Chapter VIII: Part I: p. 10.) In 1593, “the Lepper House of Glasgow was charged to (1)

receive none but townsfolks, and all Leppers were banished the town;” and in 1594 the Kirk-Session “beseeches the magistrates to put all Leppers out of toun, for fear of infection.”—(Wodrow’s _Biographical Collections_, vol. ii. part ii. pp. 40, 41.)

If there were really a new access of leprosy in Scotland about 1580-1590, the disease seems speedily to have abated, at least in Aberdeen. In 1604, when a female leper applied for admission, “the Keys of the Hospital” were given to her, showing that the place was then empty and locked up.—(_Selections from the Ecclesiastical Records of Aberdeen_, p. 34.) In May 1610 it was ordered that two merks should be given by the Kirk-Session “to the Lepper woman laitlie put in the Lepper Hous, becaus she will not gett any of the rent of the said Hous till Martenes next;” denoting, apparently, that there was but one leper in the hospital at this time.—(_Selections from the Ecclesiastical Records of Aberdeen_, pp. 73, 74.) In 1612, a female leper, “being expellit furth of this toun, as ane not meit to dwell within the same,” is allowed to take up her abode in the leper-house, although “sche be not borne and bred within this burght.”—(_Extracts from the Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, vol. ii. (1570-1625), p. 308.) I do not observe record of any later patient. Fifty years afterwards, in 1661, both the leper hospital and its chapel (erected in 1519) were ruined if not razed to the ground, “and scarcelie is the name knowne to many.”—(Gordon’s _Description of Bothe Touns of Aberdeene_, pp. 18, 19. Aberd. 1842, Spald. Club.)

Mr. Albert Way, in the _Promptorium Parvulorum_, p. 298, says—“Heutzner, who visited England during the reign of Elizabeth, speaks of the English as very subject to the disease of leprosy.” I have not Heutzner’s book at hand, but it might be looked at to see if he speaks of leprosy being prevalent in England so late as the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

LEPER HOUSE OF RATHVEN.

The date of the first charter now extant of the leper-house at Rothfan (now Rathven) in the Enzie, was between the years 1224 and 1226, as can be shown from the list of witnesses who attest it. It may be remarked that the founder, John Bisset, is believed to have been a kinsman of that Manaser Bisset, sewer to King Henry II. of England, who founded the leper hospital of Mayden Bradley in Wilts, and whose wife Alice, an heiress, is said to have been herself a leper.—(_Monasticon Anglicanum_, vol. vi. part ii. p. 643, edit. ult.)

The hospital of Rathven still exists, but has long ceased to be occupied by lepers. Its tenants, in 1563, were simply “beidmen,” and their number had been reduced from seven to six. They had 42 marks for their ordinary charges, and £7 : 4s. for their habits. At the end of the last century every bedeman had half-an-acre of land for life, one boll of oatmeal yearly, and 9s. 6d. also yearly. At that time none of the bedemen lived in the hospital. But it was repaired not many years ago, and when the _New Statistical Account of Scotland_ was published, two of the six bedemen resided in the hospital. It stands in the village of Rathven, in the district of the Enzie, and the shire of Banff.—(_Antiquities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff_, vol. ii. pp. 142-145. Aberd. 1847, Spald. Club.)

THE KNIGHTS OF ST. LAZARUS IN SCOTLAND.

In 1296, Friar William Corbet, master of the house of St. Lazarus of Harop (Frater Willelmus Corbet, magister domus Sancti Lazari de Harop), had letters for the restitution of his lands, directed to the Sheriff of Edinburgh (a sheriffdom which then included both Haddingtonshire and Linlithgowshire), from King Edward I. of England, as overlord of Scotland.—(_Rotuli Scotiæ_, vol. i. p. 25. London, 1814.)

In 1376, King Robert II. granted a charter to his eldest son, John, Earl of Carrick, Steward of Scotland, of the lands of Prestisfelde, St. Giles’ Grange, and Spetelton, in the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, then in the King’s possession by reason of the forfeiture of the Friars of Harehope, abiding at the faith and peace of the King and kingdom of England, contrary to the faith and peace of the King and kingdom of the Scots, (racione forisfacture Fratrum de Harehope ad fidem et pacem Regis et regni Anglie, ac contra fidem et pacem nostras existencium). The grant was to lapse when the Friars of Harehope became reconciled to the faith and peace of the King and kingdom of the Scots.—(_Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum_, p. 132. Edin. 1814.)

These notices do not enable us to fix the position of Harop or Harehope, showing only that it had lands near Edinburgh. The only other notice of the house which I have observed rather perplexes the question than otherwise. It occurs in the history of the deprivation of English priests of their Scotch benefices, given by Fordun (_Scotichronicon_, lib. xi. cap. xxi.), and, with some variations, in a memorial of a Scotch monk claiming the Priory of Coldingham, about 1422, printed in the _Priory of Coldingham_, pp. 246-258. Lond. 1841, Surtees Soc. It is here said that Harehope, or Holme, was founded by King David, the son of St. Margaret; that certain lands in Lothian were annexed to it, in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, namely Spitalton and St. Giles’ Grange; that the monks (_monachi_) and laymen of the house, being Englishmen, conspired against the realm of Scotland; that King David therefore declared their lands forfeited, and bestowed them on Walter of Wardlaw, Bishop of Glasgow, for his life; that after Bishop Wardlaw’s death the lands were given to his kinsman the Laird of Ricarton, by whose heirs they were possessed at the time this record was written. The memorial printed in the _Priory of Coldingham_ expressly quotes the Ricarton charters—“Ut patet in cartis dicti domini de Ricarton exinde confectis.” If these be still extant, they may remove the doubts which meanwhile may attach to the question whether the “Harehope or Holme” of Fordun and the Scotch Prior of Coldingham be certainly the same with the “Harehop” of the _Rotuli Scotiæ_ in 1296, and the charter of King Robert II. in 1376. The possessors of the latter are described as Friars (_fratres_), of the former as monks (_monachi_)—an all-important distinction in that age, and not at all likely to be overlooked. Then, again, Fordun and the Scotch Prior of Coldingham say nothing of the grant of the possessions of Harehope to the Earl of Carrick,—if, indeed, they do not relate grants of these possessions incompatible with the charter of King Robert II. in 1376. On the other hand, we have, both in that charter and the notices of Fordun and the Scotch Prior of Coldingham, mention of the same lands of Spitaltoun and St. Giles’ Grange as the possessions of Harehope.

The Spitaltoun here referred to may perhaps be identified with the “Spittle toun” of Upper Liberton, near Edinburgh. At the same time there is a Spitaltoun in the lands of Warristoun, near Ricarton.

