gouveia, paulo. early patronage in modernism

8/4/2019 Gouveia, Paulo. Early Patronage in Modernism.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gouveia-paulo-early-patronage-in-modernism 1/24

Private Patronage in Early Brazilian Modernism: Xenophobia

and Internal Colonization Coded in Mário de Andrade's "Noturno

de Belo Horizonte"

Saulo Gouveia

Luso-Brazilian Review, Volume 46, Number 2, 2009, pp. 90-112 (Article)

Published by University of Wisconsin Press

DOI: 10.1353/lbr.0.0095

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by The Libraries of Depauw University at 09/09/11 4:14PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/lbr/summary/v046/46.2.gouveia.html





Luso-Brazilian Review :

ISSN -, © by the Board of Regents

of the University of Wisconsin System

Private Patronage in EarlyBrazilian Modernism

Xenophobia and Internal Colonization Coded inMário de Andrade’s “Noturno de Belo Horizonte”

Saulo Gouveia

Este ensaio investiga possíveis motivações para o envolvimento de PauloPrado com o movimento modernista em São Paulo. Em , após umavisita às cidades históricas de Minas Gerais, os modernistas de São Paulo produzem textos que resgatam uma visão idílica do período colonial e daherança cultural portuguesa no Brasil. Eu proponho uma análise de um poema de Mário de Andrade, “Noturno de Belo Horizonte,” de , como

exemplar de um texto em que a noção de genealogia, tão essencial à identi-dade da aristocracia, recebe um tratamento vanguardista. Andrade concebea história nacional em chave monumental, estabelecendo uma conexãodireta entre o glorioso passado do ciclo do ouro e os bandeirantes de SãoPaulo como fundadores da verdadeira nação brasileira e como ancestrais daaristocracia cafeeira.

Introduction

It is widely known that Paulo Prado, one of the most prominent membersof the São Paulo co ee aristocracy, was the grand mécène of Brazilian Mod-ernism. Without his support, the production and circulation of avant-gardecultural products in the incipient cultural market of São Paulo in the early s would not have been possible. Yet, in the mainstream historical ac-counts of the modernist movement in Brazil, his patronage does not receivethe attention it deserves. Few scholars have explored the contradiction in-herent in the fact that private patronage, a cultural policy that “has so many premodern characteristics,” helped to foster the modernization of the liter-

ary and artistic

elds in

s São Paulo (Canclini

). Many literary criticsacknowledge that Prado was involved with the modernist cultural project,



Gouveia

but few have actually investigated his motives, other than his disinterestedappreciation of art and his desire to promote artists from São Paulo.

My objective in this essay is to explore some of the historical, ideologi-cal, political, and economic motivations inuencing the co ee aristocracy’ssupport of the modernist movement. I am particularly interested in dem-onstrating how modernist artists created cultural products that cateredto their patrons’ aesthetic taste and political views. e rapid social andeconomic changes of that time caused anxieties that are observable in theworks of the modernists. As an example of a conuence between the mod-ernist discourse and the interests of the aristocracy, I will provide an analy-sis of Mário de Andrade’s poem “Noturno de Belo Horizonte,” an epic

poem of national identity. In the poem’s collage of forms, Andrade com-bines heterogeneous elements in order to devise, conversely, a centralizedand homogenized view of the nation. In spite of its multi-faceted depictionof nationhood, Andrade’s poem manages to legitimize the hegemony of SãoPaulo and justify internal colonization by naturalizing regional inequalitiesand hierarchical social structures.

Modernist Criticism:Perpetuating the Modernist Grand Narrative

ough prolic, the scholarship on Brazilian Modernism has failed to pro-duce a solid materialist analysis of the movement. In literary studies, issuesrelated to patronage and sponsorship of modernist cultural production havebeen either disregarded or mentioned in passing. For many decades, criticsand historians of Brazilian Modernism simply reproduced the discourse of modernist intellectuals about the signicance of the movement for Brazilianliterature, culture and art. It would not be an overstatement to arm thatliterary criticism on Modernism was simply “modernist criticism.” Highly

inuenced by the tenets of New Criticism, literary criticism about BrazilianModernism has focused primarily on formal “innovations” of modernistworks. e methodological restrictions of formalist criticism alone cannotbe blamed, however, for the excessive praise with which Modernism was his-toricized. “Modernist criticism” cannot be understood without a thoroughhistorical analysis of the canonization of Modernism in the context of thecreation of cultural institutions promoted by the Vargas administration.

In e Political Unconscious, Fredric Jameson argues that “the perfectedpoetic apparatus of high Modernism represses history” (). Although

Jameson’s remark refers to Anglo-American Modernism, the argumentcan be applied to Brazilian Modernism as well. e academic and poetic



Luso-Brazilian Rev iew 46:2

apparatuses that supported the progressive outlook of Brazilian Modern-ism have hidden the broader historical horizon behind the inception of the

movement in Brazil. e early modernist movement of the s has beentreated as a grassroots cultural movement that both transformed Brazilianculture and challenged Eurocentric dogmas about third world culture. isimage of “progressivism” and deance, created by modernist intellectualsthemselves, proved to be the most enticing aspect of the modernist enter-prise for literary critics; the not-so-progressive elements within Modernismwere overlooked. It was only in the late s and early s that literary critics such as Silviano Santiago demanded the end of immanent modernistcriticism. Santiago’s essays appeared in the wake of the work of sociologist

Sérgio Miceli, who in had published a groundbreaking study of therelationship between modernist intellectuals and the state in the s ands. us, the rst attempts at dismantling the Brazilian modernist edicespread to literary criticism from the areas of sociology and cultural history.Counter-hegemonic readings of the modernist legacy did not generate acomparable body of work to counteract the stale and repetitive discourse of “modernist criticism and historiography.”

