4 BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? Secret Remedies, Exclusive Privileges, and Trademarks in Early Modern France JUSTIN RIVEST WHILE PHARMACOPOEIAS like the Parisian Codex medicamentarius governed the world of apothecaries in ancien regime France, there also existed a parallel and more loosely organized tradition whereby pharmaceutical inno­ vators were granted exclusive royal privileges for the sale of novel therapeutic preparations, called "secret remedies:' These privileges in effect granted legal monopolies over the sale of a given drug. Many privilege holders held no formal medical credentials and were not members of the medical corporations-the faculties and colleges of physicians, or the guilds of surgeons and apothecaries. As such, while their monopolies were narrowly circumscribed to the production and sale of a single drug, they were often resented by apothecaries, who saw them as encroaching on their own corporate privileges to compound and dispense all drugs within a given jurisdiction. Published pharmacopoeias and secret remedy privileges each offered differ­ ent modes of organizing the world of healing goods. One aimed to standardize the recipes of established drugs, the other to reward therapeutic innovation. These two opposing modes coexisted throughout the ancien regime and were in some ways mutually dependent upon one another for their definition. The 81 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 91 1/22/19 4:04 PM I JUSTIN RIVEST 1728 protocols of France's earliest secret remedies commission demonstrate that pharmacopoeias played an instrumental role in defining pharmaceutical novelty: commissioners compared prospective secret remedies to established pharma­ copoeia preparations in order to ensure that they were not simply disguised or lightly modified versions of existing drugs. To put it simply, if a drug could be found in a pharmacopoeia, then it was not novel, and was therefore unworthy of a privilege. But what happened when the recipe of a secret remedy was published in a pharmacopoeia? In this essay I explore this question through the example of orvietan, a secret remedy that the Contugi family sought to monopolize through a royal privilege. The family patriarch, Christophe Contugi, began his career as an operateur, or more pejoratively, a "charlatan" in the classical sense of the term: an itinerant vendor who peddled drugs to the public with an accompanying stage­ show in the market square. 1 By the end of his life, however, he was a respect­ able bourgeois and his successors sold the drug from an established boutique. Although successive generations of the Contugi family held a royal privilege for the exclusive sale of orvietan in France from 1647 onward, by 1682 no fewer than eight European pharmacopoeias, two of which had been published in France, included a range of different recipes purporting to produce orvietan. The matter came to a head in that year, when the royal apothecary Antoine Boulogne took advantage of this situation by selling his own orvietan from a boutique located directly across the road from that of the Contugis at the foot of the Pont Neuf, one of Paris's busiest thoroughfares. Was orvietan a hereditary medical secret of the Contugi family? Or was it a widely known drug, closely related to theriac, whose secret recipe had already been disclosed in pharmacopoeias? This essay explores the use of pharmacopoeias in answering these questions. From the perspective of state authorities, pharmacopoeias came to be closely intertwined with the world of secret remedies by providing a criterion for assess­ ing whether or not a drug was novel. Although specific procedures were never rigidly codified, it is clear that pharmacopoeias played a formal role in granting monopoly privileges by 1728 and were probably being used informally for this purpose in the preceding decades. The essay begins by examining the legal con­ text of pharmaceutical privileges in ancien regime France, comparing "secret remedies" to those compounded by apothecaries. It then provides a background of the Contugi family orvietan monopoly and details the legal battles between the family and the royal apothecaries in 1682-1685. This case demonstrates that, well before 1728, pharmacopoeias furnished apothecaries with arguments in judi­ cial debates, serving as instruments in their larger economic struggle with famil­ ial monopolies like that of the Contugis. The Contugis for their part responded not only by insisting that the pharmacopoeia preparations had not accurately I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 92 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? captured their secret recipe but also by redefining their monopoly around a trademark ("the sign of the sun" ) and a privileged point of sale at the foot of Pont Neuf. DRUG CATEGORIES: OFFICINAL, MAGISTRAL, SECRET, AND SPECIFIC University-trained physicians regularly denigrated operators like the Contugis as "charlatans" and "empirics;' but they and others like them might more justly be called "privileged vendors" of so-called secret remedies ( remedes secrets) . 2 The terminology surrounding their drugs, and those compounded by apothecaries, provides a useful entry into the question of what role pharmacopoeias played in establishing these distinctions. When applied to remedies or medicines, the terms "secret," "proprietary;' and "patent" are sometimes used interchangeably, but each places emphasis on a different dimension of the phenomenon of medi­ cal monopoly privileges. The notion of remedes secrets, for instance, emphasized the medical secret of a drug, understood to include its recipe, preparation, and the identity of its main ingredients. "Proprietary," by contrast, emphasizes the attempt to monopolize a remedy by a proprietor, which can take several forms: a drug can be monopolized through a legal privilege, through trade secrecy, or by both in conjunction. Many secret remedies in early modem France were pro­ tected by royal monopoly privileges, and in most cases their recipes were also concealed-at least initially-by the shroud of trade secrecy. In both senses, then, they can be called "proprietary:' The terms "secret" and "proprietary" also converge insofar as both legal monopolies and medical secrets could be sold, inherited, and otherwise transmitted as property in ancien regime society. 3 The term "patent medicines" poses a series of problems which are particu­ larly acute to anglophone readers. "Patent" originally referred to the letters pat­ ent that granted a privilege-a right that belonged to a corporation or even to a single individual-to the exclusion of others. European monarchs granted a variety of privileges, including the establishment of monopolies in medicine and other economic spheres. By the nineteenth century, however, many "patent med­ icines" were not protected by patents registered with government patent offices; the term became pejorative, a tool of distinction used by an "ethical," scientific pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the United States, that sought to distin­ guish itself from supposedly unscrupulous and unscientific commercial com­ petitors.4 I avoid using the term "patent medicines" for this reason, and prefer "proprietary" or "secret remedies:' Likewise, doing so avoids conflating ancien regime privileges with modern notions of intellectual property. Privileges did not require a public disclosure (via a government patent office) of the full details of their invention-called "specification"-in exchange for the legal and finan- I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 93 1/22/19 4:04 PM I JUSTIN RIVEST cial protections of an explicitly temporary monopoly. Vendors generally strove to keep their recipes secret indefinitely as a further bulwark against counterfeiters. Further still, a royal privilege was not guaranteed by a "right" to intellectual prop­ erty in the modern sense; rather, it was the gift of a benevolent sovereign, which aimed to reward inventors for adding to the glory of France. It would protect their investment from interlopers, and ensure the quality of the product for the general public against counterfeiters and adulterators. 