The Meaning of Honor: A Case of Libel in 19th Century Rio Grande do Sul*
Karl Monsma
Departamento de Ciências Sociais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos
Paper prepared for presentation at the XXI International Congress of the Latin American Studies
Association, Chicago, September 24-26,1998.
Resumo: O significado da honra: Um processo por calúnia no Rio Grande do Sul do século XIX
Baseado num conflito entre um comerciante urbano e um fazendeiro de gado residente no interior, e o
processo por calúnia daí decorrente, o paper examina o significado da honra entre grupos de elites no
século XIX. Desenvolve o argumento que a honra constitui uma forma de capital simbólico que
indica o valor da pessoa como parceiro nas relações de troca social. Os dois homens envolvidos no
conflito aqui examinado valorizaram a honra igualmente, mas a usaram para formas de troca distintas.
Por isso, a concepção de honra de cada um era parcialmente diferenciada, refletindo diferenças entre a
honra das elites rurais e a honra da comunidade mercantil. Boa parte do conflito entre eles decorreu
disso, levando a desentendimentos e insultos não propositados. A divergência era especialmente
marcada no que diz respeito ao papel da palavra escrita e a contabilidade. Os comerciantes tendiam a
valorizar contratos detalhados e contas minuciosas, vendo neles evidências de honra, porque
indicavam que um homem era confiável e fazia tudo para cumprir suas obrigações com outras
pessoas. Os fazendeiros moradores do campo, entretanto, viam a insistência em escrever ajustes e
manter contas exatas como sinais de desconfiança na boa vontade dos outros e até tentativas de
fraudar verdadeiros homens de honra, que eram fiéis a sua palavra e assim dispensavam contratos e
documentos escritos. Nessa província altamente militarizada, os moradores do campo também viam a
coragem e a capacidade de chefiar homens no campo de batalha como indicadores de honra. Assim o
luxo dos ricos urbanos, e especialmente sua evasão do serviço militar, pareciam às elites rurais como
sinais de uma covardia desonrada. Esta análise providencia algumas pistas úteis para entender
acontecimentos posteriores, especialmente o grau de hostilidade durante a Guerra Farroupilha entre
fazendeiros do interior e a elite litoral de charqueadores e comerciantes. Também ajuda a entender a
obsessão de algumas elites em acumular títulos de nobreza.
*This research was supported in part by a fellowship from the J. William Fulbright Foreign
Scholarship Board and by a faculty research grant from Northwestern University. Address
correspondence to: Karl Monsma, Rua Paulistânia 46, Apt. 51, 05440-000 São Paulo SP, Brazil. Email: [email protected]
The Meaning of Honor: A Case of Libel in 19th Century Rio Grande do Sul
Karl Monsma
In November, 1829, Alferes Boaventura José de Oliveira and his wife, Isabel Francisca de
Andrade, agreed to sell their ranch, the Estância da Musica, to the urban merchant and rancher
Comendador João Francisco Vieira Braga for 16 contos (16,000 mil-réis). In the surviving
correspondence, Boaventura does not give his reasons for selling, but the devastation caused by the
recently concluded war between Brazil and Argentina for possession of the territory that became
Uruguay after the peace treaty of 1828 seems a likely cause, for the ranch was located just north of the
Uruguayan border. With the purchase, João Francisco, who had enriched himself in part by
provisioning the Brazilian army during the war, would be in a good position to profit from the peace.
He gained approximately six square leagues of prime ranch land bounded to the East and West by the
rivers Vacaiquá and Upamaroti, which meet to form an inverted V pointed north, and to the South by
a range of hills near the international border.1 The ranch's location was convenient both for driving
cattle to the salted meat plants, or charqueadas, of Pelotas and for contraband cattle sales to
Uruguayan salted meat producers, who often paid more.
The two apparently had never met: Boaventura lived at the Musica ranch and João Francisco
lived in the port city of Rio Grande and only visited the ranch after he bought it. They had negotiated
the sale by mail for about two and a half months, with the aid of Marshal Sebatião Barreto Pereira
Pinto, the top military commander in the province, who served as Vieira Braga's representative in the
countryside. In his letter agreeing to the sale, Boaventure complained about the added expense caused
by the delay and said he would sell the ranch "only on the condition that I am to receive the first
payment [of 12 contos] in São Gabriel in silver and thus cover myself for the 300,000 or so réis that I
spent without achieving anything with the delivery of the ranch to the Most Excellent Senhor Marshal
Barreto or at your order when I also will receive the first payment and then we will sign the contract
which is not necessary for now because my word of honor alone is sufficient being more secure than
my own signature" (emphasis in original).2 João Francisco complained about the difficulty of paying
in silver and sending the money to the countryside, but agreed to Boaventura's conditions. Copper
coins, the predominant form of money in the country at that time, were losing value—due to both
excessive emissions by the court and an influx of counterfeit Brazilian coins from other countries,
especially the United States. Vieira Braga lost 10% in acquiring silver coins and made a point to
1
Escritura, Boaventura José de Oliveira and Isabel Francisca de Andrade selling Estância da Música to João
Francisco Vieira Braga (hereafter JFVB), São Gabriel, April 10, 1830, Biblioteca Rio-Grandense, Rio Grande,
Rio Grande do Sul (hereafter BRG), Lata (L)28, Questão Boaventura José de Oliveira (QBJO). Variant
spellings of names (e.g., Yzabel, Joze) have been changed to their standard version.
2
Boaventura José de Oliveira to JFVB, Estância da Musica, Nov. 10, 1829, BRG, L28, QBJO.
1
inform Boaventure that he was gaining one conto two hundred thousand réis by receiving the money
in silver.3
The first payment and transfer of possession of the ranch took place to the satisfaction of both
men a few months later. The delay was due largely to the difficulty of finding a secure means to
transport the money. Twelve contos in silver carried some 400 kilometers across the thinly populated
plains would be an appetizing target for bandits. In April, 1830, after Boaventura offered to pay half
the cost of transporting the silver, João Francisco sent it with his godson Zeferino José de Campos,
apparently escorted by a detachment of armed men.4 Boaventura and Zeferino then wrote the contract
for the sale, and both men signed in the presence of witnesses. Boaventura's wife, who could not read
or write, asked a witness to sign for her. Boaventura was pleased with this outcome and especially
impressed by Zeferino.
I have much satisfaction when I remembered that you [João Francisco] carried out very
exactly everything that you arranged with me and the long delay that was happening is not
your fault …; this same Senhor Zeferino concluded our deal in an instant. If you had done
this earlier you would not have the torture you had, I in the meantime having great expenses
etc. etc. Senhor Zeferino is one of the good thing you have at your side because his perfect
honor is the greatest merit that exists with him of whom I consider myself very fond, and may
it please you to honor me with your friendship since I have much need of it and yet count
upon all the applause [of he] who will be with the greatest appreciation your sincere and
grateful friend.5
The offer of friendship had a particular meaning in this context. It did not necessarily mean emotional
attachment, conviviality, or intimate disclosure, although it could mean all of these too; it meant first
and foremost an ongoing exchange of favors. João Francisco, who was a well-connected merchant in
Rio Grande, where he had also occupied a variety of political offices, could help Boaventura in his
dealings with the centers of political and economic power, especially by interceding with officials in
Porto Alegre or Rio de Janeiro to have Boaventura's favorites nominated to local offices in the
countryside. In return, Boaventura could use his local influence in the countryside to gain support for
João Francisco in land disputes and to arrange electoral support for candidates selected by João
Francisco. The honor that João Francisco had proven by delivering the silver, and which was further
enhanced by the honorable behavior of his godson, meant to Boaventura that, in addition to being a
powerful man, Vieira Braga was a trustworthy and reliable exchange partner. "Friendship" with him
was therefore highly desirable. Boaventura's high hopes for the relationship would soon be shattered,
however, as João Francisco proved himself dishonorable in Boaventura's eyes.
João Francisco owed two more payments of two contos each, to be paid at one-year intervals.
Relations between the two men soured when Boaventura went to Pelotas to collect the second
3
Roderick J. Barman, Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press,
1988), 149; Spencer L. Leitman, Raízes sócio-econômicas da guerra dos farrapos: um capítulo da história do
Brasil no século XIX (Rio de Janeiro: Edições Graal, 1979), 141-3; JFVB to Boaventura, São Francisco de Paula
(Pelotas), Jan. 15, 1830, BRG, L28, QBJO.
4
JFVB to Boaventura, Rio Grande, Mar. 20, 1830, BRG, L28, QBJO.
2
payment about a year later. Boaventura thought the remaining money was to be paid in silver. He
later claimed that, during their earlier negotiations, João Francisco's representative Marshal Barreto
had assured him explicitly that João Francisco would pay the entire price in silver. But João
Francisco insisted that they had agreed to payment of the four remaining contos in copper, pointing to
the deed written by Boaventura at the time of the first payment, which clearly stated that he had
received twelve contos in silver but did not specify the nature of the remaining payments.
Boaventura's outraged reaction, however, indicates that he had genuinely expected to be paid in silver.
He felt so insulted by Vieira Braga's treatment that he published an article in a Porto Alegre
newspaper defaming Vieira Braga and recounting his version of the events, thus intensifying the
conflict and issuing a public challenge to João Francisco's honor.
The article appeared in the Correio da Liberdade on July 9, 1831, signed by "the friend of
virtuous men."6 José Antônio Pimenta, apparently a friend or relative of Boaventura Oliveira's in
Porto Alegre, submitted the article, but later produced a letter from Boaventura taking full
responsibility.7 It is likely that the two wrote the article together, or that Boaventura wrote it and
Pimenta edited it, because the Portuguese in the article is considerably more refined than that in
Boaventura's letters. The article accused Vieira Braga of presenting an honorable image but being a
liar and a cheat at heart.
The honor and probity of men can almost never be gauged by their externally-represented
character: most of the time those in whose hearts resides nothing more than deceit and lies
present themselves in such a way that it seems an outrage simply to presume that they would
be capable of less than the truth; and we often think above comitting a vile deed he who,
when dealing with his individual interests, does not hesitate to pursue them with the greatest
shamelessness, deceiving the fidelity of his pacts and agreements under cover of the
preponderance and image that he has unjustly acquired in society…. I will go on to narrate an
incident, that more than a few will take as incredible, in view of the image and credit enjoyed
by the person who did it; but it is true.
For Boaventura, Vieira Braga's adherence to the wording of the contract amounted to little more than
an unfair trick to avoid carrying out the spirit of their agreement. "The aforesaid Braga wanted to pay
[the contos] in copper resorting for this to a poorly understood point in the Deed." After some
argument, Boaventura by his account decided to accept the copper and reserve the right to exchange it
later for silver (or receive the difference in value) so as not to return home empty handed. Vieira
Braga told him to come to a store the next day to receive the money.
The next afternoon João Francisco appeared with some witnesses and a draft receipt for
Boaventura to copy, asking him to fill out the receipt and saying that he would bring the money later
because he had to do something else. Vieira Braga's action was perfectly consistent with the logic of
5
Boaventura to JFVB, São Gabriel, Apr. 11, 1830, BRG, L28, QBJO.