Anglo-American critics tend to celebrate the notion of cultural cannibal-ism as a defying model of resistance that can be updated and used against

Yankee cultural imperialism. e concepts of cultural cannibalism as wellas the concept of import substitution are sometimes applied retroactively and uniformly to the entire body of work of Brazilian Modernism. WhileOswald de Andrade only put forth the concept of cultural cannibalism in, and the proponents of the import substitution policies only devisedtheir economic theory in the late s and early s, the early phase of Modernism in Brazil inaccurately receives praise for consciously “practic-ing” these policies since the early s. is anachronism can be detected,for example, in George Yúdice’s essay, “Rethinkingeeory of e Avant-

Garde From e Periphery.” Yúdice sketches out a materialist denition forBrazilian Modernism and addresses the issue of the modernist associationwith elite groups. Yet, he seems predisposed to salvage the non-conformistreputation traditionally attached to the modernists:

e Brazilian avant-garde emerged in São Paulo. e elites of this city hadrecently adopted a policy of import substitution, which would make sensewithin the context of interwar years. Both the political economy and themodernistas were strongly nationalist. . . . [It] was modernismo that providedthe language of this emergent discourse required for a transformation in

hegemony. Great emphasis has already been placed on this movement’s at-tack on the “autonomous institution of art,” represented in Brazil by realismand Parnassianism, but it is the “language of development,” of “construçãobrasileira,” which would imprint itself on the emerging culture. (–)



Gouveia

e passage brings in literary and economic theories to the analysis of Mod-ernism in Brazil, but it is full of inconsistencies. First, Yúdice interprets the

predominance of Realism and Parnassianism as a sign of the autonomy of the “institution of art,” as if the Academia Brasileira de Letras could be takenas a representative. His reasoning is that the modernists attacked the “au-tonomous institution of art” by simply criticizing the Academia and the aes-thetics of Parnassianism. is is a misinterpretation of Peter Bürger’s con-cept of the “institution of art”. In order to construct his arguments, Yúdicemakes a number of assumptions that, in spite of their seemingly materialistclaims, t well with the ideology of immanent modernist criticism. None of these assumptions, however, could be made without ignoring the specic

historical context of Brazilian Modernism.Yúdice connects Modernism to the ruling classes, but oversimplies the

denition of “elite,” as if the various sectors of São Paulo’s ruling classesshared similar interests. Furthermore, the passage above suggests that theSão Paulo elites could be indiscriminately referred to as an “emerging” so-cial group. Yúdice overlooked internal conicts that better explain the as-sociation between modernists and a particular elite group.

Even Mário de Andrade, the leading modernist writer, was more specicin his commentaries about the connections between modernists and the

co ee aristocracy. In “O movimento modernista,” Andrade’s essay andone of the rst historical accounts of the movement, Andrade established theplatform for most of the immanent modernist critical discourse in praise of Modernism. However, Andrade’s foundational text also revealed some cen-tral contradictions of the movement. In a passage that is rarely cited by mod-ernist criticism, Andrade not only admits receiving the support of the co eearistocracy, but also provides a brief explanation for the motivations of thiselite group in supporting an iconoclastic project of aesthetic renovation:

e traditional aristocracy o ered us a strong hand, putting in evidence thisconuence of destiny–[the aristocracy] also was, by then, autophagously [self-devouringly] destructive, because it no longer had a signicance thatcould be legitimate. As for the aristocrats of money [the immigrant bour-geoisie], they hated us in the beginning and have always looked upon us withsuspicion. No rich person’s salon would have us, no foreign millionaire shel-tered us. e Italians, Germans, Jews took the role of guardians of the na-tional prudence more seriously than Prados, Penteados and Amarais. ()

Certain questions arise from Andrade’s passage. For example, his assertion

of the aristocracy’s self-destructive impetus seems implausible.

e aristoc-racy’s support of Modernism could only be the opposite of a suicidal act. If it is true that by the s the aristocracy had lost its political “signicance,”as Andrade argues, then their instinctive reaction would have been to cling




to power for as long as they could, not to commit an act of public suicide.erefore, the aristocracy’s support of the modernist movement was a self-

promoting enterprise that sought to extend their supremacy in the symbolicrealm of high culture. It is signicant, though, that Andrade recognizes thatthe beginning of the aristocracy’s downfall coincides with their involvementwith the modernist movement. Also, Andrade’s portrayal of the immigrantbourgeoisie as a conservative and nationalist group can help explain why the nationalism of the co ee aristocracy did not face strong antagonismfrom their competitors [i.e., from the immigrant industrialists]. Also to An-drade’s credit, he provides a clear distinction between the attitude of theco ee aristocracy and that of the immigrant bourgeoisie. In what follows,

I will further explain the distinctions between these two groups that werecompeting for hegemony in the s.

The Political and the Economic Elitesin the 1920s in São Paulo

In his classic study of São Paulo’s industrialization, Warren Dean proposeda distinction between two major entrepreneurial groups in São Paulo, whichis basically the same as that suggested by Andrade in the quote above: the

“industrial bourgeoisie” and “the co ee planter aristocracy.”

e industri-alists were mostly immigrants (most commonly Italians), while co ee plant-ers were “native.” Dean chose two of the most successful men of the SãoPaulo elite to personify this dichotomy: Francisco Matarazzo epitomizedthe immigrant industrialist, while Antônio Prado, Paulo Prado’s father, rep-resented the archetypical gure of the “native” planter. ese two groupswere related in complex ways. e co ee trade and the incipient industrialactivity were interdependent; the co ee trade preceded and “begot indus-trialization” (Dean –). In other words, the co ee boom was responsible

for generating growth, creating a consumer market, and implementing theinfrastructure that made small-scale industrialization viable. Dean armsthat planters actually founded manufacturing rms that were eventually bought up by immigrants. Although planters were outnumbered by im-migrants in the industrial sector, they never ceased to be interested in themanufacturing of consumer goods (Dean ).

By the s, the immigrant bourgeoisie controlled the majority of theindustrial sector. Although the conicts of interest between the industrialbourgeoisie and the co ee aristocracy were not signicant enough to cause

major political battles, the latter felt threatened by the economic progress of immigrant industrialists:

To the planters, then, the wealth of a Matarazzo appeared frighteningly large and capable of unlimited ramication. Occasionally they spoke of the



Gouveia

industrialists as an “aristocracy of money,” an “industrial plutocracy,” oreven a “bunch of sharks.” When the planters considered how frequently the

new manufacturer was an immigrant, they complained of foreigners whocame over in third class and “impoverished old families of the rural aristoc-racy, genuinely Brazilian.” (Dean )

Even when it was not so clearly manifested, resentment against the immi-grant bourgeoisie took the form of a latent anxiety that outlived the busi-ness mergers and inter-marriage between these groups (Dean –). eassimilation of immigrants into Brazilian society may have been easier thanin North America, but it was not as devoid of animosity as suggested by theprevailing myth of the Brazilian openness, lack of prejudice and racial de-

mocracy.

Contradictory feelings toward immigration were strong amongthe political elites. Although they believed that the European work force wassuperior to the native one, they also felt threatened by the immigrant con-tingent (both working class and industrialists) that radically transformedthe São Paulo social landscape.

