara's book is an account of the early Portuguese discoveries in Africa, it is also a hagiography of Prince Henry, assigning him singular credit for the discoveries.  As a result, it has been assumed that the frontispiece depicts Henry (the motto underneath also seems to have truly been Henry's own.)

One of the more controversial issues is the depiction of Prince Henry the Navigator. The man in black in the third panel is immediately consonant with popular conceptions of Prince Henry's likeness - a man with a light moustache and distinctive black round chaperon - which can be found in numerous pictures and statues of Prince Henry today. However, there are strong reasons to doubt that this is him.

On the other hand, a critical part of the discoveries was conducted during the reign of Henry's brother, King Edward of Portugal (r.1431-38). So one alternative hypothesis that has been forwarded potulates that the man-in-the-chaperon might, in fact, be King Edward I himself! It would not be unusual for a portrait of the king to adorn a chronicle of events that happened during his reign.

This alternative hypothesis can be used to help clarify the Panel of the Prince in the St. Vicent polyptych, as being composed of royals only - that is, kings and queens in pairs. Thus, the standing pair would be King Edward (in black chaperon, standing on right) mirroring his wife, Queen Eleanor of Aragon (standing on left). Whereas below them, is their son, King Afonso V of Portugal (kneeling on right) facing his consort, Queen Isabella of Coimbra (kneeling on left). Finally, the boy in the picture is the royal heir, future King John II of Portugal.

This alternative hypothesis seems more intuitive than the original hypothesis that insists on identifying the man-in-chaperon as Prince Henry. That would leave us scrambling to identify the others, e.g. Henry was a bachelor, so who is that woman standing on the left, mirroring him? If that is his mother Eleanor, why is her consort, King Edward, left out? Is it his sister, Isabella, Duchess of Burgundy? Why is she there (and without her husband)? It doesn't seem obvious why a bachelor uncle and an aunt from a distant duchy are hovering over the king and queen, rather than his parents, the former king and queen (and where are they, if not here?). Finally, if one is to insert an uncle in this panel, surely it ought to be Peter of Coimbra, the uncle who was the regent of Afonso V and the father of his bride! Some interpretations try to fix this by asserting Edward is the kneeling king, and Afonso V is the boy. Although Edward was older than Henry, he died young and so maybe there was no later likeness. But all these explanations seem a bit of a stretch simply to accommodate Henry as the man-in-chaperone.

It seems the alternative hypothesis, with King Edward as the man-in-the-black-chaperon, makes more intuitive sense. In that case, we have only royal king and queen pairs in the panel, with no intrusion of other extraneous family members (who are duly confined to their own panel - see below). In this light, the Panel of the Prince perhaps ought to be called the Panel of Kings.

21. - Afonso of Ourém, (Marquis of Valença) († elder son of 1st Duke, died 1460 at age of 60) 22. - Ferdinand of Arraiolos (2nd Duke of Braganza) (younger son of 1st Duke, died 1478 at age of 75) 23. - Ferdinand of Guimarães (son of 2nd Duke, future 3rd Duke of Braganza, would have been 40 years old in 1470, executed 1483 at age 53)

The rest is iffy. Carvalho seems to have picked a selection of notables from the high noble houses of Menezes (hereditary standard-bearers of the realm) and Noronha (descended from bastard royal lines of Castile and Portugal). The Menezes and Noronhas were both involved in North Africa and, although related by marriage, they were often bitter rivals. During the regency, the Noronhas were one of most virulent opponents of Peter, while the Menezes enjoyed good relations with the regent. But the Menezes were closest to Henry and, like Henry, they lined up against Peter at Alfarrobeira.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ad6SHXBOlbAC&lpg=PA444&ots=ADAD1niVhJ&dq=Ruy%20da%20Cunha%201437&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false

24. Duarte de Menezes (Count of Viana) († died 1464, aged 50); he was the first Portuguese governor of Alcácer-Ceguer (f. 1458) who died in 1464 at Benacofu (aged 50), while saving Afonso V's life.

27. - Pedro de Menezes (Marquis of Vila Real) - son of Fernando de Noronha and cousin (and rival) of Duarte de Menezes (No. 24); served as governor of Ceuta in 1460s.

29. - Henrique de Menezes (Count of Viana), son of Duarte de Menezes (No.24), inherited office of standard-bearer of the realm and captain of Alcácer-Ceguer in 1464, became first governor of Arzila in 1471. Died in 1480 at age of c.30.

The two central panels ("Prince" and "Archbishop") seem particularly productive of the "social group" theory - as the four estates of the kingdom seemed to be neatly divided - royals (foreground of Prince), commoners (background of Prince), nobles (foreground of Archbishop) and clergy (background of Archbishop). However, not everyone agrees on this, e.g. many have identified the apparent commoners to be nobles, and clerics, nobles and commoners are certainly represented in the other outer panels.

The first figure to be identified was No. 18, who most scholars believe to be Henry the Navigator St. Vincent is standing in the role of tutor here. The open book is the [{Gospel of St. John]], and the passage being pointed out by the saint is John 14:28-31. It is commonly believed that the kneeling king is Afonso V (then in his thirties), the kneeling young queen across from him is his deceased bride Isabella of Coimbra (who died in 1455, aged 22), the adolescent boy beside him is the royal heir Prince John (future John II of Portugal, then aged around 12). Hovering above them is often believed to be Afonso V's highly-recognizable face of Afonso's uncle, Prince Henry the Navigator (who died in 1460, aged 66) and, mirroring him, his aunt Isabella of Burgundy (who died 1471, aged 74) - although the identification of this latter pair has since been questioned (see below).

The two central panels ("Prince" and "Archbishop") seem particularly productive of the "social group" theory - as the four estates of the kingdom seemed to be neatly divided - royals (foreground of Prince), commoners (background of Prince), nobles (foreground of Archbishop) and clergy (background of Archbishop). However, not everyone agrees on this, e.g. many have identified the apparent commoners to be nobles, and clerics, nobles and commoners are certainly represented in the other outer panels.

Many historians hold that the first panel ("of the Friars") might represent the friars of the monastery of São Vicente de Fora. However, their apparently Cistercian outfits has lent strong contention that they are monks from the royal monastery of Alcobaça (by contrast, St. Vincent de Fora was Augustinian). However, the kneeling monk in that panel is often identified as Nuno Alvares de Aguiar, the prior of St. Vincente de Fora, who had previously been abbot of the Cistercian abbey of Santa Maria de Aguiar (in Riba-Coa) and was made first bishop of Tangier in 1471.

