Amongst the researches of different authors, who, animated with a sacred
zeal for ancient learning, have endeavoured to establish the antiquity
of chemical science, we find many conclusions deduced from an ingenious
interpretation of the mythological fables[93] which are supposed to have
been transmitted by the Egyptians; who, previous to the invention of
letters, adopted this method of perpetuating their discoveries in
natural philosophy. Thus, wherever Homer studiously describes the stolen
embraces of Mars and Venus, they recognise some chemical secret, some
combination of iron with copper, shadowed in the glowing ornaments of
fiction. Lord Bacon[94] conceived that the union of spirit and matter
was allegorised in the fable of Proserpine being seized by Pluto as she
was gathering flowers; an allusion, says Dr. Darwin, which is rendered
more curiously exact by the late discovery, that pure air, (_oxygen_) is
given out by vegetables, and that in this state it is greedily absorbed
by inflammable bodies. The same ingenious Poet supposes that the fable
of Jupiter and Juno, by whose union the vernal showers were said to be
produced, was meant to pourtray the production of water by the
combination of its two elements; an opinion which, says he, is strongly
supported by the fact that, in the ancient mythology, the purer air or
_æther_, was always represented by Jupiter, and the inferior by Juno.
Were the elegant author of the Botanic Garden now living, he would, no
doubt, with a taste and delicacy peculiarly his own, avail himself of
the singular discovery of Mr. Smithson, who has detected in the juice of
the mulberry _two_ distinct species of colouring matter;—the mingled
blood of the unfortunate Pyramus and Thisbe:
“Signa tene cædis: pullosque et luctibus aptos
Semper habe feætus, _gemina_ monumenta cruoris.”
_Ovid. Metamorph. Lib._ iv. 160.
Sir William Drummond, the learned apologist of Egyptian science,
conceives that the laws of _latent_ heat were even known to the
philosophers of that ancient nation, and that caloric in such a state,
was symbolically represented by VULCAN, while _free_ or _sensible_
caloric was as clearly described in the character of VESTA. Those who
maintain the antiquity of chemistry, and suppose that the fabulous
conceptions of the ancients were but a mysterious veil ingeniously
thrown by philosophy between nature and the lower order of people,
consider that the alchemical secret is metaphorically concealed in the
fable of the GOLDEN FLEECE of the Argonauts, and reject the more
probable solution of this story by Strabo, who says that the Iberians,
near neighbours of the Colchians, used to receive the gold, brought down
from the high lands by the torrents, into sieves and sheep skins, and
that from thence arose the fable of the golden fleece. Dionysius, of
Mytilene, offers a different explanation of the fable, and supposes it
to allude to a book _written on skins_, and containing an account of the
process of _making gold_ according to the art of alchemy.
Notwithstanding the confidence with which modern philosophers have
claimed the discovery, the experimental mode of investigation was
undoubtedly known and pursued by the ancients, who appear, says _Mr.
Leslie_,[95] to have concealed their notions respecting it, under the
veil of allegory. _Proteus_ signified the mutable and changing forms of
material objects, and the inquisitive philosopher was counselled by the
Poets[96] to watch their slippery demon when slumbering on the shore, to
bind him, and compel the reluctant captive to reveal his secrets. This,
adds Mr. Leslie, gives a lively picture of the cautious, but intrepid
advances of the skilful experimenter;—he tries to press nature into a
corner,—he endeavours to separate the different principles of action,—he
seeks to concentrate the predominant agent, and labours to exclude, as
much as possible, every disturbing influence.
But with whatever ingenuity and success the antiquity of chemical
knowledge may be advocated, as it relates to the various arts of life,
yet it must be allowed that not the most remote trace of its application
to physic can be discovered in the medical writers of Greece or Rome.
The operation of distillation[97] is not even mentioned by Hippocrates
or Galen; and the waters of different plants, as described by some later
authors, are to be understood, as we are informed by Gesner, merely as
simple decoctions, and not as the products of any chemical process;
while the Essences of Dioscorides, Galen, Oribasius, and others, were
only the extracts produced by the evaporation of such infusions.
