Recent interest in Soviet approaches to Latin American history suggests a healthy broadening of scholarly horizons. Initial surveys by Western Hemisphere scholars have provided useful introductions to a rapidly expanding Soviet bibliography in this and other related fields, as well as guidelines for further investigation.1 These studies have also given rise to potentially advantageous intellectual debate between Latin Americanists of two opposing historical views.2 In the main, however, they have placed undue stress on the political and ideological aspects of Soviet writings, to the neglect of scholarly considerations. Given these short-comings in the available critical literature, together with the growing interest of American scholars in the activities of their Russian colleagues, a more considered appraisal of Soviet contributions to Latin American historiography seems now in order.
In recent years Soviet researchers have made numerous contributions to the study of Latin American history. The growing quantity of articles, monographs and edited works currently appearing in the USSR graphically attests to this fact.3 The quality of this scholarship is uneven, and it has made few solid interpretative contributions. Of ultimately greater significance, however, is the very recognition of Latin American history by the Soviet academic community as a legitimate, even important field of scholarly endeavor. For the first time in Russian academic history one observes an organized effort to train professionally competent Latin Americanists, with fruitful results already evident. Textbooks have begun to appear;4 Soviet universities and other institutions of higher learning offer a growing selection of related courses; and increasing numbers of students now pursue graduate work in Latin American history.5 Further, Soviet historians have made valuable documentary contributions to the field, bringing to light a significant body of hitherto unknown Russian sources which bear on Latin America from the late eighteenth to the mid-twentieth century.6
An examination of Soviet historical writings on Brazil offers a convenient way to approach the question of Soviet scholarship on Latin America as a whole. Taken in its full scope, the broader topic could not be treated adequately in an article of this length. Within the more restricted perspective of Brazilian history, however, one can still examine a number of recurrent themes, which, in effect, have come to constitute the main conceptual concerns of Soviet Latin Americanists.
The systematic study of Latin American history has emerged only recently in the USSR. Although numerous writings were produced in the early years of the Soviet regime,7 they rarely treated of historical themes, and, in general, fell below present standards of scholarship.8 In the early 1930s a section of South American and Caribbean studies was created within the then Institute of World Economics and Polities of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Only then did Soviet academicians take an initial, albeit hesitant step to train specialists in the Latin American area.9 With few exceptions, however, the fledgling specialists failed to produce published research of much quality.10 Indeed, during the first ten years of its existence (1936-1945), the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences did not sponsor a single monograph or survey work on Latin America.11 Historical scholarship further suffered in this period from the stifling political directives of Joseph Stalin, who, in the words of one Soviet scholar, “prevented historians from analyzing in detail the complex socio-economic and political development of the different Latin American states.”12 The outbreak of war in June 1941 brought academic endeavors to a virtual standstill, as students and scholars alike diverted their energies to national defense.13 Among those killed in the fighting was V. M. Miroshevskii (1900-1942), regarded by Russian historians today as the initiator of serious Soviet scholarship in Latin American history.14
Following the war, Soviet Latin Americanists accomplished little until the twentieth congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, held in February 1956. Dismissing the intellectual timidity of the Stalin era as a “cult of personality alien to Marxism-Leninism,” party officials exhorted Soviet scholars to be creative Marxist-Leninists in their approaches to the study of human history.15 Subsequent congresses of the CPSU, together with international Communist and labor meetings held in the Soviet capital, provided further direction to historical scholarship. Party ideologists urged academicians to trace the historical roots of labor and national liberation movements throughout the world and to relate the findings of their research to the general development of Marxism-Leninism.16 In the case of Latin America, historians were now to concern themselves with the origins of current socio-economic turmoil, placing particular emphasis on the independence movement of the early nineteenth century.17 Imperialism, neocolonialism, and the role of foreign capital, too, constituted themes of immediate interest, as did the rise of organized labor groups, the growth of Marxist circles, and the impact of the Russian October Revolution on Latin America. It was perhaps a natural result of this orientation that cultural, economic, and political ties between Latin America and Imperial Russia received considerable attention. All of these themes are present in Soviet historical literature on Brazil.
The theoretical framework of the Soviet historian, of course, rests on the precepts of historical materialism.18 Accordingly, he seeks above all to study, trace, and describe the productive forces in a society, together with the historical evolution of these forces and their relationship to that society’s institutional superstructure. His approach to periodization stems from the view that history is the inevitable movement of mankind from a primitive communal order through a succession of internally disjunctive class societies to a socialist order, and ultimately to the all-embracing communist society envisioned by Karl Marx.19 Within this deterministic framework, however, there is much room for variation. While the dialectic of historical materialism may govern the over-all evolution of humanity, it does not necessarily determine specific historical realities.20 To argue otherwise would encourage interpretive subjectivity, and no one, it is held, “can tolerate a subjective approach to history, nor to the appraisal of concrete historical facts and of individual historical personalities.”21
Finally, there are pragmatic and cultural dimensions to Soviet historical literature which relate only tangentially to Marxism-Leninism. By Soviet definition the historian is a political being, in the sense that he is called upon to insure the formulation of state policies, both domestic and foreign, in accord with “the objectively perceived laws of history.”22 Indeed, the treatment of basic national interests tends to accommodate objectivity to geopolitical realities. Here the Soviet historian differs little from his colleagues abroad. Beyond this, however, lies an apparent need to claim for Soviet society a chosen place in the history of human progress. Ideological hostility to the economic exploitation of mankind and an attendant interest in subject peoples, together with an incessant desire to affirm the legitimacy of the Soviet order, have engendered a parallel enmity toward the cultural imperialism of Western capitalism. Such antipathies have led to attacks on cultural “Eurocentrism”23 and repeated insistence on bonds of ideological affinity between the “progressive” elements of Russian society and their oppressed contemporaries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These characteristics in turn have imparted a distinctively “national” style to Soviet historical scholarship. Soviet writings on Latin American history bear this distinctive stamp.
Soviet historical literature on Brazil, still modest in output, dates almost entirely from the postwar period.24 The first comprehensive work to appear was a collaborative volume published in 1962 under the title Essays in Brazilian History.25 In ten chapters the authors discuss the salient features of Brazilian history from the colonial period through the empire and down to the present. An eleventh chapter traces the evolution of historical scholarship in Brazil. It is followed by a chronology of events and a lengthy bibliography. The latter includes numerous primary source materials and foreign secondary works, as well as Russian-language materials and a selection of writings from Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
In 1961, A. N. Glinkin published a book entitled The Recent History of Brazil, 1939-1959.26 Limited in scope, this monograph discusses economic development and class conflict in Brazil during the Second World War and the postwar period. Glinkin also examines in considerable detail the domestic and foreign policies of Presidents Vargas, Dutra, and Kubitsehek. The book contains a varied bibliography of primary and secondary sources.
