In Arriaga both the Republican and the aristocrat speak, giving witness to his paternalistic concern for the popular classes. Since the people are the motor of history, we would not expect to find any great appreciation of the leading politicians, let alone those loyal to the monarchy. Arriaga is a supporter of the Positivist theory of history, and a critic of those who attribute too much influence to statesmen (História da Revolução Portuguesa, vol. I, 1886-87, p. 633).

However, paradoxically, that does not prevent him from lauding two characters, Pombal and Fernandes Tomás. The former is the object of ardent admiration by Republicans in general. They were actively involved in organizing the commemorations of the first centenary of his death, hailing him as a fighter against religious oppression, a reformer of education and modernizer of the economy. Arriaga sees in Pombal a precursor of the revolution of 1820 (idem, p. 178). Manuel Fernandes Tomás took things a step further: “He represents the last word in the great labour of Pombal, that is, the political revolution” (idem, pp. 633-34). In his eyes, Fernandes Tomás takes on a truly mythical dimension, only comparable to his enthusiasm for the people. The portrait of him is one of the most passionate in political literature, body and soul in a unique symbiosis. His body was “colossal”, “the sturdy figure of a Roman”, as would be demanded of a statesman who aimed to impress. His gaze was “firm, resolute and intelligent”, his eyes were “black, open and brilliant”, his face “expressive and engaging”. His soul, likewise, was “frank, generous and loyal”, his character “persevering, austere and of heroic resolution”, his heart “good, just and generous”, and only capable of speaking “the pure and unaffected truth” (idem, p. 645).

This man would be responsible for transforming the 24 August 1820 into a revolution that was “national” and “democratic”, something that was very important in the work of Arriaga, and in the Republican project in general. A “national revolution” because it defined its own path and developed independently, shunning any foreign influence, and brought together the whole nation. “Democratic” because the representatives of the people approved a constitution that consecrated the principle of “national sovereignty”. The revolution of 1836, being made “spontaneously by the people”, was betrayed by its leaders. Passos Manuel was not Fernandes Tomás, “he did not have his rigour, firmness and constancy” (História da Revolução de Setembro, vol. II, 1892, p. 83), and was susceptible to royal allurement. Hence the revolution of 1836 had been “idealistic, romantic, sluggish, weak and incoherent” (Os Últimos Sessenta Anos, 1911, p. 82).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | (Pdf)