History of Concepts and the Historiography of the Independence of Brazil:A Preliminary Diagnosis
The aim of this article is to discuss the history of the Independence of Brazil by highlighting the historiographical approaches from the so-called "History of Concepts," which in the current Brazilian historiography are related to a German intellectual branch, but often articulated to other approaches that can be referred to as intellectual history, history of languages and of political discourses. It offers a brief overview of the historiography of Independence in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, through to the diagnosis of their basic lineages, then it discusses current conceptual approaches. The conclusion indicates five points to contribute to a better understanding of the Independence of Brazil.
historiography, independence, Brazil, history of concepts, culture of history
Every historiography has its central themes. These topics are more often the concern of scholars than others, usually due to a combination of factors such as access to original sources and scholarly literature, the establishment of traditions, the priorities set in terms of institutional support (including financial), and the criteria of prestige connected to academic idiosyncrasies. At the same time, these themes are relevant not only in academia but also in other sectors of society. They are directly connected with current conditions, in tune with contemporary fashions, and can also arouse common interest. In this sense, historiography plays a crucial role amid a set of attitudes and values expressed in terms of notions, ideas, representations, conceptualizations, and interdictions of a specific society in relation to its collective past—which we might call a culture of history.1 This is not due [End Page 157] to historiographies being detached from society (which they never are) nor to their serving as a site for dissenting voices (which they might or might not be). But it is mainly because they interact with this culture, thus revealing some of its important dimensions. Often, the main themes assessed by historiography are precisely the structuring themes of a culture of history.
As extensively studied and perpetually revisited topics, these themes are uniquely able to translate specific intellectual contexts. The independence of Brazil is a central theme in Brazilian history and in its culture of history. From the political separation of Brazil and Portugal in the 1820s up to the present day, this subject has mobilized historians, social scientists, and many other producers and reproducers of historical knowledge, both academic and non-academic. Even in those moments when the subject raised less interest, this mobilization was never insignificant. And if today the historiography of independence is not as ponderous as other themes that are also central to the culture of history in Brazil—such as slavery or the dictatorship of 1964–1985—it is certainly the most enduring.2
In this paper I intend to discuss the history of the independence of Brazil by highlighting one of its specific intellectual contexts, which is also a very contemporary context: the approaches from the so-called "History of Concepts," which in current Brazilian historiographical practice are related to German Begriffsgeschichte, but are also informed by other approaches such as intellectual history or history of languages and of political discourses.3 I begin with a brief overview of the historiography of independence in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and then turn to a [End Page 158] diagnosis of their basic lineages. In my view, the historiography of independence has elements that are similar to projects underway in this more expansive history of concepts, which will be preliminarily examined. The conclusion discusses five areas where these approaches could make a significant contribution toward a better understanding of Brazil's independence.
HISTORIOGRAPHICAL LINEAGES IN THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES
The historiography of independence comprises a heterogeneous set of works ranging from the pioneering works of José da Silva Lisboa and John Armitage, which were written close in time to the events that led to the political separation between Brazil and Portugal, to contemporary contributions.4 These works are numerous and diverse in terms of objectives, approaches, sources, methods, depth, and influence. Among them, it is possible to distinguish at least five traits (none of which is exclusive to this historiography), and although these traits are often confused with one another, they can be observed separately.
First is the strong national characteristic of these studies—a trait common among other Latin American historiographies as well. Due to the initial increase in historiographical production sponsored by the Instituto Histórico-Geográfico Brasileiro, founded in 1838, and, soon after, to the work of Francisco Adolfo de Varnhagen,5 the national question has always permeated the historiography of independence:6 to affirm the political separation between Brazil and Portugal as a founding moment of Brazilian nationality, exalted from a nationalist perspective; or to critically relativize independence, characterizing it as a reform or a partial (or total) preservation of previously existing socio-economic structures;7 or to make it a [End Page 159] central thematic axis organizing other minor subjects. One of the lasting effects of this trait is the prevalence of studies that have confined the history of independence to the limits of the nation, as if Brazil's territorial boundaries—which were acquired only between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—had been there all along, enabling the nation-state's emergence in 1822. This feature is repeatedly and unconsciously reproduced by the historiography, and is also expressed by the view that the history of independence of the different parts of Brazil would be the history of specific contributions of each of these parts to the construction of the nation as a whole.8 In this sense, these "smaller" histories are rarely described as processes endowed with sufficient autonomy to question the formation of the nation of Brazil as a supposedly natural culmination of the historical process.