5 Finally, we should recall that ancien regime privileges were enmeshed in the normal systems of patron­ age that characterized the culture of the royal court. Indeed, modern intellectual property emerged explicitly from critiques of this system, which opponents por­ trayed as being arbitrary, secretive, and open to favoritism and venality. The term remedes specifiques was often used interchangeably with remedes secrets in the eighteenth century. In pharmacological terms, "specific remedies" (or simply "specifics") were drugs that targeted a defined disease or condition in a localized way-for instance, intermittent fevers, venereal disease, or dysen­ tery. The reason for conflating the two is that so many privileged secret remedies were also "specifics;' pharmacologically speaking. Rather than merely provoking a purge or some other intervention aimed at rebalancing the patient's humors, "specifics" were supposed to respond to a given disease regardless of the pecu­ liarities of an individual's personal temperament. This made them unusual in the normal medicine of the period, which treated humoral imbalances within the whole body. Indeed, the "one-size-fits-all" approach of "specifics" smacked of medical empiricism to Galenic physicians, but found advocates among chymical physicians and in localized medical contexts, notably military medicine, where large patient volumes made individualized treatment and calibrated regimens impracticable. Harold J. Cook has also connected this "deindividualization" to the growing commercialization of proprietary drugs, which were touted as "spe­ cifics" so that they could be marketed to the largest possible number of patients. 6 Because they were protected by legal monopolies and medical secrecy, pro­ prietary "secret" or "specific" remedies stood apart from the drugs normally compounded by apothecaries. Apothecaries' drugs came in two general types: they were either officinal, meaning they were prepared according to a standard, publicly available formula from an established pharmacopoeia, and often stocked ready-made in apothecaries' boutiques; or they were magistral, tailored to fit an individual case from the personal prescription of a physician.7 Secret remedies differed from oflicinal compounds in that they were supposed to be new, rather than being based on standardized recipes. Further, secret remedies differed from magistral prescriptions insofar as they were not usually tailored to fit the individ­ ual circumstance of a patient-every patient received the same drug. As we shall see in the following sections, these categories could easily blur I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 94 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? into one another in practice. From the perspective of regulatory officials, phar­ macopoeias provided a criterion for assessing whether or not the secret remedies proposed by inventors were actually novel. Conversely, the recipes of ostensibly secret remedies could also be disclosed in pharmacopoeias, turning them into officinal preparations. They could thus offer a foundation for the claims of apoth­ ecaries that such remedies could not be monopolized within families and should instead be incorporated into their corporate monopoly over drug production. THE ROLE OF PHARMACOPOEIAS IN EVALUATING SECRET REMEDIES BEFORE AND AF TER 1728 On July 3, 1728, the State Council of Louis XV promulgated an arret to bring order to the medical anarchy then reigning in the capital.8 At first glance the text of this arret reads much like any other early modern denunciation of illicit medi­ cal practice. But the producers and vendors of these pernicious remedies were no ordinary empirics, as the operative portion of the edict demonstrates. The state council and the king's first physician, Claude Jean-Baptiste Dodart (1650-1730 ), were, in fact, targeting secret remedies vendors who already held royal privileges. They were ordered to deposit their privilege documents, along with samples of their drugs, to the office of the lieutenant general of police within two months, so that they could be reexamined.9 This attempt to reexamine and, if necessary, revoke existing drug privileges was a response to the fact that a veritable industry of privileged vendors had emerged by the early eighteenth century. This arret was the first of a series that would provide increasingly articulate legislation regulating the trade in propri­ etary remedies in France from 1728 onward. But the need for all hitherto granted privileges to be reexamined and for the medications they licensed to be tested anew suggests that the practice of granting individual privileges for proprietary remedies had somehow run off the rails in the first decades of the eighteenth century. In his 1762 Jurisprudence de la medecine, the most extensive treatise on medical regulation in ancien regime France, the physician and jurist Jean Verdier pro­ vides some notion of how the 1728 arret came into being, and what abuses it was intended to rectify. Verdier observed that the most famous empirics had long known that the best way of evading challenges from the faculties and other med­ ical corporations in France was to secure a royal privilege. And since kings would never grant such privileges without medical counsel, the approbation of specific remedies came through custom to constitute an established right (droit etabli) of the king's first physician (Premier medecin du roi). 10 The drugs were sometimes tested on patients-usually in relatively small numbers-under the supervision of the royal first physician or other court physicians. 11 Its secret recipe would also 85 I Crawford_Gabriel__pp2.indd 95 1/22/19 4:04 PM I JUSTIN RIVEST be disclosed to the first physician, who would judge whether or not it was worthy of a privilege, which would then be issued by the secretary of state for the king's house (Secretaire d'Etat de la Maison du roi.). As Verdier puts it, "Such was the order followed in recent centuries, by which means empiricism has been toler­ ated:' 12 Verdier admits that the licensing of proprietary remedies was in some cases desirable, despite the fact that many vendors had no formal medical qualifica­ tions. Pure chance and even overt charlatanism had sometimes enriched medi­ cine with new remedies, in his view, therefore empiricism could not be rejected wholesale. 13 1his was particularly important in the case of "specifics," whose occult virtues could not be determined through any reasoned causal account of their sensible qualities, but could only be learned through the trial-and-error associated with the practice of so-called "empirics:' Writing at the height of the Enlightenment, Verdier saw in empirics a potential wellspring for medical innovations. He believed that a careful regime of privilege granting, kept within narrow bounds, could ensure that the true fruits of empiricism would be safely reaped while carefully avoiding the abuses that might come with it. According to Verdier, important steps toward producing such a balanced situation came in 1728 following the remonstrances of the royal first physician Dodart. In his account of the reforms, Verdier provides an image of a first phy­ sician who was constantly imposed upon by various court interests to gratify their respective medical clients by licensing their medications-regardless of the fact that many were dangerous, veritable "weapons against humankind;' in his words. 