Chapter VI: Part 6

These pills acquired extraordinary popularity, particularly in Scotland and France, and to some extent in other countries, including England. Either these pills or Singleton’s Eye Ointment is the proprietary remedy still sold in this country with the longest history. It is claimed that the ointment was invented some forty years earlier than the pills, but it must be admitted that the records of the latter, especially in their early days, are more exactly authenticated.

Dr. Patrick Anderson was a Scotch physician of considerable reputation in London in the Stuart period. He is described on some of his books as Physician to Charles I. In 1635 he published a treatise entitled as follows:--“Grana Angelica; hoc est pilularum hujus nominis insignis utilitas; quibus etiam accesserunt alia quaedam pancula de durioris alvi incommodis propter materiam cognitionem, ac vice supplementi in fine adjuncta.” He stated that he had obtained the formula for these pills in Venice. After his death they were sold in Edinburgh by his daughter Miss Katherine Anderson, and she by a deed registered in the Commissary Court books of Edinburgh, the 16th December, 1686, declared that she had communicated the secret to Thomas Weir, surgeon, in Edinburgh, “and to no other person.”

To Dr. Weir letters patent for the pills were granted by King James II, 1687, with letters of Certification, &c., by King William and Queen Mary, 1694; and Testification by the Town Council of Edinburgh, 1694. From Dr. Weir by regular succession and assignation, the secret was conveyed to his widow, 1711; thence to their son Alex. Weir, 1715; then to Lilias Weir, his sister, 1726; by her to Dr. Thomas Irving, her nephew, 1770; then to his widow, Mrs. Irving, 1797; by her to her son, James Irving, 1814, but the old lady appears to have retained an interest in them until her death in 1837, at the age of 99. During her life, and probably before and after, the “shop” where the pills were made and sold was on the second floor of a house in the Lawn Market opposite the site of the West Bow, a steep street which led down to the Grassmarket. The house still remains, the date 1690 being carved on the lintel. After certain assignations and trusteeships the property came into the hands of a Mr. J. Rodger who sold his rights to Messrs. Raimes, Blanshard & Co. in 1876. They and their successors, Raimes, Clark & Co., Limited, have been the proprietors since the date mentioned, and they inform me that there is still a small demand for them.

Formulas for “Anderson’s Scots Pills” will be found in all the manuals of pharmacy published in Europe and America, but they differ considerably. Paris in “Pharmacologia” said they were a compound of aloes and jalap with oil of anise; the French Codex which adopted them, or at least the name, compounded them of aloes and gamboge with oil of anise; Niemann, whose formulary had a quasi-official sanction in Holland early in the nineteenth century gave a much more complicated recipe, adding to the aloes both jalap and gamboge, together with sulphur, burnt ivory, liquorice powder, and soap. “Pharmaceutical Formulas” states that they are well represented by Pil Aloes et Myrrhæ B.P., “which (saving excipient) contains the same ingredients as those mentioned in a copy of the original document deposited in the Rolls House.”

ANODYNE NECKLACES.

Anodyne necklaces were perhaps the most extensively advertised of the quack remedies of the eighteenth century. The introduction of them is generally attributed to one of the Chamberlen family, well known in medical history as the inventors of the modern midwifery forceps.

In a collection of quack advertisements in the British Museum, all published in the last half of the seventeenth century, there is a handbill issued by Major John Coke, “a licensed physician and one of his Majesty’s Chymists” advertising miraculous necklaces for children breeding teeth “preventing (by God’s assistance) feavers, convulsions, ruptures, chincough, ricketts, and such attendant distempers.” These are 5_s._ each. A number of titled people whose children have used these necklaces are named. A correspondent of _Notes and Queries_ (Mr. J. Elliot Hodgkin, 6th Ser., Vol. IX.) quotes a reference to anodyne necklaces from a pamphlet published in 1717 dedicated to Dr. Chamberlen and the Royal Society, evidently an advertisement which it may not be too uncharitable to suppose was written by Chamberlen himself. But another correspondent of the same journal (6th Ser., Vol. X.) quotes from Smith’s “Book for a Rainy Day” another reference to the necklaces in which they are alluded to as Mr. Burchell’s, and are said to be “so strongly recommended by two eminent physicians, Dr. Tanner, the inventor, and Dr. Chamberlain,” to whom he had communicated the prescription. The necklaces were composed of artificially prepared beads, small like barleycorns, and they were sold at 5_s._ each. The beads were often made of peony wood, a substance which Oribasius (fourth and fifth centuries) recommended to be hung round the neck for the cure of epilepsy. They were especially recommended for children cutting teeth, and for pregnant women. No doubt they served like any other hard substance to help in the former trouble to open the gums, but the idea suggested was that they gave out a certain vapour or effluvium which reduced the feverish condition.

“May I die by an anodyne necklace,” is an expression used by one of the characters in “The Vicar of Wakefield” (Ch. XX.). In a comment on this allusion by the eminent authority on the eighteenth century, Mr. Austin Dobson, it was explained that hanging was there euphemistically referred to. Mr. Dobson’s mistake was pointed out in _Notes and Queries_, and he acknowledged it.

The Collier de Morand was a neckband sold for goitre. It was made of carded cotton on which was sprinkled a powder consisting of equal parts of sal ammoniac, common salt, and burnt sponge. Paracelsus recommended that coral should be worn round the necks of children to preserve them from the effects of sorcery.

DAFFY’S ELIXIR.