Copy in BRG, L28, QBJO.
7
Boaventura to José Antônio Pimenta, São Gabriel, June 11, 1831, BRG, L28, QBJO. Pimenta apparently was
not a professional journalist. At any rate, he is not among the Porto Alegre journalists of the 1830's listed in
6
3
trust that Boaventura had emphasized from the beginning of their correspondence, but by this point
Boaventura was highly suspicious. "The honorable Boaventura, having found out by these events,
that instead of having sold his Fazenda, he himself was being sold by the context of the Deed, which
undoubtedly had been written to please the buyer, refused to write the receipt, without first receiving
the money, in spite of the measures [Braga] employed to make him write it: and in this one can clearly
see the malice of Sr. Braga, who unable to gain anything with regard to the receipt, transferred the
payment [again], scheduling it for the next day." João Francisco's brother-in-law, Domingos
Rodrigues Ribas, delivered the copper money in smaller payments over the course of the following
two days. After Boaventura received the two contos, Ribas brought a draft receipt that did not specify
the kind of money, "thus suiting the interests and good intentions of Sr. Braga: but Boaventura who
already saw the way they were trying to trick him, did write the receipt, but not according to the draft
he was given: he made the statements he judged appropriate." Vieira Braga wanted a receipt stating
that he had paid what he owed and Boaventura wanted to give a receipt that would allow him to
continue pressing for payment in silver, taking the case to court if necessary.
Ribas reluctantly accepted Boaventura's receipt, but reappeared that night with two others,
under a heavy rain, "ordering [Boaventura] to write the receipt according to a third draft that he
presented, or otherwise to return the money, for which purpose they were already at that same hour
bringing a group of blacks: and not trusting the honorable Boaventura, who was capable of keeping
millions without a receipt, they did not even want to trust him for one night with [the money]."
Boaventura tried to convince Ribas to leave the matter until the next day, but he would not leave until
Boaventura turned the money over to the owner of the house where he was staying.
Ribas obligated the Head of the Household to serve as depositary in an obvious affront to this
honorable man [Boaventura], who in São Francisco de Paula [Pelotas] received on this
occasion the greatest vexations, to the astonishment of all people who are familiar with his
honorable sentiments: [Ribas] finally listened to reason, and withdrew; but the honorable
Boaventura, considering at night that it would be better to hand over the money, and accept
the receipt he had given, than to risk being attacked when he went to bed, and robbed by such
bandits, who could even try to take his life, [returned the money].
Boaventura apparently returned to his new home in São Gabriel without the money. He was deeply
insulted not only by what he saw as Vieira Braga's attempt to cheat him but also by Ribas's suspicion
and rudeness. Ribas's threat to have a group of slaves force him to return the money was a clear
rejection of his word of honor and seems to have prompted the accusation that Ribas was a bandit,
which Ribas in turn would take as a grievous affront
Returning to the beginning of the story, although Boaventura consistently accused Vieira
Braga of deceit, it is unlikely that João Francisco had lied to or intentionally misled him, given the
obsession with probity, or at least maintaining its appearance, manifested in the rest of João
Francisco's correspondence. In all probability the conflict involved genuine misunderstanding
Dante de Laytano, História da República Rio-Grandense, 1835-1845 (Porto Alegre: Livraria do Globo, 1936),
4
stemming from the fact that much of the negotiation over the sale had been mediated by a third party,
Marshal Barreto. João Francisco understood that only the first payment, three-quarters of the total,
was to be in silver. The fact that the contract did not specify the nature of the remaining four contos
supported his interpretation: to a reasonable person, four contos without specification of coinage
meant the regularly circulating currency, which was copper. The expense and trouble of gathering
twelve contos in silver and sending it to the country had been concession enough. Boaventura was
simply being greedy, and his distrust was insulting. In his interaction with Barreto, on the other hand,
Boaventura had been led to believe that all of the money would be paid in silver. He paid little
attention to the exact wording of the contract because, after all, everyone involved was a man of
honor, or so he believed until rudely disabused by Vieira Braga's legalistic trickery and Ribas's
demeaning threats.
One could view this misunderstanding and the escalating conflict that ensued as a kind of
cultural battle produced by capitalism and rationalization in a traditional community bound together
by a web of personal relationships: the heartless market, cold calculation, and impersonal laws
replacing a moral world of honor, loyalty, and patronage. Boaventura de Oliveira certainly saw the
situation this way: Vieira Braga was a shameless urban capitalist intent on using technicalities of the
written word and the law to defraud a man of honor, who was naïve enough to believe that a man's
word still meant something. In their three-page letter to the newspaper, Boaventura and Pimenta used
the words "honor" or "honorable" twelve times, eight of them to describe Boaventura or his actions.
The clear implication was that João Francisco and his brother-in-law had no honor. The text only
associated João Francisco with honor sarcastically.
One can have no doubt that from the beginning of this business Sr. Braga had sinister
intentions: and that thus he wants to carry it through to the end, because of the unjust way in
which he has treated this honorable man, lacking the courtesy so appreciated by men of
character. Would it not be more decent of Sr. Braga, that on the arrival of this man he
prepared the money, and after collected he delivered it, rather than using such notorious
discourtesy with him, who is in nothing his inferior? Forcing a virtuous man to go around
from door to door collecting coppers at stores, shops, and taverns would perhaps be the way
in which men of moral fiber are accustomed to paying their debts!! Deny the truth of all the
people who were present at the agreement, wanting to pay in copper, just because the deed is
poorly phrased, would be the way in which men of honor conduct themselves!!! Ah, Sr.
Editor, if their word does not obligate men, what contract will bind them!
If he really believed Vieira Braga had no honor, however, Boaventura would not have bothered to
write the letter. He only impugned João Francisco's honor because he believed he had some to lose.
He in effect said that João Francisco was not worthy of the honor he enjoyed in the eyes of others; he
lacked the inner sense of honor that produced binding feelings of moral obligation; having instead
only a shell of honorable appearances that hid a core of self-interested scheming. Boaventura's
decision to bring the dispute into the public sphere and his idealized description of the honorable man
131-24.
5
also suggest that the concept of honor had deep cultural resonance that cut across social groups. It
was not just an obsession of backcountry ranchers.
Vieira Braga and Ribas clearly thought they were honorable men. After the letter from "the
friend of virtuous men" appeared in the Correio da Liberdade, they rushed to defend their honor in
court. After a grand jury (júri de acusação) decided that the article did indeed constitute "abuse of
freedom of the press," they sued first José Antônio Pimenta and then Boaventura José da Oliveira.8
According to the formal accusation of Pimenta prepared by their lawyer, the letter to the editor was
"damaging to the honor and probity with which [they] have distinguished themselves at all times"
because it was filled with insults and it lied about both the form of payment João Francisco owed and
the treatment Boaventura received when he went to collect the payment. After going over the details
of specific "insolences, offences, and falsehoods" in the article, the accusation concluded that "nobody
could overlook in the article denounced the alluvium of offenses that were very intentionally spat out
upon the good reputation, honor, and character of [Vieira Braga and Ribas]."9 The conflict escalated
in part because both sides felt obligated to defend their honor: Boaventura felt compelled to respond
to the insulting treatment he received in Pelotas—itself likely a product of Boaventura's belligerent
refusal to accept the terms of the contract he had signed; Vieira Braga and Ribas felt compelled to
respond to Boaventura's published article.
It is a mistake to regard advancing markets and rational calculation as necessarily antithetical
to honor as a principle of conduct and a measure of men. Honor was of vital importance among
merchants such as Vieira Braga and Ribas, but the specific content of mercantile honor was somewhat
different from the aspects of honor emphasized in Boaventura's rural world. Their misunderstanding
and conflict derived in large part from differing notions of honor. To understand how the
confrontation developed, it is useful to step back from this case to examine what honor is and why it
was important in early 19th century Rio Grande do Sul.
The anthropology of honor
The anthropological literature includes a confusing variety of assertions about what honor is
and why it matters more to people in some times and places than in others. Some discussion is
therefore necessary to develop concepts useful for understanding Boaventura's conflict with Vieira
Braga and Ribas.
What is the common set of principles that allows us to designate phenomena in a wide range
of times and places with the word "honor"? Almost all authors agree that, despite wide variation in
the specific content of the concept, individual honor has both a public aspect and an internalized
aspect. Honor is an evaluation of the person by other members of the community, but it is also held
8
On the jury system at the time, see Thomas Flory, Judge and Jury in Imperial Brazil, 1808-1871: Social
Control and Political Stability in the New State (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 115-27.
6
internally as a "sense of honor" that compels honorable behavior, which in turn elicits the honor
conferred by others.10 Some define honor as rank and precedence.11 Others see it as a kind of basic
respectability or standing in a community that one either has or does not have.12 Honor in the sense of
basic respectability is the recognition by others that one has an internalized sense of honor. This
"right to respect" is a fundamental prerequisite for honor in the sense of rank, so it can be thought of
as the "right to honor."13 Honor refers to the whole person, so it is not simply prestige or reputation,
which often apply to only one aspect of a person's life and can vary across the institutions and groups
in which one participates. Public honor is an evaluation by others relevant across all arenas of
interaction. Similarly, internalized honor consists of a set of transposable dispositions that orient
action in all spheres of life.14
Honor is almost always deeply gendered. In a wide range of contexts, the family constitutes
the sacred core of male honor and a man's ability to control the sexual behavior of his wife (or wives)
and female relatives symbolizes his patriarchal authority. In most accounts female honor derives
largely from the honor of the men to whom they are attached, and their most important contribution to
family honor is chastity before marriage and fidelity after marriage, although they can also goad men
to defend honor through revenge or other exploits. Because women gain no honor independently and
they are often associated—by men, at any rate—with shame, pollution, and treachery, effeminate
behavior by men casts doubt upon their honorability .15 The rest of this discussion focuses
exclusively on male honor.
9
José de Paiva Magalhães Calvet, "Libello accusatorio … contra o R. citado José Antonio Pimenta," Mar. 9,
1832, BRG, L28, QBJO.
10
Frank Henderson Stewart, Honor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 9-21.
11
Julian Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and Social Status," in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society,
ed. J. G. Peristiany (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), 19-77; Julian Pitt-Rivers, "Honor," in
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. David L. Sills (New York: Macmillan and Free Press,
1968), 503-11.
12
J. K. Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek
Mountain Community (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), 268-97; Stewart, Honor.
13
Stewart, Honor.
14
Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977), 10-15, 78-87. Internalized honor is an important component of what Bourdieu refers to as the
habitus.
