mario,t he braziliana nd

8/12/2019 Mario,t He Braziliana Nd

1/25


2/25

l68 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERAssim ua cartanao memagoou,masengrandeceu-me. uitoobligado'.2Some lines ater, owever, e also writes:Quantoas restrioes,algumasdou-te mediatamenteazo,outrasdiscuto' C72). This discussion'willbe thedynamics hichwill nimate hewholeof their orrespondence.

Origins ftchau/ciaoWhen we followthe interestingase concerningthe generalizationof the expression iao n Brazil,we can also uncover omevery ellingcharacteristics,hichalready permeatethe disputeover Brazilianismand Lusitanismsn thecorrespondence etweenMario de Andrade ndMiguelBandeira.Mario ends a letterof 29 September1924 with a 'Ciao, Abraos'(C 130). Bandeira,on 10 October 1924, asks: 'Que ciao? Adeusitaliano?' C 130).As he remainswithoutn answer romMario,he insistson 16 November 924: Que querdizerCiao? Adeus taliano?... ois ciao '(C 149). Finally,n 20 November 924,Mario answersaconically:Ciao at ogo principalmente.braos ciao' (C 150). Bandeira,nthe etterof 20 November1924: 'Ento ciao = at logo. Mas donde vemisso?novo?velho? taliano,ugoslavo?' C 152). In thefollowingettersMariodoesn'tanswerhis friend nd uses both ciao and adeus,which ndicatesthe interchangeabilitetweenboth formswhich s occurringn SoPaulo. Bandeiratoo starts singciao n his letter f 18 December1924(C 164) However,na letter f20December1924,Mario, emarkinghatsome Italianismswouldremain n the Brazilian anguagewhileothers,likeem-vez-no,ouldnot, trangelynough,doesnot use theexampleoftheciao,whichwasalready ntering eneralcirculationC 171). Mario,in the contextof his preoccupations bout the linguabrasileira,ealtwith talianismseven the less disseminatednes) withmore tolerancethanhe would have forGallicisms nd Lusitanisms,ejecting oth asinauthentic.Alreadywehavean embryonic onception f a Brazilian anguage hatis problematic.t is clearthatforMario,therejection fLusitanismssderived rom he fact hat hespokenPortuguese fBrazilvastly ivergesfrom he Portuguese f Portugal.But whatwas at issue here was thewritten ormofBrazil,whichMariothoughtnadequately eflectedhewritten ormofPortugal, reating gap. This socio-linguisticituationwas,of course, nherited romBrazil's colonial past,and Mariowouldnot be able toframe is discussionwithoutppealingto a larger ulturalpolicyregardinghis project,which,because of its own complexities,wouldgenerate nexpected ontradictions.


3/25

NOTES ON MARIO'S BRAZILIAN LANGUAGE 169To what extentthe linguabrasileiraan adopt foreign xpressions{estrangeirismos)like the talianism f the mmigrants,s a questionthatMario did notaddress.Morespecifically,fthe ingua rasileiraan adoptestrangeirismos,houldtheybe restricted o concrete ocial factors,ikeItalian mmigration?fthis s thecase,then therejection f Lusitanismscanonly e explainedby hefact hat hePortuguesewere hecolonizers.However,how to deal with the recent and significant ortugueseimmigrationo the country?Wouldthey oo be able to contribute?similar ssue nvolves heuse ofGallicisms,lso to be rejected, ecause ofthe traditionalmodelsemulatedfrom rance n thepost-Independencecultural shift.Gallicisms nd Lusitanisms re rejectedbecause theyrepresentedhe imposition f a nowrejectedparadigm nd model oflanguage expression.However, he question persists:What makes alanguage?Norms ndusagecannotbe separated romultural,ocialandultimatelyolitical sages;but can they nd shouldthey e controlled ythese ame uses?For Mario,it was clear that t was through peech thatthe linguabrasileirahould be constructed. ut if he vacillatedbetweenpopularspeechand educatedspeech,he seemsnot to have takenheed of the

many egionaldifferences ithin razil, r thevariationsetween rbanand ruralnorms.ForMario,there hould be no variancebetween raland writtenxpressions.FromClam o ClanIn the etter f27April1924,Mariowrote oBandeiraabout a titleheimagined or newbook so far alledAstrsaas.The newname is Cldo abuti.He justifies:Gosto do nome.E tern m pouco de totemismofresco,ngraado.Que achasdessenome?' (C 119). Bandeirathinks hetitle s estupendo Ps-menumestado ndescritvele agitao ...Cl dojabutilMas,Mario,no um ttulo: umpoema...Ca e jabuti sao doisvocbulosque sempreme surpreenderam'C 121). Somemonthsater,on 29 September1924, Marioreveals: EscreviClam, om eme, queronacionalizar palavra.Que achas?Tomar-me-aoorbes a,naturalmente.Issonao tem mportancia,lias' (C 130). Wesee,with his omment,hatMario sready otakeriskswithhisgrowing roject, utBandeira,ntheletter f10October1924observes:Chegouontemde tarde Clan.Comn,est claro Depois explico'.AndBandeirawill lways efer othebookas Clanor Cl ustifying:Clancomn.Comm quefica strangeirado,em e sabe o que primeira


4/25

170 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERamarri,maram. sso naspalavras riginariaso latim.Nasque vieram o tupiouda Africa ambme transcreveu a nasalporan (nhanhan,tapoan, birapuitan,etc). Ou clan ou da. Maspara que mudar? odo o mundo est habituado omon' (C131).Mario,in the next letter, oes not commenton Bandeira'splausibleargument nd insists n writing lam, aying lliptically:Recebi Clamas notas.Urnas ceitas mediatamente. utrasrejeitadasmediatamente.Outraspor pensar.MuitoObrigado. Hoje nao possomaispassar em ti'(C136).It was a movethatdidnot ast.The bookisalways eferreds Cl,evenin the notes of the volume ofcorrespondence iscussedhere.What sinterestingn thisseemingly nimportant xchange is its exemplarycharacter.hroughoutheir orrespondencen the ingua rasileira,ariowill eready o nationalize' venwhen henationalizationsquestionable.In theexchange oo,one can detect omeofMario'sbiases towards hatwouldbecome his criticism f Bandeira's Lusitanism. o him,at thatmoment, andeirawassoundingmore traditional'.When we lookbackinto hose imes,hough, efindmoreflexibilitynBandeira'swork hannMariode Andrade's oetry. andeira's omments n grammarndsyntaxaresolid,both nterms f their sageandhistory.e was not concernedwith orging national anguageeither.He had his ears moreopen to acomplexityfmanifestationsnd directionsnwhich languagecouldbe puttouse.Mario, onstrainedyhis ownproject, ndedby excluding,morethan ncluding,lements orhisBrazilian ortuguese. e writes:Em vez de 'Embala-lhe dormir'pus 'Lhe embala o sono' com o pronomeerrado. obre sso,Manuel, stoudisposto me sacrificar. precisodarcoragema essa gentinha ue ainda no temcoragemde escrever rasileiro. ante naosurgiu ozinho.Antesdele ainda urnaporode poetasmenores omearamescrever mlinguavulgar prepararamante.No sao os regionalistasufandoserrosditospelos seuspersonagens ue prepararoDante,mas o que escrevemporsi mesmosna linguavulgar,embrando rrospassveis e serem egitimados.Tudo est em se observar que psicologicamenteceitvel o que nao . Opronomecomplemento ode iniciar discurso. u o emprego. r na cidade regencia erfeita.m taliano se diz andare ncitt'. m francsalleren ville'.Os portugueses izem r cidade.Os brasileiros a cidade.Eu sou brasileiro. otenho mnima retenso eficar. que eu quero viver meudestino, sero badalodo momento.Minhaobra todabadala assim:Brasileiros,hegoua horade realizar Brasil. Letter f7 November 924; C 146-47)Mariowants oputhisprojectnto ction nd he feelshe has a mission oaccomplish.At thesametime, haracteristically,e finds acking orhisargumentnfavour f Braziliananguage notheranguages, pecificallyin the mannerthe Frenchand the Italian themselvesgainst


