Hendriksen Marieke M A
a Utrecht University , The Netherlands.
Ambix. 2018 Nov;65(4):303-323. doi: 10.1080/00026980.2018.1488099. Epub 2018 Jul 11.
In the eighteenth century, the use of mineral or fossil substances was relatively common in European medicine and pharmacy. However, this period also saw profound changes in ideas about the nomenclature, chemistry, and curative properties of minerals. Jonathan Simon has recently argued that an increasing orientation towards the mineral kingdom and the chemical transformation of minerals, and a rise in the number of mineral preparations demanded of the pharmacist, were characteristic for eighteenth-century chemistry within pharmacy. Yet in the Netherlands, and to a certain extent in England, another pattern is visible: although there certainly was an interest in the mineral kingdom and the chemical transformation of nonorganic materials, nothing suggests that this resulted in a strong increase in the demand for mineral-based pharmaceutical preparations - rather the contrary. Unlike English and French eighteenth-century pharmacy, Dutch pharmacy and its relation to academic medicine and chemistry have hardly received attention from historians of science thus far. This paper aims to fill that gap and argues that Herman Boerhaave's (1668-1738) view on mineral medicine was crucial in the development of a certain wariness of "mineral medicine" in the eighteenth-century Netherlands and England, especially among apothecaries.
在18世纪，矿物质或化石类物质在欧洲医学和药学中的应用较为普遍。然而，这一时期人们对矿物质的命名、化学性质和治疗特性的观念也发生了深刻变化。乔纳森·西蒙最近指出，对矿物王国的日益关注以及矿物质的化学转化，还有药剂师所需矿物制剂数量的增加，是18世纪药学领域化学的特征。然而在荷兰，以及在一定程度上在英国，另一种模式显而易见：尽管人们对矿物王国和无机材料的化学转化确实存在兴趣，但没有任何迹象表明这导致了对矿物基药物制剂需求的大幅增加——恰恰相反。与18世纪英国和法国的药学不同，荷兰药学及其与学术医学和化学的关系迄今为止几乎未受到科学史家的关注。本文旨在填补这一空白，并认为赫尔曼·布尔哈夫（1668 - 1738）对矿物医学的观点在18世纪荷兰和英国，尤其是在药剂师中对“矿物医学”产生某种谨慎态度的发展过程中起到了关键作用。
