Power and Corruption in the Early Modern Portuguese World by Erik Lars Myrup (review)

Erik Myrup’s Power and Corruption in the Early Modern Portuguese World explores the composition, function, and consequence of social networks within Portugal’s vast colonial empire, demonstrating the wide gap between imperial theories and colonial practices. Since extant research has much to say about the colonial state but remains relatively silent on the relationships upon which the whole system was built, Myrup’s work focuses on the latter. Over the course of the study he attempts to recreate the “complicated mosaic of social hierarchies” (2) that defined the Portuguese empire by probing “beneath the surface of formal colonial government” (3).

The work is divided into three sections (Europe, South America, and Asia), each one consisting of two chapters, along with an introduction, conclusion, and thirty pages of notes. Myrup takes a narrative approach to the topic that gives voice to individuals and groups. The primary focal point for his study is the Overseas Council. The benefits of this choice are at least two-fold: 1) it allows Myrup to narrow a topic that could easily fill several volumes; and 2) it justifies his choice to focus on Portugal’s eastern and westernmost margins (particularly Brazil), which gained in importance even as interest in Africa and India declined.

In chapter 1, Myrup examines the role of social networks within the Portuguese court in Lisbon by telling the story of Dom Jorge de Mascarenhas and chronicling the birth of the Overseas Council. Perhaps a victim of bad timing as much as anything, Mascarenhas was appointed viceroy of Brazil in April of 1640, arriving there by June only to see his fortunes change in December, when Portugal declared its independence. An appointment that came in large part thanks to social connections was lost due to the same (he was accused of Spanish sympathies). Unlike the other chapters of the study, chapter 2 lacks a specific protagonist, favoring instead the collective histories of Portugal’s Overseas Councilors. While this renders the chapter less readable than the others, Myrup still succeeds in what he set out to do; namely, to show how the Council “acted as an institutional gatekeeper and powerbroker” (39). Overall, this chapter traces two major progressions, one geographic (from east to west) and the other compositional (from aristocrats to letrados). Myrup reminds readers throughout the chapter that personal connections made the gaining and retaining of appointments within this extensive web of patronage and paternalism possible.

In this reviewer’s estimation, the most compelling of the three parts is Part 2: South America. Here Myrup characterizes São Paulo as an important, yet isolated gateway to the Brazilian backlands, and shows how its governors navigated both western expansion and imperial interests. In telling the stories (and backstories) of António Raposo Tavares and Rodrigo César de Meneses’s respective journeys into the interior of Brazil, Myrup is able to reflect the tensions within patron-client networks. Whereas the former extended the geographic limits of Brazil, the latter’s journey to Cuiabá expanded the empire’s economic interests. As Myrup repeatedly demonstrates, life was difficult on the margins of empire: allegiances were not easily discerned, order was hard to maintain, and relationships were cast in ambiguity. It is not surprising to discover, therefore, that Raposo Tavares and Meneses would seek as much personal gain as they could get away with. That, among other things, is the gamble to which Myrup refers in the title of chapter 4 (“Gambling Governors and Gilded Lead”). What made them gambling governors were the risks that they were willing to take to secure personal wealth. Whether the balance ultimately tips in favor of loyalty or self-interest is a matter of perspective, as Myrup suggests.

The stated purpose of Part 3 is to reevaluate Luso-Spanish relations in East Asia. Although Spain shows up throughout the work, it is in chapter 5 (“One King, Two Crowns”) that Myrup sustains the comparison...