Maria de Lourdes Nogueira’s admission to and work in the teaching staff of cpii

In the 1920s, Pedro II School underwent several reforms in its teaching program, promoted and encouraged by the then principal of this establishment, Euclides de Medeiros Guimarães Roxo. Among the changes that took place, we can mention: increase in the number of students, including non-paying ones, and, with that, the expansion of supplementary classes; admission of women as students and the role of the Feminist Movement, led by Bertha Lutz³², which advocated for the inclusion of women in the student body; the link between academic training and the subject taught; and the appointment, by regular teachers³³, of the chairs of modern languages and sciences to female teachers, for the latter to work with these supplementary classes.

From the studies by ^{Soares (2014}), it can be inferred that the main door for women to secondary teaching, at the institution, was cla sses of modern and mother tongues, especially supplementary classes of Portuguese, English and French.

Source: ^{Soares (2014}).

Table 1 Teachers of the supplementary Portuguese classes at Pedro II School - 1940.  

In Table 1, we can see that among the five female teachers, only Maria de Lourdes Nogueira had a teacher registration with the DNE, under registration No 199, being described as ‘an elderly lady who fulfils her duties’. In the case of the other teachers - Aurea de Salles Pereira Leite, Clara Oiticica, Otília Reis, Anna da Glória Santos de Araújo -, only the expression ‘good person’ appeared in front of their names. A hypothesis on the different treatment of Maria de Lourdes is that this evaluation detached her professional image, in the sense of following institutional norms, from activism.

It cannot be ignored that the broader access, both for non-paying students³⁴ and for female students and teachers, came with a certain precariousness as to the work, since most female teachers were not registered with the DNE, and each regular teacher would be assigned up to four supplementary classes.

This perspective supported on the idea of crisis of school institutions and repercussions on the teaching work, developed by ^{Dubet (2002}, 2011) and presented by ^{Soares e Silva (2018}), indicates that the Capanema Reform intensified CPII’s institutional crisis, which began in the previous decade with the Francisco Campos Reform, due to problems concerning infrastructure, low wages, increased number of students and supplementary classes, and the creation of the Philosophy course to train higher-level teachers. On the other hand, it allows thinking about the identity strategies built within CPII, as it draws the researcher’s attention “[...] to the processes of individual and collective construction of teaching identities [...]”, revealing elements about “[...] the political constraints, the social interactions and the symbolic dimensions that permeate the identity dynamics of this professional group” (^{Xavier, 2014}, p. 832).

The emphasis on the dichotomy and on the hierarchy between men and women in the processes of teaching-identity construction links the institutional crisis and the decline in the prestige of CPII to the female presence in its teaching staff, limiting the autonomy of individual choices by suggesting that the positions were only filled by women because they were left by men who went in search of better working conditions. However, studies by ^{Mendonça (2015}) on the first teachers at CPII already denounced that temporariness was typical of the institution’s teachers at the beginning of its operation. The study by ^{Lauris Jr. (2009}) also brings a speech by teacher José Oiticica, denouncing the hierarchy and precarization of work at the institution in 1922, even before women joined the teaching staff, or before the announced teaching reforms.

2^nd Substitutes, in addition to earning less than regular teachers, with the same job, cannot take part in the congregations, that is, they do not collaborate in programs, do not take care of their own interests when at stake. It is an unfair situation, and the same effort as that of regular teachers (apud ^{Lauris Jr., 2009}, p. 121).

The assumption that women were admitted to CPII only due to an institutional crisis and loss of prestige also disregards the role of the Feminist Movement in claiming greater space for women in educational institutions, as well as the fact that the female teachers who first worked at CPII were part of a project to modernize secondary education, as well as to expand its gratuitousness and secularity.

Based on the assumption that discriminations hierarchize the categories of belonging within the institution, the gender category dealt with in this study articulates with the studies on relations of power, since the latter is understood as exerted and mutable, and not as dichotomous. ^{Saffioti (2013}) points out that the ways in which the cultural meanings that constitute differences are built, giving them sense and placing them inside the hierarchical relations that are established, make room for a notion of gender also permeated by subjective identity.