The historian Jaime Cortesão tried to combine the two theses - embraced the saint's identity as St. Vincent, but also promoted the notion that the piece as a whole was a funerary homage to Ferdinand the Saint, in preparation for the final campaign on Tangier in 1471.

Vitorino de Magalhaes Godinho (1959) eliminates the Saint Jorge Segurado (1984) resurrects Jaime Cortesão's thesis. Martins Oliveria (2010) reinforces the Cortesão thesis.

There is a third thesis which believes the saint is not male, but female, and represents St. Catherine of Alexandria, who was widely venerated in the Late Middle Ages. This was first proposed by Alfredo Leal in 1917, who went on to suggest that the painter might have used the the physiognomy of Isabella of Coimbra (the wife of King Afonso V) as his model for St. Catherine's face. The St. Catherine thesis was endorsed by Henrique Loureiro, but he proposed that the likeness was based on Afonso V's sister, Catherine of Portugal.

A fourth thesis that gained some traction was that the saint is not exactly a saint, but a glorified depiction of Afonso V's cousin, James of Coimbra, the young Cardinal-Archbishop of Lisbon. This was first proposed in the monumental five-volume study by Antonio Belard da Fonseca (1957-1967). In a curious amalgamation, José dos Santos Carvalho (1965) combined this thesis with the fernandine thesis, suggesting the two central panels were painted at vastly different times (1468 and 1448 respectively), and that in one it is Cardinal James of Coimbra, and in the other, it is a depiction of Ferdinand the Saint.

suggesting it was the Cardinal James in one panel Ferdinand the Saint in the other panel (which he argues were painted at different times, 1468 and 1448 respectively).

Other less-familiar hypotheses include the 1926 thesis of the Marquis of Jácome Correia, who argued the saint was St. James the Lesser. Castello-Branco (1994) argued that they are the twin saints Crispin and Crispinian.

Panel of the Archbishop


In the fifth panel ("Panel of the Archbishop"), center-right, St. Vincent is surrounded by a bevy of armored knights, the scriptures shut (common in military themes) and handing a baton of military command. There is greater variation of identifications here, although most historians believe this it is meant to represent one (or several) campaigns of the Moroccan-Portuguese conflicts. There were three campaigns during the reign of Afonso V: (1) the 1458 campaign against Tangier, which misfired and ended up seizing Ksar es-Seghir (Alcácer-Ceguer) instead, (2) the 1463-64 campaign against Tangier which failed (and in which Afonso V nearly lost his life in a skirmish at Benacofu) and (3) the 1471 campaign in which the Portuguese finally captured Asilah (Arzila) and Tangier (Tânger).

This panel has the saint plus five people in the foreground and eleven in the background. The number, arrangement and poses are a symmetric mirror image of the panel "of the Prince". The temptation is consequently to interpret it accordingly.

It is most frequently believed that the man kneeling on the left (No.32) is King Afonso V of Portugal again - a mirror-image to himself on the other central panel ("of the Prince"). Again, he kneels on only one knee (as a king), and seems to be addressed and receiving the baton of military command from the saint. Afonso V personally led the military commands of the three Moroccan campaigns (1458, 1463, 1471).

In the Prince panel, Afonso V was mirrored by his consort. As a result, historians have tended to believe that his mirror here (No. 33) has a similar close kinship, probably the king's brother Ferdinand (Duke of Viseu), the Constable of Portugal and second-in-command of the 1458 and 1464 campaigns, and designated commander of the 1471 campaign (until his premature death in 1470). This was proposed already by Figueiredo (1910), and agreed by Reynaldo dos Santos.

Santos Carvalho (1965) takes on a Fernandist thesis for this panel - that is, assumes that is painted c.1448, and thus an exaltation of the regency of Peter of Coimbra. Consequently, Carvalho proposes the three remaining foreground figures - Nos. 34, 35 and 36 - are the three sons of regent Peter. That is, Peter, Constable of Portugal (No. 34), John, Prince of Antioch (No. 35) and the James of Coimbra, the future cardinal (No. 36).

However, Vincentine theorist Reynaldo dos Santos suggests it ought to be

Given the military nature of this picture, Jaime Cortesão (c.1958) conjectured that the five knights in the foreground might correspond to the five high military offices of the realm - that is:


 * the Constable of Portugal (office then held by Ferdinand of Viseu)
 * the Marshal of Portugal (office then held by Fernando Coutinho)
 * the Standard-bearer (Alferes-mor) of Portugal (office held by Duarte de Menezes (Count of Viana until 1464, but he was far too old for this depiction, so could be his son and successor Henrique de Menezes; Cortesão also speculates this might be Duarte de Almeida (the "Decepado"), the standard-bearer who would be later hacked to pieces at the 1476 Battle of Toro)
 * the Admiral of Portugal (office held either by Ruy de Mello da Cunha or Nuno Vaz de Castelo Branco).
 * the Captain-Major of the Fleet (office held by Fernando de Almada (Count of Avranches) or one of his relatives)

Having dated this panel c. 1448, the identifications of Santos Carvalho (1965) are usually at odds with others. He identifies the mitred bishop (No.37) as Bishop D.Álvaro de Abreu (Bishop of Evora, legate to the 1437 Tangier expedition, d.1440), to his left (No.38) is Master Vasco Rodrigues (aged 70 c.1448, chanter of the Braga See, canon of Vilar de Frades), in profile by the crozier (No.39) is the Joao Rodrigues (dean of the Lisbon See, canon of Vilar de Frades, confessor and chief-chaplain of Isabella of Coimbra), (No.40) is Jorge da Costa (aged 42 in 1448, canon of Vilar de Frades, future archbishop of Lisbon, confessor of Afonso V's sister Catherine), (No.41) is Doctor Afonso Nogueira (canon of Vilar de Frades, future archbishop of Lisbon), (No.42) is Master João Vicente (Bishop of Viseu, aged 78 in 1448, founder of the Canons Regular of Vilar de Frades, and chief physician of John I and his sons) and (No.43) as Doctor Diogo Afonso 'Manga Ancha' (rector of the University of Lisbon, chief chancellor of Afonso V and head of the Casa da Suplicação, the supreme judicial court of the realm.)