The Rev. Thomas Daffy, who invented the Elixir Salutis with which his name has been associated for about 250 years, was rector of Redmile in Leicestershire from 1660 to 1680. He had been appointed rector of Harby in the same county in Cromwell’s time, but the Countess of Rutland, who presumably “sat under” him, was a lady of evangelical ideas, and the Rev. Thomas was apparently of a “high” tendency, for according to Nichols’s “History of Leicestershire,” “he was removed from that better living to this worse one to satisfy the spleen of the Countess of Rutland, a puritanical lady who had conceived a feeling against him for being a man of other principles.” Just when he invented his elixir does not appear, but it is to be hoped that the profits from it made up for the sacrifice he had to make in consequence of his “other principles.” It is clear from the references to the medicine which are found in general literature and from the fact that it was imitated in the Pharmacopœia (under the formula for Tinctura Sennæ Co.) that it acquired considerable popularity. The following advertisement from the _Post Boy_ of January 1, 1707, tells most of what is known about the elixir:--

Daffye’s famous Elixir Salutis, prepared by Catherine Daffye,
daughter of Mr. Thomas Daffye, late rector of Redmile in the
vale of Belvoir, who imparted it to his kinsman, Mr. Anthony
Daffye, who published the same to the benefit of the community
and to his own advantage. The original receipt is now in my
possession left to me by my father. My own brother, Mr. Daniel
Daffye, apothecary in Nottingham, made this Elixir from the
said receipt and sold it there during his life. Those who know
it will believe what I declare; and those who do not may be
convinced that I am no counterfeit by the colour, taste, smell,
and operation of my Elixir. To be had at the Hand and Pen,
Maiden Lane, Covent Garden.

Catherine Daffy was not a clever advertiser, for her announcement seems calculated to assist Anthony Daffy’s preparation as much as her own, and it is likely that this was not her intention. Such little evidence as exists goes to show that it was Anthony’s and not Catherine’s Elixir that maintained the fame which had been won.

Daffy’s Elixir is still made by Sutton & Co., of 76 Chiswell Street, the successors to Dicey & Co., of Bow Church Yard, who were themselves successors to Benjamin Okell, who was carrying on the business in 1727, but when or from whom, or for what consideration the property was transferred to them from the Daffy family, is not known. The old-fashioned handbills wrapped round the bottles state that the Elixir was “much recommended to the public by Dr. King, Physician to King Charles II, and the late learned and ingenious Dr. Radcliffe.” Unhappily, however, “a low set of mercenary vendors” have been making imitations of this “noble and generous Elixir,” using “foul and ordinary spirits instead of clean and pure brandy, and base and damaged drugs,” of which none could be guilty “but such as never feel for any but themselves.”

BAUME DE FIORAVENTI.

This medicine still figures in the French Codex and in other continental Pharmacopœias. It is an alcoholic tincture of canella, cloves, nutmegs, ginger, and other spices, with bay berries, to which are added amber, galbanum, myrrh, aloes, elemi, and other resins, and one-sixth by volume of turpentine. After digestion this mixture is distilled to a yield of about two-thirds of the original bulk. The balm was formerly given in doses of 5 or 6 drops in kidney disorders, but it is now only used externally in rheumatism and for chilblains, and for strengthening the sight. For the last-named purpose the hand is wetted with the balm and held before the eyes.

Fioraventi was a famous Italian quack in the latter half of the seventeenth century. He practised in Naples, Rome, Venice, Milan, and Florence, and was specially honoured in his native city of Bologna, where he was made a Doctor, a Chevalier, and a Count; titles of which he made the utmost use. He published numerous works on medicine, devised various “Nostra,” and pretended to give the exact formulas for these, but they were always so complicated that no doubt the rich clients whose patronage Fioraventi cultivated would prefer to buy the remedies ready compounded. His medical advice though crammed with bombast was generally sensible, but in all cases he recommended one or another of “our” remedies. These included “our Balm Artificiall” (the compound just referred to), “our Electuaria Anglico,” “our Sirrup Solutivo,” “our Lignum Sanctum,” “our Oleum Benedictum,” and so forth. Above all Fioraventi made play with his “Petra Philosophale.” Philosophers had long disputed, he says, whether it was possible to produce a medicine which would cure all diseases. There was no longer any occasion for dispute; the discovery of “our Petra Philosophale” was conclusive. The directions for making this remedy were very complicated, and of course it was essential that they should be followed minutely. Briefly, the process was to take so much “Sal Niter, Roche Allum, and Roman Vitrioll” (I take the names from an old English translation), “add some Sal Gemmæ, and distil. Then mix Mercury, Sope, Quick Lime, and Common Ashes, sublime off the Mercury, and add it to the first distillate. To the mixture add so much steel, iron, and gold, dry the compound to a stone, which ‘keep as a precious Jewell’ in a closed glass vessel.”

Why Fioraventi should have troubled to invent any other remedies after this, or why his patients should have been called upon to buy any others, is not explained.

BAUME TRANQUILLE

was originally made by the Capucin monk, Aignan, whose religious name was Father Tranquille. The Capucins of the Louvre were noted in the seventeenth century for their medical skill, and Father Tranquille was one of them. Twenty herbs were used in compounding this balsam, among them poppy, tobacco, lavender, and rue. These were infused in oil. “The Baume may be made still more effective,” writes Père Rousseau, who was a fellow monk with Father Tranquille, “by adding as many large live frogs as there are pounds of oil. These are to be boiled in the oil until they are almost burnt. Their juice and fat combine with the oil and greatly augment the excellence of the remedy.” Mme. de Sévigné, writing to her daughter, December 15, 1684, says, “I am sending you the most precious treasure I have: my half bottle of Baume Tranquille. I could not send a full bottle; the Capucins have no more.”

BAUME DE VIE.