This perspective allows thinking that women started at CPII as a strategy to distinguish themselves from jobs with a negative social image or a subordinate position, or even those that did not require formal training, being also concerned with the aspects that distinguished them from other women and from each other. The ‘valuing of the self’, which, according to ^{Dubar (2012}), comes along with a common professional rhetoric, that is, through identification in the constitution of a positive professional identity, would enable women to plan a career and engage in the secondary-education segment.

Based on these studies, our objective, then, is to point out the social conditions experienced by Maria de Lourdes Nogueira, either as a teacher at CPII or through the collective actions in which she took part, giving visibility to her struggles, conquests in the public and private spaces, in order to take her out of the ‘silence’ in which she was confined, perhaps caused by the ‘silence of the sources’. According to ^{Perrot (2012}, p. 17): “Women leave few direct traces, writings or articles. Their access to writing came late”. This was not the case with Maria de Lourdes, as she had a major role in the public space, as an anarchist activist, writer and teacher. However, this was not the reality of most women, and the erasure of her journey at CPII and in the Movement after 1920, especially if we compare her with her contemporaries, such as anarchist teacher José Rodrigues Leite Oiticica, shows that, when it comes to women, “[...] silence weighs more” (^{Perrot, 2012}, p. 16).

According to ^{Martins (2013}, p. 33), Maria de Lourdes was “[...] a disciple of José de Oiticica, a teacher at CPII and one of the leaders of the Anarchist Movement, with whom she took Latin and Greek lessons”. Whereas there is production about this male anarchist teacher, little is told about the female anarchist teacher. We found two articles published by Angela Maria Roberti Martins, which were important for this article: the first, entitled ‘The Invisibility of Maria de Lourdes Nogueira: Woman, Activist, Libertarian’ [A invisibilidade de Maria de Lourdes Nogueira: mulher, militante, libertária], published in Emecê, Bulletin of Marques da Costa Research Center [Núcleo de Pesquisa Marquês da Costa], in 2009; and the second, ‘Woman, Free Yourself: Anarchism and Women’ [Mulher liberta-te: o anarquismo e as mulheres], published as a book chapter, in 2013. In the latter, Maria de Lourdes is mentioned as a follower of the “[...] orientations of the anarcho-communism systematized by Kropotkin”³⁵ (^{Martins, 2013}, p. 33). And it is on her engagement and her role in the Anarchist Movement that we will focus next.

Maria de Lourdes Nogueira (18?-1967): a libertarian teacher?

Tracking the professional path of teacher Maria de Lourdes Nogueira was not an easy task. ^{Martins’ study (2009}) on the Anarchist Movement in Brazil brought some traces about the participation of women in this movement in the early 20^th century.

The words of this author regarding Maria de Lourdes Nogueira are significant when she says that this is “[...] a name that deserves to be (re)found [...]”, as she is “[...] a libertarian woman who was present both in political movements and in sociocultural mobilizations” (^{Martins, 2009}, p. 1). We add that she was also present at CPII as a teacher and with her partnership with regular teacher José Rodrigues Leite Oiticica, which confirms ^{Martins’ statement (2013}, p. 30) that, “Though invisible in historiographic production for a long time, female anarchist activists in Brazil fought alongside men in defense of libertarian postulates”.

Born in the city of Oliveira, Minas Gerais, on July 22, 1882, he was the fourth of seven children of former constitution writer and senator Dr. Francisco de Paula Leite e Oiticica. Graduated in Law in 1902, he studied Medicine, but did not finish it³⁶; he left these fields instead to dedicate himself to teaching and, being a combative anarchist, was arrested several times. He started in education at Paula Freitas School [Colégio Paula Freitas], RJ, teaching History. According to ^{Lauris Jr., 2009}, in 1906 he founded the Latin American School [Colégio Latino Americano], where he employed the pedagogical methods of the Frenchman Edmond Demulins, little known in Brazil. In 1916, he was admitted to CPII as a Portuguese teacher. As an applicant, he defended “[...] a thesis in which he showed the errors contained in the books of those who were going to examine him [...]”, says Edgar Rodrigues, in the presentation of José ^{Oiticica’s ‘Anarchist Doctrine for All’ [Doutrina anarquista ao alcance de todos] (1983}, p. 103). At CPII, he taught for 35 years, until retirement, maintaining his anarchist activism.

