Communicating the new chemistry in 18th-century Portugal: Seabra’s Elementos de Chimica

Science & Education (2006) 15:671 692 DOI 10.1007/s11191-005-8630-5

Ó Springer 2006

Communicating the new chemistry in 18th-century Portugal: Seabra’s Elementos de Chimica ANA CARNEIRO1 MARIA PAULA DIOGO1 and ANA SIMO˜ES2 1 Centro de Histo´ria e Filosofia da Cieˆncia e da Tecnologia, Faculdade de Cieˆncias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Quinta da Torre, 2825 Monte de Caparica, Portugal; 2 Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Cieˆncias, Centro de Histo´ria das Cieˆncias da Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, C8, Piso 6, 1749-016, Lisboa, Portugal

Abstract. In this paper, we analyse the aims, contents and impact of Seabra’s two-volume textbook Elementos de Chimica (Elements of Chemistry) published in 1788 and 1790. Seabra’s Elements of Chemistry does not conform to the characteristics usually ascribed to textbooks by traditional historiography, and in particular to textbooks published in the peripheries. Marking the arrival of the new chemistry in Portugal, in a period in which many still resisted Lavoisier’s chemistry, this textbook was a state of the art account written in Portuguese, interspersed with critical evaluations, original comments and novel contributions. Despite being the only Portuguese chemistry textbook written during this period, it had hardly any readers, even among its natural audience at the University of Coimbra.

Textbooks have been recently the subject of renewed interest by historians of science, who are looking at them not just as instruments of normal science (in the Kuhnian sense) and vehicles for the transmission of uncontroversial knowledge. It is increasingly recognised that textbook authors are much more than neutral or passive actors, and that they play a creative role in the development of a scientific discipline. In the case of 18th-century chemistry, it has been further acknowledged that textbooks may provide us with a window to the significance of scientific revolutions in the process of discipline formation (Bensaude-Vincent 1990; Lundgren & Bensaude-Vincent 2000). This new historiographical approach has mainly concentrated on case studies from scientific centres, and its extension to the study of the role of textbooks in peripheral regions will certainly bring new insights (Bertomeu Sanchez & Garcia Belmar 2000). The publication of Vicente Coelho Seabra’s two-volume textbook Elementos de Chimica (Elements of Chemistry) published in 1788 and 1790, marked the arrival of the new chemistry in Portugal. It was a state of the art account written in Portuguese, interspersed with critical evaluations, original comments and novel contributions. Written in a period in

672

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

which many still resisted Lavoisier’s chemistry, this textbook introduced the new chemistry to a Portuguese audience without the time-lag usually associated with the diffusion of science to peripheral countries. In this paper, we analyse the aims, contents and impact of this textbook.

1. Aspects of the Portuguese 18th-Century Context When addressing the impact of the Scientific Revolution in Portugal, one cannot avoid analysing the role played by the estrangeirados, Portuguese ‘‘Europeanized intellectuals,’’ who shared a common agenda and who put into practice different strategies to fulfil their goals. While their strategies varied throughout the 18th century, all were aimed at changing the Portuguese scientific landscape, by introducing the new sciences in a country still deeply attached to scholasticism (Simo˜es et al. 1999; Carneiro et al. 2000). In the first half of the century, the strategies of the estrangeirados amounted to a rejection of Aristotelianism and neo-Aristotelianism, voiced in informal gatherings and relatively short-lived private academies and conveyed, with some exceptions, by books of an encyclopaedic character written in the vernacular. In the third quarter of the century, some of the estrangeirados became the ideologues behind reform of the teaching system and its secularisation. Their ideas were disseminated through the publication of often polemical pedagogically-oriented works, which stressed the importance of observation, experiment and the role of mathematics in physics, and culminated in the creation of the College of Nobles (1761) and the reform of the University of Coimbra (1772). The reform of the University of Coimbra, which was an important part of the Marquis of Pombal’s reforming policies, provided an institutional framework within which the first long-term attempt at introducing a scientific education took place. In addition to the radical restructuring of the Faculty of Medicine and of the Faculty of Philosophy, a new Faculty of Mathematics was created. Besides, professors were expected to publish textbooks in Portuguese. In the third and last period, which covered roughly the last quarter of the century, the gradual institutionalisation of science culminated in the foundation of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Lisbon (1779) and the foundation of the first Portuguese technical school outside the military tradition, the Casa Pia of Lisbon (1780). Endorsing a utilitarian agenda, the academy not only provided a forum for discussion but also delivered courses on various topics, used its special printing privileges to publish books, and fostered the publication of papers in its Memoirs1 by the still hesitant emerging scientific community. Publication was never a popular endeavour in Portugal, for different reasons. Since the introduction of the Inquisition in Portugal in 1536, its

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

673

persecution had fallen upon Portuguese intellectuals. Many were forced to flee the country in order to escape persecution. In this atmosphere, intellectual production, publication and readership were highly compromised. In addition, the influence of the Jesuits, who controlled the educational system, lasted until 1759, when they were expelled from the country. After the mid-18th century, though, the Inquisition’s tight mechanisms of religious censorship and persecution were replaced by those of political control in the Absolutist regime of Pombal, and afterwards, of the Superintendent of Police of Maria I (1777 1792). The naturalist Heinrich Link who visited Portugal during 1797 1799, explicitly mentioned not only the negative impact of the Inquisition on Portuguese scientific publications but also the burden of secular censorship which Portuguese intellectuals and men of science had to bear under Pombal’s rule: Jadis il fallait une multitude de permissions pour imprimer et publier un ouvrage. D’abord l’Inquisition intervenait, comme on peut bien se l’imaginer; et lorsque le manuscrit avait obtenu toutes les permissions requises, il fallait encore avoir un certificat de chacun de les tribunaux portant que l’ouvrage imprime´ e´tait conforme au manuscrit. Ce fut le marquis de Pombal qui remit la censure a` un bureau particulier, dans lequel on adjoignit a` l’Inquisition et au tribunal particulier du patriarche [o ordinario] d’autres censeurs en grand nombre, pris parmis les employe´s du gouvernement qui ne sont pas eccle´siastiques. (Link 1803 1805, vol. 2, 181 182).

A measure of the impact of Pombal’s repressive policy is given by the fact that until 1777, no periodicals, newspapers, journals or gazettes were published. Periodicals emerged only after Pombal’s political downfall, but censorship mechanisms were very soon revived. The books published during Pombal’s rule but prior to his educational reforms had mainly a pedagogical character and were meant to establish the principles of a modern education, of which experimentation, mathematics and the philosophy of Descartes and Newton were major ingredients. Following the reform, and during the reign of Maria I, two kinds of scientific books were published: those devoted to the dissemination of science to wide audiences, and specialised textbooks such as that of Seabra, aimed at university students. Despite the risks faced by authors, the reign of Maria I was also the period during which journals devoted to the dissemination of science to general audiences were launched. The journals of greatest scientific impact were encyclopaedic in form. They were the Encyclopaedic Journal, the Weekly Journal for Instruction and Leisure and the Lisbon Encyclopaedic Journal. Censorship subjected them to various interruptions and editorial changes. Some editors were arrested by the police, accused of being Freemasons or of endorsing liberal ideas; others were even tried for heresy by the Inquisition. Despite the editors’ clear intentions to reach farmers and

674

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

artisans (Reis 1998), subscribers were mainly educated people, most living in Lisbon and belonging to the higher ranks of society. Besides, the high rates of illiteracy (more than 80%) put this effort in jeopardy, undermining the whole concept of dissemination of science, which remained hopelessly confined to an enlightened minority (Reis 1998).