15
Edward L. Ayers, Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the 19Th-Century American South (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 29; Anton Blok, "Rams and Billy-Goats: A Key to the Mediterranean
Code of Honour," Man 16: 3 (1981), 427-40; Pierre Bourdieu, "The Sense of Honour," trans. Richard Nice, in
Algeria 1960, by Pierre Bourdieu (Cambridge and Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison
de Sciences de l'Homme, 1972), 121-28; Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage, 269-78; J. K. Campbell,
"Honour and the Devil," in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, ed. J. G. Peristiany
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), 139-70; Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and Social Status," 42-50; J. PittRivers, The People of the Sierra, 2d ed. (Chicago, 1971), 112-21; Pitt-Rivers, "Honor," 506; Stewart, Honor,
107-10. There is some debate regarding the extent to which women, especially Muslim women, share male
standards of honor and shame. See Unni Wikan, "Shame and Honour: A Contestable Pair," Man 19: 4 (1984),
635-52; Gideon M. Kressel and Unni Wikan, "More on Honour and Shame," Man 23: 1 (1988), 167-70; Gideon
M. Kressel, "Shame and Gender," Anthropological Quarterly 65: 1 (1992), 34-46.
7
Hierarchical honor is a form of what Pierre Bourdieu refers to as "symbolic capital."16 Honor
measures a man's relative social value: his value to his family, to exchange partners, to his
community, to his country. Given the basic right to respect, men accumulate the symbolic capital of
hierarchical honor through a combination of privilege, wealth, and power, on the one hand, and the
honorable deeds made possible by them, on the other. Honor thus never refers exclusively to position
or resources, but always includes a moral dimension evaluating how they were attained and what is
done with the resulting capacities.17 A man of honor has both the capacity and the moral fiber to
undertake and fulfill commitments.18 Betrayal, disloyalty, and unreliability bring dishonor.
Honor as rank is intrinsically zero sum and competitive, so it contradicts notions of universal
human dignity and equal rights.19 Because honor cannot be measured exactly, people often disagree
about the position of a particular individual or family in the honor hierarchy. Different groups and
classes also tend to have rather different notions of honor, and social conflict often entails attempts by
rival groups to promote themselves by imposing rival definitions of honor.20 Official rank or titles,
such as titles of nobility, confer presumed honor, and thus allow the favored to stand above much of
the jousting and gossip about rank.21 Wealth allows generosity, which is one of the principal means
of accumulating honor.22 Wealth also allows one to acquire the trappings of honor, and thus its
presumption, although such honor does not constitute unambiguous rank, so it is more vulnerable to
challenge than titled honor.23 Although presumed to have great honor, the privileged, the rich and the
powerful can destroy their honor through disgraceful acts, at least if done to equals. The "honorable
poor," on the other hand, have earned the basic right to respect by upholding sacred values such as
family loyalty in spite of adversity. They do not, however, have the resources or power necessary to
accumulate symbolic capital, or hierarchical honor, although they do gain the praise of those who
have no desire to trade places with them.24
Those who study honor associate its importance with a variety of social conditions: extreme
inequality, martial traditions, prevalence of violent conflict, absence of effective state authority,
16
Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 171-83.
Michael Herzfeld, "Honour and Shame: Problems in the Comparative Analysis of Moral Systems," Man 15: 2
(1980), 339-51. This moral evaluation is specific to context, and may well include elements morally repugnant
to people of other cultures (such as the obligation to slit the throats of enemies).
18
Bourdieu, "The Sense of Honour," 111-12.
19
Ayers, Vengeance and Justice, 19-28; Bourdieu, "The Sense of Honour," 129; Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and
Social Status," 23-5, 39-40.
20
Richard Maddox, El Castillo: The Politics of Tradition in an Andalusian Town (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1993), 121-44; J. G. Peristiany and Julian Pitt-Rivers, "Introduction," in Honor and Grace in
Anthropology, ed. J. G. Peristiany and Julian Pitt-Rivers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 4-5;
Pitt-Rivers, "Honor," 510; Stewart, Honor, 31-3.
21
Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and Social Status," 36-8; Pitt-Rivers, "Honor," 504, 507.
22
Marcel Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans. W. D. Halls (New
York: W. W. Norton, 1990 [1950]), 33-9; Pitt-Rivers, "Honor," 507-8.
23
William M. Reddy, "Need and Honor in Balzac's Père Goriot: Reflections on a Vision of Laissez-Faire
Society," in The Culture of the Market: Historical Essays, ed. Thomas L. Haskell and Richard F. Teichgraeber,
III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 325-54.
24
Bourdieu, "The Sense of Honour," 119; Herzfeld, "Honour and Shame," 342.
17
8
strong agnatic kin groups, and transhumant pastoralism. Many of these conditions occur together,
although the specific combinations vary from one context to another. Thus organization in agnatic
lineages, lack of state authority, and violent conflict over grazing land or water characterize honorconscious transhumant pastoral groups living in peripheral mountain or desert areas, but most such
groups are not highly stratified and lack strong martial traditions. This is the case in the classic work
by Campbell on honor among the Sarakatsani of Greece and by Bourdieu on honor among the Kabyle
of Algeria, as well as Stewart's more recent research on the Sinai Bedouin.25 In addition to an
obsession with honor, European feudalism was associated with extreme inequality, seigneurial
privilege, and martial glory (or a glorification of ancestral exploits). These characteristics, in
combination with pastoral influences, seem to constitute the historical roots of the preoccupation with
honor found until recent times in much of Southern Europe and Latin America, although European
kinship is generally reckoned bilaterally and state power often reaches local life.26 The antebellum
US South associated a strong consciousness of honor with violence, weak state authority at the local
level, and extreme inequality based on slavery.27 Early nineteenth-century Rio Grande do Sul was a
militarized frontier region with weak state authority in the countryside, marked inequalities founded
on slavery and latifundia, strong extended (but bilateral) kinship ties, and open-range ranching, which
like transhumance generates much conflict over land, water, and animals. It had also been colonized
by an Iberian kingdom that, while not touching the Mediterranean, was close enough to be infused
with the values and symbols of "Mediterranean" honor. There is thus ample reason to expect that the
people of Rio Grande do Sul, especially the upper classes, placed a strong emphasis on honor.
The associations listed above provide clues to the meaning of honor in practice, why it is
important to people in such contexts to have honor and the practical consequences of losing it. People
tend to emphasize honor more in contexts where personal loyalties and a personal following are more
important for security and success in life.28 Both the feudal lord and the head of a shepherding
lineage need reliable followers. They measure their wealth largely by the number of men they can
mobilize for production, defense, or raiding. Honor thus tends to be more important where personal
25
Bourdieu, "The Sense of Honour," 95-132; Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice; Campbell, Honour,
Family and Patronage; Campbell, "Honour and the Devil," 139-70; Stewart, Honor. See also Schneider 1971,
"Of Vigilance and Virgins: Honor, Shame and Access to Resources in Mediterranean Societies," Ethnology 10:
1 (1971), 1-24.
26
Maddox, El Castillo; Pitt-Rivers, The People of the Sierra; Schneider 1971, "Of Vigilance and Virgins," 1-24.
Anthropologists often claim that "Mediterranean" cultures place a particularly strong emphasis on honor, but
more historically-informed authors note that the full complex of honor was also widespread in the rest of Europe
in earlier periods, and that Arabic-speaking groups close to the Mediterranean are not markedly different in
matters of honor from Arabic-speaking groups further away from the Mediterranean ( Blok, "Rams and BillyGoats," 427-40; Stewart, Honor.). The divergence within Europe today seems to be due to more rapid social
change in Northern than in Southern Europe over the past few centuries. In the 19th century Americas, not only
Latin America but also the U.S. South manifested a preoccupation with honor ( Ayers, Vengeance and Justice,
9-33.).
27
Ayers, Vengeance and Justice, 9-33.
28
Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and Social Status," 58-61; Pitt-Rivers, "Honor," 509-10; Schneider 1971, "Of Vigilance
and Virgins," 17.
9
relationships such as extended family ties, cliques of friends, and patron-client relations are more
important. Where state power limits violence and either establishes ranked titles or secures
institutionalized capital in the form of property rights and academic degrees, the symbolic capital of
honor tends to decline in importance because personal loyalties and personalized exchange tend to
decline in importance.29 Universal citizenship rights, when effectively enforced, also tend to diminish
the relevance of honor as a basic right to respect or participation in the community. Honor continues
to be important, however, in patrimonial or semipatrimonial states, such as imperial Brazil, where
personal ties and loyalties were essential for obtaining state offices, for getting things done in the state
bureaucracy, and even for obtaining academic degrees.
Honor constitutes an overall measure of a man's value to other people, especially his value as
a partner in social exchange, and it is useful mainly for gaining the cooperation of other people. The
symbolic capital of honor thus serves as credit in ongoing exchange relations.30 Equals want to
exchange favors with an honorable man, superiors want to be his patron, inferiors want to be his
clients. Honor indexes both a man's reliability and his capacities to do things for others, based on his
wealth, power, and connections. People will be loyal to honorable leaders because they protect and
provide for followers, treat them justly, and display character traits, such as valor, likely to produce
benefits for followers. Honorable followers in turn owe their leaders unshakable loyalty. Patrons and
clients gauge one another's reliability by honor, and honoring their obligations in turn increases their
honor.
It is thus misleading to contrast honor and interest. Honor can be just as important as
property for fulfilling desires, and defending it is often a critical matter of self-interest. Economic and
symbolic capital are interconvertible. In many contexts honor is more useful than property and people
willingly expend property to gain honor, which is to say that one of the principal motives for
accumulating property is to obtain honor. Similarly, honor allows one to mobilize other people for
one's projects and can thereby be translated into property. The fact that the defense of honor is often
impulsive and emotional does not make it irrational. If one feels compelled to defend honor against
all challenges in a context where honor is critical to success in life, one's dispositions, or habitus, fit
the social context well and serve one's interests without conscious calculation of costs and benefits.31
Furthermore, honor is by no means immune to calculation. People can consciously invest their energy
or property in the acquisition of honor and calculate the symbolic profits they are likely to derive from
particular interactions.
Symbolic capital, difficult to measure and validated by the opinion of others, can evaporate
quickly, especially if a challenge calls into question the underlying sense of honor and thus a person's
29
Blok, "Rams and Billy-Goats," 434-6; Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 183-97.
Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 80-81.
31
On habitus, see Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 72-95.
30
10
right to hierarchical honor.32 Loss of honor (in the sense of the basic right to respect) can have dire
consequences, especially ostracism by other members of the group. In most groups that stress honor,
those who do not defend their honor against challenges lose it.33 In such groups, men are highly
sensitive to insult and offense. They can only ignore a challenge if it comes from someone so inferior
that the challenge is not worthy of a response.34 Vieira Braga's abrupt departure in the middle of his
first argument with Boaventura and his later attempt to deal with Boaventura through his brother-inlaw suggest that he initially tried to treat Boaventura as an unworthy opponent. Boaventura forced
him to respond by mobilizing a more literate ally and issuing a very public challenge.