While teaching, he also worked at the Normal School [Escola Normal] and at the University School [Colégio Universitário] of the University of Brazil [Universidade do Brazil]. Maria de Lourdes also taught at the latter, between 1938 and 1942, hired as a supernumerary teacher, pursuant to Decree-Law No 882 of November 23, 1938, provided for in the public notice of the competitive examination published in Diário Oficial, on April 1 of that year (^{Diário de Notícias, 1938}).

Because the sources that referred to Maria de Lourdes were scattered, we worked with the perspective of (re)building her life and professional journey through fragments of the past, by means of clues and signs found in her publications, which suggest a greater connection with the authors she read and who influenced her, as well as how she read these works. This type of analysis is based on ^{Ginzburg’s life story composition (2006}), which seeks possible relationships between the singular and the collective, attentive to the details and signs present in documents. This look gives the individual greater potential to act before the structures, which is different from the perspective in which the constitution of individuality is only possible when the roles that the individual plays are inserted in a universe that allows them to chart their way.

The sources suggested that she was part of the group of female anarchist activists in Brazil, standing out in the defense of women’s emancipation. On the occasion of The Leopoldina Railway Company’s strike, in 1920, Maria de Lourdes spoke at the rally in the garden of Praça da República, RJ, pointing to anarchism as the way to liberation.

In addition to participating in group organizations and public demonstrations, she signed articles in the libertarian press, such as A Obra, A Voz do Povo, and in the A Razão newspaper, although this one was not anarchist³⁷. Moreover, between 1920 and 1922, she took part in the foundation of the Feminist League of Social Studies [Liga Feminista de Estudos Sociais]³⁸, in the 1^st Brazilian Feminist Conference, whose committee had Leoninda Daltro, and in the Brazilian Women Legion [Legião da Mulher Brasileira] (^{O combate, 1922}).

According to ^{Martins (2009}, p. 1), Maria de Lourdes, along with other activists, made it a point “[...] to clarify that the revolution had not made nor would make women a public thing, and that the freedom they claimed for both sexes did not mean debauchery”.

Although it was not possible to specify whether Maria de Lourdes kept her fierce activism while working at CPII (1927-1949), she maintained her teaching partnership, throughout this period, with teacher José Oiticica. Anarchist studies make no reference to her after 1920, nor to her parents or schooling. The documents did not point in this direction either.

When we consulted the NUDOM/CPII collection and the press, there were, at first, doubts as to whether Maria de Lourdes Nogueira, an activist, and Maria de Lourdes Nogueira França, a writer, were the same person. This doubt was due to a difference in writing style in press columns and due to the surname. The doubt can be clarified by the teacher herself through a statement published in 1916, in Jornal do Comércio, in which she informed that, as of that publication, she would sign her name as Maria de Lourdes Ramos Nogueira, and no longer as Maria de Lourdes Nogueira França. Still, we found publications with this surname until 1920.

With the last name França, which she inherited from her husband Nogueira França, and from which she abdicated, we found news related to family events, such as the celebration of the engagement of her son Eurico Nogueira França³⁹, born in 1913, and the commemoration of a mass for her one-year death anniversary, held on August 21, 1968 (^{Correio da Manhã, 1968}).