2. Seabra’s Elementos de Chimica: A compendium of Chemistry Within the context of the reformed University of Coimbra chemistry became for the first time a discipline in its own right. According to the new Statutes, chemistry aimed at the clarification of the specific properties of bodies, by looking for the principles at work in them, their constitutive elements, and their different possibilities of combination. Delivered to students of the Faculty of Philosophy and the Faculty of Medicine, its associated faculty members included a professor and few assistants. Its adjoining Chemistry Laboratory was a place where experimental practice complemented theoretical education. Students were to learn through hands-on training because ‘‘real advances in chemistry come from real discoveries based on observation and assiduous work, not from vain systems and idle speculations,’’2 a claim revealing a strong reaction to the previous orientation of Jesuit teaching. The search for teachers who were sufficiently qualified for their task concentrated on Italians, a decision taken on the basis of former scientific contacts with Italy,3 similarities of the two languages (Portuguese and Italian), and the negative recommendations given to Pombal concerning the state of Spanish science. Domenico Vandelli (1730 1816), who came to Portugal around 1765 (Innoceˆncio F. Silva & Brito Aranha n.d.) as a specialist in natural history from the University of Padua, was summoned to teach Natural History and Chemistry and to launch the Laboratory at the reformed University of Coimbra. He was granted a doctorate in Medicine and Philosophy in 1772, and began lecturing in May 1773. His first chemistry lesson focused on affinity or chemical attraction, and was complemented by experimental performances. He recommended a reading list which included Hoffmann, Boerhaave, Geoffroy, Macquer and Baume´ (Cruz Diniz 1978), but Vandelli was to relegate the teaching of chemistry to a position secondary to his entrepreneurial activities, a fact which was noticed by the Chancellor, as early as 1774.4 The Chemistry Laboratory was largely left to the initiative of substitute lecturers, demonstrators and assistants, among whom were Thome´ Rodrigues Sobral (1759 1829), Vicente Coelho de Seabra (1764 1804) and Manuel Henriques de Paiva (1752 1829).

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

675

In 1786, a Royal Document from the Queen reminded all professors that they were expected to publish original textbooks in Portuguese.5 This task was assigned successively to Vandelli and Sobral. In 1791, Vandelli retired from his position as Director of the Chemistry Laboratory, without delivering a textbook. In 1793, instead of the original manual, Sobral delivered a translation of Morveau’s article ‘‘Affinite´’’ in the Encyclope´die Me´thodique (1786), which was called Tractado das Affinidades Chimicas.... (Sobral 1793). Five years later, Sobral’s textbook was not yet ready for publication,6 and the Congregation considered whether to replace Scopoli’s Fundamenta Chemiae, which had been officially adopted since the first years of the reform (Scopoli 1777). The Congregation decided to provisionally adopt Joseph F. Edler von Jacquin’s Lehrbuch der allgemeinen und medicinischen Chemie (1793). However, the book was not available in Portugal until 1807, when a Latin version was published by the press of the University of Coimbra. In the meantime, Chaptal’s Ele´mens de Chimie (Chaptal 1790), and Scopoli’s Fundamenta Chemiae were chosen. In 1801, the chair of Chemistry and Metallurgy was split into two separate chairs, and in the absence of a Portuguese textbook, Jacquin’s textbook was adopted in the chemistry course.7 Young Seabra took the initiative of writing a chemistry textbook, Elementos de Chimica (Elements of Chemistry) (1788 1790), but despite the approval of the Congregation of the Faculty of Philosophy in 1787, and permission for publication awarded in 1788, it was never adopted at the University of Coimbra (Amorim da Costa 1984, 62). Seabra was born in Minas Gerais, one of the most developed states of the Portuguese colony of Brazil. In 1783, he came to Portugal to attend Medicine at the newly reformed University. Its Chancellor was the Brazilian Benedictine monk Francisco de Lemos (1735 1822), who attracted a great number of Brazilian students: from 1772 to 1785, about 300 enrolled in the university. Seabra took courses at the Faculties of Mathematics and Philosophy before enrolling in the Faculty of Medicine. By 1787 he had completed a degree in Philosophy and was granted a degree in Medicine in 1791. In the same year, he was appointed demonstrator to the chair of Chemistry and Metallurgy, and became a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Lisbon. Other appointments followed: two years later, in 1793, he became Lecturer of Chemistry and Metallurgy; in 1795, substitute-Lecturer to the chairs of Botany and Zoology; and finally, in 1801, substitute-Professor of Chemistry (Andrada de Gouveia 1985). Unlike most estrangeirados, Seabra never travelled abroad, but showed a deep awareness of the latest scientific advances, and immediately grasped the importance of Lavoisier’s and Fourcroy’s work. We suspect that he

676

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

was an avid reader of the main European journals, especially the Me´moires de l’Acade´mie Royale des Sciences de Paris, a journal which was available at the University of Coimbra. Seabra had published on chemistry since his student days (Seabra 1787). He was concerned not only with theoretical topics, such as the interpretation of fermentation or the role of heat in chemical reactions, but also with topics of chemistry applied to agriculture and hygiene and with the natural sciences (Seabra n/d, 1780, 1791, 1792, 1799, 1801, 1802). His considerations on Lavoisier’s work were first submitted to the Congregation of the Faculty of Philosophy for approval under the name Observasoens Phisico-Chimicas (Physical-Chemical Observations),8 a title which signals his debt to Lavoisier, for whom chemistry should move closer to physics in the process of its emancipation from natural history. The book which was finally published, though, bore a different title, and its publication closely accompanied that of Lavoisier’s Traite´ Elementaire de Chimie. Seabra’s first volume of Elementos de Chimica was released one year prior to Lavoisier’s landmark book, and the second volume one year afterwards. It was published by the Royal Printing Office of the University of Coimbra. The choice of the title of one’s work is definitely a hard but important issue, and especially so for someone who subscribed to Condillac’s thesis, according to which words are the vehicle of all thought, language being ‘‘the true analytical method’’ (Seabra 1788 1790).9 Why then Elements of Chemistry? Certainly because Seabra considered that it contained an outline of those parts of chemistry that should be learnt first. While he never referred explicitly to the choice of such a common title, he put forward some interesting considerations on the characterisation of his own book in the dedication and the ‘‘Preliminary Discourse.’’ It was defined as a ‘‘compendium’’ and contrasted to a ‘‘treatise.’’ According to Seabra, while a treatise deals systematically with part of a scientific discipline, a compendium concisely and comprehensively addresses the scientific discipline as a whole. Following his own words, both works should be organised in an orderly fashion, and therefore should be concise, clear, and elegant. These characteristics are very hard to find in a compendium, which by definition is more ambitious than a treatise, and aims to embrace all fields of a discipline (Seabra 1788 1790, IX). It is impressive how Seabra was able to condense his philosophical system of chemistry into less than 500 pages, at the same time that Fourcroy’s Ele´mens d’Histoire Naturelle et de Chimie was in the process of growing bigger and bigger.10 Although Seabra, like Fourcroy, called his book Elementos, natural history is absent from Seabra’s title, revealing his commitment to emancipating chemistry from natural history.