14 Sharing this "embarrassing" authority with other commissioners offered Dodart a means not only of examining the drugs more formally but also of dif­ fusing blame for any rejections. Precious little has survived documenting the work of the 1728 commission. Indeed, the earliest surviving institutional archive for French drug regulation dates to 1778, when the Societe Royale de Medecine was placed in charge of assessing new drugs for monopoly privileges. 15 Fragmentary evidence suggests that a growing collection of drugs and their vendors' accompanying parchment privileges were deposited with the lieutenant general of police in 1728. But when the commissionaires convened to analyze them, what was their modus ope­ randi? One short memoire, dated October 16, 1729, and signed by Rene Herault (1691-1740 ), lieutenant general of police, has survived and provides some hints as to their procedures. The commissioners were expected to distinguish between three types of remedy: those that are dangerous, those that are salutary, and, finally, the pragmatic category of "indifferent remedies:' In the latter case, the memoire observes that the commission should not abolish those privileges that it has pleased the king to grant for "indifferent" remedies that cause no ill 86 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 96 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? effects. Their vendors were permitted to continue holding privileges to sell such "indifferent" remedies, although-a subsequent note clarifies-they should no longer hold the exclusive rights to do so: "In this case the exclusion must be abol­ ished, and the apothecaries must be given the liberty to compound these rem­ edies:' 16 This clause likely served as a compromise, insulating the commission from the wrath of former monopolists whose privileges might have been granted through the intercession of powerful patrons at court, including even the king himself. The remainder of the memoire expresses the two principal goals of the com­ mission; namely, to confirm the novelty of the drug and to carefully specify the circumstances in which it should be used. The first of these has direct bearing on the role of pharmacopoeias within its examination proceedings: "In the future, [ the commission will] no longer grant privileges for remedies under any pretext whatsoever unless they have been analyzed beforehand, and that it be evident that the remedy is distinctive, not present in any Pharmacopeia, and that it is salutarY:' 17 The second goal was to ensure the careful specification of the circum­ stances and conditions in which an approved drug should be used-presumably in an effort to prevent vendors from selling their drugs as panaceas or cure-alls. It is interesting to note that while the memoire leaves the precise method of assessing whether a drug is "salutary;' "indifferent;' or "harmful" in the hands of the commissioners-it merely specifies that these are to be determined "par l'experience:' "Experience" in this case meant the drug's use on small numbers of patients, personally witnessed by the commissioners themselves. Secondly, "if it is judged necessary, by analysis (par ['analyse)" in the sense of chemical analy­ sis. 18 No specific procedures are mandated in either case-no number or type of patients is specified, for example; nor are there any specific instructions for the chemical analysis. Therapeutic novelty, however, is given a more precise crite­ rion: it is to be confirmed by the absence of the drug from "any pharmacopoeia:' In this way, pharmacopoeias played a crucial role in defining privilege-worthy innovation in the procedures of the 1728 commission. This raises the question of whether pharmacopoeias and other works of materia medica were checked prior to 1728. No detailed documentation survives regarding the earlier procedures, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the com­ mission may simply have codified existing practices. Take, for example, the fol­ lowing anecdote from Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle's eloge of Guy-Crescent Pagon (1638-1718) for the Academie Royale de Sciences. Pagon was royal first physician from 1693 to 1715, and was responsible for recommending many drugs during his tenure. Implicitly, the 1728 reforms may have been intended to reexam­ ine privileges that were granted under his watch. According to Fontenelle, how­ ever, Pagon was "no friend to empirics:' He was interested in medical secrets, and I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 97 1/22/19 4:04 PM I JUSTIN RIVEST had bought several on behalfofthe king, but "he wanted these to be true secrets, that is to say, unknown up until that point, and consistently useful;' and had often shown would-be privilege holders "who believed they possessed a treasure" that their secret had, in fact, already been disclosed publicly in "books" or "memoires;' ofwhich pharmacopoeias were doubtless the most important. 19 These comments suggest that the notion ofusing the recipes from printed sources as a criterion to establish the novelty of a pharmaceutical invention had already been an estab­ lished practice under Fagon. Both before and after 1728, it seems that, at least in theory, the absence of a remedy from the pharmacopoeia played some role in establishing its novelty and defined it as a "secret remedy" worthy ofa privilege. THE INHERITED SECRET OF THE CONTUGI FAMILY ORVIETAN MONOPOLY It seems clear then that pharmacopoeias played an important role in adjudi­ cating which drugs came to be protected by monopoly privileges and which did not. But to return to the question that opens this essay, what happened when the recipe of a privileged secret remedy was disclosed in print? Orvietan offers a useful case study. For nearly a century, from 1647-1741, four successive gener­ ations of the Contugi family fought to extend and later preserve their exclusive privilege to sell orvietan in the kingdom ofFrance. 20 Touted primarily as a cure for all poisons-from the venom ofvipers and rabid dogs to human poisons like arsenic-and pestilential diseases like plague and smallpox, orvietan eventually came to be used for any number oflesser discomforts such as colic and digestion problems. The Contugi family's claim to the orvietan monopoly was contested from the beginning, and not just by apothecaries: other itinerant operators like­ wise claimed to be the sole possessors ofthe drug's secret, but the Contugis were unique in securing royal endorsement in the form of their monopoly privilege. Their efforts to preserve this privilege, first granted to the family patriarch, Chris­ tophe Contugi, in 1647, were closely tied to their efforts to defend the notion that orvietan was a hereditary medical secret known only to members ofthe family. The first pharmacopoeia to include a recipe for orvietan was the fourth edi­ tion ofJohannes Schroder's Pharmacopoeia medico-chymica (1655). 21 The recipe, titled "Electuarium Orvietanum;' makes no special note ofthis fact, and orvietan does not appear in any other pharmacopoeias until after 1665, following the pub­ lication oftwo different recipes in Bordeaux and Paris; by Thomas Riollet on the one hand, and by the physician and traveler Pierre-Martin de la Martiniere (16341676) on the other. 