Besides homogenizing the concept of elite, Yúdice makes an anachro-nistic reference to the “policy of import substitution,” which he claims wasput into practice by the elites of São Paulo in the s. Yúdice is applyingan economic concept developed much later (in the s by the proponents

of Dependency eory) to account for supposedly nationalistic economicpolicies adopted by the São Paulo elite in the early s. e reasoning isconsistent, since the industrial bourgeoisie was in fact operating by importsubstitution; however, it cannot be said that import substitution was an of-cial policy at the time. By linking this policy to a nationalistic ideology,Yúdice suggests a level of consciousness and an underlying political struc-ture that the immigrant bourgeoisie could not have had at the time. Besides,as Mário de Andrade himself admits, the group most closely associated withthe modernists was the co ee aristocracy (a group linked with the export

sector), not the emerging immigrant bourgeoisie.Scholars of Latin American economic history of the twentieth century have come to realize that import substitution was a reality in the s butnot yet a government policy, nor was it exactly a policy of the São Paulo“elite.” As Joseph Love points out, it was only in the context of post WorldWar II that developmentalist policies, including import-substituting indus-trialization, became a state economic policy: “Industrialization in LatinAmerica was fact before it was policy, and policy before it was theory” (Love,Cra ing e ird World ). From the early s until the s federal

and state government economic policies focused almost exclusively on theexport economy, which, in Brazil, was dominated by co ee. Import substi-tution, on the other hand, was a business strategy used by the immigrant in-dustrial bourgeoisie. It was opportunism, rather than ideology, that guidedentrepreneurs in the early stages of industrialization. Ironically, the São




Paulo industrial bourgeoisie, which played a pioneering role in the coun-try’s modernization, had no formal connections with the modernist move-

ment and its nationalist rhetoric. e industrialists’ savvy business tactics(later dened and theorized as import substitution) should not be under-stood as the manifestation of a conscious nationalistic ideology. Immigrantindustrialists saw an opportunity when they realized that the internal mar-ket was inadequately supplied with manufactured goods, while importedgoods were too expensive. Since there was no governmental incentive toindustrialization, they relied on the relative lack of market regulation andon knowledge of immigrant consumer habits.

São Paulo industrialists thrived in a market and infrastructure essen-

tially created by the co ee trade, and, as newcomers, they did not have strongpolitical representation. In a position of relative dependency, industrialistsavoided political or ideological confrontation with the co ee planter elite. Infact, they tended to make alliances with the planter aristocracy (Dean –).In the early s immigrant industrialists did not have a well-dened iden-tity and their consciousness as a social group with distinctive interests wastenuous. It was not until that industrialists formed the Center of In-dustries of the State of São Paulo to strengthen their political participation(Dean ). us, it is highly unlikely that industrialists or any other emerg-

ing group of entrepreneurs was associated with cultural projects of nationalidentity in the early s.Brazilian modernists were backed by the co ee aristocracy, which, as

Dean asserts, was the group least likely to favor social transformation. Infact, the co ee aristocracy’s identity was based on values that stood in directcontrast with those of the emerging social groups of São Paulo in the s.In contrast to the “self-made man” ethic of the nouveau riche immigrant,the São Paulo co ee planter’s identity was based on genealogy (Dean ).eir wealth could not be traced back to colonial times, since the co ee

boom started around , but the São Paulo aristocracy preferred to be as-sociated with a long line of Portuguese settlers, the Bandeirantes. e mythof pioneering entrepreneurship of their Bandeirante ancestors gave thema “noble” pedigree, legitimizing their prominent position in the nation’seconomy and politics.

roughout the entire República Velha period (–), the basic prin-ciples of liberalism (as practiced in Brazil) were rarely challenged. e gov-ernment’s policies favored the export economy and presented no project forindustrialization. Import substitution was practiced by early industrialists

in de

ance of o

cial economic policies with no nationalist ideology attachedto it. On the other hand, the only unorthodox protectionist policy adoptedby the Brazilian government in the period was the policy of “valorization,”which beneted the co ee export sector exclusively. Since co ee consump-



Gouveia

tion is inelastic (lower prices do not foster a proportional increase in worldconsumption), the oversupply could not be sold at reasonable prices. In or-

der to articially maintain high co ee prices in the international market, theBrazilian government bought and paid for the warehousing of co ee in theconsumer countries. e stored product was to be used to supply the marketin the years of decient harvest. What the policy of valorization reveals is themeasure of power of the planter elite as well as the government’s disregard forlarger issues of growth and development. It also shows that planters were ableto convert their needs into government economic policies. For the repaymentof valorization loans, the foreign consumer probably had to bear the burdenin the form of an export tax on Brazilian co ee (Love, São Paulo ). is

proves that the valorization policy, though unorthodox, had no connectionwith nationalistic ideologies or growth-oriented economic policies.

Paradoxically, the policy of valorization, meant to protect the co ee trade,placed co ee planters and the nation in a position of increasing dependenceon foreign capital. e co ee market was irrevocably “careening toward di-saster” (Love, São Paulo ). Valorization kept co ee prices high from to . ese high prices attracted foreign investors, who soon were ableto dominate the marketing operations of the co ee trade. Aer thecontrol of co ee marketing passed to foreign lenders: “By , some of the

largest co ee growing operations were in foreign hands. e state’s secondlargest producer, the British-owned Dumont Co ee Company, controlled,, trees” (Love, São Paulo ). e planters’ economic and socialstatus declined while foreign companies increased their share of the co eemarket and immigrant industrialists expanded their operations by buyingup the manufacturing units that planters had started.

In addition to the erce competition from business adversaries, theplanters’ hegemony was also under constant pressure from discontentedemployees.e working class in São Paulo also contained a large immigrant

contingent, whose labor replaced that of the slaves on the co ee plantations.ese workers were also the preferred work force in the incipient processof industrialization in the rst decades of the twentieth century. e im-migrant working class was behind the strikes that took place in the early twentieth century. eir class consciousness and tradition of labor activismpromoted the mobilization of the urban proletariat, which could eventually spread to rural areas, increasing also the bargaining power of the rural workforce. e mounting social unrest a ecting São Paulo, even if not directly related to the co ee business, contributed to the discomfort of the Prados,

the leading co

ee planter clan, who referred to immigrants as “Italian ban-deirantes and Syrian conquistadores” (Levi ).Economic, political and social pressures were developing within Brazil.

In , rebellious Federal troops invaded São Paulo, occupying strategic




points, hoping to garner the support of the Army and the militarized SãoPaulo State Police. But this support did not develop, and the rebellious forces

were defeated in a confrontation that lasted twenty-nine days, in which thepopulation was exposed to bombing promoted by the Federal forces. esiege of is just one glaring sign of the general dissatisfaction with thepolitical regime.

