[Endnote 42: (p. 24). _Captain of their Armies._--Here Santarem:--[This detail is so interesting for the history of that epoch, that we judge it opportune to indicate here, for the illustration of our text, the names of these sovereigns. The invitation given by the Pope (as recorded here) to the Infant could only have taken place after the taking of Ceuta, a campaign in which the Prince acquired immortal glory, having commanded the squadron and been first of the princes to enter the fortress. In view of this, it appears to us that only after 1415 could this proposal have been made by the Pontiff; and also it seems as if the offer must have been made to him before the unfortunate campaign of Tangier in 1437, during the time in which the Infant was exclusively occupied with the business of the Kingdom and of Africa, and with his expeditions and discoveries. From this it appears likely that the Pope who invited him to become general of his armies was Martin V, and the year of the invitation 1420 or 1421, after the embassy which, the Greek Emperor, Manuel Palaeologus, sent to the Pontiff to beg for aid against the Turks. The Emperor of Germany of whom Azurara speaks was Sigismund (Siegmund), who, by reason of his close relations with the Court of Lisbon, and with the ambassadors of Portugal at the Council of Constance, could appreciate the eminent qualities of the Infant, and form the high opinion of him which he deserved. Lastly, the Kings of Castile and England of whom Azurara speaks must be D. John II, and Henry V.]--S. Santarem is probably wrong here. "Henry VI" should be read for "Henry V;" see Introduction to vol. ii, p. xv.] [Endnote 43: (p. 25). _Discipline ... clemency._--Azurara here imitates somewhat the formal disputations of Seneca and Cicero. We may especially compare Seneca's _De Ira_, _De Providentia_, and _De Clementia ad Neronem Caesarem libri duo_; also, but with rather less close a parallelism, the same writer's _De Animi tranquillitate_, _De Constantia Sapientis_. The Elder Seneca's rhetorical exercises, _Controversiarum libri X_, and _Suasoriarum Liber_, were also, as far as the form goes, models for such discussions as are here conducted. Azurara's point, of course, is that, of the two extremes, Prince Henry leaned rather to "clemency" than to "discipline;" and though he by no means neglected the latter, he was content rather to err in generosity than in severity. Precisely the opposite is the view of some modern students: _e.g._, Oliveira Martins, _Os Filhos de D. João I_, especially pp. 59-63, 210-1, 267-270, 311-346.]