=
=================================

, albeit here more explicitly noting that it depicted images of the life of St. Vincent. Since the St. Vincent panels do not actually depict the saint's life, this could be a misstatement. But the 'missing panels' theorists take it as a boon to their case. Some theorists have gone further, and suggested that these panels were never installed at the Cathedral - or more precisely, accept that Nuno Gonçalves did indeed paint a retable for the veneration of St. Vincent, and that the loose panels of the column and saltire cross may have been part of it, but that the familiar polyptych, the St. Vincent panels being examined here, were not that retable, but an altogether different piece composed for installation somewhere else.

Critics have also highlighted the absence of references to his actual life and martyrdom and have argued that a double-representation of a saint does not accord with the principles of devotional sacred art of the time.

At some point, they were taken down and and stored away at the Monastery of São Vicente de Fora (a dependancy of the Patriarchal Cathedral). The fact that they were in storage rather than on display may have been critical to their surviving the 1755 Lisbon earthquake.

The two images of St. Vincent in the two central panels represent two different aspects of the saint. On the left panel ("of the Prince"), St. Vincent, with the open book, appears as the tutor and patron of the ruling House of Aviz. Being tied up with the original quest for Portuguese independence in the 11th Century, St. Vincent also became the saint of preference of the Aviz dynasty, whose scion, King John I of Portugal, was credited with preserving Portuguese independence during the 1383–1385 Crisis. In 1433, shortly before his death, John I arranged for the erection of a presbytery and altar dedicated to St. Vincent at the Patriarchal Cathedral of Lisbon, and documents from 1451, during the reign of his grandson Afonso V, show that efforts were underway to build the chapel to St. Vincent under the direction of the master-architect João Afonso. A document from 1469 shows King Afonso V made a substantial cash donation to the cathedral "for the altarpiece of the martyr Saint Vincent being made there"

The book held open by St. Vincent has been identified as the Gospel of John (14:28-31) It is commonly believed that the kneeling king is Afonso V (then in his thirties), the kneeling young queen across from him is his deceased bride Isabella of Coimbra (who died in 1455, aged 22), the adolescent boy beside him is the royal heir Prince John (future John II of Portugal, then aged around 12). Hovering above them is often believed to be Afonso V's highly-recognizable face of Afonso's uncle, Prince Henry the Navigator (who died in 1460, aged 66) and, mirroring him, his aunt Isabella of Burgundy (who died 1471, aged 74) - although the identification of this latter pair has since been questioned (see below).

On the right panel ("of the Archbishop"), St. Vincent is surrounded by a bevy of armored knights, the scriptures shut (common in military themes) and handing a baton of military command. There is greater variation of identifications here, although historians are generally in agreement this is meant to represent one (or several) campaigns of the Moroccan-Portuguese conflicts. There were four such notable conflicts in this period - the disastrous 1437 siege of Tangier commanded by Henry the Navigator during the reign of Edward of Portugal, and, during the reign of Afonso V, the 1458 campaign against Tangier, which ended up seizing Ksar es-Seghir instead, the 1463 failed campaign against Tangier (in which Afonso V nearly lost his life) and the 1471 campaign which the Portuguese finally seized Asilah and Tangier.

The knightly figures represented in the "panel of the Archbishop" are believed to be younger generations of the House of Aviz and/or their associates, figures involved in the Moroccan campaigns, although which campaign is uncertain. There is virtually no consensus among historians on specific identifications in this panel, which varies immensely across different authors, even those in agreement elsewhere.

One proposition is that this panel was made earlier, perhaps around the 1458 or 1463 campaigns. It might depict, once again, Afonso V, who personally led those expeditions, kneeling on the left, a mirror image to himself in the other panel, while his brother Ferdinand (Duke of Viseu) (d.1470, aged 37), the second-in-command, kneeling on the right. Behind them might be the three sons of the Afonso V's father-in-law and late regentPeter of Coimbra (d.1449) - specifically, Peter the Constable (d.1466, aged 36) together with his younger brother John of Antioch (d. 1457, aged 26), whereas mirroring them is perhaps young Cardinal-Infante James of Coimbra (d.1459, aged 25).

Another proposition, following Jaime Cortesão (1971), believes the campaign in question is the last one, the successful campaign of Tangier in 1471, and that the panels were either completed just before in preparation, to encourage the campaign against Tangier, or in the aftermath, to celebrate it. In the 1471 interpretation, the knight on the left receiving the baton could be Afonso V's brother, Ferdinand of Viseu, designated commander of the expedition, but who died before the expedition set out. The other main figures are the sons of Duarte de Menezes (3rd Count of Viana) (d.1464): on the right might be D. Henrique de Menezes (4th Count of Viana) (d.) who ended up substituting Ferdinand in the 1471 expedition's command, and above them are his brothers D. Fernando de Menezes (first governor of Asilah-Tangier) and the young João de Menezes (Count of Tarouca, a later governor of Asilah-Tangier).

The archbishop standing in the background is frequently identified as D. Jorge da Costa, Archbishop of Lisbon from 1464 to 1500, flanked by the canons and archdeacon of the Cathedral of Lisbon, although other prelates have been proposed (e.g. the Bishop of Evora). The man holding the book in the corner is often identified as the royal chronicler Gomes Eanes de Zurara or possibly his predecessor Fernão Lopes.

, notably the "Illustrious Generation" (Ínclita Geração, the sons of John I of Portugal) are

Speculation has also surrounded by what seems like a the middle-aged Jewish man (sporting what seems possibly like a faint red star of David, the Portuguese Jewish badge) in the rightmost panel ("of the Relic"). Some authors (e.g. Sterling, 1968) have been quick to identify him as Isaac Abravanel, a courtier and close advisor of Afonso V, although others have doubted this identification as Abravanel would have been considerably younger than the man depicted. Others (e.g. Francis, 1979) believe it is a generic representation of the Portuguese Jewry, or perhaps the Chief Rabbi of Portugal. Still others have voiced doubts he is Jewish at all. Nonetheless, he is holding open a Hebrew codex, although the text is quite hard to read. Some readings suggest it is open at the Book of Isaiah 66:15-19, a passge which Christian theologians often interpret as an Old Testament prophecy of the future evangelical mission of the Apostles.