It was also necessary to resort to the crossing of sources, which indicated, from some evidence, eliminations and connections, that Maria de Lourdes was born in the late nineteenth century, since her son was born in 1913. From a ‘death note’, published in Jornal do Brasil on February 28, 1947, about her father’s seventh-day mass, and from an article in Jornal Theatro e Sport congratulating her on her birthday, on May 9, 1925⁴⁰, it was possible to check her parentage: Francisca Ramos Nogueira, her mother, and Virgílio da Fonseca Nogueira, her father. In addition to the approximations regarding the date of her birthday, it was possible to establish relationships between the references found in the Fon Fon magazine, in which she published literary essays between 1914 and 1920, and in the A Razão and Voz do Povo newspapers, which published her libertarian speeches.

We brought some publications from the Fon Fon magazine, such as ‘Sonia’s Engagement’ [O noivado de Sonia], 1915, which has Russia as scenario; the text entitled ‘Ambition’ [Ambição], 1915, which tells the story of a woman who found true love and happiness when she let go of her material wealth; and the poem ‘Desire’ [Desejo], 1920, in which she speaks of her rising to the desire for freedom.

In ‘Sonia’s Engagement’ (Figure 1), the reader encounters a climate of political tension that preceded the Russian Revolution, and the denunciation of the tyranny of the then Czar Ramanoff, expressed soon at the beginning of the text, in the excerpt: “Russia. In the wave of convicts, who, for political crimes, went to the inhospitable regions of Siberia [...]” And yet: “Walked towards death. Oh, because they dared to plot against the power of Tsar Ramanoff” (^{Fon Fon, 1920a}, p. 12). There is also mention of a ‘voluntary martyr’, whose father was looking for her, a characteristic that can also be attributed to the author, when analyzing her role in the Anarchist Movement in Brazil.

Source: ^{Fon Fon (1915}).

Figure 1 Sonia’s Engagement. Maria de Lourdes Nogueira França 

In her poem ‘Desire’ (Figure 2), more subjective aspects are expressed by the suffering of living in a world that the author deems ‘perverted and false’, and it is possible to establish from that a relationship with her other work entitled ‘Ambition’, in that happiness can only be achieved with a detachment from material goods. In said poem, this message is also present in the expressions: “You would give me the honors that are given to the saints” and “And, my Love, is... is...your bare foot.”

Source: ^{Fon Fon (1920a}).

Figure 2 Poem Desire, by Maria de Lourdes Nogueira França 

Libertarian matters arose in these publications, but her activism appeared in a subtle manner, unlike her writing in the press, during the period in which she played a major role in the Anarchist and Feminist Movements of Rio de Janeiro, namely: in the Feminist League of Social Studies, in the 1^st Brazilian Feminist Conference, and in the Brazilian Women Legion, just as the study by ^{Martins (2009}, ²⁰¹³) pointed out, identifying her as an ‘activist poet’.

In the Fon Fon magazine, on November 20, 1920, we found a picture of Maria de Lourdes Nogueira (Figure 3) in an advertisement announcing her works: ‘Literary Fragments, Essays’ [Fragmentos, ensaios literários] and ‘Love and Art’ [Amor e arte], published at the time.

Source: ^{Fon Fon (1920b}).

Figure 3 Maria de Lourdes Nogueira França 

In 1920, Maria de Lourdes inaugurated a Portuguese Philosophy course⁴¹, intended for CPII examinees, being introduced by the press as a teacher, poet, prose writer and niece of Luiz Pereira Barreto (^{Pelas Escolas, 1920}).⁴²

The doubts about the authorship of the writings could also be clarified by the close relationship of Maria de Lourdes Nogueira with teacher José Oiticica, as confirmed by the news article entitled ‘November Anarchist Agitation: The Results of Police Research’ [Agitação anarquista de novembro: os resultados das pesquisas policiais], published in 1919, in Revista Contemporânea, about the interrogation they both went through due to their involvement in the strike movement of November 18, 1918:⁴³

In the investigation, this lady ‘Maria de Lourdes Nogueira’ was also heard, not contradicting the statements of teacher Oiticica, and those named as knowing best the role played by teacher Oiticica, Messrs. Carlos Dias, Ricardo Corrêa Perpetua and Manoel Campos, ‘all arrested, even though they did not want to say anything’ (^{Revista Contemporânea, 1919a}, author’s emphasis).