Upon the downfall of the Roman Empire, all the sciences, the arts, and
literature, were overwhelmed in the general wreck, and the early
Mahometans, in the first paroxysms of their fanaticism, endeavoured to
destroy every record of the former progress of the human mind;
consigning to destruction, by the conflagration of the Alexandrian
library, no less than seven hundred thousand volumes, which comprised
the most valuable works of science and literature.[98] It is not a
little extraordinary that this same people were destined at a more
advanced period, to rekindle the light of letters,[99] which they had
taken such pains to extinguish, and to become the inventors and
cultivators of a new science, boundless in its views, and inexhaustible
in its applications. The medical profession too was more particularly
selected as an object of reward and encouragement; and we may say, with
much truth, that our _Materia Medica_ is more indebted to the zeal and
industry of the Arabians, than to the learning of the Greeks, or to the
refinement of the Romans. From this source we have acquired the milder
purges of _Manna_, _Cassia_, _Senna_, _Rhubarb_, and many plants and
oriental aromatics, amongst, which we may notice _Musk_, _Nutmeg_,
_Mace_, and _Cloves_; the introduction of which into medicine was
greatly facilitated by the situation of Bagdat, and its connection with
India; and although Archigenes and Aretæus had long before applied
_Blisters_, yet it is to the Arabian physicians that we are indebted for
a practical acquaintance with their value, for in general, the Greeks
and Romans prescribed acrid _Sinapisms_ for such a purpose. We are also
indebted to the Arabians for our knowledge respecting Camphor, as its
name imports, for the original word was _Cafur_ or _Canfur_.[100] They
are also the first upon record, who speak of sugar, and sugar-candy,
extracted from the sugar-cane, which they call _honey of cane_; and they
ushered into practice _Syrups_, _Juleps_, and _Conserves_. At the same
time, it is but just to allow, that from the disgusting ostentation of
this people, and their strong attachment to the marvellous, many absurd
medicines have been introduced. Gold, Silver, Bezoars, and precious
stones were received into their materia medica, and surprising virtues
were attributed to them. Amongst a people thus disposed to magnificence,
and from the very spirit of their religion credulous and romantic, it is
not a matter of surprise that their first researches into the nature of
bodies should have raised a hope, and excited a belief, that the baser
metals might be converted into gold.
They conceived that gold was the metallic element, in a state of perfect
purity, and that all the other metals differed from it in proportion
only to the extent of their individual contamination, and hence the
origin of the epithet _base_, as applied to such metals; this hypothesis
explains the origin of alchemy; but, in every history, we are informed
that the earlier alchemists expected, by the same means that they hoped
to convert the _baser_ metals into gold, to produce a universal remedy,
calculated to prolong indefinitely the span of human existence.
It is difficult to imagine what connection could exist in their ideas
between the “_Philosopher’s Stone_,” which was to transmute metals, and
a remedy which could arrest the progress of bodily infirmity: upon
searching into the writings of these times, it clearly appears that this
conceit originated with the alchemists from the application of false
analogies, and that the error was subsequently diffused and exaggerated
by a misconstruction of alchemical metaphors.[101]
An example of reasoning by false analogy is presented to us by
Paracelsus, in his work _de vita longa_, wherein, speaking of anatomy,
he exclaims: “_Sicut antimonium finit aurum, sic, eadem ratione et
forma, corpus humanum purum reddit._”
The processes of alchemy were always veiled in the most enigmatic and
obscure language; the earliest alchemist whose name has reached
posterity, is Geber, an Arabian prince of the seventh century, whose
language was so proverbially obscure, that Dr. Johnson supposes the word
gibberish or _geberish_ to have been derived from this circumstance;
sometimes the processes of alchemy were expressed by a figurative and
metaphorical style of description; thus Geber exclaims, “_Bring me the
six lepers that I may cleanse them_;” by which he implied the conversion
of the six metals,[102] the only ones then known, into gold. From the
works of later alchemists it also appears that they constantly
represented _gold_ as a sound, healthy, and durable man, the imperfect
metals as diseased men, and the means or processes by which the latter
were to be transmuted into the former, they designated by the name of
_medicines_; and hence, those who were anxious to dive into the secrets
of these magicians, or =Adepts=, as they termed themselves, without
possessing a key to their language, supposed that these descriptions
were to be understood in a literal sense, and that the imperfect metals
might be changed into gold, and the bodies of sick persons into healthy
ones, by one and the same chemical preparation.
