Symbolic illustration of the literary debate surrounding Machado de Assis.

Literary Feud: Unpacking the Machado de Assis Rivalry Through the Eyes of His Critics

Jordan Keane in Culture & Society June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Explore the contrasting viewpoints of Sílvio Romero and José Veríssimo and their impact on the legacy of Brazil's literary giant."

Machado de Assis, a towering figure in Brazilian literature, continues to captivate readers with his insightful and often satirical novels and short stories. However, his genius wasn't universally acknowledged during his time. This article explores the complex and often contradictory reception of Machado de Assis through the critical analyses of two prominent literary figures: Sílvio Romero and José Veríssimo.

Romero and Veríssimo, both influential critics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, held vastly different opinions on Machado de Assis's work. Their contrasting perspectives not only shaped the initial understanding of his literature but also continue to influence how we perceive his legacy today. Understanding this critical rivalry offers a deeper appreciation of the cultural and intellectual landscape of Brazil at the time.

This article delves into the core of their disagreement, examining the key arguments, the underlying philosophical and social contexts, and the lasting impact of their debate on Brazilian literary criticism. By unpacking their contrasting viewpoints, we can gain a richer understanding of Machado de Assis and the evolution of Brazilian literary identity.

The Diverging Views: Romero's Nationalist Critique vs. Veríssimo's Embrace

Symbolic illustration of the literary debate surrounding Machado de Assis.

Silvio Romero, a staunch nationalist, viewed literature through the lens of Brazilian identity. He believed that true Brazilian art should reflect the country's unique racial and cultural makeup. Romero criticized Machado de Assis for what he perceived as a lack of authentic Brazilian character in his works, accusing him of imitating European styles and failing to capture the true spirit of the nation. He saw Machado's characters as detached and artificial, lacking the vibrancy and passion he associated with the Brazilian people.

José Veríssimo, while initially sharing some of Romero's nationalist sentiments, later shifted his perspective. He came to appreciate Machado de Assis's unique style, his psychological depth, and his ability to transcend narrow nationalistic confines. Veríssimo argued that Machado's genius lay in his capacity to explore universal themes of human nature, making his work relevant far beyond the borders of Brazil. He championed Machado's artistic freedom and defended him against Romero's criticisms, recognizing the enduring value of his literary contributions.

Here's a quick comparison of Romero and Veríssimo's critical lenses:

Romero: Focused on national identity, authenticity, and reflection of Brazilian culture.
Veríssimo: Emphasized artistic freedom, universal themes, and psychological depth.
Key Point of Contention: Whether Machado's work truly represented the Brazilian spirit.

The core of their disagreement stemmed from fundamentally different ideas about the role of the artist in society. Romero believed the artist had a responsibility to contribute to the construction of a national identity, while Veríssimo valued artistic freedom and the exploration of universal human experiences. This clash of values shaped their interpretations of Machado de Assis and fueled their critical rivalry.

The Enduring Legacy of a Literary Debate

The critical rivalry between Sílvio Romero and José Veríssimo continues to resonate in Brazilian literary studies. Their contrasting perspectives serve as a reminder that artistic interpretation is subjective and shaped by individual values and beliefs. While Romero's nationalist critique initially overshadowed Machado de Assis's reception, Veríssimo's defense ultimately paved the way for a broader appreciation of his genius. The debate encourages us to engage critically with literature, considering diverse viewpoints and recognizing the complex interplay between art, culture, and identity.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1590/2238-38752015v5111, Alternate LINK

Title: Machado De Assis Em Perspectiva: Os Olhares Divergentes De Sílvio Romero E José Veríssimo

Subject: Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Journal: Sociologia & Antropologia

Publisher: FapUNIFESP (SciELO)

Authors: Maurício Maia Aguiar

Published: 2015-04-01

Everything You Need To Know

What were Sílvio Romero's main criticisms of Machado de Assis's work, and how did his nationalist views influence his perspective?

Sílvio Romero viewed literature through the lens of Brazilian identity, believing that true Brazilian art should reflect the nation's unique racial and cultural makeup. He criticized Machado de Assis for what he perceived as a lack of authentic Brazilian character in his works, accusing him of imitating European styles and failing to capture the true spirit of the nation. He saw Machado's characters as detached and artificial, lacking the vibrancy and passion he associated with the Brazilian people. Romero's perspective highlights the importance of national identity in art, a perspective that, while influential, can sometimes limit the appreciation of universal themes.

How did José Veríssimo's perspective on Machado de Assis differ from Sílvio Romero's, and what led to his shift in opinion?

José Veríssimo appreciated Machado de Assis's unique style, his psychological depth, and his ability to transcend narrow nationalistic confines. Veríssimo argued that Machado's genius lay in his capacity to explore universal themes of human nature, making his work relevant far beyond the borders of Brazil. He championed Machado's artistic freedom and defended him against Romero's criticisms, recognizing the enduring value of his literary contributions. Veríssimo's shift in perspective underscores the evolution of critical thought and the recognition of artistic merit beyond nationalistic considerations. He showed how focusing on the universal characteristics can elevate an author.

What was the central point of disagreement between Sílvio Romero and José Veríssimo regarding the role of the artist in society, and how did this shape their interpretations of Machado de Assis?

The core disagreement between Sílvio Romero and José Veríssimo stemmed from fundamentally different ideas about the role of the artist in society. Romero believed the artist had a responsibility to contribute to the construction of a national identity. Veríssimo valued artistic freedom and the exploration of universal human experiences. This clash of values shaped their interpretations of Machado de Assis and fueled their critical rivalry. It highlights the tension between art as a vehicle for national expression and art as a means of exploring broader human truths.

Why does the critical rivalry between Sílvio Romero and José Veríssimo continue to be relevant in Brazilian literary studies today?

The critical rivalry between Sílvio Romero and José Veríssimo continues to resonate in Brazilian literary studies because it serves as a reminder that artistic interpretation is subjective and shaped by individual values and beliefs. While Romero's nationalist critique initially overshadowed Machado de Assis's reception, Veríssimo's defense ultimately paved the way for a broader appreciation of his genius. The debate encourages us to engage critically with literature, considering diverse viewpoints and recognizing the complex interplay between art, culture, and identity. The dialogue prompts a continuous re-evaluation of literary standards and the evolution of cultural perceptions.

What were the implications of Sílvio Romero’s critique on Machado de Assis's work regarding national identity and artistic expression, and what questions does it raise about the balance between cultural representation and artistic freedom?

Sílvio Romero's critique of Machado de Assis focused on what he saw as a lack of authentic Brazilian character and an over-reliance on European styles. Romero emphasized national identity and believed that Brazilian art should specifically reflect the country's unique racial and cultural makeup. He deemed Machado de Assis's characters detached and artificial, failing to capture the true spirit of the nation. The implications of this perspective suggest a potential limitation on artistic expression if confined strictly to nationalistic criteria, potentially overlooking universal themes and artistic innovation. This raises questions about the balance between cultural representation and artistic freedom.