Political significance
Controversy surrounds the relative position of the House of Braganza (stemming from a bastard line of Aviz), which has given political meaning to these panels. From 1440 until 1445, the young Afonso V was under the regency of his uncle, Peter (Duke of Coimbra), the father of his bride, Isabella of Coimbra. But Peter's regency was marked by a bitter rivalry and power struggle with his older half-brother, Afonso of Barcelos (1st Duke of Braganza) (d.1461, aged 84), and his grown sons Afonso of Ourém (d.1460, aged 60) and Ferdinand of Arraiolos (d.1478, aged 74). The Braganzas succeeded in driving Peter and his partisans out of power in 1445, which culminated in the Battle of Alfarrobeira in 1449. Braganzan control of Afonso V's government thereafter was nearly absolute, and every vestige of Peter's regency was obliterated - except the queen, Isabella of Coimbra, Peter's daughter, who despite Braganza's entreaties to seek an annulment, Afonso V had real and deep affection for. Isabella's death in chilbirth in 1455 was a profound shock to Afonso V, and some historians believe the Panels of St. Vincent serve as a memorial to her, and simultaneously a posthumous rehabilitation of the legitimate branch of Aviz. It was around the time of her death that Afonso V allowed the corpse of Peter of Coimbra, initially left openly to rot to the elements on the battlefield, later in a minor grave, was formally translated to the Aviz family tomb at the Monastery of Batalha. The remains of Isabella of Burgundy were also translated there around this time.

It is believed by many historians that the "Panel of the Knights", with four protagonists, represent the legitimate sons of John I -Peter of Coimbra (d.,1449, aged 57, in green on right), John of Reguengos (d. 1442, aged 42), Henry the Navigator (d.1460, aged 65) and Ferdinand the Saint Prince (d. 1443, aged 40). The ages of the protagonists in the panel seem to match their ages at time of death fairly enough, and there are other symbolic indicators (see below for indicators). This panel, it is contended, is the rehabilitation panel.

However, some contend that this panel represents the members of the House of Braganza, although they were considerably older than they seem to appear here. As a result, many assign instead some of the many older-looking backfigures in the "Panel of the Prince" to represent Afonso of Barcelos-Braganza, Afonso of Ourem, Ferdinand of Arraiolos.

Some historians see an unabashed "Petrist" and anti-Braganza statement in the panels, whether intended by Afonso V or surrepititiously introduced by Nuno Goncalves in its execution. Others see it merely a statement of "reconciliation", without detriment to either Petrist nor Braganzan parties, a reunification of the bitterly divided legitimate and bastard lines which marred Afonso V's early reign into a harmonious single House of Aviz, partly to honor his wife Isabella, partly to stake out a new political stance of Afonso V, above partisanship.

Identifying the saint
For a sense of the variety of interpretations and polemics surrounding identifications of the figures, it might be worthwhile considering merely the contentions about the central figure, the apparent saint radiating in red in the two central panels.

The earliest interpretation was by Joaquim de Vasconcelos in 1895, who suggested the saint was the likeness of King Edward of Portugal, glorified in the imagery of his namesake Edward the Confessor, the Saint-King of England.

José de Figueiredo (1910) was the first to identify this saint as St. Vincent of Saragossa (São Vicente in Portuguese), the patron saint of Lisbon. The polyptych was destined as a retable piece for the devotion of the relics of St. Vincent at the Patriarchal Cathedral of Lisbon. At some point, they were taken down and and stored away at the Monastery of São Vicente de Fora (a dependancy of the Patriarchal Cathedral). The fact that they were in storage rather than on display may have been critical to their surviving the 1755 Lisbon earthquake.

The cult of St. Vincent in Portugal emerged around the fall of Lisbon in 1147 to Afonso I Henriques, the first king of Portugal, who established a chapel to St. Vincent over that battlefield. Afonso I arranged for the translation of the relics of St. Vincent to Lisbon in 1173, making him the definitive patron saint of the city (the translation is represented on the city's coat of arms). St. Vincent also became inextricably tied to Portuguese independence and the reconquista. In 1433, King John I of Portugal arranged for the erection of a presbytery and altar dedicated to St. Vincent at the Patriarchal Cathedral, and documents from 1451 show that efforts were underway to build the chapel to St. Vincent under the direction of the master-architect João Afonso. A document from 1469 shows King Afonso V made a substantial cash donation to the cathedral "for the altarpiece of the martyr Saint Vincent being made there"

The "Vicentine" thesis has been embraced by many others since (with some variations), e.g. Sanchez Canton (1921), G. Kaftal, A. Reinaldo dos Santos (1955), A. Gusmão (1956), Charles Sterling (1968), Anne Francis (1979), Dagoberto Markl (1988), Antonio Salvador Marques (1994-2010). It is the most widespread interpretation.

Sanchez Canton (1921) went with Figueiredo's hypothesis.

Reinaldo dos Santos (1955) embraced the "Vicentine" thesis

Charles Sterling (1968) reinforces the Vincentine thesis.

Anne Francis (1979) reinforces the Vicentine thesis.

Dagoberto Markl (1988) reinforces the vicentine thesis.

Antonio Salvador Marques (1994-2010) reinforces Vicentine thesis.

Identifying the saint
For a sense of the variety of interpretations and polemics surrounding identifications of the figures, it might be worthwhile considering merely the contentions about the central figure, the apparent saint radiating in red in the two central panels.

The earliest interpretation was by Joaquim de Vasconcelos in 1895, who suggested the saint was the likeness of King Edward of Portugal, glorified in the imagery of his namesake Edward the Confessor, the Saint-King of England.

In 1910, José de Figueiredo proposed that the saint was St. Vincent of saragossa (São Vicente in Portuguese), the patron saint of Lisbon, and the first to suggest that it was painted by Nuno Goncalves (appointed court painter in 1450), and/or his atelier. Figueiredo argued that the polyptych was destined as a retable piece for the devotion of the relics of St. Vincent at the Patriarchal Cathedral of Lisbon. The "Vicentine" thesis was endorsed shortly after by the Spanish historian Sanchez Canton (1921), and has been embraced by many others since (with some variations), and is the most widespread interpretation. (G. Kaftal, A. Gusmao, C. Sterling, etc.)