22 Because Riollet has been explored elsewhere, I will focus here on La Martiniere, whose comments also reveal interesting details about the origins and circulation of orvietan before the Contugis sought to monopo­ lize it.23 In keeping with the "professor of secrets" tradition, La Martiniere takes 88 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 98 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? explicit aim at the keepers of medical secrets, and that of orvietan in particular, censuring those who would conceal and monopolize medical secrets "under the shadow of a little lucre:' 24La Martiniere was an author of popular medical works: throughout his voluminous writings, he reproached charlatans and alchemists as occasional fraudsters, all the while recognizing their often useful medical innova­ tions and casting himself as a charitable discloser of their secrets for the benefit of the common people.25 In his 1665 Traitte, after describing the composition of the ancient antidotes theriac and mithridatium, he launches into a critical inves­ tigation of the origins of orvietan, which he portrays as a latter-day successor of these two drugs.26 La Martiniere reports the "fable" (as he qualifies it) given by most orvietan vendors; namely, that the drug originated in late sixteenth-century Italy, where it was invented by a shepherd from the town of Orvieto (hence the name) and then transmitted through a complicated chain of a physician, a cardinal, and finally a succession of apothecaries and their apprentices. But the Contugis were not the only ones who claimed to be the exclusive heirs of the orvietan secret in the mid­ dle decades of the seventeenth century. Even before orvietan recipes began to appear in pharmacopoeias and before they were challenged by the apothecaries, the Contugis faced challenges from rival charlatans selling their own varieties of orvietan. These challenges were especially pronounced when Christophe Con­ tugi left Paris and "went on the road" to sell orvietan in the provinces, endeav­ oring to exercise the full kingdom-wide extent of his exclusive privilege to sell the drug. His privilege provided him with legal grounds for pursuing rivals as counterfeiters and adulterators, but he still had to register it in each jurisdiction, and its enforcement required active litigation. On several occasions he encoun­ tered rival vendors who likewise claimed to be the sole inheritors of the original orvietan secret. These rivals often bolstered their claims by securing permissions from local jurisdictions, such as Christophe Poloni, who was endorsed by the Estates General ofLanguedoc. 27 In 1656, for instance, Contugi's efforts to register his royal privilege in provincial jurisdictions triggered lawsuits with rival orvietan operators in Toulouse and Bordeaux. 28 In reference to these sorts of disputes over exclusivity, La Martiniere jibes that the proliferation of so many contrary claims and convoluted chains of transmission from the original inventor tends to discredit all of the orvietan operators: "One [operator] claims to be the grandson of this physician, another says the physician was his great-grandfather, another claims he was the grandfather of his father-in-law, and that in the lineage of this father-in-law, he was the only one to inherit the secret, getting it through marriage to his wife; and almost all of these operators say something similar, to such an extent that, to take them at their word, this Orvietanalized physician deflowered more women than Hercules to have so many bastards, for they all carry different I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 99 1/22/19 4:04 PM I JUSTIN RIVEST names:' 29 La Martiniere's comment testifies to the variety of claims then in cir­ culation, most of which relied on marriage or kinship links. A critical reappraisal of the origins and transmission lineage of the orvietan secret(s) lies beyond the scope of the present contribution, but for our present purposes, it suffices to say that Contugi's claim to the secret went through his wife, who had been widowed by an earlier orvietan vendor: "Clarice Vitraria, sole and unique inheritor ofJean Vitrario, physician, who married Clarice, the widow of Hierosme Fioranti the first to be called l'Orvietan:'30 Whatever the status of his claims to exclusive inheritance of the secret, Con­ tugi secured his first letters patent to sell orvietan on April 91 1647. Royal privi­ lege in hand, he sold it on the Pont Neuf and elsewhere for over thirty years and fought a number of legal battles to preserve his exclusive rights to do so from counterfeiters and rival operators. In 16811 he died in comfortable circumstances, as an honorable bourgeois of Paris. Clarice's marriage with Contugi appears to have been childless, and Le Paulmier conjectures that she was still alive in 1658 but had certainly passed away by September 91 1659. On that date, Contugi mar­ ried a young actress from his troupe, Roberte Richard, who played the role of Florinde in their theater skits opposite Contugi's Capitaine Spacamont. 31 Two decades later, she too would find herself widowed, but the privilege and secret of orvietan would pass to her eldest son, Louis-Anne. 32 The medical secret of orvietan was thus transmitted to Contugi by the widow of a previous vendor. Of course, other operators made rival claims to this inheri­ tance, but the secret seems to have been transmitted through familial and marital channels in the Contugi family over successive generations. In their case, these claims of exclusive inheritance were bolstered by an ostensibly kingdom-wide monopoly privilege. But as the recipe became available in pharmacopoeias, the apothecaries saw an opportunity to challenge interlopers on drug production like the Contugis. CONTUGI ORVIETAN VERSUS PHARMACOPOEIA ORVIETAN, 1682-1685 Despite their persistent troubles with rival charlatans in the provinces, the publication of orvietan recipes in the pharmacopoeias did not cause legal prob­ lems between the Contugis and the apothecaries until 1682. In the fall of that year, a new apothecary's boutique opened opposite that of the Contugis, on the rue Dauphine facing the Pont Neu£ Contugi's widow, Roberte Richard, reported that the new boutique's attendant, one Jean Regnault, was replicating their dis­ play and containers (montre et boiittes) and selling his own drug under the name of orvietan. Her son, Louis-Anne, was the legal holder of the orvietan privilege but he happened to be out of town, and so Roberte, unable to tolerate such a fla90 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 100 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? grant violation of her family's privileges, brought her grievance to the Chatelet, the civil and criminal court for the city of Paris and the seat of the city's prev6t. Roberte made the request under her own name-not that of her son-and on December 18, 1682, the authorities seized all merchandise in the offending shop. Before long, however, Roberte found herself the defendant in a countersuit: the plaintiff was the royal apothecary Antoine Boulogne, then living in Versailles, who made it known that the boutique opposite that of the Contugis, belonged to him and that Regnault was simply his store clerk (garfon de boutique), selling the orvietan on his behalf. The Contugi-Boulogne conflict would drag on for over two years, and would raise the pivotal question of whether the Contugis could continue to hold an exclusive privilege to sell orvietan when the secret of its rec­ ipe had been "divulged" in multiple pharmacopoeias. 