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

677

Seabra’s compendium gave a prominent role to theory, and used it to make sense of a great number of experiments which otherwise would have conveyed nothing more than a bunch of scattered information, and finally proceeded to delve into practical aspects guided by the preceding theoretical considerations. The book offered a ‘‘well thought out system’’ of chemistry (Seabra 1788 1790, IV) for a variety of reasons. According to Seabra, such a work did not exist in Europe: although Fourcroy was the author who came closest to what Seabra had in mind, his book was too large, and lacked concision. He considered his compendium novel and better organised than published textbooks (Seabra 1788 1790, XI). Seabra found it absolutely necessary to have such a book written in Portuguese, in order to attract as many young people as possible. The concern to instruct a large audience depended not only on the language used in this particular instance, Portuguese but also on the support of a suitable scientific idiom. It is so difficult to write a good compendium of chemistry that, in fact, there is none. The one written by Fourcroy is a masterpiece.11 So far it is the best I have known and truly indispensable, but it is a very long treatise and, in effect, it is not a compendium. All the others that I have come across are defective, not only in the way they deal with chemical subjects, but also from the theoretical point of view. None of them presents ideas in a systematic order. This makes the study of chemistry very hard because we have to rely on memory alone. I recognise that such an enterprise is entirely beyond my capabilities. However, the need to have a book of this kind written in Portuguese may, perhaps, minimise my own faults. (Seabra 1788 1790, X).

Seabra had no illusions concerning the reception of his book. He concluded the ‘‘Preliminary Discourse’’ by inviting readers to put forward constructive criticisms but anticipated negative reactions. His disenchanted assessment is all the more striking as it comes from such a young author. He expected to be criticised on the grounds of still being a student and foresaw envious comments, stemming from the wickedness and slander typical of those who feel able to comment on everything (Seabra 1788 1790, XII). 3. Seabra’s Early Work in the Context of Popular Science Prior to the publication of Elementos de Chimica, Seabra’s memoir Dissertation on Fermentation, published in 1787, had been brought to public attention in the Jornal Encyclopedico (Encyclopaedic Journal), a journal devoted to the dissemination of science to wide audiences, and edited by Paiva since 1788. Paiva was Vandelli’s assistant while still a student. He held the positions of demonstrator of natural history and workshop master of the Chemistry

678

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

Laboratory. Nephew of the renowned Jewish physician Ribeiro Sanches (1699 1783), he completed a doctorate in medicine at the University of Coimbra. While still a student, he presided over a society of young scholars who met to discuss scientific topics. For this informal group, Paiva wrote a book in Latin entitled Elements of Chemistry, which was translated into Portuguese and printed in 1783. He stressed that this was the first work of chemistry to appear in Portuguese and acknowledged his debt to Scopoli. Rather than an independent work, Paiva’s book was a translation of Scopoli’s, which incorporated at times references to Lavoisier. In 1780, he had been appointed lecturer of chemistry and metallurgy, dyeing and agriculture on the course on physics at the Casa Pia of Lisbon. He was also to teach pharmacy, and to publish annotated translations of Fourcroy’s books.12 Paiva became editor of and main contributor to the Jornal Encyclopedico. He also taught courses on chemistry and pharmacy for free, in Lisbon, as advertised by the Lisbon Gazette,13 and others on natural history (mineralogy, botany and zoology), medicine and surgery.14 Among 18th-century Portuguese periodicals devoted to the dissemination of science, the Jornal Encyclopedico became the most significant from the point of view of its scientific content and the importance ascribed to chemistry. In this journal a debate over Seabra’s experiments and interpretations was launched, prompting Seabra to respond to these criticisms in the second part of his Elementos de Chimica. The Jornal Encyclopedico (1779 1793; 1806), like other Portuguese periodicals of the time, argued for the promotion of science and its applications to the development of the country. Furthermore, it conveyed a utilitarian conception of science typical of the encyclopaedic context, which characterised many European publications during the Enlightenment (Reis 1998). Under Paiva’s editorship, chemistry, together with natural history and physics, became part of an autonomous section, titled ‘‘Philosophy.’’ However, chemistry was not confined to this section, and many important references to chemical topics are found in sections such as ‘‘Medicine, Surgery and Pharmacy’’ and ‘‘Civil and Rural Economics.’’ The most explicit and comprehensive definitions of chemistry were given in texts devoted to medicine15 and rural economics,16 rather than in those on chemistry proper. The notion of chemistry conveyed in this journal closely followed the definitions popular in the second half of the 18th century, in particular those found in the courses of Rouelle, in the article by Venel in the Encyclope´die (1753) and in Macquer’s Dictionaire the chimie (1766). Paiva was well aware of recent developments in French and British chemistry, in particular the discussions over phlogiston and oxygen, as

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

679

shown by his frequent reports on experiments and new interpretations, but no controversy on this subject ever appeared in the journal. In the articles on chemistry there is reference neither to Lavoisier nor to Fourcroy. By contrast, Priestley is mentioned often, and Scheele, Berthollet and Ingenhousz are cited occasionally (Reis 1998, 100). It is worth noting that Lavoisier expressed his views against phlogiston only from 1785 onwards, following the various experiments on the composition of water that contradicted Cavendish’s and Priestley’s phlogiston-based interpretations. The period during which the Jornal Encyclopedico was published regularly coincided with the emergence of Lavoisier’s oxygen theory, which culminated with the publication of the Traite´ e´le´mentaire de Chimie, in 1789. The Portuguese journal accompanied this transformation by publishing news and reproducing texts on the recent innovations taking place (Reis 1998, 100). However, the journal, and for that matter Paiva, did not endorse them. The new discoveries pertaining to the composition of water and the ‘‘airs’’ are mentioned with caution, but certainly the theses of Black, Kirwan, Cavendish, Crawford and Priestley won Paiva’s preference. Lavoisier’s name appeared for the first time in June 1788 in a critique to Seabra’s Dissertation on Fermentation. The editor, presumably still Paiva’s predecessor,17 referred to Lavoisier and Fourcroy as the main sources of inspiration of Seabra’s work. In August, apparently already under the editorship of Paiva, the journal reported on the experiments on the decomposition and re-composition of water carried out in June by Lavoisier, Monge, Meusnier and Laplace. In the same issue, a letter by Priestley, opposing the conclusions drawn from these experiments, was reproduced together with the editor’s promise of a close follow-up of future developments. On the whole, Paiva gave space to the new theories, but in the most controversial issues he took sides with traditional ones (Reis 1998, 108), a position then common among many European chemists.18 Under Paiva’s editorship, the Jornal Encyclopedico published reviews of national and foreign articles and books, reserving a prominent place for Portuguese authors. Paiva himself wrote comments and criticisms on topics ranging from natural history and medicine to chemistry, positioning himself from the vantage point of the authoritative evaluator. Amongst his many reviews, he published one anonymously focusing on Seabra’s Dissertation on Fermentation, claiming that Seabra was merely replicating Fourcroy’s ideas, but he was very cautious in putting forward the ideas of Lavoisier’s and Meusnier’s opponents.19 He also criticised Seabra for introducing a ‘‘barbarian’’ vocabulary when he used the words acidity, acidifying, putrefaction etc.,19 but recognised the importance of his dissertation and anticipated that its author would become an ‘‘excellent chemist.’’19