Private violence, especially in the ritualized form of the duel, was long the paradigmatic
European method of settling disputes over honor. Julian Pitt-Rivers, widely considered the leading
anthropological expert on honor, repeatedly claims that it is dishonorable to seek redress for offenses
in court because the honorable man defends his own honor and does not entrust the task to the state.35
This is an overgeneralization, however, for some Northern and Central European kingdoms had
special courts of honor in past centuries, and courts of various kinds are important forums for disputes
over honor in much of the Islamic world36 In many of these courts, people present their own cases to
judges and the public, so they are defending their own honor. João Francisco Vieira Braga also
preferred to defend his honor in court, but he did not simply leave matters to lawyers and judges. He
wrote many letters asking politicians and other important figures to influence judges to ensure
favorable decisions for himself, his kin, or his clients.37
Honor in nineteenth-century Rio Grande do Sul
Personal loyalties and the honor necessary to sustain them were essential for a variety of
reasons in early nineteenth-century Rio Grande do Sul. The countryside was a patchwork of vaguelydefined and overlapping land claims. Rival claimants threatened and killed one another in the
countryside and battled in court. Feuding over land could go on for generations, and partible
inheritance tended to increase tensions over time.38 Eternal vigilance and the capacity to mobilize
supporters in the countryside, the state bureaucracy, and the judicial system were essential to
protecting land claims. Guarding land against challenge was itself a matter of honor, proof that one
could protect family patrimony. As one of João Francisco's relatives wrote during a land dispute, "I
32
Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 181-82.
Stewart, Honor, 64-71.
34
Bourdieu, "The Sense of Honour," 108-10; Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage, 280-81; Pitt-Rivers,
"Honour and Social Status," 31.
35
Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and Social Status," 30; Pitt-Rivers, "Honor," 509.
36
Richard L. Abel, "The Rise of Capitalism and the Transformation of Disputing: From Confrontation Over
Honor to Competition for Property," UCLA Law Review 27 (1979), 223-55; Stewart, Honor, 80-5; Wikan,
"Shame and Honour," 648.
37
Many such letters are found in his letter books (copiadores de cartas), BRG, L29 and L30.
38
John Charles Chasteen, "Background to Civil War: The Process of Land Tenure in Brazil's Southern
Borderland, 1801-1893," Hispanic American Historical Review 71: 4 (1991), 737-60.
33
11
will never fail to defend my right, looking not to interest, but to honor, to not make cowards of our
progeny, for whom we must do everything possible, for the happiness of our posterity "39 João
Francisco Vieira Braga bought the Estância da Musica from Boaventura de Oliveira at a time when
Boaventura's rights to part of the land were being contested in court.40 When he received his sesmaria
land grant in 1816 Boaventura had officially gained the right to three square leagues. He had
occupied about six leagues, however, and the extra land had been the object of several disputes with
neighbors.41 Vieira Braga was confident that he could ward off all threats to his possession of the
ranch. He was a frequent participant in court battles (both his own and those of others), mobilizing
his contacts in the state to pressure judges for favorable decisions. He informed his ranch manager
that the dispute "is nothing, because I can never neglect to be heard in order to be despoiled of my
property."42 When official justice was slow, violence and intimidation could protect land claims. In
1834 yet another neighbor was encroaching on the land, and João Francisco exhorted his manager to
vigorous action. "I should caution you that if he or any other tries to occupy any of the land within
the limits of that property, you should not allow it, immediately asking the Justice of the Peace to
have each one restricted to his boundaries, and when the Justice fails to do justice (which is unlikely)
in that case you should obstruct by force any attempt they make, since the law allows me to do so, and
I [will] answer for all the ill that may befall you as a result."43 One of João Francisco's brothers,
Francisco, would later, according to rumor, order the murder of a man who opposed him over land at
his Estância do Arroio Grande.44
Protecting land claims and the ability to mobilize allies in the countryside were important to
both Boaventura and João Francisco, but João Francisco's horizons were broader. Honor was also an
essential asset for his political and commercial relations. Astute manipulation of patronage was
especially important to influencing state officials. Whatever cohesiveness one can identify among the
law school graduates who occupied most offices at the top of the imperial Brazilian state, these men
were closely linked to local power brokers by ties of family and patronage.45 João Francisco Vieira
Braga was an enthusiastic participant in the patronage system, although he would not reach the height
39
Francisco José Gonçalves da Silva to JFVB, Serrito (Jaguarão), July 14, 1821, BRG, L25. See Bourdieu,
Outline of a Theory of Practice, 182, for analogous phenomena among the Kabyle.
40
João Fernandes da Silva to JFVB, Estância da Musica, Dec. 9, 1832, BRG, L26; JFVB to João Fernandes da
Silva, Rio Grande, Feb. 13, 1833, BRG, L27, Copiador de cartas a João Fernandes da Silva.
41
Guilhermino César, O Conde de Piratini e a Estância da Música: a administração de um latifúndio riograndense em 1832 (Caxias do Sul and Porto Alegre: Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Escola Superior de
Teologia São Lourenço de Brindes, and Instituto Estadual do Livro (Rio Grande do Sul), Brazil, 1978), 25-27.
42
JFVB to João Fernandes da Silva, São Francisco de Paula, Dec. 25, 1832, BRG, L27, Copiador de cartas a
João Fernandes da Silva.
43
20 Nov. 1834, BRG, L27, Rio Grande, Copiador de cartas a João Fernandes da Silva.
44
James J. Slade, III, "Cattle Barons and Yeoman Farmers: Land Tenure, Division, and Use in a County in
Southern Brazil, 1777-1889," (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1971), 158.
45
José Murilo Carvalho, de, A construção da ordem: a elite política imperial; Teatro de sombras: a política
imperial, 2d ed. (Rio de Janeiro: Editora UFRJ, Relume-Dumará, 1996). shows the importance of common
training and socialization for law school graduates who entered state service. Richard Graham, Patronage and
12
of his influence until a few decades after his conflict with Boaventura de Oliveira. The Vieira Braga
family illustrates the family economic and political strategies common in imperial Brazil. In addition
to his ranching and commercial pursuits João Francisco himself occupied a variety of government
positions, including city councilman, representative to the provincial assembly, vice president of the
province, and administrator of the royal tax on hide exports.46 Two of João Francisco's brothers
graduated from the São Paulo law school: Antônio became an appellate judge (desembargador) in
Porto Alegre and Miguel became Chief Inspector of the Rio Grande customs house.47 His other four
brothers, Francisco, Manuel, Joaquim, and Vicente, became ranchers in the freguesia (parish) of
Boqueirão, a district of the município (county) of Pelotas, where they occupied a variety of local
offices and could control almost any election.48 His most valuable political connection, however, was
his compadre and sister's son-in-law, Conselheiro Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, a law school
graduate who served as President of Rio Grande do Sul for a brief period in the mid 1830's until
deposed by the Farrapos Rebellion and then became an appellate judge in Rio de Janeiro. After the
end of the Farroupilha War in the mid 1840's, João Francisco, who had spent most of the war in Rio
de Janeiro, would use his relationship with Fernandes Braga and other contacts in the capital to
become a key intermediary between southern Rio Grande do Sul and the national government. His
ability to act as an effective broker of patronage depended on his honor, which assured others that he
was both influential and reliable. His influence in the state and the honor he accumulated by using it
on behalf of others in turn proved useful in his commercial relations.
Merchants and other capitalists in a variety of contexts have transposed the principles and
sensibilities of honor into the sphere of economic exchange.49 In the absence of institutionalized
methods of evaluating credit and enforcing obligations, honor allows trust in commercial exchange,
serving as surrogate credit rating and symbolic collateral. Even where economic institutions are well
developed, "ethnic entrepreneurs," often seeking to minimize transaction costs and evade taxes, may
prefer to use honor to enforce agreements and evaluate the reliability of trading partners.50 Those
running illegal enterprises by necessity rely on honor in their relations with one another, even if others
view their activities as dishonorable. The merchants of Rio Grande do Sul engaged in delayed
Politics in Nineteenth-Century Brazil (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990). demonstrates crucial
ties of mutual dependence between political elites and local power brokers, especially fazendeiros.
46
JFVB, "Exposição suscinta dos serviços prestados a S. M. o Imperador e à Nação," 1840, Walter Spalding,
Construtores do Rio Grande, 2 vols. (Porto Alegre: Livraria Sulina, 1969), 1: 134-8.
47
Mario Osorio Magalhães, Opulência e cultura na província de São Pedro do Rio Grande do Sul: um estudo
sobre a história de Pelotas (1860-1890) (Pelotas: Editora da UFPel; Livraria Mundial, 1993), 126-7. Miguel
died in a shipwreck during his first year on the job ( José Luiz Azevedo, Bragança de, Alfândega da cidade do
Rio Grande (do Sul) (Porto Alegre: Livraria do Globo, nd), 84.). Azevedo mistakenly claims that Miguel was
João Francisco Vieira Braga's illegitimate son. Letters in the Vieira Braga papers make clear that he was
actually a legitimate brother. (Miguel Vieira Braga to Maria Angelica Barbosa, 1 nov. 1839, Rio Grande, BRG
L26; JFVB to Vicente Manoel d'Espindula, Pelotas, Oct. 15, 1874, BRG L29, Copiador 124)
48
The area later became the município of São Lourenço do Sul.
49
On mercantile honor, see Pitt-Rivers, "Honor," 507.
50
For Brazilian examples, see Roberto Grün, Negócios & famílias: armênios em São Paulo (São Paulo: Editora
Sumaré, 1992); Oswaldo Truzzi, Patrícios: sírios e libaneses em São Paulo (São Paulo: Hucitec, 1997).
13
transactions and long-distance trade with people they knew or others recommended by those they
knew. João Francisco maintained life-long relations with agents in Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande
(after moving to Pelotas) and kept large sums of money on deposit with them. He lent money to
ranchers, salted meat producers, and merchants with little more collateral than the debtor's honor.
Honor was essential to participation in mercantile exchange just as it was essential to participation in
patronage networks and the exchange of favors. These spheres of exchange partially overlapped. A
person who was reliable in one kind of exchange could be trusted in other kinds because they were all
anchored in honor. When Vieira Braga's main mercantile agent in Rio Grande, Miguel Tito de Sá,
wanted to retire from the National Guard, he asked João Francisco for help and João Francisco wrote
to contacts in Rio de Janeiro in support of Sá's petition.51 During elections, João Francisco felt free to
ask Sá to help arrange electoral support for his preferred candidates.52 Vieira Braga frequently had
his agents in Rio de Janeiro distribute presents from Rio Grande do Sul (typically peach preserves or
sacks of smoked cattle tongues) to his contacts in the Court.53 He even asked them to oversee his
nephew's education.54
The logic of honor was not always the same as the logic of conventional credit and did not
always maximize monetary profits, but it worked well enough for those involved, generating both
monetary and symbolic profits.55 During the Paraguayan War, Domingos Soares Barbosa, a Pelotas
salted meat producer (charqueador), was unable to make payments on loans from João Francisco and
his friend the Baron of Cambaí. João Francisco threatened legal action, but Barbosa persuade them to
forgive part of the loan and extend the period for repayment by appealing to honor. An account of the
negotiations survives because Cambaí lived the country town of São Gabriel and Vieira Braga, by this
time living in Pelotas (and also a Baron), served as his representative and sent him letters reporting on
the situation. Barbosa declared, according to João Francisco, "that he is not a thief, and that not to
make the concessions he demands is due to the desire to defeat him and disgrace his family." At this
João Francisco and the other creditors backed down and offered to renegotiate the debt rather than
turn the confrontation into an affair of honor.56 Although he still thought the creditors would
inevitably suffer losses, Vieira Braga's opinion of the debtor had improved two months later because
he had expressed deep gratitude to Vieira Braga and Cambaí and had promised on his word of honor
51
JFVB to Miguel Tito de Sá, Pelotas, Aug. 27, 1868, BRG, L29, Copiador 124; JFVB to José de Assis
Mascarenhas, Pelotas, Aug. 28, 1868; JFVB to Antônio Dias Coelho Netto dos Reis, Pelotas, Aug. 28, 1868,
both in BRG, L29, Copiador 124.
