FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1991483564> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1991483564 endingPage "362" @default.
• W1991483564 startingPage "337" @default.
• W1991483564 abstract "Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes [1] The author wishes to thank the University of London’s Central Research Fund for a grant to conduct fieldwork on this topic in Rio de Janeiro. [2] Original spellings have been regularized to modern Brazilian Portuguese. All translations are my own, unless otherwise noted. The play texts used are as follows: Joaquim José da França Júnior, Cahio o ministério (Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Popular de A. A. da Cruz Coutinho, 1883); Inglezes na costa (Rio de Janeiro: Typ. Paula Brito, 1864); O typo brazileiro (Rio de Janeiro: Typographia Americana, 1872). [3] In addition to Aguirre, see for example, the anthologies English‐speaking Communities in Latin America, ed. Oliver Marshall, and Informal Empire in Latin America: Culture, Commerce and Capital, ed. Matthew Brown. [4] See Thompson: “Latin America was rarely, if ever, referred to as part of a ‘Greater Britain’” (239). [5] See Charles Wentworth Dilke, “English Influence in China: An Additional Chapter to ‘Greater Britain’” and “English Influence in Japan.” [6] Antoinette Burton’s work is particularly noteworthy in this respect, especially At the Heart of Empire: Indians and the Colonial Encounter in Late‐Victorian Britain. See also Joseph Childers, “Outside Looking In: Colonials, Immigrants, and the Pleasures of the Archive.” [7] Martins Pena also seems to have served as the censor for the unknown play O estudante de Oxford (Censor’s report, Fundãção Biblioteca Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Manuscripts Section). For discussions of English types in Martins Pena, see Louise Guenther, “The Artful Seductions of Informal Empire” Severino João Albuquerque, “The Brazilian Theatre up to 1900” Guenther, British Merchants in Nineteenth‐century Brazil: Business, Culture and Identity in Bahia, 1808–1850; Marlyse Meyer, “L’Anglais dans des comédies bresiliennes de Martins Pena”; Leon F. Lyday, “Satire in the Comedies of Martins Pena.” Lyday in particular reads Martins Pena’s As casadas solteiras as creating Englishmen who are noted for “their sternness or lack of affection, their mercenary attitude, their pride, various manias such as having to have tea at a certain time each day, their extravagant manner of dancing, and their excessive consumption of alcohol” (69). [8] Antonio Felix Martins, report on A torre em concurso, 20 Oct. 1857, Fundação Biblioteca Nacional, Manuscripts Section. [9] The censors’ reports turning down licenses for these productions are held in the Fundação Biblioteca Nacional, Manuscripts Section, and are dated 1859 and 1846 respectively. The second play appears to be a translation of Félicien Mallefille’s Glenarvon, ou les Puritains de Londres (1835 Mallefille, Félicien. 1835. Glenarvon, ou les Puritan de Londres: Drame en cinq actes, Paris: J.‐N. Barba. [Google Scholar]). [10] This play’s title can also be translated as The Machine‐making Englishman. [11] The play uses the Christie Affair, described below, as the backdrop for his characterization of the British, with the character of Serpião demanding an indemnity and satisfaction for perceived (but not real) slights. [12] França Júnior was involved in the periodical Bazar Volante in the 1860s, which published an illustration based on Meu marido é ministro (1.25: 1, 13 March 1864) and which satirized Britain’s ambassador William Dougal Christie, as well as Britons like one Mr. Ginty, who was seeking a road‐building concession. This involvement suggests that his attempts to draw a lineage with earlier representations of the British were calculated ones. [13] In fact, this problem is one that many working on informal imperialism in Latin America often fail to address: that a sizeable swathe of Central and South America did not achieve independence and remained in European hands until well into the twentieth century—or, in the French case, into the present. Brown’s anthology, for instance, focuses mostly on South America and thereby misses out on the relevance of the exchange between the British Caribbean and Central America. The persistent categorization by many scholars of Guyana and Surinam as Caribbean‐facing similarly ignores their role as Amazonian countries—a fact underscored by the scale of recent Brazilian immigration to Guyana. Karen Racine’s work, however, bucks this trend; she has broached British influence on educational policy in both Spanish America and Haiti. [14] French makes this point in discussing Tulio Halperín Donghi’s The Contemporary History of Latin America (French 194). [15] Slavery was only outlawed in Brazil in 1898. Whereas on one side prominent abolitionists such as Rui