ABSTRACT
With François Hartog and Bernard Guenée as starting points, we question the opinion, crystallized by many historians and literary critics, that Fernão Lopes, chief chronicler of the Portuguese regal court in the first half of the 15th century, chose to prioritize written sources to the detriment of oral sources, for considering them superior when it comes to the writing of history. Then, we show, through appreciation of the historiographical production of Gomes Eanes de Zurara, Lopes’ successor, how medieval chroniclers that historicized a chronological period close to the one in which they lived in made use of enunciation marks linked to direct autopsy (“I saw it”) and indirect autopsy (“I heard from who saw it”) as ways of demonstrating authority, supporting their writing and persuading the audience about the truthfulness of what is being narrated. Concurrently, we discuss how the witness - “declared memory”, according to Paul Ricoeur’s concept, or “bearer of memory”, in the words of François Hartog -, has their account evaluated, credited and authenticated by the chronicler, with he being, at times, a direct witness of what he writes.
Keywords:
autopsy; history, memory and forgetting; medieval Portuguese historiography; history methodology; Gomes Eanes de Zurara