A second major collaborative work appeared in 1963 under the title Brazil. Economics, Politics, Culture.27 Introductory in nature, this volume contains 23 essays on general questions of economies, politics, culture, and Russo-Brazilian relations. Eleven of the twelve articles on culture were written by Brazilians, including one on architecture by Oscar Niemeyer. Two articles are of interest to the historian, one on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century cultural contacts between Russia and Brazil,28 the other on Brazilian studies in the USSR.29
In 1959 the N. N. Miklukho-Maklai Institute of Ethnography published a two-volume study entitled “The Peoples of America,” the second volume of which includes a general survey of Brazilian society.30 The colonial period is outlined in chapter two by S. Brandão and Z. S. Chernov. These same two contributors discuss nineteenth- and twentieth-century Brazil in chapter seventeen.31
In addition to these initial publications, one should note three unpublished theses prepared by candidates at Moscow State University and the USSR Academy of Sciences. The first was completed in 1956 by ZH. A. Bazarian32 and deals with philosophy, social thought, and ideological polemic in twentieth-century Brazil.33 The other two theses were completed in 1958. One was prepared by A. M. Khazanov on separatist movements in colonial Brazil.34 The other, by B. I. Koval, is an investigation of class conflict in Brazil following the depression of 1929.35
What is apparently the only doctoral dissertation to date in Brazilian history was completed in 1963 by A. N. Glinkin. Entitled “The Principal Stages and Features of Brazil’s Historical Development during the World War and the Postwar Period (1939-1961),”36 it evidently grew out of Glinkin’s earlier work on recent Brazilian history.37 The author focuses on Brazil as a recipient of socialist and anti-imperialist currents generated in the world at large by the emergence of the socialist bloc and the rapid decline of colonialism. He also examines the increased political role of the popular masses and traces the tactical maneuvers of the Partido Comunista do Brasil. Glinkin successfully defended his dissertation before the Academic Council of the Latin American Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences.38
The scope of Soviet research in Brazilian history becomes clearer upon an examination of relevant contributions to edited works and scholarly journals. As might be expected, these are greater in number than monographic studies and treat in more detail various themes of predictable interest to Soviet historians. Articles published since 1958 range over a variety of topics, including colonial antecedents of independence,39 the motive forces of independence itself,40 the relationship of Brazilian plantation slavery to capital accumulation in western Europe,41 socio-economic change in nineteenth-century Brazil,42 national integration,43 the ethnohistory of the Amazon basin,44 Brazilian involvement in the River Plate following the Paraguayan War,45 the rise of organized labor and Marxist groups,46 nineteenthcentury economic ties between Brazil and Imperial Russia,47 the establishment of Russo-Brazilian diplomatic relations,48 and the impact of the Russian October Revolution on twentieth-century Brazil.49 In dealing with the numerous problems of more recent Brazilian history, Soviet scholars have written on class and revolutionary strife between the two world wars,50 the effect of inflation on the economic position of Brazilian labor,51 and the presidential crisis of August-September 1961.52
Four articles of a biographical nature have appeared on Brazilian intellectuals. The first, written by ZH. A. Bazarian, discusses Tobias Barreto (1836-1889), a prominent thinker from Recife whom the author sees as having made a significant contribution to philosophical and social thought in nineteenth-century Brazil.53 Bazarian argues that Barreto was the only intellectual to exercise real influence on his enlightened contemporaries, for he added ideological momentum to the abolitionist movement and stimulated the spread of materialistic thought in Portuguese America.54 The second article, also by Bazarian, deals with Euclides da Cunha (1866-1909) and is similar in approach.55 Da Cunha, however, becomes more important than Barreto because Bazarian sees him as one of the first serious exponents of socialism to appear in Brazil. Intellectually he was a product of the late Empire and the early Republic, a period, writes Bazarian, when socialist thought was largely eclectic, and progressive Brazilians drew from Marx and Engels, as well as from Bakunin, Fourier, and Proudhon. The Canudos uprising of 1896 was the circumstantial event that caused Da Cunha’s thought to jell in its socialist mold, as evidenced by Os Sertões, “one of the first works to reflect the awakening of Latin America’s popular masses.”56 The remaining two articles, both written by D. A. D’iakonov, treat Lima Barreto (1881-1922) as an early adherent to the ideals of the Russian October Revolution.57
In each of these studies the effort to identify Russia historically with the forces for human betterment is striking. Tobias Barreto, notes Bazarian, regarded things Russian very highly, particularly Russian literary realism;58 he also sympathized with the radicalism of Alexander Herzen and was the first Brazilian to read Marx.59 Da Cunha, in turn, actually wrote about progressive currents in post-emancipation Russia and held in great esteem the works of Turgenev, Dostoevskii, Chekhov, and Tolstoi; like Barreto, he knew and was influenced by the writings of Marx.60 Lima Barreto, too, was familiar with the classics of Russian literature. In the early years of his intellectual development, he was attracted to Russian anarchism, from which he evolved through successive stages of Spencerian Positivism and eclectic socialism.61 “The key to a proper understanding and evaluation of Lima Barreto’s ideological legacy,” writes D’iakonov, “is his clear position of unqualified support for the proletarian revolution in Russia.”62 While he cannot be considered a Marxist, concludes D’iakonov, he did endorse Lenin and the October Revolution.63
In addition to these four articles, I. A. Terterian prepared a brief popularized biography of Euclides da Cunha which appeared in pamphlet form in 1959.64 This, however, is not a scholarly work. Indeed, Soviet scholarship has made only one book-length contribution to Brazilian biography, a modest study of Tiradentes by I. R. Lavretskii.65 This same author has written three biographies bearing on Spanish America: one on Simón Bolívar, another on Pancho Villa, and a third on Francisco de Miranda.66 All of these works have been published as part of the semi-popular biographical series, “Zhizn’ zamechatel’nykh liudei” (The life of outstanding people), founded in 1933 by Maksim Gorky.
Finally, Brazil receives due attention in several general textbooks prepared for use in Soviet universities. A. N. Glinkin, for example, outlines twentieth-century Brazilian historiography in the new Historiography of the Modern and Recent History of the Countries of Europe and America, prepared by the history faculty of Moscow State University.67 Similarly, V. G. Revunenkov’s volume on recent Latin American history includes a chapter on Brazil in the twentieth century.68 A third, more specialized textbook published in 1966 discusses the emergence of independent states in Latin America during the nineteenth century. Prepared by M. S. Al’perovich and L. IU. Slëzkin, this volume is divided into ten chapters, a conclusion, and a bibliography of Russian-language sources for Soviet students.69 A chapter on Brazil was written by L. IU. Slezkin and is essentially a condensation of the more detailed study he contributed to the collaborative work, Essays in Brazilian History.70 Parenthetically, the growing interest in Latin American history in the USSR is reflected in the impressive size of this initial edition—25,000 copies were printed, as compared with only 4,000 of the earlier, more erudite Essays in Brazilian History.
