Chapter IV: Part 4

Talbor next figures in Paris, and there leaped into eminence. For French convenience he assumed the name of Talbot, an English name with which they were historically familiar. He soon became a favourite in high circles. Mme. de Sévigné refers to him several times in her letters of 1679. In one she says, “Nothing is talked of here but the Englishman and his cures.” In November, 1780, the Dauphin was dangerously ill with a fever. Talbor had plenty of friends at court who wanted him to be sent for. Mme. de Sévigné is again the chronicler. She writes:--“The Englishman has promised on his head to cure monseigneur in four days.” If he fails she believes he will be thrown out of the window. She further states that the King (Louis XIV) insisted on seeing Talbor prepare his wine; and when she reports the fulfilment of his promise and the cure of the Dauphin she notes with malicious glee the discomfiture of the king’s head physician, Antoine d’Aquin.

D’Aquin wrote bitterly against Talbor, insisted that his treatment of the Dauphin and of other persons had been founded on a mistaken diagnosis, and that in the Dauphin’s case he had made a bilious fever into a dangerous disorder. Another critic suggested that his remedy given to the Duke of Rochefoucauld in an arthritic asthma had had fatal consequences.

Louis agreed to buy Talbor’s formula, but nothing was published until after the death of the latter. Two thousand guineas and an annual pension of £100 were granted to the English doctor, and he was made a Chevalier. Shortly afterwards he went to Spain and cured the queen of that country of a fever. Then he returned to London and died in 1781, at the early age of forty.

His official formula, published after his death, directed 6 drachms of rose leaves to be infused in 6 ounces of water with 2 ounces of lemon juice for four hours. A strong infusion of cinchona was added to the above, together with some juice of persil or ache. He also made alcoholic tinctures and wines of cinchona. The French doctors were sure that he was in the habit of adding some opium to his speciality. If he did he invented a valuable combination.

Another contemporary writer, John Jones, gives the following as Talbor’s process. He digested finely-powdered bark in juice of persil and decoction of anise separately. The mixture was placed in an earthen vessel, and having been stirred frequently he added red wine and macerated for a week. He also made a tincture of cinchona by adding 8 ounces of alcohol to 2 ounces of powdered bark.

From a handbill in a collection of quack advertisements in the British Museum Library, dated “1675, &c.,” it appears that Dr. Charles Goodal, who gave his address “at the Coach and Horses, near Physician’s Colledge, Warwick Lane,” offers “for the public good a very superior sort of Jesuit’s Bark, ready powdered, and papered into doses” at 4_s._ per ounce, or in quantity £3 per lb., and as evidence that this is a reasonable price he refers to Mr. Thain, druggist, of Newgate Street, to whom he had paid 9_s._ per lb. for a considerable quantity. Possibly it was Mr. Thain who was advertising.

TINCT. CINCHONÆ CO.

The official formula for this tincture is slightly modified from that devised by John Huxham, M.D., and published in his Essay on Fevers, 1755. It first appeared in the P.L. 1788 as a College preparation.

John Huxham was born as Totnes in 1692, and was the son of a butcher. He studied medicine under Boerhaave at Leyden, but graduated M.D. at Rheims. Then he returned to England and after a time settled at Plymouth. He was a Nonconformist, and at first depended on the dissenting portion of the population for his practice, but it did not expand as fast as he wished and it is alleged that he was not above some of the tricks satirised by novelists; as, for example, being called out of chapel, riding at full speed through the streets, walking about with a gold-headed cane, wearing a red coat and followed by a footman who carried his gloves. He, however, acquired a considerable reputation both locally and nationally; was elected F.R.S. in 1739, and was awarded the Copley medal in 1755 for a treatise on antimony in which he strongly recommended an Essentia or Vinum Antimonii made by infusing 1 oz. of glass of antimony in 24 oz. of sound Madeira wine for 10 or 12 days, then decanting and filtering. He advised doses of 30 to 80 drops of this in tea, wine, beer, or other liquid, as an alterant, attenuant, and diaphoretic. The treatise though verbose does not seem to have had any special merit.

His Essay on Fevers was much more important and has been highly esteemed by competent critics. He also wrote a valuable note on scurvy in seamen, recommending a more abundant supply of vegetables on voyages, and was the first to describe the malignant ulcerous sore throat now called diphtheria.

Huxham’s formula for Tinct. Cinchonæ Co. as given by himself was as follows:

Cort. Peruv. opt. pulv. ℥ ii, Flav. Aurant. Hispan. ℥ iss, Rad. serpent. Virgin. ℥ iii, Croci Anglic. ℈ iv, Coccinel. ℈ ii, Sp. Vini Gallici, (Brandy), ℥ xx. F. Infusio clausa per dies aliquot (tres saltern quatuerve) deinde coletur. The dose was ʒ i to ℥ ss every 4, 6, or 8 hours with 10, 15, or 20 drops of elixir of vitriol in diluted wine. Huxham says of this tincture “it tends to strengthen the Solids, to prevent the further Dissolution and Corruption of the blood and in the event to restore its Crassis.” He has previously stated that it is a very useful remedy “not only in slow, nervous fevers, but also in the putrid, pestilential, and petechial, especially in the Decline.” But he adds, “if the patient is costive or hath a tense and humid abdomen, I always premise a dose of rhubarb, manna, or the like.”

According to Dr. Paris, Huxham believed in complicated prescribing. “There are several prescriptions of Huxham extant,” we read in “Pharmacologia,” “which contain more than four hundred ingredients.”

CINCHONA OR CHINCHONA.