5/25

NOTES ON MARIO'S BRAZILIAN LANGUAGE 171No tenho enado Mevejam'. rasileiroao diz ssim,lias.Diz olhe u', vejaeu',fazendoeu' objeto ireto. urna as coisasmais stupendaso brasileiro[...]Acho ontra moo brasileirismocaidochapu ele'.Achomelhor ornoestava a verso rimitiva.uanto o 'Lhe embala sono',o brasileiroostade comear frase ompronomebliquo uando da 1*pessoa.Medeixe','me eve', tc.Com a 2ae 3apessoas ] do ou roeito.E um casoque estouobservando.i quemeparece aber emEmbala sonodele' [...]Veja e teserve eixar 'Solta-se-lheochapu' noera ssim?)...]Tem oda razonocaptuloosbrasileirismos.Irna cidade' era intaxe atina passou s inguasromnicasalqualcomoo iniciar frase ompronome bliquo. Letterf20November924;C151)Bandeira is rightconcerning he positionof the pronoun object inBrazilian references,ut when he explains t,he also makes mistake.Mario'spropositionLhe embala o sono' is,no doubt, rtificial. ut t sonly n the3rdpersonthat t is possibleto use thepossessive ronounafterwards:Embala o sono dele(s)/dela(s)'. Otherwise, he Braziliannormusestheoblique pronoun:me/te/nos/vosmbala o sono'.Werecognizehere the same kindofexchange s concerning lam ndclan.Bandeira's riticismsf theexaggerationsnd limitationsfMario'sprojectsgrew s timepassed.Mario de Andradehimself,s this rticlewilldiscuss urthern,becameambivalent,ot aboutthe essence' of hisproject, utabout the cultural ontextnwhich tdeveloped, contextwhichwas not nthe eastpleasing o thewriter.As he writes he novelFrulein,e experiments ithhisnew anguage,but he also beginsto see theproblems hathisproject an bring: Fugicom sistema o portugussic] ...] Se conseguir ue se escreva rasileirosemserporissocaipira,massistematizandorrosdiariosde conversaao,idiotismos rasileiros sobre udopsicologiarasileira, cumprio meudestino' my mphases] letter f o October1924; C 137). Here,Mario'sanxiety etrayshetraps urrounding isproject. t is clear thatMariobelieves n a systematizationoth of diosyncrasiesnd mistakesommonto theBraziliannorm; t is also clear thathe believes heexpression fa Brazilian sychologys onlypossiblethrough Braziliananguage.He isalso awareof thedangers ffallingntoregionalism,uthe is notawarethat t was thevery ore of his systematization,he oppositionto trulyfinding Brazilian orm.

Brazilian, ortuguese rPaulista?Bandeiraeasilycapturesone of the contradictionsf Mario'sprojectwhenhewrites:


6/25

172 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERcomprometernadia evidentementeoa e sadia.Tenhotanta oisa a dizernesseassunto ue so conversando,mas urna oisa entremuitas: istematicamentees opronomeobliquo antesdo verboquando o brasileiro e caracteriza xatamentepela instabilidadeo talobliquo,ora antes, radepois, depoismesmonos casosde relativo negativas, que tantohorripila s galegos. My mphases] Letterof19January 925; C 180)In a letterwrittenhortlyfterwards,n 25January 925,Bandeira nsistson having heopinionof a thirdparty,n thiscase, a friendwhom hethinks s qualified ogivean expert pinion: voceha de ter nteressecuriosidade m conhecer s crticas ue fazemdo seu caanje.Poisaquivai urnadaspessoasmais nteligentes sempreconceitos assadistas. malgunspontosno concordo comele,porex.,o caso da elisopra+ a =pr que tudoque h de maiscertoe razovel.Mas todo o sujeito,porinteligente ue seja,temdessasararices. iao' (C 180).Not even the cautious a very ntelligent ersonwithno traditionalistprejudice' could appease Mario's argumentation. n the verysameday,he writes long explanation nd defenceof his Brazilian anguage(C 181-86). He starts ydismissinghirdparties, que no sabem dascondioes mque vivo escrevo'.He also considers hatBandeira sbeingunfair.He thinksBandeira'sfriendwas accusinghimof not knowingPortuguese, false mpressionhatBandeira, n the etterwrittenn 31January 925,rectifies:Onde que voceviu ssoque ele disseque voceno sabiaportugus?...] reli3 vezes, e no descobri sso[...] o que elediz que o Sr.Todagenteno sabeportugus que voce (aqui h ummal-entendidodele) se propea escrever omoTodagente' C 187).3Mario, n his defence, rguesthatthe task he proposes s immenseand was nevermeantfor singleman. He confesses hathe needs thehelpof others ecause,thoughhe is not gnorantnd knows ortuguesemorethoroughlyhan the commonman, n all honesty e is notverystrong nd thusneeds thehelp of others n order to reachhisgoal: 'tohelp he literaryormation,ythat mean,thecultivated ormationfthe Brazilian anguage'.He does not wantBandeirato think hathe istryingo createa newlanguage, s Dante and Cames did,because inthosetimes verythingas done intuitively,mashoje no se pode maisfazerporque existe crtica, xiste questofilolgica em estudadaeem uso [...] por issoo que elesfaziamntuitivamente,u hoje faocomcrtica, istematizaresmyemphasis].At thispoint,he seeks to qualifyhis systematization,tating hathe is a man of the streets nd not abureaucrat.t is clear thatMario,precisely ecauseof his obsessionwiththesystematizationf the anguage, s awarethat he task s too extensive