According to information from the police investigation, José Rodrigues Leite Oiticica, a teacher at CPII, would have been accused of heading the movement considered to be subversive of the public order, along with Carlos Dias, Ricardo Corrêa and Manoel Campos, leading workers to the general strike, which took place on November 18, 1918 (^{Revista Contemporânea, 1919b}) ⁴⁴. Also according to the news published in O Jornal, of 1918, Maria de Lourdes was arrested to be interrogated together with teacher Oiticica, for anarchist actions (^{Lamounier, 2011}).

Maria de Lourdes was active in the Anarchist Movement, engaging not only in strikes, but also in leagues, assemblies, demonstrations, conferences and the press. In 1919, she wrote a column for the A Razão newspaper, in which she transcribed excerpts and considerations about Urich Avila’s lecture. Preceding the transcription, Maria de Lourdes draws the reader’s attention: “It is never too much, however, to repeat that which makes our hearts vibrate, in the sincerity of our convictions, and I therefore transcribe this luminous passage [...]”, continuing with Urich Avila’s pronouncement: “We want: ‘A true society, says Urich. In which, with the abolishment of the artificial inequalities among individuals and, therefore, class differences, competition will be replaced by cooperation [...]’”. And she concluded with the expression: “Hail! Russia, cradle of the new era!”, probably referring to the revolution in the USSR that took place in 1917 (^{Era nova II, 1919}, author’s emphasis).⁴⁵

Faced with the police’s actions, which worked in the sense of repressing this movement, persecuting its representatives, just as what happened on the occasion of the 1918 strike, Maria de Lourdes wrote an article published in the journal A Obra, in August 1920, standing against this attitude, the excerpt of which was transcribed by ^{Martins (2009}, p. 2).

Ever since I joined the ranks of the combatants for the new social order, I implicitly took on the enormous responsibility of striving, relentlessly, for the advent of the new era, in which there is to be more justice and more harmony among men. The unshakable faith that encourages me is the same faith that makes the lips of our comrades set ajar in smiles, thrown into the back of the dungeons or ruthlessly banished to the inhospitable regions of Africa. What does it matter to them, however, if the bourgeois and capitalist blindness today calls them arsonists, bombers and quejandras? What do they care about the narrowness of a dungeon or the infected bilge of a ship, if the victory of the great ideal constitutes life’s reason for being? Let us not stop then!

According to ^{Martins (2009}), the Women’s Communist League [Liga Comunista Feminina], founded on May 27, 1919, did not last long because of the police persecution, and the Women’s Social Studies Group [Grupo Feminino de Estudos Sociais], of an educational nature, founded in RJ, on January 22, 1920, released ‘A Manifesto to Brazilian Women’ [Um manifesto à mulher brasileira], with the goal of fighting the issues that suffocated the ‘female sex’. The Group’s proposal was

[...] to unite all emancipated women in Brazil, in order to systematically and effectively fight the clerical enslavement, economic enslavement, moral enslavement and legal enslavement that suffocate, degrade and demean the female sex. As an alternative, the Group sought to provide women with an education capable of leading them to assimilate the reasons for social exploitation, demystifying the economic and sociocultural factors that put women in a condition of subordination. In this sense, the Group opposed the tendency of education to privilege techniques and arts considered inherent to the feminine nature, support for the so-called ‘women’s jobs’ (^{Martins, 2009}, p. 2, author’s emphasis).

Maria de Lourdes Nogueira was the secretary at the first meeting of the Women’s Social Studies League [Liga Feminina de Estudos Sociais], also known as Women’s Social Studies Group, which was held in the headquarters, at Av. Passos, 106. This meeting addressed the installation of the Women’s Communist League, in 1919, the agreement bases of the latter were read, and the first year of the death anniversary of Rosa Luxemburg⁴⁶ was commemorated, with a lecture by Álvaro Palmeira⁴⁷. In the same year, it was Maria de Lourdes who gave a lecture on Rosa Luxemburg. An assembly of the Women’s Social Studies Group or League, chaired by her, was held at the Graphic Association [Associação Gráfica], with the lecturer Barbosa, who spoke on social issues and matters of interest to women. At the end, the stanzas of The Internationale were chanted (^{A Razão, 1920a}; Voz do Povo, 1920).

