In this analysis of the relationship between state and society in the Second Reign, 1840-89, Richard Graham contends that the purpose and practice of politics centered on patronage, a view he attempts to illustrate by exploring phenomena such as the extended family, parliamentary government, electoral practice, partisan loyalties and disputes, careerism, and private political correspondence. The weight of the subject and research is gracefully borne by prose unusual for its vigor, clarity, and presence.

The larger question addressed here—state autonomy—is important in Latin American studies, partly owing to the emergence of authoritarian, statist regimes in the region after 1964. Perhaps Raymundo Faoro and Eul-Soo Pang have taken the extreme position favoring state autonomy, arguing, on the one hand, for the emergence of an interventionist state since the fourteenth century and, on the other, for a state directed apart from the interests of the socioeconomic elite by a cadre of crown “mandarins.” Here, such interpretations find their counterpoise. Graham argues that the statesmen of the empire were more interested in patronage than in any other aspect of politics; they saw crown service primarily as access to such patronage and the state itself as the appropriate medium for maintaining a society in which patron-client relations were perceived to be natural. These claims are often supported by close analysis of hundreds of letters, many quoted to great effect.

This study is also distinguished by Graham’s extraordinary reconstruction of the web of meaning involved in local politicking. It suggests, in innovative fashion, why we should take local politics seriously—as the resolving ritual of hegemonic ideology in a hierarchical society contradicted by social and geographic mobility.

Although colleagues will welcome this work as a challenge to established interpretations and foci, some points may invite censure or doubt. The author has a certain fondness for debatable psychological speculations (pp. 74, 101, 244), and his reading of correspondence might at times be questioned. He assumes that the conventional rhetorical expressions of sentiment were straightforward renderings of genuine feeling (p. 244) and argues that attributes of “good character” were not only class-biased, but assumed to be class-inherent (pp. 255-256).

A more important problem is the exclusive quality given patronage in explaining political motivation. Graham may have needlessly overstated his case: “Rather than seeing patronage as a hindrance to effective government, Brazilians understood that expanding such opportunities formed the state’s very reason for being” (p. 20); or “Patronage both sustained the paraphernalia of the state and became its raison d’être” (p. 232). Indeed, the author often cannot find intervening ideological principles at work in partisan politics (pp. 148, 149, 171, 172). His sensitivity elsewhere to the complexity of motivation might be closer to the historical reality. At least once, in analyzing deputies’ struggles over abolition, he does note the importance of “measuring the relative weight of ideological commitment, personal allegiance to the Prime Minister, and cautious obedience to local patrons” (p. 174). One would expect greater (but not exclusive) concern with formal (not hegemonic) ideology among party leaders, especially at the Côrte, and less concern among local party members and ordinary members of the chamber. One would also expect variations in ideological preoccupation over time. No matter what such ideology’s varying weight, however, the author seems ill-advised to dismiss it (pp. 148-149). After all, as he points out in reference to elections (which, as he notes, are part of an ideology), such matters were taken seriously (pp. 74-75). More attention to the interplay of ideology and patronage would bring the author even closer to the daunting task he set himself: “to focus on the meanings they [political actors] gave to their own actions … as whole persons with multiple engagements, sometimes conflicting, sometimes in doubt” (p. 6).

Still, Graham has handled that task with great success. He has given us an unprecedented analysis of a critical problem, interweaving local and national politics. These factors alone make the book required reading. The author’s unusual approach, rigor, and exemplary research recommend it as one of the most important and provocative in recent Brazilian historiography.