Introduction
AntónioQuadrosandtheProblematicsof AuthorshipandReadershipinMozambique
In‘Alulacompartilhada’(TheSharedSquid),thepoetdescribeshishorror ashewatchesacolonialofficialandanopponentofthecolonialregimein Mozambiqueeatsquidtogether.¹ Fromthe1971collection UmaMeditação, 21LaurentinaseDoisFabulı´riosFalhados (AMeditation,21Laurentinas andTwoFailedLyricalFables),‘Alulacompartilhada’waspublishedunder PortuguesecolonialruleinMozambique.Seasonedwith‘enganos’(trickeries),themealisanexchangeof‘galhardetes’,ofpoliticalallegiances,asthe politicallyambidextrous‘Ópus(cisão…)’(Ohpuss(scission))isrevealedto bepallywiththecolonialregimethatitonlynotionallyopposes.Thesightof thesquidbeingsharedbypoliticalenemiesisenoughtomakethepoetspew words(‘vergomitar’,aneologism).Theresultofthepoet’sheavingisthetext thathisreadershavebeforethem.Hewonderswithsomeironywhetherhis nauseaistheresultofhishavingdrunktoomanyofthebeersthatgivethe collectioninwhichthepoemappearsitstitle(LaurentinaisaMozambican beerbrand)orhisheightenedsensibilitiesasaminorpoet(‘poetazinho’). Eitherway,thefinallinesrevealthatthespeakertoohasbeenpartaking ofsquid:hisvomitsmellsoftheseafoodthathehaseaten.Thespeaker, whoisrepulsedbythisvisionofpoliticalcorruption,isalsocomplicitinthe unseemlymeeting.However,hedoesnotactonhisrevulsion.Hisroleislimitedtoobserving,writing(vomitous)poetry,andretiringtobedtonursea hangover.
‘Alulacompartilhada’raisesseveralquestionsrelatingtothepoliticsof authorshipincolonialMozambique.Whatisthefunctionofauthorsin colonialcontexts?Whatstrategieswereavailabletowriterstocritiquethe
¹ Laurentinas,p.35.WhenreferencingquotationstakenfromworksbyGrabatoDias,MutimatiBarnarbéJoão,FreyIoannesGarabatus,orAntónioQuadros,Iuseabbreviatedtitles, followedbyapagenumber,whereoneisavailable(unlikemostofthetextswrittenbyQuadros, Laurentinas ispaginated)andIprovideanEnglishtranslationofthequotedtext.
DissidentAuthorshipinMozambique.TomStennett,OxfordUniversityPress.©TomStennett(2023). DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198885900.003.0001
colonialregimeinMozambique?Towhatextentispoetryanefficacious mediumtospeaktruthtopower?Canauthorsbepoliticallyindependentthinkers?Whatrightdopoetscomplicitincolonialism’sevilshaveto denouncetheiniquitiesthattheywitness?Thesearesomeofthequestions thatwillorientatemydiscussionoftheworksofGrabatoDiasandtheother pennamesofPortugueseartistandwriterAntónioAugustodeMeloLucena eQuadros(1933–1994).
GrabatoDiasisoneofthreepennamesunderwhichAntónioQuadros publishedliterarytexts.QuadroshailedfromSantiagodeBesteiros,near Viseu,intheNorthofPortugal.HestudiedattheEscoladasBelasArtesdo Porto(nowcalledtheFaculdadedeBelasArtesdaUniversidadedoPorto), wherehealsolectured.HestudiedattheEscoladasBelasArtesde Lisboa andinParisinthe1950s,attheÉcolenationalesupérieuredesbeaux-arts, withagrantfromtheGulbenkianFoundation.
In1964,QuadrosleftPortugalforLourençoMarques(nowMaputo),the capitalofcolonialMozambique.Coincidentally,hearrivedthesameyear thatthecolonialwarstartedbetweenthePortuguesearmyandMozambican nationalistpartyFrelimo(FrentedaLibertaçãodeMoçambique),whenthe latterlaunchedstrikesonPortuguesebasesinthenorthofMozambique.In LourençoMarques,QuadrostaughtattheLiceuSalazar,ahighschool,and gavevoluntaryclassesattheculturalassociationNúcleodeArteonpainting,sculpture,ceramics,andengraving.InLourençoMarques,hewaspart ofaprivilegedsocialelite.WiththepoetRuiKnopfli,heco-editedaliterarymagazinecalled Caliban (1971–1972)forfourissues,publishedinthree instalments,untilproductionwashaltedbythesecretpolice.TheissuesfeaturedworkfromKnopfli,JoséCraveirinha,GlóriadeSant’Anna,Herberto Helder,EugénioLisboa,JorgedeSena,andothers.InMozambiqueand Portugal,Quadros’sartisticactivitieswerevaried:hewasapainter,poet, sculptor,engraver,illustrator,potter,andbeekeeper.²
QuadrosstayedinMozambiqueuntil1984.IntheperiodafterMozambique’sindependence(achieved25June1975),hetaughtattheUniversidade EduardoMondlane,beforemovingtotheDirecçãoNacionaldaHabitação (theMozambicanHousingMinistry),whereheworkedwiththearchitectJoséForjaz.HeinitiatedtheexperimentalTBARN(TécnicosBásicos
² AselectionofQuadros’sartworksarereproducedin AntónioQuadros, OSinaleirodas Pombas(Porto:Árvore,CooperativadeActividadesArtísticas,2001).OSinaleirodasPombasis themostcomprehensiveanthologyofQuadros’sartisticwork,whichisscatteredacrossgalleries andprivatecollectionsinPortugalandelsewhere.
parao/noAproveitamentoRacionaldaNatureza)project,whichsoughtto developagriculturaltechniquesthroughcollaborationbetweenacademics, farmers,andthestate.AlongwithForjaz,heco-producedtheMonumentosaosHeróisNacionais—amausoleumtoimportantfiguresfromthe anti-colonialstruggle.
Intermsofhisliteraryactivities,Quadros’stimeinMozambiquewasthe mostproductiveofhiscareer.Accordingtothedatesofcompositionofhis publishedpoems,thevastmajoritywerewritteninMozambiqueandmany oftheminLourençoMarques/Maputo.GrabatoDias’sliterarydébutwas in1968.Thatyear,thejudgingpanelofapoetrycompetitionheldbythe LourençoMarquestownhallawardedtheirprizetoapoem,accompanied byillustrations,submittedbyanincognitopoetcalledGrabatodeTete(GrabatofromTete).Themysteriousauthordidnotattendtheawardceremony tocollectthemonetaryprize.Twoofthemembersofthepanel,Eugénio LisboaandRuiKnopfli(bothfriendsofQuadros),recountthattheyonly discoveredthatQuadroswasbehindGrabatodeTeteafterthecompetition.³ QuadrosapproachedLisboain1970withthepoemsthatwouldlaterbepublishedinhisfirstcollection, 40eTalSonetosdeAmoreCircunstˆ anciaeuma CançãoDesesperada (40-oddCircumstantialLoveSonnetsandaSongof Despair)andaskedhimtowriteatexttointroducethecollection.Inthe meetingwithLisboa,Quadrosmentionedthathewaspromptedtopublish hispoetrybyhisthenwife,Clara.⁴
BesidesGrabatoDias,Quadroshadtwootherpennames:FreyIoannes Garabatus,afictionalfriaranddrinkingmateofsixteenth-centurycanonical PortuguesepoetLuı´sdeCamões,towhomamocksequelofCamões’sfoundationalimperialepicOsLusı´adas(TheLusiads,1572),titledAsQuybyrycas (1972),isludicallyattributed;and,MutimatiBarnabéJoão,aguerrilla soldierwhosecollectionEu,oPovo(I,thePeople)waspublishedbyMozambique’srulingparty,Frelimo,in1975aspartofMozambique’sindependence celebrations.⁵
QuadrospublishedfivecollectionsunderPortuguesecolonialrule: 40e TalSonetos (1970);thetwinodes, OMorto (TheDeceased,1971)and A
³ EugénioLisboa,ActaestFabula:Memórias,6vols(Guimarães:OperaOmnia,2012–2017), III,p.333–335. RuiKnopfli,‘HomemdoRenascimento’, JornaldeLetras:ArteseIdeias,XIV: 632(1995),14.