7/25

NOTES ON MARIO'S BRAZILIAN LANGUAGE 173forone person,but he also fails o notice that he true ssue about thislanguage s not a matter fsystematizationut a complexityf elementsinvolvingonsensus, onventionnd more ubtle orms fsocial contractwhich renotvoluntaryr,for hatmatter,usceptibleo systematization.Mario de Andrade's notionof languagederivesfromcontradictorystandards. e recognizes he existence f a Braziliannorm,most videntin oralexpression. his oralnorm,however,oes notcorrespond o thewrittentandard;nor does it correspond, ither, o literary ortuguesewhich, ccordingto his interpretation,akes afterthe PortugueseofPortugal, nd French. t is this oral expression,however, hat Mariowants o transpose o literature. he result s an impossibility:e triesto overlaporal language and writtenanguage,but what of the veryfluidityf oralexpressions? otonlydo they otacceptmodels,buttheyvary nd incorporate oth correct nd incorrect orms fspeech.Thiswas the mainpredicament orMario,a dilemma he did not consider,though, robably ecause he lacked the meansto differentiateetweenlanguage ndspeech.Once oralvariationsnd fluiditiesrecaptured ndsystematized,hey ease to be fluid nd variable; hey endto uniformityand lose their ichgamutofexpressions exactlywhatmost ttractedMario ntheBraziliananguage. nhis ttemptosystematize,e endedup,instead,with repetitionfpatternsnd automatic referenceshat odayseem exotic r typical'. diosyncraticses ike maisporm'and milhor'are,atbest,fruits fpersonal hoices, nd endedup beinga trademarkof Mario'sstyle. ario'sBrazilian anguage s, n fact,Mario'sownstyle.Bandeirasaysno less,albeitwith ess 'technical'clarityr vehemence.He points ut that nstead fwritingrazilian,Mario swritingPaulista'.Mario couldnotacceptthepoint, s hewould notaccepta similar ointfrom swalddeAndradewho askedhispermissiono writepr',becausethecontraction as Mariode Andrade's wn C 220, 221, 224).4At thispoint, nyconcession o written orms, specially oncerningtheuse ofpronouns,was seenbyMario as a regressiono thePortuguesenorm: a Lusitanism. ut Mario had not taken heed of Bandeira'sobservation hatwhatcharacterized he Braziliannorm wasflexibility,a fluidityeflected,more than in anywhere lse, in the placementofthe pronounsand the interchangeabilityetweenobject and subjectpronouns.Mario was not awarethat thiswas a culturalactthat morethan ver haracterizedhe anguage, nd eventheculture, f Brazil.Forhim,to avoidthe use ofLusitanismsas,primarily,n issue ofcultural4Oswald eAndrade sksMariodeAndrade fhe canuse his' pr'.Bandeira emarkshatcritics,nstead f ayinghat omewriterserewritinginBrazilian', ere aying,ather,hat


8/25

174 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERpolicy nd taste.The confluence f national nd aesthetic dentity,orMario,excluded the possibilityf incorporating sages comingfromthe Portuguese f Portugal, ven thoughsuch usageswerecurrentnbotheverydaynd literaryanguage.ForMario, hepursuit f a nationallinguisticdentitynvalidateduch choices. Nowhere s this learer hanin his criticismf LusitanismsnBandeira,who wasnot even awareof thishindranceofwhichmore ater).WhenMariotakesBandeira'scriticism s ad hominem,e betraysheanxietyfself-doubt. henquestioned,t tends o becomeradicalized:Mas daisepensar,uvoce, omoparece elasuacarta,ue estou gindo omleviandadeesta uesto eescreverrasileiro,aium stiroargo,meuManuel[...]Nao sou eviano, ao [...]Vocedizporexemplo ue eu emvezde escreverbrasileirostou screvendoaulista.njustiarave.Me tenho reocupadomuitocomnaoescreveraulista por sso uecertostalianismositorescosueeuempregavaantes orpndega,ucomecei retirarlestodos aminha scritade agora ...] porenquanto problema brasileironacional ...] No estouescrevendoaulista, o.Ao contrrio.anto ue fundo a minhainguagembrasileiraeagora ermos oNorte do Sul.5Here Mario is defending n extremelyragileposition.Bandeirahadnoticed, nd withreason,thatMario's inguabrasileiraasactually romSo Paulo,paulista.How could it be different,f thevery resuppositionoftheprojectwas tocapture nd systematizeralforms,MariodeAndradebeingpaulista? utMario, o defendhis anguagefrom his accusation',argues thathe had expurgated talianisms rom t, falling nto thecontradictionf defending n artificialanguage;evenmoreso, sincethedifferencesetween egionsnBrazil, eingconcrete nd particular,preventny systematization.o choose one or twokindsofusage pickedupfrom pluralityfexpressionsnvolvingocabularyndsyntaxmpliedarbitraryhoices nd eventhoughMario's ensibilityasexceptional,heriskofcreating n artificialanguagewashigh.Furthermore,nce thesystematizationsestablished,hesystem orks s a closedcircuit: heveryrepetitionfthe samechosenpatternsndsup caught n thecul-de-sacofclich.Bandeirahad also pointedto thisdanger. n hisdefence,n thesameletter f25January, ariowrites:O artigoobre ocefoi nesse entidorna entativanicial. empor xemploo verbo avermpenca.Agorampregoistematicamentemymphasis] verboter,alvo mcasos specialssimos,omonao hmeiode', hquetempo ',tc.E mesmo estes,mvezde H que tempo' refiroverbofazer'.Fazquantotempo', onforme sentido a frase. orqu? orque etrata esistematizaaoculta no otografiaopopularmy mphasis]Nopodeserdoutra ormaoisoisae no tirando rna nteirinhae fatos


9/25

NOTES ON MARIO'S BRAZILIAN LANGUAGE 175queo meu rasileiromy mphasis] o estiloue dotei venha ser brasileirode amanh ...] se eu no fizesse ssa sistematizaaou seriaum escritorsentimentalmenteopular,quero erumescritorulto literario.It is clear,though,here that Mario knew is Brazilian anguagewas apersonal tyle, ut at thatpointhe did not taketheknowledge o itsfullconsequences.6 is criterionfwritingcultivatednd iteraryanguage ndbeingknown s a cultivatedndliteraryuthormay eem ncontradictionwithhis research n, and systematizationf,Brazilian ral expressions.Is itpossibleto systematizecultivated nd literaryanguagefrom ralnorms hat re fluid nd open to the ncorporationf mistakes?The hidden tandard egulatinghis omplexity,owever,ven fMariodoes not see it as such, s the aestheticne. The searchfor personal tyle,based on aesthetic hoices,following tastebased on thenecessityfaffirmationf the Brazilian dentityn literature',s whatMarioaimedat. The radicalusageof this riterion asputto worknLosango aqui, fwhichMario writes hathe has it entirelyranslatednto the Brazilian'.The poems n the bookwere not wellreceived, venbyMario'sfriends,and one can conjecture hatone ofthe reasonswas theautomatic ndmechanicaltranslationnto heBrazilian' o which thadbeensubjected.ForMario,thiswas not an affectation,ut thevery irst hase of a 'newnaturalmode' ofexpression. aterreaders,however, avedifficultiesnfindinghismode natural.In his answer o Mario's ongletter, andeiraweaves n some seriousconsiderationsbout Mario's claims nd insists n the richness fopenlanguagesncontrast ith orced ystematizations:Hoje,ao contrario,udofavoreces integraoes.os estamosomeandofalar rnamixrdiaranco-itala-saxniaue produzdispepsiasncurveisospuristas as a nica inguagemue exprimiusensibilidade,vidamoderna.O quenosdevemosenriquecerssamaravilhosalgarviaom sdengues, graae essa sculhambaorasileiramulatadacabrocha.ou contrasistematizaaopessoaloluntaria.igo parae 'pr Se houver italidade as duasformasomoinegavelmente, lasco-existiro.All mphases ine] C 190).76He did o, hough,n1939,when ecommentednhis Noturnoe BeloHorizonte'1924):'Hoje emdia lastimo ue o "Noturno"e haja ressentido uitoda poca,dos cacoetesdomomentomque o frz. ram scacoetes,sexageros oModernismo.asassimmesmo dosmeus rabalhosm dosque eu aindamaisgosto, rincipalmenteortudo uanto ie meevocaa respeitoe sua terra.' nMario eAndrade,ntrevistasDepoimentos.d.byTelePortoAnconaLopez SoPaulo:T. A.Queiroz, 983),p.67.7Bandeira, owever,ublicly efendsMario's diosyncrasies.n a short rticle ublishedinA SemanaPara)on 23 March 927,Bandeira ries oprepare hereaders or heunusual

