This is the second edition of Gilberto Freyre’s Quase político. The first edition appeared in 1950, and consisted of ten items (nove discursos e uma conferência), all of which are to be found in the present volume. The volume begins with a flattering twenty-four page introduction by Munhoz da Rocha, Professor of Anthropology in the Federal University of Paraná. It continues with nineteen discursos, two conferêndos, and an appendix.

The discursos are more or less extended remarks by Freyre in the Brazilian National Chamber of Deputies during his term as deputy from Pernambuco, 1946-1950, and include apartes by Luís Carlos Prestes, Paul Pilla and other notables. Of the two conferências, one was given at the death of Ulysses Pernambuco de Mello; the other was in honor of Joaquim Nabuco. The appendix is an essay on the subject of the relation of the Armed Forces and other forces relative to national security and development. It is based upon two speeches given in 1965 and in essence defends the military intervention of April 1964.

Most of the material in the discursos is of ephemeral interest and shows Freyre as able, suave in compliments, and, for an academic, adroit in debate. In the two conferências, his florid style, familiar to readers of Casa Grande e Senzala, seems well suited to the subjects at hand. An example is a sentence from his speech honoring the centenary of Joaquim Nabuco: (He is referring to Nabuco’s patrono de Academia e mestre, Antônio Peregrino Maciel Monteiro, the Baron of Itamaracá) “If the title of fidalgo did not free the illustrious mestizo of the malicious nickname of ‘bode cheiroso,’ it augmented his prestige among the women who wore dresses of silk, glad to be courted by barons, even mestizos.”

The essay takes the form of an answer to American (North American) critics of the new Brazilian order; he calls these Americans “innocents,” and states categorically that to speak of Brazilian militarism is “simply ridiculous.” He characterizes as ingenuous those who believe the “demagogic fictions” of Alceu Amorosa Lima, and says that they lack familiarity with the history of Brazil. He is much kinder in his assessment of the work of Americans such as John J. Johnson and Edwin Lieuwen, and quotes with approval a comment of Frank Tannenbaum in Ten Keys to Latin America that the army in both Argentina and Brazil was “the only secular institution that has had a national outlook.” He does go on to say that he is not “one of those who is ashamed of compromises of an ethical character.” Byzantine (his word) might be the best description of Freyre as he considers the current clash of interests in Brazil.