the monarchy and the main hero in the battle, the Count of Eu. Gaining the support of the press, he organized an intense promotional campaign for his work. Between August and September 1871, almost not a day passed without newspapers from Rio de Janeiro talking about the artist or the canvas, which was visited by more than 60,000 people. At the same time, Luís Guimarães Júnior published a short, highly romanticized biography of the artist, which gained wide circulation and increased Americo's popularity. As a result, by the end of the year he had become a famous painter throughout the country, receiving commissions and distinctions, such as the Imperial Order of the Rose in the degree of officer (later promoted to Grand Dignitary and Commander) and the title of Historical Painter of the Imperial Chamber, but also becoming the center of great controversy. In this period and in the same spirit Américo also produced Fala do Trono, Ataque à Ilha do Carvoeiro, Passo da Pátria, Passagem do Chaco, and began the sketches for the government's of what was one of his greatest masterpieces, the large Batalha de Avaí, which was painted in Florence beginning in 1874 and being finished only in 1877. When first exhibited in Florence, still incomplete, it caused a sensation among art connoisseurs who had gathered in large numbers in the city for the celebrations of the fourth centenary of Michelangelo's birth. The work and a speech Américo delivered in two languages before the Renaissance master's statue of David, spread his fame throughout Europe, being celebrated in a number of articles and news as one of the greatest painters of his time. The Italian government, echoing the widespread praise, asked Américo for a portrait to appear with the luminaries of art of all times in the portrait gallery of the Uffizi, being exhibited among those of Ingres and Flandrin, Américo's own masters. When it was exhibited in Brazil, at the Imperial Academy General Exhibition of 1879, alongside the Batalha de Guararapes by Victor Meirelles, it aroused an even greater controversy than the previous battle. But the arguments were similar: the critics mainly attacked an alleged excess of fantasy and romanticism, as well as little historical accuracy in the representation of the scene. Américo, however, argued that: "A historical picture must, as a synthesis, be based on truth and reproduce the essential faces of the fact, and, as