The hieroglyphical style of writing adopted by the earlier alchemists,
was in a great degree supported by the prevailing idea that the elements
were under the dominion of spiritual beings, who might be submitted to
human power; and Sir Humphry Davy has observed that the notions of
fairies, and of genii, which have been depicted with so much vividness
of fancy and liveliness of description in THE THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS,
seem to have been connected with the pursuit of the science of
transmutation, and the production of the elixir of life. That the
Arabian Nights’ Entertainment admits of a mystic interpretation, is an
opinion which I have long entertained. How strikingly is the effect of
fermented spirit, in banishing the pressure of the melancholy which
occurs in solitude, depicted in the story of Sinbad when he encountered
the withered and decrepid hag, on the uninhabited island—but, to return
from this digression to the subject of medical chemistry.
It was not in fact until several years had elapsed in the delusive
researches of alchemy, that the application of chemical knowledge became
instrumental in the advancement of the medical art. RHASES and AVICENNA,
who were the celebrated physicians of the age, are the first who
introduced pharmaceutical preparations into their works, or made any
improvement in the mode of conducting pharmaceutical processes. Avicenna
describes, particularly, the method of conducting _Distillation_; he
mentions also, for the first time, the three _Mineral Acids_, and
distinguishes between the _vegetable_ and _mineral Alkalies_; he speaks
likewise of the _Distilled Water of Roses_, of _Sublimed Arsenic_, and
of _Corrosive Sublimate_.
In the year 1226, ROGER BACON, a native of Ilchester in Somersetshire,
and a Franciscan monk of Westminster Abbey, laid the foundations of
chemical science in Europe; his discoveries were so extraordinary that
he was excommunicated by the Pope, and imprisoned ten years for supposed
dealings with the devil; it appears that he was a believer in an
universal Elixir, for he proposed one to Pope Clement the Tenth, which
he extolled highly, as the invention of Petro de Maharncourt.
This wonderful man was succeeded at the end of the same century by
Arnoldus de Villa Nova, a Frenchman, or as others assert, a Spaniard,
who deserves to be noticed on this occasion, as being the first to
recommend the distilled spirit of wine, impregnated with certain herbs,
as a valuable remedy; from which we may date the introduction of
_Tinctures_ into medical practice; for, although Thaddæus, a Florentine,
who died in 1270, at the age of eighty, bestows great commendation upon
the virtues of _Spirit of Wine_, yet he never used it as a solvent for
active vegetable matter.
It was not however until the end of the thirteenth century, that
Chemistry can be said to have added any considerable power to the arm of
Physic.
BASIL VALENTINE, a German Benedictine monk, led the way to the internal
administration of metallic medicine, by a variety of experiments on the
nature of _Antimony_, and in his “_Currus Triumphalis Antimonii_,” a
work written in high Dutch, he has described a number of the
combinations of that metal. If however we may credit a vague tradition,
he was extremely unfortunate in his first experiments upon his brother
monks, all of whom he injured if not killed; those who have keen ears
for etymological sounds will instantly recognise, in this circumstance,
the origin of the word _Antimony_,—ἁντί Μονοχους.
It appears that the ancients were ignorant of the internal use and
administration of the metals, with the exception of iron, although they
frequently used them in external applications. Hippocrates recommends
_Lead_ in several parts of his works, as an _epulotic_ application, and
for other external purposes. _Litharge of Gold_ and _Cerusse_ also
entered the composition of several powders extolled by that ancient
physician as possessing great efficacy in defluxions of the eyes.
Oribasius and Ætius added “_Lithargyrium_” to several plaisters, and the
composition of the “_Snow-like plaister_,” from _Minium_, was long
preserved amongst their most valuable secrets. Whether antimony is the
_Stimmi_ or _Stibium_ of the ancients has been a matter of conjecture;
for Pliny, in speaking of its preparation observes, “Ante omnia urendi
modus necessarius, ne _Plumbum_ fiat.” This plumbum however was
evidently the revived metal of _Antimony_, with which the ancients were
unacquainted, and therefore mistook it for _Lead_; besides, the word
_Plumbum_, like many others which I have before mentioned, was used as a
general term; thus, according to Pliny, Tin was called _Plumbum album_;
and Agricola calls Lead Plumbum _nigrum_.[103]
The question however is unimportant, for this _Stibium_ was never used
but as an external Astringent, especially for the purpose of contracting
the eye-lids, and thereby of making the eyes appear very large, which
has been considered from the most remote antiquity, as a feature of
great beauty; thus the epithet βοῶπὶς is constantly applied by Homer to
Juno. This practice appears also to have been followed by the Jews, for
Jezebel is said to have painted her eye-brows to make the eyes appear
big;[104] the expression also shews that the drug employed was the
_Stimmi_. Εστὶμμὶσατο τους οφθαλμους ἁυτης.