33 The two parties began by jockeying with one another to secure the most advantageous tribunal to hear the case. Contugi had also carefully renewed his letters patent on July 161 1683. These jurisdictional conflicts tied up the case for over a year, but on March 271 1684, an arret placed it under the jurisdiction of the royal Conseil prive. To argue his case, Boulogne had a Requeste servant de Factum printed. In it he argued that the 1647 privileges that Roberte Richard invoked in the initial seizure were made out personally to Christophe Contugi and were nonhereditary, since they mentioned nothing about his widow or heirs, and thus were extinguished upon his death. Likewise, he argued that these letters had not given Christophe, much less his widow, the right to run a boutique in Paris, but rather had allotted him only the right to sell it itinerantly ( unefaculte ambulante). Consequently, the initial seizure was without legal foundation. As such, Bou­ logne requested that the Contugi boutique be closed and that they be fined three thousand livres for damages against him, pointing to the undue force of the sei­ zure, alleging that the Contugi widow "closed his boutique down, broke every­ thing that was found within it, and damaged and seized his sign;' not to mention "the loss of all the orvietan removed by the Contugis, the production of which had cost a considerable sum:' 34 He also argued that the letters patent that Louis­ Anne Contugi had secured in the intervening period were not valid because he had not provided the requisite demonstration before civil magistrates, and fur­ thermore, that he registered them at the Chatelet in prejudice of their ongoing case before the Conseil prive. Most of these points were aimed at invalidating the initial seizure of goods ordered by Roberte Richard, but the response to the fifth question-as to whether the Contugis could, in any case, prohibit apothecaries from selling orvietan-strikes at the heart of the issue of pharmaceutical secrecy and the pre­ rogatives of apothecaries. Boulogne argues that orvietan is not a medical secret at all, but a publicly known antidote described in various pharmacopoeias. As 91 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 101 1/22/19 4:04 PM I JUSTIN RIVEST examples, he first cites Schroeder's Pharmacopoeia medico-chymica, mentioned above, along with "the Roman pharmacopeias for more than four centuries;' the pharmacopoeias of Brussels, Antwerp, Lyon, Augsburg, Venice, Naples, and, crucially, the recent royally sponsored pharmacopoeia of Moyse Charas. As Boulogne would have it, physicians daily prescribed orvietan using any one of these various formulae. Boulogne granted that these recipes might not be the same as that used by the Contugis, but this difference was not due to their recipe being a hereditary medical secret but rather to the fact that the Contugis used discounted, nearly expired ingredients. Quality, then, is what distinguishes the orvietan of the apothecaries from the orvietan of the Contugis, and this quality is rooted in the skill of the practitioner. Boulogne asked rhetorically, "Who could convince themselves that a woman without experience, and her son, without having any tincture of medicine or pharmacy, would know how to make mix­ tures, preparations, coctions, and settle everything that goes into the composi­ tion of a remedy which apothecaries only attempt after having undertaken much work, long study, repeated public examinations, and the production of a mas­ terpiece-in sum, after having provided evidence of their capacity to be admit­ ted [to the guild] and be granted the faculty to exercise this art?"35 Boulogne thus argues that his orvietan, produced with all the assurances of the corporate medical world in training and examination, is quite simply better than anything Contugi and his mother Roberte could ever hope to produce. Boulogne clinches his case with a volley of arguments against the notion that orvietan was a hered­ itary family secret: not only was orvietan in the pharmacopoeias but it had also been produced publicly, even in Paris, in a demonstration organized by Henry Rouviere, the syndic of the apothecaries of the royal households-Boulogne's own corporation-before the lieutenant general of police and the Paris Medi­ cal Faculty. In closing, he argues that if orvietan were the special preserve of the Contugis, it would "dismember" pharmacy and alienate apothecaries from their proper function; as such, it would run contrary to the order of arts and crafts that the king intended for his subjects. 36 Boulogne's argument rests upon two foundations: the necessary superiority of the training and consequently skills of corporate apothecaries, and the asser­ tion that orvietan is not itself a hereditary medical secret. The second claim has an important basis, as we have already seen: by 1685, orvietan was indeed included in several pharmacopoeias. The most recent and prestigious of these, the Phar­ macopee royale of Moyse Charas, had criticized those "charlatans" who claimed to own the true secret of orvietan in much the same terms as Boulogne and La Martiniere. Charas argued that "the good effects which well-prepared Orvietan has hitherto produced have given occasion for various affronters to employ all sorts of methods to make people believe that they or their predecessors were the 92 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 102 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? sole inventors, and that they were the only ones to have the true recipe:' 37 These arguments anticipate those that would be made by the American medical pro­ fession in the nineteenth century, as Joseph Gabriel's essay in this volume shows (chapter 12): itinerant operators and "Indian doctors" were likewise denounced on these grounds by incorporated professionals, who used pharmacopoeias as tools to challenge the proprietary nature of their medical secrets. Whether or not such claims to having unique knowledge of the recipe for the "one true orvietan" were true, the question remains: Did Charas or any of the other pharmacopoeias have the familial recipe of the Contugi family? It is virtually impossible to say. Patrizia Catellani and Renzo Console have demonstrated that recipes of orvietan were extremely variable, and astutely point out that this variability was in fact a product of the conditions of competition and secrecy under which orvietan was originally disseminated. Secrecy encouraged a multiplication of recipes, as different charlatans, apothecaries, and physicians sought to replicate, imitate, counterfeit, or publicize the secret. Under these con­ ditions, the number of ingredients expanded and recipes became exceedingly complex. 38 Throughout the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, orvietan does not appear in printed pharmacopoeias: at least initially, members of the corporate medical community seem to have sought to keep their distance from the orvietan "charlatans:' 39 Beginning with Schroder's Pharmacopoeia medico-chymica in 1655, divergent recipes for orvietan were readily available in the pharmacopoeias of Prevost (1666), Kratzman (1667), Herford (1667), Hoffmann (1675), and Charas (1676); the official pharmacopoeias of Rome (1668) and Lyon (1676); and in La Martiniere's 1665 treatise on theriac, mithridatium, and orvietan. 40 The variant recipes in these pharmacopoeias no doubt manifested the existing diversity of orvietan recipes then in circulation, but they also likely con­ tributed to this diversity as time went on, with individual apothecaries working to simplify, modify, or otherwise "perfect" their own orvietan. The most notable instance of innovation would eventually produce a new branch of orvietan, the so-called orvietanum praestantius, an opiate and narcotic analgesic, quite distinct from the original antidote in pharmacological terms.41 Boulogne was thus correct in pointing out that recipes for orvietan existed in numerous pharmacopoeias-even if this did not guarantee that any one of them was the Contugi recipe. Some of his other claims are more dubious, how­ ever. Orvietan was not included in the Roman pharmacopoeia until 1668, a far cry from the "four centuries" that Boulogne alleges. But Boulogne's hyp erbole can be explained by another of his claims; namely, that public preparations of orvietan had recently been undertaken by Rouviere, the royal apothecaries' syn­ dic. This almost certainly refers to Rouviere's recent public preparation of theriac, described in the 1685 Journal des Sfavans. 