1 / 6

The Jesuit João de Loureiro (1717-1791) and the medicinal plants of China

The Jesuit João de Loureiro (1717-1791) and the medicinal plants of China. Manuel Serrano Pinto – University of Aveiro, Portugal, mspinto@ua.pt Wang Bing – Institute for the History of Natural Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

arnav
Download Presentation

The Jesuit João de Loureiro (1717-1791) and the medicinal plants of China

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Jesuit João de Loureiro (1717-1791) and the medicinal plants of China Manuel Serrano Pinto – University of Aveiro, Portugal, mspinto@ua.ptWang Bing – Institute for the History of Natural Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China wangb45@sohu.comNoël Golvers – University of Leuven, Belgium, Noel.Golvers@arts.kuleuven.beRui Manuel Loureiro – New University of Lisbon, Portugal, descobrimentos@gmail.comRosa Pinho – University of Aveiro, Portugal, rpinho@ua.pt

  2. General plan of the presentation • Introduction • 2. Short bio-bibliographic note on Loureiro • 3. Flora Cochinchinensis and the Chinese medicinal plants • 3.1. General characterization of the book • 3.2. The medicinal uses of the plants from China • 3.3. Loureiros’s herbaria and the medicinal plants • 3.4. Criticisms to Loureiros’s botanical work • 4. A tentative comparison to Li Shizhen’s Bencao Gangmu • 5. Concluding remarks

  3. João de Loureiro’s biographic sketch 1717 – Born in Lisbon. Studied in the religious college of S. Antão 1732 – Entered the Society of Jesus 1735 – Went to Goa as a missionary 1738 – Went to Macao as a missionary 1742 – Went to Cochinchina as a Jesuit astronomer-missionary Interested in medicinal plants used by local people. Botanical studies based successively on Dioscorides’ and Linneus’works. Became official naturalist and astronomer of the court. Mounted an astronomical observatory in the royal palace 1750-1752 – Out of Cochinchina due to religious persecutions. Botanical studies in the Philippines and Sumatra ~1753 – Returned to Cochinchina. More botanical studies 1777 – Went to Canton (Guangdong). Botanical studies When in Asia he was invited in 1780 to go to London by Joseph Banks (but declined the invitation) and was made a member of the Royal Society 1781 – Return to Portugal. Spent 3 months in Mozambique: botanical studies. In Lisbon was made a member of the Lisbon Academy of Sciences 1790 – Flora Cochinchinensis published by the Lisbon Academy of Sciences 1791 – Died in Lisbon. Left herbarium, drawings, letters, etc. to the Academy 1793 – German edition of Flora Cochinchinensis published in Berlin

  4. Table 3 – Medicinal properties of some plants from Flora Cochichinensis and from Bencao Gangmu

  5. Conclusions • The importance of Loureiro’s botanical studies may be summarized as follows: • They areamong the pioneering ethno-botanical studies in China made by Westerns and have contributed to the progress of botany in general and of Chinese botany in particular; • Through herbaria, drawings and written descriptions, he made known to Europe for the first time many Chinese plants and promoted the transfer of some plants from China to Europe; • Having corresponded with Western botanists Loureiro played an important role in the West-East scientific exchange in the 18th century in the field of botany; • The medicinal and several other uses of many plants were made known to Europe; • In comparing the medicinal properties of plants as given in Flora; Cochinchinensis and as given in Bencao Gangmu differences are seen mostly due to different ideas on their applications and also due to differences on the medicinal knowledge in China and in Europe; • Loureiro’s studies should be seen in the framework of the European Enlightment and also in the framework of the physiocratic ideas prevailing at the time.

More Related