Baume de Vie, which is represented by Decoct. Aloes Co., B.P., was first sold by a French apothecary named Le Lievre, of the Rue de la Seine, Paris. A second edition of his book recommending it is dated 1760. He describes himself as “le sieur Lelievre apothicaire, distillateur du Roi.” He says of it that it gently evacuates the heterogeneous humours, restores and fortifies the stomach, reanimates the system without causing any fever or other inconvenience, preserves the humid radical (a fluid supposed to be the principle of life and the generator of vigour), makes the blood circulate, absorbs from it all acids and renders them balsamic, and counteracts debility. He also advises its use for horses, cattle, and dogs. Le Lievre’s formula, as given by Cadet de Gassicourt, was as follows:--

Socotrine aloes, treacle, of each 1 oz.; gentian, ½ oz.; rhubarb, 6 drachms; saffron, agaric, zedoary, myrrh, of each 2 drachms; sugar, 4 oz.; proof spirit, 2 lb.

DUTCH DROPS.

Haarlem Oil or Dutch Drops have been made in Haarlem since the year 1672, when they were invented by one Claas Tilly, and they are still manufactured in Haarlem by a person who claims to be a direct descendant of the inventor. The preparation is stated in Paris’s “Pharmacologia” to have as a base the residue left in the still after the redistillation of turpentine; a red, thick, resinous matter, sometimes called balsam of turpentine. But the same author adds that a preparation often sold as Dutch Drops is a mixture of oil of turpentine, tincture of guaiacum, and spirit of nitre, with oils of amber and cloves. Dutch Drops are asked for all over the world and are known to old-fashioned people as “Medicamentum.” In remote places they are kept in the house and a few drops taken occasionally as a preventive of disease.

GODFREY’S CORDIAL.

The following advertisement which is taken from Reed’s _Weekly Journal_, February 22, 1722, throws light on the origin of the still popular “Godfrey.”

To all retailers and others. The general cordial formerly sold
by Mr. Thomas Godfrey, of Hunsdon, in Hertfordshire, deceas’d,
is now prepar’d according to a receipt written by his own hand,
and by him given to my wife, his relation, is now sold by me
Tho. Humphreys of Ware, in the said county, Surgeon, or at
John Humphreys, at the Head and Sheers in Jewin Street, near
Cripplegate, London. Also may be furnished with Arcanums and
Vomits, and will be allowed the same for selling as formerly.

Godfrey’s Cordial was named in the Medicine Stamp Act of 1812, and was no doubt a proprietary medicine at that time. It now appears to be made by anyone who chooses to make it. In Paris’s “Pharmacologia,” (8th edition, 1833) the following receipt which he says was obtained from a “wholesale druggist who makes and sells many hundred dozens a year,” was printed:--

“Infuse 9 oz. of sassafras; 1 oz. each of carraway, coriander, and anise seeds, in 6 pints of water. Simmer down to 4 pints. When cold add 3 oz. of tincture of opium.”

In 1833 the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy adopted the subjoined formula for Godfrey’s Cordial in order to ensure uniformity:--

“Tinct. Opii, 1½ pint; molasses, from the sugar refiners, 16 pints; alcohol, 2 pints; water, 26 pints; carbonate of potash, 2½ oz.; oil of sassafras, 4 drachms.”

EAU DES CARMES.

Eau de Melisse des Carmes, an aromatic spirit, recommended as a cordial for internal administration, and to bathe the temples, was first compounded in the pharmacy of the Barefooted Carmelites, near the Palace of the Luxembourg in the Faubourg St. Germain in 1611. In the course of the century the preparation became a valuable property, and though its composition was kept secret by the monks, formulas innumerable were published. Richelieu, Elizabeth of Bavaria, mother of the Regent during Louis XIV’s minority, and later, Voltaire, “reclaimed” it. Patents authorising the monks to carry on the manufacture and sale were granted by Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI, but when the last was applied for in 1780, the College of Pharmacy opposed it, but withdrew their opposition for the consideration of £40 a year which the monks agreed to pay them. In 1791 when the monastic orders were suppressed and their property confiscated, forty-five Carmelites of the Monastery of the Vaugirard formed themselves into a commercial company to manufacture and sell the Eau des Carmes. Their deed of association provided that the property should remain in the hands of the forty-five down to the last survivor. This one was a certain Brother Paradise, who took as a partner a M. Royer and died in 1831 on the premises in the Rue Taranne where the company had been constituted. M. Royer died a few years later, and his widow married a M. Boyer in 1840 who wrote a “Monographie Historique,” which it is believed was edited for him by Alexander Dumas.

The following formula for a preparation resembling the Eau des Carmes was published by Baumé after many experiments, and was adopted by the compilers of the Codex:--

“Balm, in flower, freshly gathered, and freed from the stalks, 2 lbs.; lemon peel, fresh, 4 oz.; coriander seeds, 8 oz.; nutmegs, cloves, cinnamon, each bruised, 2 oz.; angelica roots, dried, 1 oz.; spirit of wine, highly rectified, 10 pints.”

GODDARD’S DROPS.

The original formula for these is given as follows by Dr. William Salmon in his edition of “Bate’s Dispensatory”:--

R. Humane Bones or rather scales, well dryed, break them into
bits, and put them into a retort, and join thereto a large
Receiver which lute well; and distil first with a gentle Fire,
then with a stronger, increasing the fire gradatim; so will you
have in the Recipient a Flegm, Spirit, Oyl, and Volatile Salt.
Shake the Receiver to loosen the Volatile Salt from the sides,
then close your Receiver and set it in the earth to digest for
three months, after that digest it in a gentle heat fourteen
days, then separate the Oyl which keep for use.