In Spottiswood’s _Account of the Religious Houses in Scotland_, it is said that the hospital of St. Mary Magdalene, near Linlithgow, “was formerly governed by the Lazarites.”—(Bp. Keith’s _Catal. of Scotch Bishops_, p. 477, edit. 1824.) It is added that the hospital at Lanark “belonged likewise to this sect.” It does not necessarily follow from the words of the charter in the _Registrum de Neubotle_ (p. 149) that the Friars of St. Lazarus, there spoken of, had their Hospital in Linlithgow. The words are,—“Unam particam terre cum crofto de quarta parte illius tofti quod tenui de Fratribus de Sancto Lazaro in villa de Lynlitgu in burgagis scilicet illum particum terre que iacet ex orientali parte illius tofti.” The object here seems to be rather to indicate the position of the piece of land as being in Linlithgow than to describe the Friars of St. Lazarus as being located there.

ENDOWMENTS OF SCOTCH LEPER HOSPITALS, Part I. p. 31.

_Glasgow._—In 1593 the rental of the leper-house of Glasgow was £7 : 15s. in money, and 18 bolls of meal.—Wodrow’s _Biographical Collections_, vol. ii. part ii. p. 40; Glasg. 1848, Mait. Club.

_Rothfan or Rathven._—In 1563 the money rent of the hospital of Rathven seems to have been £35 : 4s. In 1798 the hospital had 3 acres of land, 6 bolls of oatmeal, and £3 : 15s. of money rent.—_Antiquities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff_, vol. ii. pp. 143-145; Aberd. 1847, Spald. Club.

NUMBER OF INMATES IN LEPER HOSPITALS.

A passage in the will of “old John of Gaunt, time-honour’d Lancaster,” in 1398, seems to support the opinion expressed at p. 18, that the leper hospitals in general did not contain many patients.—“Item, jeo devise a chescun maison de lepres deinz v. lieues entour Londres charges de v. malades, v. nobles en l’onur des v. plaies principalx de Nostre Seigneur, et a ceux qi sont meyns charges, trois nobles en l’onur de la Benoit Trinite.”—(_Testamenta Eboracensia_, vol. i. p. 227; Lond. 1836. Surtees Soc.)

DATES OF THE APPEARANCE OF LEPROSY IN GREAT BRITAIN.

_Ireland._—Ireland is excluded from consideration, else proof of the existence of leprosy in that island in the end of the seventh century might be adduced. St. Finan, a native of Munster, who died between 675 and 695, “was surnamed Lobhar, or the Leper, from his having been afflicted for thirty years of his life with some cutaneous disorder.”—(Dr. Lanigan’s _Ecclesiastical History of Ireland_, vol. iii. pp. 83-88; Dublin, 1822.)

_England._—As to England, says Mr. Albert Way, “it has been affirmed that leprosy was brought into Europe by the Crusaders; in the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary, however, which has been attributed to Aelfric, occurs the word ‘LEPROSUS = hreofliz, oððe, licðrowera,’ Jul. A, II. f. 123.”—(_Promptorium Parvulorum_, vol. i. p. 297; Lond. 1843. Camden Soc.)

To the instances given by Sir James Simpson, Part I., p. 39, of the occurrence of leprosy in England before the first Crusade, may be added the case of a noble Englishman of the south of England—_nobili viro sed leproso_—miraculously cured at the tomb of St. Cuthbert at Durham, as related by Reginald of Durham from the recital of a fellow-monk, Turold—“qui se hæc audisse a veteranis canonicis asseruit, in quorum presentia et aspectu hoc gestum fuit.” The canons here spoken of were ejected from Durham in 1083—thirteen years before the first Crusade. Reginald of Durham wrote before 1195. He speaks of the disease thus:—“Accidit ut lepræ morbum passim eam enutriendo incurreret, ita ut, modico interposito tempore, tota vultus illius superficies horribilis videntibus appareret. Suis etiam quandoque, sanie ulcerum difluente, factus est evitabilis; et in consortii communione nonnullis effectus intolerabilis.” Yet, when he journeyed from the south of England to the tomb of St. Cuthbert he was “nobilibus juvenum ministrantium, amicorum et parentum, constipatus agminibus.”—(_Reginaldi Dunelmensis Libbellus de Beati Cuthberti Virtutibus_, cap. xix. pp. 37-41; Lond. 1835. Surtees Soc.)

The disease was probably not unknown among the Anglo-Saxons, yet the silence of their laws (the word Leper is not to be found in the index to Thorpe’s Collection) with regard to it, contrasts strongly with the frequent enactments for its prevention in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries both in England and Scotland, and (if we allow the Welsh laws the antiquity which is claimed for them) in the tenth and eleventh centuries in Wales. May not the anomaly be explained by supposing that the disease broke out with new severity about the beginning of the twelfth century?

_Scotland._—No trace of leprosy is to be found in Adamnan’s Life of St. Columba, written in the seventh century. But of one of St. Columba’s contemporaries—St. Kentigern of Glasgow, who died about 600—it is related that in that city he cleansed lepers—“mundabat leprosos.” These are the words of his biographer, Joceline of Furnes, who wrote towards the end of the twelfth century.—(_Vit. S. Kentigerni_, cap. xxxiv.; Pinkert. _Vit. Antiq. Sanct. Scotiæ_, p. 270.) The same biographer relates that at St. Kentigern’s tomb in Glasgow lepers were cured—“leprosis cutis munditia restituitur.”—(_Vit. S. Kentigerni_, cap. xliv.; Pinkert. _Vit. Antiq. SS. Scot._, p. 295.)

So also it is related of St. Boniface of Rosemarky, who appears to have flourished in the beginning of the eighth century, that he cleansed lepers—“leprosos mundabat.” These are the words of the Breviary of Aberdeen (Proprium Sanctorum pro tempore hyemali, fol. lxx.), printed in 1510, but quoting and using older materials.

St. Aelred of Rievaux, who died in 1166, relates that lepers were cleansed at the tomb of St. Ninian at Whithern in Galloway—“ad ejus namque sacratissimum tumulum curantur infirmi, mundantur leprosi.”—(_Vit. S. Ninian_, cap. xi.) He mentions specially two cases:—

“Visi sunt præterea venire in civitatem viri duo leprosi. Qui
præsumptuosum æstimantes cum lepræ contagio scabiem tangere,
quasi delonge poscunt auxilium. Accedentes autem ad fontem, et
sanctum arbitrantes quidquid sanctus contigerat Ninianus,
lavacio illo se abluendos putarunt.... Mundantur leprosi tactu
lavacio, sed meritis Niniani.”—(_Vit. S. Niniani_, cap. xi. §
4; Pinkert. _Vit. Antiq. SS. Scot._, pp. 22, 23.)