Devoid of any scholarly tradition in Russia, the study of Latin American history constitutes one of the newest branches of Soviet historical research.71 Among the qualified Brazilianists currently writing in the USSR, three names stand out above the rest: V. I. Ermolaev, A. M. Khazanov, and B. I. Koval.72 Other scholars, frequently specialized in Spanish America, have also made contributions to Soviet historiography on Brazil. They include M. S. Al’perovich, primarily a Mexicanist,73 and L. IU. Slezkin, a very talented generalist who has published on a variety of Latin American topics.74 The following discussion of Soviet scholarship in Brazilian history, then, reflects to a large degree the views of these five scholars.
Soviet historians of the New World have given minimal attention to the European origins of Brazil. In general, they have presented its discovery as an accident of economic expansion in fifteenth-century Europe, where an aggressive merchant community was actively engaged in broadening its sphere of commercial enterprise. The key to increasing trade, they hold, was India; yet overland caravan routes had been severed by marauding nomads of the Golden Horde; and the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 had closed the Egyptian market and the Red Sea to European traders. The only alternative was to establish a maritime route around the African continent, an undertaking finally achieved by the seafarers of Portugal. In 1498, Vasco da Gama reached India via the Cape of Good Hope; two years later, Pedro Alvares Cabral strayed into Brazilian waters while seeking to follow the course set by his renowned predecessor.75
This account ignores Prince Henry the Navigator, the legendary Prester John, Diogo Cão, and Bartolomeu Dias. In brief, Soviet Latin Americanists have failed to outline with due care the historical context in which Portugal evolved as a seafaring nation. While Russian scholars have viewed the effort to skirt the Ottoman barrier as a major European achievement in the latter half of the fifteenth century, they have made no attempt to establish historical continuities between continental and peninsular experiences. Indeed, they might well have argued, as does Celso Furtado, that the economic evolution of fifteenth-century Portugal occurred independently of European commercial expansion.76 While perhaps indicative of Marxist historiographical priorities, these omissions do in fact originate with a specific group of Soviet historians and cannot be attributed to Soviet historical scholarship in general. The Portuguese background to maritime discovery is competently, if briefly, discussed in the multivolume Universal History prepared by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.77
In Soviet perspective the salient features of Brazilian history are by and large those events which reveal tensions in the economic substructure of Brazilian society. Interpretations of the colonial period, therefore, center on slavery. “The active opposition of black slaves to brutal oppression,” writes L. IU. Slëzkin, “constituted the basis of class struggle.”78 In addition, the economic dependence of small landowners and a majority of the free populace on powerful fazendeiros gave rise to an order of semiserfdom that extended human bondage well beyond the slave community.79 The exploitative nature of this order, argue Soviet historians, enriched the ruling metropolitan classes and at the same time guaranteed the wealth and influence of the large colonial landholders.80 Thus flourished two major interest groups which, with the passing of time, came into ever increasing conflict.
The first serious clashes between creole slave-holders and native Portuguese erupted following the expulsion of the Dutch in 1654. Portugal, writes Slëzkin, now resumed a policy of administrative centralization first initiated during the 60-year period of Spanish rule (1580-1640). All civil, military, and judicial authority was placed in the hands of peninsular bureaucrats, to the exclusion of even the most prominent fazendeiros. The creation of Portuguese-controlled trading monopolies, viewed with malice by creole commercial interests, further aggravated the situation. There resulted a series of revolts in Rio de Janeiro and Recife during the sixties. These were followed a number of years later by an uprising in São Luis, where in February 1684 local residents defied royal authority, formed their own governing junta, and annulled all the rights and privileges of the Maranhao Company. The granting of new privileges to the Portuguese merchants of Recife again brought revolt to that city in 1710-1711, when an element of separatism reinforced economic grievances. “The characteristic feature of these tremendous revolts against the metropolis,” writes Slëzkin, “was that the leaders and instigators turned out to be representatives of the well-to-do, aristocratic elite, primarily fazendeiros.”81 Here the reader would like to see hard supporting evidence.
The salient feature of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Brazil, continues Slëzkin, was a total absence of broadly held national aspirations. The rise and fall of the Palmares Republic, creole agitation against metropolitan trading monopolies, separatist movements in the Northeast, and numerous other occurrences of the period, he holds, all demonstrated an underlying lack of political cohesion. There could be no hope for the measured growth of society as a whole when the populace of colonial Brazil was so completely fragmented into antagonistic interest groups. At one and the same time, however, those forces which precluded an early emergence of national perspectives in Brazil likewise served to undermine Portuguese colonial authority. This process, argues Slëzkin, was inherent in growing class conflict (e.g., between slaves and slave-holders), in the clash of creole and metropolitan interests, and in the mounting complexity of Portugal’s relations with the other maritime powers.82
B. I. Koval, however, places greater emphasis on the colonial origins of Brazilian national consciousness, stressing what he views as a collective unity of purpose in an otherwise disjunctive unfolding of events. In his mind, the long process of national integration has evolved through two fundamental phases: first, the development of a national identity and, second, the formal organization of a Brazilian nation on the basis of that identity.83 The first phase, which ended with the declaration of Brazilian independence in 1822, was of singular importance in this evolutionary process, for, asserts Koval, “in the course of the Brazilian populace’s bitter and sustained struggle against the West European and especially Portuguese colonialists there emerged grounds for the creation of a single national state and the formation of an independent Brazilian nationality.”84 The first signs of a Brazilian national consciousness, he adds, appeared as a result of the struggle against the Dutch in northeastern Brazil during the first half of the seventeenth century.85
The discovery of gold and diamonds early in the eighteenth century was important, Soviet scholars suggest, because it set the stage for the eventual emergence of a national independence movement. The accumulation of wealth and the accompanying growth of a local bourgeoisie in Minas Gerais permitted the articulation of nationalist aspirations for the first time in the colonial period. This, they feel, is the historical significance of the Inconfidencia Mineira.86
Soviet treatment of the Inconfidência, and indeed of all subsequent Brazilian history, confronts the non-Marxist historian with an annoying problem peculiar to Soviet scholarship in general, namely an incessant censure of “bourgeois” historiography. The ideological root of this problem stems from the view that thought is socially determined. In a class-society, argue Soviet scholars, every individual necessarily perceives reality from the perspective of his own class experience. The very questions which the historian poses are so determined and consequently lead him inevitably into the trap of historical falsification.87
The first major objection raised by Soviet historians to non-Marxist interpretations of Brazilian history centers on the nature of independence. “In bourgeois historiography,” states V. I. Ermolaev, “it is contended that, in contrast to the emancipation of the Spanish colonies, Brazilian independence was achieved peacefully, by the will of an enlightened autocrat.” The inaccuracy of this view, he declares, becomes apparent if one examines carefully the outstanding occurrences of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Brazil.88 Tiradentes and his followers rebelled against a continuation of colonial rule and sought by means of violence to form an independent republic. The same, suggests Ermolaev, was true of subsequent uprisings in Bahia (1797, 1806, 1813), Pernambuco (1817), Rio de Janeiro (1821), and São Paulo (1821). These violent expressions of separatist sentiments, to which liberal agitation in Portugal added further impetus, contributed directly to the final break with the metropolis. Thus upon the advice of his minister, José Bonifacio de Andrada, Dom Pedro set out personally to visit the troubled areas of Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, and Minas Gerais, where he endeavored to allay growing unrest. “Seeing that the situation was everywhere fraught with revolution,” writes Ermolaev, “Pedro issued a manifesto on 1 August 1822, which was in effect a unique declaration of Brazil’s independence, finally proclaimed on 7 September 1822.” The August manifesto recognized, concludes Ermolaev, that “Brazil had already unanimously proclaimed its political and constitutional independence.”89
Despite the statement that Brazilian independence from Portugal was an “outstanding landmark” in three centuries of historical existence,90 Soviet scholars actually attribute greater significance to the Inconfidência episode. This stems from the assumption that independence means more than a simple break between metropolis and colony. There must be an accompanying coalescence of national perspectives in the former colony, and this, they imply, depends largely on the emergent socio-economic order. In the case of Brazil, independence brought neither political nor social change. Economic power, it is argued, rested more firmly than ever with the landed slave-holders, while political power remained in the hands of an absolute monarch.91 Consequently, it was not yet possible to speak of “national” independence. Only one of the demands voiced by the inconfidentes had in fact been met.