Salmon says they that please may make it according to the prescription, but he gives an alternative formula which was “to rectify the Oyl from the Flegm, then to grind the Volatile Salt with the Oyl, and so by a long digestion to join them together.” Salmon also tells us that if these drops are distilled from the bones of the skull they are good for apoplexy, vertigo, megrims, &c., but “if you want it for gout of any particular limb it is better to make it from the bones of that limb. The dose is 6 to 12 drops, but it has an evil scent.” You can, however, correct that, and “Elixirate” the preparation, bringing it “even to a Fragrancy” if you add so much Spirit of Nitre as will dissolve the oil, and then mix it with four times its weight of spirit of wine. Then you should give 20 to 60 drops in a glass of Canary. “So you will have a medicine beyond all comparison ten times exceeding the other in worth and efficacy.”

Who was the inventor of this medicine? Salmon says, “The author of this Recipe was not that Goddard whose Recipes and Prescriptions are scattered up and down in several places of this book, but the famous W. Goddard, a great Philosopher and Physician who deserved well of the World in his Day and Time, and who has even in this Remedy left himself an Immortal name. And this is the true Medicine which was purchased of the Doctor by King Charles the Second, so much famed through the whole kingdom, and for which he gave him, as it is reported, fifteen hundred pounds sterling.” Other statements say that Charles bought the formula for £5,000 or £6,000.

Salmon had lived in the reign of Charles II, and may be expected to have been correct in regard to such a recent event. But in the Roll of the Royal College of Physicians by William Munk, M.D., published by the College in 1878 I find the invention of these drops attributed to Jonathan Goddard, M.D., a person of some historical fame, due to a large extent to his association with Oliver Cromwell, whom he accompanied as first physician to his army through his Irish and Scotch campaigns. Cromwell made him Warden of Merton College, Oxford, and in other ways showed his confidence in him. In the Little Parliament which succeeded the Long Parliament Dr. Goddard was the sole representative of the University of Oxford, and became a member of the Council of State. With this record it is not surprising that the doctor did not become a favourite with Charles II. when that monarch returned to London. Dr. Goddard was removed from his Wardenship, but subsequently became Professor of Physic at Gresham College, London, and it was there that he and a few other scientific associates founded the Royal Society. It is difficult to believe that he was the inventor of the drops of which Salmon writes; and it is impossible to accept the statement that he offered, or that the King agreed to purchase, the secret of their composition from him.

Dr. Munk, however, states that “Dr. Goddard was a good practical chemist and the inventor of certain volatile drops, the Guttæ Goddardianæ vel Anglicanæ, as they were termed on the Continent, long in great repute and commended by Sydenham, who gave them a preference over all other volatile spirits whatsoever for ‘energetically and efficaciously attaining the end for which they are applied.’”

There was a Dr. William Goddard admitted a Fellow of the College in 1634 of whom Dr. Munk records that “on the 23rd of November, 1649, having been contumacious and refusing to attend at his place in the College, though repeatedly summoned by the President, he was, by a vote of his colleagues, dismissed from his fellowship: _Decrete Collegii, in Collegii societale locum amisit._” Dr. Goddard carried the matter into the Court of King’s Bench, but was defeated.

This was most likely Salmon’s W. Goddard, and seems more like the genuine Goddard of the Drops fame. Contumaciousness was sometimes a synonym for exploiting a quack remedy.

In Dr. Martin Lister’s “Journey to Paris,” 1698, that rather garrulous York doctor states that while he was in Paris (in company with some members of a diplomatic party) he was sent for by the Prince de Conti to see his son, and was requested to bring with him some of the late King Charles’s drops. The doctor replied that he had nothing with him, and could only prescribe such medicines as would be found in any of their shops. It was the drops, however, that the Prince wanted and not the extempore invention of this comparatively unknown practitioner. For apparently the attendance of Dr. Lister was excused, and he makes the reflection, after intimating that the young prince died, “It is evident that there is as false a notion of physic in this country as with us, and that it is here also thought a knack more than a science or method; accordingly little toys, the bijoux of quacks are mightily in request.” Dr. George Henning who edited Dr. Lister’s narrative states that these drops were made from raw silk which “yields an incredible quantity of volatile salt and the finest spirit I ever tasted.” He adds that raw silk is indeed nothing but a dry jelly of the insect kind, and therefore it must be very cordial and stomachic.

EAU MEDICINALE D’HUSSON.--COLCHICUM.

The medicinal use of colchicum preparations for gout is comparatively recent and the knowledge of its value for that purpose is undoubtedly due to its success in a secret proprietary remedy. The authors of “Pharmacographia” give some interesting historical notes on _Colchicum autumnale_, L., or meadow saffron, which show how general was the belief in its deleterious qualities in both classical and mediæval times. Dioscorides alludes to the poisonous properties of Kolchikon, which he says grew in Messenia and Kolchis. Pliny and Galen likewise allude to colchicum as a poison. Pliny recommends milk as an antidote.

Hermodactylus is recommended for gout in the writings of Alexander of Tralles, and Paul Egineta (sixth and seventh centuries), and the Arab doctors, Avicenna, Serapion, and Mesué, describe a similar remedy under the name of Surengian. It is also recommended by Ambrose Paré, Sylvius (de la Boe), and other authorities in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but Tragus (1552) warns his readers against its use for gout, for which he says it is recommended in Arab writings. Grevin (1568) observes “ce poison est ennemy de l’homme en tout et par tout.” Lyte, translating Dodoens (1578), says “Medow or wilde saffron is corrupt and venomous, therefore not used in medicine.” Gerard declares the roots of “Mede Saffron” to be “very hurtfull to the stomacke.”