680

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

His identity as the anonymous reviewer was disclosed in a comment released in the Gazeta de Lisboa, advertising Seabra’s published memoirs on fermentation and heat, as well as the second part of his forthcoming textbook.20

4. Seabra’s Elementos de Chimica: A Comparative Analysis Although originally intended to be used as a compendium at the University, the Elementos de Chimica was dedicated to the recently founded Literary Society of Rio de Janeiro, a kind of academy devoted to literature and science (Vernhagen 1978),21 and one of the most interesting expressions of the Enlightenment in Brazil. The dedication revealed his nationalism, and also his concern for profitable applications of chemistry to agriculture and industry. (Filgueiras 1985, 265) From listening, knowing and following the steps of Mother Nature, we do not merely learn curious things. Are not Medicine, Industry, Agriculture, and Trade the very basis of the strength of a State? It is true that these Arts can be pursued, but they cannot improve without a deep knowledge of chemistry (...). For all these reasons, my patriotic feelings compelled me to write in our own language this book, which I feel honoured to dedicate to the newly founded Sociedade Litera´ria of Rio de Janeiro, in particular to its chemical courses. (Seabra 1788 1790, IX).

In the ‘‘Preliminary Discourse’’, Seabra advocated the importance of building up the new chemistry on sound principles. The new chemist should be critical of past and recent developments, and should take experiment as his major methodological aid: ‘‘When we think about the origin of human knowledge, and even of metaphysics, we conclude that they are but the result of observation and experiment.’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, VI) The structure of the book is indicative of his concern for an analysis of the foundations of chemistry as a starting point for its future practical applications. It closely follows the Statutes of the reformed University, which prescribed that the study of theoretical chemistry should encompass: a brief history of chemistry; the study of the relative properties of elements and their mutual affinities; the study of substances from the more simple to the more complex; chemical operations and the analysis of tables of affinities.22 The first volume of the book is divided into two parts: a theoretical part followed by a practical one. His adoption of the encyclopaedic framework is visible in the index of topics organised in alphabetical order, and the absence of a table of contents. Guided by an ‘‘esprit de syste`me,’’ Seabra began by analysing the work of older and contemporary chemists in order to extract general conclusions from them: these generalisations ‘‘can

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

681

provide the key to the system of Chemistry and guidance in research and new discoveries. Otherwise chemistry would be no more than a bundle of facts with no connection or order, and would serve only to exhaust our memory’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, VI-VII). Regarding practical chemistry, Seabra recognised that there was still a lot to be done because ‘‘natural compounds are infinite in relation to the number of men who wish to study them’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, VII). He then rejected secrecy and magic symbolism and argued in favour of presenting chemistry in the vernacular, as he believed that his fellow countrymen (both Portuguese and Brazilians) were as able as people from other nations (Seabra 1788 1790, VII-XIX). He was also motivated by a pragmatic belief in the utility of chemistry, but only offered a very brief outline on the uses of chemistry in agriculture, mining and metallurgy, industry, and medicine (Seabra 1788 1790, 1 2). Seabra claimed to be inspired by Fourcroy, to ‘‘whose works I owe most of my chemical knowledge’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, 9), in particular to his memoirs and the first edition of the Ele´mens d’Histoire Naturelle et de Chimie (1786). In the part devoted to ‘‘Theoretical Chemistry,’’ Seabra began with a survey of the history of chemistry, tracing its origins back to antiquity, then focusing on alchemy, and finally giving an updated historical description of 17th and 18th century chemical knowledge. This survey looked like an abridged version of Fourcroy’s historical account outlined in his Ele´mens. The historical considerations were followed by a definition of the object of chemistry: ‘‘Chemistry is the science which ascertains the nature of bodies by decomposing them into their principles, and re-composing them whenever possible, by means of the mutual action between them’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, 9). A qualitative discussion of chemical affinity and its various kinds according to the lines laid down by Fourcroy followed, together with a discussion of the general principles of bodies (including phlogiston, fire, light, heat, air and water), and the main chemical operations (combustion, calcination, fusion, vitrification, distillation, dissolution, precipitation, etc.). From the start, Seabra warned the reader of his partisan look: ‘‘In the explanation of phenomena I will not take too much time to describe the opinion of all chemists, not even of Stahl. Rather, I will only mention the modern interpretation, which is more probable and coherent’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, XI). Seabra’s adoption of Lavoisier’s new chemistry occurred early in 1787, the year in which the conversion of Guyton de Morveau, Monge, Chaptal and Meusnier took place, but many renowned chemists continued to resist oxygen. Seabra was definitely taking the side of Lavoisier: ‘‘Unlike Stahl who thought that bodies liberate phlogiston when they burn, Lavoisier, at

682

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

long last, by demonstrating that a portion of pure air combines with bodies, gave birth to a theory called Pneumatic Theory’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, 8). However, he was also prepared to discuss Macquer’s attempt at a synthesis between Stahlian and Lavoisierian theories, inasmuch as this possibility had been discussed by Scopoli (Seligardi 2005), the author officially adopted by the University of Coimbra, following the reform. By 1778, when Lavoisier’s antiphlogistic theory was not yet complete, Macquer proposed the reconciliation of the two theories by assuming that oxygen was absorbed during combustion at the same time as phlogiston was emitted from the combustible body. Macquer was identifying phlogiston with the ‘‘pure matter of light and heat’’ (Macquer 1778), and Seabra tried to incorporate Macquer’s view into Lavoisier’s general theory of oxygen: In this century we have three main theories about chemical phenomena the Stahlian, the Pneumatic and the Intermediate (...) The great Macquer, however, argued that there is a combined light instead of Stahl’s phlogiston and recognised that there was a combination with air, instead of a liberation of phlogiston. In this way he established an intermediate theory (...) The indefatigable Lavoisier, after formulating his theory of heat in a memoir delivered at the Parisian Academy of Sciences, accommodated Macquer’s theory, but giving his own re-interpretation. He claimed that phlogiston or matter of heat did not separate from bodies, as Macquer claimed, but resulted from the decomposition of the air, which combines with them. Fourcroy, from whom I learnt most of my chemical knowledge, recently adopted this doctrine. However, we will adopt a theory slightly different from Lavoisier’s, and we will show that Macquer’s theory together with that of Lavoisier constitute the true one, and the one we should follow. (Seabra 1788 1790, 9).