52
JFVB to Miguel Tito de Sá, Pelotas, July 9, 1869, L29, Copiador 126.
53
JFVB to Sousa, Irmão & Rocha, Pelotas, July 18, 1870, BRG, L29, Copiador 128; JFVB to Josefina da
Fonseca Costa, Pelotas, Aug. 13, 1870, BRG, L29, Copiador 128; JFVB to Barão da Graça, Pelotas, May 13,
1874, BRG, L30, Copiador 133; JFVB to Barão de Andaraí, Pelotas, June 28, 1874, BRG, L30, Copiador 133.
54
JFVB to Sousa, Irmão & Rocha, Pelotas, May 30, 1869, July 5, 1869, July 30, 1869, all in BRG, L29,
Copiador 126
55
On the interconvertability of symbolic and economic capital, see Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice,
171-83.
56
JFVB to Domingos Soares Barbosa, Pelotas, Sept. 29, Sept. 30, 1865; BRG, L29, Copiador 118; JFVB to
Barão de Cambaí, Pelotas, Oct. 4, 1865, BRG, L29, Copiador 118.
14
that if they made concessions, he would later repay all of the money if his business improved. João
Francisco supported concessions "because I have sympathy for his plight, and I also nurture the hope
that he will not be ungrateful to me."57 In effect, João Francisco and Cambaí accepted symbolic
tribute in lieu of part of the debt. Negociations, which also involved other creditors, took about ten
more months, but the creditors agreed to forgive half of Barbosa's debts and extend the period for
repayment of the other half. When he again had difficulty making one of the payments, João
Francisco again extended the period for payment, "because I consider [this] more suitable to Your
Excellency's interests than forcing him [to pay] judicially, and also because I take into consideration
that the same thing happened with the first payment, and he was faithful to what he promised."58
Vieira Braga's negotiations in this case were oriented throughout by a mixture of economic
calculation, moral evaluation of Barbosa's determination to meet his obligations, and calculation of
the symbolic profits that he and Cambaí could extract. Although he lost money, Vieira Braga's
treatment of the honorable charqueador undoubtedly won him respect and admiration among peers
that were useful for other business ventures.
Conversely, those who could afford to pay their debts but did not were guilty of the most
disgraceful betrayal of trust. During the Rio de la Plata's War of Independence José Ramires, a
wealthy Uruguayan rancher, fled with his family to Rio Grande do Sul and found shelter between
1814 and 1817 on a ranch near Jaguarão owned by Vieira Braga's father, João Francisco Vieira Braga
senior, who also lent the man 4,000 silver pesos. After returning to the Banda Oriental (later
Uruguay) in the wake of the Portuguese invasion of the area, Ramires ignored the debt, probably
thinking he could avoid paying because João Francisco Vieira Braga senior died in 1818. João
Francisco junior and his mother did not forget, however, and sued Ramíres for the money in Uruguay
eighteen years later.59 They won the case, but Ramires apparently never paid and João Francisco
never forgot. In 1876, almost forty years after initiating the suit and sixty years after Ramires left his
father's ranch, the octogenarian Vieira Braga wrote to the widow of a cousin who had been his father's
ranch administrator: "What I regret is that it is not possible to count on receiving any money at all
from that ungrateful Ramires family."60
Vieira Braga had much cause for vigilance in defense of his honor. It was not an "irrational"
obsession unrelated to "real" pusuits; it was a basic prerequisite for personalized exchange, and thus
of vital importance to success of all kinds in a world where personal relations were the only ones that
really mattered. As a result of growing up and living in this world, honor also permeated João
Francisco's sensibilities, so there is no reason to believe that he stopped to calculate potential costs
and benefits before responding to Boaventura's challenge. The same was true of Boaventura.
57
JFVB to Barão de Cambaí, Pelotas, Dec. 1, 1865, BRG, L29, Copiador 118.
JFVB to Barão de Cambaí, Pelotas, Sept. 10, 1866, BRG, L29, Copiador 120; JFVB to Barão de Cambaí,
Pelotas, Dec. 21, 1867, BRG, L29, Copiador 123.
59
BRG, L28, Questão José Ramirez.
60
JFBV to Laura Maria da Conceição Braga, Pelotas, 2 June 1876, BRG, L30, Cop. 135, p. 155.
58
15
Dueling definitions of honor
One can perceive in the duel between Boaventura and Vieira Braga a cultural divide between
the littoral cities of Rio Grande do Sul and the ranching backcountry, a divide expressed in diverging
definitions of honor. These differences would overlap with differences over land and taxes in the
Farrapos War a few years later, when ranchers of the plains would fight for independence against the
littoral elite and the national government.61 Boaventura's wealth consisted of palpable things, animals,
and human beings, especially land, cattle, and slaves. Ranchers resident on their properties engaged
in relatively simple economic exchanges: selling a herd of steers to the owner of a salted meat factory,
buying a slave, paying a horsebreaker for each horse dominated, paying day laborers for help in
rounding up cattle. A handful of foremen or other workers might receive monthly wages, but these
forms of delayed payment almost always involved extended face-to-face interaction, so they did not
require complex written contracts. A rancher might also allow a few agregados to settle on the
margins of the ranch in exchange for protection of boundaries and occasional labor, but this was
understood more within a logic of patronage than a logic of economic exchange. All ranchers resident
in the countryside were also involved in informal exchange networks with other rural elites,
cooperating with neighbors to round up and separate wandering cattle, lending skilled slaves for
constructing buildings and corrals, helping catch thieves and fugitive slaves, and voting for politicians
in exchange for favors by the rural authorities nominated by them.62 Everyone kept mental accounts
61
According to Leitman, Raízes sócio-econômicas, ranchers wanted freedom to sell cattle to Uruguayan salted
meat producers without paying export taxes, but littoral charqueadores and exporters favored high taxes on
cattle exports to Uruguay and repression of contraband exports to make ranchers sell their cattle to processors in
the province. Ranchers also wanted access to Uruguayan pastures. Both sides opposed taxes on hide and
charque exports and supported free movement of carrle from Uruguayan pastures to Rio-Grandense ranches and
charqueadas. As both a littoral exporter and a frontier rancher, João Francisco Vieira Braga had contradictory
economic interests in this conflict, but his family ties, relationship to the national government (as former
provisioner of the imperial army and collector of the imperial tax on hide exports), and identification with the
urban elite of the littoral led him to unwavering support of the imperial cause.
62
This brief account of ranch life is primarily based on the correspondence of the Vieira Braga brothers who
lived on their ranches, especially Vicente (BGR, L27), as well as the instructions JFVB prepared for his
manager after buying the Estância da Musica and his subsequent correspondence with the manager (JFVB,
"Instruções dadas ao Sr. João Fernandes da Silva capataz da Estância da Muzica," July 28, 1832, BRG, L27,
Estância da Musica [published, with some transcription errors, in César, O Conde de Piratini, 37-48.]; João
Francisco Vieira Braga, Copiador de cartas a João Fernandes da Silva, 1832-5, BRG, L27, Estância da Musica).
See also Stephen Andrew Bell, "Ranching in the Campanha of Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil, 1850-1920: An
Historical Geography of Uneven Development," (Ph.D. Diss., University of Toronto, 1991); Fernando Henrique
Cardoso, Capitalismo e escravidão no Brasil meridional: o negro na sociedade escravocrata do Rio Grande do
Sul (São Paulo: Difusão Européia do Livro, 1962); John Charles Chasteen, Heroes on Horseback: The Life and
Times of the Last Gaucho Caudillos (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995), 21-35; Décio
Freitas, O capitalismo pastoril (Porto Alegre and Caxias do Sul: Escola Superior de Teologia São Lourenço de
Brindes and Universidade de Caxias do Sul, 1981); Dante de Laytano, Fazenda de criação de gado: síntese de
sua história econômica e sociológica numa das fronteiras do Rio Grande do Sul do século XVIII e a respectiva
evolução até o 2º Império (Porto Alegre: Oficinas Gráficas da Imprensa Oficial, 1950); Spencer Leitman, "Slave
Cowboys in the Cattle Lands of Southern Brazil, 1800-1850," Revista de História (São Paulo) 51 (Jan.-Mar.
1975), 167-77; C. Gary Lobb, ""The Historical Geography of the Cattle Regions Along Brazil's Southern
Frontier." (Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1970); Mário Filho Maestri, O escravo no Rio
Grande do Sul: a charqueada e a génese do escravismo gaúcho (Caxias do Sul, Brazil: Editora da Universidade
16
of favors given and favors received, and classified those with whom they interacted as reliable
"friends" or faithless ingrates, hence lacking honor. But keeping explicit written accounts of favors
would violate the spirit of these exchanges, suggesting that one was eager to discharge debts or collect
favors owed instead of maintaining an enduring relationship of trust and cooperation.63 Careful
written accounts thus suggested a shifty and distrustful attitude toward others rather than the loyalty
and willingness to make solid commitments characteristic of a true man of honor.
Vieira Braga also lent money to and formed partnerships with people he knew personally,
consistently dealt with the same agents, and tended to merge the different fields of exchange, but he
was more accustomed to symbolic, "paper" forms of wealth and written obligations that stretched
exchanges across space and time. The ranch was only one of his diversified investments. At this
time, he owned warehouses in Rio Grande and identified himself primarily as a merchant trading with
agents in Rio de Janeiro. He also bought salted meat from ranchers and charqueadores on the shores
of the Lagoa dos Patos and sold them provisions.64 Later on he would be involved in a wide range of
business ventures and joint-stock companies. Facility with the written word and numbers was
essential for success in João Francisco's world of partnerships, deeds, securities, insurance, interest,
and exchange rates. Careful accounts, clear contracts, and attention to details were part of what made
a merchant a desirable trading partner, and were therefore constitutive of mercantile honor, along with
the provision of a quality product at a just price. Vague verbal promises suggested carelessness and
inattention, not honor. In transposing notions of honor to the realm of economic exchange, merchant
capitalists had modified them.
Rural and urban elites also defended their honor in different ways. John Chasteen presents
evidence that male inhabitants of the borderland between Rio Grande do Sul and Uruguay, including
wealthy ranchers, generally dealt with challenges to their honor by knife fighting, whereas urban
elites preferred to fight in court or in the columns of newspapers.65 It was common for litigants to
"waste" money by appealing hopeless cases all the way to the top. Giving up due to mere economic
considerations would imply a dishonorable cowardice. Winning in court meant humiliating enemies,
an emotional experience not unlike winning a knife duel. As João Francisco Vieira Braga put it after
receiving the news that he had won an appellate case, "Nothing can please me more than to triumph
de Caxias do Sul, 1984); Maria Isaura Pereira de Queiroz, "Pecuária e Vida Pastoril: Sua Evolução Em Duas
Regioes Brasileiras," Revista do Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros (Universidade de São Paulo) 19 (1977), 55-78;
Corcino Medeiros dos Santos, Economia e sociedade do Rio Grande do Sul, século XVIII (São Paulo:
Companhia Editora Nacional, 1984); Slade, "Cattle Barons"; Paulo Xavier, "A Estância No Rio Grande Do
Sul," in Rio Grande do Sul: terra e povo., ed. Aurea Prado, et al. (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Globo, 1964), 55-67.