The Inconfidência itself, however, initiated a process of national coalescence, and after the belated elimination of the vestigial colonial order in 1888-1889, this became a dominant force in Brazilian history. As appraised by A. M. Khazanov, this was “the first movement to advance, albeit inconsistently and incompletely, broad national-democratic demands and to have a clearly outlined republican program.” It was an early manifestation of widespread discontent with the existing order and constituted the first attack of emergent nationalist forces against Portuguese authority. Moreover, adds Khazanov, it was indicative of an incipient national consciousness and reflected a popular aspiration for national independence.92
With Dom Pedro’s declaration of independence from Lisbon, concludes B. I. Koval, an already extant Brazilian national identity began to evolve into a formal nation-state. The first stage of this transformation coincided with the Empire and was characterized by the emergence of a capitalistic order in Brazil, which meant, in turn, the inexorable abolition of slavery. “The liquidation of the archaic slaveholding system,” writes Koval, “was a necessary condition for any further development of the country’s economy and of its consolidation as a nation.”93
In Soviet perspective, then, the history of nineteenth-century Brazil is largely the gradual internal disintegration of an essentially neo-colonial order. The bourgeois forces for independence, which prior to 1822 had made common cause with diverse elements in Brazilian society, including the large creole landowners, now encountered overwhelming opposition from influential fazendeiros, local merchants of means, and a largely Portuguese ruling aristocracy. These latter groups all had a vested interest in the institution of slavery. Moved by a fear of the oppressed black masses, argue Soviet historians, the slave-holders and leading Brazilian merchants, many of them actively engaged in the slave trade, sought to consolidate their power through a political compromise with the administrative establishment in Rio de Janeiro. This arrangement stifled the nationalistie ends of bourgeois liberalism in the country and, in so doing, set the rhythm of events to come.94 The independence movement initiated by the inconfidentes was thus prolonged far into the nineteenth century.
Having taken this tack, Soviet historians frequently find themselves at odds with non-Marxist appraisals of imperial Brazil. They reject as erroneous, for example, the view that regional disturbances during the 1830s and 1840s reflected a predominance of parochial loyalties. In reality, they argue, these local uprisings stemmed from the continuing efforts of an incipient bourgeoisie to achieve political power on a national, as well as state level. The slogan of federalism often espoused by rebel elements served primarily practical ends and did not indicate a conscious intent to dismember the country. “In a number of eases,” writes L. V. Ponomareva, “rebel republicans proclaimed independence from the Brazilian empire. But this independence was always considered by them to be temporary and was in accord with the persistent attempts to spread revolt to the other provinces of the country.”95
In a similar vein, B. I. Koval stresses the unifying effect of the widespread struggle against slavery and the monarchy. Such regional uprisings as the Cabanagem in Pará and Amazonas, the Farroupilha in Rio Grande do Sul, the Sabinada in Bahia, and the Praieira in Pernambuco were, to his view, expressions of a unified, nationwide effort. “All of them,” he writes, “undoubtedly stimulated the growth of a national consciousness and furthered the transitional process from nationality to nationhood.”96 Neither Ponomareva nor Koval, however, substantiates this line of argument with the requisite evidence.
Soviet historians further argue that the reforms of João VI bore no direct relationship to the subsequent decay of Brazil’s slaveholding order. The key consideration, they insist, is not reform but rather the lack of productive elasticity inherent in the plantation system.97 Already by 1800 disparities were apparent between available slave labor and the growing demands of an expanding export market. Koval cites the case of Bahia in the final decades of the eighteenth century, when over a 20-year period production trebled with no corresponding increase in the labor force. During this same period, he observes, exports for the country as a whole doubled in value.98 With the opening of Brazilian ports in 1808, the demands of foreign trade on the fazenda economy became increasingly pronounced; yet little was done to alter the traditional mode of production. Plantation owners depended more and more on the international slave trade to maintain and augment their labor force. Endeavoring to meet growing export demands, they raised the level of slave exploitation to unprecedented extremes. “Even according to official data,” observes Koval, “slave mortality was almost double the birthrate.”99
The termination of the slave trade at mid-century hastened the erosive process. The subsequent decline in the slave population, from 31 percent of the total populace in 1850 to a scant 5 percent on the eve of emancipation, paralyzed beyond cure the prevailing economic order. Nothing could now stem the abolitionist tide.100
In the 1870s and 1880s the fight to end slavery enveloped all the provinces of the Empire, thereby helping to unify the Brazilian masses and to crystallize a national consciousness. “The abolition of slavery,” concludes Ponomareva, “having cleared the way for a more rapid development of a capitalistic order, marked the beginning of a new stage in the formative process of a bourgeois nation in Brazil.”101 Again, Soviet historians fail to establish causal relationships through the systematic presentation of evidence.