To BASIL VALENTINE we are moreover indebted for the discovery of the
_Volatile Alkali_, and of its preparation from _Sal Ammoniac_; he also
first used mineral acids as solvents, and noticed the production of
_Ether_ from Alcohol; he seems also to have understood the virtues of
_sulphate of iron_, for he says, when internally administered, it is
tonic and comforting to a weak stomach, and that externally applied, it
is astringent and styptic: he moreover recommended a _fixed alkali_ made
from vine twigs cut in the beginning of March, for the cure of gout and
gravel.
In the year 1493, was born near Zurich in Switzerland, PARACELSUS, or as
he termed himself, Philippus, Theophrastus, Bombastus, Paracelsus de
Hohenheim, a man who was destined to produce a greater revolution in the
Materia Medica, and a greater change in medical opinions and practice,
than any person who had appeared since the days of Galen. He travelled
all over the Continent of Europe to obtain knowledge in Chemistry and
Physic, and was a great admirer of Basil Valentine, declaring that
Antimony was not to be equalled for medicinal virtue, by any other
substance in nature: this opinion however does not deserve our respect,
for it was not founded upon observation and experiment, but on a
fanciful analogy, derived from a property which this metal possesses of
refining gold, as I have before related. He also used _Mercury_ without
reserve, and appears to have been the first who ventured to administer
it internally,[105] for although Avicenna asserts that it was not so
poisonous as the ancients had imagined, yet he does not attribute to it
any virtues; he merely says, “Argentum quidem vivum, plurimi qui bibunt,
_non læduntur_ eo.” Its effects, when applied externally, were well
known to Theodoric the friar, afterwards Bishop of Cervia, in the
twelfth century, who describes the salivation which mercurial frictions
will produce. Paracelsus, moreover, employed Lead internally in
fevers,—“_Saturnus purgat febres_” was one of his most favourite maxims.
He also gives us directions for the preparation of _Red Precipitate_
with _Mercury_ and _Aqua fortis_.
Paracelsus, thus armed with opium, mercury, and antimony, remedies of no
trifling importance, travelled in all directions and performed many
extraordinary cures, amongst which was that of the famous printer
Frobenius of Basil, a circumstance which immediately brought him
acquainted with Erasmus,[106] and made him known to the magistracy of
Basil, who elected him professor of chemistry in the year 1527, which
was the first professorship that was established in Europe for the
promotion and dissemination of chemical science. But notwithstanding
this testimony of his success, if we may credit Libavius, he often, like
our modern quacks, left his patients more diseased than he found them;
and it is acknowledged by his own disciple Oporinus, that when he was
sent for to any town, for the purpose of administering his remedies, he
was rarely suffered to protract his visit, on account of the general
resentment of the inhabitants.
While seated in his chair, he burnt with great solemnity the writings of
Galen and Avicenna, and declared to his audience that if God would not
impart the secrets of physic, it was not only allowable but even
justifiable to consult the devil. His cotemporary physicians he treated
with the most sottish vanity and illiberal insolence; in the preface to
his work entitled “Paragranum,” he tells them “that the very down of his
bald pate had more knowledge than all their writers, the buckles of his
shoes more learning than Galen and Avicenna, and his beard more
experience than all their Universities.” With such a temper it could not
be supposed that he would long retain his chair, in fact he quitted it
in consequence of a quarrel with the magistrates, after which he
continued to ramble about the country, generally intoxicated, and seldom
changing his clothes, or even going to bed; and although he boasted of
possessing a _Panacea_ which was capable of curing all diseases in an
instant, and even of prolonging life to an indefinite length, yet this
drunkard and prince of empirics died after a few hours illness, in the
forty-eighth year of his age, at Salzburg in Bavaria, with a bottle of
his immortal _Catholicon_ in his pocket.
In contemplating the career of this extraordinary man, it is difficult
to say whether disgust or astonishment is the most predominant feeling;
his insolence and unparalleled conceit, his insincerity, and brutal
singularities, and his habits of immorality and debauchery, are beyond
all censure; whilst the important services he has rendered mankind, by
opposing the bigotry of the schools and introducing powerful remedies
into practice, cannot be recorded without feelings of gratitude and
respect: but in whatever estimation Paracelsus may be held, there can be
no doubt but that his fame produced a very considerable influence on the
character of the age, by exciting the envy of some, the emulation of
others, and the industry of all.[107]
About a century after Paracelsus, VAN HELMONT took the lead in physic;
he was a man of most indefatigable industry, and spent fifty years in
torturing by every chemical experiment he could devise, the various
objects in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms. He was the first
physician who applied _alum_ in uterine hemorrhage, and he acquired a
great reputation from the success of the practice.