In the section ‘‘General Principles of Bodies’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, 19 20), Seabra discussed his concept of matter. He argued that he did not subscribe to the idea of a single ‘‘primary principle’’ present in all bodies, called variously atoms, elements or monads. Nor did he subscribe to a principle of all things such as Thales’ water. He also rejected Anaximander’s principle or Paracelsus’s phlegma, mercury, water, salt, sulphur and oil because ‘‘all these assertions are ill-founded and risky hypotheses, they have no basis whatsoever’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, 19). He claimed that observation and experiment had shown that each body is made of principles differing more or less from each other. Chemists had given different meanings to the word principle: ‘‘close principles’’ can be immediately extracted from bodies and ‘‘remote principles’’ are obtained from the former. He preferred the terminology adopted by Macquer, Morveau and Fourcroy: first order, primary principles, or elements are the simplest; second order or secondary principles are those composed of the former ones, and third order principles are formed from the secondary. An operational concept underlay Seabra’s notion of immediate or primary principle, in much the same way as Fourcroy’s (note that he did

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

683

not discuss Fourcroy’s notion of a molecule).23 However, he was not as categorical as Lavoisier when in the Traite´ he put forward his operational concept of element as the last term of analysis. On the whole, Seabra wanted to rid the notion of principle of its metaphysical connotations while avoiding discussion of the microscopic composition of bodies. He clearly remained at the macroscopic, therefore observable level the primary principle which is accessible through laboratory analysis. With Lavoisier, however, the element (or principle) is the last term at which one arrives through analysis, no further attributes being added to the concept element (Bensaude-Vincent 1993, 247), unlike Macquer, Fourcroy or Seabra with their plural notion of principle. Seabra rejected the underlying assumptions of Aristotle’s four elements. He considered that fire, air and water are not the only principles of bodies but are general principles, not only because each, some or even all of them, can be found in most compounds, but also because they are present in the three kingdoms of nature (Seabra 1788 1790, 20). He pointed out that Macquer had demonstrated that fire or the chemists’ phlogiston was the same as free or combined light. This meant that free fire or light separates from bodies and for that reason phlogiston and combined light were synonymous. Seabra’s approach may explain why he did not include fire, heat and light in the principles composing bodies when he outlined their classification: he assumed that they are generally present in most compounds. Nor does he provide any list of chemical elements, unlike Lavoisier, who included heat and light in his own list (Lavoisier et al. 1787). Seabra contrasted the view according to which heat was a form of motion, as advocated by Bacon and Macquer, with that of Lavoisier, who considered heat to be a substance, to conclude differently: Heat is a sensation, which is well known by touch. But what is the cause of this sensation? Bacon and Macquer thought that this was the result of the movement of particles inside bodies, i.e., due to shock or friction. Bergman and Lavoisier thought of this phenomenon as a substance sui generis, which could have the same nature of fire, but was essentially different from light (...) However, I am persuaded that it is a sensation caused by the matter of fire or of light. (Seabra 1788 1790, 23).

Regarding the composition of air Seabra’s experiments (Seabra 1788 1790, p 203) were in complete accord with Lavoisier and considered common air to be composed of 27 parts of ‘‘pure air’’ (oxygen), 72 parts of ‘‘moffete’’ (nitrogen) and 1 part of ‘‘cretous or carbonaceous acid’’ (carbonic). He also distinguished between pure gases and mixtures and defined the composition of water as 15 parts of hydrogen or ‘‘inflammable air’’ and 85 parts of ‘‘pure air’’ or oxygen. Seabra classified chemical bodies into classes incombustible and combustible a classification reminiscent of Fourcroy’s Ele´mens, despite

684

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

not being framed by the three kingdoms of nature.24 A final section was devoted to mineral waters, again following Fourcroy. Regarding the classifications of bodies, Seabra invoked Linnaeus’s contributions to scientific taxonomy in the realm of natural history. He drew attention to the need and difficulties involved in the construction of a chemical nomenclature: chemistry, by dealing with all possible combinations of bodies, is a much more extensive science than natural history. Following the ideas expressed in the nomenclature of Lavoisier and collaborators, Seabra emphasised that names of chemical substances should reflect the true composition of bodies (Seabra 1788 1790, 56). The classification of chemical substances drew some comments from Seabra, which clearly positioned him further from Fourcroy and closer to Lavoisier. He definitely drifted away from the framework of the three natural kingdoms, by adopting the opposition between organised and disorganised bodies. However, he did not adopt the division of compounds into organic (which he understood as substances obtained form organised bodies) and inorganic (meaning substances obtained from disorganised bodies, i.e., minerals), as a matter of principle; rather he stuck to strict chemical criteria, establishing a division into incombustible and combustible. Natural History divides the Empire of Nature into three KingdomsMineral (disorganised); Vegetable (organised, insensitive and motionless); Animal (organised, sensitive and endowed with free movement). However, as Chemistry only knows bodies by their particular properties and composing principles it cannot follow the above mentioned division (mineral, animal and vegetable) because in all Kingdoms we find substances endowed with the same properties. That is why we included all bodies in two classes, Incombustible and Combustible. (Seabra 1788 1790, XII, 57).

Seabra divided incombustible bodies into three orders Earth and stones, Earth-saline substances, and Salts. These orders were subsequently divided into genera, species and varieties, following Linnaeus’s model. Before engaging in the description of combustible bodies, Seabra showed how to approach acid-base reactions, giving a table of affinities in which the degrees of affinity are expressed by relative numbers between eight different acids and seven bases, by repeating Fourcroy’s experiments and modifying some of his calculations (Seabra 1788 1790, XII, 183 190; Kim 2003). For example, Seabra ascribed a higher degree of affinity with potash to sulphuric acid than Fourcroy (Fourcroy=8; Seabra=13). His aim was to avoid representing affinities by small fractions, when he compared the degree of affinity of sulphuric acid with that of other acids. Although his and Fourcroy’s degrees of affinities were represented by different numbers, the relations between these numbers were equivalent. Inspired by Newtonian physics, tables of affinities were then very popuand were lar among chemists with the exception of Lavoisier25 thought of as a means of predicting and coordinating chemical phenom-

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

685

ena. In this realm, Seabra proved again to be in tune with Fourcroy’s classification of affinity, although the French chemist, like Bergman, preferred to call attraction to affinity, and referred to molecules instead of bodies.26 Following Fourcroy, Seabra distinguished affinity of aggregation attraction between bodies of a similar nature (equivalent to cohesion or adhesion) and affinity of composition attraction between bodies of a different nature (Seabra 1788 1790, 10 18). He subdivided affinity of composition into six types: simple, intermediate, elective, doubled and reciprocal. The affinity of composition was measured by the difficulty in decomposing combined bodies, by means of other bodies with a greater affinity to any of those present in a given combination (Seabra 1788 1790, 13). Unlike Gutie´rrez Bueno, who in his textbook provided a lengthy chapter on affinities, Seabra presented various tables of affinities (Duncan 1996; Roberts 1991), but devoted a brief theoretical section of his book to the topic (Bertomeu Sanchez & Garcia Belmar this volume). The combustibles received special treatment from Seabra, arguably because they were closely associated with the novelty of Lavoisier’s theories of combustion and oxygen. On the back of the front page marking their location in the book, two quotations were selected: a well-known quotation taken from the ‘‘Discours Pre´liminaire’’ to Lavoisier’s Traite´, ‘‘the impossibility of isolating Nomenclature from Science and Science from Nomenclature [...],’’ (Lavoisier 1789) and Lavoisier’s quotation from Condillac, ‘‘the art of reasoning is after all a well-constructed language [...]’’(Lavoisier 1789). Seabra recommended his audience to read Lavoisier’s and collaborators’ nomenclature, Lavoisier’s Traite´ and the preface to the Encyclope´die Me´thodique (Seabra 1788 1790).27 In 1801, he introduced the new nomenclature in Portugal by adapting Lavoisier’s (Seabra 1801a).28 Seabra then proceeded with his classification of combustible bodies, which he divided into two orders, the intrinsically combustible and extrinsically combustible: the first encompassed bodies such as phosphorus, which by having a strong affinity to oxygen, burnt spontaneously when in contact with air; the second encompassed those which burnt only when in contact with other burning bodies, that is, in the situation when the action of heat induced in them a greater affinity to oxygen. The order of the intrinsically combustibles was then divided into genera like phosphorus, hydrogen and nitrogen. The extrinsically combustibles were divided into inorganic and organic, each category being subsequently subdivided into genera and species. Within the discussion of the extrinsically combustibles, Seabra’s arguments are supported by the description of various laboratory experiments performed by himself. When he addressed the genus ‘‘moffete’’ (nitrogen) he again demonstrated a keen awareness of recent developments:

686

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

Mofette is a combustible body, and by means of electric matter and from its complete combustion nitric acid [nitrogen dioxide], etc. results. This fluid was inappropriately called ‘‘dephlogisticated air’’ by Priestly and by other Stahlian chemists. It is part of our atmosphere, it quickly kills animals, it extinguishes the flame of a candle and it is heavier than atmospheric air 72 parts of this gas mixed with 27 parts of pure air [oxygen] and 1 part of carbonaceous acid [carbon dioxide] form artificial atmospheric air; 7 parts of mofette combined with hydrogen seem to produce ammonia. Mofette, which is often confounded with carbonaceous acid, is different from the latter because:1- it is lighter; 2- it does not taste or smell; 3- it does not make tournesol tincture red; 4- it does not precipitate limestone water. (Seabra 1788 1790, 199).

Seabra considered that hydrogen is obtained from the reaction between metals, such as zinc or iron, with sulphuric or muriatic acid. He believed that hydrogen originated from the water in the system, an idea consistent with Lavoisier’s concept of acid, but contradictory to then current views, which assumed that hydrogen was released from metals.29 Concerning the synthesis of water, Seabra gave priority to and endorsed the synthesis carried out by Lavoisier and Meusnier in 1783. He also mentioned Monge’s synthesis and added that he himself replicated this same experiment at the University of Coimbra under the scrutiny of Vandelli, Sobral and other witnesses.30 Seabra’s views on the synthesis of water prompted Paiva to criticise him in the Jornal Encyclopedico. Paiva dismissed Seabra’s interpretations by claiming that Lavoisier’s and Meusnier’s experimental results were neither conclusive nor properly demonstrated. Seabra could not refrain from responding to Paiva’s attack in a long footnote in the Elementos de Chimica, in which he re-affirmed his belief in the interpretation of the mechanism of fermentation based on Lavoisier’s experiments: If the author [Paiva] had carefully read the reports of the experiments of Lavoisier, Meusnier, de la Place, Monge, Fourcroy, Cavendish etc. If he had not only read but, as I did, pondered on these subjects and on the doubts expressed by la Metherie and Rosier in their analytical studies of air etc. he would know their weakness. But if the same author had seriously read the last edition of Fourcroy’s chemistry; if he had repeated as I did the analysis and synthesis of water; if he had repeated Monge’s experiments he would not say that the experiments carried out by Lavoisier and Meusnier were refuted. Rather, like Fourcroy, he would say that experiments and observations increasingly confirm this discovery being a fundamental part of one of the happiest and most remarkable periods of chemistry. Moreover, it provided explanations for countless natural phenomena, which, up to now, have remained unexplained. In a word, he would know the advantages of pursuing a rational and experimental chemistry. (Seabra 1788 1790, 204).

Seabra, however, omitted the two pages in which Fourcroy summarised his doubts regarding the analysis and synthesis of water, and the conflicting conclusions which could be drawn from these experiments (Fourcroy 1786, 221 223).31 Due to Seabra’s active role and Paiva’s response, the only

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

687

known public discussion on this topic, this controversy was aired in the Portuguese context at the same time as it echoed elsewhere in Europe.

5. Concluding Remarks The publication of Seabra’s Elementos de Chimica occurred at a particular stage of Portuguese history. The reform of the educational system, and in particular of the University of Coimbra, encouraged the institutionalisation of scientific disciplines and the production of textbooks. At the reformed University, professors were assigned the task of translating and writing textbooks, but in the case of chemistry they failed to comply. Seabra delivered such a textbook, but following institutional approval it was never adopted in the chemical course. From the start, Seabra was suspicious of possible negative reactions from his seniors. He regretted that in Portugal ‘‘philosophers were measured by the length of their beards’’ (Seabra 1788 1790, XII), and that usually slander and gossip took the place of constructive criticism. The lack of a community of real practising chemists prevented informed criticism and the existence of an expert audience. In the end, his textbook never reached the few students who actually attended the chemical course. Perhaps the most outstanding feature of Elementos de Chimica is that, despite being influenced by Fourcroy, Seabra distanced himself from the traditional framework which associated chemistry with natural history, and in particular the three kingdoms of nature. He used strict chemical criteria to classify substances into two great divisions incombustibles and combustibles in the framework of Lavoisier’s pneumatic theory. Despite his acceptance of oxygen, he tried to accommodate Macquer’s view that phlogiston, fire and light were synonymous. Regarding the quantitative and qualitative composition of air and water he subscribed to Lavoisier’s views, getting involved in a dispute in a Portuguese journal over fermentation. As an attentive chemist, Seabra focused on affinity, as did most of his fellow European chemists, and presented a concept of matter that avoided any microscopic considerations, which identified the concept of element with that of a primary or close principle attainable through laboratory analysis. Without doubt, Seabra’s Elements of Chemistry does not conform to the characteristics usually ascribed to textbooks by traditional historiography, and in particular to textbooks published in the peripheries. First, the teaching of chemistry was parallel with a presentation of the latest innovations of this science; he was eclectic but also critical in his selection of the perspectives which suited his own synthesis; and he put forward his views about what the new chemistry should be. He was an active and creative

688

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

author. Second, the publication of Seabra’s book was a singular event in the Portuguese context, and it did not meet with a tacit acceptance within the group of Coimbra’s university scholars. The Portuguese context was characterised by a lack of scientific dynamism, and weak reading habits, which remained confined to an intellectual elite, more literary than scientifically oriented. The concept of chemical community is highly problematic given its reduced size, the absence of disciples and the lack of chemicalrelated industries. Although Seabra never travelled abroad, he mastered the latest developments: in all respects this textbook might have been written in a centre. Its main peripheral trait stems from the fact that it had hardly any readers, not even among its natural audience at the University of Coimbra, despite being the only Portuguese chemistry textbook written during this period.