The central theme linking nineteenth- and twentieth-century Brazil in Soviet historiography is the emergence of urban labor as a political force. Under the monarchy Brazil lacked the necessary conditions for the rise of a broadly based labor movement. “But,” asserts Koval, “this in no way means that workers began to' fight exploitation only after the abolition of slavery.” Indeed, he continues, there is a legacy of labor agitation extending back to the mid-nineteenth century.102 Here Soviet scholars again take issue with nonMarxist historians abroad, whom they berate for distorting the historical evolution of Latin American working groups and the attendant dissemination of proletarian ideologies. While capitalism was slow to develop, they argue, and the growth of a free labor force was notably retarded by the prevailing neo-colonial order, this is no way precluded socialist currents among the incipient proletariat of Brazil’s major urban centers. The tacit view of “bourgeois” historians that these currents were somehow alien to the Latin American context is dismissed as untenable and fallacious.
Soviet scholars trace the origins of the Brazilian labor movement back to the 1850s, when the printers of Rio de Janeiro initially articulated social and economic grievances. Brazil’s first labor organ, they note, was the Journal dos Tipógrafos, founded in January 1858. In the course of the next three decades, urban workers staged numerous demonstrations in the country’s nascent industrial centers. There were over 50 such disturbances in the 1870s and 1880s alone.103 A semblance of direction was given to the movement with the influx of European immigrants already experienced in the ways of class strife, who introduced the socialist and anarchosyndicalist doctrines of Fourier, Proudhon, and Bakunin. The failure of abolition to ameliorate the economic position of the Brazilian worker, they suggest, served to heighten class tensions and was consequently a key factor in the subsequent evolution of an organized labor movement.104
From the fall of the Empire to the First World War, economic growth was limited to the major cities. The rural areas continued in a feudal or semifeudal state, while the entire country was dependent on foreign capital—British in the first instance, North American in the second. As occurred elsewhere in Latin America, the war in Europe stimulated the Brazilian economy considerably, above all in the industrial sector. By 1920, observes Koval, Brazil’s industrial proletariat numbered some 275,000 workers. The economic lot of the urban laborer failed to improve, however, and in many cases actually worsened. Wages remained static, while the prices of foodstuffs, medicines, and consumer goods rose. In São Paulo, Pôrto Alegre, and Rio de Janeiro the labor movement began to wax militant. Workers became disenchanted with the manifest inability of competing syndicalist groups to press their demands for improved conditions, and before the war’s end, Soviet scholars hold, they began to give serious thought to the organization of a disciplined political movement.105
The first large-scale outbreak of labor unrest occurred in São Paulo during the summer of 1917. The movement sprang from the textile industry, where management refused to consider workers’ demands for significant wage raises. The spirit of protest soon spread to a majority of the state’s industrial work force and even extended into the urban centers of Minas Gerais, Paraná, Pernambuco, Para, and Rio de Janeiro. Faced with a concerted effort of such proportions, the industrial bourgeoisie was forced to yield. Wages were augmented by 20 percent; workers were allowed to organize; and labor leaders arrested during the strike were released from custody.106
Soviet scholars accord the general strike of 1917 a place of special significance in their historiography of Brazil. Not only did it provide Brazilian laborers with valuable experience in the techniques of civil strife, but also with a sharpened sense of class consciousness. From this moment on, it is argued, the strike became a constant in Brazilian labor relations, serving as a highly effective political weapon. Workers had suddenly become aware of their collective power.107
The way was thus prepared, suggests Koval, for the impact of October 1917. The Brazilian proletariat, he writes, was quick to recognize the social implications of the Russian Revolution and early manifested its solidarity with the struggling Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As events in Russia acquired international dimensions, however, sharp divisions appeared in the Brazilian labor movement, primarily between anarchosyndicalists and communists. Whereas the old anarchosyndicalist leadership had by this time begun to lose its authority among the Brazilian proletariat, the incipient Marxist-Leninist forces had not yet coalesced into a mature, disciplined movement. The result was a short-lived equilibrium of opposing forces at the outset of the 1920s.108
In the absence of decisive union leadership, writes Koval, the government attempted to seize control of the labor movement by forming an official workers’ confederation in the spring of 1921. Continuing clashes among the various ideological factions, however, doomed this effort to failure. Moreover, by 1920 nascent communist cells had become active in São Paulo, Pôrto Alegre, and Rio de Janeiro. As government pressures on the labor movement increased and ideological factionalism heightened, the partisans of Bolshevism were drawn together into a unified organization, consummated in March 1922 with the founding of the Partido Comunista do Brasil. “The result of deep internal causes,” concludes Koval, “this process was possible only in the new circumstances, in the new era, which followed the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution.”109
A tempered evaluation of Soviet historiography is not easily achieved by the non-Marxist historian. Its ideological framework annoys him deeply and makes any real meeting of minds discouragingly unlikely. Yet to reject Soviet scholarship out of hand would be intellectually irresponsible, for this scholarship represents the serious effort of industrious historians to discover the meaning of human history through the prism of their own national ethos. Their perceptions, just as those of their colleagues abroad, are culturally as well as ideologically refracted and must be appraised in this light.
In sum, Soviet historians of Latin America have made notable progress in the scholarly treatment of their field. Certainly much remains to be done, and it can only be hoped that in the future they will make far greater use of primary source materials in the elaboration of original research. Nonetheless, a rapidly expanding knowledge of Latin American history and a growing familiarity with related foreign scholarship (coupled with official demands for analytical objectivity) have already produced a noteworthy body of scholarly writings. No general bibliography in the field would now be complete without reference to a number of Soviet titles.
See, for example, J. Gregory Oswald, "Contemporary Soviet Research on Latin America,” Latin American Research Review, I (Spring 1966), 77-96; Edward B. Richards, “Marxism and Marxist Movements in Latin America in Recent Soviet Historical Writing,” HAHR, XLV (November 1965), 577-590. For a broad view of Latin American studies in the USSR, see Roland T. Ely, “El panorama interamericano visto por investigadores de la URSS,” Journal of Inter-American Studies, VIII (April 1966), 294-317.
See, for example, Juan A. Ortega y Medina, “Crítica y contracrítica en torno a la historiografía soviética,” Anuario de Historia, año V, 1965 (México, 1967), 261-290.
See Leo Okinshevich (comp.), and Robert G. Carlton (ed.), Latin America in Soviet Writings. A Bibliography (2 vols., Baltimore, 1966).
See, for example, V. G. Revunenkov, Istoriia stran Latinskoi Ameriki v noveishee vremia [The history of the Latin American countries in recent times] (Moscow, 1963); N. I. Samorukova et al. (eds.), Noveishaia istoriia stran Zapadnoi Evropy i Ameriki [The recent history of the countries of western Europe and America] (2 vols., Moscow, 1959-1966); S. I. Voroshilov et al. (eds.), Noveishaia istoriia. Malye strany Zapadnoi Evropy. Strany Latinslcoi Ameriki. Kanada [Recent history. The small countries of western Europe. The countries of Latin America. Canada] (Moscow, 1960); I. S. Galkin et al. (eds.), Istoriografiia novogo vremeni stran Evropy i Ameriki [Historiography of the countries of Europe and America in the modern period] (Moscow, 1967); I. S. Galkin et al. (eds.), Istoriografiia novoi i noveishei istorii stran Evropy i Ameriki [Historiography of the modern and recent history of the countries of Europe and America] (Moscow, 1968).