In the press, she appeared calling on women to take part in the Group. She also spoke at a rally encouraging women to join the Study Group, held in the garden of Praça da República, Federal District, on the occasion of The Leopoldina Railway Company’s strike, in 1920. The rally was opened by Elisa Gonçalves⁴⁸, who spoke about violence against working families. Afterwards, Maria de Lourdes spoke about women and working women. In support of the strike, she delivered the following speech:

[...] I urge you! Group yourselves! With us! Join our women’s study group, so that you can teach, transmit to your children and to the people who live with you, the great and holy ideals of human progress! [...] The times have arrived and, with them, the victory of Good, eliminating economic inequality, social contrasts, wars, prostitution, indigence and the miserable exploitation of man by man [...]. (^{Voz do Povo, 1920})⁴⁹

Still in 1920, some changes were signaled both concerning the objectives and the leaders of the Feminist Movement of Rio de Janeiro. For instance, the change in the layout of the issue of April 3, 1920, of the Voz do Povo newspaper (Figure 4), which used to be smaller and had fewer pages, resembling a pamphlet, and started to identify itself, right on the first page, as a ‘Body of the Workers’ Federation of Rio de Janeiro and of the General Proletariat’, written below the title.

Source: ^{Voz do Povo (1920}).

Figure 4 Clipping of the title of the Voz do Povo newspaper 

This change indicated a closer relationship between anarchists and the labor movement. It was also found that Maria de Lourdes’s publications no longer appeared in the newspaper. There are only references to her in the Correio column of Voz do Povo, in which notices about letters and printed matter addressed to members were posted. This suggests that, although she did not distance herself from the Movement, her protagonism among the leaders diminished, to a certain extent.

Another indication of this change was the formal sitting held by the board of the Brazilian Women Legion⁵⁰, at the Commerce Association [Associação do Comércio]. The event was announced in the Diário de Manhã and A Razão newspapers, on May 17, 1920. The president, Olga Doyle, was present at the table that led the work, as well as: Cecília Meireles, Laurinda Santos Lobo, Margarida Lopes de Almeida, Luzia Serrano, Aurea Pires da Gama, and the speaker Pinto da Rocha, who addressed the ‘the Family and the Nation’ theme. The event also counted on a speech by Cecília Meireles, then secretary, about helpless mothers. It is worth noting that the name of Maria de Lourdes appears on the attendance list, without any highlight (^{A Razão, 1920b}; ^{A legião da mulher brasileira, 1920}).

Her name also appeared in the organizing committee of the 1^st Brazilian Feminist Conference, which was scheduled to take place between April 1 and April 15, 1921. In addition to her, the following were mentioned: Leolinda Daltro (teacher), Viscondessa de Saade, Mrs. Serzedello Correia, Adelina Savart de Saint Brisson (writer), Maria L. Fagundes Varella e Silva (teacher), Dr. Ermelinda Lopes de Vasconcellos (doctor), Aurea C. Daltro (teacher), Luiza de Souza Dias (teacher), Gilka da Costa Machado (writer), Alice A. Pimenta (writer), Conceição de Andrade (journalist), Mrs. Augusta Kauffman da Silva (^{A Noite, 1921}), providing evidence of her networks of sociability.⁵¹

According to ^{Fraccaro (2018}, p. 17, author’s emphasis), in the 1920s, initiatives for the creation of women’s groups that specifically addressed the matter of working women⁵² stood out in the anarchist organization. However, both the International Women’s Federation [Federação Internacional Feminina], which acted in 1922, and the Women’s Center [Centro Feminino], in 1924,

[...] gave lectures that addressed conformism before the harsh social reality, and the importance of rebellion for the group that was organized around neighborhood leagues and the A Plebe newspaper. They considered teacher Leolinda Daltro and her electoral intentions as ‘politicking sentiments of the old constitutional feminist’.