Barbosa and Joaquim Nabuco praised the “British” institutions of individual liberty and democracy and worked closely with abolitionist groups in London, others complained of British interference in Brazilian domestic affairs. The latter harkened to the 1845 Aberdeen Act, in which the British navy arrogated for itself the right to seize ships suspected of slaving, even into Brazilian territorial waters. [16] See Halperín Donghi on the reigning consensus of elites in Brazil. He notes, “The reconciliation among formerly antagonistic political forces in Brazil had also been possible because the elite class found broad common ground in resisting British attempts to suppress the slave trade” (90). [17] The similarly named John Frederick Russell was an important figure in the formation and operation of the sanitation firm the Rio de Janeiro City Improvement Company. [18] See Roderick J. Barman: “Finally, and most importantly for the historian, O tipo brasileiro reveals an intense resentment against foreigners and a fierce anger against the Brazilian tendency for self‐depreciation and willingness to feel inferior when confronted with foreign cultures. This resentment and anger do not show up in the private correspondence and documents of the time, but anyone who has lived in Brazil will recognize the verisimilitude [of its assessment]” (246). I would argue that newspapers and other documents do, in fact, show this resentment, especially around the time of the Christie Affair. [19] Knight argues that from the mid‐ to late‐nineteenth century, Latin America developed elites who “for reasons of self‐interest, economic rationality, and ideology, were willing and able to provide a congenial framework for British commercial interests. The ‘internalization of British values,’ even the ‘uncritical mimicry of European fashion,’ were now pervasive, at least among Latin American élites” (141). While this formulation presents some uneasy slippage between commercial and cultural interests, it does identify how their imbrication was a necessary part of informal empire’s circuitry during this time. [20] Richard Graham asserts this idea generally of British economic imperialism in Brazil in “Sepoys and Imperialists: Techniques of British Power in Nineteenth‐Century Brazil.” [21] A fuller discussion of the Brazilian theater scene during this period can be found in Ross G. Forman, “Theater of the Impressed: The Brazilian Stage in the Nineteenth Century.” [22] In this essay, he declares, “There is no Brazilian theater today, no national plays being written, and rarely is one ever performed” (24–5). [23] Although studies of Brazilian theater were published around the turn of the century, including works by Brazil’s best‐known literary critics Silvio Roméro (who published an extensive article on Martins Pena in the Revista Brazileira in 1897) and José Verissimo (whose response to Roméro appeared in the same magazine in 1898), the main reference text until recently has been J. Galante de Sousa’s O teatro no Brasil. Edwaldo Cafezeiro and Carmem Gadelha’s História do teatro brasileiro: Um percurso de Anchiete a Nelson Rodrigues is the notable exception to the paucity of recent criticism. [24] Some critics of Brazilian theater trace its beginning back to the Jesuit autos, specifically to the seventeenth‐century work of José de Anchieta. However, there was a gap in theatre productions from then until the early nineteenth century. Most critics today agree with A.C. Chichorro da Gama’s assesment in his 1907 Através do teatro brasileiro, that, “Up to the time of Independence, Brazil did not have what could be called a theatre of its own” (5). [25] See João Roberto Faria, O teatro realista no Brasil 106. [26] See Severino João Albuquerque, “The Brazilian Theatre up to 1900”: “The crafty Englishman had by then developed into a type whereby playwrights criticized at once the exploitative foreigner and the Brazilian fascination with imported things and ideas, however absurd or outrageous; the type had made his previous appearance in such works as Martins Pena’s Os dois ou o inglês machinista, Macedo’s A torre em concurso, and an early work by França Júnior, O tipo brasileiro” (121). [27] This formulation is consistent with Guenther’s assessment of gender as “a structuring principle in the overall experience of ‘informal empire’ and in the development of its historical narratives” (Artful Seductions” 209). [28] For an analysis of plays about the Christie Affair, see Ross G. Forman, “Harbouring Discontent: British Imperialism through Brazilian Eyes in the Christie Affair.” [29] See Graham’s discussion of the affair, as well as his summary of it in the Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 3, 790, n16. [30] It is important to note, however, that however supportive the official mind was of Christie’s actions, Anglophone opinion in Brazil was more in line with