In summary, the s were a decade of escalating social, economic, andpolitical turmoil for the ruling oligarchies. e “foreign” presence amongsociety’s most important productive forces (the proletariat and the indus-trialists) threatened the aristocracy. e social, economic, and politicaltransformations originally brought about by the co ee boom became even

more radical with industrialization. ese changes certainly contributed toa sense of loss of identity, and loss of control for the São Paulo co ee aris-tocracy. While foreign capital had controlled co ee marketing since ,the immigrant bourgeoisie dominated incipient industry, and the largely immigrant working class challenged the old rules of labor relations in thecountry. In this volatile state of a airs, the unprecedented economic devel-opment spurred by the co ee planters was about to destroy them.

The Emergence of Brazilian Modernism

In the face of the circumstances described above, the co ee aristocracy knew that their hegemony could not be sustained in the economic or politi-cal arenas, and cultural politics appeared to be the most ecient strategy.Paulo Prado’s involvement with the modernist movement was not just a signof his intellectual renement or of his role as a benefactor of the arts. It hadthe practical political purpose of securing a symbolic preeminence in theface of adverse political and economic circumstances: “Paulo’s sponsorshipof the Modern Art Week in gave rise to his political critique, and by

the late s he was calling for ‘an insurrection both moral and material’ ”(Levi ).Paulo Prado was a erce critic of his own class and of the pact between the

oligarchies of São Paulo and Minas Gerais. However, his party, the Demo-cratic Party, founded in by his father, Antônio Prado, was a center-rightreformist organism that represented the interests of the “enlightened faction”of the co ee aristocracy. e party did not propose an alternative politicalmodel to the prevailing oligarchic system of the time. Formed mostly by mid-dle and upper-class lawyers and other white-collar elements, the Democratic

Party wanted reform in order to preserve the old system. Mário de Andradewas an important aliate, which is evidence of his loyalty to the Prados.

e Week of Modern Art, the event that ocially launched the mod-ernist movement, was conceived, organized, publicized (and later mytholo-



Gouveia

gized) by individuals within the highest echelons of government and the up-permost social classes of São Paulo. In fact, the Week of Modern Art marked

the moment in which the São Paulo co ee aristocracy assumed a leadingrole as promoters of a nationalist high culture in Brazil. e Week of Mod-ern Art was dened by literary historians and by the modernist intellectu-als themselves as a gathering of discontented artists who faced enormousresistance among the dominant cultural agents and institutions. Here is anaccount of one of the most conservative participants, Menotti Del Picchia:

When the thing was mature in São Paulo, Graça Aranha arrived here. Hewas a captain of prestige. Paulo Prado, one of the most illustrious rebels,goaded the bandeirante aristocracy to support the event. I assigned myself the task of stirring up the government. Dr. Washington Luis, who is a greatspirit, sympathized with the insurrection. Famínio Ferreira joined us. Wehad the great vehicle for the idea: the newspaper of greatest tradition in Bra-zil [Correio Paulistano]. ()

It is hard to imagine what forces could pose signicant opposition to the menbehind the event. Del Picchia lists the names of top political authorities as“illustrious rebels,” which is a revealing oxymoron. Against what or whomcould these prominent men be rebelling? Washington Luis was mayor of São

Paulo (–) and later President of the Republic (–). Paulo Pradowas at the time one of the wealthiest men in Brazil. Moreover, the Municipaleater, built during Antônio Prado’s tenure, was a semi-ocial institution,a place where the Republican Party held conventions and where the mostwell-to-do members of society attended concerts. e main media vehiclefor the promotion of the Week of Modern Art, the Correio Paulistano wasthe ocial organ of the Republican Party (the establishment party). isnewspaper would continue to be an important venue for the promotion of

various modernist projects. It is clear, then, that the Week of Modern Art

should be understood as an ocial event sponsored by the political leadersof the city and the state of São Paulo. However, in the coverage it received inthe scholarship about the modernist movement, this aspect was downplayedwhile the event was portrayed as a raucous festival promoted by the youngmodernist artists themselves.

São Paulo in the s was leading the country in every aspect except inthe eld of art and culture, which was still dominated by Rio de Janeiro.eWeek of Modern Art was intended to bring attention to the incipient andstill obscure cultural scene of São Paulo. Hence the modernist assault on

“o

cial” cultural institutions, especially the Academia Brasileira de Letras.Located in Rio de Janeiro, the Academia was accused by the modernists of privileging writers who gravitated toward Rio’s highest political and intel-lectual circles.




However, the rivalry between Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo cannot besingled out as the most important motivation behind the realization of the

Week of Modern Art. e masterminds of the modernist movement in SãoPaulo aspired to lead the new intellectual generation nationally, and re-gional rivalries and loyalties were played down in Modernism’s nationalisticcampaign. What could hardly be minimized, however, was the anxiety thatpervaded the São Paulo co ee elite of being overcome by “foreign” forces.is anxiety, converted into conspicuous xenophobia, received the enthusi-astic applause of Paulo Prado in “Poesia pau-brasil,” his preface to Oswaldde Andrade’s Pau brasil :

“Brazil-wood poetry”

nds its most beautiful and fecund inspiration in thisnationalism that should break the ties that link us from our birth to theold decaying and exhausted Europe. In our history this aggressive feelingcame about once before, at the time of the anguished revolution of , when“Brazil-wood” was [present in] the Jacobinism of Floriano’s Tiradentes. Letus now be once more, in the fullling of our ethnic and protective mission,Jacobin-like Brazilians. Let us free ourselves from the damaging inuencesof the old decaying [European] civilizations. ()

Judging by the way that Prado refers to the European civilizations, it seems

that he does not recognize any contradiction in the fact that the aestheticsof Brazilian Modernism was heavily inuenced by ideas imported from Eu-rope. Prado’s attitude in this particular fragment also goes against his ownprole as an art collector whose frequent trips to Europe denote, at least inpart, his own reverence to the hegemony of European art.

Modernist intellectuals of São Paulo created cultural artifacts thathelped forge an identity centered on genealogy, heritage, native traditions,and linkages to bandeirante forefathers. But this elemental underpinning of their project of national identity had to be adorned (sometimes concealed)

by the most up-to-date aesthetic techniques, so that the aristocracy couldmaintain a cutting-edge image of social renement. e present, markedby accelerated modernization and industrialization, had to be repressed be-cause it threatened to condemn the co ee oligarchy to obsolescence. Insteadof dealing with this state of a airs, the modernist discourse of national iden-tity oen suggested the reconciliation of tradition with modernity, but withno reference to immigration. rough Modernism, the co ee aristocracy succeeded in reclaiming paternity of two major historical developments: theco ee boom and the subsequent modernization and industrialization of São

Paulo and Brazil. Most importantly, they also succeeded in marginalizingthe immigrant proletariat and the immigrant industrialists who were actu-ally at the forefront of the process of industrialization.