⁴ Lisboa, ActaestFabula,III,p.337.
⁵ IrefertotheFrentedeLibertaçãodeMoçambiqueasFrelimothroughoutthisbook.Before theparty’sThirdCongress,heldin1977,thepartywascalledFRELIMO. ArcénioFrancisco Cuco,‘FRELIMO:DeumMovimentoRevolucionárioaPartidoPolítico’, RevistaNúcleode EstudosParanaenses,2:2(2016),138.
Arca (TheArk,1971); AsLaurentinas (1971);and, AsQuybyrycas,‘edited’ byGrabatoDias.In1974,twomonthsaftertheCarnationRevolutionthat broughtanendtoPortugal’sdictatorship,hepublishedathirdodeattributed toGrabatoDias,called PressagaPré-sagaSaga/press:OdeDidácticada PrimeiraSingularàSegundaPluralsobreasTerceiras,SegundasePrimeiras Pessoas(PresagePre-SagaSaga/press:DidacticOdeConjugatedintheFirstPersonSingularandAddressedtotheSecond-PersonPlural,Regardingthe Third,Second,andFirstPersons).Ayearlater, Eu,oPovo waspublished byFrelimoaspartofMozambique’sindependencecelebrations.Besidesa seriesofanonymousarticlesthatappearedinnewspaperDomingofromlate 1980untilearly1981andapoempublishedin1977inPortuguesejournal Colóquio/Letras,Quadrosdidnotpublishagainuntil1986(Facto/Fado: piquenotratadodemorfologia:partevii,Fact/Fate:amodesttreatiseon morphology:partvii)afterhehadreturnedtoPortugalfromMozambique. Intheearly1990s,QuadrosrevisitedtextsthathehadwritteninMozambiqueinthe1970sand1980s.In1991,asecondversionofAsQuybyrycaswas publishedbyAfrontamento.In1991and1992,Quadrosself-publishedthree worksattributedtoGrabatoDiasunderthename‘EdiçõesPouco’thatwere writteninMozambiqueafterindependence: SeteContosparaumCarnaval (SevenShortStoriesforCarnival), Sagapress:PoesiacomDatas (Sagapress: PoemswithDates)andthespiritualsequelto Eu,oPovo,OPovoéNós (WeArethePeople).Thenameofthefictitiouspublisher‘EdiçõesPouco’ (FewEditions)appearstobeanironicreferencetothefactthatitwasa self-publishingventure.
Quadros’stimeinMozambiqueoverlappedwithaperiodofmomentous changeinthecountry.Hisarrivalin1964coincidedwiththebeginning oftheanti-colonialstruggle.HewasinLourençoMarquesonthedayof theCarnationRevolution,whentheEstadoNovo(NewState),Portugal’s dictatorship,wasbroughtdownbyaleftistmilitarycoup.Hewaspresent atthecountry’scelebrationsofindependencefromPortugalin1975,to whichhecontributedacollectionofpoemsattributedtoadeadguerrilla soldier,falleninthearmedconflictagainstthePortuguesewhichcontinueduntilSeptember1974,fivemonthsafterthefalloftheEstadoNovo. QuadrosremainedinMozambiqueuntilthemid-1980s,beforeleavinghavinggrowndisillusionedwiththeever-worseningpoliticalsituationinthe country.
TheCarnationRevolutionmarkedawatershedmomentinMozambique’shistory.AsPatrickChabalremarks,thedate‘notonlymarksthe Portugueserevolution“ofthecarnations”butalso,ineffect,thebeginning
ofthetransferofpowerinthePortugueseAfricancolonies’.⁶ Therevolution setinmotionthedecolonizationprocessthatwouldleadtoMozambique’s independencefromPortugalon25June1975.EugénioLisboa,whowas withQuadroswhenhefirstheardnewsofthecoup,recallsQuadros’sreaction:‘AcaminhodaMatola,Quadrosbarafustava:“Agoraquetudoestava acorrertãobem…”.’(OnourwaytoMatola,Quadrosremonstrated:‘And everythingwasgoingsowell…’).⁷ Quadros’sreaction,asreportedbyLisboa,pointstoanambivalencetowardsMozambique’sindependence,which GrabatoDiasexpressesin Pressaga,publishedtwomonthsaftertherevolution,inJune1974.In Pressaga andin Eu,oPovo,publishedthefollowing year,in1975,GrabatoDiasandMutimatiexpresstheirconcernsabout Mozambique’sfutureand,inparticular,theplaceofsettlersinindependent Mozambique.
ThecontrastsandsimilaritiesbetweenthelatecolonialandpostindependenceperiodsinMozambiquearearecurringthemeofthechapters thatfollow.In DissidentAuthorship,IdeployQuadros’squirkycaseto thinkabouthowtheplaceandfunctionofauthorschangedduringthetwo decadesthatQuadroslivedinMozambique.
AuthorshipandReadership:TwoInterlinkedQuestions
GrabatoDias’sliterarydébutin1968coincidedwiththepublicationoftwo foundationaltextsonauthorship:RolandBarthes’s‘Lamortdel’auteur’ (TheDeathoftheAuthor,1968)andMichelFoucault’s‘Qu’est-cequ’un auteur?’(WhatIsanAuthor?,1969).⁸ Barthes’sandFoucault’sessaysare primarilyconcernedwithprobingthecentralityofauthorsinliteraryanalysis.Theyask,indifferentways,whyshouldwecare who theauthorof agiventextis?Barthes’sdeclarationofthedeathoftheflesh-and-blood author,consignedtoirrelevanceintextualanalysis,waswrittenagainstthe
⁶ PatrickChabal,‘TheEndofEmpire’,inAHistoryofPostcolonialLusophoneAfrica(Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress,2002),p.17.
⁷ LisboaopinesthatQuadroswasreferringtohispersonalprojects.Lisboa, ActaestFabula, III,p.426.
⁸ Inanarticlepublishedin1973,GrabatoDias’sreaderMariaLourdesCortezrepeatedly citesBarthes’s S/Z—thecomprehensiveanalysisofthesameshortstory,Balzac’s‘Sarrasine’ (1830),discussedin‘Lamortdel’auteur’. Cortez,‘GrabatoDiaseasTrangressõesdeLinguagem’,in Craveirinha,GrabatoDias,RuiKnopfli:Leituras (LourençoMarques:Minerva Central,1973),pp.19–34; Cortez,‘Introdução’,in UmaMeditação,21LaurentinaseDoisFabulíriosFalhados,editedbyJorgedeSena(LourençoMarques:JoãoPedroGrabatoDias,1971), pp.5–13.
backdropofaFrenchtraditionofliterarycriticismthatlookedtobiography toexplicateanauthor’sbodyofwork.Barthesisconcernedwithrewritingthetermsofauthorshipandreadership:hereplacesthenotionofthe authorwith‘écriture’(writing)—which,asAdrianWilsonnotes,hewould latersubstitutewith‘Texte’⁹—andthe‘Critic’withadepersonalizedreader. Barthesdramaticallynotesathisessay’sconclusionthatthe‘birth’ofthis readercomesatthecostoftheauthor’sdeath.¹⁰ Barthes’sessayisarejection ofauthorialintention;oftheideathatagiventextcontainsasingle,‘theological’meaning—the‘message’oftheAuthor-God.¹¹ Hedisplacestheact oftheproductionofmeaningfromauthorstoreaders.Forhim,readingis fundamentally not aquestionofdiviningwhattheauthorintendedtosay.