the opinions of that country. An editorial in the Anglo‐Brazilian Times, dated 24 March 1865, for example, criticizes Christie’s quarrelsomeness. [31] See, for instance, Gustavo Barroso’s discussion of the slave trade and the “judiazantes” Puritans in Historia secreta do Brasil (vol. 1) 53; A. Tenório d’Albuquerque, Grã Bretanha a serviço dos judeusand Opressão britanica. [32] The Brazilian phenomenon of referring to the British as rosbifes, by no means peculiar to França Júnior, is worth probing here. It is, of course, a reference to the figure of John Bull and the “roast beef of old England” that he eats. Although the origins of the term as an epithet applied to the British (and specifically the English) are a subject of debate, nevertheless it seems likely that the term entered Brazil via France. This process again hints at an intriguing (if impossible to trace) and hierarchical application of one set of imported cultural assumptions to another. Conversely, British terms for the French of similar valence, such as “frog,” do not seem to have been adopted in Brazil. [33] On tropical degeneration, see Nancy Leys Stepan, Picturing Tropical Nature. [34] On França Júnior’s ties to the imperial family, see the introduction to Joaquim José da França Júnior, Teatro de França Júnior. [35] My source for this incident is the 15 November 1879 edition of the Rio News. The year 1882 was also the year in which sewage lines were extended to Cajú, according to Victor Coelho in Baía de Guanabara: Uma história de agressão ambiental (28). [36] French traces a related contrast of linguistic provincialism in her analysis of the Argentinean writer Benito Lynch’s 1924 Lynch, Benito. 1924. El inglés de los güesos, Madrid: Espasa‐Calpe. [Google Scholar] novel El inglés de los güesos (202–3). [37] Soares’s O Xangô de Baker Street concerns a fictionalized visit by Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson to Rio at the behest of the Emperor Dom Pedro II to solve a spate of murders by an intellectual serial killer. [38] “Boa negocia” is muddled Portuguese for “good business” in this context." @default.
• W1991483564 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1991483564 creator A5086339226 @default.
• W1991483564 date "2010-12-01" @default.
• W1991483564 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1991483564 title "Nineteenth‐Century Beefs: Britons and the Brazilian Stage" @default.
• W1991483564 cites W1967749213 @default.
• W1991483564 cites W2063867874 @default.
• W1991483564 cites W2151798809 @default.
• W1991483564 cites W2478680423 @default.
• W1991483564 cites W2497880644 @default.
• W1991483564 cites W4205583880 @default.
• W1991483564 cites W4213296833 @default.
• W1991483564 cites W4240945085 @default.
• W1991483564 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/08905495.2010.530401" @default.
• W1991483564 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1991483564 type Work @default.
• W1991483564 sameAs 1991483564 @default.
• W1991483564 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W1991483564 countsByYear W19914835642021 @default.
• W1991483564 countsByYear W19914835642022 @default.
• W1991483564 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1991483564 hasAuthorship W1991483564A5086339226 @default.
• W1991483564 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W1991483564 hasConcept C146357865 @default.
• W1991483564 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W1991483564 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1991483564 hasConceptScore W1991483564C127313418 @default.
• W1991483564 hasConceptScore W1991483564C146357865 @default.
• W1991483564 hasConceptScore W1991483564C151730666 @default.
• W1991483564 hasConceptScore W1991483564C95457728 @default.
• W1991483564 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1991483564 hasLocation W19914835641 @default.
• W1991483564 hasOpenAccess W1991483564 @default.
• W1991483564 hasPrimaryLocation W19914835641 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W1511162235 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W2014344066 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W2018444268 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W2062326281 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W2095311753 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W2123581141 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W2496000516 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W393507378 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W2622235650 @default.
• W1991483564 hasRelatedWork W633351438 @default.
• W1991483564 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W1991483564 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1991483564 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1991483564 magId "1991483564" @default.
• W1991483564 workType "article" @default.