Gouveia

The Early Poetry of Mário de Andrade:Myths of an Idealized Place and its Past

Mário de Andrade’s early modernist poetry, that is, his production in thes, is considered to be among the most radical, experimental and icono-clastic of Brazilian Modernism. Conventionally, the rst eight years of themodernist movement (from to ) have been dened as the “heroicyears,” a period in which the modernists fought hard against the backwardmentality that predominated in the cultural eld in Brazil. One of the mostradical premises of the modernist literary project insisted that literature, es-pecially poetry, should be concerned with the present. Modernists proposed

to utilize images of everyday life and a “down-to-earth” language in orderto shorten the distance between life and art. Andrade, a leading voice for theentire modernist project, wanted to counteract what he felt was the verboseand alienated literature of the Belle Époque.

Early modernist poetry did incorporate language, forms and themes thatwere considered too low to be part of the Parnassian lexicon. However, thatdoes not mean that modernist poetry was more accessible or less erudite.Most importantly, in spite of incorporating quotidian themes, free forms,blank verse, and popular culture, the modernists avoided certain realities

that had become part of everyday life in São Paulo. For instance, Mário deAndrade, who started out with odes to the cosmopolitan life of São Paulo,soon immersed himself in a quest for an untouched source of Brazilianidentity, which, he seemed to believe, could be found in the countryside.As Benedict Anderson points out in Imagined Communities, one of themost common features of nationalist discourses worldwide can be detectedin their “subjective antiquity” in spite of the “objective modernity” of na-tions (). Aer wholeheartedly embracing modernity, São Paulo modernistsstarted to feel the pressure to incorporate past traditions into their literary

and artistic production to supply their discourse of national identity withcredible historical depth. São Paulo was the fastest growing urban center inthe world and it seems that modernity alone threatened to erase any signs of the local uniqueness. Modernity caused too much anxiety in São Paulo, es-pecially because the city was, by , already dominated by the immigrantpresence.

Finding traces of the political anxiety of the s in modernist textsis no easy task. How can we recognize that which has been repressed? An-drade’s poems reveal their “repressed matter” only when analyzed against

an ample historical background, which I have tried to delineate above. Someaspects are clearly absent from Andrade’s poetic universe. If we take, for ex-ample, Andrade’s silence with respect to the siege and bombing of São




Paulo, or the fact that themes related to the immigrant working class are lesscentral in his poetry, the elided content of Andrade’s poetic representation

surfaces. Such tendencies in Andrade’s texts can be read as congruent withthe co ee elite’s anxiety in the socio-economic context of the s.

In his essay “Permanência do discurso da tradição no modernismo,”Santiago noted that elements of tradition do constitute a signicant partof modernist discourse. is aspect should not be considered an anomaly of Brazilian Modernism, since even in the context of the European avant-gardes this tendency had already been detected by Renato Poggioli. in thefourth chapter of e eory of the Avant Garde, in which he points out thatcertain branches of the European avant-garde “seeks to justify itself by the

authority or arbitration of history . . . even it deigns to look for its own patentof nobility in the chronicles of the past and to trace for itself a family tree of more or less authentic ancestors, more distant precursors” (). In the caseof Brazilian Modernism, Santiago makes a distinction between the parodicreference to elements of tradition, which represents an aesthetics of ruptureand transgression, and what he denes as simple “activation” of traditionalelements without irony. Both traits are present in modernist texts. In orderto demonstrate how non-parodic references to tradition make their way intothe early modernist movement, Santiago alludes to an episode in in-

volving many modernist intellectuals. Sponsored by Paulo Prado and OlíviaGuedes Penteado, Brazilian modernists and the Swiss avant-garde poetBlaise Cendrars took a trip to the historical villages of Minas Gerais. egroup that participated in the tour of Minas Gerais, which also included thecarnival in Rio, was composed of Mário de Andrade, Oswald de Andradeand his son, Nonê (Oswald de Andrade Filho), Olívia Guedes Penteado,René iollier, Godofredo Silva Telles and Blaise Cendrars (Amaral ).According to Santiago, the tour was a landmark moment that marked theemergence of primitive aesthetics in the works of Brazilian modernists. At

the time, the excursion was baptized as the “Rediscovery of Brazil, .”Modernist intellectuals who once preached against passadismo [conformity with the past], were now immersing themselves in it. e historical villagesof Minas Gerais constituted a “new” universe for the modernists. e re-

vival of colonial Brazil served the purpose of linking the mythical bandei-rante explorer to the entrepreneurial spirit of the São Paulo co ee aristoc-racy. Descendents of the earliest co ee planters, such as the Prados, soughtto secure social status by taking possession of colonial history. ey sensedthat rapid socioeconomic transformation would sooner or later cause the

economic and political downfall of the ruling oligarchies.

e year

wasone of the most tumultuous in the history of São Paulo, in which the episodeof the siege and occupation of São Paulo by a faction of the army signaled



Gouveia

the increasing pressures against the oligarchic system. Yet, none of thesehistorical conicts are explicitly touched upon in the modernist production

of .Several cultural artifacts came out of this momentous tour of Minas

Gerais, including Mário de Andrade’s famous poem, “Noturno de BeloHorizonte.” e poem is the centerpiece of the collection O clã do jabuti.Quite innovative as far as form and concept are concerned, the poem resem-bles a kaleidoscope of images and sensations that brings together multipleplaces and temporalities. Andrade structured the poem through a seem-ingly random accumulation of bits of history, myths and folklore in oneuninterrupted ow. e word noturno in Brazilian Portuguese could be a

reference to night trains and also to a genre of symphonic poetry that re- vived the spirit of the eighteenth-century serenades. Andrade’s poem con-tains elements of both; it can be read as a reproduction of a journey by trainthrough Minas Gerais, while the predominant tone of the message func-tions as a serenade inside a long and fragmented symphony:

Marvel of thousands of glassy slitherings

Calm in the Belo Horizonte night train . . .A fresh silence falls out of the trees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e police among roses . . .Where they are is not needed, as always . . .ere is an absence of crime ()

Recurrent soothing messages collaged among several songs and poemstaken from local oral culture make the poem resemble lullabies strung to-gether into one long piece. Everything that appears in this poem evokespeace, calm and social harmony. e poem depicts a place that has pre-served national memory intact since colonial times. Minas Gerais appears

here as a national memorial where all is calm and orderly.e opening image of shimmering pieces of glass radiating a multi-tude of colors establishes a surreal atmosphere. is is a journey througha dream-like landscape. e poem reenacts utopian scenes of the past andpresent that inspire and incite the national spirit. In Andrade’s view, MinasGerais is such a calm location that the police have no place or function inthis environment. Unlike the city of São Paulo, which in was host toa whole month of military conict, the towns of Minas appear as sanctu-aries of peace, because they lack the “anarchic” component of the immi-

grant proletariat and the greediness of immigrant entrepreneurs. In a placewhere there is no social conict, the police become part of the background,standing among owers and functioning as mere ornamental gures. is




opening stanza tells of Andrade’s preoccupation with issues of social con-trol, perhaps a sign of the anxiety being experienced by the São Paulo ruling

classes. e poet longs for a peaceful nation where all conicts are settledand where hierarchies cannot be challenged.

