[362] The Saint Graal, or the Holy Cup which the Saviour used for the wine of the Last Supper, and which, in the story of Arthur, is supposed to have been brought to England by Joseph of Arimathea, is alluded to in Amadis de Gaula (Lib. IV. c. 48). Arthur himself--“El muy virtuoso rey Artur”--is spoken of in Lib. I. c. 1, and in Lib. IV. c. 49, where “the Book of Don Tristan and Launcelot” is also mentioned. Other passages might be cited, but there can be no doubt the author of Amadis knew some of the French fictions. [363] See the end of Chap. 40, Book I., in which he says, “The Infante Don Alfonso of Portugal, having pity on the fair damsel, [the Lady Briolana,] ordered it to be otherwise set down, and in this was done what was his good pleasure.” [364] Ginguené, Hist. Litt. d’Italie, Paris, 1812, 8vo, Tom. V. p. 62, note (4), answering the Preface of the Conte de Tressan to his too free abridgment of the Amadis de Gaula, Œuvres, Paris, 1787, 8vo, Tom. I. p. xxii. But the Portuguese original can no longer be found. At the end of the sixteenth century, we are assured, it was extant in manuscript in the archives of the Dukes of Arveiro at Lisbon; and the same assertion is renewed, on good authority, about the year 1750. From this time, however, we lose all trace of it; and the most careful inquiries render it probable that this curious manuscript, about which there has been so much discussion, perished in the terrible earthquake and conflagration of 1755, when the palace occupied by the ducal family of Arveiro was destroyed with all its precious contents.[365] [365] The fact that it was in the Arveiro collection is stated in Ferreira, “Poemas Lusitanas,” (Lisboa, 1598, 4to,) where is the sonnet, No. 33, by Ferreira in honor of Vasco de Lobeira, which Southey, in his Preface to his “Amadis of Gaul,” (London, 1803, 12mo, Vol. I. p. vii.,) erroneously attributes to the Infante Antonio of Portugal, and thus would make it of consequence in the present discussion. Nic. Antonio, who leaves no doubt as to the authorship of the sonnet in question, refers to the same note in Ferreira to prove the deposit of the manuscript of the Amadis; so that the two constitute only _one_ authority, and not _two_ authorities, as Southey supposes. (Bib. Vetus, Lib. VIII. cap. vii. sect. 291.) Barbosa is more distinct. (Bib. Lusitana, Tom. III. p. 775.) But there is a careful summing up of the matter in Clemencin’s notes to Don Quixote, (Tom. I. pp. 105, 106,) beyond which it is not likely we shall advance in our knowledge concerning the fate of the Portuguese original.