Portugueseound nMario'swork:E preciso revenir pblico ...]A linguagemo romanceest oda rrada ...]Mario e mpesistematizaaoosnossos odismosmy mphasis].mpregacomdenodosimples rosodia sintaxe orrentes a linguagem espretensiosae todosos


10/25

176 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERYears ater, andeira till nsisted n this valuation f Mario's anguage,thistimepointing o thecontradiction etweenMario's ntentions ndhis results.fwith is anguagehe wanted n approximationo theoralityofBrazilianPortuguese, e had failed,because simplefolks ould notunderstand is anguage. na letterwrittenn 6August 931 he observesthat aulicia esvairada,bookMariowrotenfifteenays, ad had moreimpact n thepublicthanhis nobleattemptt the Braziliananguage: amaioria das pessoassimples ue lemvoce sentent ificuldade e compreend-lo[my emphasis].Quando voce escreve "sube" e "intaliano" insteadof'soube' and 'italiano'] ningum enteo seu desejo de comunhonemo seu sacrificio,mas a sua personalidadendiscreta tirnicaquerendomporna linguagemiteraria scritaormas a linguagem opularou cultaJalada queagradam sua sensibilidade e escritormy emphasis] (C 516-1 7) .This s whatBandeirawrotena letter f7August1933:A lingua o urna riaogica.Ou poroutra, ia temurnaogica ue nao a individualmuitas ezesnosescapa.Justamentearanao contrariarssalgica que preciso gente e conformaromos fatos a linguagemscrita,da linguagemiteraria,muitosa linguagemiterariaosclssicos alguns ecertos lssicos...]A lingua final e contas ai e fazendouervoceou quernquerque seja queira u noqueira. screva aturalmente,ario.Adotandoque lheparea ompara suaexpresso, as em ssapreocupaoe exigirmuito ara bter mpoucadinho.oce escritor,ao gramtico.s escritorespodemnfluira ingua elogosto aexpresso,aopela ogica.A gica paraos gramticos,ue trabalhamobre criao o gosto osbonsescritores.C566-67)Bandeiracould not be clearerabout thedifferentolesplayedbythewriter nd the grammarian. or him,the influenceof the writernlanguagecomesfromthetaste fexpression',n otherwords,t derivesfromn aesthetic reation ndnotfromlogic'.The writeran influencelanguage n thewayShakespeare nd Dante did, through heir iteraryimagination,ut ndirectly,ince anguage s a collectivereation.WhenBandeiraediteda volumeofhis correspondencewithMario,in 1966, he emphasizedthat one majorthemerunning hrough heirexchangewaspreciselyheone involvinghe anguage.He writes:Sempre uipartidarioo abrasileiramentoo nossoportugusiterario,esorte ue aceitava m principio iniciativae Mario.Mas discordavaeleprofundamentea suasistematizao,uemepareciandiscretamenteessoal,resultandouma onstruaoerebrina,ueno era ingua eningum.unopodia ompreenderomo lgum,ujofito rincipalra funcionarocialmentedentroeurna acionalidade'e deixavaevar,or spiritoesistema,escrevernuma inguagemrtificialissima,ue repugnava quase totalidade e seuspatricios.C681,annex ).8


11/25

notes on mrio's Brazilian language 177Systematizationnd NationalismsWhenMario omments roudlyn his ystematization,andeira ountersand criticizes,aying hat uchsystematizationsere too hasty,nd thatthetendencyf anguages nowadays'was for ntegrations,o the task fortheartist, e infer)was to 'enrich' he languagewith 'cacophony'ofBrazilian ultural raits.Variability,hich Bandeiradefends, s rejectedbyMario: A variabilidade muito mais maior no portugus iterario.Questo de eufonia nascida da maneira usa de dicao.Nos brasileiros,geralmententepomos pronomeao verbo. Geralmentemy mphasis](C 185). However,Mario s nfact,with his rgument,rovingandeiraspoint,notdenyingt.Bandeira, n a letter rom June 1925, insists:Eo defeito ue ainda acho no seu brasileiro. o dizer- sistematicamente[myemphasis] "ter" no "haver"me parece arbitrioormalistamyemphasis], arti-prisntolervel. o se diz: "No teveParnasianismo oBrasil". Tinhamuitagentemetidanisso", sso sim se diz' (C 214).9 Theparadigm fvariabilitys one ofthemost mportant henwe consider hePortuguese poken nd writtennBrazil ofwhichmore ater).AsWilsonMartins eminds s, thepreoccupationwith anguagewasone ofthemost haracteristicigns ftheModernistmovement,mergingfrom heplatformoundedbytheRevista o Brasil.The publicationn1920 of O dialeto aipira yAmadeuAmaraialreadydemonstrated hisfixation hat ccupied people as divergents RuiBarbosa and Mario deAndrade.WilsonMartinsndicates owever,hat heModernistmovementinBrazilwasmoreflexible han tsEuropeanmodels, nd we can see howthis ontextwill e importantounderstandothMario's ttitudeowardslanguageand Bandeira's:one defending ystematizationnd the other,flexibility.artinswrites: O Modernismobrasileiro ...] permanecerabertoas sucessivasmetamorfosesue o caracterizam: o estetismo a

primeira ase arte nteressada a segunda;da poesiaao romance ocial;do espirito estruidor critica riadora;de umgneroparao outro, ta orgnica oexistencia osgneros.'10The issue of nationalism s inseparablefrom he issue of the linguabrasileira.n itsvarious hades, heumbrella fnationalismlso shelteredtheJacobinismfthose whowantedto remove nyLusitanism. n thiscontext,sWilsonMartinsbserves:No eram,poistogratuitosuantoparecem s ataquesmodernistasontra gramtica ortuguesa,ontratirania os donosda linguae contra s tendencias uristas: uiBarbosa,seainda no era"vendido o dlar mericano" parecia, spiritualmente,theverb nthe hird erson orem.owever,e usedtheverb arwithoutccent,whichwould


12/25

178 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERpor seu fetichismousitano,um traidorda idia nacionalista'.11 auloPrado wrote hatnationalism hould breakthe tieswhichbind Braziliansfrom birth to old Europe: 'Libertemo-nos as influenciasnefastasdas velhascivilizaoes m decadencia.A comearpela lingua e pelagramtica'.12 owever,fthis resistance elps to establish he culturalcontext nd the culturalpoliticswhichoriginated here, t cannotbutindicate heparadoxat the heartofthe BrazilianModernistmovement.As itfought gainstEuropeaninfluences,tgotits nspirationrom hevery uropeanmodelsagainstwhich tthoughttwasfighting.nd thiswas particularlyrue n relationto the French,more thanthe ItalianFuturists. he BrazilianModernistmovements indebted to the same'nefarious nfluences f theold decadentcivilizations'nd to thesame'old Europe,wastedand decadent' that t soughtto set itself gainst.Marioreceived nd passedon to friendssuchas thepoetLuisAranha)works yBlaiseCendrars,MaxJacob,Apollinaire, octeau;and,as WilsonMartins ointsout, t was the French once again),whowerethetruemasters f BrazilianModernism.13YetMario didnotperceive his undamentalaradoxor contradictionin themovement,erhapsbecausethe mitationf FrenchmodelswassoingrainednthehistoryfBrazilian iteraturehattwasnotevenevident.On thecontrary,e wrotenan article or he Revista oBrasil,nAugust1923,that fter eingFrance's hadowfor lmost century,nd alwayslateshadow, hemodernists ad managedto breaktheir ependency yerasing he shadow: que,coisamilvezesdita, uranteuasesculo, omvariosustros e atraso,fomosurnasombrada Franca.Sombradoirada.Sempre ombra.Nos osmodernistas,uebramosnaturalvoluao.altamosustroseatraso,pagamosa sombra.Mas omos ojea vozbrasileirao coro 1923'emque entramodasas naoes[...] Serprecisonoutros asesbuscarnossaevoluao.Mas nempor ssodeixarmose sera voz brasileirao movimentoue hojese desenhauniversal.14Mario,then,thinks hat the shadowof FrancehangingoverBrazilianculturalifehad beenoverpoweredotby nother ation utby pluralityofthem,n which heBrazilian oicewouldhave ts ay. essradical n hisproject hantheAntropofagiaroposedbyOswalddeAndrade, hepluralworld nvisaged yMariopreserved rolefor he Brazilian oice' tobeheard. t is of nteresto askif thisprojectwouldstillhavesomevalidityin a worlddominatedbymass cultureproducedand distributedythe11Martins,. 155.


