Ethnomedicine in late-eighteenth-century Russia: domestic therapeutics in a modern context

Yelena Vladimirovna Pozdnyakova

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.32859/era.32.45.1-15
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background: Printed household medical handbooks offer a direct view of lay therapeutics, yet late-eighteenth-century Russian sources remain under-studied. This study examines P. N. Engalychev’s Prostonarodnyi Lechebnik [Popular Medical Handbook] (Moscow, 1799) to normalize and catalogue prescriptions, map vernacular names to Latin taxa, and characterize dosage forms and routes used in household practice. Methods: We conducted qualitative analysis of the 1799 edition, extracting prescriptive entries and coding indication, ingredients (botanical taxa, plant-derived foods, fermented products, plant–mineral combinations, and non-botanical measures), dosage form, and route. Vernacular names were aligned with Latin taxa at species or, where necessary, genus/aggregate level using a concordance. Historical disease terms were harmonized into six clusters. Results: Fifty-four unique prescriptive entries were identified: febrile/infectious conditions (24/54), gastrointestinal disorders (10/54), scurvy/vitamin-C deficiency (9/54), stone disease (6/54), acute injuries and animal bites (4/54), and obstetric situations (1/54). Oral administration predominated (41/54); topical procedures – compresses, poultices, gargles, steam inhalations – accounted for 13/54. Dosing relied on household measures (“cup,” “bottle,” zolotnik). Common household remedies recurred across indications and forms, including honey, rhubarb, sage, chamomile, garlic, oats and other cereals, berry juices, cabbage, brines, wine, and vinegar. The formulary was grounded in readily available temperate-zone herbs and foods, with occasional imported items such as clove and saffron. Conclusions: The Lechebnik depicts a domestic, food-forward repertoire oriented to hydration, diet, and topical care, framed in household measures and adapted to resources. Standardized nomenclature, routes, and thematic assignments, plus a reproducible catalogue of fifty-four entries, provide a structured basis for comparative work on historical household medicine. Keywords: Ethnomedicine; historical pharmacology; herbal remedies; 18th-century Russia; domestic medical practices