In a place where political and social hierarchies are not challenged, ev-erything appears as natural. at is why nature occupies such a prominentrole in Andrade’s representation of Minas Gerais. In various passages inthe poem Andrade makes reference to a power struggle between natureand civilization. Nature seems to defy modernity and impose its own kindof civilization in Minas Gerais. e poet wishes that the conict could beresolved with nature’s victory. In the poem, nature’s power and resilience

prevent Minas and its capital, Belo Horizonte, from becoming the faceless,dehumanized and generic landscapes of modernity. e ultimate victory of nature against civilization in this poem conrms the poet’s romantic andnostalgic inclination. His concept of modernity is melancholic. He strivesto nd a neoclassical locus amoenus that could preserve the past within thepresent in this idealized landscape:

What a terrifying ght between the forest and the houses. . .All of the human ages

Imitated by historical architecturesTowers large towers small towers foolishness[ey] Fight in the name of?e Mineiros answer in unison“in the name of civilization!”Minas progresses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e woods invaded the railing of the streets,Street cars saddled by the weight of Herculean trunks [of trees],. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e victorious woods camped on the hills. (–)

Typically for someone who came from a larger urban center, Andrade adoptsa patronizing attitude toward the fact that Minas Gerais aspired to have amodern capital, like São Paulo or Rio de Janeiro. is condescending toneconveys the idea that this longing for modernity could be imprudent. In fact,throughout the poem Andrade restates his concern with modernity becauseof its role as the agent of cultural transformation and loss. e architectureof Belo Horizonte, for instance, is dismissed because of its imitative charac-

ter, its tasteless combination of disparate temporalities and its desire to erasethe past. Andrade constructs his discourse in opposition to these modern-izing impulses. at is why the symbols of modernity in the stanza appear



Gouveia

damaged and burnt down in a sort of apocalyptic scene. Nature triumphs by taking up the hills and by destroying street cars.

e poet longs for stability and order in a changing environment. ehierarchical society of Minas Gerais embodied the perfect model for An-drade’s goal. In s Minas, it was still possible to tell who was who just by the way people dressed: “In traditional society, the vast gulf between richand poor served not to challenge but rather to enhance and to legitimatethe social order. Maintaining a genteel life-style was not easy in the impov-erished interior, where status was so clearly revealed in dress, possessions,and access to education” (Wirth ).erefore, in spite of the inevitable ero-sion of traditional values produced by modernization, the society of Minas

Gerais kept the old order alive in the remote areas of the interior.Despite acknowledging the progress made in Minas Gerais, Andrade

chooses to depict the state as an untouched matrix of the Brazilian “civi-lization,” because the countryside of Minas had preserved a great deal of its past. e gold rush of the s lasted for about a century, and then allgold-mining activities rapidly declined before the s. By the time An-drade visited Minas, the historical towns had been practically abandonedfor at least years. us, in the case of the historical sites of Minas Gerais,abandonment actually helped preserve the physical and cultural landscape.

For the modernists, these towns of had stopped in time, becoming livingmuseums, preserving the “true” Brazilian character. Furthermore, Minascould be linked to the past of São Paulo, a state where traces of the past hadoen been erased. According to the bandeirante legend, some of the earli-est settlers of Minas Gerais came from São Vicente, the capitania that laterbecame the state of São Paulo.ey had come in search of gold and preciousstones, but they also captured indigenous people to sell as slaves to land-owners. e “Noturno de Belo Horizonte” basically reconstructs the ban-deirantes’ steps. Andrade pays homage to the bandeirante myth on several

occasions in the poem. São Paulo appears accordingly as the creator of themarvelous historical sites of Minas. e legends of Brazilian Independence,such as Tiradentes, the Christ-like martyr, furnish the material for the re-enactment of the nation’s immutable historical core:

In the apathy of the stagnant villages . . .e past whispers to the souls,Altar ghosts, of golden steeplesAnd of the palaces of Mariana and Vila Rica . . .

at is: Ouro Preto.

And the gorgeous name of São José d’El Rei changed into anodontological Tiradentes. . .We must respect the martyrs




Calm on the Belo Horizonte night train. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minas Gerais, São Paulo’s fruitFruit that has rotted. (–)

e tone here is elegiacal and reverential. Once more, all the monumentsof the past are evoked for their capacity to petrify historical time and thusprovide an amalgam for the discourse of national identity. On the one hand,these historical towns are living pieces of history that inspire the modernistdiscourse of national identity. On the other hand, it is exactly the phan-tasmagorical atmosphere of these historical towns that triggers the poet’s

imagination. ese places retain the messianic energy of a theocratic erathat Andrade rescues as an element that dees modernity. He summons upthe ghosts who inhabit old churches as well as the spirit of Tiradentes.is isdone in a language similar to prayers in which saints are invoked. By doingso, the poet makes reference to two myths at once: the Christian myth andthe myth of Brazilian Independence. ere is a striking similarity betweenthe martyrs of these two myths. Andrade superimposed Christ upon Tira-dentes following the suggestion provided by the conventional pictorial rep-resentation of Tiradentes, which resembles classic images of Christ. ere-

fore, these two characters are mingled in one, which could be interpretedas sympathetic to the merger between Church and State. In this obsoletetheocratic utopia, everything remains calm because no hierarchy is chal-lenged. Andrade depicts colonial times as an eternal, static and inescapablepart of the present.

e concluding couplets reveal the poet’s view of Minas Gerais as anappendage of São Paulo, not as a new frontier of development, but as a de-funct, yet remarkable, part of the past of São Paulo and Brazil. In this po-etic representation, the glorious past of the São Paulo bandeirante explorer

remains alive, albeit in the neighboring state of Minas Gerais. e linkbetween Minas and São Paulo that Andrade emphasizes has a particularly strong symbolic meaning, since it refers to two important economic cyclesin the country’s history: e Gold Rush of the s and the co ee businessthat had been going on since the mid-s. ese symbolic links reinforcethe notion of an identity based on genealogy. e powerful family clansof the Nobreza do Café in Minas had ties to their paulista counterparts: “eSul and the Triângulo formed two more subsystems, each having exten-sive family and commercial links with São Paulo. us the subregions into

which the state was divided by economics and geography also had distinc-tive clan links” (Wirth ). Andrade, then, not only admires the model of social stability in Minas Gerais but also celebrates the old alliances betweenSão Paulo and Minas, both in the familial and political ties between the two



Gouveia

states. By doing so, he justies and reinstates the hegemonic position of SãoPaulo in the federation.