Sir Clements Markham, whose services in introducing cinchona culture into India and Ceylon are well known, has earnestly insisted on the adoption of the name chinchona instead of cinchona in justice to the lady after whom the generic title was chosen. In a Memoir of the Lady Ana de Osorio, Countess of Chinchon, Sir Clements Markham somewhat extravagantly exalts that “illustrious and beautiful lady,” whom he describes as “one of the most noble benefactors of the human race.” She may have been an excellent woman, but her advocate does not furnish sufficient evidence of her virtues to justify such lavish praise. The Countess was cured of a fever by the bark, and on her return to Spain she distributed the remedy to such of her vassals as needed it. Perhaps her physician, who brought a quantity of the bark home with him and sold it, did more to make it generally known than she did by her gifts.

Still there is no doubt that Linnæus intended by the name he gave to the genus to perpetuate her memory; and it is likewise true that her name was Chinchon and not Cinchon. The latter term, Sir Clements says, means a broad girdle or a policeman’s belt, and makes the intended honour ridiculous. His opinion was that Linnæus had erred in ignorance, having been misled by several French writers. Daniel Hanbury, however, who contested some of Markham’s assertions, gave good reasons for believing that Linnæus had adopted the term cinchona deliberately for the sake of euphony. Anyway he shows that Mutis, the disciple of Linnæus, who sent him the plant from which he wrote his description, while at first writing of chinchona soon followed the spelling of the master and continued to do so.

The name cinchona and derivatives from it are too well established to be dislodged now for a sentimental reason, even if it were not that the adopted name is undoubtedly easier to pronounce than the more strictly correct one would be.

CULTIVATION OF CINCHONA IN THE EAST.

Many botanists and travellers remarked upon the reckless manner in which the natives of Peru collected the bark. They felled the trees and stripped them of bark without planting new ones to take the place of those destroyed. Humboldt says that 25,000 trees were thus destroyed in a single year.

The first attempt to transport any plants to Europe was made by La Condamine in 1743. He had obtained some young plants and was conveying them down the Amazon River to Cayenne, intending to transport them to the Jardin des Plantes at Paris. At the mouth of the river a wave swept over his little vessel and washed away his whole collection. Joseph de Jussieu, who had accompanied La Condamine on his expedition, and remained in the country after him for fifteen years, was robbed of his collection at Buenos Ayres, and lost his reason as a consequence of his misfortune.

Royle in 1839 strongly advocated the introduction of cinchona into India, and suggested the Nilgiri Hills as a suitable position for the experiment. His suggestions were taken into consideration by the Government, but no immediate steps were taken. The Dutch Government first moved in the matter, sending a botanist named Hasskarl to South America in 1852. Their object was to establish cinchona gardens in Java. All through the fifties they were carrying on their experiments, but with very slow success. The English Government were meanwhile instructing their Consuls in South America to obtain seeds, but it was not until 1859 that the collection was seriously undertaken for India. In that year Mr. (now Sir) Clements Markham was commissioned to go to South America to collect seeds of the best species. Markham has told the full story of his mission in his work on “Peruvian Bark,” and has incidentally in that narrative exposed the parsimony of the authorities in their treatment of those associated in the important and profitable enterprise successfully carried through after some years of hard and often perilous labour. His principal coadjutor, Dr. Spruce, whose health was utterly ruined by his efforts, was paid a salary of £30 a month while the work lasted, and a special grant of £27 for an exhaustive report which he prepared. A pension of £50 a year was given him by the British Government for his botanical services, and after thirteen years of persistent importunity, the Indian Government granted him another £50 a year. Mr. Pritchett, who collected plants and seeds in the forests of Huanuco, was paid his salary and nothing more. To Mr. Cross, who assisted Dr. Spruce in the collection of the red bark, two grants of £300 each were made. Mr. Weir, “a most conscientious, active, and skilful worker, and, so far as his own labours were concerned, completely successful,” crippled and disabled for life, got nothing from the Government, though the Horticultural Society collected some funds which yielded £27 a year.

The monumental instance of official ingratitude was, however, manifested in the case of Charles Ledger, to whom, more than to any other man, the world is indebted for cheap quinine, and out of whose adventurous services the Dutch nation have made millions in their Java dependency. Between the years 1841 and 1858 Ledger was travelling in South America in the employment of the New South Wales Government buying alpacas. He had a faithful servant, Manuel Manami, who had often told him how jealously the natives, especially those of Bolivia, guarded the knowledge of their best seeds. Manami had himself been a cascarillero or bark cutter. On Ledger’s return to Australia in 1858 he found that Holland and England were eagerly seeking to plant cinchona in their Eastern possessions. The mission of Hasskarl had been practically a failure. He had not been able to enter Bolivia, and the species he brought to Java were comparatively valueless. Ledger was in South America when Markham went there on his official journey. He endeavoured to open communication with the British Government’s envoy but failed. He, however, pressed his faithful Manami to secure some of the precious “rojo” (_Cinchona Calisaya_, var. _Ledgeriana_) seeds from Bolivia. Manami fulfilled this service, somewhat reluctantly, sent the seeds to his master, but was himself thrown into prison, beaten, and died soon after in consequence of the cruel treatment he underwent.

Ledger sent the seeds to his brother in England authorising him to dispose of them as he best could. They were at first offered to the British Government, but as Markham was then in India superintending the planting of the seeds he had brought from Peru, the offer was not entertained. Half of them were sold to a Ceylon planter, and the rest were taken, after some discussion, by the Dutch Government for about £33, with a promise of a further payment if the plants flourished. A year later on a report that 20,000 plants had been raised from these seeds the Dutch Government paid Ledger a further £100 and got from him a letter expressing his satisfaction. That was in 1866.