Sanchez Canton (1921) went with Figueiredo's hypothesis.

Reinaldo dos Santos (1955) embraced the "Vicentine" thesis

Charles Sterling (1968) reinforces the Vincentine thesis.

Anne Francis (1979) reinforces the Vicentine thesis.

Dagoberto Markl (1988) reinforces the vicentine thesis.

Antonio Salvador Marques (1994-2010) reinforces Vicentine thesis.

(so does Markl 2003 and Fausto Martins (2003), and Vitor Serrão)

The contention over the identity the "saint" only hints at the even greater variety of identifications of the supporting cast. Vicente is consonant to other Goncalves paintings (notably Vincent on the cross). Although some symbols of the legend of St. Vicent are missing, others are present (e.g. the ropes which providentially appeared in the water that allowed the sailors translating his relics to Lisbon take control of the ship; the wooden plank held by the bearded monk on the left, the relic held by the priest on the right, the open coffin to carry the relics).

St. Vicent appears twice, in the role of a tutor and guide on the left, and a martial figure giving out the command baton to a group of soldiers on the right (presumed to be going on to Moroccan-Portuguese wars).

Historical background
Tangiers expeditions:
 * 1437 failure
 * 1458 failure
 * 1463-64 failure
 * 1471 success

Fernandine interpretation
Iconic Christian imagery of Ferdinand the Saint always presents him as a dilapidated prisoner or an unhappy warrior, not a cherub-faced shining young thing, whereas the image of St. Vicent tied to the column (also at MNAA) is very similar to this one.

Nuno Goncalves is only royal painter after 1450. Would he be charged with painting this for Peter of Coimbra earlier?

Note: Even the MNAA does not assert it. If the legend is readable "The majority of experts who have studied the Panels of St. Vicent agree that they protray several social groups of 15th Century Portugal. And they also agree that the sons of King Joao I (r.1385-1433), the so-called Princes of Aviz, must be represented in the polyptych. However, there are hardly two similar interpretations of "who's who" in the Paneis. Here is a possible list of identifications, which is not accepted by all researchers."

Combined interpretation
Vicente is consonant to other Goncalves paintings (notably Vincent on the cross). Although some symbols of the legend of St. Vicent are missing, others are present (e.g. the ropes which providentially appeared in the water that allowed the sailors translating his relics to Lisbon take control of the ship; the wooden plank held by the bearded monk on the left, the relic held by the priest on the right, the open coffin to carry the relics)

St. Vicent appears twice, in the role of a tutor and guide on the left, and a martial figure giving out the command baton to a group of soldiers on the right (presumed to be going on to Moroccan-Portuguese wars).


 * 1437 failure
 * 1458 failure
 * 1463-64 failure
 * 1471 success

strong popular cult of Fernando by then.

Cortesao: says in the second half of the 1460s, as a campaign piece for Tangier.

Jorge Segurado (1984 Paineis de Sao Vicente e Infante Santo). He says both are there, Ferdinand in the left panel (with his family), and St. Vicent in the right panel (and beyond, where most other Vincentine symbols, rope, relic, etc. lie). Although this is for the altar of St. Vicent, why not priority? (attempt to canonize Ferdinand informally after failing to persuade the Pope to canonize him properly?)

John II's (b.1455) age indicates not after 1467

But Oliveira Martins argues that it is after 1471, after papal negation.


 * 1450 Henry recovered the entrails (but not the body) of Ferdinand in 1450, and are deposited in the Capela do Fundador in Batalha in 1451. Henry orders the painting of brother Ferdinand for the Chapel as a bitter captive, dressed in black.
 * 1455 John II born. Isabella of Coimbra dies a few months later, aged 23.


 * Amnesty for Peter's partisans, including his son, who is restored to the mastership of Avis. Disturbed by Isabella's death, Afonso V attempts reconciliation with the dead and unification of thedynasty. Translate body of both his uncle Peter and his mother Eleanor of Aragon to Batalha.


 * 1457 attack on Tangier, but opts for Ksar-es-Ceguer
 * 1458 Accompanied by his brother Ferdinand of x and uncle Henry, captures Ksar es-Seghir
 * 1460 death of Henry the Navigator
 * 1461 death of Afonso of Braganza - master opponent of return of Ceuta
 * 1463 third attempt on Tangier
 * 146? Peter's son, the constable, assumes title of king of Aragon and abdicates Portuguese titles.
 * 1464 Tangier fails. Many prisoners taken. King himself almost killed

Re-emergence of the cult of St. Vicent in the See of Lisbon, a symbol of crusade. In preparations for crusade, during the 60s, missions to pope to canonize Ferdinand. Frei Joao Alvares proceeds there to Rome to argue case. Isabel of Burgundy supposeldy helps in this case by her connections with Pope Paul II. Cult begins to gather pace.


 * 1471 Goncalves known to be highly active in Lisbon
 * 147? preparatory conquest of Anafe (Casablanca) by brother of Afonso V.
 * 1471 Arzila and Tangier taken. John made knight.  Prior of the Monastery of S. Vicente de Fora is made first Bishop of Tangier.
 * - tapestries of Pastrana celebrating the African conquests.
 * - negotiations begin for the devolution of the body of Ferdinand (still in Fez) After some impasse, it is finally delivered in Lisbon in 1473.  Great ceremonies.  Body temporarily at See before being translated to Batalha.

Oliveira Martins asserts the "Moor" who stole body from Fez and delivered it to Lisbon is depicted in the Knights panel. The Portuguse workman who carried the coffin is possibly in the Relic panel on the right. It mirrors the Cistercian friar in the Friar panel on the left with the wooden plank, who fled a Moorish ship in a St. Vicent tale.

Tryptich in MNAA commissioned for Henry for the Batalha monastery shows an emaciated, bearded Ferdinand.

Book is opened to the Gospel of St. John Ch. 14:28-31. Sterling assumes it is an Old Testament equivalent to the passage of the Gospel of John. (Jews conducted much of the negotations with Fez)

Archbishop on central panel is D. Jorge da Costa, Archbishop o Lisbon.

Genealogia iluminada do infante dom Fernando Fac-simile do Ms. da British Library ADD.12531. António de Holanda, Simon Bening, 1530-34.