13/25

NOTES ON MARIO'S BRAZILIAN LANGUAGE 179UnitedStates.Could the Brazilian oice' still e heard?And whatwoulditsay?15It has to be clear, hough, hatMario was critical fprojects laiminga picturesque egionalisms nationalism. e wasequallycritical f thesocial regionalismf the socialists.He disliked he label ofnationalist,whichhaderroneouslyeenappliedto him.He felt ewasBrazilian nly,andpeoplewere onfusingoles.He wrote o Manuel Bandeira na letterof6April1927: J emosnacionalismo ordemais tao besta.Vao ulgarmeu livronacionalistareferringo Cl dojabuti], ue eu entrei ambmna onda,sem no terningum apaz de perceberurna ntenominha,que sou o que sou, nacionalistanao, pormbrasileiro etpour cause"desde Paulicia onde eu falava ue escrevia rasileiro' C340).Nationalist iteraturehad begun around 1916 and would growconsiderablyn volume in the 1920s and 1930s, stimulated y thepublication fessays nd studies n Brazilian ubjects. he concernwithlanguage, nd withwhatWilsonMartins alls linguistic ationalization',was constant hroughout.Modernism, herefore, ad not invented heidea of a national anguage; t merely adicalized t. Symbolic f thisprocesswas the planned Gramatiquinhaa fala brasileira,o be writtenbyMario de Andrade, boutwhichhe said: Avancei livro, verdade,mas nunca o escrevi.Anunciavao livropor me parecernecessario omovimentomoderno. ara darmais mportancias coisasque queramosdefender'.16The issue of the linguabrasileira aspartof a set ofideas seeking o'revealBrazil to the Brazilians', s the Revista o Brasil tated.17 hiswas Mario's purpose and thisprojectwould encompassnot onlyhispreoccupationwiththe Brazilian anguage,but also his concernfor,and his heroic effortso preserve, razilianmusic,folklore,mythology,architecturend art.

Yet, s saidabove,Mariosought odifferentiateimselfrom atrioticnationalisms. s he made clear,hisBrazilian anguagewasfoundedontheexpression f a psychologyather hanthe forging' f an artificialidentity.n an articleon ModernistArgentinean iterature,writtenin 1928, Mario significantlybservedthathe admittedthe politicalconceptofPtriabutfound trepugnant; e was a universalistnd wasnotsympatheticothenotionof LatinAmerica' ither:Repudiotodo equalquer"patriotismo"ue semanifesteoltica u idealisticamente...]Mas,todo e qualqueralastramento o conceitode ptria ue no abranjaa humanidadenteiramepareceodioso.Tenhohorror essahistoria e15 t must erecognized,hough,hat ncertainsolatedspects fBrazilianulture,his oes


14/25

l8o ELIDE VALARINI OLIVER"Amrica atina"muito gitadahoje em dia'.1 He is also critical f thewave of nationalismn Brazil: Nao careode argumentarom o Brasilque desandou para um nacionalismodesbragado, s vezes cado numpatriotismoe baff, ue afinalde contasainda a tolicedo "criana,nuncaverspasnenhum omo este" 19

Psychologynd Shadowv. the PatriotadaForMario,todoo brasileiro esejosode serbrasileiro,emde o sermaisou menos conscientemente'20.e had already eferred o theexpressionof a psychology,r the expression f a Brazilian oul. Therefore, uchexpressionmustbe a conscious effort nd it is in such a context hatthe notionof a Brazilian anguage is inserted.This is why,n writingaboutBandeira'spoetry,Mario foundfaultwith ertain xpressionshatBandeiraused, abelling hemLusitanisms.aking heparticular orthegeneral, nd superimposingn it theexpression f a psychology, ariodidnot notice hathisprojectwas as illusorys the abel of Lusitanismeappliedto some ofBandeira's hoices.As we have seen, Bandeira opposed the automatic ystematizationproposedbyMario,arguingfor the richness nd flexibilityf optionsBrazilians ad. Mariofailed o noticethatBandeirawasalreadysingthelingua rasileira.andeirahad made it clear thathe coulduse 'para' and'pr' and did not see anyreason to choosebetween hem.This is at theheart f the criticismne can make of Mario'sproject. f a Brazilian anuse both pequeo' and mirim',t s the ystematicnd automatic hoiceof the secondoptionthat,n itsmandatoryBrazilianism' illunderminethevery hing hatmakestheBrazilian anguagewhat t s: itsflexibility.And even fMariocondemned inguistic atriotismnd nationalism, isprojectwas caught n the very ontradictions e criticized lsewhere.Mario wantedto reflect ral Portuguese n written ortuguese, ut inorderto do so,he thought e needed to systematizehe anguage inotherwords,o make rbitraryhoices.Yetnationalism as lreadymakingthese choicesbysystematicallyhoosing he typical', he regional', he'picturesque razilian', esultingn an artificiallyonstructeddea of theBraziliananguage nd of Brazil tself. ven fMario nsisted n Brazilianpsychologys a cornerstonef sucha language, twasclearthathisprojectwouldbe hijackedbythe nationalists.18Mario eAndrade,Literatura odernistargentina',iarioNacionalSo Paulo),22April1928.ReproducednEmirRodrguez onegal,Mario eAndradeBorges:m ilogoos nos 0(So Paulo,Perspectiva,978),p. 74.