Victor V. Vol’skii, “The Study of Latin America in the U.S.S.R.,” Latin American Research Review, III (Fall 1967), 87.
See, for example, L. A. Shur, Rosaiia i Latinskaia Amerika [Russia and Latin America] (Moscow, 1964); B. N. Komissarov, “Braziliia pervoi chetverti XIX veka v opisaniiakh russkikh moreplavatelei” [Early nineteenth-century Brazil in the accounts of Russian seamen], Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta: seriia istorii, iazyka i literatury [Bulletin of the University of Leningrad: history, language and literature series], III, No. 14 (1961), 43-54; B. N. Komissarov, “Novyi russkii istochnik po istorii i etnografii Brazilii 20-kh godov XIX veka (Zapiski N. G. Rubtsova)” [A new Russian source for the history and ethnography of Brazil during the 20s of the nineteenth century (The notes of N. G. Rubtsov)], Sovetskaia etnografica [Soviet ethnography], No. 3 (1963), 172-176.
Scheduled for publication in 1970 is a collection of Russian documents relating to early nineteenth-century Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Peru, compiled by L. A. Shur and entitled Novye russkie istochniki po istorii Latinskoi Ameriki (pervaia tret’ XIX v.) [New Russian sources for the history of Latin America (The first third of the nineteenth century)]; Shur is preparing a second volume entitled Russkie istochniki po istorii i etnografii Kalifornii (Pervaia poiovina XIX v.) [Russian sources for the history and ethnography of California (The first half of the nineteenth century)]. B. N. Komissarov, in turn, is preparing for publication a collection of documents pertaining to Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff and early nineteenth-century Brazil.
See Okinshevieh, comp., Latin America in Soviet Writings, I.
M. S. Al’perovich, Sovetskaia istorio grafia stran Latinskoi Ameriki [Soviet historiography of the Latin American countries] (Moscow, 1968), 9; S. S. Mikhailov, “Izuchenie Latinskoi Ameriki v Sovetskom Soiuze (nekotorye itogi i predstoiashchie zadachi)” [The study of Latin America in the Soviet Union (some results and future objectives)], Voprosy istorii [Problems of history], No. 4 (1962), 100.
Mikhailov, “Izuchenie Latinskoi Ameriki,” 100-101.
One exception was V. M. Miroshevskii’s study “Ekaterina II i Fransisko Miranda (K voprosu o mczhdunarodnykh sviaziakh ispano-amerikanskikh separatistov v XVIII veke)” [Catherine II and Francisco Miranda (On the international ties of the Spanish American separatists in the eighteenth century)], Istorik-Marksist [Marxist historian], No. 2 (1940), 125-132.
Al’perovich, Sovetskaia istoriografiia, 10.
M. S. Al’perovich, “Izuchenie istorii stran Latinskoi Ameriki” [The study of the history of the Latin American countries], in Sovetskaia istoricheskaia nauka ot XX k XXII s’ezdu KPSS. Istorila Zapadnoi Lvropy i Ameriki [Soviet historical science from the 20th to the 22nd congress of the CPSU. The history of western Europe and America], edited by N. M. Druzhinin et al. (Moscow, 1963), 161.
“Al'perovich, Sovetskaia istoriografiia, 11.
M. S. Al’perovich, “Izuchenie istorii Latinskoi Ameriki v Sovetskom Soiuze (Kratkii obzor)” [The study of Latin American history in the Soviet Union (A short review)], in Latinskaia Amerika v proshlom i nastoiashchem [Latin America past and present], edited by V. V. Vol’skii et al. (Moscow, 1960), 152; Al’perovich, Sovetskaia istoriografiia, 10-11. For details on the life of Miroshevskii, see his autobiography as published in Istorila SSSR [History of the USSR], No. 3 (1967), 141-142.
Miroshevskii’s notes, course outlines, published and unpublished manuscripts, together with some personal papers, form a separate collection in the manuscript department of the Lenin State Library (Moscow) : Fond 469, four boxes, ca. 100 pieces. For a description of this collection, see B. N. Komissarov, “Arkhiv V. M. Miroshevskogo” [The archive of V. M. Miroshevskii], Zapiski otdela rukopisei [Notes of the manuscript department], vypusk 28, 1965 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennaia ordena Lenina biblioteka SSSR imeni V. I. Lenina, 1966), 33-44.
Al’perovich, “Izuchenie istorii,” 152; Mikhailov, “Izuchenie Latinskoi Ameriki,” 101.
B. N. Ponomarev, “Osnovnoe v rabote istorikov mezhdunarodnogo i natsial’-no-osvoboditel’nogo dvizheniia” [The basic task of the historians of international labor and national liberation movements], Novaia i noveishaia istorila [Modern and recent history], No. 5 (1962), 4.
S. S. Mikhailov, “Nekotorye voprosy izucheniia Latinskoi Ameriki” [Some problems in the study of Latin America], Novaia i noveishaia istorila, No. 2 (1964), 33.
For a concise Soviet statement in English on the nature of Marxist-Leninist historical scholarship, see Social Sciences in the USSR (Paris and The Hague, 1965), 1-76. This volume was prepared by the USSR Academy of Sciences and published under the auspices of UNESCO.
Ibid., 65.
Ibid.
“Bol’shie zadachi” [Major objectives], Voprosy istorii, No. 6 (1966), 8.
Social Sciences in the USSR, 5-6; A. Sovetov, “Sovetskii Soiuz i sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia” [The Soviet Union and contemporary international relations], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn’ [International life], No. 1 (1966), 5.
“Ot redaktsii” [From the editors], Vestnik istorii mirovoi kul’tury [Bulletin of world cultural history], No. 1 (1957), 4; Social Sciences in the USSR, 66.
E. S. Dabagian, “Izuchenie Brazilii v SSSR” [Brazilian studies in the USSR], in Braziliia. Ekonomika, politika, kul’tura [Brazil. Economics, politics, culture], edited by A. V. Efimov et al. (Moscow, 1963), 459.
V. I. Ermolaev et al. (eds.), Ocherki istorii Brazilii (Moscow, 1962).
A. N. Glinkin, Noveishaia istoriia Brazilii, 1939-1959 (Moscow, 1961).
Efimov et al., Braziliia.
L. A. Shur, "Kul’turnye i literaturnye sviazi Rossii i Brazilii v XVIII-XIX vv.” [Busso-Brazilian cultural and literary ties in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries], in Braziliia. Ekonomika, politika, kul’tura, 473-512.
Dabagian, "Izuchenie Brazilii v SSSR,” 458-472.