All these writers—St. Aelred of Rievaux, Joceline of Furnes, and the compiler of the Aberdeen Breviary—wrote so long after the Saints whose miracles they commemorate, that their testimony cannot avail as proof in itself of the existence of leprosy in Scotland in the seventh and eighth centuries. Besides, they speak only in general terms—“leprosos mundabat,”—which may be little or nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. But the passages which have been quoted are at least sufficient to demonstrate that in the twelfth century the existence of leprosy in Scotland from a remote age was a matter of unquestioned belief. Of the general prevalence of the disease on this side of the Tweed in that and the subsequent age, there is abundant evidence elsewhere in the Leges Burgorum and other ancient capitularies of Scotch law.

The canon of the Scotch Church, “De monitionem faciendo leprosis,” printed in the Registrum Episcopatus Aberdonensis, vol. ii. p. 32, and elsewhere, belongs to the thirteenth century, probably to the latter part of that century. If, as seems to be the case, it be merely a diocesan statute, and not a statute for the whole of Scotland, it will only show more forcibly the general prevalence of the disease. The diocese for which it was enacted was apparently Aberdeen, containing at that time about eighty parishes, and the number of lepers must have been great before it could be found necessary to guard against the injury done to the parochial clergy by the withdrawal of the dues and oblations of the inmates of the leper hospitals.

LEPROSY IN WALES.

The Venedotian Code (the Laws of the Women)—

“Should her husband be leprous, or have fetid breath, or be
incapable of marital duties; if on account of one of these
three things she leave her husband, she is to have the whole
of her property.”—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p.
39. Lond. 1841.)

The Dimetian Code (of Women)—

“For three causes, if a woman desert her husband, she is not
to lose her agweddi [dowry]; for leprosy, want of connection,
and bad breath.”—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p.
255.)

The Laws of Howel Dda, according to the Gwentian Code (of Women)—

“For three causes a woman loses not her agweddi, although she
may leave her husband; to wit, on account of leprosy, bad
breath, and default of connection.”—(_Ancient Laws and
Institutes of Wales_, p. 365.)

These citations are from Aneurin Owen’s translation of the Welsh text of the Welsh laws, published in parallel columns with the Welsh text by the Record Commissioners. These laws are of uncertain date; they are commonly attributed to Howel Dda, but bear interpolations or alterations of much later date. The oldest MSS. of them are of the twelfth century.

I add the passages regarding lepers which occur in the Latin versions of the Welsh Laws, the oldest MSS. of which are of the thirteenth century:—

“Tribus de causis potest femina habere suum egwedy [suam
dotem], licet ipsa uirum relinquat; scilicet, si sit leprosus
uir; et si habeat fetidum anhelatum; et si cum ea concumbere
non possit.”—(_Liber Legum Howel Da_, lib. ii. cap. xx., sec.
xxxi. _Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 796; Lond.
1841.)

“Tribus de causis habebat femina suum aguedi [suam dotem],
licet ipsa virum suum relinquat; id est, si leprosus sit vir;
et si fetidum hanelitum habueret; et si cum ea coire non
possit.”—(_Liber Legum Howel Da_, lib. ii. cap. xxiii. sec.
xiii. _Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 827.)

“Leprosi cum seculum dimittunt ebedyw [_i.e._ heriot _seu_ caulp]
dare debent dominis suis.”—(_Liber Legum Howel Da_, lib. ii.
cap. xxii. sec. ix. _Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_,
p. 797.)

The Dimetian Code (of Murder)—

“If there be a relative of the murderer, or of the murdered,
who is an ecclesiastic in holy orders, or in an ecclesiastical
community, or leprous, or dumb, or an idiot, such neither pays
nor receives any part of galanas” [assythment, or fines for
murder].—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 200.)

The Dimetian Code (Triads)—

“There are three persons, no one of whom, by law, can be a qualified
judge; one of them is, a person having a defect, as one who is deaf, or
blind, or leprous, or an insane person,” etc. etc.—(_Ancient Laws and
Institutes of Wales_, p. 200.)

The next class of passages is taken from what are called the “Anomalous Welsh Laws,” which, in the state they are now found in, are supposed to be of the sixteenth century:—

“If a person become a surety, and before the termination of
the suit he should become leprous, or a monk, or blind, ....
he must fulfil his promise while he lives.”—(_Ancient Laws
and Institutes of Wales_, p. 403.)

“There is to be no objection to a pleader, but for having
violated his religious profession, and quitting the world, or
his becoming a separated leper.”—(_Ancient Laws and
Institutes of Wales_, p. 516.)

“Three sons who are not to have patrimony—The son of a
priest, the son of a leper, and the son of a man who had paid
his patrimony as blood land. The son of a leper is not to have
it, because God has separated him from worldly kin—that is,
such son as a leper may have after being adjudged to a
lazar-house; and a son a priest shall have after taking
priestly orders; and the third has no patrimony, as his
father, prior to him, had determined it by law.”—(_Ancient
Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 556. See also p. 603.)

“Three persons to whom saraad [fine for insult] is not due—A
leper, a natural fool, and an alltud [an alien serf] who is
not married to an innate Cymraes: And, nevertheless, there is
worth in law attached to each of them, and whoever shall
ill-use them and injure them in person and property is subject
to a dirwy [fine or punishment].—(_Ancient Laws and
Institutes of Wales_, p. 656.)

“Three persons who are not to be invested with the judicial
function—An inefficient person, as one that is deaf, or
blind, or maimed, or leprous, or insane, or mute,” etc.
etc.—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 671.)

“A leper cannot be a pleader.”—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes
of Wales_, p. 764.)

The Welsh term for leper is _Clafwr_, obviously an adaptation of the Latin word.

It should be kept in view that the license which the Welsh laws give to the wife to leave a leprous husband is in direct contradiction to the canon law as declared by Pope Alexander III. to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1180:—“Mandamus quatenus si qui sunt in provincia tua viri vel mulieres qui lepræ morbum incurrunt, ut uxores viros et viri uxores sequantur, et eis conjugali affectione ministrent, sollicitis exhortationibus inducere non postponas. Si vero ad hoc induci non poterunt, eis arctius injungas ut uterque altero vivente continentiam servet. Quodsi mandatum tuum servare contempserint, vinculo excommunicationis adstringas.”—(_Corpus Juris Canonici_, vol. ii. col. 656. Edit. 1747.)

The same Pope, in the same year, decreed that lepers might marry:—“Leprosi autem si continere nolunt, et aliquam quæ sibi nubere velit invenerint, liberum est eis ad matrimonium convolare.” He settled another and more delicate point:—“Quodsi virum sive uxorem divino judicio leprosum fieri contigerit, et infirmus a sano carnale debitum exigat, generali præcepto Apostoli, quod exigitur est solvendum: cui præcepto nulla in hoc casu exceptio invenitur.”—(_Corpus Juris Canonici_, vol. ii. col. 656. Edit. 1747.)