Perhaps because of these contradictions within the feminist movement⁵³, Maria de Lourdes Nogueira distanced herself or changed her focus, taking actions more linked to the educational field. In an advertisement posted in the press about the work Organum, by the Lafayette Institute [Instituto Lafayette]⁵⁴, she was mentioned in the summary on Art as the author and translator of Horacio, from Latin to Portuguese (^{Organum, 1922}).

In 1924, Jornal das Moças commented on her work entitled ‘Need for Constructions Intended to Preserve Unborn Children’ [Necessidade de criação de obras destinadas à preservação de nascituros], which proposed a new building or the expansion of the Institute for Childhood Protection and Assistance [Instituto de Proteção e Assistência à Infância] to the department for the preservation of unborn children, in order admit mothers three months before delivery; it acclaimed Dr. Moncorvo Filho as director of the institution, who would be in charge of organizing clinical and surgical services, as well as special clinics; it proposed the organization of a cooperative to maintain expenses, and the creation of child hygiene and sewing courses for mothers to learn how to make layettes (^{Necessidade de criação de obras..., 1924}).

In addition to her publications, she would have dedicated herself to studies, graduating in Languages from Santa Úrsula University [Universidade Santa Úrsula], a Catholic institution founded in 1939, in RJ (Formaturas, 1943). There are also indications that she would have started the Law course at the University of Rio de Janeiro [Universidade do Rio de Janeiro], around 1938, but it was not possible to check if she finished her studies. Between 1938 and 1942, she also taught at the University School (^{Diário de Notícias, 1938}).

Her work teaching at Pedro II School

In 1927, Maria de Lourdes Nogueira was admitted as a supplementary Portuguese teacher at the Day school of Pedro II School, as stated in the CPII Report by principal Euclides Roxo (1927-1929), and as an occasional examiner for Portuguese exams (^{Roxo, 1928}).

Although it was not possible to evidence whether there was any degree of kinship between her and teacher Julio Nogueira, also from CPII, it is known that this teacher was appointed as interim French teacher at the Boarding school and named to be temporarily in charge of the chair of English at CPII, in 1927, after having worked as a teacher ‘above regular teachers’ for the supplementary classes of the Day school, between 1925 and 1926. In 1931, he was also the teaching-head teacher, when the position of French, English and German teacher was extinguished at CPII. Later, he appeared in the Portuguese Program, in 1947, a subject taught by Maria de Lourdes throughout the period in which her presence at CPII was found (1927 to 1949). During this period, teacher Oiticica (1916 - 1951), who took the chair of Portuguese, also worked at the institution (^{Escragnolle Doria, 1939}; ^{Soares, 2014}).

As each regular teacher took on up to four supplementary classes⁵⁵, we can infer that these teachers were the ones who chose who would help them teach these classes. It was not possible, however, to specify whether she stayed at the institution after teacher Oiticica left. We can note that among the teachers, Clara Oiticica had the same surname as the teacher in charge of the Portuguese chair, José Oiticica, in 1920, who was also editor of the Voz do Povo newspaper, along with Maria de Lourdes. On the occasion of the 1918 strike, both were interrogated. Being a regular teacher at CPII, the position allowed him to have a certain influence on the admission of these women to the teaching staff, since they were part of his social circle.

The partnership between José Oiticica and Maria de Lourdes continued at CPII and was expressed in the news about the constitution of the Examining Committees for the exams of the Portuguese subject, in the elementary course of this educational establishment, in which both participated. In 1941, she composed the committee together with teachers Oiticica, Francisco Gonçalves and Silvio Eliz, and, in 1942, she was in a commission made up of the same teachers, in addition to Curio de Carvalho (^{Pelas escolas, 1942}).