Genealogía del Infante Dom Fernando de Portugal

Add. 12531: Genealogía del Infante Dom Fernando de Portugal, con miniaturas del flamenco Simon Bening hechas en Brujas y del lusitano António de Holanda, pintadas en Lisboa, según el plan de éste, 1530-34: Kren, no. 9, pp. 69-78

Monogram question
Some historians have speculated a hint of a monogram, signature or label of some type can be found obscurely hidden in the Panel of the Prince - specifically, in the stitching of the boot of the kneeling man, and (more recently) in the embroidery in the boot of the young boy beside him.

Figueiredo was the first to attempt to read the first boot, seeing there the possible monogram "GVsz" (= Gonçalvez). Saraiva (1925) read it as either "GV fez 45" (= João Gonçalves made it 45) or "GY fez 45" (= Gonçalo Yanez made it 45). Loureiro (1927) read it as "GVSMA" (= Gusmão) or "MVASG" (= Martim Vasques de Gusmão). An anonymous 1928 monograph read it as "Nuno G" (= Nuno Gonçalves). While the Almeida and Albuquerque (2000) read it as "NGs" (= Nuno Gonçalves). Belard the Fonseca (1957) read it differently, first as "Av..Y" (Afonso V and Isabella, Duchess of Burgundy, the names of its patrons), then read it again in 1963 more expansively as "L Av C Y" (L = Eleanor of Germany, Av = Afonso V, C = Charles the Bold of Burgundy, Y = Isabella of Burgundy). Castello-Branco (1994) read it as F and Y (Ferdinand of Guimarães and his wife Isabella).

In the controversial 2000 study by Almeida and Albuquerque, the authors claimed to have deciphered a second signature, which they claim is embedded in the embroidery on the boot of the young boy, which they claim says "S N Gs A CCCCRb" which they read as S(ignum) N(uno) Gs (=Goncalves) A(nno) CCCC (400) Rb (45). On the basis of this reading, Almeida and Albuquerque proposed that the painting was actually undertaken in 1445, a full quarter-century before the usually accepted dates.

On the basis of this, Almeida and Albuquerque resurrected the "fernandine" hypothesis, suggesting that it depicts a special funerary mass (Missa Sicca) for Ferdinand the Saint, who had died in 1443, and dismiss any connection with St. Vincent, and proposed unusually different identifications of the characters in the panel to match that early date (most famously, claiming that the kneeling Afonso V is in fact his father Edward of Portugal (aged 47 years), and that the young woman kneeling on the other side is his mother Leonor of Aragon (aged 40). Most historians believe this is improbably too old for people depicted, who are evidently younger.

(A-A ages: Standing:

Isabella of Burgundy, aged 48 Prince Henry, aged 51

on their knees: Duarte, aged 47 (at time of death) Eleanor of Aragon aged 40

boy: Afonso V, aged 13.

and in the next panel, the youngish-looking knight is supposedly Peter of Coimbra, aged 53!

The Almeida-Albuquerque book provoked a conference in May, 2003 hosted by the MNAA, inviting several historians and art historians to review their thesis. While many agreed that the Almeida-Albuqerque's book is provocative, its thesis has, by and large, not been generally accepted.

Side note:

The nub of it is this: the identification of that figure as Afonso V has been relatively stable for nearly a century, until 2000, when a mathematician and his mother published a rather controversial study claiming to have effectively found a "secret code" in the embroidery which they claim says the panels were made in 1445 (rather than 1460s-70s, the usual date given by historians). Dating the panels in 1445 forces all the traditional identifications to change - since, of course, Afonso V was only a boy in 1445, whereas he was an adult in the 1460s (when the panels were really made, according to everybody else). So Almeida & Albuquerque simply assigned names willy-nilly for everybody in those panels, without rhyme or reason, removing all the generally-accepted identifications (A & A rejected most other things about the panels too - including eliminating any connection of the panels with St. Vincent).

This book was panned by historians and art historians as pure balderdash, a fantasy on the level of the "Da Vinci Code" (e.g. by Vitor Serrao, Dagoberto Markl, Fausto Martins, etc.) Nonetheless, Almeida & Albuquerque were very good with their publicity, the controversy made the newspapers, they pushed the Ministry of Culture and the MNAA had to host a conference in 2003 to address the book - which was, again, dismissed as pure nonsense by the academics.

Now all that recent publicity brought general public attention to the panels again - the first time in a long time. The MNAA's display - which they carefully alert is merely a possibility - follows Almeida-Albuquerque sensationalist claims, which academic experts have almost uniformly denounced.

A & A claim that is Ferdinand the Saint (aged 43), not St. Vincent. Even though you can see from Goncalves's picture of Saint Vincent on the Pillar, that the face is St. Vincent's, that the iconography (rope, plank, coffin) is common fare in St. Vincent legends. And A & A simply disregard the fact that the panels were made and installed as the altarpiece for the St. Vincent devotional at the Cathedral of Lisbon. Morever, A & A don't realize there wasn't a martyr cult of Ferdinand in 1445, (it only began later in the 1450s-60s at Henry's instigation - Peter the Coimbra, the regent in 1445, would not have countenanced it). It is wholly at odds with 15th C. iconography of the Ferdinand cult, which always showed him as a miserable bearded prisoner in black, or possibly as a soldier, but never as a cherub-faced youngster, certainly not in the sacrilege of flowing brightly-colored sacerdotal robes with a saintly aureola! But no, Albuquerque-Almeida disregard all that and assert there's no connection to St. Vincent at all!

While academic historians differ on exact identifications, almost all (at least those who date it in the 1460s, i.e. practically everyone) uniformly agree the kneeling man is Afonso V, not Edward. And he would have been in his early/mid-thirties (as that man looks in the painting), not his late 40s. The kneeling girl would be the 22-year old Isabella of Coimbra - exactly age-appropriate.

As for the supposed Peter of Coimbra in the panel of the archbishop, that's nonsense. That whole panel is the knights of the late Moroccan campaigns (1458, 1463 and/or 1471) not 1437 (which Peter opposed). That is a baton of military command - for a constable or a marshal. Peter of Coimbra never led any African expedition - indeed he was vehemently opposed to any involvement in Africa! No, the young knights in the Archbishop panel are the next generation - Peter the Constable, Diogo, Ferdinand of Guimaraes, etc. The older House of Aviz is in the panel of knights - where we do see them more appropriate for their age at the times of their deaths.