The second trait, closely related to the first, is a polarization in perceptions of the character of independence: on one hand, it was understood as a positive "transformational" revolution, and on the other, it could be understood as a positive, negative, or neutral "conservative" revolution—or even as a "counterrevolution" or a "non-revolution."9 Throughout the nineteenth century, the positive view prevailed: independence was understood as promoting great transformations by moderate means allegedly absent in other similar American processes. But in the mid-twentieth century, a negative view prevailed: independence was seen to be either negatively conservative—unable to transform such colonial features as an export-dependent economy, slavery, and weak cultural institutions—or negatively revolutionary, to the extent that it promoted a mode of "Bourgeois revolution."10
The third trait is an emphasis on the political dimensions of the process [End Page 160] of independence, in accordance with a more traditional manner of writing practiced in nineteenth-century Brazil. The history of independence could be perceived only as political because, in the first decades in the nineteenth century, the Brazilian economy was understood as having reinvented forms of colonial dependence within a national context. Hence the emphasis on the main characters and key events of the process,11 which persisted as the hallmarks of historiographical production in the twentieth century. That said, over time, the political dimensions have come to be seen as unimportant or even irrelevant in much of the writing about economic and cultural aspects of Brazil at the time of independence.
The fourth trait is the debate over the timeframe of the process of independence—how far the process extended both before and after 1822. The beginning of the process has been traced variously to the movements of political contestation during the late eighteenth century,12 the transference of the Portuguese Court to Brazil,13 the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of Brazil as kingdom, the Porto Revolution,14 etc. Likewise, the end has been attributed variously to the adhesion of the last provinces to the Empire of Brazil, the foreign recognition of independence, the abdication of D. Pedro I, the Majority D. Pedro II, the Regency period revolts, the end of the slave trade, etc.
Finally, the fifth trait concerns the social spectrum of the independence process. While the historiographical nationalism of the nineteenth century claimed that the nation's formation could only be the result of a grand and socially transcendent process, in the mid-twentieth century the process of independence was unanimously attributed to features that were heavily—if not totally—elitist. While the historiography illuminated individual trajectories, groups, and various forms of institutional and corporate organizations, independence was gradually left out, as if it had been confined to [End Page 161] forms of political activity—with the press as an exception—with which the historiography was not engaged. By the last decades of the twentieth century, historians saw that a renewed social history could not include the history of independence, by then a theme seen as inconveniently traditional and official. This is partially due to the many ideologically compromised appropriations of independence accomplished by the dictatorship in Brazil between 1964 and 1985, including the celebrations of 150 years of independence (1972).
IDEAS AND POLITICAL PROJECTS
Among all these approaches to the historiography of independence, which were intertwined with and enriched by other approaches inevitably absent from this brief summary, we must highlight those studies concerned with ideas and political projects. Not because they were "preparing" the ground for what would arise in terms of concepts, languages, and political discourses, but because they rehearsed approaches and sub-themes that would prove to be relevant, lasting, and inspiring. Most of these studies have been receiving increasing attention in graduate history courses in Brazil, thanks in part to increased public funding for research and the growth of research groups interested in political history.