Evidently some species of colchicum (Planchon thinks _C. variegatum_, L., but Hanbury does not agree) was used in ancient medicine under the name of Hermodactylus. Linnæus knew hermodactyls brought from India and attributed them to _Iris tuberosa_. Royle says they are sold in the bazaars of northern India under the name of Surinjan, but he thought they were brought from the shores of the Red Sea via Bombay. And notwithstanding the unfavourable opinions just quoted, Radix Colchici and Hermodactylus appear among the simples of the London Pharmacopœias of 1618 and 1639. They are then omitted, but Colchicum reappears in the edition of 1788. This was in consequence of the strong recommendation of Stoerck of Vienna, a practitioner and medical teacher who had a passion for experimenting with discredited remedies. Stoerck’s report, published in 1763, showed that the medicine was a powerful and a dangerous one; but it was a most potent diuretic, and he had administered it with success in dropsical cases in the Vienna Hospital. He recommended particularly a colchitic oxymel. He reports favourably on it as a remedy for asthma and in mucous catarrh, but does not suggest it as a remedy for gout.

In the early part of the eighteenth century the bulbs of colchicum were frequently recommended by physicians of repute to be carried in the pocket or worn round the neck as an amulet.

In the latter part of the eighteenth century a French proprietary article called D’Husson’s Eau Medicinale became popular. Its inventor was an army officer, and it is not known how he acquired his medical knowledge. I have no information as to the price at which the Eau Medicinale was sold in France; but from some interesting communications to the _Pharmaceutical Journal_ published in 1852 from medical men, Thomas Bushell, of 117, Crawford Street, Portman Square, and George Wallis, M.D., many details have been collected, among them being the statement made by Mr. Bushell that the proprietors of the Eau Medicinale were a firm of foreign perfumers in Bond Street; that they told him the sale had at that time (1852) quite died out; that four or five years previously they had sold a few bottles at 9_s._ 6_d._ each, but that when it was in demand the price was 22_s._ a bottle. The bottles each contained 2 fluid drachms, and the dose was 1 drachm, to be repeated if necessary in four to six hours.

According to Pereira, Cadet and Parmentier had endeavoured to ascertain the composition of this medicine in 1782; but they only arrived at the conclusion that it contained no metallic or mineral substance, and that it was a vinous infusion of some bitter plant. Alyon, another French inquirer, had guessed gratiola; an English doctor (Moore) had diagnosed that it was a vinous infusion of white hellebore with laudanum. Mr. Bushell, quoting from some references to the medicine in the _Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal_ of 1810, relates the experience of a Dr. Edwin Godden Jones, who had come to know of D’Husson’s remedy while on the Continent with a gentleman who was a great sufferer from gout, and who had derived much benefit from the nostrum. The Edinburgh journal also mentioned that Sir Joseph Banks, the President of the Royal Society, having experienced the most extraordinary deliverance from his arch-enemy, made D’Husson’s preparation his pocket companion. Attempts to discover the secret of the mixture still resulted unsatisfactorily. Rhododendron, chrysanthemum, digitalis, tobacco, and elaterium were among the new guesses made. In 1814, however, a Mr. Want published a statement in the _Medical and Physical Journal_ indicating that colchicum was the basis of D’Husson’s remedy. Mr. Bushell states that Want had previously made known his discovery in a popular journal entitled _The Monthly_. There are three stories of the means by which he came by his information. He himself said he got the first hint from Alexander of Tralles, who recommended a remedy “Hermodactylon” for the cure of gout, and that the Hermodactylus from which that was compounded corresponded with colchicum. Dr. Wallis, of Bristol, however, “in justice to a departed friend,” wrote that Want had derived his knowledge entirely from Mr. C. T. Haden, when the latter was a medical officer of the Brompton Dispensary. Dr. Wallis says that in 1811 Mr. Haden was practising in Derby with his father, an eminent surgeon of that town. They had a patient who was anxious to try the Eau Medicinale. The younger Haden examined the stuff and came to the conclusion that it was made from colchicum, with which he had some acquaintance through having made the oxymel. After many experiments he was convinced of the accuracy of his opinion. Soon after Mr. Haden left Derby and settled in Sloane Street, where he commenced the publication of the _Medical Intelligencer_, the predecessor of the _Lancet_. At the Brompton Dispensary he introduced colchicum in the treatment of gout. Dr. Wallis alludes to the annoyance caused to his friend by what he characterises as literary petty larceny, forestalling his own communication on the subject.

The third story told by Mr. Bushell is the most curious of the three. He was apprenticed near Covent Garden two or three years after Mr. Want had published his discovery, and frequently went to Mr. Grimley, a herbalist, in the Garden, to buy medicinal herbs. Mr. Grimley, he said, told him that Want had “discovered” the colchicum secret in this wise:--His wife’s father having a bad attack of gout, a nursemaid in Mrs. Want’s service told them that she once lived with a little French gentleman who made a famous medicine for gout called “Eau Medicinale.” He kept his materials very secret, but this promising young detective had managed to secure a piece of the principal ingredient used, which she then gave to Want. Want took it to Grimley, and between them they made out what it was. Grimley further said that he had been in the habit of selling quantities of colchicum to a little Frenchman who used to come in a hackney coach and take with him 1 to 1½ cwt. at a time.

Want’s tincture was made from 1 part of the fresh bulb of the colchicum autumnale and 2 parts of alcohol 36°; dose 5 or 6 drops in a tablespoonful of water. Sir Everard Home, who studied colchicum preparations with much care, preferred a wine made from the corms; and he believed that he had succeeded in removing the deleterious constituents of the medicine by filtering out a deposit which formed after a few days of maceration. Williams and Haden advocated the employment of the seeds. Copland, Bushell, and Frost advised the flowers.

Drying the corms was found to reduce considerably their medicinal and poisonous effects. Prosper Alpin states that the Egyptian women of his time were in the habit of taking as many as ten bulbs of some hermodactyl after roasting them like chestnuts at bedtime. They believed they produced the embonpoint which was regarded as a female attraction.