For many years Ledger was lost sight of, and it was stated in several books that he was dead. In 1895, however, a letter from him was published in _The Chemist and Druggist_, of London, dated from Goulburne, N.S.W. He wrote simply in reference to a paper which had been printed in that journal referring to the admixture of some white flowers with coca as imported. The addition of the “inga flowers,” Mr. Ledger explained, was made by the natives in the belief that they kept the coca leaves fresh and green. Later it was found that Mr. Ledger was living in comparative poverty in consequence of the failure of Australian banks and the slump in land values. Efforts were made to induce the Dutch Government to make some compensation to the man who had done them such grand service, but at first a blank refusal was returned. In May, 1807, however, on his seventy-ninth birthday, Mr. Ledger received the announcement from Amsterdam that an annuity of £100 would be conferred upon him. He lived nine years after this.

(From _The Chemist and Druggist_.)]

The Ledger cinchona had also been introduced into India, and as it was found to be yielding such rich bark Mr. Markham appealed in 1880 to the Indian Government to grant Mr. Ledger at least the sum of £200 to compensate him for the expenses he had been put to, which far exceeded what he was paid for the seeds. “The reply, after four months’ delay, was a curt refusal,” wrote Mr. Markham to _The Chemist and Druggist_, in April, 1895.

Mr. Ledger, who was born in Bucklersbury, London, on May 4, 1818, wrote a very pleasant and modest autobiographical sketch of his varied experiences for _The Chemist and Druggist_, which was published in that journal of July 27, 1895.

CUBEBS

have had a rather chequered medical history. The Arab physicians used them apparently for the same medicinal purposes, that is, for checking urethral discharges, as they are generally prescribed for by our own physicians; but in the middle ages we hear of them as a popular but costly condiment. Curious particulars of this use of cubebs are given in “Pharmacographia.” They were an ingredient in the P.L. formulas for Mithridate and Theriaca, probably as a stimulant. Then they seem to have dropped out of use. They were omitted from the P.L. 1809. Their re-introduction into medical practice is due to an article by Dr. Crawfurd in the _Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal_, 1818, but it appears that the knowledge of the anti-blennorrhagic properties of cubebs came from an English officer in Java, whose Hindoo servant had recommended to him the use of them as a medicine. The employment of cubebs in hoarseness and bronchial complaints was popularised by some American Troches, a proprietary medicine, but this use of the medicine was familiar a hundred and fifty years ago. In James’s Dispensatory it is stated that cubebs are “recommended in hoarseness and loss of voice, especially when the tonsils are stuffed and obstructed.”

DIGITALIS.

Foxglove, the common and ancient name of this handsome plant, is believed to be a corruption of a still older name, Foxes’ glew, or Foxes’ music, in allusion to an instrument consisting of a series of bells hanging from one support. The Norwegian name of the plant is Rev-bjelda, fox-bells. A pretty fancy, but one which is not supported by evidence, is that the original name was folks’ glew, or fairy bells. In Scotland the flower is called bloody fingers, and sometimes dead men’s bells; in France, gants de notre Dame, and doigts de la Vierge. The German popular name is finger-hut, finger hood or thimble, and the Latin term, digitalis, coined by Fuchs of Tubingen about 1550, was intended to be the equivalent of that designation.

The medical history of the foxglove is somewhat varied. It appears to have been used as an ingredient in external applications by old herbalists, principally for scrofulous complaints. Gerard, Parkinson, and Salmon, who wrote in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, extol its virtues and mention also its employment internally for the falling sickness or epilepsy. Parkinson quotes an Italian saying concerning it that it is a salve for all sores. It found a place in the London Pharmacopœia of 1650 and in several subsequent issues.

But foxglove was always a medicine with a popular rather than a professional reputation until Dr. William Withering, of Birmingham, published “An Account of the Foxglove, and some of its Medical Uses,” in 1785. Withering was a scientific pioneer of European fame, an intimate associate of Priestley, Watt, and Boulton, a painstaking botanist in whose honour a genus of the Solanaceæ was named Witheringia, and a mineralogist whose name is similarly commemorated by the name Witherite, given to barium carbonate.

(From a print in the British Museum.)]

In Dr. Withering’s “Account of the Fox-glove,” he narrated that ten years previously his opinion had been asked about a family recipe for the cure of dropsy which had long been the secret of an old woman in Shropshire, and which he was told had cured cases after regular treatment had failed. The medicine was composed of some twenty different herbs, but it was not difficult, he says, for one conversant with such matters to perceive that foxglove was the active ingredient.

Dr. Withering details his experience as well as that of others with the drug in some hundreds of cases. He noted its action on the heart and as a diuretic. He had also ascertained that it was prescribed in family recipes in Yorkshire. An article in Parkinson’s “Herbal,” written he believed by Mr. Saunders, “an apothecary of great reputation at Worcester,” declared it to be of great value in consumptive cases. It had been admitted into the Edinburgh Pharmacopœia 1783, but many practitioners were giving it in such dangerous doses that he feared its reputation would not last long.

Dr. Withering died in 1799 at the age of fifty-eight. A foxglove is carved on his monument in Edgbaston Old Church.