Notes 1

The Academy published Memoirs on economics, on literature and on science. Estatutos Pombalinos da Universidade de Coimbra, Liv. III, Pt. III, Tit. III, cp. IV as quoted in (Amorim da Costa 1995, 157). 3 In Portugal there was a long tradition of educational contacts with Italy: following the arrival of the Jesuits in Portugal in mid-sixteenth century, Italians began teaching in their colleges nautical sciences and astronomy; during the reign of King Joa˜o V (first half of the seventeenth century), science and art students were sent to Italian universities and colleges to advance their studies; and finally various intellectuals known in Portuguese historiography as ‘‘estrangeirados’’ travelled to or lived in Italy. (Carneiro et al. 2000). 4 Letter from the University Chancellor to Pombal, 8 February 1774, in (Braga 1892 1902). 5 Actas da Congregac¸a˜o da Faculdade de Filosofia, p. 63, quoted in (Amorim da Costa 1984, 52). 6 Actas da Congregac¸a˜o da Faculdade de Filosofia, pp. 242 244, quoted in (Amorim da Costa 1984, 60). 7 Actas da Congregac¸a˜o da Faculdade de Filosofia, 23. 8 Actas da Congregac¸a˜o da Faculdade de Filosofia, 82. 9 The authors are responsible for all translations from Portuguese to English. 10 By 1791 Fourcroy’s book, first published in 1782 in 3 volumes, had grown to 5 volumes (Fourcroy 1791). 11 Seabra is referring to Fourcroy’s book (Fourcroy 1786). Seabra acknowledged his debt to Fourcroy, whose book provided him with most of his chemical knowledge. 12 See both Paiva’s translations of Fourcroy, (Paiva 1801) and (Paiva 1802). 13 Gazeta de Lisboa, 2 November 1784, no. 44. 14 Gazeta de Lisboa, 24 January 1786, no. 2, second supplement. About these private informal courses there is scant information pertaining to their contents, audience and even if they were taught at all. 15 ‘‘Chemistry is the art of examining the action, reaction and mutual friendships of the elements of bodies and of these among themselves,’’ quoted in (Reis 1998, 94). 16 ‘‘Chemistry is the search for the means to unveil the deepest secrets with which natures operates by separating the substances which compose bodies, or examining each of their constituents, and indicate hidden properties and the analogies between them. By comparing and combining substances and producing mixtures differently combined, new compounds are formed which find no example or model in nature.’’ This definition is word for word identical to that given in the statutes of the University of Coimbra of 1772. Quoted in (Reis 1998, 94). 2

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

689

17

Felix Anto´nio Castrioto was chief-editor of the Jornal Encyclopedico between 1779 1788. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent claimed that about 40% of the chemical texts of the late 18th century do not allow definite claims about the position of their authors regarding the controversy surrounding phlogiston (Bensaude-Vincent 1993, 273). 19 Jornal Encyclopedico, Artigo VII, ‘‘Produc¸o˜es Literarias de todas a Nac¸o˜es, (June 1788), 244 245. 20 Gazeta de Lisboa, 24 (15 July 1790). 21 Created in 1786, this institution replaced the former Academia Cientı´fica (Scientific Academy) which was founded in 1772. According to its statutes the members of the Sociedade Litera´ria were to read and discuss papers covering all subjects, except religion and politics. However, the life of this institution was affected by various events. In 1794, it was ordered to be closed by the Viceroy of Brazil, its members were arrested, and all its documents and publications were seized. 22 The author of these prescriptions included in the Statutes of the University is not known, but it is remarkable that they were in tune with then current chemical trends. Estatutos Pombalinos da Universidade de Coimbra, Liv. III, Pt. III, Tit. III. As the first teacher of chemistry at the reformed university, Vandelli probably organised the syllabus of the chemistry course. 23 For Fourcroy, molecules were entities responsible for the different nature of bodies and corresponded to a state of division which converted bodies as physical entities into chemical ones. He endowed them with physical properties such as shape and weight, and certain distances separated them. But he recognised that they were inaccessible; only principles were accessible through laboratory analysis (Carneiro 1987, 67 68). 24 In his Ele´mens, Fourcroy refers to the incombustible character of salts but does not use ‘‘incombustible’’ as a classificatory category or division. He only dealt with combustible bodies in a section concerning Mineralogy. Following general considerations on combustible bodies he focused on those belonging to the mineral kingdom, such as diamond, hydrogen, sulphur and various metals. The subsequent chapters focused on the vegetal and animal kingdoms. 25 Lavoisier left to Guyton de Morveau the task of discussing affinity in the article to be published in Encyclope´die Me´thodique (Lavoisier 1789). 26 As molecules were inaccessible the only possible way to study chemical attraction between molecules was to study its results (Carneiro 1987, 67 68). 27 The ‘‘Adverteˆncia’’ is on a unnumbered page, which precedes p. 191. 28 Later, Sobral became involved in a similar attempt but his nomenclature was never published. 29 Seabra particularly criticised La Metherie and Guyton de Morveau. 30 Seabra then proceeded to analyse the process of fermentation that occurs in both animal and vegetable bodies, and to describe a large number of substances, including various acids which, endorsing Lavoisier’s views, he considered to be composed of oxygen. The Elementos de chimica ended with an explanation of the pneumatic apparatus similar to that used by Lavoisier and an engraving representing it, and various tables. The first table summarises the classification of incombustible bodies, while the next five include the proportions of the components making up the species belonging to the genera siliceous, clayey, magnesian, calcareous, and barytic, according to Kirwan. Finally, Seabra provided two more tables, one pertaining to Combustibles, and the other including a classification of mineral waters. 31 The experiments over the composition and decomposition of water, and whether or not water was an element, were much debated by chemists of various nationalities. See Spanish and Italian discussions in Seligardi, and Bertomeu Sanchez & Garcı´ a Belmar, both in this volume. 18

References Amorim da Costa, A.M.: 1984, Primo´rdios da Cieˆncia Quı´mica em Portugal, ICLP, Lisboa. Amorim da Costa, A.M.: 1995, Lavoisier’s Chemical Nomenclature in Portugal., in BensaudeVincent B. and Abbri F. (ed.) Lavoisier in the European Context. Negotiating a New Language for Chemistry, Science History Publications, Canton, pp. 155 171.

