The Lorsch Pharmacopoeia (sometimes called the Lorsch Leechbook, Lorscher Arzneibuch or Lorsch Book of Remedies) is an extensive medical manuscript composed around Lorsch Abbey during the era of Charlemagne, likely created around 785. It has been described as the oldest preserved book on monastic medicine from the early medieval West, and the oldest preserved medical book in Germany.Ulrich Stoll: Das ‚Lorscher Arzneibuch‘. In: Gundolf Keil, Paul Schnitzer (Hrsg.): Das ‚Lorscher Arzneibuch‘ und die frühmittelalterliche Medizin. Verhandlungen des Medizinhistorischen Symposiums im September 1989 in Lorsch. Laurissa, Lorsch 1991 (= Geschichtsblätter für den Kreis Bergstraße. Sonderband 12).
The pharmacopoeia, containing 482 recipes, was written under Benedictine auspices in Latin at Lorsch Abbey (today's Bergstraße district, Hesse), probably under Richbod, the abbot of the imperial abbey. Since the beginning of the 11th century, it has been located in Bamberg and is currently preserved in the Bamberg State Library under the call number Msc.Med.1 (old call number: L.III.8). At the Institute for the History of Medicine at the University of Würzburg, Ulrich Stoll and Gundolf Keil facsimiled, edited, and translated the manuscript into German in a three-year project that was completed in 1989. Since June 2013, the Lorsch Pharmacopoeia has been included by UNESCO on the Memory of the World international register.Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e. V.: Lorscher Arzneibuch. The Lorsch Pharmacopoeia is the oldest German pharmacopoeia, systematically compiled as a medical compendium.Gundolf Keil: Einleitung. In: Gundolf Keil (Hrsg.): Das Lorscher Arzneibuch. (Handschrift Msc. Med. 1 der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg); Band 2: Übersetzung von Ulrich Stoll und Gundolf Keil unter Mitwirkung von Altabt Albert Ohlmeyer. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989, S. 7–14, here: S. 11.
Origin and history The Lorsch Pharmacopoeia – first so named by the Würzburg medical historian Gundolf KeillHermann Schefers (1993), S. 191 f. – was previously known as the Codex Bamberginsis medicinalis 1 (or Bamberger Codex Med. 1), and was written by several scribes in the Benedictine Abbey of Lorsch. This attribution, along with its dating to the late 8th century, was demonstrated by the palaeographer Bernhard Bischoff in 1964, thanks to its Carolingian minuscule script in the old Lorsch style.Alf Önnersfors (Hrsg.): Physica Plinii Bambergensis. Hildesheim/ New York 1975 (= Bibliotheca graeca et latina suppletoria. Band 2), p. 17.Bernhard Bischoff: Lorsch im Spiegel seiner Handschriften. München 1974 (= Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung. Beiheft); erweiterter Wiederabdruck in: Die Reichsabtei Lorsch. Festschrift zum Gedenken an ihre Stiftung 764. 2 volumes. Darmstadt 1977. Bernhard Bischoff: Die Abtei Lorsch im Spiegel ihrer Handschriften. 2., erweiterte Auflage, Verlag Laurissa, Lorsch 1989, S. 31–33, 67 and 102, here S. 31–33.
The dating of the Lorsch Pharmacopoeia is disputed. It ranges from the late 8th to the early 9th century. Bernhard Bischoff initially dated the manuscript to "between 781 and 783" and "just after 800"Bernhard Bischoff: Die Abtei Lorsch im Spiegel ihrer Handschriften. Lorsch: Verlag Laurissa, 2. erweiterte Auflage, 1989, S. 31–33, 67 and 102, here S. 31. then later to "early 9th century“. Gundolf Keil dated its compilation first to 795,Cf. Gundolf Keil: Einleitung. In: Gundolf Keil (Hrsg.): Das Lorscher Arzneibuch. (Handschrift Msc. Med. 1 der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg); Band 2: Übersetzung von Ulrich Stoll und Gundolf Keil unter Mitwirkung von Altabt Albert Ohlmeyer. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989, S. 7–14, hier: S. 11. later to 792, then back to 790 and eventually spoke about the time "around 788“.Information in his review of Klaus-Dietrich Fischer: Das ‚Lorscher Arzneibuch‘ im Widerstreit der Meinungen. In: Medizinhistorisches Journal. Band 45, 2010, S. 165–188, hier S. 171 (PDF; 511 kB). Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, a medical historian, contradicted Keil's arguments and preferred the chronological dating of Bischoff.Klaus-Dietrich Fischer: Das ‚Lorscher Arzneibuch‘ im Widerstreit der Meinungen. In: Medizinhistorisches Journal 45 (2010), S. 165–188, here pp. 170–173 (PDF; 511 kB).
