But it was within the Pidalian school that the impact began to be most noticeable and, in this context, the most attentive reader seems to have been Diego Catalán, who, despite distancing himself from Cintra ’ s proposals in some respects, recognise d the capital importance of his study. Thus, for example, in 1962 , Catalán did not endorse the hypothesis that Count Pedro was associated with the translation of the IVª Crónica Breve [Fourth Brief Chronicle] ( 1962: 212 ) . In fact, although Cintra attributes to D. Pedro the slightly expanded translation initiative or the fact that he had the chapters devoted to the history of Portugal in the Crónica de Once Reyes [Chronicle of Eleven Kings] translated and expanded (which gave rise to the IVª Crónica Breve [Fourth Brief Chronicle] preserved in a fifteenth -century manuscript ), Catalán finds in Cintra ’ s own work various pieces of evidence and comments prevent him from endors ing this hypothesis ( 1962: 286, note 76 ) . Above all, Catalán believes that Cintra has accurately classified all the manuscripts he has analysed, both Portuguese and Spanish, and proposed a convincing genealogical scheme ( 1962: 292 ) , claiming that, after Cintra ’ s argument, it would be necessary to abandon the question mark that the Portuguese philologist had placed in the title of his chapter V “ and simply state ” : “ Count Pedro de Barcelos, author of the Crónica de 1344 [Chronicle of 1344] ( 1962: 302 ) .

Thirty years later, in a fresh review of the subject, Diego Catalán says that half a century after Menéndez Pidal ’ s inaugural work, Cintra changed the state of affairs through several very relevant contributions, giving a chronologically tighter picture of the re-founding activity that the Alfonsine chronicle underwent, emphasising that the CGE of 1344 had as its source a Galician-Portuguese version of the Crónica General [General Chronicle] ( Catalán, 1992, p. 94-95 ) .

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