It has been already stated that we are to a great degree ignorant of the
Simples used by the ancient Physicians; we are often quite unable to
determine what the plants are of which Dioscorides treats. It does not
appear that out of the 700 plants of which his Materia Medica consists,
that more than 400 are correctly ascertained; and yet no labour has been
spared to clear the subject of its difficulties; Cullen even laments
that so much pains should have been bestowed upon so barren an
occasion.[76] The early history of botany presents us with such a chaos
of nomenclature, that it must have been impossible for the herbarist and
physician to have communicated their mutual lights; every one was
occupied with disputes upon words and names, and every useful inquiry
was suspended, from an inability to decide what plant each author
intended; thus, for instance, the _Herba Britannica_ of Dioscorides and
Pliny, so celebrated for the cure of the soldiers of Julius Cæsar on the
Rhine, of a disease called ‘_Scelotyrbe_’, and supposed to resemble our
sea scurvy, remains quite unknown, notwithstanding the labours of our
most intelligent commentators.[77] It seems also very doubtful whether
the plant which we denominate _Hemlock_ was the poison usually
administered at the Athenian executions,[78] and which deprived Socrates
and Phocion of life. Pliny informs us that the word _Cicuta_, amongst
the ancients, was not indicative of any particular species of plant, but
of vegetable poisons in general; this is a circumstance to which I am
particularly anxious to fix your attention; it is by no means uncommon
to find a word which is used to express general characters, subsequently
become the name of a specific substance in which such characters are
predominant; and we shall find that some important anomalies in
nomenclature may be thus explained. The term ‘Αρσενικον,’ from which the
word _Arsenic_ is derived, was an ancient epithet, applied to those
natural substances which possessed strong and acrimonious properties,
and as the poisonous quality of arsenic was found to be remarkably
powerful, the term was especially applied to Orpiment, the form in which
this metal more usually occurred. So the term _Verbena_ (quasi _Hebena_)
originally denoted _all those_ herbs that were held sacred on account of
their being employed in the rites of sacrifice, as we learn from the
poets;[79] but as _one_ herb was usually adopted upon these occasions,
the word _Verbena_ came to denote that particular herb _only_, and it is
transmitted to us to this day under the same title, viz. _Verbena_, or
_Vervain_, and indeed until lately it enjoyed the medical reputation
which its sacred origin conferred upon it, for it was worn suspended
around the neck as an amulet. _Vitriol_, in the original application of
the word, denoted _any_ crystalline body with a certain degree of
transparency (_Vitrum_); it is hardly necessary to observe that the term
is now appropriated to a particular species: in the same manner, _Bark_,
which is a general term, is applied to express _one_ genus, and by way
of eminence, it has the article, _The_, prefixed, as _The_ Bark: the
same observation will apply to the word _Opium_, which in its primitive
sense signifies _any_ juice (οπος _Succus_) while it now only denotes
_one_ species, viz. that of the Poppy. So again, _Elaterium_ was used by
Hippocrates, to signify various internal applications, especially
purgatives of a violent and drastic nature (from the word ‘Ελαυνω,’
_agito_, _moveo_, _stimulo_), but by succeeding authors it was
_exclusively_ applied to denote the active matter which subsides from
the juice of the _wild cucumber_. The word _Fecula_, again, originally
meant to imply _any_ substance which was derived by spontaneous
subsidence from a liquid, (from _fæx_, the grounds or settlement of
_any_ liquor); afterwards it was applied to _Starch_, which is deposited
in this manner by agitating the flour of wheat in water; and lastly, it
has been applied to a peculiar vegetable principle, which like
_starch_[80] is insoluble in cold, but completely soluble in boiling
water, with which it forms a gelatinous solution; this indefinite
meaning of the word _fecula_ has created numerous mistakes in
pharmaceutic chemistry; Elaterium, for instance, is said to be a
_fecula_, and in the original sense of the word it is properly so
called, inasmuch as it is procured from a vegetable juice by spontaneous
subsidence, but in the limited and modern acceptation of the term, it
conveys an erroneous idea; for instead of the active principle of the
juice residing in _fecula_, it is a peculiar proximate principle, _sui
generis_, to which I have ventured to bestow the name of _Elatin_. For
the same reason, much doubt and obscurity involve the meaning of the
word _Extract_, because it is applied _generally_ to any substance
obtained by the evaporation of a vegetable solution, and _specifically_
to a peculiar proximate principle, possessed of certain characters, by
which it is distinguished from every other elementary body—See
_Extracta_. On the other hand, we find that many words which were
originally only used to denote particular substances, have, at length,
become subservient to the expression of General Characters; thus the
term _Alkali_, in its originally sense, signified that particular
residuum which was alone obtained by lixiviating the ashes of the plant
named _Kali_, but the word is now so generalized that it denotes _any_
body possessed of a certain number of definite properties.
Another source of botanical ambiguity and error is the circumstance of
certain plants having acquired the names of others very different in
their nature, but which were supposed to possess a similarity in
external character; thus our POTATOE,[81] (_Solanum Tuberosum_) when it
was first imported into England by the colonists in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, gained its appellation from its supposed resemblance to an
esculent vegetable at that time in common use, under the name of the
Sweet Potatoe (_Convolvulus Battatas_,) and which, like _Eringo Root_,
had the reputation of being able to restore decayed vigour, thus
Falstaff—
“Let the sky rain Potatoes, hail kissing Comfits, and snow Eringoes.”
_Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 5,
Scene 5._
A similar instance is presented to us in the culinary vegetable well
known under the name of the JERUSALEM ARTICHOKE, which derived its
appellation in consequence of its flavour having been considered like
that of the common artichoke; it is hardly necessary to observe that it
has no botanic relation whatever to such a plant, it being an Heliotrope
(_Heliotropium Tuberosum_), the epithet _Jerusalem_ is a curious
corruption of the Italian term _Gira-Sole_, that is, _turn-sun_, in
English, or _Heliotrope_ in Greek. This instance of verbal corruption is
not solitary in medical botany; CASTOR OIL will suggest itself as
another example; this oil, from its supposed efficacy in curing and
assuaging the unnatural heat of the body, and in soothing the passions,
was called by the French _Agnus Castus_, whence the inhabitants of St.
Kitt’s in the West Indies, who were formerly blended with the French in
that Island, called it _Castor_ oil. In some cases again, a plant has
received a modern name, compounded of two ancient ones; it appears from
Pliny that the _Assarum_ was not uncommonly confounded with the
_Baccharis_; an English name was accordingly bestowed upon it, which is
a curious compromise of the question, for it is a compound of both, viz.
_Assara-bacca_.
In some instances the most alarming mistakes have occurred from
substances of a very different nature having been mentioned under
similar names, _Arsenic_ for instance, has actually been inhaled,[82]
together with the vapours of Frankincense, Myrrh, and those of other
gums, during a paroxysm of Asthma! a practice which arose from the
practitioner having confounded the Gum Juniper, or _Vernix_ of the
Arabians, which was prescribed for fumigations under the name of
_Sandarach_, with the Σανδαρακη of Aristotle, and which was a sulpheret
of Arsenic. The gum which we know at the present day under the name of
_Sanguis Draconis_, or _Dragon’s blood_, was called by the ancient
Greeks Κινναβαρὶ, a term which has been incorrectly transferred to a
Sulphuret of Mercury, for no other reason than because this mineral has
the same red colour as the gum.
The advanced state of BOTANICAL SCIENCE will now prevent the recurrence
of those doubts and difficulties which have formerly embarrassed the
history of vegetable remedies, by furnishing a strictly philosophical
language, independent of all theory, and founded upon natural structure,
and therefore necessarily beyond the controul of opinion; while the
advancement of chemical knowledge, by enabling us better to distinguish
and identify the different substances we employ, will also materially
assist in preventing the confusion which has formerly oppressed us. At
the same time, I am unwilling to join in the commendations so liberally
bestowed upon our chemical nomenclature; nay, I am disposed to consider
it as a matter of regret that the names of our medicinal compounds
should have any relation to their chemical composition, for in the
present unsettled state of this science, such a language must
necessarily convey theory instead of truth, and opinions rather than
facts; in short, it places us at the mercy and disposal of every new
hypothesis, which may lay our boasted fabric in ruins, and in its place
raise another superstructure, equally frail in its materials and
ephemeral in its duration: thus CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE was a _muriate_ of
Mercury, or an _oxy-muriate_, until Sir H. Davy established his new
theory of chlorine, and then it became a _bi-chloride_; at some future
period, Chlorine will be found to be a compound, and then it must have
another name; for the same reason the term CALOMEL,[83] is surely to be
preferred to _sub-muriate_, or _Chloride_. TARTARIZED ANTIMONY, again,
has been called by our nomenclatural reformers the _Tartrate of Antimony
and Potass_; but is it a triple compound? Gay Lussac thinks not, and
considers it as a combination, in which _Cream of Tartar_ acts the part
of a simple acid.
Again,—we have only to revert to the nomenclature of the Salts in our
Materia Medica to discover the actual change in meaning which the same
word has undergone in a very few years. It was originally understood
that the term _Sub_, when prefixed to the generic name of a Salt,
indicated the presence of certain qualities depending upon an excess of
base; but now, forsooth, the term has reference only to atomic
composition, without any regard to qualities.[84] That salt alone being
acknowledged as a true _Sub_-salt, in which there is less than one atom
of acid to each atom of base; thus our “_Sub_-carbonate of Soda,” is no
longer considered a _Sub_-salt, for the reason above stated; and
notwithstanding the predominance of its alkaline characters, it is known
to chemists by the appellation of _Carbonate_ of soda. It is far from my
intention to question the propriety of these changes, I only maintain
that, amidst such chemical doubts, the Pharmaceutist is the last person
who should become arbiter; let him await the issue in unobtrusive
silence, and take care that the language of Pharmacy partakes of the
same neutrality.
Such was the feeling of the Committee appointed by the College for the
revision of the late London Pharmacopœia, and it sufficiently explains
why the nomenclature of the alkaline salts has been left unchanged in
the present edition of that work.
The French, in their new _Codex_, are absurdly extravagant in their
application of chemical nomenclature; thus, the sub-carbonate of potass
is called by them _sub-deuto-carbonas potassii_. The first part of this
quadruple name indicates the comparative quantity of acid in the salt,
the second that of oxygen contained in the base, the thud announces the
acid, and the fourth the basis of the base!