42 Beforehand, Rouviere secured all of 93 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 103 1/22/19 4:04 PM I JUSTIN RIVEST the rare ingredients in the Galenic recipe for the theriac ofAndromachus in large quantities, including exotic opobalsam, and on the day of his demonstration, he presented the Paris Faculty, apothecaries, and the interested public with the spec­ tacle of fifty-eight dozen live vipers, pronounced a speech, and then cooked the vipers with only two spoons of water in a massive bain-marie. He then kneaded the resultant juices with the other ingredients into trochiques (bread lozenges), which preserved the volatile salts to which theriac's virtues as an antidote were credited.43 The royal apothecaries' preparation followed an earlier public prepa­ ration of theriac, organized the previous year (1684) by the urban apothecaries Matthieu-Fran�ois Geoffroy, Antoine Josson, and Simon Boulduc.44 This reference to Rouviere's public theriac demonstration thus allows us to understand some ofBoulogne's more puzzling statements, namely his claim that the secret of orvietan has been included in pharmacopoeias for centuries: he seems to be saying that orvietan is largely indistinguishable from theriac. To what extent can orvietan be seen as a species of theriac? No recipe for the Contugi family orvietan appears to have survived, but the question can be answered by looking at the variety of other orvietan recipes that have come down to us. Catel­ lani and Console have examined thirty-five different recipes and determined that the number of ingredients varies between nine and fifty-seven, with an average of twenty-six.45 Of these, the three most frequent are angelica root, honey foam, and "aged" theriac.46 So, it can safely be said that most pharmacopoeia recipes of orvietan contained prepared theriac, and that those that did not contained the­ riac's most conspicuous ingredient, viper flesh.47 Therefore, even if orvietan can­ not be reduced to theriac-as it might contain dozens of other ingredients-it seems clear that the two drugs were closely related. La Martiniere even describes orvietan as having emerged from an effort to devise a "double theriac,"48 and David Gentilcore has suggested that orvietan in its initial Italian context "was being offered as an accessible, if not 'poor man's; theriac:' 49 Indeed, it is probably not a coincidence that the renewed interest in theriac, most dramatically illus­ trated by public preparations like the one described in the Journal des Sravans, matched up quite closely with the appearance of orvietan in the pharmacopoeia. By the time of the lawsuit between Boulogne and Contugi, then, a whole panoply of divergent orvietan recipes were available in various pharmacopoeias, and all of these linked it back to theriac, a drug that had a considerable pedigree and whose public preparation was being used by the apothecaries to elevate their own professional status. Though this formed a critical part ofBoulogne and the apothecaries' case, it seems to have drawn little response to the Contugis, who continued to hold their royal privilege and never conceded that their secret had been revealed. By the summer of 1685, both parties found that their case was in deadlock. 94 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 104 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? Recognizing the expenses that continued litigation would entail, the Contugis and Boulogne resolved that, in order to "foster peace and friendship between them," they would follow the "good counsel" of their friends and agree to return their affairs as close as possible to the status quo that existed before the initial seizure. They settled the matter out of court, signing a notarized cessation of hos­ tilities on August 14, 1685. 50 Interestingly, Rouviere, the royal apothecary who led the theriac demonstration, appears as a cosigner in the contract because he was serving as syndic for the corporation of the apothecaries of the royal households, of which Boulogne was a member. The compromise they reached was to bifurcate the identity of orvietan­ distinguishing between pharmacopoeia orvietan recipes and the version pro­ duced by the Contugis-and ensuring that this distinction would be clear to the drug-consuming public. The settlement prohibits Boulogne and any other royal apothecaries from selling orvietan out of any boutique on the Pont Neuf or from replicating any of the material aspects of the Contugi orvietan brand, including their displays, handbills, containers, signage, and mark, "nor to post signs with the name of Orvietan outside of their boutiques, as he does, nor in the roads, crossroads, and public squares of Paris."51 The contract does not, however, prohibit them from otherwise making or selling "their orvietan," carefully distin­ guished from that of the Contugis, as the orvietan "whose composition is taught by the authors of the pharmacopoeias:'52 The Contugis thus recognized that they might still retain their cachet in advertising, branding, and sales location. So long as their clientele placed more credit in their preparation, and their rivals did not interfere with these exclusive features, then apothecary production and sale of what might be called "pharmacopei orvietan" could be tolerated. In legal terms, the settlement stressed the Contugi orvietan more as a brand rather than as a medical secret-although again, they never concede that any of the pharmaco­ poeia recipes described their "true" orvietan. What was the Contugi brand in concrete terms? Answering this question takes the discussion from legal debates and into print advertising and the mate­ rial culture of trademarks, in which proprietary medicines played a pioneering role. 53 The central iconographic feature of Contugi branding was the so-called sign of the sun. It appears prominently at the top of a surviving Contugi broad­ sheet as a sun with a human face, surrounded by the motto "ut sol solus ut sal salus" (Figure 4.1). 54 The sign is surrounded by coats of arms, including those of the pope and the king of France. The rest of the border is made up of snakes, mushrooms, frogs, fish, spiders, scorpions, snails, and rabid dogs, all sources of poisons to which orvietan served as an antidote. These images may also have been present on the larger painted displays (tableaux and montes) that are men­ tioned in the settlement. 95 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 105 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? The central "sign of the sun" is the most important of these images, and also appears prominently on the small, cylindrical lead containers (boftes) that orvietan was sold in. Even in the twenty-first century, these containers continue to be unearthed by French hobbyists with trowels and metal detectors.55 The crushed lid in Figure 4.2 even includes the Contugi family orvietan motto. As John Styles has shown in the case of early modern London, the integration of printed advertising and a distinctive container design offered useful tools for product differentiation, strategies that were typically adopted by proprietary medicine vendors in response to counterfeiting.56 The prominence of this trade­ mark-with its obvious links to the authority of the Sun King, Louis XIV-on both the broadsheet and the container lids, also helps illustrate the stakes of the debate between the Contugis and their rivals. In Paris at least, they saw "the sign of the sun" as an inalienable mark, inseparable from their family and the heredi­ tary secret to the true orvietan-despite the fact that similar signs were used by other itinerant vendors, particularly in the French provinces. 