Pope Urban III. found, in 1186, that subsequent leprosy was a sufficient reason why betrothed persons should not be compelled to marry.—(_Corpus Juris Canonici_, vol. ii. col. 657. Edit. 1747. See also col. 344.)

NOMENCLATURE OF THE DISEASE.—The terms “Leprosi” and “Elephantuosi.”

The “MS. History of the Durham Cathedral and Diocese,” referred to in Sir James Simpson’s Paper, Part II. p. 77, was printed in Wharton’s _Anglia Sacra_ in 1691, and more perfectly in the _Historiæ Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres_, by the Surtees Society in 1839. The passage quoted stands thus (pp. 11, 12):—

“Præterea Hospitale de Schyreburne construxit, et elefantiosos
in episcopatu suo circumquaque collectos, ibidem instituit,
aptisque eorum usibus habitaculis ampliant; et ne quid
sollicitudini caritatis deesset, ad eorum perpetuam
sustentationem et nonnullorum susceptionem terras et ecclesias
concessit et confirmavit. In geminum creditur esse bonum, quod
et pauperum necessitatibus liberrime prospexit, et societatem
immundorum a cohabitacione mundorum segregavit.”

“Elephantuosi” is here put as equivalent to “Leprosi.” In the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, written about 1180-1200, some slight distinction seems to be implied between the words. The writer is speaking of the Abbot Walter, who died in 1171:—

“Leprosorum maxime et elephantiosorum ab hominibus ejectioni
compatiens, eos non solum non abhorrebat, verumetiam in
persona propria eis frequenter ministrans, eorum manus
pedesque abluendo fovebat, et intimo caritatis pietatisque
affectu blanda oscula imprimebat.”—(_Chronicon Monasterii de
Bello_, p. 135; Lond. 1846. Anglia Christiana.)

But, after all, the two terms may here be used merely rhetorically. There are other instances of such a tautology. Ducange (t. iii. coll. 49, 50), quotes _Elephantiæ lepra_ and “Leprosi enim vere atque Elephantia debent habere.” At the same time he cites from an old Latin-French Glossary, “ELEPHANCIA = une maniere de mesclerie.” In the same way some writers distinguish between _mesellerie_ and _cordrerie_. On the other hand, the _Catholicon Anglicum_, an Anglo-Latin Dictionary of the year 1483, has “A LEPYR = lepra, elefancia, missella.”—(_Promptorium Parvulorum_, vol. i. pp. 297, 298. Lond. 1843. Camden Soc.)

DESCRIPTION OF A LEPER.

Reginald of Durham (sometimes also called Reginald of Coldingham), a Benedictine monk, who wrote before 1195, gives the following description of a leper girl who had been for three years in the hospital at Budele, near Darlington, in the bishopric of Durham:—

“Nempe omnem facierum illius superficiem laceræ putredinis
cicatrix nunquam sana totam obduxerat, et falliculis [_l._
folliculis] crudæ carnis sparsim patentibus et hiulco meatu
saniem venenoso meatu rimantibus, horridam cunctis visu
reddiderat. Labiorumque ipsius extrema circumquaque marcentia
diriguerant, quia particulares quasdam ejus regiones usque ad
profunda quædam dimensionum dispendia vis sæva diutini
languoris consumendo exederat. His itaque aliisque illius
aegritudinus modis corpus ejus dilaceratum periit,”
etc.—(_Libellus de Vita et Miraculis S. Godrici_, p. 456.
Lond. 1847. Surtees Soc.)

The leprosy is cured by a miracle at the tomb of S. Godric at Finchale, when the appearance of the face is thus described:—

“tota sana comparuit, omnisque lepræ prioris fœda scabies
jam recesserat, labiaque illius sana ac tenua, facies vero
tota incontacta ac clara, velut parvuli cujusdam triennis
apparebat. Quæ una cum matre sospes domum rediit, quæ illo
prius tota lepræ pustulis et sanie contracta pervenit.”

Among other witnesses to the miraculous cure, Ralph Haget, sheriff of Durham,

“dicebat quod facies ejus cutis licet sana, tenera sit et
clara, tamen ubi cicatrices ulcerum quondam fuerant illa
superficies videtur aliquantulum comparere subrufa; labiorum
vero extrema quæ frustris carneis pinis fuerant valliculata,
tota sunt plena atque rotunda, sed aliquanto altius
prominentia.”

This was confirmed also by Norman the priest of Hailtune, who got the girl into the lepers’ hospital at Badele, near Darlington, and who subsequently showed her to his parishioners in his church.—(_Libellus de Vita et Miraculis S. Godrici_, pp. 457, 458.)

The same writer, in the same work, gives other descriptions of leprosy. A young shepherd of the north of England “lepra percussus cunctis horrori fuit.” He is miraculously cured—“tumorque omnis cum deformi rubore fugatus abscesserat, novaque coloris insoliti superficies in facie et toto corpore ipsius relucebat; et nulla omnino pustula vel cicatricis macula in ipso residendo comparuit.”—(_Lib. de Vit. et Mirac. S. Godrici_, p. 431.)

A woman—“diutino tempore toto corpore lepræ fuerat contagio maculisque cum pustulis horrende perfusa ... cunctis horrida et detestenda, nulli pene ad videndum tolerabilis fuerat.”—(_Lib. de Vit. et Mirac. S. Godrici_, p. 431.)

RANK OF THE PERSONS ATTACKED BY LEPROSY.

In 1203, a piece of land in Sudton in Kent was in dispute in the King’s court between two kinswomen—Mabel, the daughter of William Fitz Fulke, and Avicia, the widow of Warine Fitz Fulke. Among other pleas, it was urged by Avicia, that Mabel had a brother, and that his right to the land must exclude her claim. Mabel answered that her brother was a leper—“E contra dicit Mabilla quod leprosus est.” The judgment is not recorded; but the notice shows two things—(1) The doctrine of the civil death which followed leprosy; (2) The comparatively good condition of the person who in this instance was smitten with leprosy.

The case is recorded in the _Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonesteriensi asservatorum Abbreviatio_, p. 39. Lond. 1811. Record Commission.

In 1280 it was certified to King Edward I. that Adam of Gangy, brother and heir of Ralph of Gangy, deceased, of the county of Northumberland, holding land of the king in chief, was struck with leprosy (_leperia percussus_), so that he could not conveniently repair to the king’s presence to pay his homage to the king (quod ad presenciam Regis ad homagium suum Regi faciendum commode accedere non potest). It was therefore ordered that Thomas of Normanville, the elder, should in lieu and turn of the king take the leper’s fealty for his lands.—(_Rotulorum Originalium in Curia Scaccarii Abbreviatio_, vol. i. p. 33. Lond. 1805.)

