Thus, the historian would never be confused with the journalist, just as History would be distinguished from journalistic reporting and even from ‘pamphleteering narratives’ from the pen of ‘suspect historians’ for being either sectarian or passionate or for romanticising events or for submitting to the dictates of parties. In this sense, he observed: ‘We are living in a time. A time when we should not play with History‘( ‘ Prefácio ’[Preface] , Amador Patrício, Grandes reportagens [Great Reports] ).

Making h istory meant going directly to the sources and letting the documents speak. Only documented statements and hypotheses formulated with the necessary reservations would be legitimate. Making history also meant knowing the principles that, formulated scientifically, gave a sense of permanence to the complex evolution of reality. The positivist conception of making h istory was thus combined with a possible understanding of what happened. It could , therefore , legitimately involve revision and innovation. Revision in the light of scientific criteria, revision as the enunciation of new perspectives on already known data and the discovery of others.

Consequently, since History was one of the cornerstones of Caetano Beirão ’ s thinking, he used it to rehabilitate characters and eras, challenge prejudices, clarify situations, undo preconceived ideas and, finally, defend his own convictions. The work he wrote about D. Maria I and her reign is an example of this multiple character. Underappreciated as a queen, her political action had been ignored, limited to the Pombaline consulate and the advent of liberal constitutionalism. It was important to undo the double ideological impact that delimited her in order to highlight her reality. Caetano Beirão undertook this task in search of the indispensable elements for a rigorously objective approach.

The same thoroughness, now accompanied by an obvious ideological purpose , was evident in his analysis of the rights of D. Pedro and D. Miguel to succeed D. João VI. And also, in his refutation of the Constitutional Charter of 1826 as a legitimately granted traditionalist constitution. Perhaps because he engaged in political intervention as a champion of pure monarchy and, as such, as an extreme defender of the kingship of D. Miguel, the História breve de Portugal [Brief History of Portugal] , published in 1941, i.e . , around seven years after the study on D. Maria I, is far from corresponding to the characteristics he had demanded of a historical text. Beginning with an account of the battle of Ourique and the Cortes de Lamego, founding episodes for their significance for the monarchy and royalty, as he understood them, he described the events that followed until 1817. From then on, the account took on an avowedly ideological flavour, in which Freemasonry and liberal ideas – ‘the Masonic-liberal cabal’ (p. 131) – played an important role in the way he presented Portugal ’ s path until the establishment of the republic.

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