SYLVIUS DE LA BOE, and OTHO TACHENIUS, followed in the track of Van
Helmont.
A prejudice in favour of chemical remedies having been thus introduced,
the merited success which attended their operation, and the zeal and
perseverance which distinguished the votaries of that science, soon
kindled a more general enthusiasm in its favour. It is impossible to
reduce into miniature the historical features of these chemical times,
so as to bring them within the compass of a lecture: I must therefore
rest satisfied with delineating a few of the more prominent outlines.
The Galenists, who were in possession of the schools, and whose
reasonings were fettered by the strongest predilection for their own
doctrines, instantly took the alarm; and the celebrated contest ensued
between the _Galenical_ and _Chemical_ sects, which has given such a
controversial tone to the writers of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. As this revolt from orthodox authority was in a great degree
attributed to the mischievous introduction and unmerited success of
Antimonial remedies, so were the preparations of this metal denounced
with all the virulence of party spirit;[108] and upon this occasion, in
order to support their ground and oppress and persecute their
adversaries, the Galenists actually solicited the assistance of secular
power; the Supreme Council of Paris accordingly proscribed its use by an
edict in 1566, and Besnier was expelled the faculty of medicine in 1609,
for having administered it to a patient. In 1637, _Antimonial wine_ was
by public authority received into the number of purgatives; and in 1650,
a new _arrêt_ rescinded that of 1566, and again restored Antimony to
public favour and general reputation; and before we conclude our remarks
upon the revolutionary history of this extraordinary metal, it deserves
to be remarked, that this very same government that had with such great
virulence, and so little justice, persecuted every practitioner who had
shewn any predilection for its use, in the year 1720 actually purchased
the secret of an antimonial preparation called _Panacea Glauberiana_,
and which has been since known by the title of _Kermes Mineral_, from a
surgeon of the name of La Legerie, who had acquired the secret from a
pupil of Glauber. Before this period the invention of _Calomel_ had
taken place; this preparation is first mentioned, although very
obscurely, by Oswald Crollius, in his _Basilica Chemica_, in 1608, and
in the same year Beguin described it most fully and clearly under the
title of _Draco Mitigatus_, in his _Tirocinium Chemicum_, which he
published in Paris.
Chemistry, at this period[109] took possession of the schools, and
whilst it was gradually grafted into the theory of medicine, it soon
became the only guide to its practice, the absurdity of which has been
already dwelt upon.
In tracing the march of chemical improvement during the last century, we
cannot but be struck with the new and powerful remedies which it has
introduced, and the many unimportant and feeble articles which it has
dismissed from medical practice.
In the present century, the rapid progress of Chemistry has outstripped
the anticipations of its most sanguine votaries; and even in the
department of vegetable analysis, a correctness has been attained, the
very attempt at which had been abandoned by the most illustrious
chemists of the former age as hopeless and chimerical; let us for
instance only compare the results obtained by the Academicians of Paris,
and published by Geoffroy, in their analyses of several hundred plants
by the operation of heat, with the elegant and satisfactory researches
in this branch of science lately conducted in the same country; whilst
the former failed in establishing any distinction between the most inert
and the most poisonous plants, the latter have succeeded in detecting,
separating, and concentrating several of their most subtile
constituents. _Opium_ has been at length compelled to confess its secret
source of action, and _Ipecacuan_ to yield its emetic element in a state
of perfect purity.
Our Pharmacopœias and Dispensatories[110] have cautiously kept pace
with the scientific progress of the age; and in tracing them from
their origin to the present time[111] it is gratifying to observe the
gradual influence of knowledge in reducing the number of their
articles—simplifying the composition of their formulæ—and improving
the processes for their preparation.[112] Chemistry has also been the
means of establishing the identity of many bodies which were long
considered as specifically different; thus an extensive list of animal
substances has been discarded, since it is known that they owe their
properties to one and the same common principle, as to _gelatine_,
_albumen_, _carbonate of lime_, &c.; so again the fixed alkaline salt
produced by the incineration of different vegetables, has been found
to be potass, from whatever plant it may have been obtained, with the
exception of sea plants, and perhaps some of the Tetradynamia, the
former of which yield _Soda_ and the latter _Ammonia_. Previous to the
Pharmacopœia of 1745, every vegetable was supposed to yield a salt
essentially different, and therefore a number of alkaline preparations
were recommended, each bearing the name of the particular plant from
which it had been procured, as salt of _Wormwood_—salt of
_Broom_,—_Salt of Bean-Stalks_, &c.