The Bamberg manuscript also contains Old High German glosses originating from the Rhineland.Gundolf Keil: Einleitung. In: Gundolf Keil (Hrsg.): Das Lorscher Arzneibuch. (Handschrift Msc. Med. 1 der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg); Band 2: Übersetzung von Ulrich Stoll und Gundolf Keil unter Mitwirkung von Altabt Albert Ohlmeyer. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989, S. 7–14, here: S. 8 und 12. These additions and comments to the recipes (for instance "petriniola id est uuizebluomon" in the Greek-latin plant glossary) signal its continuing usage in the 9th and 10th centuries.
The manuscript contains on a half-empty page (folio 42v) the only known (partial) book listCf. Percy Schramm, Florentine Mütherich: Denkmale der deutschen Könige und Kaiser. 2 Bände. München 1962 (= Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Kunstgeschichte in München. Band 2). Band 1, S. 150; und Willy Lizalek: Heilkundliche Rezepte aus der Lorscher Klosterbibliothek. In: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Klosters Lorsch. 2. Auflage. Lorsch 1980 (= Geschichtesblätter für den Kreis Bergstraße. Sonderband 4), S. 253–264. of an imperial library from the early Middle Ages, written by Leo of Vercelli (died 1026), the teacher and confidant of Emperor Otto III. This book list allows the history of the Lorsch Pharmacopoeia to be reconstructed. After the early death of Emperor Otto III in 1002, the manuscript came into the possession of his successor, Emperor Henry II, who donated it to the cathedral library of the diocese of Bamberg, which he founded in 1007. From there, the codex, newly bound in 1611 by order of the Cathedral Provost Johann Christoph Neustetter, known as Stürmer, and the Cathedral Dean Hektor von Kotzau, was transferred to the Electorate Library of Bamberg during the secularization in 1803, which is today's Bamberg State Library, where the manuscript is kept under the call number Msc.Med.1.
The manuscript, first described in 1831 and known to only a few specialists from 1863,Gundolf Keil: Das „Lorscher Arzneibuch“. Anmerkungen zur Frühgeschichte der Kostendämpfung auf dem Arzneimittelsektor. In: Archiv für hessische Geschichte und Altertumskunde. Neue Folge, Band 49, 1991, S. 343–360, here: S. 345. was extensively studied in the 1980s by the Institute for the History of Medicine at the University of Würzburg. The results of these studies were presented in 1989 during a symposium in Lorsch; in the same year, a two-volume edition featuring a reproduction of the manuscript and a German translation was published. An accessible introduction to the codex was also released in 1989, followed by a dissertation with text, German translation, and a specialized glossary in 1992. Part of the manuscript has been translated into English.
Content, Sources and Arrangement The Lorsch Pharmacopoeia comprises 75 calf parchment sheets measuring 32 × 22.5 cm, densely written in a single column with 32 to 33 lines. Originally, the codex consisted of 107 sheets (the losses occurred after the early medieval period but before 1611). The medical-pharmaceutical manuscript proves to be a systematically arranged compendium, designed as a reference work for the practical everyday work of a monastery physician, as well as an introductory textbook without an independent surgical part. The main section (starting from sheet 17) consists of a collection of 482 recipes of Greek-Roman tradition. It describes the ingredients, production, and application of the drugs. Embedded in this (pharmacographical) recipe collection, which contains both short recipes (Receptarium) and full recipes (called "Antidotarium"), are treatises on the history of medicine and medical ethics.Gundolf Keil: Einleitung. In: Gundolf Keil (Hrsg.): Das Lorscher Arzneibuch. (Handschrift Msc. Med. 1 der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg); Band 2: Übersetzung von Ulrich Stoll und Gundolf Keil unter Mitwirkung von Altabt Albert Ohlmeyer. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989, pp. 9–11 und 13.