Interestingly, in a work published in 1979 with a strong economic—and not political—orientation, we can find a general formulation of what serves as a direct inspiration to many Brazilian scholars who today make use of a history of concepts. I refer to the words of Fernando Novais in Portugal e Brasil na crise do Antigo Sistema Colonial. His formulation is largely coincident with the Koselleckian sattelzeit:15 "In the frames of Western civilization, the end of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries appear as one of those stormy and fruitful moments in which historical time is accelerated: the revolutionary movement promotes the progressive demolition of the old regime and the building of new State institutions of the contemporary time."16 [End Page 162]
While the practice of a history of concepts in Brazil was not at all his concern, Novais denounces a historiographical innovation—in a sense still ongoing—that has favored the intellectual plane in the historiography of independence. Hence, the important work by Carlos Guilherme Mota concerning the meaning of political terms expressed by revolutionaries in the province of Pernambuco in 181717 or the work by Arnaldo Daraya Contier on the political vocabulary of the first newspapers of São Paulo in the nineteenth century.18 István Jancsó provides an even deeper perspective, laden with potential, attending to collective identities, words, discourses, and concepts expressed not only by the direct agents of the independence process, but also by what the author conceived as a broad process of politicization of the public spaces of discussion that had been taking place in Portuguese America since the late eighteenth century.19 And in Portuguese historiography, Telmo dos Santos Verdelho offers an important contribution to the understanding of the central political terms in the constituents assembly debates of Portuguese congressmen between 1821 and 1822,20 later qualified by scholars such as Maria Cândida Proença.21 Historians such as Lúcia Pereira das Neves, Cecília Helena Oliveira, Marco Morel, and Maria de Lourdes Lyra offer important contributions to the history of independence by analyzing culture, vocabulary, and political projects layered within a history of concepts tout court.22
It can be said, then, that in the current historiography of Brazilian independence, the practice of a history of concepts, languages, and political discourse is related to a previous practice focused on the political dimensions of independence, and not necessarily directly connected to a conceptual plane. This helps us to understand how this present historiography [End Page 163] blends those works inspired by the history of concepts—and also influenced by other approaches—with works that in their own ways already offered insightful contributions to the same themes.
THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE HISTORY OF CONCEPTS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Thus far, this argument does not mean to discount the breath of renovation that a more directed history of concepts, languages, and discourses effectively brought to the historiography of Brazil's independence in recent years. Fifteen years ago, titles of academic papers rarely contained now common words such as concepts, languages, discourse, words, and rhetoric.23 Studies explicitly concerned with such subjects proceeded along lines similar to works on political ideas and practices in general.
Some good examples are the works of Robert Stumpf, Ana Rosa Cloclet da Silva, Thomas Wisiak, Gladys S. Ribeiro, and Daniel Afonso da Silva, who analyze collective identities and their politicization in an "extended" context of independence, from the late eighteenth century to the end of the First Empire (1831).24 Specific works regarding the political meanings of the term citizen, a theme that remains central to today's politics, have been produced by Andréa Slemian, Cristina Nogueira da Silva, and the collective project by Rafael Marquese, Márcia Berbel, and Tâmis [End Page 164] Parron.25 This is a theme that touches the field of parliamentary, constitutional, and legal debates explored by Fernanda Maia, Antônio Penalves Rocha, Arno and Maria José Wehling, Marcia Berbel, Christian Lynch, and Luísa Rauter Pereira, among others. Notably, Lynch and Pereira adopt a perspective directly aligned with the history of concepts movement that focuses on the historicity of some words that were central to debates at the time.26