97 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 107 1/22/19 4:04 PM I BEYOND THE PHARMACOPOEIA? After the settlement with Boulogne, the conflicts surrounding the Contugi orvietan privilege died down and the parties appear to have lived in peace. In the following year, Louis-Anne Contugi had his privilege confirmed and secured a passport to travel and sell orvietan throughout France. The December 27, 1686, letters patent even specify that he held the privilege jointly with his mother, per­ haps in response to the legal difficulties that had arisen when Roberte acted to defend her son's privileges in his absence. 57 Antoine Boulogne for his part would go on to be first apothecary to Louis XIV in 1704. 58 The orvietan privilege was repeatedly renewed and confirmed, remaining in the Contugi family until 1741although by 1700 it did so under the condition that it be inspected by the Paris Medical Faculty, and after 1736, the Parisian apothecaries' guild had inspection rights to the Contugi boutique as well. 59 CONCLUSION Pharmacopoeias and secret remedies were in some ways defined by their opposition to one another: therapeutic innovation was defined against estab­ lished preparations, familial secrets against published recipes. The case of orvietan shows that despite this opposition, the two were, in fact, mutually interdependent. Although drug monopoly privileges stand as a distinct mode of medical organization-one in opposition to the corporate world of the apoth­ ecaries-they nonetheless depended upon pharmacopoeias as a standard of "known" recipes against which innovation could be defined. But even before this criterion was formalized as a part of drug regulation in 1728, the 1680s Contugi­ Boulogne orvietan dispute showed that pharmacopoeias had already long been invoked by apothecaries in lawsuits against drug monopolists. The case of orvietan also raises questions about the role of pharmacopoeias in fixing the identity and preparations of drugs. Medical secrecy, understood as an attempt to deliberately restrict access to knowledge in order to monopolize it economically, also tended to propagate variation in recipes. The lineal trans­ mission of recipes across generations could itself produce variation, as could the work of imitators (or counterfeiters) who endeavored to "reverse engineer" a given drug. These processes help account for the growing diversity among the orvietan recipes that could be found in the pharmacopoeias by the 1680s. Para­ doxically, while an individual pharmacopoeia might help to codify standardized preparations among apothecaries within a given jurisdiction, the case of orvietan shows that rather than fixing the drug to a standard recipe, the various European pharmacopoeias available in the 1680s in fact manifested-and contributed to­ the diversity of recipes then in circulation. On a social level, the friction between pharmacopoeias and secret remedies in France was also a manifestation of the conflict between corporate and non99 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 109 1/22/19 4:04 PM I JUSTIN RIVEST corporate medicine, or between familial monopolists and guild apothecaries. This is abundantly clear in Boulogne's assertion of the superiority of the corpo­ rative mode of training in ensuring the quality of pharmaceutical preparations. From his perspective, the Contugis were unjustly trying to monopolize a variant on theriac, an ancient, well-established drug that was virtually synonymous with the apothecaries' craft. From the perspective ofthe Contugis, however, Boulogne and the apothecaries were attempting to rob them of their rightful inheritance, with the recipes for "pharmacopoeia orvietan" merely serving as a pretext for counterfeiting oftheir trademark and deceiving the medicine-consuming public. For the Contugi family, the dispute appears to have triggered a reevaluation of their monopoly around branding and, to a lesser extent, their privileged point of sale. As medicine commercialized, trademarking offered a third way-alongside pharmacopoeia preparations and monopoly privileges-of establishing distinc­ tions between drugs in the world of healing goods. In their own ways, both par­ ties aimed toward a kind of enclosure of the therapeutic commons, an attempt to claim exclusive ownership over a piece ofknowledge-the orvietan recipe-and the commercial benefits that came with it. Both attitudes were inherently pro­ prietary. They differed mainly in scale and type of social group to which they sought to restrict access to the knowledge and practices associated with produc­ ing orvietan: corporate ownership in the case of the apothecaries, and familial ownership in the case of the Contugis. Both parties were taking a gamble by settling out of court. The royal apothe­ caries were content to sell their "pharmacopeia orvietan;' even ifthey would have to do so by competing against the Contugis and their established brand, which, after decades ofsales, doubtless had a cachet among the people of Paris. The pro­ fessional credibility that came to apothecaries through the institutions of corpo­ ratism-apprenticeship, licensing, inspection-would guarantee the quality of the product. Likewise, by laying the emphasis on their brand in the settlement, Contugis were gambling that buyers could never really be sure that the generic "pharmacopoeia orvietan" ofthe apothecaries was, in fact, the same as theirs, and that, in order to guarantee its efficacy, they would continue to buy their orvietan "at the sign of the sun:' 100 I Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 110 1/22/19 4:04 PM I NOTES TO PAGES 76-86 45. Crawford, Andean Wonder Drug, 53-57. 46. Patrick Wallis, "Exotic Drugs and English Medicine: England's Drug Trade, c. 1550-c. 1800," Social History ofMedicine 25 (2011): 25-46. 47. Andreas-Holger Maehle, Drugs on Trial (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999), 225-33. 48. Robert Voeks, "Disturbance Pharmacopoeias: Medicine and Myth from the Humid Tropics," Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 94 (2004): 868-88. 49. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Paola Bertucci for making this point in her ques­ tion and comment on a presentation on this material that I gave at the annual meeting of the History of Science Society in 2014. CHAPTER 4: Beyond the Pharmacopoeia? 1. On the terminology of operator vs. charlatan, see Emma C. Spary, Translations of Potency: Taking Drugs in The Sun King's Reign (forthcoming). On the Italian origins of the pan-European "charlatan'' phenomenon, see David Gentilcore, Medical Charlatanism in Early Modern Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). 2. On the phenomenon of secret remedies in ancien regime France, see chapter one ofJustin Rivest, "Secret Remedies and the Rise of Pharmaceutical Monopolies in France during the First Global Age" (PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2016); Christian Warolin, "Le remede secret en France jusqu'a son abolition en 1926," Revue d'histoire de la pharmacie 90, no. 334 (2002): 229-38; Matthew Ramsey, "Traditional Medicine and Medical Enlightenment: The Regulation of Secret Remedies in the Ancien Regime," in La medicalisation de la societe franfaise 1770-1830, ed. Jean-Pierre Goubert (Waterloo, Ontario: Historical Reflections Press, 1982), 215-32; Maurice Bouvet, "Histoire sommaire du remede secret," Revue d'histoire de la pharmacie 45, no. 153-54 (1957): 57-63, 109-18. 3. These terminological distinctions expand on Ramsey, "Traditional Medicine and Medical Enlightenment;' 215-16. 