63
Peter M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers,
1986 [1964]), 88-114.
64
e.g., José da Costa Santos to JFVB, Fazenda de São Lourenço, Nov. 12, 1821, June 16, 1822, Aug. 12, 1822,
BRG, L25; Manoel Machado Pereira to JFVB, Aug. 31, 1821, BRG, L25; Francisco Vieira Braga to JFVB, Rio
de Janeiro, Aug. 3, 1822, BRG, L25; Francisco Vieira Braga to JFVB, São Lourenço, Aug. 21, 1828.
65
John Charles Chasteen, "Violence for Show: Knife Dueling on a Nineteenth-Century Cattle Frontier," in The
Problem of Order in Changing Societies: Essays on Crime and Policing in Argentina and Uruguay, 1750-1940,
ed. Lyman L. Johnson (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1990), 47-64.
17
over my adversaries, who strive so much to harm me."66 To impugn the honor of João Francisco, who
lived far away in the city of Rio Grande, Boaventura had to issue an "urban" challenge in the form of
a newspaper article, but this gave João Francisco an advantage because he had much more experience
in using words and laws as weapons.
Vieira Braga's preference for written and legally binding obligations emerged during
negotiations between the two men over sale of the ranch. While Boaventura insisted that his word of
honor was good enough to guarantee any agreement, João Francisco, after turning the silver over to
his compadre and friend the Baron of Jaguari to hold in a kind of escrow account, asked for the deed
and sent instructions about how to write it, saying "I know that we are mortals, and the absence of one
of us can upset the business."67 It is also clear from Vieira Braga's instructions and the deed itself that
the reason he did not pay the entire price when he received the ranch was not lack of money but a
desire to leave an incentive for Boaventura to fulfill the rest of their agreement, which called for
Boaventura to have the ranch surveyed at his cost before receiving the final payment. Six square
leagues was only an estimate of the ranch's area, and the sale price was to be adjusted upward or
downward depending on the area revealed by the survey. Although João Francisco had no reason to
suspect Boaventura's intentions, he did have reason for caution in dealing with him. Boaventura's
faith in a man's word of honor was based on face-to-face interaction in a rural community of known
individuals. João Francisco was not a part of Boaventura's community and would have little recourse
if Boaventura broke an informal agreement. Boaventura's insistence that the deed to the ranch was a
mere formality, and that what really counted was a man's spoken word and his intentions—even when
expressed indirectly through Vieira Braga's representative Marshal Barreto—ran afoul of João
Francisco's meticulous attention to written details.
The libel suit and the evidence Vieira Braga submitted to prove that he was in fact an
honorable man stress his accurate bookkeeping and careful fulfillment of contracts. In their accusation
of Pimenta, Vieira Braga and Ribas (or their lawyer) claimed that they "have always enjoyed
reputation and good name among the other merchants, considering the good faith, probity, and honor,
with which they have always acted, whether in their commercial transactions or in all other acts of
their public life." The published article included "affronting phrases with the intention of weakening
their reputation and credit," one of the worst of which was the affirmation that João Francisco, "with
the greatest shamelessness deceives the fidelity of his pacts and agreements."68 To prove his
mercantile honor, João Francisco asked merchants of Porto Alegre and Rio Grand to sign statements
on his behalf. Twenty Porto Alegre merchants signed a statement declaring that "the merchants João
66
JFVB to Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, Pelotas, Dec. 15, 1857, BRG, L29. Vieira Braga also assumed
that the other party would appeal for yet another trial.
67
João Francisco Vieira Braga to Boaventura, São Francisco de Paula, Jan. 15, 1830 and Jan. 20, 1830, BRG,
L28, QBJO.
68
José de Paiva Maglhães Calvet, "Libello accusatorio … contra o R. citado José Antonio Pimenta," Mar. 9,
1832, BRG, L28, QBJO.
18
Francisco Vieira Braga and Domingos Roiz [Rodríguez] Ribas have always deserved the best
reputation, considering the good faith, probity, and honor with which they have conducted themselves
in all their mercantile transactions, which is public and well known throughout this Province."69 Rio
Grande merchants swore that "Senhor Comendador João Francisco Vieira Braga is a merchant
registered and resident in this same city, with a house of business since 1811, and always enjoying
much credit, and considered very exact in his accounts, truthful, and punctual in the fulfillment of his
contracts."70 The forty men who signed the Rio Grande statement must have constituted almost the
entire merchant community of the small city. The libelous article seems to have stimulated a closing
of mercantile ranks against rural impudence.
João Francisco also collected statements attesting to his service to the public and the empire.
The secretary of the municipal council of Rio Grande certified that he had served as Municipal
Councilman, Judge of Weights and Measures, Treasurer of Seals, elector, juror, and agent for a
subscription to support the imperial navy.71 The Justice of the Peace of Rio Grande declared "that
[Vieira Braga] has always deserved the votes of his fellow citizens for service in a variety of elective
offices in this town: that he has given unequivocal proof of his adherence to the system that by good
fortune rules us: finally, he is endowed with exemplary public spirit."72 Marshal Sebastião Barreto
Pereira Pinto made no comment about the allegations by Boaventura, but attested that he had known
João Francisco since he was a child, and that
until the present, I have heard those with whom he has commercial relations talk about him
with the greatest praise, for the accurate and complete fulfillment of his agreements and
transactions: and also that when I was provisional commander of the Army of the South at the
beginning of the year 1829, and there was no one who agreed to supply food to the troops in
Rio Grande and [São José do Norte], said Senhor Braga, mostly to give proof of his
patriotism, offered himself to the Most Excellent Senhor President of the Province to make
this sacrifice, which being accepted, he accomplished satisfactorily. For which I am deeply
convinced of his probity, and honorability, to which is joined the greatest civility.… which I
declare by my honor.73
Repeated recognition by his peers and the monarchy suggested that João Francisco's honor was
unquestionable. The official and elected positions served as evidence not just that he was important,
but that he deserved the trust of the state and his peers, that he performed his duties faithfully, that he
believed in ideals higher than his own self interest. Boaventura could only be lying or mad to
challenge his honor because the contrary evidence was overwhelming.
The evidence Boaventura presented in his defense is not attached to the Porto Alegre trial
records because, after Pimenta produced the letter from Boaventura taking responsibility for the
article, the jury absolved Pimenta and the two men insulted by the article sued Boaventura in the
69
Mar. 14, 1832, BRG, L28, QBJO. The similarity in wording to the accusation against Pimenta suggests that
the lawyer Calvet also wrote this statement for the Porto Alegre merchants to sign.
70
Mar. 9, 1832, BRG, L28, QBJO.
71
Joaquim José Quadrado, Mar. 10, 1832, BRG, L28, QBJO.
72
Antônio José da Rocha, Mar. 9, 1832, BRG, L28, QBJO.
19
judicial district of Cachoeira, which included Boaventura's new home near São Gabriel.74 I have not
been able to locate the records of the new trial, so the final outcome of the case is not clear.
Boaventura had, however, presented his case in the article, constructing a narrative for the tribunal of
public opinion in which a deceitful urban merchant used misleading written documents and legal
trickery to defraud an honest and straightforward rancher who always kept his word. João Francisco
constructed a narrative for the judge and the jury in which a meticulous and responsible, hence
honorable, merchant, trusted by the (elite) public and the monarchy, was unfairly attacked by a
semiliterate yokel who wanted to back out of a formal agreement. Both used their own notions of
honor to portray themselves favorably. It was João Francisco's good fortune that the first phase of the
trial occurred in Porto Alegre, where the jurors were men like himself. The insults to one of their
number could be seen and experienced as an attack on the urban elite and its values. Jurors in the
rural district of Cachoeira were more likely to identify with Boaventura's definition of honor, and it
was probably harder to persuade them that he should be punished for the article.75
Danger and Duty
Another slur on João Francisco Vieira Braga's honor a few months before he started
negotiating the purchase of Boaventura de Oliveira's ranch reveals additional differences between
rural and urban notions of honor, and suggests some reasons why João Francisco was particularly
sensitive to insult by the time of Boaventura's article. After the war with Argentina, much military
equipment and supplies remained near the Uruguayan border, and the army requisitioned oxen from
ranchers to haul it away. The military officer Antônio Francisco Pinto de Oliveira ordered his men to
take nine oxen from Vieira Braga's mother's Fazenda de São João on the south bank of the Camaquã
River without consulting João Francisco and left a receipt for later payment by the government. This
prompted a harsh letter from Vieira Braga to Oliveira and a separate letter complaining about Oliveira
to Field Marshal Sebastião Barreto Pereira Pinto, Interim Commander of the Army of the South, the
same man who would represent João Francisco during negotiations with Boaventura. Pinto de
Oliveira replied with a sarcastic, but not openly insulting, letter to Vieira Braga, but sent a nastier
letter regarding Vieira Braga to Marshal Barreto, who turned it over to João Francisco.
Although Pinto de Oliveira wrote from the perspective of a military man, many of his notions
of honor overlapped with those of ranchers resident in the militarized frontier zone, and he apparently
was a rancher himself, for he had donated oxen to the cause. Boaventura de Oliveira had also served
as a military or milicia officer (alferes), and apparently remained a reserve officer. Vieira Braga had
officially been a militia captain for a few years in the 1820's, but there is no evidence that he ever saw
active duty. After discussing João Francisco's life with him some 25 years later the Conde d'Eu wrote
73
74
Porto Alegre, Mar. 16, 1832, BRG, L28, QBJO.
Boaventura to José Antônio Pimenta, São Gabriel, June 11, 1831, BRG, L28, QBJO.
20
that "he was a militia captain; but he could only have been so by chance or by obligation; he himself
declares that he never had the inclination for military service."76
Pinto de Oliveira told Marshal Barreto that Vieira Braga deserved "the most severe
punishment," but "struggling with my impulses" he attempted to take the moral high ground in
responding to João Francisco's letter.77 "I know that one responds to a challenging letter with sword
in hand, and I who detest such obscenities take shelter in silence; but now that I see you with [your
sword] unsheathed, you have me ready to counter."78 Vieira Braga was, according to Oliveira,
attacking him merely to vent his spleen, knowing very well that Oliveira had no choice but to take the
oxen. Oliveira had "the satisfaction of counting on your good will in recompense for the predilection
with which I invariably have treated your fazenda, and also your manager in the most difficult
circumstances." João Francisco was making "a long story out of nothing, and an elephant out of a
fly." His antagonism actually constituted an attack on Marshal Barreto, the commandant who had
ordered Oliveira to requisition oxen. João Francisco was simply persecuting Oliveira out of ill will,
because not a glimpse of arbitrariness can be perceived in a thing that is not worth
remembering by the most indifferent much less by a Brazilian who regularly donates contos
of réis for national expenses, as you just told me, perhaps you do not have a manager [acting
as your agent] at that fazenda when it comes to serving the state, or in spite of being the
richest [fazenda] in this district, it should be exempt from contributing, even at the time of
greatest need, just because the owner lives 30 leagues away.