AsAndrewBennetthasnoted,thedeclarativetoneofBarthes’sannouncementoftheauthor’sdeathbeliesananxietythattheauthor—inmany criticalpractices—is not dead.¹² Barthes’stext,moremanifestothancriticalstudy,makesthecasethattheauthorasabiographicalentity ought to beexcisedfromliteraryanalysis.Paradoxically,theanonymousintertext establishedwithNietzsche’spropositionthatGodisdead‘linksauthorism withtheism’.¹³ Similarly,AdrianWilsonnotesthe‘seemingambiguityasto whether[BarthesandFoucault]weresigningadeathwarrant,carryingout anassassination,orpreachingatafuneral’.¹⁴
Foucault’s1968paper,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’is,inpart,aresponseto Barthes’sessay.BennettdescribesBarthesasFoucault’s‘unstatedpremise, hissilentprogenitorandantagonist,his“intertext”’.¹⁵ Foucaultsaysthatit isinsufficienttodeclarethattheauthorisdead;astatementsoobviousis tautologous.¹⁶ Foucaultpositionshispaperasapreliminarypost-mortem andananalysisofthespaceopenedupbytheauthor’sdemise.Foucault callstheauthorafunctionofdiscourse.Toputanametoatext,toattribute authorship,isacomplexprocesswhoseoutcomesarerevealingaboutthe importanceassignedtodifferentkindsoftextsandthewaysinwhichthey areread.LikeBarthes’sessay,Foucault’spaperisacritiqueofacertain
⁹ AdrianWilson,‘FoucaultontheQuestionoftheAuthor:ACriticalExegesis’, TheModern LanguageReview,99:2(2004),343–344.
¹⁰ Barthes,‘Lamortdel’auteur’,in Lebruissementdelalangue (Paris:ÉditionsduSeuil, 1984),p.67.
¹¹ Barthes,‘Lamortdel’auteur’, Lebruissementdelalangue,p.67.
¹² AndrewBennett, TheAuthor (London:Routledge,2005),p.17.
¹³ Bennett, TheAuthor,p.14.
¹⁴ Wilson,‘FoucaultontheQuestionoftheAuthor:ACriticalExegesis’,342.
¹⁵ Bennett, TheAuthor,p.19.
¹⁶ MichelFoucault,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’,in Ditsetécrits:1954–1988,2vols(Paris: Gallimard,2001),I,p.824.
author-inflectedmodeofreading.AccordingtoFoucault,textsarereadin relationtotheauthortowhomtheyareattributedandthebodyofwork ofwhichtheyareaconstituentpart.Forthisreason,thenamesofauthors actdifferentlytoothernamesbecauseanauthorissynonymouswiththeir work.¹⁷
ForFoucault,theauthor-functionconditionsreadingsofliterarytexts.If awriter’sworkislitteredwithinconsistencies,problems,tensions,orcontradictionsbetweenworks,thisisasignofmaturationorevolution—these thingscanbeexplainedawaybybiography.Iftherearetensions,inconsistencies,orcontradictionswithinagiventext,thiscanberationalizedbythe factthatitwasauthoredbyahumanbeing,pronetoperversities,quirks, lapsesinlogic,andirrationality.Theauthorconfersonaworkorbodyof workaunitywhichreconcilesitscontradictions.¹⁸
ThequestionwithwhichFoucaultbeginsandendshispaperisposed bySamuelBeckettin NouvellesetTextespourRien:‘Qu’importequiparle, quelqu’unaditqu’importequiparle?’¹⁹ AsBennettremarksinacomparisonofFoucault’sandBarthes’sessays,Foucaultemphasizesthatin post-Romanticmodesofreading,whospeaks—orwhoreadersthinkspeaks inagiventext—matters,atthesametimethathe‘yearn[s]towardsafuture inwhichouronlyresponsetosuchaquestionwouldbeashrugor,asFoucaultputsit,atthecloseoftheessay,a“stirringofanindifference”.Foucault wantsittomatternotatallwhoisspeaking.’²⁰ SeánBurke’scontentionthat oneofthegreatparadoxesofFoucault’stext—thattheauthorismostalive whenheisconsidereddead,mostpresentwhenheispresumedabsent—has ratherservedtheinverseofFoucault’slongingforaliterarycultureinwhich theauthor’sidentitywereamatterofindifference:thenamesFoucaultand Bartheshavebecomesynonymouswiththeirpositionsonauthorship.²¹
Foucault’sauthor-functiondescribesaspecificsocio-historicalconceptionofauthorship(Western,post-Romantic)—theauthorasanindividualizedsubject.Foucault’scritiqueofauthor-centredmodesofreadingsrests onthetensionbetweentheprimacyoftheauthorandtheauthor’scontinual andendlessdisappearanceinwriting.AsBennettnotes,Foucault’sframing ofwritingasaprocessunderwhichtheauthorcontinuallydisappearsandis
¹⁷ Foucault,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’,in Ditsetécrits,I,p.820.
¹⁸ Foucault,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’,in Ditsetécrits,I,p.830.
¹⁹ Foucault,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’,in Ditsetécrits,I,p.820.
²⁰ Bennett, TheAuthor,p.19.
²¹ SeánBurke, TheDeathandReturnoftheAuthor:CriticismandSubjectivityinBarthes, FoucaultandDerrida (Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1992;reprint.1998),pp.6–7.
replacedthroughthecreationofwritingsubject(s)contrastswithBarthes’s concernwithwritingasanegativespace:‘Barthesisconcernedonlywitha certainabsence,a“negative”spaceofwriting.Foucaultisconcernedwiththe socialandhistoricalconstructionofa“writingsubject”andpositswritingas aspaceinwhichthisdisappearingisendlesslyenacted.’²² Foucault’smodel focusesonthedisappearanceofauthors,butitalsoconsciouslyaccountsfor theirpersistence.
ElizabethFoxGenovesearguesthatFoucault’sproject(andwemightadd Barthes’stoo)threatentosuppressthevoicesofauthorswhohavenothad thehistoricprivilegedaccesstoprintculturethatFoucaultandothershave enjoyed.²³Similarly,OdiaOfeimunwritesthatthetimingoftheproposition ofthedeadauthor‘rankles[because]itcameatatimewhenAfricanwriters werejustemergingfromthebellyoftheanti-colonialstruggleontoastage thathadbeensetanddominatedbyEuro-Americanwritingforcenturies’.²⁴ Ofeimunargues,moreover,thatBarthes’sandFoucault’sconfiningwriting toadiscursiveactivityinwhichauthorscanonlyimitate,parrot,orparodya pre-writtendiscourse—adiscourseinwhichAfricaandAfricanshavebeen historicallyandlargelyrepresentedbynon-Africans—isinadequateforreckoningwiththeplaceofAfricanauthorslivinginauthoritarian(‘illiberal’) contexts.²⁵ FollowingOfeimun,DorothéeBoulangernotesthattospeakof deadauthorsinthelate-1960sinPortugueseAfricancolonialcontextswould havebeenstrangeindeed,giventhedangerthatLusophonewritersfacedin climatesofpoliticalrepression.²⁶InNgu˜gĩwaThiong’o’sanalysis,thereisno escaping,forAfricanauthorslivinginauthoritariancontexts,statepower: eitherwritersopposeauthority,riskingpoliticalreprisals,ortheyeffectively becomepropagandistsforthestate.²⁷
FollowingOfeimunandThiong’o, DissidentAuthorship considersthe authoritarianfeaturesofthepoliticalcontextsinwhichQuadroswroteas fundamentalfactorsthatshapedtheauthorialstrategiesavailabletohim
²² Bennett, TheAuthor,p.20.
²³ ElizabethFox-Genovese,‘MyStatue,MySelf:AutobiographicalWritingsofAfroAmericanWomen’,in ThePrivateSelf:TheoryandPracticeofWomen’sAutobiographical Writings,editedbyShariBenstock(ChapelHill,NC:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress, 1988),p.67.
²⁴ OdiaOfeimun,‘PostmodernismandtheImpossibleDeathoftheAuthor’, AfricanQuarterlyontheArts,2:3(1998),25.
²⁵ Ofeimun,‘PostmodernismandtheImpossibleDeathoftheAuthor’,p.40.
²⁶ DorothéeBoulanger, FictionasHistory:ResistanceandComplicitiesinAngolanPostcolonialLiterature (Oxford:Legenda,2023),pp.2–3.
²⁷ Ngu˜gĩwaThiong’o, Penpoints,Gunpoints,andDreams:TowardsaCriticalTheoryofthe ArtsandtheStateinAfrica (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1998).
andotherwriters.IncontrasttoBarthes,inparticular,Iconsidertherole playedbymediatingagentssuchaspublishers,editors,andthestateinthe productionoftexts.IarguethatwritersinMozambiquehavenotexperiencedpoliticaloppressionequally.Althoughhisfictionalauthorsinsistently refertotheproblemsthataclimateofpoliticaloppressionposesforthem asauthors,Quadros’sworkswerelessimpactedbythedistinctauthoritariancontextsofPortuguesecensorshipandFrelimorulethanmanyother writers—inparticular,underPortuguesecolonialrule,blackwriters—given hisprivilegedpositionunderbothregimesandthefactthathemostly self-publishedhisbooks.