GUAIACUM

Came into fame in Europe in the early years of syphilis. The story told about it (perhaps it was only a clever advertisement, though it is related without any question by Leclerc) was that a certain Spaniard named Gonsalvo Ferrand having taken the disease and finding no cure for it resolved to go into the countries from which the infection had come, confident that he would there find the remedy which the natives themselves employed. He went to St. Domingo, discovered that the wood there called Huaiacon was regarded as a specific, took it himself, and was cured. This was in 1508. Whatever may be the truth of this history it seems that Ferrand was subsequently a seller of guaiacum wood (according to Freind), at seven gold crowns per pound (say 35s.), and accumulated a great fortune. Enormous popularity accrued to guaiacum by the book which Ulrich von Hutten, the German poet and reformer, wrote on the “Morbus Gallicus” in 1519. Therein he narrated his own experience; what he had suffered from this disease; how he had undergone salivation with mercury eleven times to no purpose; and how at last he had been cured completely in thirty days by a course of treatment by guaiacum. This early treatment as it was developed in the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries deserves to be recorded. First a decoction was made by boiling 1 lb. of the wood raspings in 8 or 10 pints of water down to 5 or 6 pints. After straining this off another weaker decoction was made from the same wood. The syphilitic patient was prepared for his course of treatment by a few days’ spare diet, and by a few aperient doses. Then he went to bed in a well-warmed room, and early every morning took half a pint of the first decoction warm. He was then covered with blankets and allowed to sweat for two or three hours. After being dried he was given a few biscuits with some almonds and raisins. The process was repeated in the latter part of the day, and so on for fifteen days, only enough food being given to prevent the patient from fainting. In the middle of the month a day or two’s interval was granted, and during that time the bowels were evacuated by an enema. Then the treatment was renewed as before, but a rather more liberal diet was permitted. All the time the second decoction was taken for drink as freely as the patient could be induced to swallow it. Gradually the usual habits of eating and drinking were resumed.

It is not surprising to learn that the treatment just described was soon accused of so reducing the strength of many patients that they never recovered from it, and it was being abandoned when Boerhaave revived it for a time as a remedy in syphilitic cases.

(Etching by Stradanus, 1570.)

_Reproduced (by permission) from “The Follies of Science at the
Court of Rudolph II.” by H. Carrington Bolton, Pharmaceutical Review
Publishing Co., Milwaukee, U.S.A._]

IPECACUANHA.

Although several earlier allusions to ipecacuanha have been found, the first being in an account of Brazil by a Portuguese friar given in Purchas’s “Pilgrimes” (1625), where the medicine is named Igpecaya and is described as a remedy for the bloody flux, its effective introduction to European medicine was in the year 1686, when Louis XIV bought from Jean Adrien Helvetius the secret of a medicine with which he had performed a number of remarkable cures of diarrhœa and dysentery.

Helvetius, whose original name was Schweitzer, was the son of a Dutch quack, and had gone to Paris to try to sell his father’s compounds there. Apparently he had also enrolled himself as a student of medicine, for he is reported to have accompanied a physician of note at the period, named Afforty, in his attendance on a merchant variously called Grenier and Garnier. The merchant, having recovered from his illness, wished to present to Afforty a parcel of a new drug which he had received from Brazil. Afforty was not tempted by the offer, but his companion was more open to be influenced by something new. He experimented with the medicine and found it of remarkable efficacy in dysentery. Thereupon he placarded the corners of the streets with his announcements of a new remedy but without stating what the drug was. Colbert, having heard of the success of Helvetius, mentioned the remedy to Louis XIV when the dauphin was ill with dysentery, and the young Dutch quack was sent for. With the consent of the court physician, D’Aquin, Helvetius treated the Dauphin and cured him. As a result the king authorised D’Aquin and his confessor, the Père de la Chaise, to negotiate with Helvetius for the publication of his secret, which he sold for a thousand louis d’or, for a share in which the merchant Garnier unsuccessfully sued. This was the beginning of a successful career which was continued by his son and his grandson. The last became France’s fashionable poet and philosopher in the generation before the Revolution. The discoverer of ipecacuanha was appointed Inspector General of the Hospitals of Flanders, and became physician to the Duke of Orleans.

It appears from a treatise which Helvetius wrote that at first ipecacuanha was given in doses of two drachms, sometimes in decoctions and sometimes in enemas. Hans Sloane in England and Leibnitz in Germany wrote warmly in favour of the new remedy, but it was not till thirty years after it had been introduced that the dose was popularly reduced to some four to ten grains. Dover’s lucky combination of ipecacuanha with opium had a great effect in ensuring its permanent adoption.

KOUSSO.

Although Bruce, the African traveller and others had described the tree which bears the kousso flowers in Abyssinia (Hagena Abyssinica) and had noted that the natives used these as worm medicine, the first knowledge of them actually made use of came through a French physician named Brayer residing in Constantinople about the year 1820. Brayer was one day in a café where was a waiter extremely emaciated and who suffered cruel pains from tapeworm. An old Armenian came into the café and told this waiter that he possessed a remedy which his son had brought from Abyssinia, and which he was sure would cure him. Brayer ascertained the successful result of the experiment and subsequently tested the remedy himself on other patients with similar results. He sent some of the flowers to the German botanist Kunth, to whom they were new, and who named the tree _Brayera anthelmintica_. Still it does not appear that much notice was taken of the reports until about the year 1850, when a Frenchman offered the flowers in London for 35s. per ounce. The fancy price attracted attention to the remedy, which proved effectual.

OPIUM.

The ancients recognised two kinds of opium. The superior kind was called opion, and was the juice which exuded from the poppy head while it was growing; and the second quality, which was named meconion, was an extract made from the crushed heads and leaves of the poppy.

It is doubtful whether Hippocrates was acquainted with the juice of the poppy at all. He refers to mecon but he attributes to it a purgative as well as a narcotic power; it is therefore probable that he alludes to some other plant. In any case, he made but very little use of poppy or opium if he used either. Theophrastus certainly knew opium, and Dioscorides distinguishes opion and meconion as explained above. Dioscorides also gives the receipt for the famous Dia-kodion (made from the poppy head), the original of our syrup of poppies. His process was to macerate 120 poppy heads for two days in three sextarii (a sextarius was nearly equal to our Imperial pint) of rain-water. This was boiled, strained, mixed with honey, and boiled down to a suitable consistence.

