It is noteworthy, on the other hand, that though the Peruvians tenaciously adhere to their traditional customs, they make no use at the present day of Cinchona bark, but actually regard its employment with repugnance.
Humboldt[1296] declares that at Loxa the natives would rather die than have recourse to what they consider so dangerous a remedy. Pöppig[1297] (1830) found a strong prejudice to prevail among the people of Huanuco against Cinchona as a remedy for fevers, and the same fact was observed farther north by Spruce[1298] in 1861. The latter traveller narrates, that it was impossible to convince the cascarilleros of Ecuador that their Red Bark could be wanted for any other purpose than dyeing cloth; and that even at Guayaquil there was a general dislike to the use of quinine.
Markham[1299] notices the curious fact that the wallets of the native itinerant doctors, who from father to son have plied their art since the days of the Incas, never contain cinchona bark.
Although Peru was discovered in 1513, and submitted to the Spanish yoke by the middle of the century, no mention has been found of the febrifuge bark with which the name of the country is connected, earlier than the commencement of the 17th century.
Joseph de Jussieu,[1300] who visited Loxa in 1739, relates that the use of the remedy was first made known to a Jesuit missionary, who being attacked by intermittent fever, was cured by the bark administered to him by an Indian cacique at Malacotas, a village near Loxa. The date of this event is not given. The same story is related of the Spanish corregidor of Loxa, Don Juan Lopez Canizares, who is said to have been cured of fever in 1630.
Eight years later, the wife of the viceroy of Peru, Luis Geronimo Fernandez de Cabrera y Bobadilla, fourth count of Chinchon, having been attacked with fever, the same corregidor of Loxa sent a packet of powdered bark to her physician Juan de Vega, assuring him of its efficacy in the treatment of “tertiana.” The drug fully bore out its reputation, and the countess Ana was cured.[1301] Upon her recovery, she caused to be collected large quantities of the bark, which she used to give away to those sick of fever, so that the medicine came to be called Polvo de la Condesa, i.e. The Countess’ Powder. It was certainly known in Spain the following year (1639), when it was first tried at Alcala de Henares near Madrid.[1302]
The introduction of Peruvian Bark into Europe is described by Chifflet, physician to the archduke Leopold of Austria, viceroy of the Netherlands and Burgundy, in his Pulvis Febrifugus Orbis Americani ventilatus, published at Brussels in 1653 (or 1651?). He says that among the wonders of the day, many reckon the tree growing in the kingdom of Peru, which the Spaniards call Polo de Calenturas, i.e. Lignum febrium. Its virtues reside chiefly in the bark, which is known as China febris, and which taken in powder drives off the febrile paroxysms. He further states, that during the last few years the bark has been imported into Spain, and thence sent to the Jesuit Cardinal Joannes de Lugo at Rome.[1303] Chifflet adds, that it has been carried from Italy to Belgium by the Jesuit Fathers going to the election of a general, but that it was also brought thither direct from Peru by Michael Belga, who had resided some years at Lima.
Chifflet, though candidly admitting the efficacy of the new drug when properly used, was not a strong advocate for it; and his publication started an acrimonious controversy, in which Honoratius Faber, a Jesuit (1655), Fonseca, physician to Pope Innocent X., Sebastiano Bado[1304] of Genoa (1656 and 1663), and Sturm (1659) appeared in defence of the febrifuge; while Plempius (1655), Glantz, an imperial physician of Ratisbon (1653), Godoy, physician to the king of Spain (1653), René Moreau (1655), Arbinet and others contended in an opposite sense.
From one of these disputants, Roland Sturm, a doctor of Louvain, who wrote in 1659,[1305] we learn that four years previously, some of the new febrifuge had been sent by the archduke Leopold to the Spanish ambassador at the Hague, and that he (Sturm) had been required to report upon it. He further states, that the medicine was known in Brussels and Antwerp as Pulvis Jesuiticus, because the Jesuit Fathers were in the habit of administering it gratis to indigent persons suffering from quartan fever; but that it was more commonly called Pulvis Peruanus or Peruvianam Febrifugum. At Rome it bore the name of Pulvis eminentissimi Cardinalis de Lugo, or Pulvis patrum; the Jesuits at Rome received it from the establishments of their order in Peru, and used to give it away to the poor in Cardinal de Lugo’s palace. In 1658 Sturm saw 20 doses sent to Paris which cost 60 florins. He gives a copy of the handbill[1306] of 1651 which the apothecaries of Rome used to distribute with the costly powder.
The drug began to be known in England about 1655.[1307] The Mercurius Politicus one of the earliest English newspapers, contains in several of its numbers for 1658,[1308] a year remarkable for the prevalence in England of an epidemic remittent fever, advertisements offering for sale—“the excellent powder known by the name of the Jesuit’s Powder”—brought over by James Thomson, merchant of Antwerp.