Here, again, we see leprosy attacking a person of comparatively high position. But here the disease neither inferred civil death nor excluded the leper from all intercourse with his fellows.

In 1313, Nicholas the Leper (Nicholaus le Lepere) and William the Leper (Willielmus le Lepere) are manucaptors or pledges that John de la Poile, knight of the shire returned for Surrey, will do his duty in Parliament.—(_Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs_, vol. ii. pp. 89, 113.)

Here we have a family of note bearing the name of Leper, derived no doubt from the leprosy of an ancestor.

Before 1083 a miraculous cure of leprosy is said to have been effected at the shrine of St. Cuthbert at Durham, on the person of a noble of the south of England—“vir quidam in longinqua Australium Anglorum regione qui multæ nobilitatis gratia inter comprovintiales preditus erat. Hic tam corporis sani virtute gaudebat, quam omni prosperitatis affluentia; et divitiarum gloria cæteros excedebat,” etc. etc.—(_Reginaldi Dunelmensis Libellus de Beati Cuthberti Virtutibus_, pp. 37-41. Lond. 1835. Surtees Soc.)

The same writer, in another work, relates the cure of three lepers at the tomb of St. Godric of Finchale. One, a male, was a shepherd; the other two were women, apparently of the middle or lower ranks.—(_Reginaldi Dunelmensis Libellus de Vita et Miraculis S. Godrici_, pp. 430, 431, 455-458. Lond. 1845. Surtees Soc.) The shepherd was a youth (_juvenis_); one of the women was a girl (_puella_).

LEPERS AMONG THE CLERGY.

Another illustration of the prevalence of leprosy among the English clergy, alluded to at p. 106, Part III., is supplied by the will of Richard Basy, of Bylburgh, in Yorkshire, in 1393:—“Item lego presbiteris cæcis vel leprosis seu aliter languentibus, qui non valent celebrare circa divinum officium celebrandum, et aliis pauperibus eodem modo languentibus et jacentibus, xl. solidos.”—(_Testamenta Eboracensia_, vol. i. p. 192. Lond. 1836. Surtees Soc.)

Pope Lucius III. decreed in 1181 that rectors of churches who were struck with leprosy should serve their cures by coadjutors; and Pope Clement III., in 1190, ordained that leprous priests should be removed from their priestly office, but should be supported from the fruits of their benefices.—(_Corpus Juris Canonici_, vol. ii. coll. 447-448. Edit. 1747.)

CASE OF KING ROBERT BRUCE.

The silence of Wyntoun, Fordun, and our other early Scotch chroniclers, as to the disease of which King Robert Bruce died, may not improbably be explained by their reluctance to associate the heroic monarch with an odious and degrading malady. But the King’s metrical biographer names his disease, or at least its origin; and it would be interesting to know if that disease can be identified with leprosy.

“For a malice him tuk sa sar,
That he on na wiss mycht be thar.
This malice off enfundeying
Begouth; for, through his cald lying,
Quhen in his gret myscheiff wes he,
Him fell that hard perplexite.”

—(Barbour’s _Bruce_, pp. 406-407. Dr. Jamieson’s edit. 1820.)

In Mr. Cosmo Innes’ later edition the passage stands thus—

“For ane male es tuk him sa sar
That he on na wis mycht be thar.
His male es of ane fundying
Begouth, for throu his cald lying,
Quhen in his gret mischef was he,
Him fell that hard perplexite.”

—(Barbour’s _Bruce_, p. 469. Aberd. 1856. Spalding Club.)

What is “enfundeying,” as Dr. Jamieson calls it, or “ane fundying,” as Mr. Innes makes it? Dr. Jamieson glosses it as “perhaps asthma,” but on what ground I do not see. At the same time I am unable to suggest any interpretation of the term. Can medical nomenclature supply none?

CONTAGIOUSNESS OF LEPROSY.

To the list of persons (Part III. pp. 133, 134) who tended or even kissed lepers without being smitten with the disease, may be added Walter de Luci, Abbot of Battle, in Sussex, from 1139 to 1171, who often washed and kissed the feet and hands of lepers—_eorum manus pedesque abluendo fovebat, et intimo caritatis pietatisque affectu blanda oscula imprimebat_.—(_Chronicon Monasterii de Bello_, p. 135. Lond. 1846. Anglia Christiana.)

The story (Sir James Simpson’s Paper, Part III. p. 134) quoted from Matthew Paris, about the good Queen Maud, is to be found in an earlier writer, St. Aelred of Rievaux, from whose _Genealogia Regum Anglorum_ Matthew Paris, or rather Roger of Wendover, borrowed it. It may be remarked, generally, that late editors have shown that all that part of Matthew Paris’ history which is previous to the year 1235 is really the work of Roger of Wendover. As such it has been reprinted by the English Historical Society.

LIST OF LEPER HOSPITALS.

_Oxford, St. Bartholomew._—The date of foundation of this hospital is left blank in the list of British Leper Hospitals, p. 160. It certainly existed before the 24th November 1200, when the lepers of St. Bartholomew of Oxford had letters of protection from King John.—(_Rot. Chart. in Turr. Lund._ vol. i. p. 99.)

_Berington._—On the 20th July 1199 King John confirms to the canons regular of Lantony, among their other possessions, the half of Berington, which had been given to them by the Earl Roger for the procuration of thirteen lepers—“_Ex dono Rogeri Comitis aliam dimidietatem de Berington ad procurationem tredecim leprosorum._”—(_Rot. Chart. in Turr. Lund._ vol. i. p. 7.) “Procuratio” seems to be used here in the sense of _necessaria ad victum et vestitum_.—(See Ducange, t. v. col. 885.)

_Carlisle._—The lepers of Carlisle had letters of protection from King John on 25th February 1201.—(_Rot. Chart. in Turr. Lund._ vol. i. p. 101.)

_Badele, near Darlington, in the county of Durham._—The reception of a leprous girl into the hospital of Badele, about three miles from Darlington, is related by Reginald of Durham in his _Libellus de Vita et Miraculis S. Godrici_, p. 456. Lond. 1845. (Surtees Soc.) The work was written before 1195.

_Canterbury._—The date of foundation of this hospital is left blank in the list of British Leper Hospitals, p. 158. It certainly existed before the death of Archbishop Lanfranc in 1089, for the contemporary historian of Canterbury expressly says it was built by him:—“Ligneas domos in devexo montis latere fabricans, eas ad opus Leprosorum delegavit, viris in istis a fœminarum societate sejunctis.”—(_Eadmeri Hist. Novorum_, p. 9. Lond. 1623.)