Probably the shopkeepers and travelling quacks made more use of opium in Rome than the regular physicians. Galen expressly says that he never used the drug except in very urgent cases; but he enthusiastically commends several confections such as theriaca which owed their efficiency to opium more than to any other ingredient. Indeed it may be said that the fame of those compounds was due to opium, and that by them the medicinal employment of the drug was maintained during many centuries.

We know that Paracelsus owed much of his success to the bold way in which he administered opium to his patients; evidence that his contemporaries did not use it to any great extent. His followers were as enthusiastic as himself over the virtues of opium, and before long the most serious practitioners were advocating it, and devising formulas for its suitable administration. Platerus of Basle about 1600 strongly recommended it, and Sylvius (de la Boe) a Dutch physician said that without opium he would not practise. Van Helmont about 1640 used opium so frequently that he was called the Doctor Opiatus. Sydenham about 1680 says, “Among the remedies which it has pleased Almighty God to give to man to relieve his sufferings, none is so universal and so efficacious as opium.” Many other eminent physicians might be cited to the same effect, and some who took an opposite view. Stahl, for instance, wrote a treatise entitled De Imposturis Opii. Hoffmann considered that the use of opium was greatly abused, and he believed his ether would fulfil its purpose in almost all cases.

QUASSIA

was sent to Linnæus from Surinam in 1763 by C. D. Dallberg, one of his pupils, with the statement that it formed the basis of a secret remedy employed there by a negro slave in endemic malignant fevers. The negro’s name was reported as Quassi, and from this Linnæus invented the name of quassia. This bitter wood was obtained from a shrub growing in Dutch Guiana, but for the English market it was subsequently superseded by the wood of a large tree growing in Jamaica, belonging to the same genus. The earlier product is, however, still used in France and Germany. Ritman, who was in Surinam in 1756, said he had met with the old negro, Quassi, there, and reported that he was almost worshipped by some, while others suspected him of magic. Ritman, however, found him a simple old man skilled in old women’s medicines.

SARSAPARILLA.

Sarsaparilla was introduced to Europe early in the sixteenth century, and soon leaped into fame. The great Emperor Charles V, was cured of gout by it, or fancied he was, and this gave it an enormous advertisement. It appeared afterwards that it was really China root, another smilax, that was given to the Emperor, but it was called sarsaparilla, and the western medicine got the glory. Sarsaparilla was vaunted as a cure for syphilis, but physicians were not long in discovering that it was much more effectual whenever it was combined with mercurials. Its advocates insisted that it was a wonderful sudorific, and for many years a “sweating cure” was practised in Denmark and Sweden with apparent success. As a matter of fact sarsaparilla has no sudorific properties whatever; but it was given in long draughts, other more effective medicines were associated with it, and vigorous exercise and heavy blankets were adjuncts of the cure. It is not surprising that a sudorific result ensued.

Other confusions have distinguished the history of this so-called remedy. The species which Linnæus selected as the medicinal sarsaparilla and which he named _Smilax sarsaparilla_, happens to be about the only one of some two hundred species which has never been employed in medicine at all. It is only found in North America and not further south than Virginia. Jamaica sarsaparilla has the reputation of being the best, and that comes from Central America. The sarsaparilla which actually grows in Jamaica is not valued in European markets. The origin of the name of sarsaparilla is not agreed upon. Some authorities attribute it to sarsa--red, and parilla--a little vine. Littré derives it from zarza--a bramble, and Parilla--a hypothetical Spaniard who helped to introduce it. The native Indians call it salsa, and the French follow this origin and call it salsepareille.

STRAMONIUM

may have been known to the ancients as a poison. Dioscorides included it among the henbanes, and Avicenna is supposed to have described it under the name of the Methel nut. Some species of Datura were frequently used in Eastern countries by thieves and sorcerers to induce delirium and subsequent coma, and the herb had the worst of reputations when Störck, of Vienna, experimented with it first on himself about 1765. In consequence of its action on the brain he gave it in cases of mania and epilepsy, and he and some practitioners who followed him claimed to have administered it in such diseases with much success. Its action as an asthma remedy was, however, a popular Indian tradition which was made known to Europeans through a General Gent about 1802. It had been recommended to him by a native, and he found so much relief from it that he introduced it to Dr. Anderson who was practising at Madras. It was stated that General Gent used it so freely and so frequently that it caused his death.

XX

FAMILIAR MEDICINES AND SOME NOTES OF THEIR HISTORIES.

Morbi, non eloquentia sed remediis, curantur.
CELSUS: _De Re Medica_.

BLACK DRAUGHT.

Laxative or cathartic potions have been prescribed in all modern pharmacopœias, most of them being preparations of senna. The original one was devised by Mannagetta, an Italian physician at the court of the Emperor Rudolph II, about 1600. His prescription became popular under the title of Aqua, or Potio Laxativa Viennensis, and was popularly known all over Germany as “Wiener Trank.” The formula was 1 oz. of senna, 6 drachms of currants, 2 drachms of coriander seeds, and 2½ drachms of cream of tartar. These ingredients were packed in a bag and suspended in hot water for a night. In the morning the liquor was strained after the bag had been pressed, and 5 oz. of manna and 3 drachms of cream of tartar added. The dose was 3 to 4 oz. In the London Pharmacopœia the alkaline salt of tartar was at first prescribed with the senna, but later the acid tartrate of potash was preferred. In the Edinburgh Pharmacopœias of the eighteenth century a formula for “Infusi Sennæ Unciæ Quatuor” was included, while the London Pharmacopœias of the same period provided an alkaline infusion, and an “Infusum Sennæ Limoniatum,” containing lemon peel and lemon juice with the object of making the draught less nauseous.