Quadros’sworksposeafundamentalchallengetohisreaders:howto makesenseofhisoften-crypticwritingswithinthecontextsinwhichthey wereproduced?Aknowinglydifficultwriter,andoneawareofhislackof asizeablecontemporaryreadership,Quadrosinsistentlylookstoposterity,inwhomheinvestshishopesforliteraryrecognition.Inherinsightful introductiontoLaurentinas,MariaLourdesCortezproposestheusefulconceptof‘processosdedistanciamento’(distancingprocesses)—accordingto whichGrabatoDias’sworkcanbebestreadbyconsideringhowtheauthor (Quadros)distanceshimselffromthecontextinwhichhewritesthrough irony,alienatinglanguage,andthecreationofdiscursivesubjectivities(such asGrabatoDias).Cortez’sintroductionbeginswithaparadox.Echoing Barthes,shedisavowsbiographyasakeyfactorinreadingsofliterarytexts, andyetherprefaceisframedbyashort‘autobiography’providedbyGrabatoDiasandincludedathisrequest.²⁸ Cortezdefendsherinclusionofthe biographybyarguingthatitisaprimarytextthroughwhichtheauthor inscribesadiscursiveidentity,amanoeuvrethatshelinkstohisdistancingfromthesocialandhistoricalcontextinwhichhewrites.Shecallsfora nuancedappreciationoftherelationshipbetweenauthorandcontextthat accountsfortheauthor’sagencyin‘distancing’himselffromthecontextout ofwhichhewrites,andwhichisdisposedtoreadingsthattheauthormay nothaveintended.²⁹
Cortez’sframingissimultaneouslyempoweringanddiscouragingfor readers,whoaretaskedwithmakingsenseoftextsauthoredbyacoywriter, whokeepshisdistancefromhisreadershipprimarilythroughhumour.³⁰ CortezexplainsthathumourhastwofunctionsinGrabatoDias’spoetry.
²⁸ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.5.
²⁹ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.7.
³⁰ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.8.
First,itguaranteescriticaldistancefromtheturbulentcontextinwhichthe poetlives,therebyallowinghimtoanalyseitlucidly.³¹ Second,itisthevehiclethroughwhichthepoetcritiquestheiniquitiesofthepoliticalcontext outofwhichhewrites.Playingtheroleofa‘“clown”truculentoetambém melacólico’(atruculentandmelancholicclown),GrabatoDias’s‘carnivalesque’poeticsissubversiveandgiventothe‘destruiçãodaordemedo regimehabituaisdomundo’(destructionofthehabitualorderandroutine oftheworld).³² Inthisway,Cortezforestallschargesofpoliticalandsocial indifference(andevenbetrayal)analogoustothoselevelledagainstpoets suchasRuiKnopfli,andinviteshistoricizingreadingsofthepoet’swork.³³
Cortez’sanalysisisusefulinthatitencouragesanengagementwiththe contextsofproductionofGrabatoDias’stextsthataccountsfortheagency ofthewriter.Accordingtoher,agiventextisnotreducibletothecontextinwhichitwaswritten;textsarealsoresponsestothatsamecontext. Furthermore,shemakesthecase,incontrasttoBarthes,thatbiography is asignificantcontextofliteraryanalysisincontextswhereauthors’relativepositionsincolonialandpost-colonialsocietyhadasignificantimpact onwhattheywrote,andunderwhatconditions.The‘distancingprocesses’ atplayin Laurentinas cannotbeappreciatedbyareaderwhoisunaware ofthecontextthat‘rodeia’(surrounds)and‘penetra[…]’(penetrates)the author,andtheauthor’srelationtothatcontext.³⁴ Cortez’sterm‘distancingprocesses’shiftsthefocus—Barthes’sfocus—fromtheabsolutedenialof anintimaterelationshipbetweenbiographyandliterarytexts,toanappreciationofthewaysinwhichthepseudo-absentauthor(Quadros)rewrites himselfthroughpoetry;anemphasisisplacedontheprocessofthedenialof identityandthewhysandwhereforesofthepoet’sperformativealoofness. Writingoutofthesamecensorshipcontextastheauthorsheintroduces, Cortexdoesnotputhermodeofreadingintopractice:thereisnoreference tocolonialruleortocensorship.Inthisway,sheshadowsQuadros’sown coyapproachtothecontextoutofwhichhewrites.Quadroswithholdskey contextualinformationthathenudgeshisreaderstouncover.
Perhapssurprisinglyforawriterwhoengagesinmetatextualgamesof hideandseekthroughhiscreationofdiscursivefictionalauthors,Quadros’s
³¹ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.13.
³² Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.12;p.9.
³³ ForadiscussionofRuiKnopfli’sexclusionfromtheMozambicancanon,see Manoelde SouzaeSilva, Doalheioaopróprio (SãoPaulo:EditoradaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo;Goiˆana: EditoradaUniversidadeFederaldeGoiás,1996),pp.105–107.
³⁴ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.7;p.8.
literaryworksinsistentlygesturetotheworldoutsidethetextandhow writingscanhaveatangibleimpactontheworld.Therelationshipbetween thetextandtheworldismediatedbyitsreaders,whomQuadrosfrequently positionsashispupils,andhetheirteacher.³⁵ Indeed,Quadros’soutputis markedbyaninterestinpedagogy.GrabatoDiaspublishedthreedidactic odes(OMorto, AArca, Pressaga);apoetic‘tratadodemorfologia’(treatiseonmorphology) Facto/Fado;and,acollectionofdidacticshortstories (SeteContosparaumCarnaval).Quadrosproducedseveraltextbooksat theDirecçãoNacionaldeHabitação.Intheearly1980s,Quadrospenned ashort-livedcolumnin Domingo thataimedtodisseminatetheTBARN project’sfindingswithaviewtoimprovingreaders’useofresourcesand fomentingawiderappreciationoftheworkcarriedoutbythedifferent groupsofworkersthatmakeMozambique’ssocietyandeconomyfunction. AlthoughQuadrosiscautioustocircumscribeandlimittexts’potentialto haveaconcreteimpactonreadersandtheworld,hisoutputdemonstrates aninterestintheorizinghowwritingcanbeusedasavehicletoimprove society.ForQuadros,thewriterisateacherwhoimpartsknowledgeon hisreader-pupils,who,hehopes,willusetheauthor’sideasinpractice. InparticularduringhistimeworkingontheTBARNproject,Quadros grappleswiththequestionofhowtomakeideasresonatebeyondpolitical elitesandintellectualmilieus.Heasks:howcantextsbevehiclesforknowledgeincontextsofhighilliteracy?Howcanwritersmeaningfullymakea difference?³⁶
ThecentralclaimofthisbookisthatQuadros’stextsconceiveofauthorshipasthefraughtnegotiationofdistinctandconflictingfunctionsand features:speakingtruthtopowerandsupportingapoliticalproject;intellectualindependenceversusintellectualcompromise;authenticityversus falsity;thepoetasfigureofauthorityversusthewriterasanoppositional, anti-authoritarianfigure.Thecrucialparadoxofbeinganauthorinthecontextsoflatecolonialandpost-independenceMozambiqueisthatauthors werepoliticizedfiguresthepoliticalimpactofwhoseworkswasnecessarilyminimal.AlthoughQuadroswasdistancedfromtheanti-colonial andnationalistpoliticsofMozambique,hisconceptionsoftheauthoras
³⁵ AccordingtoJoséForjaz,Quadroswasfirstandforemostateacher. JoséForjaz,‘António Quadros,Professor’,in AntónioQuadros,CursodeComunicaçãoGráfica (Maputo:UniversidadeEduardoMondlane,1998),pp.4–5.
³⁶ ForOfeimun,negotiatingthebindofAfricanauthorshipisaquestionoffiguringouthow toreconcilepoliticalactivismandliterature.Ofeimun,‘PostmodernismandtheImpossible DeathoftheAuthor’,pp.46–47.
aninherentlyparadoxicalfigureneverthelessreflectthetensionsofanticolonialandpost-independencepoliticsinMozambique.