4. Joseph M. Gabriel, Medical Monopoly: Intellectual Property Rights and the Origins of the Modern Pharmaceutical Industry (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 2014), esp. ix-x. 5. On these and other distinctions, see Mario Biagioli, "Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors," Social Research 73, no. 4 (2006): 1150-172. 6. Harold]. Cook, "Markets and Cultures: Medical Specifics and the Reconfiguration of the Body in Early Modern Europe," Transactions ofthe Royal Historical Society 21 (2011): 123-45. 7. On magistral vs. officinal preparations, see for example Gabriel-Fran<;ois Venel, "Magistral, remede (Therapeut.)," Encyclopedie ou Dictionnaire raisonne des sciences (17511772), 9:855; Jean-Fran<;ois Lavoisien, Dictionnaire portatif de medecine (Paris, 1771), 15, 429. 8. Arret du conseil d'Etat du Roy, qui defend a toutes personnes de distribuer des remedes speci.fiques et autres sans en avoir obtenu de nouvelles permissions. Du 3 Juillet 1728 (Paris, 1728), 1-2. 9. Arret du conseil d'Etat du Roy [ ... J Du 3 Juillet 1728, 2. 10. Jean Verdier, La jurisprudence de la medecine en France. (Alenc;:on, 1762), 1:150. 11. On the role ofpatient trials in granting drug monopoly privileges, see Justin Rivest, "Testing Drugs and AttestingCures: PharmaceuticalMonopolies and Military Contracts in Eighteenth-Century France," Bulletin of the History ofMedicine 91, no. 2 (2017): 362-90. 12. Verdier, La jurisprudence de la medecine, 1:152. Crawford_Gabriel__pp2.indd 295 1/22/19 4:04 PM I NOTES TO PAGES 86-91 13. Verdier, La jurisprudence de la medecine, 1:147. 14. Verdier, La jurisprudence de la medecine, 1:161-62. 15. Ramsey, "Traditional Medicine and Medical Enlightenment;' 219; and the sources above in note 2. 16. Bibliotheque interuniversitaire de la sante (BIUS) Medecine, Ms 20061 fol. 31or-v. 17. BIUS Medecine, Ms 20061 fol. 310v. 18. BIUS Medecine, Ms 20061 fol. 31or. 19. Fontenelle, "Eloge de Pagon;' Histoire de l'Academie royale des sciences (1718)1 99. 20. The most detailed account of the Contugi family and orvietan in France remains Claude-Stephen Le Paulmier, L'Orvietan. Histoire d'une famille de charlatans du Pont-Neuf aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles (Paris: Librairie illustree, 1893). See also Gustave Planchon, "Notes sur l' histoire de l' Orvietan," Journal de pharmacie et de chimie 261 nos. 3-7 (1892): 97-103, 145-52, 193-98, 241-50, 289-98. The best survey of the pan-European orvietan phenomenon is David Gentilcore, Healers and Healing in Early Modern Italy (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 96-1241 esp. 99-1001 on the Contugi family. Gentilcore's more recent Medical Char­ latanism in Early Modern Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) contains many brief references to orvietan, but does not supersede the synthetic account provided in chapter three of Healers and Healing. 21.Johann Schroder, Pharmacopoeia medico-chymica, 4th ed. (Ulm, 1655)1 184. 22. Jean-Thomas Riollet, Remarques curieuses sur la theriaque, avec un excellent traite sur l'orvietan (Bordeaux, 1665); Pierre-Martin de La Martiniere, Traitte des compositions du mitridat, du theriaque, de l'orvietan, et des confections d'alkermes et d'hyacinthe et autres compositions antidotoires (Paris, 1665). 23. On Riollet, see Gentilcore, Healers and Healing, 100-1011 112-131 116; Le Paulmier, L'Orvietan, 30-32. 24. La Martiniere, Traitte des compositions du mitridat, du theriaque, de l'orvietan, 48; on "professors of secrets," see William Eamon, Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), esp. 134-67. 25. On La Martiniere's colorful career, see Franc;:oise Loux, Pierre-Martin de La Marti­ niere : un medecin au XVIIe siecle (Paris: Imago, 1988). 26. On these antidotes, see Gilbert Watson, Theriac and Mithridatium: A Study in Therapeutics (London: Wellcome, 1966); Frederick W Gibbs, "Medical Understandings of Poison circa 1250-1600" (PhD diss., University ofWisconsin-Madison, 2009). 27. Le Paulmier, L'Orvietan, 40. 28. See esp. Rivest, chapter three of "Secret Remedies"; Le Paulmier, L'Orvietan, 39-431 130-42 for pieces justificatives. 29. La Martiniere, Traitte des compositions du mitridat, du theriaque, de l'orvietan, 29-30. 30. Archives nationales (AN) v• 3461 May 251 16571 n. 1; Le Paulmier, L'Orvietan, 21 and pieces justificatives, 137-39; Gentilcore, Healers and Healing, 98-99; Le Paulmier, L'Or­ vietan, 21. 31. Le Paulmier, L'Orvietan, 43-44. 32. Le Paulmier, L'Orvietan, 52. 33. These details are from the notarized act that ultimately resolved the dispute: see BIUS Pharmacie, Reg. 311 "Transaction faite entre le Sieur et veuve Contugi et Jes apothi­ quaires privilegies sur !' instance a !'occasion de la saisie faite a le Sieur Boulogne" (August 286 Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 296 1/22/19 4:04 PM I NOTES TO PAGES 91-99 14, 1685), fol. 272-75. For a summary see Planchon, "Notes sur l'histoire de l'Orvietan," 245-50. 34. Requeste servant de Factum pour Antoine Boulogne Ayde-Apoticaire du Corps du Roy, Defendeur. Cantre Roberte Richard, veuve Contugi, dit l'Orvietan, et son .fils, Demandeurs et Defendeurs (Paris, 1684), 5. 35. Requeste servant de Factum, 9. 36. Requeste servant de Factum, 9. 37. Moyse Charas, Pharmacopee royale galenique et chymique (Paris, 1676 ), 323-24. 38. Patrizia Catellani and Renzo Console, L'Orvietano (Pisa: ETS, 2004), 59. 39. Catellani and Console, L'Orvietano, 61. 40. Catellani and Console, L'Orvietano, 61-79. Of these, Boulogne only cites Schroder, Charas, and the pharmacopoeias of Lyon and Rome. 41. Catellani and Console, L'Orvietano, 59-60. 42. "Preparation celebre de la Theriaque nouvellement faite a Paris par M. de Rou­ viere," Journal des Sfavans 13 (1685): 228-31. 43."Preparation celebre," 228-31. 44. Olivier Lafont, Echevins et apothicaires sous Louis XIV: la vie de Matthieu-Franfois Geoffroy, bourgeois de Paris (Paris: Pharmathemes, 2008), 47-52. 45. Catellani and Console, L'Orvietano, 119-34. 46. Most orvietan recipes I have seen are careful to specify the use of"old" (vetere, vie­ ille) in the sense of"aged" or well-fermented theriac (not"old" in the sense of"expired"). See for instance Nicolas Lemery, Pharmacopee universelle (Paris, 1698), 601-2. 47. Catellani and Console follow Planchon in dividing orvietan into two general cat­ egories: the various forms of"Italian orvietan," which contain theriac; and the supposed orvietanum praestantius of Nicolas Lemery and the eighteenth-century Paris Codex: see L'Orvietano, 58-60. 48. La Martiniere, Traitte des compositions du mitridat, du theriaque, de l'orvietan, 42. 49. Gentilcore, Medical Charlatanism, 112. 50. BIUS Pharmacie, Reg. 31, fol. 272-75. 51. BIUS Pharmacie, Reg. 31, 274v 0 52. BIUS Pharmacie, Reg. 31, 274v 0 53. John Styles, "Product Innovation in Early Modern London," Past & Present 168, no. 1 (2000): 124-69; for a survey of French drug branding from this period, see Maurice Bouvet, "Sur l'historique du conditionnement de la specialite pharmaceutique;' Revue des specialites (1928): 101-43, 213-23, 297-315. 54. Roughly, "Unique as the sun, salutary as the salt," a clear reference to Louis XIV; the"Sun King" and source of the Contugi privilege, and perhaps also to the volatile salt to which the drug's effects as an antidote were attributed. Cf. the very similar Italian broad­ sheet of Franceso Nava, the Roman orvietan: see Gentilcore, Healers and Healing, 102, fig. 6. 55. Treasure-hunters and other modern-day antiquarians maintain online forums where they display their finds and help one another to identify them. Several include orvietan containers, notably la-detection.com and echange-passion.com. 56. Styles, "Product Innovation," 153-56. 57. For the letters see AN 0' 30, fol. 397 (December 27, 1686); and the passport AN V5 1246, fol. 209 (February 6, 1686). Le Paulmier, L'Orvietan, 147-50. • • Crawford_Gabriel_pp2.indd 297 1/22/19 4:04 PM I