The modern combination of sulphate of magnesia with an infusion or tincture of senna, and sometimes with manna, sometimes with ammonia, and always with some aromatic ingredient, began to be used about the beginning of the nineteenth century. The earliest mention of the term “black draught” that I have met with is in Paris’s “Pharmacologia,” 1824. It was dropped out from later editions. The mixture was called “black dose” in Brande’s “Materia Medica and Pharmacy,” 1839. The phrases “black draught” and “blue pills” were not given as synonyms in the Pharmacopœia until 1885. They are essentially English. Dorvault gives a formula (practically the Mist. Sennæ Co.) entitled “Potion Noire Anglaise,” and Hager has “Pilulæ Hydrargyrosæ seu pilulæ ceruleæ Anglorum.”

BLAUD’S PILLS.

These pills are probably taken in larger numbers than any other pills sold in Great Britain. If in proper condition they present iron in the form of the protocarbonate, either formed in the pills, or perhaps partially or entirely in the stomach. They are similar to Griffiths’ pills, which were the popular Mist. Ferri Co. in pilular form. Dr. J. Blaud, a French provincial practitioner, in an article published in the _Revue Medicale_, in 1831, entitled “Memoires sur les Maladies Chlorotiques,” gave the following formula:--

“Gummi Arabici, 5 grammes; solve calore baln. vapor in aquæ distillatæ, 30·5; syrupi simplicis 15 grammes; ferri sulfuric. sicci, 30; quibus caute mixtis adde kalii carbonici, 30; et inter agitatione ope spatula ferreæ in balneo vaporis evaporando ad massam pilularum redige; e qua forma pilulas 120; obducantur argento foliato.”

There has been much discussion concerning the best method of making these pills so as to keep them from oxidation. Honey was for a long time generally used as the excipient, but glycerin and sugar are generally preferred with gum acacia or tragacanth. Pilula Ferri, B.P., is a substitute for Blaud’s pills.

THE CHELSEA PENSIONER.

An electuary for rheumatism bearing this title was evidently popular under the above name in the early part of the nineteenth century, but I have not been able to discover where or when or with whom it originated. The compilers of books of formulas naturally copy from each other, and consequently a legend once started is likely to become crystallised.

In _The Chemist and Druggist_, of June 13th, 20th, and 27th, 1896, an attempt was made to track this medicine to its origin, and a number of old formulas were sent in by correspondents. The statement is made in many books that the compound acquired its name from the circumstance that the recipe for it was given by a Chelsea Pensioner to Lord Amherst for gout and proved so successful that Lord Amherst gave him £300 and an annuity of £20. Sometimes this story associated Lord Anson with the pensioner and the amounts given in gratitude varied from £300 to 500 guineas, with an annuity sometimes of £20, sometimes of £30, and occasionally of £100. The then living descendants of Lords Amherst and Anson were written to by _The Chemist and Druggist_, but neither could give any information. It rather looks as if the fiction were concocted as an advertisement in the days when the electuary was a proprietary medicine, if it ever was.

The earliest formula traced in the correspondence referred to was given in Gray’s Supplement, 1821. This ran:--Pulv. gum. guaiaci, ʒi; pulv. rhei, ʒij; pulv. pot. bitart., 1 oz.; flor. sulph., 2 oz.; one nutmeg, and 1 lb. of honey. Of this, the dose was two tablespoonfuls night and morning. Sometimes pulv. pot. nit. is substituted for pulv. pot. bit.; probably a mistake of a copyist. In other formulas mustard appears instead of nutmeg; perhaps a similar slip for myristica. Treacle occasionally takes the place of honey, and the proportions of the ingredients vary considerably.

The Secretary of the Chelsea Hospital was good enough to take some trouble in reply to my inquiry to endeavour to trace this compound, but only negative results were attained. Dr. Thomas Ligertwood, the oldest living medical officer of the Royal Hospital, was appealed to, but he only knew of the remedy as “a very useful combination,” and had never heard the story of Lord Amherst’s purchase of the secret. He thought some information might be found in a work on the “Diseases and Infirmities of Old Age” by Dr. Daniel Maclachlan, a former Principal Medical Officer of Chelsea Hospital. That work (dated 1863) contains two allusions to the Chelsea Pensioner, but nothing about its history. Writing of Chronic Rheumatism the author says:--“ ... The more stimulating diaphoretics and diuretics prove serviceable. Among these the preparations of guaiacum deserve the confidence they have long enjoyed. The virtue of the powder (_sic_) known as the Chelsea Pensioner is chiefly due to the guaiacum and sulphur it contains.” In the section on gout he writes:--“The once famous Portland Powder has for long been abandoned, as has also the almost equally noted Chelsea Pensioner gout powder. One formula for the latter consisted of rhubarb, sulphur, nitre, and gum guaiacum, in equal parts. Fifteen or twenty grains of the powder were taken morning and evening in treacle. Another was powdered bark, ginger, guaiacum, aa ʒi, cream of tartar 1 oz., flowers of sulphur ½ oz., to be made into an electuary with simple syrup. One teaspoonful to be taken three times a day. This is certainly not a bad combination though a nauseous one.”

The following formula is given in the “Pharmacopœia Batava recusa cum notis et additamentis Medico-Pharmaceuticis,” published by J. F. Niemann, in 1824:--Resin of guaiacum, rhubarb, aa ʒij; supertartrate of potash, 1 oz.; sublimed sulphur, 2 oz.; one nutmeg; despumated honey, 1 lb. It is evident that this “Anti-Rheumatismal Electuary,” as Niemann calls it, and the Chelsea Pensioner had a common origin, and as the formula is not to be found in Niemann’s previous edition, 1811, it would appear to have come into popularity between that date and 1824. So far it remains doubtful whether its composition is due to an English or a Dutch author.

CITRINE OINTMENT.

