PHARMACEUTICAL HISTORIAN An International Journal for the History of Pharmacy Volume 47 Number 2 – June 2017 Contents Editorial STUART ANDERSON ............................................................ 19 Message from the President of the International Society for the History of Pharmacy CHRISTA KLETTER ............................................................. 20 Message from the President of the British Society for the History of Pharmacy ROY ALLCORN ................................................................. 20 Articles ‘Te rejection of tradition in favour of experience’: Te publication of British pharmaceutical texts abroad 1670 to 1890 STUART ANDERSON ............................................................ 21 Establishing the provenance of a medicine chest belonging to Sir Walter Raleigh (c.1552 to 1618) CHRISTOPHER J DUFFIN ....................................................... 33 Moodeen Sherif and the 1869 Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia of India 1868 HARKISHAN SINGH ............................................................ 39 Documents and sources A note on clinical judgment and standardisation: Should old hospital pharmacopoeias be discarded? JOHN K CRELLIN .............................................................. 43 PHARMACEUTICAL HISTORIAN · 2017 · Volume 47/2 https://doi.org/10.24355/dbbs.084-202007291100-0 did it proceed in f ts and starts? Was publication equal- ARTICLES ly spread between dif erent texts, or were some much more popular than others? And what was the time lag ‘T e rejection of tradition in favour of between publication in Britain and publication abroad? experience:’ T e publication of British Cowen leaves readers to f nd the answers to these ques- pharmaceutical texts abroad 1670 to 1890 tions themselves; they are the questions addressed in this paper. Stuart Anderson T e publication of pharmaceutical texts in Britain Abstract Pharmaceutical literature takes a great many forms; by T is paper presents an analysis of Cowen’s study of the the start of the seventeenth century there was already a popularity of translations and re-printings of British wide range of printed materials available relating to pharmaceutical texts abroad. Around 260 translations medicines and how to prepare them. Some were based and reprints of over 30 publications were published be- on the work of classical scholars such as Galen and Avi- London Pharmacopoeia tween 1677 and 1871. T e was cenna; others were the work of more recent practition- the most frequently reproduced, although the largest ers. T e introduction of movable type and the printing category was the dispensatories, representing 52% of all press in Europe by Gutenberg in 1439 greatly facilitat- those published. British texts were most popular in ed the transmission of pharmaceutical knowledge. Pub- Germany, accounting for 41% of the total; along with lication of the Recettario f orentino in Florence in 14982 the Netherlands, Italy, France and the United States it led to state-sponsored formularies or pharmacopoeias accounted for 90%. T e appearance of translations appearing in many countries over the following dec- f uctuated decade to decade, with geopolitical events ades. Between 1600 and 1700 over 25 separate phar- having an important impact. Publications peaked be- macopoeias were published, mainly in Europe.3 tween 1750 and 1800, accounting for 51% of all texts In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries pharma- published abroad. ceutical knowledge became increasingly codif ed with the development of a number of distinct forms. In ad- Introduction dition to of cial publications supplementary texts ap- During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries British peared that expanded this knowledge; these often in- pharmaceutical texts achieved a popularity and inf u- cluded details such as how to collect medicinal plants, ence that extended far beyond the shores of the British how to prepare medicines for administration, and the Isles, and greatly exceeded the impact of those of any conditions for which medicines were recommended. other nation. Yet we know surprisingly little about the T ere were also volumes assembled by prominent phy- origins of this phenomenon, the reasons for it, and how sicians or medical societies, mostly written in Latin. In it was sustained over such a long period. But such texts his study Cowen identif ed f ve main categories of Brit- played an important part in spreading pharmaceutical ish pharmaceutical texts that were printed abroad, and knowledge across Europe, America and elsewhere. these provide a useful basis for analysis.4 T ey include Whilst the popularity and inf uence of British texts texts published mainly for professional use in dispens- abroad has received little attention