IncontrasttothelackofattentionpaidtoQuadros,thereisasubstantialbodyofscholarshiponMozambicanliterature.Scholarsthathave analysedauthorsubjectpositionsinMozambiquehavetendedtohighlightgenderasasignificantandhistoricallyneglectedfactorinLusophone Africannationalisms,anapproachthathasbeenbroughttobearonmale andfemalewriters.PhillipRothwell,HilaryOwen,MarkSabine,andothershavestudiedgenderintheworksofthemalewritersLuı´sBernardo Hownana,UngulaniBaKaKhosa,andMiaCouto.³⁷ Owen’s2007study MotherAfrica,FatherMarx standsasaground-breakinganalysisofthe worksoffourMozambicanwomenwriters:NoémiadeSousa,LinaMagaia, Lı´liaMomplé,andPaulinaChiziane.³⁸ AnaMargaridaMartinsandMaria Tavareshaveconsideredgenderwithintransnationalandcomparativecontexts.³⁹ ThistransnationalapproachtostudyingMozambicanliteraturehas beenaccompaniedbybroadermethodologicalreflectionsbyMariaPaula Meneses,MargaridaCalafateRibeiro,JessicaFalconi,AnaMafaldaLeite, ChatarinaEldfelt,andMartaBanasiakonthestudyofMozambicanculture(s)inthecontextsoftheLusophoneliterarysystem,worldliterature, andtheIndianOcean.⁴⁰
RecentstudiesbyRothwellandBoulangerhavesoughttoaccountfor thesubjectpositionsofAngolanauthorsinrelationtoAngola’sfraughtlate colonialandpost-independencepoliticalcontexts.Rothwell’s Pepetelaand
³⁷ PhillipRothwell,APostmodernNationalist:Truth,Orality,andGenderintheWorkofMia Couto (Lewisburg,PA:BucknellUniversityPress,2004); HilaryOwen,‘WomenontheEdge ofaNervousEmpireinPaulinaChizianeandUngulaniBaKaKhosa’,in NarratingthePostcolonialNation:MappingAngolaandMozambique,editedbyAnaMafaldaLeite,HilaryOwen, RitaChaves,andLiviaApa(OxfordandBern:PeterLang,2014),pp.199–211; HilaryOwen, ‘ThirdWorld/ThirdSex:Gender,OralityandaTaleofTwoMariasinMiaCoutoandPaulina Chiziane.’BulletinofHispanicStudies,July2007:84.4,475-488; MarkSabine,‘Gender,Race andViolenceinLuísBernardoHonwana’s NósmatámosoCão-tinhoso:TheEmasculationof theAfricanPatriarch’,inSexual/textualEmpires:GenderandMarginalityinLusophoneAfrican Literature,editedbyHilaryOwenandPhillipRothwell(Bristol:UniversityofBristolPress, 2004),pp.23–44.
³⁸ HilaryOwen, MotherAfrica,FatherMarx:Women’sWritingofMozambique.1948–2002 (Lewisburg,PA:BucknellUniversityPress,2007).
³⁹ AnaMargaridaMartins, MagicStonesandFlyingSnakes:GenderandthePostcolonial ExoticintheWorkofPaulinaChizianeandLidiaJorge (Oxford:PeterLang,2012); Maria Tavares, NoCountryforNonconformingWomen:FeminineConceptionsofLusophoneAfrica (Oxford:Legenda,2018).
⁴⁰ SeethevolumeeditedbyAnaMafaldaLeiteandMargaridaCalafateRibeiro, Moçambique:DasPalavrasEscritas(Porto:Afrontamento,2008)andthespecialissueof PortugueseStudies LiteraturesandCulturesoftheIndianOceaneditedbyAnaMafaldaLeite, JessicaFalconi,andElenaBrugioni,37:2(2021).
theMPLA:theEthicalEvolutionofaRevolutionaryWriter (2019)traces Pepetela’strajectoryasawriterinrelationtotheideologicalshiftsofAngola’s rulingparty,theMPLA.⁴¹WhereRothwell’sfocusisonapoliticallycommittedwriterwhowasheavilyinvolvedwiththeanti-colonialstruggleandthe earlyphaseoftheAngolannationalistproject,inacontextwherepartypoliticsandliteraturewereevenmoreinterconnectedthaninMozambique,my analysisbearsonanauthorwhoseengagementwithpoliticsinhiswritings islargelyparty-apolitical.Boulanger’s2022book,inwhichsheexamines worksbyeightAngolanwriters,probesthenotionthatpost-independence Angolanfictionhasfunctionedto‘resist’MPLAnarrativesofAngola’shistory.Herexhortationtoanalyseliterature’spotentialtochallengehegemonic narrativesinlightofcomplicity—understoodasauthors’involvementwith theMPLA’snationalistprojectandtheomissionsintheirfictionoverevents suchasthepurgeoftheso-calledfractionalistfactionoftheMPLAof 27May1977—isvitaltounderstandingthecomplexitiesofauthorshipin post-independenceAngolaandtheplaceandfunctionofauthorsinother LusophoneAfricancontexts.⁴²
Unlikemuchrecentscholarship,thepresentstudydoesnottakegenderasitscentralframeofanalysis.GenderisablindspotinQuadros’s grapplingwithquestionsrelatingtoauthorship,owing,inlargepart,tothe factthathisworksarechieflyconcernedwithaccountingforhisownpositionasanauthor.Athemethatrunsthroughoutmyanalysis,andtowhich Quadros’soversightwhenitcomestogenderislinked,isthathispennames’ discussionsoftheirauthorialpositionsattimesbetrayadisconnectwhenit comestothesocial,economic,andpoliticalrealitiesfacedbymostMozambicans.IcounterpointQuadros’sdiscussionsofauthorshipwithdecolonial andpostcolonialtheory.IuseAchilleMbembe’sanalysisoftheassymetries ofcolonialmobilitytointerrogateGrabatoDias’scritiqueofPortugueseand Mozambicannationalismin Pressaga (chapter 2).BenitaParry’scritiqueof aperceivedtendencyindeconstructionistpostcolonialtheorytoprivilege discursiveanalysisovermaterialismframemyanalysisofGrabatoDias’s elusiveauthorialstrategies(chapters3and6).FrantzFanon’sdefenceofanticolonialviolencestandsasafruitfulantithesistoGrabatoDias’spacificist anti-colonialpoetics(chapter4).GayatriSpivak’sprovocativeclaimthatthe subalterncannotspeakisleveragedtoappraiseQuadros’sconstructionof
⁴¹ PhillipRothwell, PepetelaandtheMPLA:TheEthicalEvolutionofaRevolutionaryWriter (Oxford:Legenda,2019).
⁴² Boulanger, FictionasHistory,pp.16–17.
MutimatiBarnabéJoão(chapter 5).Iarguethat,withduemodificationand contextualization,Quadros’sworksstandasausefulcontributiontoreflect morebroadlyonthethemesdiscussedinthisbook:identity,canonicity, representation,andreadership.Thesetopicsoverlapwiththefundamental factorsofpowerandauthoritywithwhichQuadrosinsistentlygrapples.
Pseudonymy,Heteronymy,andAnonymity
Inthecontextsoflatecolonialandpost-colonialMozambique,theauthor wasaninherentlypoliticalrole.⁴³ Intheabsenceofoppositionpartiesanda freepressundertheEstadoNovoandFrelimo-ruledMozambique,poetry wasaprivilegedmediumthroughwhichauthorscouldvoicepoliticaldiscontent.GiventhehighlevelsofilliteracyinPortuguese,mostMozambicans didnothaveaccesstoprintcultureortonationalpoliticaldiscourse.Inthe latecolonialandpost-colonialcontexts,literaturewaspotentiallyavehicleforvoicingtheconcernsofthosewhowereexcludedfromcolonialand nationalistpolitics.