15/25

notes on mrio's Brazilian language 181Manuel, heLusitanianIn a letter romOctober 1924, Mario announces that he has finishedhisarticle, or he Revista oBrasil,boutBandeira.He thinks he articleis impressivend demands,okingly,hatBandeirawrite ack a coupleof insincere ines thankinghimfor his profound nderstandingf thepoet's verses.The article seeks to analyseBandeira'spoetry hroughthe individual,nd at the same timecollective,xperienceof lyricism,pointing o the fact hatBandeira'smetre s personal nd is better eadin silence than aloud. Mario thinks hat the book A Cinza das horas s

conventional,ut praisesCarnaval orthepoetry f experiencefoundthere;he udges thebook,however,nferior oRitmo issoluto.andeiraanswers n 18 December1924,acknowledging eceipt f theNovembernumber f heournal.He feels hepunch, utreacts na friendly anner,saying hat heanalysiswasreally ensational, 'sensational'hatchetob,and proposesto write counter-commentary,fMario s interested. n27 December 1924, he makesgood his promise,but notwithout irstobservinghatfMariohadread hisverses efore ublicationhevolumewouldhavecertainlyome out eanerbutmorebeautiful. andeira, hen,as promised, efutes ointbypointMario'sclaims.To theaccusation fLusitanism,ewrites:Influenciausitana. e fato.No desaparecer,reio.Norenunciournanfinidadede recursosxpressivoso portugusmoderno arcaico. O essencial que apareamnalinguagemomorecursos e expressortsticamyemphasis] Demais, voces do Sultiveramalemo o italianoara ontrabalanarinfluenciausa: Norte lcoumaisportugus.ortugus,e resto, ompletamentessimilado...] Depois,Mario, Brasil muito rande...]Facao favorambme isentarainfluencialusa 'Parfraseo Ronsard'. uistransporlingua ortuguesasabor rcaicodooriginalrancs...] Oito nosfaz uenao tevia'no absolutamenteaisfcil e dizer ue queteno via'. C 166)Evenwithout eadingMario'scriticism,t is easyforthereader to infer,through andeira's rgument,hatnhishaste odetect uspect usitanismsMario had piled up underthis abel a numberof disparate lements.Again,Bandeira susing heplausible rgumenthat, or estheticeasons,he is entitled o gleanmaterial rom he nfinityfexpressive esourcesavailable ohim,notonlynmodernbutalso inancientPortuguese. hisisclearlyhecase withhispoem Parfrase e Ronsard'wherehe soughttouse French rchaismsn orderto render hepoemmorecredible sa paraphrase.Mario wouldhave none of that: Censuroe continuo acensurar "Parfrase o Ronsard".Gnerofalso de fazerversos nofazer oesia. poeticee no lirismo. errofundamental, erro stemfazer


16/25

l82 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERAmoretelling xample nvolvesheword tapa' in thepoem Acanaodas lgrimasde Pierrot'where Bandeirarhymes socapa' with urnatapa'. ForMario, tapa' in the femininewas a Lusitanism,ut Bandeiraobserves hatntheNortheastBandeirawasfrom ernambuco, ut ivedinRio deJaneiro) twascustomaryosayurna apa'and adds: Atapadosmeusversos provincianismo,o lusitanismo'C 166).Mario,nhisresponse, ries o saveface nd soften iscriticismy ayingthat Bandeirashould have noticedthat he had made a 'psychologicalobservation ot a censure' (C 171-72).21 But thiswas not completelytrue.Mario, t this ime,wasdeeply nvolvedwith he ssue of thelinguabrasileirand morepredisposed o findfault, speciallyf this nvolveda pronominalnversion.n theverse Oito anos fazque te no via',herefused o see themusicalityandeiraclaimed, nsistinghat f thepoethimself ad failedto see that t had no suchquality,twasonlybecausehe was muito usitano'.Another ensure ame withd'ao', whichMariofound absolutely seless'and 'absolutely usitanian'.Although e likedthe diminutivesn Bandeira,he also foundfaultwithBandeira'susage,pointing ut thathe formed hem ccording othePortuguese orm ndnot theBrazilian,which,n hisopinion,was sweeter:Bodezinhoprnos

viroubodinho, ue urnamaravilha a que nada se comparano mundodas lnguasque conheo. engraado,agora que comeo a escreverbrasileiro, enhousado urnaquantidadeenormede diminutivos. ocecompreende: gentenao pode fingir ue fala brasileiro ...] E precisosentirbrasileiro ambm'.Yet,thePortuguese endto use diminutivesmuch less thanBraziliansdo. Nonetheless, ven criticizing andeira,Mario ttributedohimthe nfluence iminutivesad in his ownwork.tis nterestingo notice s well hatnhisRaizes oBrasil,ergioBuarquedeHolanda - certainlybsorbing he Modernist ultural ontext,ndverylikely rounding iscommentarynBandeira ndMario broached heissueof the diminutivess a cultural rait efining razilians:Sabemoscomo frequente,ntre ortugueses, zombarem e certos busosdessenosso apego aos diminutivos,busos to ridculospara eles quanto o paranos,muitas ezes, pieguice usitana,acrimosa amarga.'22It sonlyater hatMariohalf-heartedlyecognized is wn xaggerationsconcerninghis criticismsbout Bandeira,aware,bythen,thathe hadprojectedhis own ghostson to Bandeira'swork: No tempoem queescrevi obrevoce, eu estavaobcecado pela minha ibertaao.No fuiinjusto, uideficiente o salientars qualidades' (C 210).2321Allthe uotationsre fromMario'setter.


17/25

NOTES ON MARIO'S BRAZILIAN LANGUAGE 183PersonalStyle nd NationalLanguageAnalysinghepoeticwork fMariodeAndrade, hecritic uis CostaLimadoes not broach theissue of the Brazilian anguage,but does note theuse of colloquialisms',ncluding headoptionofBandeira'sdiminutives.He points ut that he use of thecolloquial nMario'swork s the mostcertainwayto penetrate he emotions he poetwants o express.Theevolution f thecolloquial nMario'sbooks, speciallyfterCadojabuti,communicates 'viso abrandada' of the present.24 et,even withoutengagingwith he ssue ofMario'sBraziliananguage,Costa Limapointsoutthe imitationsf hiscolloquialisms,nd hisremarks an be appliedto the imits f the anguageproject s well.It waswithMacunaima,ublishedn 1928,thatMariowouldprovidelesscategoricnd farmore nterestingortraitf hisBraziliananguage.Because he de-regionalizedrazil, n itsgeography,tstraditions,nd itscustoms,he managedto condense into one symbol he complexities,paradoxesand contradictions f the Braziliancharacter r rather, sMario himself anted, he SouthAmerican.25n thisbook,Mario attainsa powerfulsomorphism,hich mpartsoherence, eauty,trengthndequilibrium o his Brazilian anguage.He managesto blend a rangeof varieties f speeches,from paulists'to 'italians';fromTupi toAfricananguages.2The differenceetween he anguageo Macunaimaand the linguabrasileirahatMarioused elsewhere xposesnot onlyaparadox,buta completenversion fparadigmnvolvinghe reasonswhyone triumphednd the otherfailed.Macunaimawas a careful estheticelaboration, esulting rom reative nd associative ndeavours,whicheschewedmechanical,systematic sages. Its language is a symboliccondensation, creationwhich elongs o no specific egion r realplaceandwhich annot xist xcept nliterature.