_York._—_One_ leper hospital at York is noted in the list of British Leper Hospitals, at p. 161. There were _four_. The will of Henry of Blythe, painter of York, in 1365, has this bequest:—“Item lego quatuor domibus Leprosorum civitatis Eboracencis equaliter ij solidos dividendos.”—(_Testamenta Eboracensia_, vol. i. p. 75. Lond. 1836. Surtees Soc.) The will of Master Adam Wigan, rector of St. Saviour’s, York, in 1433, has—“Item lego cuilibet domui quatuor domorum leprosorum iij s. iiij d.—(_Test. Ebor._ vol. ii. p. 26. Lond. 1855. Surtees Soc.) The will of Richard Russell, citizen and merchant of York, in 1435, shows that at York, as elsewhere, the leper hospitals were beyond the city walls:—“Et cuilibet leproso in quatuor domibus Leprosorum in suburbiis Ebor., v solidos.”—(_Test. Ebor._ vol. ii. p. 55.) Again, in the will of William Gyrlyngton, draper of York, in 1444:—“Item lego quatuor domibus Leprosorum in suburbiis Ebor., xx solidos per equales portiones.”—(_Test. Ebor._ vol. ii. p. 93.) The lepers of York have similar bequests in 1446, in 1454, and 1441.—(_Test. Ebor._ vol. ii. pp. 115, 182, 187.) I do not observe any legacies to them after 1454.

_Beverley._—The leper hospital here, as at York, Canterbury, Glasgow, Stirling, Aberdeen, etc., stood in the suburbs. The will of John Brompton, merchant of Beverley, in 1444, has this legacy—“Item leprosis extra barras boriales Beverlaci ij s. et dimidiam celdram carbonum.”—(_Test. Ebor._ vol. ii. p. 97.)

_Newcastle-upon-Tyne._—The will of Roger Thornton, merchant of Newcastle, in 1429, has this legacy—“Item to the Lepre men of Newcastell, xl s.”—(_Northern Wills and Inventories_, part i. p. 78. Lond. 1835. Surtees Soc.)

_Winchester._—The existence of a leper hospital at Winchester is shown by the will of Martin of Holy Rood, master of the hospital of Sherborn, in 1259 [referred to in Sir James Simpson’s Paper, Part I., p. 36]—“Fratribus Leprosis Wyntonie, ij solidos.”—(_Northern Wills and Inventories_, part i. p. 10.)

_Lynne, Norfolk._—_Five_ leper hospitals at Lynne, in Norfolk, are enumerated in the list of British Leper Hospitals, p. 160. There seem to have been _six_. Mr. Albert Way, in a note to the _Promptorium Parvulorum_, vol. i. p. 297, Lond. 1843 (Camden Soc.), cites, from Parkins’ _Account of Lynne, in Blomf. Norf._ iv. 608, the bequest of Stephen Guybor, in 1432, to every house of lepers about Lynn, “namely, at West Lynn, Cowgate, Herdwyk, Setchehithe, Mawdelyn, and Geywode.” Four of these may be identified with those in the list, p. 160. “West Lynn” and “Cowgate” are the same in both lists; “Mawdelyn” is “St. Mary Magdalene’s;” and “Setchehithe” is “Setch Hithe.”

]

ANCIENT GREEK MEDICINE VASES.]

NOTES ON SOME ANCIENT GREEK MEDICAL VASES FOR CONTAINING LYKION; AND ON THE MODERN USE OF THE SAME DRUG IN INDIA.

The physicians and surgeons who, in ancient times, pursued their medical profession at Rome, and in different parts of the Roman empire, have left us various palpable relics of their craft. Thus, in the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum, numerous surgical instruments, pharmacy and drug-bottles, etc., have been found; and elaborate drawings and accounts of these have lately been published by Savenko, Vulpes, Renzi, and others. On the sites of the old Roman cities and colonies throughout Western Europe, various surgical and medical relics of the same kind have been at different times discovered; as lancets, probes, cupping-glasses, scalpels, oculist-stamps, phials, etc. But of medicine, as it was still earlier exercised in Greece and in the Grecian colonies, few such tangible vestiges remain. We have, it is true, had carefully transmitted down to us the imperishable professional writings of Hippocrates and others of the purely Greek school; but time has spared few, or indeed almost no, material remnants of the professional instruments or vessels used by the ancient Greek surgeons and physicians.

Perhaps the great rarity of such archæological remains may serve as some apology for the present notice of some specimens of ancient Greek medical vessels or vases. Besides, the vases which I wish to describe are interesting in other points of view. They are all of them intended to contain one and the same drug, as shown by the inscriptions on their exterior; this drug was derived by the ancient Greeks chiefly from Hindostan,—one of the many points of evidence of the former freedom and frequency of the traffic between the south of Europe and India; and at the present day the same drug is still employed extensively and successfully, by the native practitioners of the East, for the very purposes for which it was, in former times, used by the medical practitioners of Greece.

The drug to which I allude is the _Indian Lycium_ or _Lykion_, the ΛΥΚΙΟΝ ΙΝΔΙΚΟΝ of Dioscorides. In modern collections and writings, I know of four ancient vases or drug-bottles intended to contain this valued eye-medicine. If our museums, however, were properly searched, perhaps various other Greek vases, for the same or for similar medicines, would be detected. The four specimens of bottles or vases for _Lycium_, to which I have adverted, are the following:—

1. In the collection of Greek antiquities contained in the British Museum is a small vase, made of lead, and of the exact form and size represented in Plate, Fig. 1. The vase is of a sub-ovoid form, and is somewhat above an inch in height, and about three quarters of an inch in breadth. An inscription, preceded by the ornament of a small tripod, encircles the middle of the vase. The inscription is in Greek letters, of which the following is a correct copy:—

This inscription may be read as ΛΥΚΙΟΝ ΠΑΡΑΜΟΥΣΑΙΟΥ—the _Lycium of Paramusaeus_—as suggested to me by Mr. Birch, who first had the kindness to direct my attention to this vase, or, and perhaps more correctly, it may be rendered ΛΥΚΙΟΝ ΠΑΡΑ ΜΟΥΣΑΙΟΥ—the _Lycium_ sold _by Musaeus_. Mr. Birch informs me that he thinks he met with the name of _Paramusaeus_ as a medical practitioner in Fabricius’ _Bibliotheca Græca_. I have not been fortunate enough to detect the name in question, notwithstanding some considerable search through that learned work. On the other hand, the name of _Museus_, or _Musaeus_, is well known in Athenian biography. (See Fabricius’ _Bibliotheca_, vol. i. pp. 120-133.) I should, perhaps, have already stated, that the vase in question was sent to the British Museum, among a collection of antiquities from Athens.

