This debate revolved around the problem of how to define the regime of the hereditary captaincies, especially in the initial period of occupation of the territory. The majority of 19th - century authors who dealt with the subject chose to emphasise the feudal aspects, and this interpretation ended up being questioned in the 20th century. The debate, which lasted for much of the century, involved historians and non-historians from the most diverse theoretical and political orientations but was nevertheless eminently theoretical and was studied by António Vasconcelos de Saldanha (2001). Schematically, we can say—based on a limited and largely published documentation—the various authors tried to define the characteristics of the period, framing it within the somewhat unclearly defined concepts of feudalism or capitalism, or even a combination of the characteristics of the two regimes.

Marchant took part in this debate with his article "Feudal and Capitalistic Elements..." ( The Hispanic American... , 1942), in which he analysed the interpretation lines while also taking a stand, refuting the feudal character thesis and trying to put forth the interpretation that pointed to the capitalist elements of colonisation. He considered the fundamental issue was the combination of trade and colonisation, in which investment was aimed at profit and could therefore be characterised as capitalist. Marchant concluded by stating the grantees "were clearly capitalistic in the sense of investing money for profit . " This debate, however, was defined by Francis Dutra as a "sterile controversy" ( A guide to the History of Brazil... , 1980, p. 89). In this sense, Alexander Marchant's greatest merit was to have taken a step forward in our knowledge of this period in his most important work.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | (Pdf)