Several other recent studies have approached the theme of political projects and ideas in the context of independence, some of which explicitly make use of the conceptual approach (but seldom exclusively), such as Sílvia Carla Fonseca, João Paulo Pimenta, Marisa Sáenz Leme, Ana Cláudia Fernandes, Cristiane Camacho dos Santos, Bruno Diniz Silva, Christian Hausser, and Rafael Fanni,27 along with Marco Morel and Lúcia Pereira [End Page 165] das Neves, whose previously mentioned works are also significant here.28 Other historians such as José Murilo de Carvalho, José Luis Cardoso, Alexandre Cunha, Marcello Basile, Thais Buvalovas, and Valdei Lopes de Araujo have also turned toward political and economic rhetoric and languages.29 Notably, Araujo is today one of the most important and original scholars working on the history of concepts in Brazil.30
Finally, it must be said that the most striking contribution to the historiography of independence in its interface with the history of concepts is the great collective effort of the Iberconceptos project, coordinated by Javier Fernández Sebastián. This ongoing project has already resulted in two political–conceptual dictionaries with approximately forty extensive entries dedicated to Brazil and Portugal between 1750 and 1850 (with subgroups coordinated by João Feres Júnior and Fátima Sá e Melo Ferreira, respectively).31 They have analyzed key concepts of the historical experience in [End Page 166] the Ibero-American world during that period, such as nation, liberalism, sovereignty, revolution, and citizenship. Although these entries have asymmetrical relationships to the theme of independence, most of them do not ignore it and they offer fruitful approaches and insights that have not yet been fully appreciated by the historiography of independence in general.32 However, considering what has already emerged from the Iberconceptos project, it is a fundamental hallmark in historiography.
Based on the present diagnosis, there are five compelling contributions that the history of concepts as practiced today in Brazil—not the history of discourses and languages—may offer to the historiography of independence in general. First, it can help us to revise the chronological boundaries of the subject. It is essential to understand independence as a process extending before and after 1822. After all, concepts are not episodic; rather, they are situated within longer- or shorter-term developments. A history of concepts of the process of independence, which has already been outlined by the above-mentioned historiography, should follow the same path, although possibly reinforced by the specific temporal dynamics of the concepts under consideration.
Second, the history of concepts can help to qualify a similar spatial expansion, which historiography has heretofore not thoroughly considered. In the passage from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, the acceleration of historical time in the Western world was also followed by a widening of the capacity of circulation and resignification of concepts, resulting in a great laboratory of conceptual change, in the manner shown by the Iberconceptos project. Besides being a point repeatedly reiterated by Fernández Sebastián in several of his works, the diagnosis of this "laboratory" was deepened by the "transversal synthesis" of many concepts analyzed in both dictionaries of the Iberconceptos.
Therefore, at the conceptual level, our understanding of Brazil's independence seems inevitably destined to transcend national boundaries of [End Page 167] events, territory, and language. Thus, it is necessary to explore not only the meanings and the usages of concepts, as some of the historiography has been doing, but also their geographical circulation, and the transformations resulting from that circulation.
Third, as an authentic "social" history, a history of concepts should never renounce the investigation of structural connections with other, indirectly related, levels of reality. The restoration of a central theme to historiography and to a culture of history, such as the independence of Brazil, will always require this kind of action. It will never be comfortably enclosed in a single or a few dimensions of reality (such as economic structures, human and commercial fluxes, work relations, institutions, hierarchies and social values, conflicts, political projects, speeches, views of the world, etc.). All these dimensions are, in fact, endowed with specific temporalities that have to be scrutinized. Often too constrained by their own assumptions, the historiography of independence and the history of concepts are thus doubly challenged.
Fourth, the study of concepts may energetically and forcefully contribute to better addressing the relationship between the "whole" and the "parts" of the process of Brazilian independence. As we have affirmed, concepts tend to be spatially comprehensive, but they are equally subject to variations that depend on specific political events. This is precisely what is observed everywhere in Portuguese America in the early decades of the nineteenth century. The history of concepts will greatly benefit from the foundation for this understanding already laid by the varied economic and political historiographies of these respective "parts."