In 1939, Maria de Lourdes was ranked second for the position of supplementary Portuguese teacher at CPII (Colégio Pedro II, 1939). In 1942, she became a supernumerary teacher⁵⁶, paid monthly, at CPII, with a position of 12 hours a week and salary of 1:600$0. Her role as a teacher and writer did not end there. In the same year, she had her contract renewed to teach at the University School and published an article entitled ‘Santa Úrsula Institute’ [Instituto Santa Úrsula], in the journal Formação: Revista de Educação (^{Nogueira, 1942}). The 1942 edition of the journal addressed the reform of Secondary Education.

She also continued with her private lessons in the preparatory course for CPII’s exams, now teaching Latin and Portuguese for competitive examinations together with teacher Joaquim Inácio (^{Contratados, 1942}).

Despite all her literary journey, her higher education degree came late. After she graduated in Languages, in 1943, it was not possible to specify whether she continued working at the University School of the University of Brazil, only at CPII, where we found references about this teacher until 1949. She passed away in 1967.

We noticed that, in some moments of her journey, she did not use her husband’s last name, and there was sparse information about her private life in the press. Although her son, Eurico Nogueira França (1913-1992), was recognized by the Brazilian Music Academy [Academia de Música Brasileira], having his biography published, it does not contain information about his parentage. Neither does Vasco Mariz, Eurico’s friend, in the text ‘Remembering Eurico Nogueira França (1913-1992)’ [Recordar Eurico Nogueira França (1913-1992)] mention his parents’ name; however, he mentions them when speaking of the formation journey of our protagonist’s son, teacher Maria de Lourdes Nogueira.

[...] although he was attracted by music from an early age, perhaps due to the influence of his parents, he studied and graduated in Medicine from the former University of Brazil, in 1934. He did not abandon his passion for music and ended up graduating in Piano from the National Music Institute [Instituto Nacional de Música], now the UFRJ’s Music School, at Rua do Passeio (^{Mariz, 2012}, p. 376).

Further considerations

Throughout the process of defining and analyzing Maria de Lourdes Nogueira’s course, some obstacles were encountered. Although the sources found are diverse, it was possible to notice an erasure of the role of this teacher in the Anarchist Movement, during the period in which she worked at CPII.

The press, in particular, was key to help us compare data that, at first sight, seemed contradictory. As for the gaps, they are still subject for further research, and so are the questions about the reasons that led her to join the feminist movements of the time, which distanced themselves from the anarchist perspective.

In addition to diving deeper into her journey in these movements, it is also worth looking for other sources that bring evidence of her training process and initial schooling, about which we found no traces. One possibility that emerges is to seek sources that refer to other educational institutions where she worked.

Despite the gaps, this analysis advanced in relation to the studies produced so far on anarchist women, contributing to breaking with the silence on the course of Maria de Lourdes Nogueira, after the 1920s, and on her activity as a teacher in secondary education at CPII and at the University School, between 1927 and 1949.

The surveys, as well as the debates about her literary production, show that, as a ‘cultural mediator’, she reached much wider public spaces than publications in the anarchist press did, also encompassing the educational field. So much so that several newspapers and journals made reference to her, indicating her fields and possibilities of action and a diverse network of sociability, reaffirming her protagonism in the history of the Anarchist Movement in Brazil, which indicates contributions to the history of women, especially anarchist ones, and to the History of Education.

Gender as a category of analysis helped us think about how she performed, whether in the movements, in the press or in educational institutions, showing the power relations that exist in these spaces of sociability, which indicated hierarchies between regular, assistant and supplementary teachers in the teaching staff of CPII, with the first position not being accessible to women. However, these power relations were not limited to the hierarchy between men and women, as the positions of assistant and substitute teachers were filled by both sexes.

The perspective approached in this article allowed giving prominence to Maria de Lourdes, removing her from a secondary role and showing that she also had a major participation in the Anarchist Movement, contributing to the studies on this theme in Brazil and Latin America.