But, from the very nature and object of a Pharmacopœia, it cannot be
supposed to proceed _pari passu_ with the march of chemical science,
indeed it would be dangerous that it should, for a chemical theory must
receive the seal and stamp of experience before it can become current: a
Pharmacopœia however is always an object of abuse, because it is a
national work of authority, which is quite a sufficient reason why the
ignorant and conceited should question its title to respect, and its
claim to utility. “_Plures audivi_,” says Huxham, “_totas blaterantes
Pharmacopœias, qui tamen ne intellexerint quidem quid vel ipse pulsus
significabat_.”
It is very evident, that the greater number of these attacks has not
been levelled with any view to elicit truth or to advance science, but
to excite public attention, and to provoke unfair discussion for
individual and unworthy advantage; their obscure and presumptuous
authors vainly hope, that they may gain for their ephemeral writings
some share of importance, and for themselves some degree of reputation,
if they can only obtain notoriety by provoking a discussion with the
College or with some of its responsible members, though such a combat
should be sure to terminate in their defeat. Like the Scythian Abaris,
who upon being wounded by Apollo, plucked the arrow from his side, and
heedless of the pain and disgrace of his wound, exclaimed in triumph
that the weapon would in future enable him to deliver Oracles.
It is not to such persons that the observations which are contained in
this work are addressed, for with them I am most anxious to avoid a
contest, in which, as a worthy Fellow of our College expresses it,
“_Victory itself must be disgraceful_.”
When, however, we are assailed upon every occasion by a gentleman whose
talents entitle him to respect, and whose public situation commands
notice, I apprehend that a humble individual like myself, may, in the
conscientious discharge of a public duty, deliver his sentiments from
the chair to which he has been called by his professional brethren,
without any risk of compromising the dignity of the College, or of
drawing upon himself the charge of an unnecessary and injudicious
interference.
The attack to which I chiefly allude, is contained in an historical
preface by Mr. Professor Brande, to the _Supplement of the Fourth and
Fifth Editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica_; in which, speaking of
the writings of BOERHAAVE, he says, “The observations which he has made
upon the usefulness of Chemistry, and of its necessity to the medical
practitioner, may be well enforced at the present day; for, except in
the schools of London and Edinburgh, Chemistry, as a branch of
education, is either entirely neglected, or, what is perhaps worse,
superficially and imperfectly taught; this is especially the case in the
English Universities, and the London Pharmacopœia is a record of the
want of chemical knowledge, where it is most imperiously required.”
The learned Professor of Oxford, Dr. Kidd, naturally anxious to repel a
charge which he considered individually unfair, and to vindicate his
University from an aspersion which he felt to be generally unjust,
published an animated, but at the same time, a cool and candid defence,
to which I have much pleasure in referring you. With respect to the
Sister University, my own _Alma Mater_, I feel that I should be the most
ungrateful of her sons, were I, upon this occasion, to omit expressing
similar sentiments with respect to the course of chemistry, and that of
its collateral branches, which are annually delivered in the crouded
schools at Cambridge. Is Mr. Brande acquainted with the discipline of
our University?—Is he aware that the chemical chair has been
successively filled by BISHOP WATSON—MILNER—WOLLASTON[113]—and the late
lamented Mr. TENNANT?—“_Master Builders in the Science_.” To say that
such men have been the lecturers, is surely a sufficient testimony to
shew that the science of chemistry heretofore _could not_ “have been
neglected, or what perhaps is still worse, imperfectly taught;” and the
zeal and ability displayed by the present Professor, ought to have
shielded him from any such attack. Is Mr. Brande aware that the eloquent
appeal of BISHOP WATSON from the chair at Cambridge,[114] on the general
importance and utility of chemistry, gave the first impulse to that
public taste for this science which so eminently distinguishes our
Augustan age, and which has been the means of founding and supporting
the Royal, and other Public Institutions in this Metropolis, as well as
in the other towns of the British Empire?