Finally, the history of concepts may contribute decisively to a new critical appraisal of the historiography of independence itself, its intellectual assumptions, its conscious or unconscious heritages, its fashions and advancements. This does not mean that we should look at the historiography of independence as a phenomenon subject to a progressive and necessary improvement. Far from it. However, it must be recognized that all historiography, as well as all historical knowledge, has a partially cumulative dimension. This obliges historians to an ongoing, critical engagement with their objects of study, related scholarly literatures, and the circumstances of their own intellectual development. In the case of a well-established historiography, such as that of the independence of Brazil, a conceptual history of this historiography—as well as a conceptual history of the culture of history in which it is involved—is a quite promising prospect. [End Page 168]
1. João Paulo Pimenta, César Atti, Sheila Virgínia Castro, Nadiesda Dimambro, Beatriz Duarte Lanna, Marina Pupo, and Luís Otávio Vieira, "A Independência e uma cultura de história no Brasil," Almanack 8 (2014): 5–36. In the same line: Jacques Le Goff, História e memória, 7th ed., trans. Bernardo Leitão, Irene Ferreira, and Susana Borges (Campinas: Edunicamp, 1990), 49–76; Ângela de Castro Gomes, "Cultura política e cultura histórica no Estado Novo," in Cultura política e leituras do passado: Historiografia e ensino de história, eds. Martha Abreu, Rachel Soihet, and Rebeca Gontijo (Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2007), 43–63.
2. The best general analysis on the historiography of the independence of Brazil is Wilma P. Costa, "A independência na historiografia brasileira," in Independência: História e historiografia, ed. István Jancsó (São Paulo: Hucitec / Fapesp, 2005), 53–118. Other useful historiographical balances are Zília Osório de Castro, "A independência do Brasil na historiografia portuguesa," in Independência: História e historiografia, ed. Jancsó, 179–204; Jurandir Malerba, "Esboço crítico da recente historiografia sobre a independência do Brasil (c. 1980–2002)," in A Independência brasileira: novas dimensôes (Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV, 2006), 19–52; Hendik Kraay, "A visão estrangeira: A Independência do Brasil (1780–1850) na historiografia européia e norte-americana," in Independência: História e historiografia, ed. Jancsó, 119–77; Pimenta, "The Independence of Brazil: A review of the recent historiographic production," E-Journal of Portuguese History 7, no. 1 (2009), 1–21.
3. The bibliography on the History of Concepts, as elaborated by Reinhart Koselleck, and on the linguistic turn is very broad and has shown considerable growth. Two works are especially inspiring: Javier Fernández Sebastián, ed., Political Concepts and Time (Santander: Cantabria University Press, 2011) and Elías J. Palti, El tempo de la política: El siglo XIX revisitado (Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores, 2007).
4. José da Silva Lisboa, História dos principais sucessos políticos do Império do Brasil dedicada ao senhor D. Pedro I (Rio de Janeiro: Typ. Imperial e Nacional, 1827–30); John Armitage, The History of Brazil, from the Period of the Arrival of the Braganza Family in 1808, to the Abdication of Don Pedro the First in 1831 (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1836).
5. Francisco Adolfo de Varnhagen, História da Independência do Brasil até o reconhecimento pela antiga metrópole, compreendendo separadamente a dos sucessos ocorridos em algumas províncias até esta data (Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional, 1917).
6. This tendency is observed even in the strongly critical work, considered as the dominant and official posture in regard to the independence in the 1970s: José Honório Rodrigues, Independência: Revolução e contra-revolução (Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves, 1975–76).
7. Caio Prado Júnior, Evolução política do Brasil (São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1933); Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, Raízes do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1936); Raymundo Faoro, Os donos do poder: Formação do patronato político brasileiro, 2nd ed. (Porto Alegre: Globo, 1958); Celso Furtado, Formação econômica do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: Fundo de Cultura, 1959).
8. Luís Henrique Dias Tavares, A Independência do Brasil na Bahia (Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira; Brasília: Instituto Nacional do Livro, 1977).
