Corporate groups and institutions in the Portuguese empire bound society together and placed all men within the social cosmography. Among these institutions perhaps none was more active or interesting than the multifunctional religious brotherhoods, and of these none possessed more prestige or power than the Holy House of Mercy. A. J. R. Russell-Wood has chosen the Santa Casa da Misericórdia of Bahia as the focal point of this stimulating study and has produced an excellent analysis of the structure and varied roles of that body. He has also attempted to use his data on the Misericórdia as the basis for a broader study of Bahian social history. Fidalgos and Philanthropists must be evaluated at these two levels, institutional analysis and general social history.
The opening chapters review the origins of social welfare in Portugal, how the Misericórdia of Lisbon was created, and most important, what was contained in its code of operations, the Compromisso of 1516. This code served as a model for the various colonial branches, which the author then discusses. After setting the scene in a chapter on the geography, ethnic composition, and early history of Bahia, Russell-Wood follows the Misericòrdia of Bahia from its inception (1549-1552) to its moribund state in 1755. These chapters form the core of the study.
Drawing heavily on the little-used and poorly organized archive of the Misericórdia (but not on Portuguese materials), Fidalgos and Philanthropists opens our eyes to a whole new historical world. Here is the life cycle of colonial Brazilians as reflected in the records of the seemingly omnipresent Misericòrdia. The topics treated are mundane—doweries and marriage, foundlings, prisons, hospitals, burials, and charity—but it is exactly this everyday quality that makes these matters so interesting and pertinent. Without resorting to romantic quaintness this book gives us a feel for the past by presenting the underside of colonial life. Unfortunately, available sources throw little light on the first century of the Misericórdia’s history, but the more abundant materials on the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries have been put to good use. The expansion of social welfare functions and the parallel decline in the Misericórdia’s financial solvency and prestige in the eighteenth century are well documented. Moreover, because of the charitable brotherhood’s custom of distinguishing between brothers of “higher” and “lower” condition, Russell-Wood can trace trends of change within the social structure of Bahia by analyzing the brotherhoods’ membership. As a history of the Misericordia this is indeed a fine piece of scholarship.
But a problem remains. Details about the Misericórdia can often illuminate but seldom explain the larger social process. Like an image in a broken mirror, the parts are there but somehow never quite fit together. First, the sources impose limitations. Few references to Indians in the brotherhood records lead to a light treatment in the book, but do not necessarily mean that Indians failed to play a significant role in the history of Bahia. Next, and more serious, some problems are not raised. In good Boxerian neo-abolitionist style Russell-Wood amasses a great many data showing the pervasiveness of ethnic and racial prejudice in all aspects of Bahian life. But while documenting this phenomenon the author also shows that mulattos, New Christians, and freedmen could better themselves socially and economically. He does not link the two. One might ask, moreover, whether the evidence of discrimination is an index not only of the deteriorating human spirit of white Old Christians but also of improving conditions among those less ethnically and racially “pure.”
The difficulties created by generalizing from a somewhat limited base can be seen in the way the author sets forth one of his major themes. Russell-Wood notes that a change took place in the nature of Bahian society during the eighteenth century, as power shifted from the planters to the merchants. He documents this change through alterations in the membership structure of the Misericórdia and through the fact that many public officials held the important brotherhood post of Provedor in this period, as the planters withdrew and before the merchants could assume these duties. Surely a change took place, but because the records of the Misericórdia are not fully revealing, the change can only be noted and not explained. Important questions are never raised. For example, did the planters lose control in Salvador as the result of a struggle with the commercial elements ? Or did they simply find it more profitable to control the newly-created towns, like Sergipe do Conde, which began to play an important role in the Reconcavo at this time? Moreover, the author himself tells us that considerable fusion took place between the agricultural and mercantile sectors. How did this mitigate the transfer of power? As for the public officials, every magistrate who served as Provedor was Brazilian-born or married to a Brazilian, usually a planter’s daughter. The power of the planters probably receded at a much slower rate than this book would indicate.
Russell-Wood has cast his net over many topics, and his book is filled with insights about the Portuguese and Spanish empires, as well as Brazil and the Misericórdia. Some of his generalizations will not stand close scrutiny, but despite such reservations there should be no doubt that this is a first-class study of the Misericórdia, an important contribution to Latin American historiography, and a suggestive though not definitive survey of Brazilian social history.