A. V. Efimov and S. A. Tokarev (eds.), Narody Ameriki (2 vols., Moscow, 1959), II.
S. Brandão and Z. S. Chernov, “Portugal’skaia kolonizatsiia” [The Portuguese colonization], in Narody Ameriki, II, 36-51; Brandão and Chernov, “Naselenie Brazilii” [The population of Brazil], in Ibid., 477-532.
ZH. A. Bazarian, "Bor’ba progressivnykh sil Brazilii’s reaktsionnoi ideologiei imperializma” [The struggle of the progressive forces of Brazil with the reactionary ideology of imperialism] (Unpublished candidate’s thesis, Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956).
Dabagian, “Izuchenie Brazilii v SSSR,” 468-469.
A. M. Khazanov, "Osvobodietel’noe dvizhenie v Brazilii v kolonial’nyi period, 1661-1792 gg.” [The independence movement in Brazil in the colonial period, 1661-1792] (Unpublished candidate’s thesis, Moscow State University, 1958).
B. I. Koval, “Klassovaia bor’ba v Brazilii v period mirovogo ekonomicheskogo krizisa 1929-1933 gg.” [Class struggle in Brazil during the 1929-1933 world economic crisis] (Unpublished candidate’s thesis, Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1958).
A. N. Glinkin, "Osnovnye etapy i osobennosti istoricheskogo razvitiia Brazilii v gody mirovoi voiny i v poslevoennyi period (1939-1961 gg.)” [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Latin American Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1963].
Glinkin, Noveishaia istoriia Braziliia.
“Zashchita doktorskikh dissertataii” [Defense of doctoral dissertations], Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 5 (1963), 187.
See A. M. Khazanov, “K voprosu o negritianskom gosudarstve Palmares v Brazilii” [On the question of the Palmares Negro state in Brazil], Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 2 (1958), 13-31; Khazanov, “Geroi bor’by za nezavisimost’ Brazilii (zagovor Inkonfidensii 1789 g.)” [Heroes of the struggle for Brazilian independence (the Inconfidência conspiracy of 1789)], in Latinskaia Amerika v proshlom i nastoiashchem, 310-339.
See V. I. Ermolaev, “Nekotorye voprosy osvoboditel’noi bor’by amerikanskikh kolonii Ispanii i Portugalii” [Some problems concerning the independence struggle in the American colonies of Spain and Portugal], Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 3 (1960), 23-37.
See B. I. Koval, “O roli plantatsionnogo rabstva v koloniiakh dlia pervonachalnogo nakopleniia kapitalov v zapadnoi Evrope (Na materialakh istorii Brazilii)” [On the role of colonial plantation slavery in the initial accumulation of capital in western Europe (based on Brazilian historical materials)], Srednie veka [The Middle Ages], No. 23 (1963), 198-215.
See B. I. Koval, “K voprosu o sotsial ’no-ekonomieheskom razvitii Brazilii v seredine XIX v.” [On the question of Brazil’s socio-economic development at mid-nineteenth century], Voprosy istorii, No. 2 (1963), 112-121.
See B. I. Koval, “O nekotorykh istoriko-ekonomicheskikh usloviiakh skladivaniia brazil’skoi natsii” [On some historico-economic conditions of Brazilian national integration], in Natsii Latinskoi Ameriki. Formirovanie. Razvitie [The nations of Latin America. Their formation and development], edited by A. V. Efimov et al. (Moscow, 1964), 169-194.
See L. A. Fainberg, “Iz etnicheskoi istorii Amazonii” [From the ethnie history of the Amazon] in Ibid., 195-219.
See N. R. Matveeva, “Braziliia i strany La Platy posle paragvaiskoi voiny 1864-1870 godov” [Brazil and the countries of the Plate following the Paraguayan War of 1864-1870], Uchënye zapiski [Scholarly notes] (Kalinin State Pedagogical Institute, Department of History), No. 35 (1963), 246-282.
See B. I. Koval, "Rabochee dvizhenie v Brazilii v kontse XIX-nachale XX veka” [The labor movement in Brazil at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century], Voprosy istorii, No. 11 (1960), 82-97; V. I. Ermolaev, "Vozniknovenie pervykh rabochikh organizatsii i marksistskikh kruzhkov v stranakh Latinskoi Ameriki (1870-1900)” [The rise of the first labor organizations and Marxist circles in the countries of Latin America (1870-1900)], Voprosy istorii, No. 1 (1959), 81-97.
See R. SH. Ganelin, “Iz istorii ekonomicheskikh sviazei Rossii’s Meksikoi i Braziliei v seredine XIX veka” [From the history of Russia’s economic ties with Mexico and Brazil at mid-nineteenth century], Novaia i noveishaia istorila, No. 6 (1963), 59-64.
See B. F. Sukhomlinov, “Ob ustanovlenii russko-brazil’skikh otnoshenii” [On the establishment of Russo-Brazilian relations], Novaia i noveishaia istorila, No. 2 (1965), 89-96.
See B. I. Koval, “Velikii Oktiabr’ i rabochii klass Brazilii” [The Great October Revolution and the Brazilian working class], Novaia i noveishaia istorila, No. 5 (1965), 10-21; A. F. Shul’govskii, “Proletarskaia Tevoliutsiia v Rossii i antiimperialisticheskoe dvizhenie v Latinskoi Amerike” [The proletarian revolution in Russia and the anti-imperialist movement in Latin America], Voprosy istorii, No. 11 (1967), 92-106.
See B. I. Koval, “Klassovaia bor ’ba v Brazilii v period mirovogo ekonomicheskogo krizisa 1929-1933 godov” [Class struggle in Brazil during the 1929-1933 world economic crisis], Novaia i noveishaia istorila, No. 1 (1958), 35-54; Koval, “Iz istorii revoliutsionnykh boev 1935 goda v Brazilii” [From the history of the revolutionary battles of 1935 in Brazil], Novaia i noveishaia istorila, No. 2 (1962), 15-28.
See B. I. Koval, “Vliianie infliatsii na ekonomicheskoe polozhenie proletariata Brazilii” [The impact of inflation on the economic position of the Brazilian proletariat], in Osvoboditel’noe dvizhenie v Latinskoi Amerike [The liberation movement in Latin America], edited by S. S. Mikhailov et al. (Moscow, 1964), 327-365.
See V. N. Selivanov, “Bor’ba naroda Brazilii protiv proiskov reaktsii (avgust-sentiabr’ 1961 g.)” [Brazil’s popular struggle against reactionary intrigues (August-September 1961)], in Ibid., 366-385.
See ZH. A. Bazarian, “Vydaiushchiisia brazil’skii myslitel’ 19 veka Tobias Barreto” [The prominent Brazilian thinker of the nineteenth century, Tobias Barreto], Vestnik istorii mirovoi kul’tury, No. 6 (1959), 111-121.
Ibid., 112-113.