Direct sources that can be identified include the "Physica Plinii" (6th/7th century), Byzantine medicine, and writings from the 7th century by the so-called "Aurelius Aesculapius" or Aurelius-Escolapius or EsculapiusGeorg Helmreich: Zum sogenannten Esculapius. In: Mitteilungen für die Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften. Band 18, 1919, S. 24–32. (De acutis passionibus by Aurelius, or Caelius Aurelianus, and De acutis et chronicis morbis by Aesculapius,Daniël de Moulin: De heelkunde in de vroege middeleeuwen. Medizinische Dissertation Nijmegen, E. J. Brill, Leiden 1964, S. 37–40.). Indirectly (via Byzantine medicine), the codex also incorporated works of Dioscorides (De Materia Medica, a pharmacographic herbal) and Galen, as well as (via the Physica Plinii) the "Medicina Plinii," which originated in the 4th century.Ulrich Stoll: Das ‚Lorscher Arzneibuch‘. Ein medizinisches Kompendium des 8. Jahrhunderts (Codex Bambergensis medicinalis 1). Text, Übersetzung und Fachglossar. 1992, S. 22.; und Christina Becela-Deller: Ruta graveolens L. Eine Heilpflanze in kunst- und kulturhistorischer Bedeutung. 1998, S. 235.Vgl. auch Gundolf Keil: Einleitung. In: Gundolf Keil (Hrsg.): Das Lorscher Arzneibuch. (Handschrift Msc. Med. 1 der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg); Band 2: Übersetzung von Ulrich Stoll und Gundolf Keil unter Mitwirkung von Altabt Albert Ohlmeyer. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989, S. 13 (zu Verbindungen zum Plinius-Strang, bestehend aus Naturalis historia, Medicina Plinii und Physica Plinii, zu Scribonius Largus und Pseudo-Apuleius sowie Marcellus Empiricus) und 44, Anm. 1 („Aurelius-Aescolapius“: Exzerpte aus verschiedenen Werken des Caelius Aurelianus).
The individual text comprises:
Preface: Defence of the art of medicine (Defensio artis medicinae) In the preface (folio 1r to 5r), the art of healing is defended against the reservations of notable Christians who saw it as an impermissible interference with the divine plan of salvation. The argumentation of this defense or justification of medicine aims to define medical practice as a commandment of Christian-mandated charity. For this purpose, the author relies on authoritative Christian texts of his time.Gundolf Keil: Einleitung. In: Gundolf Keil (Hrsg.): Das Lorscher Arzneibuch. (Handschrift Msc. Med. 1 der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg); Band 2: Übersetzung von Ulrich Stoll und Gundolf Keil unter Mitwirkung von Altabt Albert Ohlmeyer. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989, S. 7–14, hier: S. 9.
Poem (Versus seu Carmina) Following on folio 5r are verses about Cosmas and Damian, which continue and supplement the theme of defending medicine discussed in the preface. Various sources such as Isidore and Marcellus Empiricus are drawn upon, with the authoritative figures of Hippocrates and Galen placed on a similar level alongside the saints Cosmas and Damian. This segment essentially constitutes a medicinal ordinance in verse form. The author demands, as part of his medicinal-political concerns, that medical art should be accessible not only to the wealthy but equally to the poor. It is also recommended to use not only expensive medicinal plants and drugs from the Orient but, to reduce costs, equally effective local medicines as well. Forschergruppe Klostermedizin: Erste Werke der Klostermedizin.Gundolf Keil: Einleitung. In: Gundolf Keil (Hrsg.): Das Lorscher Arzneibuch. (Handschrift Msc. Med. 1 der Staatsbibliothek Bamberg); Band 2: Übersetzung von Ulrich Stoll und Gundolf Keil unter Mitwirkung von Altabt Albert Ohlmeyer. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989, S. 7–14, hier: S. 7, 9 und 11.