9. This trait was also analyzed by Costa, "A Independência" and Pimenta and Mariana Ferraz Paulino, "Uma revolução interditada: Esboço de uma genealogia de uma ideia de 'não independência' do Brasil," in Las revoluciones em el largo siglo XIX latinoamericano, ed. Rogelio Altez and Manuel Chust (Madrid: Iberoamericana / Vervuert, 2015).
10. Florestan Fernandes, A revolução burguesa no Brasil: Ensaio de interpretação sociológica (Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1975); Nelson Werneck Sodré, As razôes da independência (Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1965); Emília Viotti da Costa, "Introdução ao estudo da emancipação política," in Brasil em Perspectiva, ed. C. G. Mota (São Paulo: Difusão Européia do Livro, 1968).
11. Octávio Tarquínio de Sousa, História dos fundadores do Império do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1957–58). With no doubt, in the historiography of the independence, the most biographed characters are Pedro I, José Bonifácio, and João VI, although the last decades have significantly widened this scope.
12. Fernando Novais and Mota, A independência política do Brasil (São Paulo: Moderna, 1986); Roderick J. Barman, Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798–1852 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986).
13. Some diverse examples are Manuel de Oliveira Lima, D. João VI no Brasil: 1808–1821 (Rio de Janeiro: Typ. do Jornal do Commercio, 1908) and Maria Odila Dias, "A interiorização da metrópole (1808–1853)" in 1822: Dimensôes, ed. Mota (São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1972), 160–84.
14. Valentim Alexandre, Os sentidos do império: Questão nacional e questão colonial na crise do Antigo Regime português (Porto: Afrontamento, 1993).
15. According to Pim den Boer, one of the presuppositions of Koselleck's theory is "the idea of the so-called saddle-time …, the ridge, the period of semantic change from 1750 till 1850. In this saddle-time the modernization of German socio-political vocabulary took place, key concepts were created and old concepts received new meaning." Pim den Boer, "National Cultures, Transnational Concepts: Begriffgeschichte beyond Conceptual Nationalism," in Political Concepts and Time, ed. Sebastián, 210.
16. Novais, Portugal e Brasil na crise do Antigo Sistema Colonial, 1777–1808 (São Paulo: Hucitec, 1979), 3.
17. Mota, Nordeste 1817: Estruturas e argumentos (São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1972).
18. Arnaldo Daraya Contier, Imprensa e ideologia em São Paulo 1822–1842 (Petrópolis: Vozes, 1979).
19. Jancsó and Pimenta, "Peças de um mosaico (ou apontamentos para o estudo da emergência da identidade nacional brasileira)," in Viagem incompleta: A experiência brasileira; Formação: histórias (1500–2000), ed. Mota (São Paulo: Editora Senac, 2000), 127–75; Jancsó, "Brasil e brasileiros: notas sobre modelagem de significados políticos na crise do Antigo Regime português na América," Estudos Avançados 22, no. 62 (2008).
20. Telmo dos Santos Verdelho, As palavras e as ideias na revolução liberal de 1820 (Coimbra: Instituto Nacional de Investigação Científica, 1981).
21. Maria Cândida Proença, A primeira regeneração: O conceito e a experiência nacional, 1820–1823 (Lisbon: Livros Horizonte, 1990).
22. Lúcia Pereira das Neves, Corcundas e constitucionais: A cultura política da Independência (Rio de Janeiro: Revan-Faperj, 2003); Cecília Helena Oliveira, A astúcia liberal: Relaçôes de mercado e projetos políticos no Rio de Janeiro, 1820–1824 (Bragança Paulista: Edusf / Ícone, 1999); Marco Morel, "Independência no papel: a imprensa periódica," Independência: História e historiografia, ed. Jancsó, 617–636; Maria de Lourdes Vianna Lyra, "Pátria do cidadão: A concepçãode pátria/nação em Frei Caneca," Revista Brasileira de História 18, no. 36 (1998), 395–420.
23. This remark is drawn from a thorough collection of bibliographies relative to the history of Brazil between 1808 and 1831, which is being assembled by César Augusto Atti and João Paulo Pimenta. To this date it has listed approximately ten thousand titles published between 1808 and 2015.