A & A claim another figure there is Afonso of Barcelos-Braganza. Would any painting commissioned by Peter in 1445, at the height of the controversy, present his fiercest enemy and rival in glowing terms, the single person most responsible for preventing Peter's attempts to save Ferdinand and leaving him to die in Fez? It would be inconceivable such a painting would be made with Peter's approval. Indeed, some historians believe this painting was commissioned precisely to portray a "reconciliation" of the divided house of Aviz - something Afonso V might commission, after being shaken by the death of his beloved wife, Isabella (Peter's daughter), but not Peter himself.

And let me not even get to the artistic elements and style, which would have been wholly anomalous to have been present in 1445 Portugal, placing it well ahead of Renaissance Italy, but at least conceivable in the 1460s (but still striking and ground-breaking in a country with no notable artistic legacy preceding it).

Tralha
Gonçalves

Joao Eanes

http://books.google.com/books?id=wMK-Ba0-RG4C&lpg=PA138&ots=hsVEI4IcLk&dq=Jo%C3%A3o%20Eanes%20Nuno%20Goncalves&pg=PA137#v=onepage&q=Jo%C3%A3o%20Eanes%20Nuno%20Goncalves&f=false

Teixeira, Jose (1991) "Panel of the Infante" in J. Levenson, editor, Circa 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p.136-38

The Cistercian friar with the plank on the first panel, the fishermen in the second panel, the rope at the feet of St. Vincent in the fourth panel, the coffin and relic in the sixth panel, all point to quintessential legendary elements relating to the translation of St. Vincent relics.

left is Ferdinand of Viseu (brother of Afonso V), right is D. Henrique de Menezes, Count of Valenca, succeeded him, and official alferes mor. Asilah campaign. Behind them is D. Fernando de Menezes (first governor of Asilah) and John, 23-year-old son of D. Fernando (visual parallel with Fonso V & John II).

Archbishop is D. Jorge da Costa, archbishop of Lisbon from 1464 to 1500, flanked by canons and archdeacon of the Cathedral of Lisbon. Zurara may be the man with the book on the right.

The Presbytery and altar of St. Vincent were arrangted in 1433, by John I befor his death. 1451 documents from the chancellary of Afonso V describe the efforts to build a chapel to St. Vincent under the direction of master-architect Joao Afonso. A document from 1469 indicates Afonso V offered 5650 reals to the cathedral for the altarpiece of St. Vincent being made there There are indications that the image of St. Vincent may have been based on the facial features of Infante Afonso, the son of King John II.

remains translated to Lisbon in 1173.

Quatro Diálogos de Pintura Antiga

http://books.google.com/books?id=QKoTAAAAQAAJ&ots=-SqNq8pUu9&dq=inauthor%3A%22Francisco%20de%20Hollanda%22&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false

(even Grão Vasco)

Tractato de Pintura antigua, Lisbon 1548, A.F.G. Bell, London, 1928

Conceicao Silva Os painéis de D. Afonso V e o futuro do Brasil (1997: p.25)

"for the altarpiece of the martyr Saint Vincent being made there"

Conceição Silva, J.L (1997) Os Painéis de D. Afonso V e o futuro do Brasil. Brasilia: Artgraf.

Gusmao, Adriano (1956) "Nuno Gonçalves" da Phaidon: erros, omissões, e plágios. Lisbon: Europa-America.

Francis, Anne F. (1979) Voyage of Re-discovery: the Veneration of Saint Vincent. Hicksville, NY: Exposition.

Sterling, Charles (1968) "Les Panneaux de Saint Vincent et leurs énigmes", L'oeil, Revue de l'art'', no. 159, pp.12-24; 70

CNCDP (1994) O Rosto do Infante, Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses

Serrao, Vitor Other names include Afonso Gonçalves, Gonçalo Eanes and João Eanes,

do que constitui a complexa, emaranhada e desconcertante questão dos Painéis. O principal, o que implica a decifração do enigma contido naquela misteriosa e imponente figuração de 58 personagens reunidos em volta de um duplo e simetrico "Santo", quem sao elas; a que ato solene assistem com sinais guidantes do profunda concentracao; como explicar

políptico não cabia no altar de S. Vicente da Sé Lisboeta e, inclinan- do-se para uma interpretação muito diferente da de Figueiredo admitia outros autores possíveis além de Nuno Gonçalves: Afonso Gonçalves, Gonçalo Eanes ou João

Henrique Loureiro (que viria a suicidar-se por causa da famosa questão dos Painéis) defendeu a autoria do pintor Martim Vaz de Gusmão e finalmente José Saraiva, o primeiro partidário da tese "fernandina", viu nos Painéis uma obra de João Gonçalves or Gonçalo Eanes. Possibly even the foreigner Henrique van der Goes ...

B de F says Joao Eanes, and only later retouched by Goncalves in

(Goncalves substituted Eanes as cort painter in by 1471.

Francisco de Hollanda De Pintura Antiga (1548) "And this was Nuno Gonçalves, the painter of King Dom Afonso who painted the altar of Saint Vincent in the Cathedral of Lisbon" (Book 1, ch. xi) "E este foi Nuno Gonçalves, pintor del rey dom Alfonso V que pintou na Sé de Lisboa o altar de São Vicente e creo que tambem é da sua mão um Senhor atado á colonna, que dous homens stão açoutando em uma capella do moesteiro da Trindade" (p.80)

60 portraits, most in the background serving as something like a chorus for the main protagonists in the foreground

On Nuno Alvares de Aguiar, see Levy Maria Jordão, Visconde de Paiva Manso (1872) Historia Ecclesiastica Ultramarina: t.1 - Africa septentrional, Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional p.60

Huyghe (1949) Lambert (1951) Gusmao (1957) Botelho, Afonso (1957) Estética e enigmática dos painéis Lisbon: Cidade Nova Vieira Santos (1959)

Abulafia, D. (2001) "The Jew on the Altar: The image of the Jew in the 'Veneration of St. Vincent' attributed to Nuno Gonçalves", Mediterranean Studies, vol. 10, pp.37-48.