IntheMozambicancontext,severalauthorswereprominentpolitical figuresintheanti-colonialstruggle.ManyoftheseauthorsbecameimportantmembersofFrelimo’sleadershipafterindependence:Marcelinodos Santos(whopublishedpoetryunderthepseudonymsKalunganoandLilinhoMacaia)wasafoundingmemberofFrelimo,whoservedasvicepresidentofthepartyfrom1969–1977andasaministerofeconomic development;thepoetJorgeRebelowastheheadofFrelimo’sCentral Committee;theprosewriterLuı´sBernardoHonwanawasanadvisorto Mozambique’sfirstpresident,SamoraMachel.
Writingwasaperilousactivityfor mestiço (mixedrace)andblackwriters underPortuguesecolonialrule.ThecirculationofthepoemsofNoémiade Sousa,collectedin SangueNegro (BlackBlood),ledtoherbeingexiledto Lisbonin1951,until1964,andthereaftertoParis.⁴⁴CraveirinhawasimprisonedbythePortuguesesecretpolice(knownasthePIDEuntil1969,and
⁴³ WhereIusetheterms‘postcolonial’and‘post-colonial’,Ideploythemaccordingtothe distinctionmadebyJaneHiddleston:‘Post-colonialismis[…]narrowinscopeandnamesa specific,identifiablemoment.Postcolonialism,withnohyphen,islargerandmoreproblematic. […]Overall,itcanbeagreedthatpostcolonialismnamesasetofpolitical,philosophicalor conceptualquestionsengenderedbythecolonialprojectanditsaftermath’. JaneHiddleston, UnderstandingPostcolonialism (Stocksfield:Acumen,2009),pp.3–4.
⁴⁴ NoémiadeSousa, SangueNegro (Maputo:AssociaçãodosEscritoresMoçambicanos, 2001).
thereafterastheDGS)in1965andremainedinincarcerationuntiltheCarnationRevolutionof1974.⁴⁵ Honwanawasjailedin1964,thesameyearhis shortstorycollection,NósMatámosoCãoTinhoso(subsequentlytranslated as WeKilledMangyDogandOtherStories byDorothyGuedes),waspublishedandtheyearinwhichthestruggleforindependenceofficiallystarted inMozambique.⁴⁶
Quadros’sexperiencesofpoliticalpersecutionweremildcomparedto thoseofSousa,Craveirinha,andHonwana.Heexperiencedlittleinconveniencefromthecolonialauthorities,whodonotappeartohaveconsidered himathreat.⁴⁷ Although Caliban (1971–1972),theliterarymagazinethat QuadrosranunderthenameGrabatoDiaswithRuiKnopfli,wasclosedby theDGSin1972,Quadroswasnotimprisoned.Inthepost-CarnationRevolutionperiod,Quadroshadinformalconnectionstotheintellectualsand writerswhowerepartoftheFrelimopartymachinery.
InthecasesofSousa,Craveirinha,andSantos,theuseofpseudonyms functionedtoprotecttheiridentitiesfromthecolonialauthorities.In Quadros’scase,therewaslessofaneedtohidehisidentityfromtheauthoritiesgivenhisprivilegedpositionwithincolonialsociety.Indeed,itappears thatQuadros’spennameswereneverintendedtoconcealhisidentity.In contrasttothecoynessdisplayedduringtheLourençoMarquestownhall poetrycompetition,QuadrossoldcopiesofGrabatoDias’sfirstcollection, 40eTalSonetos,doortodoor.⁴⁸ GrabatoDias’s,Mutimati’sandGarabatus’s textsarelitteredwithreferencestotheirstatusasfictionalauthorsandsigns pointingtoQuadros’shandintheproductionofthetexts.WhenCortez, inherprefatoryessayto Laurentinas,writesthatGrabatoDias’sembedding himselfinadensetextualityallowshimtoappear‘devidamenteescudado’
⁴⁵ FormoredetailsofCraveirinha’simprisonmentandtrialsee FátimaMendonça,‘José Craveirinha,oSonhadordeSonhos’,in PoemasdaPrisão,editedbyJoséCraveirinha(Lisbon: TextoEditora,2004),p.7;note2,p.16.
⁴⁶ Howanawasreleasedin1967. LuísBernardoHonwana, NósMatámosoCãoTinhoso (LourençoMarques:SociedadedeImprensadeMoçambique,1964); LuísBernardoHonwana, WeKilledMangyDogandOtherStories,trans.DorothyGuedes(London:Heinemann Educational,1969).
⁴⁷ AccordingtorecordsheldintheTorredeTombo,QuadroswasinterviewedbyPIDE agentsononeoccasionbeforehemovedtoMozambique.Hewasmisidentifiedastheco-author ofamanifestoco-signedbyAntónioQuadrosFerro,thesonofAntónioFerro,aformerhead oftheEstadoNovo’spropagandaservice.Inaletterdated4September1968,fromaPIDEsubdirectorinLourençoMarquestothedirector-generalofthesecretpoliceinLisbon,Quadrosis identifiedasamemberofagroupofleftistintellectuals.Lisbon,TorredeTombo,PIDE/DGS, SC,CI(2)10,941NT7608;PIDE/DGS,SC,SR-3015/56NT2783.
⁴⁸ InterviewwithEugénioLisboa,Lisbon,August2019.
(dulyshielded)beforehisreaders,sheisnotreferringtothekindofprotectionthatCraveirinha’s,Sousa’s,andSantos’spresudonymsoffered.⁴⁹ The notionthattheconstructGrabatoDias—asafictionalidentity—actsasa shieldtoprotecttheauthorfromhisreadersreferstoaBarthesian-inflected coynesswherebyauthorsanonymizethemselvesthroughthecreationofa textualpersona.
TheconstructsGrabatoDias,Garabatus,andMutimatihavebeen describedasQuadros’s‘heteronyms’—areferencetotheliterary personae underwhichPortuguesewriterFernandoPessoapublishedmuchofhis work.IcontendthatQuadros’spennamescombinefeaturesofheteronyms, pseudonyms,andanonymsand,forthisreason,Ideliberatelydonotrefer tothemaspseudonymsorheteronyms.Instead,IdescribeGrabatoDias, IoannesGarabatus,andMutimatiaspennamesorfictionalauthors.As notedabove,hispennamesperformafunctionverydifferentfromthatof thepseudonymsusedbyseveralofhiscontemporariesinMozambique. Furthermore,hisusageoffictionalauthorsisdistinctfromPessoa’strinityofheteronyms:AlbertoCaeiro,ÁlvarodeCampos,andRicardoReis. IncontrasttoPessoa,who,asRichardZenithandFernãoCabralMartins note,rarelyhesitatedintheattributionoftextstohisvariousheteronyms, Quadrosdeliberatelyplaysontheindeterminacyofhisspeakingsubjects’ identities.⁵⁰ Furthermore,Quadrosneverattemptedtoschematizehisfictionalauthorsintoaheteronymicuniverse.Pessoa,incontrast,fleshedout hisheteronymswithtexts,manyofthemattributedtotheheteronyms, documentingthebiographies,beliefsystems,physicalappearances,and temperamentsofCaeiro,Campos,andReis.WhereQuadrosfurnishesbiographicalinformation,heludicallynudgesandwinksathisreaders,pointing totheartificialityofthepennames.
Quadros’spublishingunderthenameofMutimatiBarnabéJoão,whose nameinvitesreaderstoconsiderhima mestiço orblackauthor,raises ethicalquestionsoverrepresentation.IsQuadros’screationofMutimatiliteraryblackface?WhataretheethicsofaPortuguesewriter’selaboratinga
⁴⁹ MariaLourdesCortez,‘Introdução’,in UmaMeditação,21LaurentinaseDoisFabulírios Falhados (LourençoMarques:JoãoPedroGrabatoDias,1971),p.9.