from historians, one ing and prescribing, but exclude texts on therapeutics notable exception is the work of the American pharma- aimed specif cally at physicians and works on domestic ceutical historian David Cowen. In 2001 he published medicine. the results of his historical and bibliographic study of the spread and inf uence of British pharmacopoeial and Pharmacopoeias and conspectuses related literature; it appears in section VII of his book Of the various categories of pharmaceutical literature ‘Pharmacopoeias and Related Literature in Britain and the most important were the of cial pharmacopoeias. America, 1618 to 1847.’1 Cowen def ned a pharmacopoeia as ‘a compendium of In text and tables Cowen demonstrates the diversity drugs and formulas which is intended to secure uni- of pharmaceutical texts published abroad, the range of formity and standardisation of remedies, and which is countries where such publication took place, and the made legally obligatory for a particular political juris- long time period over which this occurred. T e picture diction, especially upon the pharmacists and pharma- presented is one of widespread inf uence in many places ceutical manufacturers of that jurisdiction’.5 He also over many years. But to what extent were such publica- noted that it ‘must be prepared by an of cial pharmaco- tions more popular in some countries than in others? poeia commission’, one that has the authority of a Was publication of texts steady over many decades, or monarch, state or parliament. Pharmacopoeias usually PHARMACEUTICAL HISTORIAN · 2017 · Volume 47/2 21 https://doi.org/10.24355/dbbs.084-202007291100-0 Table 1: Editions or revisions of Pharmacopoeias published in Britain 1618 to 1948 London Edinburgh Dublin British Pharmacopoeia Pharmacopoeia Pharmacopoeia Pharmacopoeia 1618 (f rst edition) 1699 (f rst edition) 1793 (f rst specimen) 1864 (f rst edition) 1621 (reprint) 1722 (second edition) 1805 (second specimen) 1867 (second edition) 1632 (reprint) 1735 (third edition) 1807 (f rst edition) 1885 (third edition) 1639 (reprint) 1744 (fourth edition) 1826 (second edition) 1885 (Indian edition) 1650 (second edition) 1756 (f fth edition) 1850 (third edition) 1898 (fourth edition) 1677 (third edition) 1774 (sixth edition) 1856 (reprint) 1900 (Indian and Colonial Addendum) 1721 (fourth edition) 1783 (seventh edition) 1901 (Government of India Addendum) 1746 (f fth edition) 1792 (eighth edition) 1914 (f fth edition) 1788 (sixth edition) 1803 (ninth edition) 1932 (sixth edition) 1809 (seventh edition) 1805 (reprint) 1948 (seventh edition) 1815 (altered edition) 1817 (tenth edition) 1824 (eighth edition) 1839 (eleventh edition) 1836 (ninth edition) 1841 (twelve edition) 1851 (tenth edition) contained catalogues of simples, or single medicines, T e botanical names of plants were included for the along with a collection of prescriptions and directions, f rst time. established under the authority of the state as a means Further attempts at modernisation were made in of setting standards and encouraging greater consisten- the f fth edition, published in 1746. By the sixth edi- cy in treatment, prescription and dosage. Many of the tion, in 1788, the College claimed to have paid particu- early pharmacopoeias were published by city states, and lar attention to ‘the applications of the advances of the extent of their jurisdiction was usually limited. In chemistry to pharmacy’. T e seventh edition, in 1809, Britain between the early seventeenth and mid-nine- introduced the new chemical nomenclature; nearly 100 teenth centuries three separate pharmacopoeias were items were deleted and a similar number added. Ra- published; the London Pharmacopoeia, the Edinburgh tionalisation continued with the eighth edition, al- Pharmacopoeia and the Dublin Pharmacopoeia, each though morphine, iodine and quinine were omitted, produced by the relevant College of Physicians. T ey despite their use being widely established in medical were all subsequently replaced by the British Pharmaco- practice.10 Richard Phillips, a pharmacist, subsequently poeia, which was published for this specif c purpose6 undertook the revisions resulting in the ninth edition.11 (Table 1). T is included many new products as well as methods for determining the purity of medicines and for prepar- Following publication of the f rst edition of the London ing chemicals. Pharmacopoeia in 1618 two further editions were pro- T e f rst edition of the Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia duced in the seventeenth century, although periodic appeared in 1699, 80 years after the London one. Un- reprints appeared.7 A further three editions appeared like their London counterparts, the Royal College of during the eighteenth century. With the fourth edition, Physicians of Edinburgh attempted, with