He reminded João Francisco that the army was the "salvation" of the province's inhabitants and their
property. He himself had contributed ten oxen, "as much to give an example to others, as for the
interest I should take [at a time of] need, in spite of the risk that I will have to pay for carting, and yet
I do not complain." People had to do their duty
instead of swelling with pleasure on seeing the province's tranquility reestablished, and if
perhaps it is because you demand a better price, you could do this without attacking me with
impunity and if it is a result of your generosity, wanting to offer [the oxen] for free it is still
perfectly acceptable, but what pleases [you] is to besmirch the Commandant in [your]
customary style without remembering that revenge is natural.79
Pinto de Oliveira attempted to shame Vieira Braga rather than directly challenging his honor. Thus
João Francisco was not compelled to respond, but the letter must have made him uncomfortable.
Much of the art of running down another person's reputation consists of insinuations that preserve
75
Juries were generally dominated by local elites, who could influence jurors even when they themselves did
not serve ( Flory, Judge and Jury, 123.).
76
JFVB, "Relação dos Diplomas pelos quaes se vê as Graças que me tem sido feitas pelos Soberanos do Brasil,"
June 10, 1858, BRG, L27; Conde de Eu, Viagem militar ao Rio Grande do Sul (agosto a novembro de 1865)
(São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1936 [1920]), 217.
77
Antônio Francisco Pinto de Oliveira to Sebastião Barreto Pereira Pinto, Quartel do Bom Desterro, May 25,
1829, BRG, L27, Correspondência especial.
78
Antônio Francisco Pinto de Oliveira to JFVB, Quartel do Bom Desterro, May 13, 1829, BRG, L27,
Correspondência especial.
79
Antônio Francisco Pinto de Oliveira to JFVB, Quartel do Bom Desterro, May 13, 1829, BRG, L27,
Correspondência especial.
21
deniability, or the ability to claim that one really meant no harm.80 The central message of the letter
was clear enough: while others sacrificed for the good of the province, one of its richest residents was
dishonoring himself with petty complaints about a small contribution to the common good. His
protests were motivated by a personal grudge against Pinto de Oliveira, but they actually constituted
an insult to João Francisco's friend Marshal Barreto, who had ordered the requisition.
Pinto de Oliveira's letter to Barreto was more clearly insulting, but it did not constitute a
direct challenge to Vieira Braga's honor because it was not addressed to him and was not public.81
Making the dispute public by responding to this letter could make the situation worse: part of the
wider audience would be inclined to believe the accusations and other enemies could be encouraged
to express their opinions. João Francisco's letter (which unfortunately does not survive) was,
according to Pinto de Oliveira, "most insolent and insulting." Vieira Braga was the only rancher to
protest, but Pinto de Oliveira had in fact been generous with him, accepting the tame steers his
manager had provided instead of true working oxen. The real reason for João Francisco's anger was
an earlier conflict.
[Vieira Braga] bases his antagonism on my integrity for not wanting to agree to his great
efforts in writing … to have me carry out the most scandalous despotism against his own
uncle Nicolao Lopes Soares, and making him see the immorality of his demand, I know that
he had been left deeply humiliated, and at the same time my declared enemy without being
able to express his feelings but now [he is] subjecting me to his mockeries, as if I could not
tell him as much, or more, and even point out the vile deeds he has practiced since revenge is
very natural, but I do not do it … to avoid resembling him.
Oliveira had, moreover, endured great hardship to accomplish his mission while the smug Vieira
Braga lived in comfort in Rio Grande.
What I did was to personally drive the oxen struggling through a general flood, and bearing
the force of a severe storm, soaked from morning to night for the interest I took in arriving on
time and being useful in the same way that confronting all manner of dangers, I had the honor
of delivering to Your Excellency in São Rafael the assistance in horses that I was able to take,
meanwhile João Braga sheltered and dry in Rio Grande enthroned in the most presumptuous
arrogance, with pen in hand using his well-known talents to criticize those who go around in
danger, valiently working, and the ships ready to fly away at the slightest news of enemies,
instead of joining the armed forces…. These are the heroes who make war in times of peace.
The demobilized soldiers, in contrast, had been "sent away like a herd of cattle, some ordered to wrap
themselves in rags" and, perhaps the supreme insult, "others in women's clothing."82
Pinto de Oliveira presents a clear set of contrasts between his world and that of Vieira Braga.
One fights; the other sends money. One works; the other criticizes. One endures wind and rain; the
other stays dry and comfortable. One wears a sword, yet is moderate; the other wields a pen but is
80
Erving Goffman, "On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction," in Interaction
Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, by Erving Goffman (New York: Pantheon Books, 1967 [1955]), 24-6;
Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and Social Status," 26-8.
81
Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and Social Status," 25-7.
82
Antônio Francisco Pinto de Oliveira to Sebastião Barreto Pereira Pinto, Quartel do Bom Desterro, May 25,
1829, BRG, L27, Correspondência especial.
22
intemperate. One braves danger; the other flees. One places duty and loyalty above all else; the other
sacrifices his own kin for selfish gain. Both Boaventura and Pinto de Oliveira claimed that Vieira
Braga used the written word to harm and take advantage of pure and trustworthy country folk. Both
also portrayed him as inherently faithless, lacking a moral core and hence a sense of honor. His
careful accounts and insistence on being consulted before requisitions showed an incapacity to trust
other people, a sure sign that he himself could not be trusted. His wealth, influence, and writing skills
made him all the more dangerous to honorable men. In Pinto de Oliveira's account, Vieira Braga was
so devoid of principles that he was willing to betray his own family, the sacred core of a man's honor.
Pinto de Oliveira also associated bravery and hard work with reliability and attention to duty, in
contrast to the cowardice and luxury of the deceitful urban merchant. The whole way of life of the
urban rich was vaguely effeminate, hence treacherous and dishonorable.
These urban-rural contrasts were overdrawn: Vieira Braga was no stranger to rural life, and
often visited his ranches; Boaventura clearly maintained urban contacts; both Boaventura and Pinto de
Oliveira used the pen as their weapon of choice against João Francisco. But what matters here is not
the truth of their allegations but their rhetorical resonance. The mercantile community clearly
supported Vieira Braga and Ribas, but Boaventura's and Pinto de Oliveira's concurring portrayals of
João Francisco suggest that many among the rural elite were inclined to agree with them. João
Francisco had reason to feel vulnerable—after all, much of his wealth was invested in the
countryside—and he needed to act vigorously to stop public challenges to his honor. (Pinto de
Oliveira could be dealt with privately, most likely by trying to turn superior officers against him.)
Unfortunately for João Francisco, the attacks and insults would continue. In 1833 a newspaper article
accused him of illicit enrichment while administering the royal tax on hide exports and serving as
provisioner to the army. If one believed the accusations, he had not only collected one of the hated
taxes but had helped himself to part of the money; he had not only avoided military service but had
defrauded the army. This episode ended after Vieira Braga published an article demanding proof and
the author of the original article could not produce it.83 In 1840, Vieira Braga, perhaps still sensitive
to these criticisms, would claim that royal revenue from the hide tax increased greatly while he was in
charge of it.84
From exile to nobility
Matters worsened for Vieira Braga during the Farroupilha Rebellion. He was serving in the
first provincial assembly of 1835 when Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, his sister's son-in-law
and president of the province (appointed by the monarchy), came under virulent attack in the press.
After Bento Gonçalves's army took Porto Alegre and President Fernandes Braga fled to Rio Grande in
83
César, O Conde de Piratini, 14.
JFVB, "Exposição suscinta dos serviços prestados a S. M. o Imperador e à Nação," 1840, Spalding,
Construtores, 1: 134-8.
84
23
September, 1835, João Francisco Vieira Braga helped him distribute royalist proclamations and try to
raise an army in the south of the province, with little success, although João Francisco did persuade
the Pelotas town council to pronounce its opposition to the rebellion. About a month later, the two
men fled together to Rio de Janeiro, where João Francisco remained until the royalist victory ten years
later and Fernandes Braga spent the rest of his career as judge and senator.85 The separatists
confiscated João Francisco's Estância da Musica along with other royalist properties. The family was
able to keep the Fazenda de São João and the adjoining Fazenda Santa Isabel in the present-day
município of São Lourenço do Sul because João Francisco's mother was the official owner, but they
suffered several requisitions of cattle and horses by Farroupilha forces and some of the slaves fled to
join the rebels. João Francisco claimed that the damage to his interests by the rebels amounted to over
80 contos.86 Marshal Sebastião Barreto Pereira Pinto, Vieira Braga's representative during early
negotiations with Boaventura de Oliveira and recipient of Marshal Pinto de Oliveira's letter of
complaint about Vieira Braga, was the principal commander of royalist forces at the beginning of the
war. João Francisco and Ribas's lawyer, José de Paiva Magalhães Calvet, however, became an enemy
of Fernandes Braga and an important Farrapo journalist and politician, demonstrating that the
province was not completely polarized by 1832, the year of the libel suit.87 It is not clear which side
Boaventura de Oliveira and Marshal Pinto de Oliveira supported, but the forgoing suggests that
Boaventura had every reason to identify with the rebels of the plains and that Pinto de Oliveira must
have been torn between loyalty to his commanding officer and his distaste for littoral elites. There is
no need to deny the importance of conflict over taxes and land to recognize that competing claims to
honor fueled the hatred on both sides. The name given to separatist rebels by royalists, "Farrapos," or
ragamuffins, reflected urban disdain, but the rebels inverted the evaluation. "With time," according to
the Novo Dicionário Aurélio, this "derogatory label … became honorable."88
The series of insults and attacks João Francisco Vieira Braga suffered during the 1830's help
explain his later monarchist fervor and efforts to gain titles of nobility. After the decade of exile in
Rio de Janeiro he emerged richer and more powerful than before. A good deal of his influence was
85
JFVB, "Exposição suscinta dos serviços prestados a S. M. o Imperador e à Nação," 1840, Spalding,
Construtores, 1: 134-8; Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga to Joaquim Vieira da Silva e Sousa (Ministro dos
Negócios do Império), Rio Grande, Sept. 29, 1835 and Oct. 12, 1835, Anais do Arquivo Histórico do Rio
Grande do Sul 4 (1980), 463-5,468-9; Mário Teixeira Carvalho, de, Nobiliário sul-rio-grandense (Porto Alegre:
Livraria do Globo, 1937), 200; Leitman, Raízes sócio-econômicas, 28; Affonso de Taunay, Escragnolle, O
Senado do Império (Brasília: Senado Federal, 1978 [1941]), 117, 141.