⁵⁰ InthepublicationplansenttoJoãoGasparSimõesin1932,Pessoastipulatedthat‘todaa obraheterónimaéparaserpublicadasoboseupróprionome,FernandoPessoa,semnenhuma espéciedehesitaçãoouambiguidade’(theentiretyoftheheteronymicoeuvreistobepublished underhisownname,FernandoPessoa,withoutanykindofhesitationorambiguity). Fernão CabralMartinsandRichardZenith,‘Prefácio’,in TeoriadaHeteronímia,editedbyFernando Pessoa(Lisbon:Assírio&Alvim,2012),p.18.Pessoa,‘CartaaJoãoGasparSimões—28-7-1932’, inTeoriadaHeteronimia,pp.255–257.
collectivediscourseattributed,inthetitle,totheMozambicanpeople?Inhis creationofMutimati,Quadrosdoesnotperpetuateanti-blackraciststereotypes,nordidheprofitfromthebook.ReadalongsidethepoetryofGrabato Dias,Ipositthatthecollectioncanbemostproductivelyexaminedasa prankcarriedoutagainstFrelimo’sleadership.Quadrosstrategicallyuses Mutimati’sidentitytoensurethatthecollectionwaspublishedbytheparty, giventhatFrelimowouldnothavepublishedacollectionattributedtoaPortuguesewithanamelikeAntónioQuadros.Astrikingperversityof Eu,o Povo (I,thePeople)isthatthepoemsrevealaconcernwithforegrounding theissueswithanindividualclaimingtorepresentacollective,inabook whosetitleandframingtextsputthepoetforwardasaspokespersonfor theMozambicanpeople.⁵¹ Quadros’spuncturingoftheroleofspokespersonattributedtohisauthorialconstructrevealsasuspicion,alsoexpressed inthetextsofGrabatoDias,withcollectivediscoursesandtheformationof thecollectiveconstruct opovomoçambicano.
TheDifficultiesofReadingQuadros
Quadros’sworkshaveneverhadasizeablereadership,owingtothemarginal literarycontextinwhichhepublishedthemandthedifficultiesthathis poetrypresentstoreaders.Mostofhisworkshadsmall,singleprintruns andmanyhavebeenhistoricallydifficulttoaccess.⁵² Littleofhisworkhas beentranslatedintootherlanguages.⁵³ AntónioCabritahasdescribedGrabatoDiasasa‘poetaintratável’(inaccessiblepoet)forcritics.⁵⁴ Thereis apaucityofcriticalstudiesonQuadros,limitedtotheworksofMaria
⁵¹ WhereIreferto‘thepeople’or‘theMozambicanpeople’Iusethetermasitisdeployed inFrelimodiscourses;thatis,anationalistconstruct.
⁵² Thisissuehasbeenalleviatedrecentlybythewelcomepublicationofananthologyof GrabatoDias’swork,organizedbyPedroMexia,whichincludesextractsfrom 40eTalSonetos, OMorto,AArca,Laurentinas,Pressaga,Facto/Fado and SagaPress JoãoPedroGrabatoDias [AntónioQuadros], OdesDidácticas (Lisbon:TintadaChina,2021).Apocketbookeditionof Eu,oPovo (Lisbon:Cotovia,2008)isalsostillinprint.
⁵³ Allthepoemsfrom Eu,oPovo weretranslatedbyChrisSearleintoEnglish,in SunflowerofHope:PoemsfromtheMozambicanRevolution (London:AlisonandBusby,1982), pp.84–109.FrederickWilliamstranslatedselectstanzasfrom AsQuybyrycas andfivepoems from Eu,oPovo (‘Relatório’,‘CamaradaInimigo’,‘Eu,oPovo’,‘Venceremos’,and‘PésdaMesa’) intoEnglish.Thetranslationsappearinhisbilingualanthology, PoetsofMozambique/Poetas deMoçambique:ABilingualSelection (NewYork,NewYork:Luso-BrazilianBooks;Provo, UT:BrighamYoungUniversityStudies;Maputo:UniversidadeEduardoMondlane;Lisbon: InstitutoCamões,2006),pp.276–287.
⁵⁴ AntónioCabrita,‘TudoéEscritaeatéCertasCoisasEscritas’,inAntónioQuadros, OSinaleirodasPombas (Porto:Árvore,CooperativadeActividadesArtísticas,2001),p.213.
LourdesCortez,EugénioLisboa,AméliaMuge,FrederickG.Williams, Maria-BeneditaBasto,AntónioCabrita,MurilodaCostaFerreira,andRita MaiaGomes.⁵⁵ StudiesofQuadros’sworkhavetendedtofocusonMutimatiBarnarbéJoãoandFreyIoannesGarabatus,despitethefactthatonly onecollectionisattributedtoeachofthosefictionalauthors,whereasnine collectionsareattributedtoGrabatoDias. DissidentAuthorship isthefirst attemptatabook-lengthstudyoftheworksofQuadros’sthreepennames.
ThedifficultiesofreadingthepoetryofGrabatoDias,Mutimati,and IoannesGarabatusaremanyandvaried.Quadrosself-publishedmostofhis poems,manyofwhichappearnottohavepassedthrougharigorousediting process.Thetextscontaintypographicalerrorsandunevenuseofpunctuation.Attimes,itisunclearwhoisthesubjectinagivenverbalconstruction. Quadros’sidiosyncraticuseofvocabularymeansthathisuseofimageryis, onoccasion,ambiguous.⁵⁶ Itisnotalwaysclearwhethertheambiguitiesin thepoetryaretheresultofaconsciousartisticchoiceortheunfortunate by-productofamisprint.
Quadros’suseofpennamesalsopresentsachallengetohisreaders. Quadros’sdeploymentofhispennamesisludic,correspondingtotheimpishnessthatCarmelaCiuraruidentifiesinsomeusagesofpseudonyms:
Anomdeplumecan[…]provideadivinesenseofcontrol.Nowritercan determinethefateofabook—howthepoemsornovelsareinterpreted, whethertheyarelovedorgrosslymisunderstood.Byassumingapenname, though,anauthorcanclaimterritory,seizepossessionofaworkbefore thereaderorcriticinevitablydistortsit.Inthisway,theauthorgetsthe lastlaugh:despisemybookasmuchasyoulike;youdon’tevenknowwho wroteit.Howeverpetty,suchtrickeryyieldsinfinitepleasure.Obfuscation isfun!⁵⁷
ThegamesofhideandseekthatQuadros’spennamesplaywithhisreaders establishaperverserelationshipofresistanceanddependencewiththem thatissubtlydistinctfromthatenvisagedbyCiurarufortheauthorhiding
⁵⁵ Theworksoftheseauthorscanbeconsultedinthebibliography.
⁵⁶ AnotableinstanceisthelengthysectioninAArcadedicatedto‘aola’,discussedbyCabrita inhisessayonQuadros’spoetrypublishedin OSinaleirodasPombas:Cabrita,‘TudoéEscrita eatéCertasCoisasEscritas’,inAntónioQuadros, OSinaleirodasPombas (Porto:Árvore, CooperativadeActividadesArtísticas,2001),p.204.
⁵⁷ CarmelaCiuraru, NomdePlume:A(Secret)HistoryofPseudonyms (NewYork:HarperCollins,2012),p.xxv.
behindapseudonym.Quadroscountsonsomeofhisreadershipbeingin theknowastotheidentityoftheauthorandothersbeinginthedark.
LikemanyotherwritersinMozambiqueopposedtocolonialrule, Quadroscodedhisanti-authoritarianandanti-colonialpoliticsinwhathistorianOliveiraMarquesdescribesasa‘highlyoriginalcrypto-writing’and RussellHamiltonasa‘hermetismoambı´guo’(ambiguoushermetism)that allowedauthorstobypassthecensors.⁵⁸ However,thecensorshipcontext doesnotentirelyexplainthedifficultyofQuadros’spoetry.Hecontinuedto usethecrypticstylethathehaddeployedinhisobliqueanti-colonialpoetry inthepost-independenceperiod.Thecrypticbentofhispoetryentailsa consciouswithholdingofinformationfromhisreaders.AsGrabatoDias notesin Facto/Fado,histextsconcealasmuchastheyreveal:heremarks thathe‘feigns’(‘finjo’,aloadedverbthatrecallsFernandoPessoa’sclaimthat thepoetisa‘fingidor’[feigner/faker])andthat‘Estousempreocultandoalgo noabrirdaescrita’(Evenwhenmywritingappearstoopenup,Iamalways hidingsomething,p.28).ThisquotationpointstothefactthatGrabatoDias isconsciousofthedifficultiesthathispoetrypresentstohisreadersandthat hedeliberatelyclosespartsofhistextsofffromthem.Italsodemonstrates acuriousperversityofGrabatoDias’swritings,inparticular.AlthoughGrabatoDias’spoetryisoftenopaque,heiskeentoflag,inrelativelylegible terms,thathispoetryisdifficulttocomprehend.