2. Through the kindness of M. Sichel of Paris, I am enabled to give, in Plate, Fig. 2, an engraving of a second _Lycium_ jar, not hitherto published, of nearly the same dimensions as the specimen contained in the British Museum. This second specimen is not made of lead, but of pottery-ware. It bears upon its side the inscription:—

HΡΑΚΛΕΙᵒΥ
ΛΥΚᵒN

This inscription—“the _Lycium of Heracleus_”—has the word ΛΥΚΟΝ spelt without the I; errors of this kind being, as is well known, very common in old Greek and Roman letterings.

3. M. Millin of Paris published, nearly forty years ago, an account of a similar vase, found at Tarentum, a well-known Greek colony and settlement (_Description d’un Vase trouvé à Tarente._ Paris, 1814). This vase is slightly larger than either of the above, but somewhat mutilated. It is made of clay, and has on its front, in Greek letters, the inscription _Lycium of Jason_.

IAϹᵒNᵒϹ
ΛΥΚΙᵒN

The form and size of this jar are represented in Plate, Fig. 3. M. Millin fancied that probably this small vase or jar was intended as a child’s toy; but two years after he wrote, M. Tochon d’Anneci gave an account of a similar jar, and first suggested that it must have been destined to contain a collyrium or an ointment—_destinè à contenir un collyre ou un onguent_. (See his _Dissertation sur l’Inscription Grecque, et sur les Pierres Antiques_, etc., Paris, 1816.)

4. The vase described by M. Tochon is delineated in Plate, Figs. 4, 5, and 6. It is of the same material, and nearly of the same size, but less mutilated than that previously delineated by M. Millin. It presents also in front the same inscription (see Fig. 5), namely—

ΙΑϹᵒΝᵒϹ
ΛVΚΙᵒN

M. Tochon believes, further, that this vase was found, like that of Millin, at Tarentum. At least, it was originally given to M. Tochon by a person who had resided for a long time in that city, and who had himself acquired the specimen there. M. Sichel has reason to think it not improbable that his specimen (Fig. 2) also came from Tarentum. And it is perhaps not uninteresting to remark, that Galen, Celsus, and various other old medical authors, repeatedly mention a Greek physician of the name of Heracleus or Heraclides, who practised at Tarentum, and was the author of various treatises on the Materia Medica, etc. (See an enumeration of his writings, etc. in Kühn’s _Opuscula_, vol. ii., p. 156, etc.) Among his large collection of collyria and medicines for diseases of the eye, Galen gives formulæ for making different eye medicines bearing the name of Heracleus, as, for example, two “_agglutinatoria pilorum Heraclidæ Tarentini_ (Ἥρακλεῖδου Ταραντίνοῦ). See Kuhn’s edition of _Galen_, vol. xii. p. 741.

The medicine mentioned in the preceding inscriptions, the LYCIUM or ΛΥΚΙΟΝ, was a drug which enjoyed much favour among the ancients; and it was supposed to be possessed of great medical value and virtues. It was used principally as an astringent remedy to restrain inflammatory and other discharges. Dioscorides, Galen, Oribasius, and Paulus Ægineta, dilate upon the medicinal properties of the Lycium. Dioscorides recommends it as an astringent for the cure of various complaints, as obscurities of the cornea, psoriasis, and pruritus of the eyelids, purulent ears and tonsils, ulcers of the gums, chapped lips, fissure of the anus; in cæliac and dysenteric affections, both in draughts and clysters; in hæmoptysis and coughs; in female fluxes, hydrophobia, and so forth. The Indian variety, he states, cures inflammation of the spleen and jaundice, prevents menstruation, purges water, and is a counter-agent to deadly poisons. (Dr. Adam’s Trans. of _Paulus Ægineta_, vol. iii. p. 234.) Two varieties of Lycium were in use—one obtained from Lycia and Cappadocia, etc., and the other from India. The latter was regarded as by far the most valuable. Thus, when treating of the two varieties of Lycium, Galen mentions the Indian as the most powerful for all purposes—τὸ Ἰνδικὸν ἰσχῦρότερόν ἐστιν εἰς ἅπαν. (_De Simp. Medicam._ lib. vii. 64.) Such late writers as Paulus Ægineta, Ætius, etc., allude also to the superior value of the Indian variety. For instance, in Roxarius’ edition of _Oribasius_ it is stated that the Indian Lykion “præstat ceteris et est efficacius.” (_Medicin. Collect._ lib. xi.) Avicenna, the celebrated Arabian physician, who gives a long account of the medical uses, etc., of Lykion, remarks, “Magis vincens, secundum existimationem, est quod Indicum est,” etc.; and he compares its properties with that from Mecca. (_Canon Medicinæ_, Lib. ii. cap. 398.)

Of all the uses to which the Lycium was applied in medicine, by far the most important was the employment of this drug, and particularly of the Indian variety, as a collyrium or local application to the eye, in the treatment of different varieties and forms of ophthalmic inflammation. Thus Scribonius Largus, the reputed body physician to the Emperor Claudius, and one of the most original among the ancient medical writers, declares that “he attributes to no collyrium whatever such great efficacy as to the genuine _Indian Lycium_ used by itself. For if,” says he, “near the commencement of ophthalmia, any one anoints himself with this collyrium, he will immediately—that is, on the same day—be freed from present pain and future swelling. It is unnecessary (he adds) to dilate on its virtues, for a person experienced only in other collyria would scarcely credit the effects of this simple drug.” (_De Composit. Medicamentorum_, cap. 3.) Marcellus lauds its power in nearly the same words. (_De Medicam. Lib._ cap. 8.)

The Lykion, or Lycium, is still used extensively by the native medical practitioners of India, under the Hindoo name of _Rusot_ or _Ruswut_. In a learned article on the nature of the λύκιον of Dioscorides, contained in the _Transactions of the Linnæan Society_, vol. xvii. p. 82, Professor Royle has shown that the Indian Lycium or Rusot is an inspissated extract, prepared from the wood or roots of several species of Berberis, as the _Berberis lycium_, _aristata_, etc., growing on the mountains and plains of Upper India, and principally procured from Nuggur-kote, near Lahore.[366] “On inquiring,” says Dr. Royle, “in the shops of the druggists in the bazaars of India, I everywhere learned that both the wood (_dar-huld_) and the extract Rusot were imported from the hills into the plains, and that large quantities continued to be brought from Nuggur-kote as well as other places.” And he adds,—“The _Rusot_ is at the present day procurable in every bazaar in India, and used by the native practitioners, who are fond of applying it both in incipient and chronic inflammation of the eye; and in the latter state both simply and in combination with opium and alum. It is sometimes prescribed by European practitioners; and I have heard that it was found very efficacious by Mr. M^cDowell in the ophthalmia of soldiers who had returned from the expedition to Egypt. I have myself occasionally prescribed it; and the native mode of application makes it particularly eligible in cases succeeding acute inflammation, where the eye remains much swollen. The extract is, by native practitioners, in such cases, rubbed to a proper consistence with a little water, sometimes with the addition of opium and alum, and applied in a thick layer over the swollen eyelids; the addition of a little oil I have found preferable, as preventing the too rapid desiccation. Patients generally express themselves as experiencing considerable relief from the application.”