24. Roberta G. Stumpf, Filhos das Minas, americanos e portugueses: Identidades coletivas na capitania das Minas Gerais, 1763–1792 (São Paulo: Hucitec, 2009); Ana Rosa C. Silva, "De comunidades a nação: Regionalização do poder, localismos e construçôes identitárias em Minas Gerais, 1821–1831," Almanack Braziliense 2 (2005); Thomas Wisiak, "A 'nação partida ao meio': Tendências políticas na Bahia na crise do Império lusobrasileiro" (Phd diss., Universidade de São Paulo, 2001); Gladys S. Ribeiro, A liberdade em construção: Identidade nacional e conflitos antilusitanos no primeiro reinado (Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará, 2002); Daniel Afonso Silva, "Na trilha das "garrafadas": A abdicação de D. Pedro I e a afirmação da identidade nacional brasileira na Bahia," Aná-lise Social—Revista do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa 47, no. 203 (2012), 268–97. See also Márcia Berbel, "Pátria e patriotas em Pernambuco (1817–1822): Nação, identidade e vocabulário político," in Brasil: Formação do Estado e da nação, ed. Jancsó (São Paulo: Hucitec / Fapesp, 2003), 345–63.
25. Andréa Slemian, "'Seriam todos cidadãos?': Os impasses na construção da cidadania nos primórdios do constitucionalismo no Brasil," Independência: História e historiografia, ed. Jancsó (São Paulo: Hucitec / Fapesp, 2005), 829–47; Cristina Nogueira da Silva, "Conceitos oitocentistas de cidadania: Liberalismo e igualdade," Análise Social—Revista do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa 44, no. 192 (2009), 533–63; Márcia Berbel, Rafael Marquese, and Tamis Parron, Escravidão e política: Brasil e Cuba (São Paulo: Hucitec, 2010). The theme of citizenship was also assessed in two collections: Gladys S. Ribeiro, ed., Brasileiros e cidadãos: Modernidade política, 1822–1930 (São Paulo: Alameda, 2008); Gladys S. Ribeiro and Tânia Maria T. Ferreira, ed., Linguagens e práticas da cidadania no século XIX (São Paulo: Alameda, 2010).
26. Fernanda Paula Maia, O discurso parlamentar português e as relaçôes Portugal-Brasil: A Câmara dos Deputados, 1826–1852 (Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian / Minis-tério da Ciência e Tecnologia, 2002); Antonio Penalves Rocha, A recolonização do Brasil pelas cortes: História de uma invenção historiográfica (São Paulo: Editora UNESP, 2009); Márcia Berbel, "A retórica da recolonização," in Independência: História e historiografia, ed. Jancsó, 791–808; Arno Wehling and Maria José Wehling, "Soberania sem Independência: Aspectos do discurso político e jurídico na proclamação do Reino Unido," Tempo 16, no. 31 (2011), 89–116; Christian Edward Lynch, "O discurso político monarquiano e a recepção do conceito de poder moderador no Brasil (1822–1824)," Dados: Revista de Ciências Sociais 48, no. 3 (2005), 611–54; Luísa Rauter Pereira, "O conceito de soberania: Dilemas e conflitos na construção e crise do Estado imperial brasileiro, 1750–1850," Intellectus 9, no. 2 (2013): 1–22.