An ointment thus named appeared first in the P. L. 1650. It was a compound of coral, limpet shells, quartz, white marble, white lead, and tragacanth incorporated into a basis of hogs’ lard, suet, and hens’ grease. It was reputed useful for certain skin complaints, freckles, etc. In the P.L. 1678 some of the old ingredients were omitted, sugar of lead was substituted for the white lead and rose water, and frankincense and citron bark were added.

Nitrate of mercury ointment appeared first in the Edinburgh Pharmacopœia of 1722. It was made by dissolving mercury in a sufficient quantity of nitric acid, and adding the solution to melted lard gradually. This was not a satisfactory formula, and it was not until 1787 that anything similar was introduced into the P.L., when 1 oz. of mercury, 2 oz. of nitrous acid, and 1 lb. of lard were combined. This was intended, according to Christison, as an imitation of the well-known golden eye salve, which, however, was, as we know it, an ointment of the red oxide of mercury. Other authorities, Paris Dorvault, Gray, etc., have stated that Singleton’s golden eye ointment was an ointment of sulphuret of arsenic, orpiment some say, realgar others. Pliny refers to the use of sandrach (probably realgar) as an application in ophthalmic affections.

Apparently the originator of the P.L. nitrate of mercury ointment was a Dr. Thomas Nettleton of Halifax, Yorkshire. In a pamphlet entitled “On a Safe and Efficacious Medicine in Sore Eyes and Eyelids,” by Thomas Dawson, M.D., of Hackney, printed in 1782, the writer relates that he had heard of a yellow ointment specially good for sore eyes, which fifty years previously had been in the possession of Dr. Thomas Nettleton of Halifax, “whose merit as a man and a physician exceeds all encomium.” One day one of Dr. Dawson’s patients told him of a yellow ointment she had had from a Dr. Key, of Manchester, who had been a pupil of Dr. Nettleton’s. Dr. Dawson wrote to Dr. Key, who at once sent him the recipe, which was as follows:--

Take 1 oz. each of aqua fortis and mercury; dissolve and add the solution to 8 oz. of butter melted. To this add 2 drachms of camphor dissolved in 2 oz. of olive oil.

About the end of the eighteenth century, a citrine ointment, made with an ounce of mercury dissolved in nitric acid and incorporated with a pound of lard, was introduced into the Hotel Dieu Hospital of Paris, and used to cure itch. The formula was adopted in the Dublin Pharmacopœia, 1807.

COLD CREAM.

The Unguentum Refrigerans, also called “Ceratum,” appeared in the first P.L., the formula being attributed to Galen. Four ounces of white wax were melted in 1 lb. of rose oil (ol. rosarum omphacinum, that is, olive oil in which rose buds 4 oz. to the lb. had been macerated, the maceration being carried out three times, each time with a fresh lot of roses). The melted oil and wax were to be poured frequently from one vessel to another, stirring in a little cold water meanwhile, until the mixture became white. Lastly, it was to be washed with rose water, and a little rose water and rose vinegar were to be added.

DIACHYLON PLASTER.

The original formula for this plaster was compiled by Tiberius Claudius Menecrates, who lived in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, and was probably his physician. In a Greek inscription discovered at Rome he is described as Physician of the Cæsars, probably Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius, for he died in the reign of the last named. He wrote a great work on remedies entitled “Autocrator Hologrammatos,” literally, “The Emperor, whose words are written in full.” Probably the book was dedicated to one of the Emperors, and thus got its first title. The second intimates that the recipes are written out in full so that any reader could understand them; suggesting that the other physicians who wrote such books were in the habit of employing abbreviations.

The formula for diachylon and the directions for compounding it were put into iambic verses by Servilius Damocrates, who lived a little later than Menecrates, and it is in this form that they have been preserved by Galen. Briefly the composition was to incorporate 1 lb. each of the mucilages of fœnugreek, of linseed, and of marshmallow root with 3 lb. of old oil, and 1½ lb. of golden litharge. The mucilages were made by boiling the seeds and root in water. Damocrates concludes his poem with the line (I quote from the Latin translation): “Vocabat ipsum non absurde Dia Chylon.”

Mesué wrote at length about this plaster, and devised a much more complicated formula which was named Diachylum Magnum. It contained, besides the mucilages already named, others made from raisins and figs, juices of orris, squill, and dill, œsypus (sheep wool fat), turpentine, rosin, and wax. Subsequent authors also devoted their talents to the further improvement of this famous preparation.

Diachylon meant a preparation of juices, and this plaster received the name of plaster of the mucilages in many pharmacopœias. In 1746 the London College, having dismissed the adjuncts, altered the name of the simple plaster to Emplastrum Commune, but the old term has refused to die. An Emplastrum Commune cum Gummi was also prescribed. This contained galbanum, thus, and turpentine combined with the Emplastrum Commune.

The Menecrates to whom we owe Diachylon is alleged to have written 155 works, and Galen gives a number of his formulas, but no other than Diachylon has survived. He must not be confounded with the perhaps more celebrated Menecrates who was physician to Philip of Macedon. This one was particularly noted for his vanity, which amused the king. Once he wrote a letter to Philip commencing “Menecrates-Jupiter to King Philip, greeting.” The king replied, heading his letter, “Philip to Menecrates, Health and Common Sense.” Menecrates got himself up to look like Jupiter, and had attendants who were made to figure as Apollo, Æsculapius, and Mercury. Philip gave a banquet in his honour. A separate table was reserved for him, and instead of viands only incense was served to him, while the other guests were gloriously feasted. Menecrates was offended at the joke and left the table in anger. He is credited with having written a Book of Remedies, but it has been lost.

DOVER’S POWDER.