JAMES’S POWDER.

The antimonial preparation which attained the most permanent popularity was Dr. James’s Fever Powders. The inventor, Dr. Robert James, was a life-long friend of Dr. Johnson. The two went to school together at Lichfield, in which town James at one time practised. He was also in practice in Sheffield and Birmingham before he came to London. He first settled in Southampton Street, Covent Garden, but removed later to Craven Street, Strand. He was a man of considerable attainments, and is described as cordial, impetuous, improvident, but thoroughly loved by his associates. He was the author of a massive Dictionary of Medicine, and Dr. Johnson said of him: “No man brought more mind to his profession.” Dr. Munk, in his “Roll of the College of Physicians,” adds to this, however: “But he tarnished the fair fame he might otherwise have attained by patenting his powder and falsifying the specification.” Dr. James died in 1776 at the age of 73.

The patent for his fever powder was taken out in 1747. It is on record that Johnson introduced him to John Newbery, a noted bookseller of the time, who had a shop at the corner of St. Paul’s Churchyard and Ludgate Hill. Newbery became the agent and part proprietor of the medicine. It is still owned and prepared by the direct descendants of John Newbery, who carry on business in Charterhouse Square.

The specification of the patent directs to “Take antimony, calcine it with a continual protracted heat in a flat unglazed earthen vessel, adding to it from time to time a sufficient quantity of any animal oil and salt well dephlegmated; then boil it in melted nitre for a considerable time, and separate the powder from the nitre by dissolving it in water.” The doctor adds to his specification a process for a mercurial pill with antimony, made by amalgamating equal parts of martial regulus of antimony with “pure silver” (_sic_), adding a proportionable quantity of sal ammoniac, then distilling off the mercury and using it again. This performance was to be repeated nine or ten times, the mercury being at last dissolved in spirits of nitre (nitric acid), distilled to dryness, the caput mortuum calcined till it was of a golden colour, and this powder, after spirits of wine had been burnt upon it, was ready to be made into pills. Dr. James gave the moderate dose of the antimonial powder at 30 grains, and that of the mercurial at 1 grain.

Paris says that James “usually combined his antimonial powder with some mercurial, and always followed it up with large doses of bark.” He suggests that the adjuncts largely accounted for the success of the medicine.

The fever powder acquired great fame in James’s lifetime, and after his death imitations were numerous. One of these is of interest because of an advertisement against it written by Dr. Johnson. The man who ventured to imitate the genuine product was named Hawes, and he had once been in the employment of Dr. James. He professed that he had learned how to make the powder during his service, but Dr. James signed an affidavit against his pretensions a short time before his death. Later Hawes asserted that when the doctor made that affidavit he was not in the possession of his mental faculties. To this Francis Newbery replied by an advertisement quoting affidavits by many of James’s patients and acquaintances. A paragraph was appended which Newbery himself stated was written by Dr. Johnson, and as a section of literature rather foreign to the famous author, it seems worthy of reproduction. It ran thus:--

“The public will now be fully enabled to judge of Mr. Hawes’s
pretensions to the knowledge of this medicine; and they will
determine what degree of credit they ought to pay to the
assertions of a man who has made so daring an attempt to impose
upon their understanding; who in contradiction to Dr. James’s
deposition has represented himself as possessing a secret with
which he was never entrusted, and as having performed operations
at which he was never present; and who, to invalidate the
Doctor’s testimony, has declared him to be reduced to fatuity at
a time when the vigour of his mind was known and acknowledged by
the physician and surgeon who attended him, and by patients of
the highest rank who continued to entrust him with health and
life.”

In 1774 Dr. James patented an “analeptic pill.” It was composed of his own fever powder with pil. rufi and gum ammoniacum, the last two ingredients to be dissolved in an underground cave furnished with the conductors of electric fire.

The first official substitute for James’s powder was introduced into the London Pharmacopœia of 1787. The formula was devised by a Dr. Higgins, and the experiments were made in the laboratory of the Society of Apothecaries. It was composed of equal parts of tersulphuret of antimony and hartshorn shavings. This was found to be stronger than the original, and further experiments were made for the College by Dr. Pearson, who reported in 1791 that James’s powder consisted of about equal parts of oxide of antimony and phosphate of lime. The formulas in the London Pharmacopœias of 1809 and 1824 were consequently reduced in strength, one part of the antimonial salt with two parts of horn shavings being substituted. The ingredients were heated to redness in a crucible and afterwards powdered. For the Pharmacopœia of 1851, Mr. Richard Phillips experimented, and mainly confirmed Dr. Pearson’s results. The formula remained as in 1824. Meanwhile the Edinburgh Pharmacopœia continued to adopt the stronger combination, while the Dublin Pharmacopœia prescribed a different preparation altogether, tartarised antimony and phosphate of soda solutions being mixed, and a precipitate consisting of teroxide of antimony and phosphate of lime being produced by precipitation by the addition of a solution of chloride of calcium and ammonia. This was a modification of a process advocated by Chevenix in a paper published in _Phil. Trans._, 1801. His process was recommended by Abernethy and many other of the leading practitioners of his time. In the British Pharmacopœias the simple formula of one part of antimonious oxide and two parts of calcium phosphate has been adopted. The name of Dr. James’s Powder as a synonym has now been dropped.