As Wilson Martinsobserves, f Macunaima s the culminationofa demand for a national language, 'like all intellectual research",the languageof Macunaima s not spoken by anyBrazilian'.Actually,Brazilianshave a hard timetryingo understandt. The languageof24LuisCostaLima,Lira eAntiliraRiodeJaneiro: opbooks, 995),pp. 70, 71, 75, 77 etpassim.25SeeCavalcantiroena, oteiroeMacunaimaSo Paulo:Anhembi,q^v), p. 236-37.2 It s nterestingoobserve hat he spects andeiramost riticizednthebookwouldmakesense fheweremore amiliar ithhe haracteristicsfMenippeanatire,hegenre o whichthebookbelongs.He didnot ikethefragmentaryspects fsomechapters,ortheparodycontainednthe hapterCarta rscamiabas'letterf31October 927,C358),whereMariocreates fineinguisticastiche,usinghe rchaic ortuguesefthe arlyravellersith therformsfpretentiouslevatedanguage. hechapteranbe read syet nother ormf


18/25

184 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERthe book is the language of 'all the Indians,all the Negroes,all theimmigrants,nd the remembrancefall theepochs, ll theactivities,lltheregions ...] No Brazilian s ikelyorecognizehimselfnMacunaima;just as no Frenchman s likely o recognizehimselfn Pantagruel. et,wouldPantagruelnd Macunaima, or his eason,be lessrepresentativeof theirnationality?'27

LiteratureWrittenn Brazil, or Brazilian Literature?There is a marked difference etween the Mario de Andrade of thebeginning f the1920s, nd thewriter,ho n 1929,writeso Bandeira:Agora naocareomais isso toenforcerazilianisms]E atreconheoueumbocadode aguafra a fervurarasileirsticaao farmal.Eu tenhomuitaculpade tudo quesucedeu se tivessemaginadouea modaficavaamanhade certo ue haviade sermaismoderado...]mastambmorcar notaemsentidontibrasileiro,ssonofaomesmo. noto uevoces sto atigadosoma brasileiricestapafrdiainha de muitos...]vocs queestonuma eaaofalsantinacional,ndividualistaromntica.C424) 2As WilsonMartins bserves,he1930sproduced generation f nferiorprose writerswhose linguistic ationalismwas reduced,at best,to aroughknowledge f the languageand at worst, o an evident ack ofknowledge. heirswasthe creation f a 'socialnovel'directlyransposedfrom ife and withno aesthetic ensibility.29he future ffects f thiscurrentwerealready eltbyMarioin 1929. The tendencywouldreignforpractically decade,whenaestheticismrevailed gain,representedbytheGeneration f1945,with he inguisticirtuosityfJoaoCabraideMelo NetoandJooGuimaresRosa,amongothers.Mario de Andradehimself,writingbout the Modernistmovementtwentyearsater, ommentsn theproject fthe ingua rasileiran theseterms:27Martins,. 208.Letterf 1July929.MariowriteshisnresponseoBandeira'setterf17June 929,wherehe sends wo fhis ranslationsfElizabeth arrettrowningcalling erfamiliarlyD. BelinhaBarreto')written ith 'taste fclassical' ortuguese. e also observes,n thesame etter,thatMario'sA HistoriaaMsica s excellent,ut he didn't ikethe indiscreetrazilianisms,purposefullyritten,utrageousronoun lacementsitgivesme anurge owrite 5th enturyPortuguese)C422). Inhisreply, ario bserveshat andeira'sranslationsadno taste fclassical' ortuguese,heywere imply onderful,eautifulranslations,ell-writtenonnetsandexplains:Nuncaporcausadomeubrasileirismo,e desautorizeiegostar as coisas oasemqualqueringua,entimentoamor,eumano.Assimomovocenuncameviugostarumacoisa porque diabameaparecia estida rasileiramente...] Quandome senti screvendo


19/25


20/25

l86 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERlegitimateBraziliancharacteristicshan any designed ones. Instead,theydedicatedthemselves o the construction f a national identity'which, s with nyother onstructioneekinghomogeneity,asarbitraryand artificial. he searchfor identities' s often symptom,nd theobliterationf differencesn favour f a homogenousBrazilian dentityresultednsheerfalsification.his s notwhatMario de Andradewished,butwhenhe suggestshatBandeira houldexpurgate usitanisms,e is,unfortunately,ovingnthatdirection.It is helpfulto differentiateetween Portuguese'and 'Lusitanian',twoneighbouring otions,whichare not,however, he same. In thecontextused byMario,even thoughhe nevergetsto definethem assuch, t s clearthathe doesmake a distinction.or Brazilians oexpressthemselvess 'Lusitanians'wouldmean,forMario, oexpress hemselvesthrough falsificationeneratedbythe hiatusbetweenpsychologyndlanguage, s we haveseen.However,hePortuguese xpress hemselveslikePortuguese nd not Lusitanians' ecause there s no expressive apbetween heir sychologynd its xpression. et,whenBrazilians xpressthemselves ith orrowed orms,hismplies usitanism.The Portuguese rom ortugal annot thenbe taken s theparadigmof the 'correctnorm'. For historical, eographical, ocial and culturalreasons,Brazil developed a parallel norm whichoriginatedwiththePortuguesefromPortugalbut which,along the way,modifiedandenriched tselfwithother inguistic ontributionsn a mannerthat tmadeit mpossible orBrazilians ogoback and copy heoriginalmodel.The factwas,however,hat he conservativelites n Brazilwere ttachedto thismodel.From political ointofview, his ttachment ouldonlyadd insultto injury nd provethis class to be alienatedfrom ts owncountrynd culture.Nevertheless,he same typeof criticismould bemadeagainstGallicismsnd theFrench ulturalnfluence.It snoteworthyhatMariopreferso usethe erm razilianpsychology'insteadof identity'. he latterwasalready suspicious erm orhim,clichmuchusedbynationalistdeologues, othfrom herightnd left.Mariopreferredpsychology' ecause this nvolved haracter raits ndcomplexcharacteristics,hile the notionof 'identity', speciallyn itspolitical onception, eferredand still oes) to a constructed,ften alsesense ofunanimity,rojected, abricatednd imposedbygroups, ndengineered y ocialpolitics.Still one has to ask if thishiatusbetweenpsychologynd languageMario detectedwas valid. The colonial phase of Brazilian iteraturedifferentiatestself rom uropebyvariousgaps'.Among hem, hemostobvious s the temporalgap,whichcaused Europeanmodelsto arrive


21/25

NOTES ON MARIO'S BRAZILIAN LANGUAGE 187variedwithdifferenthases and individuals,ccording o a greater rlesser bsorption fEuropeanmodels;Arcadianism s a good exampleofa relativelyarrower ariation etweenEurope and Brazil.However,as Antonio Cndido observed n his Formaao a Literatura rasileira:'ImitarVirgilio, nao apenas participar, or exemplo,na orderndevalores riadosporele,mas tambm ssegurar m instrumentoiterarioj verificado o trabalho a criao.A conformidadeom o modelo oorgulhodo escritor eoclssico, quem parecera stulta pretensao eoriginalidade os romnticos pr-romnicos'.31And he adds that nthecase ofBrazil, he doption f classical diom nabled theexpressionofboth heculturalontrast,rovided y he ocalcomponent,ndoftheEuropeanmodels towhichtheBrazilian ntellectual elonged.He alsoobserves:O poetaolhavapelajanela,viao monstruosoequitib,uspiravaante "agrosseria asgentes" punharesolutamentem freixo opoema;e faziabem,porquea esttica egundo quai compunha xigia imitaaoda Antiguidade, raas quai, dentre s brenhasmineiras, omunicavaespiritualmenteomo VelhoMundoe davacategoriaiteraria produaobruxuleante a sua terra'.32One can see, bothbyMario's interpretationnd Cndido's criticalobservation,hat it was reallyboth tendenciesthatformedBrazilianliterature.Mario had praisedthe Romantics orhavingforgottenhePortuguesemodel,taking step n theright irection. ndidopondersthat iteraryxpression oes notalways ispensewithmodels,nor does ithaveto. TheAchilles eel ofMario's rgumentsthat, ltimately,othingin literature appenswithout model of some kind;and ifhe wereagainst hePortuguese nd theFrenchmodels,forreasons of culturaldomination,twould be only matter ftime,hypohe ically,ortheseto be replacedbyothers,uch as thenational nes,verynfluentialn allparts f theAmericas.Two Differentpproaches:Mario de Andrade ndJorge uisBorgesWritingboutthedissimilarityetweenArgentinesnd Brazilians,Marioobserved hat heformerlreadyhad an unconscious ense ofwhotheywere,whileBrazilianshad to forcethemselves o consciously orgeaBrazilianness:Ora a confanca o argentino a insegurana o brasileirocaracterizam jeito diferente om que esto sendo tratadas s falasnacionais'.33