Toward the end of the poem comes the most unabashed celebration of Brazil’s Lusitanian roots. Aer reproducing a number of local legends, An-drade addresses a collective readership, the “people” of Brazil, speaking of his desire to tell all of Minas’ folk tales to the whole of Brazil. Minas, in his

view, was one of the oldest and best preserved sites of colonial Brazil andthereby guarded the essence of an identity that was shared among all otherregions of the vast Brazilian territory:

I would like to tell the stories of MinasTo the Brazilians of BrazilSons of the Luso and of melancholy Come people from Alagoas and Mato Grosso,From north and south river men of the Amazonas and of the Paraná river. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I swear it was Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself Who planted his cross in the atrium of the chapels of the hill!It was he Himself who in São João d’El ReiSculpted the images of his saints. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spain shattered itself in a dust of American nationsBut on the sonorous trunk of the language of the ãoPortugal gathered unequal orchids.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We are on Earth the great miracle of love!And although our lives are so diverseWe dance together in the carnival of peoplesIn the cheerful samba group of the “It takes long but it goes” (–)

Andrade’s poem celebrates melancholia as a trait of the Brazilian national

character and is itself a melancholy discourse of national identity. epast of Minas Gerais with its traditions, myths, martyrs, the oral legendsand its architectural monuments, all of them symbols of the Portuguesecolonization, provide the model for the integration of Brazil as modernnation. Andrade pleads to his countrymen in every corner of the nation,especially rural areas, to join him in the celebration of Brazil’s Lusitanianheritage. e urban proletariat with its multitudes of nationalities and lan-guages are either marginalized or homogenized with the peasant folk inAndrade’s poem.

In a series of references to religious imagery, the poet pays tribute to thepopular notion that “God is a Brazilian” as he swears that Christ himself planted his cross in some remote Minas Gerais church and sculpted the im-ages of saints that grace these religious sites. e poet gathers mostly reli-




gious but also pagan myths in order to appeal to multiple tastes and creeds.Brazil’s integration, which at the time was still a political dream, is praised

as a distinctive trait of Brazil vis-à-vis all the other Latin American coun-tries. His argument is that the twenty-two states (at the time) were inte-grated by the resonant Portuguese language that united the nation, whilein the rest of Latin America the states were separated by a shared language.us, Brazil is “the great miracle of love on Earth.” To conclude this se-ries of populist/nationalist clichés, Andrade cites the myth of Brazilianracial democracy through the image of carnival, the nation’s most appeal-ing popular festivity, in another attempt to blend cultures and reconciledi erences.

e list of symbols of nationality used in this poem is long and diverse.Andrade calls on autochthonous views of history, popular culture, folklore,religion, language, race, ethnicity, class, territoriality, heritage, politics, art,architecture, music, literature, and a variety of myths to construct this co-lossal piece. However, all of these heterogeneous and discontinuous aspectsof Brazilian culture appear in perfect harmony within the poem. It wasby glossing over a placid picture of that particular historical moment thatAndrade performed the “occultation of history” and the “aestheticization”of the political in his poetic discourse. In a seemingly depoliticized man-

ner, Andrade portrayed a landscape almost devoid of immigrants, wherethe supposed “native” social and ethnic components occupy the center.is epic poem, central to Andrade’s line of Modernism, put forth a grandnarrative of the nation that conveyed a false sense of peace and harmony and downplayed social conicts. His selection of subject matter privileged“imagined” places and temporalities of Brazilian history and traditions.Taking into account that these choices were made in the s, a partic-ularly transformative historical moment, it becomes clear that Andrade’s

view of nationhood concurred with the view and interests of the oligarchic

classes. In “Noturno de Belo Horizonte,” the myth of bandeirismo receivesan avant-gardish patina while the monumental character of its discourseevinces a hegemonic view of history. is merger of past and present formsa symbolic representation of an idealized present. It is worth mentioningalso that this poem was published in the early days of the Brazilian modern-ist movement, which is conventionally referred to as the “heroic years,” thephase in which Andrade and other modernists supposedly promoted a radi-cal rupture with the aesthetics and the values of the past. I demonstrated,instead, that Andrade’s orthodox representation of nationhood displayed

reactionary overtones, celebrated internal colonization, and posed no threatto the status quo.



Gouveia

Notes

. A short version of this essay was presented at theth Annual Convention of the Midwest Modern Language Association in November of in Chicago, Il-linois. All translations of texts originally in Portuguese are mine.

. Not only Paulo Prado, but also Olivia Guedes Penteado is oen cited as a sup-porter of the early modernist movement in São Paulo. For more on the Prados’s andthe Penteados’s patronage of Brazilian Modernism, see Miceli Intelectuais e classedirigente, and Nacional estrangeiro, Sevcenko, and Amaral. For biographical infor-mation on Paulo Prado, see Levi.

. e claim that artists and writers would cater to their patrons’ taste used tobe an extremely unpopular one in the scholarship about Brazilian Modernism. It

was believed that artists had complete autonomy and would never risk their integ-rity as independent artists in order to please those who commissioned their work.However, more recently, a number of studies try to prove that there can be vari-ous degrees of compromise between artists and patrons. In the case of BrazilianModernism, two excellent studies in this vein are: Miceli, Nacional estrangeiro; andNoland.

. Wilson Martins actually dened his own generation of critics and literary scholars as “modernist critics.” In his essay, “A crítica modernista,” he argued thatthis generation brought about the “ird Phase” of Brazilian Modernism. e rstphase, according to his categorization, was the early s period. e second phase

of Modernism took place in the s and s. ough questionable, Martins’s cat-egorization gives us a prime example of literary critics’ aliation with the nationbuilding project of Brazilian Modernism. See Martins –.

. For an analysis of the institutional and historical background upon whichmodernist criticism was constructed, see Gouveia –. See also, Johnson.