690

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

Andrade de Gouveia A.J.: 1985, Preface to the facsimile edition of Seabra’s Elementos de Chimica. Bensaude-Vincent, B.: 1990, ‘A View of the Chemical Revolution through Contemporary Textbooks: Lavoisier, Fourcroy and Chaptal’, British Journal of the History of Science 23, 435 460. Bensaude-Vincent, B.: 1993, Lavoisier, Me´moires d’une re´volution, Flammarion, Paris. Bertomeu Sanchez, J.R. & Garcı´ a Belmar, A.: 2000, Spanish Chemistry Textbooks, 1788 1845: A Sketch of the Audience for Chemistry in Early Nineteenth-Century Spain, in Lundgren A. and Bensaude-Vincent B. (ed.) Communicating Chemistry. Textbooks and their audiences, 1789 1939., Science History Publications, Canton, pp. 57 89. Bertomeu Sanchez, J.R. & Garcı´ a Belmar, A.: 2005, ‘Pedro Gutie´rrez Bueno’s textbooks: audiences, teaching practices and chemical revolution’ Science and Education???. Braga, T.: 1892 1902, Histo´ria da Universidade de Coimbra, Lisboa, vol. 3, pp. 547 549. Carneiro, A.: 1987, O conceito de afinidade quı´ mica nos autores do ‘Me´thode de Nomenclature Chimique’ (1787), Lisboa: Equivalent to an M.Sc. dissertation, University of Lisbon, pp. 67 68. Carneiro, A., Simo˜es, A. & Diogo, M.P.: 2000, ‘The Scientific Revolution in Eighteenthcentury Portugal: The role of the Estrangeirados (Europeanized Intellectuals)’, Social Studies of Science 30, 591 619. Chaptal, J.-A.-C.: 1790, Ele´ments de Chimie, J-F. Picot, Montpellier(3 vols). Cruz Diniz: 1978, ‘‘Primeira Lic¸a˜o de Fı´ sico-Quı´ mica dada na Universidade de Coimbra’’ (reproduction of Domenico Vandelli’s manuscript of his first lesson on Chemistry delivered at the University of Coimbra), Publicac¸o˜es do Museu Nacional da Cieˆncia e da Te´cnica 8, 173 180. Duncan, A.M.: 1996, Laws and Order in Eighteenth-Century Chemistry, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Ferraz, M.H.M.: 1997, As Cieˆncias em Portugal e no Brasil (1772 1822); o Texto Conflituoso de Quı´mica, Educ/FAPESP, Sa˜o Paulo. Filgueiras Carlos, A.L.: 1992, ‘The Mishaps of Peripheral Science: the Life and Work of Manoel Joaquin Henriques de Paiva, Luso-Brazilian Chemist and Physician of the late Eighteenth Century’, Ambix 39(2): 75 89. Filgueiras Carlos, A.L.: 1985, ‘Vicente Telles, o Primeiro Quı´ mico Brasileiro’, Quı´mica Nova 8, 263 270. Fourcroy, A.F.: 1782, Lec¸ons e´le´mentaires d’histoire naturelle et de chimie, Chez Cuchet, Paris(3 vols). Fourcroy, A.F.: 1786, Ele´mens d’histoire naturelle et de chimie, 2e e´dition des ‘‘lec¸ons e´le´mentaires’’, Chez Cuchet, Paris(4 vols). Fourcroy, A.F.: 1791, Ele´ments d’histoire naturelle et de chimie, 4Chez Cuchet, Paris(5 vols) Gouveia, A.J.A. de: 1985, ‘Vicente de Seabra and the Chemical Revolution in Portugal’, Ambix 32(3): 97 109 Gutie´rrez Bueno, P.: 1788, Curso de quı´mica, teo´rico y pra´ctica, para la ensen˜anza del Real Laboratorio de Quı´mica de esta Corte, Antonio Sancha, Madrid. Guyton de Morveau: 1786, ‘Affinite´’. In Encyclope´die Me´thodique, Chimie, Pharmacie et Me´tallurgie, Panckoucke, Paris, 1, 535 613. Jacquin, J.F.A.: 1807, Elementa Chemiae Universe et Medicae-Praelectionibus suis accomodata, Typis academis, Coimbra . Kim, M.G.: 2003, Affinity, That Elusive Dream: A Genealogy of the Chemical Revolution, MIT, Boston. Lavoisier: 1789, ‘Traite´ e´le´mentaire de chimie’. In Oeuvres de Lavoisier, 1865, Imprimerie Impe´riale, Paris, vol. 1.

COMMUNICATING THE NEW CHEMISTRY IN 18TH-CENTURY PORTUGAL

691

Lavoisier, Morveau, Bertholet, & Fourcroy: 1787, Me´thode de Nomenclature Chimique, Chez Cuchet, Paris. Link, H.F.: 1803, Voyage en Portugal depuis 1797 jusqu’en 1799, Levrault, Schoell et C, Paris(2 vols.). Lundgren A. ‘Bensaude-Vincent B. eds: 2000, Communicating Chemistry. Textbooks and their audiences, 1789 1939, Science History Publications, Canton. Macquer: 1778, Dictionnaire de chymie contenant la the´orie et la pratique de cette science, son application a` la physique, l’histoire naturelle, a` la me´decine et aux arts dependans de la chymie, Didot, Paris(4 vols). Paiva, M.H.: 1801, Philosophia chimica, ou verdades fundamentaes da Chimica moderna, dispostas em nova ordem por F Fourcroy; tiradas do francez em Linguagem, e accrescentadas de notas e de axiomas apanhados dos ultimos descobrimentos, Impressora da Santa Igreja, Lisboa. Paiva, M.H.: 1802, Noticias dos mappas synopticos de Chimica, para servirem de resumo a`s lic¸o˜es dadas sobre esta sciencia nas escholas de Paris, por A.F. Fourcroy; vertidas em linguagem e accrescentadas. Lisboa. Paiva, M.H.: 1873, Elementos de Chimica, Officina da Real Academia das Sciencias, Lisboa. Reis, F.: 1998, A Divulgac¸a˜o Cientı´ fica em Perio´dicos Enciclope´dicos Portugueses, 1779 1820 (Lisbon: unpublished M. Sc. dissertation, New University of Lisbon). Roberts, L.: 1991, Setting the Table: The Disciplinary Development of Eighteenth Century Chemistry as Read Through the Changing Structure of its Tables, in Dear P. (ed.) The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 99 132. Scopoli, J.A.: 1777, Fundamenta Chemiae-Praelectionibus Publicis accomodat, Apud Wolfgangum Gerlb, Prague. Seabra, V.C.: n/d, Memo´ria sobre a Cultura das Vinhas e Manufactura do Vinho, Lisboa. Seabra, V.C.: 1780, Memo´ria sobre a Cultura do Arroz em Portugal e suas Conquistas. Lisboa. Seabra, V.C.: 1787, Dissertac¸a˜o sobre a Fermentac¸a˜o em Geral e suas espe´cies, Real Impressa˜o da Universidade, Coimbra. Seabra, V.C.: 1788a, Dissertac¸a˜o sobre o Calor, Real Impressa˜o da Universidade, Coimbra Seabra, V.C.: 1788b, Elementos de Chimica, Real Officina da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra (facsimile edition of 1985). Seabra, V.C.: 1791, ‘Memo´ria sobre a Cultura do Rı´ cino ou Mamona’, Memo´rias Econo´micas da Academia Real das Cieˆncias de Lisboa, 3, 329 343; Seabra’, V.C.: 1792, Memo´ria sobre o Me´todo de Curar a Ferrugem das Oliveiras. Real Officina da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra. Seabra, V.C.: 1799, ‘Memo´ria em que se da´ notı´ cia das diversas espe´cies de Abelhas que da˜o Mel, pro´prias do Brasil e desconhecidas na Europa’, Memo´rias da Academia Real das Cieˆncias de Lisboa 2, 99 104. Seabra, V.C.: 1801, Memo´ria sobre os Prejuı´ zos causados pelas Sepulturas dos Cada´veres nos Templos e o Me´todo de os Prevenir, Lisboa. Seabra, V.C.: 1801a, Nomenclatura Chimica Portugueza, Franceza e Latina, Lisboa. Seabra, V.C.: 1802, Histo´ria das Enfermidades mais usuais do Boi e do Cavalo (2 vols) Lisboa. Translation into Portuguese of a book by Francisco Toggia. Seligardi, R.: 2005, ‘The Followers of Lavoisier’s Followers: Italian University Textbooks during the Chemical Revolution’, Science and Education ?????. Silva, Innoceˆncio & Brito, Aranha: n.d., Diccionario Bibliographico Portruguez (23 vols), Ophir/Comissa˜o Nacional para as Comemorac¸o˜es dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, LisboaCD-Rom version.

692

ANA CARNEIRO ET AL.

Simo˜es, A., Carneiro, A. & Diogo, M.P.: 1999, ‘Constructing Knowledge: Eighteenth-Century Portugal and the New Sciences’, Archimedes 2, 1 40. Sobral, T.R.: 1793, Tratado das Affinidades Chimicas (trans), Real Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra. Vernhagen, F.A.: 1978, Histo´ria Geral do Brasil, S. Paulo/ Brazil (9th ed.).