31AntonioCndido,Formaao a Literaturarasileira:Momentosecisivos,vols (Rio deJaneiro:


22/25

l88 ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERYet Mario could not follow he discussion nwhichJorgeLuis Borgesproposed to tackle the issues of tradition,anguage and nationality.Borges aw the ssue of Argennidad' in a quitedistinctmanner.n anarticlefrom1927, 'El idioma de los argentinos', orgesobserves hatthe difference etween heSpanish anguage n Spain and thatof theArgentines resents discreet hangeofshades, ut thatdoes not meanprivatewords which the Spanish are not capable of understanding,but rathera differencen register,n the ironic or intimate tampArgentines mprint n some words,theirtemperature. ccordingto

Borges,Argentines o not change the intrinsic ense of the wordsbuttheir onnotations,o thatwords ike arrabal ndpampa annotbe felt ySpaniards.34We could see in this n approximationo Mario'spsychologicalxpression.Still, he differencen tone betweenBorges nd Mario s evident.WhenMariospeaks bout his linguabrasileira,ven n hiscorrespondencewithBandeira,he speaksfor a wholeaudience; it is programmatic.orges,instead,writes or ndividuals.Was Mariorightbout the relativeerenityof the unconsciousArgentinidad'rarewecapableof ensingt becauseit sBorgeswriting?The divergencefapproachbetweenMario's nd Borges's iews ouldnot be deeper.Borgesnever ejects eninsular panish n thewayMariorejects usitanisms.orhim,what s Spanish s no lessArgentinianhanthe 'gauchesco'. Sometimes, ven more so. 'La preferencia istematicay ciega my emphasis] por las locuciones nativasno dejara de ser unpedantismode nueva clase; un equvoco diferente un otro tipo demal-gusto'.35orges s pointing ut something hatBandeira,with essemphasis utwith qual aestheticccuracy, ad alreadyndicated.In another ssay, amouslyttacking ationalism,orgeswriteshatla idea de que una literature ebe definirse orlos rasgosdiferencialesel pasque la producees una idea relativamenteueva;tambin s nuevayarbitrariaaidea de que losescritores ebenbuscar emasde suspases.Sin rms ejos,creoque Racineni siquierahubiera ntendido una personaque le hubiesenegadosu derecho l ttulo e poetafrancs orhaber buscadotemasgriegosy atinos.Creo que Shakespeare e habraasonbradosi hubieranpretendido imitarlotemasngleses e le hubiesendichoque,como nglsno tenaderecho escribirHamlet,e tema scandinavo, Macbeth,e temaescocs.3The gistof the argument s compelling, ince it touches the heartof the nationalist laim;it showsthatgreat iterature as no need of'national dentity'. he extension fBorges'sargument emindsus of

34Torce uisBorges El idioma e losargentinos'BuenosAires:Gleizes, 928),p. 178.


23/25

notes on mrio's Brazilian language 189AntonioCndido s own ine ofreasoning bout themaking f Brazilianliterature.For Borges, heArgentinianradition s 'toda la culturaoccidental'.He also advances he notion hat outhAmericansngeneral an handleall Europeanthemeswithmuch more freedom. iting n article ytheAmerican ociologist horsteinVeblen about thepre-eminencefJewsinWesternulture, orgesunderlines he fact hat hispre-eminencesnotcongenital r inherited,ut results rom hefact hat hey ct nsidethisculture nd 'al mismotiempono se sienten tados a ella por unadevocin special'.37 he same can be saidabout the rish, orwhom lesbast el echo de sentirserlandeses, istintos,ara inovar n la culturainglesa.Creo que los argentinos,os sudamericanos n general, stamosen una situacin nloga; podemos manejartodos os temaseuropeus,manejarlos insupersticiones,on una irreverenciaue pude tener, yatiene, onsecuencias fortunadas'.3Evenknowinghat he nxietyoncerninghe ingua rasileiraadgonetoofar, reating 'piracema-mirime modismos' nd that heproblemof abrasileirar Brasil'was not a questionofcollecting, malgamatingand stylizingregionalismos auchos, caipiras, praieiros,nordestinosou tapuios',39Mariocould not abandon the dea ofcreating nationalculture, nd within t, a Brazilian anguage,its proper portrait ndreflection. ariowas not able to see thathisprojectwas notconceptualbutmythical,ndyet,twaswhendealing estheticallyith tsmyths asin thewritingf Macunaima thathe obtained glimpse fwhatthisportraitould be. It could onlybe individual nd couldonlybe realizedthroughn aesthetic laboration fmyth.It is ironic that t is only n present-dayrazil,with tsuncultivatedmasses abandoned bythe elites and lacking n education,but wellsupportedby mass media and populistculturalpolicies seekingtopander, ajole and 'reflect' hem thatwe arefinallyeaching linguabrasileira.his s a language, hough, hathasnothing o do withMario'sEnlightenmentroject; ndeed, t s a 'language'thatwouldhorrifyimas a degenerationfthevery razilian ulturehe wanted opromote.Borges's bservationoncerning hejews, he rish ndSouthAmericansis profound nd pregnantwithconsequences,but it is also cheerfullycast aside bythepromoters f national or group dentities. hus, it isworthwhilensistingn theconsequences fhisobservation.razil'smostpromoted ultural rait, nown s Antropofagia thecapacity o digestalien enemies ndtransformheir trengthntoone'sown alsoimpliesthecapacity fbeingboth nsiders nd outsiders,bserved yBorges n


24/25

go ELIDE VALARINI OLIVERthe rish, heJews nd SouthAmericans. his also means that n ordertoexpress hemselves,hesepeoples,Braziliansncluded,do not need tocreate 'language'in order to reflect' heirpsychological xpression'.This salready oneby heveryonditionsnwhich hesepeople navigatetheirnheritedraditions,urope ncluded.Mario failedto recognize his.He also failed to recognizethatwhatcharacterized he Brazilian norm (and culture) was a plurality fregisters,ral and written,nd that thisvery lexibilityouldpreventany ystematization,akingt mpossible o establish ruleto demarcatewhatwas Brazilian'fromwhatwas Lusitanian'or French.The illusionof bridging he gap betweenspoken and writtenanguage was alsoresponsiblefor the creationof a mechanical,ersatzanguage whoselimitations ariohimselfwasobligedto admit.As a linguistic nap-shotthat apturednwritinghevery luidityf oralexpressions, is anguagecould nothelpbutmerely egisterheepochinwhich t had been taken,and nowadays,t bearsthe characteristicepia ofbygonemementoes.twasonlywhen Mariomade hisproject estheticallyiable thathe couldtranscend he boundariesof the taskhe had sethimself,nd thus riseabovehisself-imposedimitations.UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIAAT SANTABARBARA


25/25

Copyright of Portuguese Studies is the property of Modern Humanities Research Association and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

mario,t he braziliana nd

Documents