My friend, Dr. Wise, the author of that learned work _Commentaries on the Hindoo System of Medicine_, some time ago brought to Scotland with him a small quantity of the Indian Lykion. I have seen one or two cases of recent conjunctival ophthalmia treated by the application of this Lykion, with speedy relief and cure. Dr. Wise has been so good as furnish me with the following interesting letter regarding his own extended experience with it.

“The use (says Dr. Wise) of the mixture of Lykion or Ruswut is very generally known over Hindostan, where diseases of the eye are common, and probably over Asia and Africa, if we are to believe that this was the black application employed with such success to the diseased eyes of our soldiers in Egypt. It is likewise probable that Dioscorides obtained it nearly two thousand years ago from the East, where the plant is indigenous, and introduced it into Europe. Having found great personal benefit from the application of the mixture of Lykion to my eyes when inflamed, I employed it extensively when superintendent of the Eye Infirmary, Calcutta; and so convinced was I of its efficacy, that I brought a supply with me to Europe, with the intention of bringing it to the notice of the profession. I found you investigating the subject; and at your suggestion, Dr. Walker was so kind as to try the medicine, and I am sure will inform you of the results he saw derived from its use. The Indian mixture consists of equal weights of Lykion and burnt alum, with half the weight of opium. These ingredients are mixed with lemon-juice, and reduced to the consistence of cream, and applied round the eyelids and over the eyebrow of the inflamed eyes. This mixture is washed off, and again applied twice in twenty-four hours; and it was only when accompanied with fever, that aperients and other parts of the antiphlogistic regimen were required. In less urgent cases the mixture was only applied at night, and produced no inconvenience, unless when it dried, and the lids felt stiff, when it was softened by applying a little moisture. I found the Lykion mixture most useful in all cases of inflammation of the external tunics of the eye. When both eyes were inflamed, it was interesting to mark the advantage this simple remedy had when applied to one eye, while the usual remedies of leeches, blisters, etc., were applied to the other eye. Another most important application of the Lykion is when the ophthalmia is accompanied with severe pain. On such occasions, after applying the mixture, a piece of live charcoal (_gool_) produced the most soothing effect when approached near the eye. With this intention, the charcoal was placed upon an earthen cup, and held on a wooden stand by the patient, and he approached or withdrew it from the eye according to his own feeling. The great relief in this case was in part from the anodyne effect of the opium.”

Mr. Walker has kindly given me the following note of his experience with the Lykion at the Edinburgh Eye Dispensary:—

“I have used (he writes me) the Indian Lykion in a considerable number of cases of eye-disease. The affections in which I found it most useful were those of the conjunctiva, such as the simple, catarrhal, and pustular forms of inflammation. In them its action was well marked and beneficial, the disease generally subsiding in a day or two; sooner perhaps than it would have done under the ordinary treatment. I have had no opportunity of trying it in purulent ophthalmia; but I believe that in it also it would prove of service. Cases of slight rheumatic and catarrho-rheumatic inflammations have been benefited, but not cured, by it alone. In some affections of the eyelids, as ophthalmia tarsi and chronic ophthalmia, it did good; but such cases often get well with very little treatment. I applied it to the eyelids in the form of a paste, with opium and burnt alum, as recommended by Dr. Wise. This was repeated two or three times a day. The patients generally complained of a burning and smarting of the lids after its application, similar to what is produced by a mustard blister.”

The four ancient Greek vases, mentioned in the preceding notice as inscribed with the name of the drug _Lykion_ or _Lycium_, are each of very small dimensions, the Plate representing all of them of their original sizes and forms. They are small, in consequence, in all probability, of the foreign drug which they contained being difficult to procure in large quantities, and being hence an article of high price in the markets of Greece and Italy. The value set upon the contained drug would seem to be indicated by another circumstance—namely, by the shape of the interior of the vases. In the specimens described by Millin and Tochon, the cavity of the jars is narrow and conical from above downwards, the mouth being wide, and the interior becoming more and more tapering and contracted as it descends downwards. The section of the interior of the vase of Tochon, given in Plate, Fig. 6, represents this peculiar and deceitful form of the cavity. In consequence of this peculiarity in their form, these jars contained, in fact, much less of the Lykion than their mere external appearance indicated. This remark, at least, holds true of the two vases from Tarentum bearing the name of _Jason_. The vase of _Museus_ from Athens, belonging to the British Museum, appears more honest at least in its construction. The high price of the pure Lykion probably led also to the fact mentioned specially by Dioscorides (lib. i. cap. 133), Pliny (lib. xxiv. cap. 14), and Serapion (lib. ii. cap. 398), of the frequent adulteration of the drug. And, perhaps, as in similar inscriptions on some modern medicine-nostrums and packets, the names of the preparer or vendor, _Jason_, _Heracleus_, and _Museus_, stamped on the vases, were added in attestation of the purity and unadulterated character of the drug which these vases contained.

ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS TO MEDICAL OFFICERS.]

WAS THE ROMAN ARMY PROVIDED WITH MEDICAL OFFICERS?

Little or nothing has hitherto been written by archæologists regarding the medical staff of the Roman army. Indeed, in none of our common works on Roman antiquities, as in those of Rosini, Kennet, Adam, Smith, Ramsay, etc., is there any allusion whatever made to the question, whether or not the Roman troops were furnished with medical officers. In one anonymous work on Roman antiquities, translated from the French, and published in London in 1750, the subject is referred to, the author stating that during the commonwealth there were no physicians in the Roman armies; and he adds that, even under the Emperors, “it does not appear there were any physicians in the armies, as there are surgeons in ours.”[367] Nor does there exist, as far as I am aware, in the Roman classics, any very distinct allusion to the matter. I have also, in vain, searched among Roman medical authors, and among the writings of the Greek physicians who practised at Rome, for any direct notices, relative to the medical or surgical care of the numerous and scattered armies employed by Rome in the different quarters of the world. In fact, the only passages, with which I am acquainted, relating at all to the subject, consist of a casual remark in one of the military epistles of Aurelian; two incidental legal observations contained in the law writings of Modestinus, and in the Codex of Justinian; an allusion by Vegetius to the medical care and expense of the sick in camp; and an expression by Galen as to the opportunities for anatomical observation presented to the physicians during the German wars.