Reynaldo:

Afonso V on left his brother Ferdinand of Viseu on right (d.1470, aged 37) above Afonso V is Peter the Constable (d.1466, aged 36) and his younger brother John of Coimbra, whereas mirroring them is James of Coimbra (future cardinal) (d.1459, aged 25).

Arcebishpo Constrable Peter (left) James, son of Peter (with bardiche)

Cavaleiros:

beardedTT47Y - Infante Ferdinand Henrique - Pedro Pedro - John of Reguengos

David Abulafia

Mediterranean Studies, Vol. 10, (2001), pp. 37-48

Sánchez Cantón, F.J. (1921) "Una Glória Peninsular. Las tablas de S. Vicente, obra de Nuno Goncalvez", Raza Española, No.31, July

Lopes Vieira, Afonso (1914) A Poesia dos Paineis de S. Vicente. Lisbon Speculation has also surrounded the middle-aged Jewish man in the rightmost panel (Relic Panel). Some authors (e.g. Sterling) have been quick to identify him as Rabbi Isaac Abravanel, a courtier and close advisor of Afonso V, although others have doubted this identification as Abravanel would have been considerably younger at this time. Others (e.g. Francis) believe it is a generic representation of the Portuguese Jewry, perhaps the Chief Rabbi. Still others doubt he is Jewish at all. He is holding open a Hebrew codex, although the text is quite hard to read. Some readings suggest it is open at the Book of Isaiah 66:15-19, which Christian theology interprets as a prophecy of the evangelical mission of the Apostles.

According to Markl (1988), they were taken down for representing too many secular figures.

Isabell adied in 1455

Isabella of Burgundy as a widow's garb of a Franciscan nun or Poor Clares

Friars in white robes are from the monastery of St. Vicente de Fora (or Alcobaca), kneeling is Nuno Alvares de Aguiar, the prior who accompanied Afonso's army of 1471

relic is a fragment of the skull of St. Vincent preserved at the Chathedral of Lisbon.

influence by Jan van Eyck and Rogier van der Weyden, who would have been connected to Isabella of Burgundy. Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel, a Jewish banker and Talmudic scholar, who became a courtier and financial advisor of Afonso V, who holds the Torah open at Isaiah 66:15-19, which some Christian theologians believe to be a prophecy of the evangelical mission of the Apostles.

ROME TIMELINE
c.750 BC - legendary origin: Numitor, king of Alba Longa (head of Latin League). Numitor overthrown by younger brother Amulius and begin to kill descendants. Numitor's daughter, Rhea Silva, puts her twins, Romulus and Remus, afloat in Tiber. Picked up by she-wolf and nursed in her cove on Palatine hill. Found by shepherd Fautulus who raised them. Became bandit chiefs. Remus captured by Alba Longa, Romulus raised army, defeated Latins, killed Amulius and freed Remus. Refused crown of Alba Longa, restored grandfather Numitor, and returned to found settlment of Rome.

Conflict between brothers: Romulus want Palatine hill (site of wolf lair), while Remus wanted Aventine hill (better defended). Conflict between brothers. Gods decide for Romulus. Remus disrupts construction, killed by Romulus. Settlement named "Rome" by 748.

Romulus's bandit gang invite Sabines (on Quirinal hill) for festival, kidnap their women. War breaks out. Sabines capture Capitoline hill (by treachery of Tarpeia, daughter of the Capitoline commander; Tarpeian rock = site of executions). Armies meet in swampland between Capitoline and Palatine hills. Sabine women intervene for peace. Unification of Romans and Sabines, with two kings, Romulus and Tatius (Sabine, later killed).

Monarchy ruled with consultation of the assembly Comitia Curiata (representatives of three tribes - Romans, Sabines and Etruscas) which imposed ratification and restrictions on king's legislation. Romulus raised Celeras (personal bodyguard) and divine origns to circumvent restrictions. Also created advisory council known as Senate of 100 (patrician Roman families), later expanded to 200 (100 from Rome, 100 from Sabine). Romulus died 715, said to have ascended into heaven and deified Romulus with new name "Quirinus".

Monarchy not hereditary. Senatos ruled in interrengnums, with the "interrex" ruling for a few days until a final king was elected. First successor king was Numa Pompilius (a Sabine), helped Roman-Sabine integration. Numa died 674.

674 to 515 - five Roman kings.

Tullus Hostiulius (warmonger) succceeded Numa. Made war with Alba Longa and Etruscans.

Ancus Martius (peaceful grandson of Numa) succeeded Tullus. Established port of Ostia.

Tarquinus Priscus (Etruscan, appointed heir by Ancus). Murdered by Ancus's biological sons in 579. But Tarquinius's widow manage to secure succession for her son-in-law, the former slave Servius Tullius.

Servius Tullius conduct first Roman census. Replace assembly with comitia centuriata (based on census). Servius murdered by own daughter in collusion with Senators (who disiked his populist reforms).

Tarquinius Superbus (husband of Servius Tullius's murderous daughter, and son of the Etruscan Tarquinius Priscus). Last king. establish absolujt despostism, ignore comitia. Lead to rebellion of 509

Republican Rebellion (509) after Sextus (Tarquinisu's son) raped a noblewoman called Lucretia. Tarquinius exiled to Clusium (Etruscan city) and use contactgs to raise Etruscan invasion.

WARS:

493 - Rome join Latin League led by Alba Longa. After Tullus Hostilius had king of Alba Longa executed, Rome dominate Latin League. 340 - Latin League challenge Roman dominance. Two-year war, Latins defeated and annexed to Rome as municipium.

396 - after decade-long siege, Romans siexe Etruscan city of Veii and raze city. Beginning of Etruscan decline.

391 - Gauls invade northern Italy and reach Etruscan city of Clusium. Clusians appeal to Rome. Negotiations come to naught (Roman delegate killed Gaul delegate). Brennus, the King of Gauls, attack and defeat Romans at Battle of Allika (390), seize and sack Rome. But not razed or esnalved, paid to leave so Rome recovered.

SAMNITE WARs (344-290) (Samnites are in southern Apennines, c. Benevento)

Second Samnite War 321 Romans defeated at the Battle of Caudine Forks. Third Samnite war begin 298 - Samnites jioned by Celts and Etruscans, try to wipe out Rome. But Romans manage to defeat the Samnites at the Battle of Sentium in 295, putting an end to the Samnites and giving Rome control of central Italy.