See ZH. A. Bazarian, “Brazil’skii progressivnyi myslitel’ Evklides da Kun’ia” [The progressive Brazilian thinker, Euclides da Cunha], Vestnik istorii mirovoi kul’tury, No. 5 (1961), 97-106.
Ibid., 100.
D. A. D’iakonov, “Bor’ba Lima Barreto za utverzhdenie osvoboditel’mykh i demokraticheskikh idei v Brazilii” [Lima Barreto’s struggle to legitimize the ideas of liberty and democracy in Brazil], in Problemy ideologic i natsional’noi kul’tury stran Latinskoi Ameriki [Problems of ideology and national culture in the countries of Latin America], edited by A. F. Shul’govskii et al. (Moscow, 1967), 11-36; D’iakonov, “Lima Barreto—plamennyi propagandist idei Velikogo Oktiabria v Brazilii” [Lima Barreto, ardent propagandist of the ideas of the Great October Revolution in Brazil], Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 5 (1957), 91-98.
Bazarian, “Vydaiushchiisia brazil’skii myslitel’,” 115.
Ibid., 119-120.
Bazarian, “Brazil’skii progressivnyi myslitel’,” 102-103.
D’iakonov, “Lima Barreto—plamennyi propagandist,” 93-94.
D’iakonov, “Bor ’ba Limy Barreto,” 25.
D’iakonov, “Lima Barreto—plamennyi propagandist,” 96-98.
I. A. Terterian, Euklides da Kun’ia—natsional’nyi goroi Brazilii [Euclides da Cunha, a Brazilian national hero] (Moscow, 1959).
I. R. Lavretskii, Tiradentes (Moscow, 1966).
I. R. Lavretskii, Bolivar (2nd ed., Moscow, 1960); Pancho Vil’a (Moscow, 1962); Miranda (Moscow, 1965).
A. N. Glinkin, “Istoriografiia v Brazilii (1918-1964)” [Historiography in Brazil (1918-1964)], in Istoriografiia novoi i noveishei istorii stran Evropy i Ameriki, 538-551.
Revunenkov, Istorila stran Latinskoi Ameriki, 111-163.
M. S. Al’perovich and L. IU. Slëzkin, Obrazovanie nezavisimykh gosudarstv v Latinskoi Amerike (1804-1903). Posobie dica uchitelia [The formation of independent states in Latin America (1804-1903). A textbook for teachers] (Moscow, 1966).
Ibid., 134-150; Ermolaev et al. (eds.), Oeherki istorii Brazilii, 65-105.
Al’perovich, Sovetskaia istorio grafita, 73.
Although A. N. Glinkin has been cited above as the author of both a published volume and a doctoral dissertation in Brazilian history, his largely contemporary interests eliminate him from any further consideration here.
Al’perovich’s extensive bibliography includes the following titles: Voina za nezavisimost’ Meksiki (1810-1834) [Mexico’s war for independence (1810-1824)] (Moscow, 1964); “Revoliutsionnaia programma Morelosa” [The revolutionary program of Morelos], in Ot Aliaski do Ognennoi Zemli. Istoriia i etnografica stran Ameriki [From Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. History and ethnography of the countries of America] (Moscow, 1967); “K voprosu o chislennosti indeiskogo naseleniia Meksiki v kolonial’nyi period” [On the question of the size of Mexico’s Indian population in the colonial period], Sovetskaia etnografica, No. 3 (1962), 71-80; “O kharaktere i formakh ekspluatatsii indeitsev v amerikanskikh koloniakh Ispanii (XVI-XVIII veka)” [On the nature and forms of Indian exploitation in Spain’s American colonies (sixteenth through eighteenth centuries)], Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 2 (1957), 49-68; “Velikaia frantsuzskaia revoliutsiia XVIII veka i ispanskie kolonii v Amerike” [The great French revolution of the eighteenth century and the Spanish colonies in America], Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 1 (1965), 26-39; and “Miranda i ‘Velikaia Kolumbiia’” [Miranda and “Gran Colombia”], Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 4 (1966), 56-65.
Among Slëzkin’s varied writings are the following titles : Ispano-amerikanskaia voina [The Spanish American War] (Moscow, 1956); Rossiia i voina za nezavisimost’ v Ispanskoi Amerike [Russia and the war for independence in Spanish America] (Moscow, 1964); and Istoriia Kubinskoi Respubliki [The history of the Cuban Republic] (Moscow, 1966).
Ermolaev et al. (eds.), Ocherki istorii Brazilii, 11.
Celso Furtado, Formação Econômica do Brasil (7th ed., São Paulo, 1967), 1-2.
E. M. Zhukov et al. (eds.), Vsemirnaia istorila (7 vols., Moscow, 1956-1965), III, 723-725; IV, 84-98.
Al’perovich and Slëzkin, Obrazovanie nezavisimykh gosudarstv, 135.
Ibid.
Ermolaev et al. (eds.), Ocherki istorii Brazilii, 37.
Ibid., 50.
Ibid., 51.
B. I. Koval, “O nekotorykh istoriko-ekonomicheskikh usloviiakh skladyvaniia brazil’skoi natsii,” 171-194.
Ibid., 171.
Ibid., 178.
Khazanov, “Geroi bor’by za nezavisimost’ Brazilii,” 310.
For a discussion of this problem as it relates to epistemology, see Thomas J. Blakeley, Soviet Theory of Knowledge (Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1964), 90-107.
Ermolaev, “Nekotorye voprosy osvoboditel’noi bor’by amerikanskikh kolonii Ispanii i Portugalii,” 24 ff.
Ibid., 31.
Ermolaev et al. (eds.), Ocherki istorii Brazilii, 104.
Ibid., 104-105.
Khazanov, “Geroi bor’by za nezavisimost’ Brazilii,” 310.
Koval, “O nekotorykh istoriko-ekonomicheskikh usloviiakh,” 178-179.
Ermolaev et al. (eds.), Ocherki istorii Brazilii, 104-105.
Ibid., 157.
Koval, “O nekotorykh istoriko-ekonomicheskikh usloviiakh,” 184.
Koval, “K voprosu o sotsial’no-ekonomicheskom razvitii Brazilii v seredine XIX v.,” 114-115.
Ibid., 114.
Ibid., 115.
Ibid., 116-117.
Ermolaev et al. (eds.), Ocherki istorii Brazilii, 202-203.
Koval, “Rabochee dvizhenie v Brazilii v kontse XIX-nachale XX veka,” 84.
Ibid.
Ibid., 86-87.
Koval, “Velikii Oktiabr’ i rabochii klass Brazilii,” 11-12.
Ibid., 13-14.
Ibid., 15.
Ibid., 17.
Ibid., 21.
Author notes
The author is Instructor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Much of the research for this article was conducted in the Soviet Union under a grant from the Foreign Area Fellowship Program.