It has been suspected that Dr. James did not actually invent the powder, but adopted it from an Italian recipe which was certainly popular when he introduced it. In Colborne’s “English Dispensatory,” published in 1756, directions are given for making Mr. Lisle’s Powder for Fevers, sent to the author, he says, by a friend in Italy. Hartshorn shavings are to be boiled in a large quantity of water for six hours; the water is then to be strained off, the hartshorn to be dried by a slow fire, and finely powdered. Equal weights of this and of diaphoretic antimony are to be heated in a crucible, stirring all the time with a long iron, for eight hours or as long as it smokes. This powder is said to have been in great reputation for some years, having been successful in cases when hardly any hope seemed left. Twenty grains is indicated as a moderate dose at not less than six hours’ interval, and it is noted that the first and second doses often cause vomiting.

Whether this was the original of James’s invention or not it may be presumed that the formula was a guide to those doctors and chemists who were busying themselves with the analysis of his powder. Another claim of precedence was made by a patent medicine dealer of London named William Baker, who alleged that Dr. James’s process was an infringement of a patent or at least a copy of a formula invented by a German named Schwanberg.

Medical opinion has varied concerning the relative merits of the proprietary medicine and its official imitation. Christison in his Dispensatory (1842) expresses an opinion which was very generally held at least in his time when he says, “No one can deny that the antimonial powder of the Pharmacopœias is an irregular preparation inferior in activity as well as certainty to the nostrum sold by Dr. James’s representatives.” Some dispensers will recollect that up to recent years it was not at all unusual for prescribers specially to order “Pulvis Jacobi Vera.”

That Dr. James was a man of great ability and industry is testified by his great Dictionary and also by his “Pharmacopœia Universalis or New English Dispensatory.” The latter is a most valuable guide to the Pharmacy of the eighteenth century, and is not only full in its information but particularly advanced in much of its criticism.

It may be of interest to add that the famous novelist G. P. R. James was a grandson of the Doctor.

ST. JOHN LONG’S LINIMENT.

John St. John Long after he became famous was always reticent about his origin; but it was believed that he was the son of a basket maker, some said of the name of Driscoll, that he was born in or near Doneraile, and in his youth assisted his father: that later, being possessed of some artistic talent, he practised as a portrait painter in Dublin and afterwards in Limerick. An advertisement appeared in a Limerick paper of Feb. 10, 1821, which was as follows:--

“Mr. John St. John Long, Historical and Portrait Painter; the
only pupil of Daniel Richardson, Esq., late of Dublin, proposes
during his stay in Limerick to take portraits from Italian Head
to whole length; any person desirous of getting theirs done in
historical, hunting, shooting, fishing, or any other character;
or their family grouped in one or two paintings from life-size
to miniature, so as to make an historical subject, choosing one
from history,” &c.

The advertisement went on to announce that specimens might be seen at his (the artist’s) residence, 116, George’s St. He was also willing to take views in the country, and would give instructions “to a limited number of pupils of respectability.” He succeeded fairly well in Limerick, but evidently not well enough to satisfy his ambition.

(From a print in the British Museum.)]

He is next found in London, where he got some employment from Sir Thomas Lawrence, assisting him in his studio; was elected a member of the Royal Society of Literature, also of the Royal Asiatic Society. One of his occupations was to colour anatomical drawings for the professors and pupils of one of the minor surgical schools of London. This perhaps suggested the opening of his brilliant career as an unqualified doctor.

His treatment consisted of the application of a liniment, and the inhalation of a vapour. The liniment had the extraordinary virtue of selecting between sound and unsound tissues. If the part to which it was applied was healthy no effect would be produced; but if there were seeds of disease beneath the surface the liniment might be relied upon to draw out the virus which could then be easily disposed of; thus tubercles on the lungs were extracted and the disease cured. Consumption was the principal disease which Long professed to treat; but gout, rheumatism, palsy, liver disorders, and other frequent complaints were dealt with by him. He was a handsome Irishman with fascinating manners, and the gift of inducing confidence. His consulting rooms in Harley Street were crowded, chiefly by ladies, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and all the day patients were seated round a piece of furniture which looked like a piano but from which a number of tubes extruded supplied with mouth pieces from which they were inhaling or smoking the medicated vapour. Hopeless cases he declined; those which he preferred were those which were in the imaginary stage.

At the height of his popularity St. John Long was making an income of over £13,000 a year (_Gent. Mag._ 1843). That was in 1829. The next year, 1830, he was tried for manslaughter, a young Irish lady, Miss Catherine Cushin, having died after, and it was alleged in consequence of, his treatment. A number of aristocratic patients gave evidence in his favour, and Mr. Justice Park, who tried him, summed up strongly on his behalf. But the jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of £250 or to be imprisoned until the money was paid. Long ostentatiously produced a roll of notes, counted out the amount, and then drove off from the court in the Marquis of Sligo’s carriage. Next year a coroner’s jury returned another verdict of manslaughter against him in connection with the death of a Mrs. Lloyd. He was again tried but on this occasion was acquitted. Strong articles against him appeared in many of the principal newspapers, but his aristocratic clients as a rule remained faithful to him. He published a book in defence of his system and included in it a number of extraordinary testimonials, together with a series of smart attacks on the medical profession. He retained his popularity to the last; but it was not to be for long. He was attacked by the disease over which he had claimed to exercise so much power, and he died from consumption in 1837 in the 37th year of his age. A graceful monument was erected in Kensal Green Cemetery to his memory by his patients and admirers “to show how much its inhabitant was respected by those who knew his worth, and the benefits derived from his remedial discovery.” His estate became the subject of a lengthy litigation, the principal claimant being an elderly woman of evidently humble surroundings, who, it was proved, was his lawful wife. He had married her when a lad, but had afterwards induced her to agree to an amicable separation. It was then remembered how steadfastly the charlatan had resisted the blandishments of his society friends, many of whom in very high circles had shown their infatuation with the attractive Irishman.