27. Sílvia Carla Fonseca, "A América como um conceito: Contribuição para o estudo da imprensa republicana fluminense e pernambucana entre 1829 e 1832," Cadernos do Centro de História e Documentação Diplomática 4, no. especial (2005), 57–70; Sílvia Carla Fonseca, A idéia de República no Império do Brasil: Rio de Janeiro e Pernambuco 1824–1834 (Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2010); Sílvia Carla Fonseca, "Federalismo: A experiência americana de um conceito (1820–1835)," Locus 36, no. 1 (2013): 85–116; Pimenta, Estado e nação no fim dos impérios ibéricos no Prata, 1808–1828 (São Paulo: Hucitec / Fapesp, 2002); Pimenta, "A política hispanoamericana e o império português (1810–1817): Vocabulário político e conjuntura," in Brasil: Formação do Estado e da nação, ed. Jancsó (São Paulo: Hucitec / Fapesp, 2003), 123–39; Marisa Sáenz Leme, "Soberania, centralização, federação e confederação no discurso jornalístico da Independência: A visãode O Conciliador Nacional," Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro 169, no. 440 (2008): 29–62; Ana Cláudia Fernandes, "Revolução em pauta: O debate Correo del Orinoco – Correio Brasiliense" (master's thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, 2010); Cristiane Camacho dos Santos, "Escrevendo a história do futuro" (master's thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, 2010); Bruno Diniz Silva, "Da restauração à regeneração: Linguagens políticas em José da Silva Lisboa, 1808–1830" (master's thesis, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, 2010); Christian Hausser, Auf dem Weg der Zivilisation: Geschichte und Konzepte Gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung in Brasilien, 1808–1871 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2009); Rafael Fanni, "Temporalização dos discursos políticos no processo de independência do Brasil, 1820–1822" (master's thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, 2015).
28. Marco Morel, "E nome da opinião pública: A gênese de uma noção," in História e imprensa: Anais do Colóquio, ed. Neves and Morel (Rio de Janeiro: UERJ, 1998); Neves, "Revolução: Em busca de um conceito no império luso-brasileiro, 1789–1822," in História dos Conceitos: Diálogos transatlânticos, ed. João Feres Júnior and Marcelo Jasmin (Rio de Janeiro: Editora PUC-Rio, IUPERJ / UCAM; São Paulo: Ediçôes Loyola, 2007), 129–40.
29. José Murilo de Carvalho, "História intelectual no Brasil: A retórica como chave de leitura," Topoi 1, no. 1 (2000): 123–52; José Luís Cardoso and Alexandre Mendes Cunha, "Discurso econômico e política colonial no Império Luso-Brasileiro (1750–1808)," Tempo 16, no. 31 (2011): 65–88; Marcello Basille, "Luzes a quem está nas trevas: A linguagem política radical nos primórdios do Império," Topoi 2, no. 3 (2001): 91–130; Thais Buvalovas, "Hipólito da Costa em Londres: Libertadores, whigs e radicais no discurso político do Correio Braziliense" (PhD diss., Universidade de São Paulo, 2013).
30. Valdei Lopes de Araujo, A experiência do tempo: Conceitos e narrativas na formação nacional brasileira, 1813–1845 (São Paulo: Hucitec, 2008).
31. Sebastián, ed., Diccionario político y social del mundo iberoamericano: Iberconceptos, 1 (Madrid: Fundación Carolina / Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales / Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2009); Sebastián, ed., Diccionario político y social del mundo iberoamericano: Iberconceptos, 2 (Madrid: Universidad del País Vasco / Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2014). The Brazilian research group was composed of Christian Lynch, Cláudio Santos Monteiro, João Feres Júnior, Maria Elisa Sá, Beatriz Catão Cruz Santos, Bernardo Ferreira, Guilherme Pereira das Neves, Heloísa Starling, Ivo Coser, João Paulo Pimenta, Lúcia Pereira das Neves, Luísa Rauter Pereira, Marco Antônio Pamplona, and Valdei Lopes de Araujo. The Portuguese group was composed of Ana Cristina Araújo, Ana Maria Pina, Fátima Sá e Mello Ferreira, Nuno Gonçalo Monteiro, Rui Ramos, and Sérgio Campos Matos.
32. A good example is provided by the concept of people, analyzed by Luísa Rauter Pereira, O povo na história do Brasil: Linguagem e historicidade no debate político (Jundiaí: Paco, 2016).