86
Francisco Vieira Braga to Maria Angélica Barbosa, Rio Grande, Aug. 14, 1837, BRG, L26; Joaquim Vieira
Braga to Maria Angélica Barbosa, Fazenda de São João, Oct. 20, 1838, BRG, L26; JFVB, "Exposição suscinta
dos serviços prestados a S. M. o Imperador e à Nação," 1840, Spalding, Construtores, 1: 134-8.
87
José de Paiva Magalhães Calvet and Domingos José de Almeida, "Projeto de Representação," Anais do
Arquivo Histórico do Rio Grande do Sul 4 (1980), 237-43; Laytano, História da República Rio-Grandense, 3178.
88
Aurélio Buarque Ferreira, de Holanda Ferreira, Novo dicionário da língua portuguesa (Rio de Janeiro:
Editora Nova Fronteira, 1975), 615. According to Moacyr Flores, Modelo político dos farrapos (Porto Alegre:
Mercado Aberto, 1996), 22-4, the rebels were already referring to themselves as farrapos or farroupilhas by the
beginning of the war.
24
derived from patronage relations with state elites. Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga became an
appellate judge in Rio de Janeiro, always willing to use his influence on behalf of people indicated by
Vieira Braga. João Francisco could also address requests for favors to Fernandes Braga's brother, the
Barão de Quaraí (Pedro Rodrigues Fernandes Chaves), who had been a conservative leader in Rio
Grande do Sul before the Farrapos Rebellion and became a senator representing the province in
1853.89 Senator José Martins da Cruz Jobim, João Francisco's compadre and brother of his friend the
Barão de Cambaí, was another valuable contact. After the Barão de Quaraí died in 1866 (senators had
lifelong tenure after the emperor chose one man from the three who received the most votes ), João
Francisco launched an unsuccessful campaign for the election of Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga
as the new senator, writing friends and relatives throughout the province to ask for their support.90 In
1869, João Francisco arranged Antônio's election as a deputy to the national Câmara de Deputados
(House of Representatives).91 Later the same year, after the death of a recently-selected senator from
Rio Grande do Sul, João Francisco again wrote to clients and friends (and some friends of friends)
throughout the province asking them to use their influence to get Fernandes Braga elected to the list of
three possible senators. This time he was successful and the emperor chose Fernandes Braga as the
new senator.92
Vieira Braga's correspondence during the second empire provides striking confirmation from
the standpoint of a local potentate of the patronage phenomena described by Richard Graham from the
perspective of top state officials.93 Vieira Braga accumulated power by mediating relations between
89
Carvalho, Nobiliário, 207. Parents often gave siblings different surnames to pay homage to a larger number
of ancestors.
90
JFVB to Barão de Cambaí (São Gabriel), Pelotas, Sept. 10, 1866, BRG, L29, Copiador 120; JFVB to Manoel
José Gomes de Feitas (Piratini), to José Joaquim Roiz Soares (Canguçu), to Barão do Serro Alegre (Bagé),
Pelotas, Sept. 11, 1866, BRG, L29, Copiador 120; JFVB to Antônio Caetano Ferraz (Porto Alegre), to José
Ferreira Porto (Porto Alegre), to João Francisco Gonçalves (Jaguarão), Pelotas, Sept. 12, 1866, BRG, L29,
Copiador 120.
91
JFVB to Manoel Lucas de Lima (Piratini), to Manoel José Gomes de Freitas (Piratini), to Balthazar Jacintho
Dias (Canguçu), Pelotas, Mar. 9, 1869; JFVB to José Luis Corrêa da Câmara (Jaguarão), to José Maria de
Azevedo (Jaguarão), Pelotas, Mar. 11, 1869; JFVB to Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, Pelotas, Mar. 30,
1869 and April 15, 1869. All in BRG, L29, Copiador 126.
92
JFVB to Ana Joaquina Affonso Braga, to Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, Pelotas, June 14, 1869; JFVB
to Vicente Vieira Braga (Boqueirão), Pelotas, June 21, 1869; JFVB to Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga,
Pelotas, July 3, 1869; JFVB to Barão do Serro Alegre (Bagé), Pelotas, July 7, 1869; JFVB to José Maria
d'Azevedo (Jaguarão), to José Luis Corrêa da Câmara (Jaguarão), to Balthazar Jacintho Dias (Canguçu), to
Manoel José Gomes de Freitas (Piratini), to Manoel Lucas de Lima (Piratini), to Ovidio Fernando Trigo de
Loureiro (Bagé), to José Joaquim Rodrigues Soares (Canguçu), Pelotas, July 19, 1869; JFVB to Porfírio Ferreira
Nunes (Rio Grande), Pelotas, July 20, 1869; JFVB to Barão do Serro Alegre, Pelotas, July 26, 1869; JFVB to
Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, Pelotas, July 30, 1869; JFVB to Vicente Vieira Braga, Pelotas, Aug. 3,
1869; JFVB to José Martins da Cruz Jobim, to Antônio Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, Pelotas, Aug. 17, 1869;
JFVB to João de Sousa Brasil (São Gabriel), Pelotas, Aug. 18, 1869; JFVB to Vicente Vieira Braga, Pelotas,
Aug. 19, 1869; JFVB to Ovidio Fernando Trigo de Loureiro, Pelotas, Aug. 25, 1869; JFVB to Antônio
Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, Pelotas, Aug. 31, 1869. All in BRG, L29, Copiador 126; JFVB to Antônio
Rodrigues Fernandes Braga, Pelotas, May 16, 1870, BRG, L29, Copiador 128.
93
Graham, Patronage and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Brazil. Although not focusing explicitly on
patronage, Judy Bieber, "Postmodern Ethnographer in the Backlands: An Imperial Bureaucrat's Perceptions of
Post-Independence Brazil," Latin American Research Review 33: 2 (1998), 37-72, also finds evidence that an
early nineteenth-century local bureaucrat in Minas Gerais did not separate political and personal relations and
25
the plains of southern Rio Grande do Sul and the littoral cities of Pelotas and Rio Grande, and by
mediating relations between southern Rio Grande do Sul in general and both the provincial state
capital in Porto Alegre and the national capital in Rio de Janeiro. A key aspect of his political action
was to use local ties to arrange the elections of municipal, provincial, and national representatives. He
could then collect favors from them, especially the ability to influence appointments to state offices in
the southern part of the province. Because he was able to get action in the state bureaucracy and the
courts, a large number of people in the south of the province owed him favors, and he could call on
them to mobilize electoral support for his preferred candidates. His honor symbolized his value as a
power broker, and successful brokerage in turn augmented his honor. Vieira Braga's honor and
influence helped him protect land claims and redounded to his advantage in all manner of commercial
transactions, making him a desirable trading partner, intimidating those who would oppose him, and
allowing him to extract titles, licenses, and permissions from the state bureaucracy. Much of his
success seems to have sprung from his capacity to profit by crossing realms of accumulation,
converting wealth into honor and connections and converting these back into more wealth. Only a
cramped materialism, however, would assert that João Francisco engaged in patronage and the
exchange of favors simply in order to promote his commercial and ranching endeavors. His letters
give every indication that he valued honor in itself. Both economic and symbolic capital provided
security, distinction, and power.
João Francisco was willing to spend great sums of money to increase his honor. He valued
above all the badges of honor distributed by the monarchy in the form of honorific titles and titles of
nobility. The emperor officially awarded titles for one lifetime in exchange for service to the state
and support for religious and charitable causes.94 Before the Guerra Farroupilha, according to a report
he prepared when applying for titles in 1840, Vieira Braga had served in a variety of offices and had
been instrumental in provisioning the army, as well as vigorously opposing the rebellion and suffering
considerable economic losses at the hands of the Farrapos. He had also donated over eight contos in
silver to the state in support of war efforts and the establishment of Swiss colonists in the province of
Rio de Janeiro, lent three slaves to help build ships for the Imperial Squadron in the Rio de la Plata,
lent and prepared a warehouse for use as an army barrack, lent one conto for construction of the
customs house in Rio Grande, and donated over a conto for opening the ship canal to the port of Rio
Grande. Before 1835, he had already been awarded the Hábito de Cristo by Dom João VI and had
been made Cavaleiro and then Oficial of the Ordem Imperial do Cruzeiro by Dom Pedro I. During
judged others by criteria of honor. Bieber claims that the generation of administrators coming of age during the
second empire tended to separate bureaucratic duties and personal obligations, but João Francisco Vieira Braga's
correspondence with politicians, judges, and bureaucrats during the second empire provides little evidence of
such separation, aside from occasional and rather subdued assertions by judges that the law should take priority
over personalistic criteria in deciding cases. João Francisco came of age a decade before independence, so he
undoubtedly preserved some colonial sensibilities, but none of his correspondents suggested that his style was
out of place in the second empire.
26
the 1840's, after the majority of Dom Pedro II, he accumulated the titles of Guarda Roupa da Câmara
Imperial, Veador da Casa Imperial, and Fidalgo Cavaleiro da Casa Imperial.95 In 1854 he gained
the title of Baron of Piratini. In 1866 he was promoted to Viscount of Piratini, soon after hosting
Dom Pedro II and the Count of Eu, husband of the crown princess, during the War of the Triple
Alliance, and impressing them with both his "brilliant hospitality" and his donations to the Santa
Casa de Misericórdia of Pelotas, the town's hospital for the poor, for which he served as provedor
(president or chief administrator).96 In 1885, near the end of his life, he became Count of Piratini
shortly after hosting Princess Isabel and the Count of Eu.
Honorific titles and titles of nobility were signs that João Francisco was respected in the Court
and had influence in the government, and was thus a highly desirable "friend" for peers and patron for
inferiors in his home territory. There can be little doubt, however, that he also valued titles for their
own sake. None of his commercial conquests evoked emotion comparable to the gushing devotion
and gratitude expressed in his letters to family and friends on the occasion of Dom Pedro II's visit and
his promotion shortly thereafter to viscount.97 Honor was a symbolic but critical resource to be
accumulated and defended, and titles of nobility were visible signs that João Francisco's honor was
unimpeachable. They allowed partial escape from the vulnerability implied by a stock of symbolic
capital forever dependent on the evaluation of others. Impudent ranchers, journalists, and military
officers would have to think twice before challenging him.
94
Eul-Soo Pang, In Pursuit of Honor and Power: Noblemen of the Southern Cross in Nineteenth-Century Brazil
(Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1988), 52-53.
95
JFVB, "Exposição suscinta dos serviços prestados a S. M. o Imperador e à Nação," 1840, Spalding,
Construtores, 1: 134-8; JFVB, "Relação dos Diplomas pelos quaes se vê as Graças que me tem sido feitas pelos
Soberanos do Brasil," June 10, 1858, BRG, L27. Pang, In Pursuit of Honor, 48-51, explains the titles of
imperial Brazil.
96
Eu, Viagem militar, 216-20.
97
E.g., JFVB to Miguel Tito de Sá, Pelotas, Oct. 27, 1865, to Ana Joaquina Affonso Braga, Pelotas, Nov. 4,
1865, to José Joaquim de Sequeira, Pelotas, Nov. 24, 1865, all in BRG, L29, Copiador 118; JFVB to Manoel
José de Freitas Travassos, Pelotas Sept. 26, 1866, BRG, L29, Copiador 120.
27