The formula and good will in the liniment were ultimately sold for ten thousand pounds, but it does not seem to have retained its popularity after the personality of its inventor had been removed. Nevertheless it possessed certain properties which were thought by some of its users to be little short of miraculous. For example, when applied to the skin the particular part where the pain was most severe would develop redness quicker than the other parts. In the course of a little time, the rubbing being continued, a fluid varying in colour according, as was believed, to the nature of the illness, would ooze from the skin, though the cuticle remained unbroken. Lastly, the treatment being still continued, the part affected would gradually resume its healthy appearance. In the _Lancet_ of June 23, 1838, may be found the report of a meeting of the “Medico-Botanic Society,” held on the 13th of that month, at which Dr. Macreight communicated the result of an investigation into the composition of this famous liniment, an imitation of which had been made by himself and Mr. Fownes, the well-known chemist. The explanation of the analysis was accompanied by a good many disparaging comments on Long, and suggestions that there was nothing very wonderful about his liniment after all. The formula which Dr. Macreight and Mr. Fownes devised for a liniment which they said corresponded exactly with the quack compound was as follows:--

Yolk of one egg; pure oil of turpentine, 1½ oz.; strong acetic acid, 1 oz.; distilled water, 3 oz.

Dr. Macreight notices one of St. John Long’s recommendations to apply a cabbage leaf to the skin when the discharge had been obtained, and remarks “this in many respects is superior to a common cataplasm, which is clumsy and dries up rapidly; but of course no regular practitioner would employ cabbage leaves while the simple and elegant contrivance, lint covered with oiled silk, was within his reach.” Perhaps if a medical man had constructed the cabbage leaf, it might have been also regarded as “a simple and elegant contrivance.”

SEIGNETTE’S SALTS.

(Soda Tartarata, Sodii potassio-tartras, Rochelle salts, Sel de Seignette, Sal polychrestum Seignette.)

Peter Seignette was an apothecary at Rochelle in the later half of the seventeenth century. He had at least a local scientific reputation, and a paper of his describing certain remarkable natural products of his locality was printed in the “Transactions” of the Academy of Sciences of Paris. A little before 1672 Seignette was making some soluble tartar (tartrate of potash), and inadvertently used carbonate of soda with the cream of tartar instead of carbonate of potash. At that time the distinction between the fixed alkalies had not been discovered. The product was a salt different from that which he had expected, and Seignette was ready to believe that he had made a valuable discovery. He ascertained that his new salt had laxative properties, he called it Sal Polychrestum, and advertised it by means of prospectuses, or handbills. From one of these it appears that he sold it at “20 sols la prise,” say 10_d._ for a dose. Each dose was sold in an envelope on which appeared the design of a goose. One of the prospectuses states that Seignette’s salt was sold in Paris by Lemery, but another refers customers to the “Messieurs Seignette, at present at Paris, lodging on the Quay de le Megisserie.”

Peter Seignette died in 1716, and his son continued to sell the powder. Many attempts to analyse it were made by pharmacists, but it remained a secret until 1731 in which year both Boulduc and Geoffroi, both noted pharmaciens of Paris, solved the problem. Boulduc’s paper on the subject was published in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, Paris, and Geoffroi sent his account to Sir Hans Sloane of London and it was published in the “Philosophical Transactions,” (436, p. 37).

Sal Polychrestum (salt of many virtues) was a name which had been adopted a few years before Seignette made his, by Christopher Glaser, apothecary to Louis XIV. and the Duke of Orleans. Seignette’s salt pushed Glaser’s out of popularity to some extent, so that the latter is generally designated Sal Polychrestum Glaseri in the old books. Glaser made his preparation by mixing nitre and sulphur in equal proportions, then putting the mixture, a spoonful at a time, into a red-hot crucible. The powder would deflagrate, and the next spoonful was not to be added until the flame of the first had gone out. The mixture was kept in fusion for four or five hours, and after cooling was dissolved, the solution filtered and evaporated to dryness. Sulphate of potash with perhaps a little free sulphur was produced, and this has long represented Glaser’s Sal Polychrestum or Sal de Duobus, as it was also called.

Seignette’s salt was first admitted into the London Pharmacopœia of 1788 under the name of Natron Tartarizatum which was altered in 1809 to Soda Tartarizata.

SINGLETON’S GOLDEN EYE OINTMENT.

An allusion to this renowned proprietary preparation will be found under Citrine Ointment, this Vol., page 126, in connection with the several discordant guesses as to its composition which have been published by eminent authorities. The ointment is mentioned in this section also because of its long history. According to the statement published by its present proprietor it is the oldest proprietary remedy still sold in this country. The present proprietor, Mr. Stephen Green, inherited it from his grandfather of the same name who died in 1874. He acquired the property by marrying (in 1825) Selina Folgham, who brought to him one-fifth share in the rights as a part of her marriage settlement, and after her death in 1831 the elder Stephen Green bought up the shares of other relatives. This Selina Folgham was a daughter of another Selina Folgham, _née_ Singleton, granddaughter of Thomas Singleton who died in 1779, and whose tomb, I understand, may still be seen in Lambeth churchyard. This Thomas Singleton was the first of the Singletons. Before his time the ointment appears to have been known as “Dr. Johnson’s Golden Ointment,” and the present owners claim that it was first made by a “Dr. Johnson” in 1596, and that it was left by him to a certain George Hind whose great-granddaughter married the Thomas Singleton already mentioned.

MRS. STEPHENS’S CURE FOR STONE.

Perhaps the most notable recognition of a nostrum in English history was the Act of Parliament passed in 1739 entitled “An Act for providing a reward to Joanna Stephens upon a proper discovery to be made by her for the use of the publick of the Medicines prepared by her for the Cure of the Stone.”