. Silviano Santiago published two articles in the s following the publica-tion of Miceli’s book. See Santiago and Miceli, Intelectuais e classe dirigente. Nico-lau Sevcenko’s Orfeu extático na metrópole is another excellent counter-hegemonicreading of early Modernism.

. Burger’s concept of the “institution of art” has to do with the modes of pro-

duction, reception and circulation of the work of art. e avant-garde’s attackon the institution was not a mere textual critique directed at a specic culturalinstitution, or style. It was an attempt to subvert the material and ideological foun-dations that sustained the artistic eld as an autonomous social sphere. For moredetails on the concept of “Art as an Institution,” see Burger –.

. Some critics openly refuse Andrade’s public admission of this connection be-tween Modernism and the aristocracy. For example, Alceu Amoroso Lima armsthat: “A revisão crítica do modernismo começou a ser feita por Mário de Andradepor ocasião da conferência por ele pronunciada no Itamarati, em , verdadeirabomba de retardamento. Aí declarou que o modernismo foi um movimento aris-

tocrático. Tenho contudo a impressão de que Mário de Andrade não foi el em suarevisão.” Lima .




. For a detailed distinction between the co ee planter elite and the immigrantindustrialist elite, see Dean –.

. Dean briey compares the experiences of Italians in Brazil with the Irish andthe Jewish experience in the United States and concludes that the prejudice againstItalians in São Paulo was “insignicant” compared to the animosity among elitesof Boston and other cities of the northern United States. According to Dean, theimmigrant elites in the U.S. “struggled harder to acquire social status than they didto get rich.” See Dean .

. For an analysis of the planter elite belief in the European racial superiority and prejudice against the native population, see Dean –.

. For a historical overview and an explanation of the ideas behind the conceptof import substitution, see Montecinos & Marko –.

. For more about the inadequacy of the internal market supply of manufac-tured goods, see Dean ; and Montecinos & Marko .

. Dean argues that immigrant industrialists oen started as importers of manufactured goods. eir knowledge of the market came from their experiencewith imports. ey started producing cheaper manufactured goods to substitute forthe pricier imports. See Dean –.

. According to Dean, the “European tradition of labor militance was importedby the laborers themselves.” See Dean .

. For a detailed description of these events, see Sevcenko –.. For more about the Democratic Party composition, see Levi .

. Nelson Werneck Sodré argues that the Correio Paulistano promoted themodernist “manifestations,” although the avant-garde magazines were the maineld for the circulation of the modernist production. See Sodré .

. Sérgio Miceli argues that Paulo Prado and other rich foreign collectorshelped maintain the viability of the modern art production in Paris. Miceli arguesthat Prado’s importance as an art collector was such that artists such as Léger evenwrote dedications to Prado in an e ort to please his client. See Miceli, Nacional estrangeiro –.

. Although there are references to the immigrant proletariat in Andrade’swork, this theme is certainly not as prominent in Andrade’s work as it is, for ex-

ample, in the prose of Patrícia Galvão or Alcântara Machado, both modernist prosewriters that published their most important work in the late s.

Bibliography

Amaral, Aracy. Blaise Cendrars no Brasil e os modernistas. São Paulo: Martins,

.Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Re exions on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London/New York: Verso, .



Gouveia

Andrade, Mário de. O clã do jaboti. Obras completas. Vol. . São Paulo: Martins..

———. O movimento modernista. Rio de Janeiro: CEB, .Bürger, Peter. eory of the Avant-Garde. Trans. Michael Shaw. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, .

Canclini, Néstor García. Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Mo-dernity. Trans. Christopher L. Chiappari and Silvia L. López. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, .

Dean, Warren. e Industrialization of São Paulo, –. Austin: U of Texas P,.

del Picchia, Menotti. A “semana” revolucionária : conferências, artigos e crônicas so-bre a Semana de Arte Moderna e as principais guras do movimento modernista

no Brasil . Ed. Jácomo Mandatto. Campinas: Pontes, .Gouveia, Saulo. “Brazilian Modernism: A Discourse of Unity and Suppression.”

Diss. U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, .Johnson, Randal. “e Dynamics of the Brazilian Literary Field, –.” Luso-

Brazilian Review . (): –.Jameson, Fredric. e Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act .

Ithaca: Cornell UP, .Levi, Darrel E.: e Prados of São Paulo, Brazil: An Elite Family and Social Change,

–. Athens: U of Georgia P, .Love, Joseph L. São Paulo in the Brazilian Federation, – . Stanford: Stanford

UP, .———. Cra ing e ird World: eorizing Underdevelopment in Rumania and

Brazil . Stanford: Stanford UP, .Lima, Alceu Amoroso. Memórias improvisadas: Diálogos com Cláudio Medeiros de

Lima. Petrópolis: Vozes, .Martins, Wilson. “A crítica modernista.” A literatura no Brasil . Vol. . Ed. Afrânio

Coutinho. Rio de Janeiro: Sul Americana, . –.Miceli, Sérgio. Intelectuais e classe dirigente –. São Paulo: DIFEL, .———, Nacional estrangeiro. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, .Montecinos, Verónica & John Marko . “From the Power of Economic Ideas to the

Power of Economists.” e Other Mirror: Grand eory rough the Lens of Latin America. Ed. Miguel Angel Centeno & Fernando López-Alves. Princeton & Ox-ford: Princeton UP, . –.

Noland, Carrie. “e Metaphysics of Co ee: Blaise Cendrars, Modernist Standard-ization, and Brazil.” Modernism/Modernity . . (): –.

Poggioli, Renato. e eory of the Avant Garde. Trans. Gerald Fitzgerald. Cam-bridge: Harvard UP, .

Prado, Paulo. “Poesia pau-brasil.” Oswald de Andrade. Pau brasil . ed. São Paulo:Globo/ Secretaria de Estado de Cultura de São Paulo, . –.

Santiago, Silviano. “Fechado para balanço (sessenta anos de modernismo).” Nas

malhas da Letra. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, : –.———. “A permanência do discurso da tradição no modernismo.” Nas malhas da

letra. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, : –.




Sevcenko, Nicolau. Orfeu extático da metrópole: São Paulo, sociedade e cultura nos frementes anos . São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, .

Sodré, Nelson Werneck. A história da imprensa no Brasil . Rio de Janeiro: Civiliza-ção Brasileira, .Wirth, John D. Minas Gerais in the Brazilian Federation, – . Stanford: Stan-

ford UP, .Yúdice, George. “Rethinking the eory of the Avant-Garde from the Periphery.”

Modernism and its Margins: Reinscribing Cultural Modernity From Spain and Latin America. Ed. Anthony L. Geist and José B. Monleón. New York & London:Garland, . –.

gouveia, paulo. early patronage in modernism

Documents