Thomas Dover, to whom we owe “Dover’s Powder,” practised as a doctor in London in the first half of the eighteenth century. He was born and buried at Barton on the Heath in Warwickshire in 1660. How he got his medical training is not on record, but some time in his youth he lived in the house of Thomas Sydenham, the famous physician, from whom probably he acquired his independent ideas of medical treatment, and possibly the germ of his lack of reverence for the College of Physicians. While living with Sydenham he had small-pox, and forty or fifty years later he described how the doctor treated him. First he was bled to the extent of 22 oz.; then he took an emetic. He only took to his bed when he became blind with the disease. In his bedroom he had no fire, the windows were always kept open, and the bedclothes were only allowed up to his waist. This was in the middle of January. For medicine, Dover says, “he made me take twelve bottles of small beer acidulated with spirit of vitriol every twenty-four hours,” and he concludes, “I never lost my senses one moment.”

Having resisted both the disease and the treatment, Dover is first heard of in practice in Bristol in 1684. He plodded along there until 1708, when at the age of forty-eight he set out with a privateering party on a voyage round the world. The expedition consisted of two ships, the _Duke_ and the _Duchess_. Captain Woodes-Rogers, who has left an account of the voyage, was in chief command, and Dover on the _Duke_ was his lieutenant. He must have had previous experience of seafaring life or he would never have been entrusted with the command of a vessel.

The buccaneers were away from England three years, and when they returned they brought with them a Spanish frigate of twenty-one guns, and a quantity of loot. One event of their voyage proved to be of world-famous importance. On February 2, 1709, Dover, on the _Duke_, touched at the island of Juan Fernandez and took on board Alexander Selkirk who had lived alone on the island four years and four months, and whose story was to develop in the skilful hands of Defoe into that of the immortal Robinson Crusoe.

A few months after leaving Juan Fernandez the expedition arrived at Guayaquil in Peru. Having duly sacked the city and stored their plunder in the ships, the sailors slept in the churches, and Dover quaintly relates how annoyed they were by the smell of the Spanish corpses; for plague was raging in the place at the time, and the victims were buried just under the floors with only a plank or two over them. Two days later, at sea, the disease broke out among the crews. They had 180 cases all at the same time, and Dover had four surgeons with him. He ordered them to go round and start bleeding all the patients, and to stop the bleeding when the round had been completely made. About 100 oz. of blood, he says, was taken from each man. Then he gave them spirit of vitriol, and only seven or eight died.

The next we know of Dover is that from 1721 to 1728 he was in practice in Cecil Street, Strand; he returned to Gloucestershire for a few years, then came back to London and practised in Lombard Street, removing in 1736 to Arundel Street, Strand.

He is supposed to have died about 1742. It was in these latter years that he wrote his “Ancient Physician’s Legacy to his Country.” He describes himself on the title-page as Thomas Dover, M.B., and his book as “Being what he has collected in forty-nine years’ Practice, or an account of the several diseases incident to mankind, described in so plain a manner that any person may know the nature of his own disease. Together with the several remedies for each distemper faithfully set down.”

In this work Dover relates a number of wonderful cures he had effected, gives names and addresses of many of his patients, often adding grateful letters from them. He had but limited confidence in the “clan of prejudiced gentlemen,” as he calls the College of Physicians, and he complains vigorously of the extortions of the Apothecaries. Metallic quicksilver was his panacea, and he prescribed it so lavishly that he acquired the title of “the quicksilver doctor.” It forms balsam with the blood, he says. That is why it cures venereal diseases. Other doctors gave it, but in disguise, in the form of Ethiops Mineral generally; which was like using the sword in the scabbard.

His formula for “Diaphoretic Powder” is given in a chapter on gout. It was as follows:--

“Take opium 1 oz.; saltpetre and tartar vitriolated, each 4 oz.; liquorish 1 oz.; ipecacuanha, 1 oz. Put the saltpetre and tartar into a red-hot mortar, stirring till they have done flaming. Then powder them very fine. After that slice in your opium; grind these to a powder, and then mix the other powders with them. Dose, from 40 to 60 or 70 grains in a glass of white wine posset going to bed, covering up warm, and drinking a quart or three pints of the posset while sweating. In two or three hours at furthest the patient will be free from pain, and though before not able to put his foot to the ground, ’tis very much if he cannot walk next day. The remedy may be taken once a week or once a month.”

The dose appears to us in these degenerate days a large one, and Dover states that “some apothecaries have desired their patients to make their wills before they venture upon so large a dose.” But he declares he has given up to 100 grains, and the patient has appeared abroad the next day. The notion of danger, he adds, proceeds entirely from their ignorance, and from the want of knowing those ingredients that are mixed up with it, for they naturally weaken the power of the opium.

Dover’s powder first appeared in the London Pharmacopœia for 1788. Probably it was adopted after the quack Ward had made it famous as a “sweating powder.” Ward died in 1761 and the formulæ for his remedies were published soon after his death.

UNGUENTUM ELEMI.

Ointment of elemi was in all the London Pharmacopœias, and was only dropped from the B.P. 1898. In the earlier issues it was called “unguentum or linimentum Arcœi,” because it had been introduced and recommended by Arcœus of Amsterdam in 1574, for healing wounds. A similar ointment was called “Balsamum Arcœi” in the Prussian Pharmacopœia of 1847. The inventor’s formula was to melt together six parts each of gum elemi and turpentine, and add six parts of melted stag’s suet, and two parts of oil of St. John’s wort. Arcœus was a Spaniard by birth, and an eminent authority on the treatment of wounds.

FOWLER’S SOLUTION OF ARSENIC.

Thomas Fowler kept an apothecary’s shop in York from 1760 to 1774. In the latter year he relinquished trade, and went to Edinburgh to study medicine. Graduating as M.D. in 1778, he settled at Stafford, and was appointed physician to the Infirmary of that town. Later, he returned to York, where he acquired a large practice, and where he died in 1801.