AfurtherdifficultyinreadingQuadros’sworks—inparticular,thoseof GrabatoDias—ishighlightedelsewherein Facto/Fado:‘Digo-me,redigome,contradigo-me’(Italktomyself,Irepeatmyself,Icontradictmyself, p.13).Although,attimes,heflagsthatheisconsciousoftheinconsistenciesinhispoetry,aswiththeambiguitiesthatarisefromalienatingsyntax, vocabulary,andtypographynotedabove,readerscanneverbesurethata givendisjunctioninGrabatoDias’stextsiscalculatedoraccidental.One areawhereQuadros’sfictionalauthors are consistentisthedistinctiveantiauthoritarianstrandthatrunsthroughouthiswork.Duringthelatecolonial period,thepoet’sidiosyncraticanti-authoritarianpoliticsaredirectedatthe colonialstate.Afterindependence,Mutimati(in Eu,oPovo)andGrabato Dias(in OPovoéNós)detectandcritiqueFrelimo’slatentauthoritarian tendencies.
⁵⁸ A.H.deOliveiraMarques, HistoryofPortugal,2vols(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press,1972–1976),II,p.187; RussellHamilton, LiteraturaAfricana,LiteraturaNecessária,2 vols(Lisbon:Edições70,1981–1984),II,p.65.
AccordingtotheindividualsthatIhaveinterviewed,Quadroshadnoformalpoliticalaffiliations.AlthoughsympatheticwithFrelimo’sprojectbefore theparty’sThirdConference,hewasnotamemberoftheparty,norwashe amemberoftheAssociaçãodosEscritoresdeMoçambique(Association ofMozambicanWriters),awriters’collectivefoundedbyFrelimo.However,evenifQuadroswasnotinterestedincurrentaffairsorpartypolitics, hispoetrydeploysvariouspoliticaldiscourses:thelanguageofmedieval hierarchies,colonialism,and,inthepost-independenceperiod,theMarxistLeninist-inflectedbuzzwordsfavouredbyFrelimo.Attimes,Quadros’suse oflanguagerelatingtocolonialismisinfelicitous.In AArca,thepoetmakes theaggrandizedandironicclaimthathe,alone,isslave(‘escravo’)tothe powers-that-be.GrabatoDias’slikeningofhispositionasapoetbenefitingfromthepatronageofhisauthoritarianmasterstoslaveryin1971, onlyadecadeafterforcedlabourinMozambiquewasofficiallyabolished,⁵⁹ revealsadisconnectfromtheharshrealitiesfacedbymanyMozambicans underPortuguesecolonialrule.Quadros’sironicandself-aggrandizinguse oftermssuchas‘escravo’(slave),inparticular,todescribehispositionunder colonialruleistheresultofamappingofthelanguageofcolonialauthoritarianismontotheliterarypoliticsofbeingananti-colonialPortuguesewriter withaprivilegedsocialpositionincolonialMozambique.
Thisbookisdividedintosixchapters,inwhichIconsiderthepoliticsofauthorshipinMozambiqueinrelationtothethemesofidentity, canoncity,representation,andreadershipthroughreadingsofQuadros’s literaryoutput.
Inchapter 1,ItracehowtheroleofauthorsinMozambiquechanged fromthelatecolonialtothepost-colonialperiods.IlocatethecentralparadoxofauthorshipinMozambique—thattobeanauthoristobepolitically essentialandpoliticallyuseless—inthecuriousconsonanceofdiscourses onauthorshippromulgatedbythePortuguesedictatorshipandbyMozambicannationalists.
Inchapter 2,IuseGrabatoDias’sidentityasacasestudytodiscuss theparadoxesof moçambicanidade (Mozambicanidentity).Icontrastthe configurationofGrabatoDias’sidentityinthelatecolonialperiodwith itsframinginthepost-CarnationRevolutioncontext,arguingthatthe shiftinGrabatoDias’sidentitymapsontothesuddenchangeinpolitical paradigm.ThetrajectoryofGrabatoDias’sidentityrevealsthedisjunction
⁵⁹ EricAllina,SlaverybyAnyOtherName:AfricanLifeunderCompanyRuleinMozambique (Charlottesville,VA:UniversityofVirginiaPress,2012),p.9.
betweentheutopianuniversalismof moçambicanidade asaloosecultural identityacceptingofsettlerwriterslikeQuadrosandtherelativelyrigid nationalistdefinitionunderlyingFrelimo’sconceptionofMozambicancivic identity.Inthelatecolonialperiod,GrabatoDias’sLuso-MozambicanidentityfunctionsasaformofresistancetoPortuguesecolonialrule;inthe post-independenceperiod,hefearsthathisidentitywillexcludehimfrom thenewnationofMozambique.
Inchapter 3,IanalyseQuadros’sengagementwith OsLusı´adas,amajor workofthePortuguesecanonbyLuı´sdeCamõesthatwasappropriatedby theEstadoNovoasafoundationalimperialtext.AsQuybyrycasanditspreface,authoredbydissidentcriticJorgedeSena,providesubversiverereadings ofCamões’sepic.Quadros’sandSena’sreframingsofCamõesdrawoutthe tensionsandambiguitiesin OsLusı´adas asacountertotheauthoritative interpretationsofconservativeliterarycritics.In AsQuybyrycas,opacityis highlightedasatextualstrategythatforestallsattempts,bypoliticalauthorities,toappropriateliterarytexts.IdeployQuadros’snuanceddiscussions ofthepitfallsofsuchastrategytochallengedeconstructionistpostcolonial criticism,whichpositsambiguityasanhistoricallyeffectiveanti-colonial tool.
Chapter 4 analysesthecrypticanti-colonialode AArca,inwhichGrabatoDiasraisesquestionsovertheroleandfunctionofwritersincontexts ofcollectivepoliticalstruggle.GrabatoDias’sidiosyncraticanti-colonialpoliticsstandasacounterpointtoFrelimo’smilitarizedpoliticalstanceandto theparty’spositionontheroleofliteratureintheanti-colonialstruggle.I interrogateGrabatoDias’sidiosyncraticpacifistanti-colonialpoeticsusing Fanon’sdefenceofanti-colonialviolence.
Inchapter 5,Iexaminethephenomenonofcollectivepoetrypublished byFrelimothroughthecaseofMutimatiBarnabéJoão’sEu,oPovo.Ianalyse Quadros’sattemptin Eu,oPovo toreconciletheanti-colonialandpostcolonialfunctionsofpoetryinMozambique:resistancetopowerandthe expressionofthenationalistproject,respectively.Mutimati’stextisconcernedwithchallengingFrelimo’spopulistdiscoursesandwithemphasizing therolethatindividualscanplayintheprojectofnationalreconstruction.
Inchapter 6,Iexaminequestionsrelatingtoreadershipinthreetexts authoredbyGrabatoDias:theshortstories SeteContosparaumCarnaval,theprefaceto Eu,oPovo’sspiritualsequel, OPovoéNós;and,a crypticglossofMutimati’s Eu,oPovo,authoredbyGrabatoDias,from Sagapress.Iusethesetextstoproposeameansofreconcilingthedebate inpostcolonialstudiesconcerningthemodesofreading—historicistand
deconstructionist—mostappropriateforapproachingtextswrittenincolonialcontexts.Furthermore,IexamineQuadros’sframingofliterature’s potentialtohaveatangible,positive,andmaterialimpactonsociety, throughitsreaders,inlightofdecolonialtheory’semphasisonacritical practicedirectedtowardsradicallytransformingtheworld.
Afigurewhostraddledthecolonialandpost-independenceperiods inMozambique,Quadros’scaserevealsthecontinuitiesanddisjunctions betweenwhatitmeanttobeanauthorincolonialandFrelimo-ruled Mozambique.AlthoughQuadros’sdisconnectfromthepolitical,social,and economicrealitiesfacedbymostMozambicansdistortshisframingsofhis ownrelationshiptopower,hisworksoftendisplayaremarkableperspicacityregardingthecomplexitiesofcolonialandpost-colonialMozambican politicsandtheproblematicofauthorshipinMozambique.