I need make no farther remark upon this part of Mr. Brande’s assertion;
the sequel, judging from the construction of the sentence, is evidently
intended to be understood as a consequence, viz. and _therefore_ “the
London Pharmacopœia is a record of the want of chemical knowledge where
it is most imperiously required,” _because Oxford and Cambridge
Physicians were its Editors_. Is not this the obvious construction?
It appears from Mr. Brande’s laconic answer to Dr. Young, published in
“_The Journal of Science and the Arts_,” that his objections are those
of Mr. Phillips, contained in his experimental examination of the
Pharmacopœia; a work which, I confess, appears to me to furnish a
testimony of the experimental tact, subtile ingenuity, and caustic style
of criticism, which its author so eminently possesses, rather than a
proof of any fatal or material inaccuracy in the Pharmacopœia; and I may
urge this with greater force and propriety, when it is considered that,
at the time of its publication, I was not a Fellow of the College, and
therefore had no voice upon the subject of its composition, and
consequently must be _personally_ disinterested in its reputation.
I cannot conclude these observations upon Mr. Brande’s attack, without
expressing a deep feeling of regret, that a gentleman, whose deserved
rank in society, and whose talents and acquirements must entitle him to
our respect, should have condescended to countenance and encourage that
vile and wretched taste of depreciating the value and importance of our
most venerable institutions, and of bringing into contempt those
acknowledged authorities which must always meet with the approbation of
the best, and the sanction and support of the wisest portion of mankind.
And I shall here protest against the prevailing fashion of examining and
deciding upon the pretensions of every medicinal compound to our
confidence, by a _mere chemical_ investigation of its composition, and
of rejecting, as fallacious, every medical testimony which may appear
contradictory to the results of the Laboratory; there is no subject in
science to which the maxim of Cicero more strictly applies, than to the
present case; let the _Ultra_ Chemist therefore cherish it in his
remembrance, and profit by its application—“PRÆSTAT NATURÆ VOCE DOCERI,
QUAM INGENIO SUO SAPERE.”
Has not experience fully established the value of many medicinal
combinations, which, at the time of their adoption could not receive the
sanction of any chemical law? We well remember the opposition, which on
this ground was for a long time offered to the introduction of the
_Anti-hectic Mixture_ of Dr. Griffith,—the _Mistura Ferri Composita_ of
the present Pharmacopœia, and yet subsequent inquiry has confirmed upon
scientific principles the justness of our former practical conclusion;
for it has been shewn that the chemical decompositions which constituted
the objection to its use, are in fact the causes of its utility (_see
Mist. Ferri_,); the explanation, moreover, has thrown additional light
upon the theory of other preparations; so true is the observation of the
celebrated Morveau, that “_We never profit more than by these unexpected
results of Experiments, which contradict our Analogies and preconceived
Theories_.”
Whenever a medicine is found by experience to be effectual, the
practitioner should listen with great circumspection to any _chemical_
advice for its correction or improvement. From a mistaken notion of this
kind the _Extractum Colocynthidis compositum_, with a view of making it
chemically compatible with _Calomel_, has been deprived of the _Soap_
which formerly entered into its composition, in consequence of which its
solubility in the stomach is considerably modified, its activity is
therefore impaired, and its mildness diminished.[115]
On the other hand, substances may be medically inconsistent, which are
chemically compatible, as I shall have frequent opportunities of
exemplifying. The stomach has a chemical code of its own, by which the
usual affinities of bodies are frequently modified, often suspended, and
sometimes entirely subverted; this truth is illustrated in a very
striking manner by the interesting experiments of M. Drouard, who found
that Copper, swallowed in its metallic state, was not rendered poisonous
by meeting with oils, or fatty bodies; nor even with _Vinegar_, in the
digestive organs. Other bodies, on the contrary, seem to possess the
same habitudes in the stomach as in the laboratory, and are alike
influenced in both situations by the chemical action of various bodies,
many examples of which are to be found under the consideration of the
influence which solubility exerts upon the medicinal activity of
substances; so again, acidity in the stomach is neutralized by
_Alkalies_, and if a _Carbonate_ be employed for that purpose, we have a
copious disengagement of _Carbonic acid gas_, which has been frequently
very distressing to the patient; lastly, many bodies taken into the
stomach undergo decompositions and changes _in transitu_, independent of
any play of chemical affinities from the hidden powers of digestion,
some of which we are enabled to appreciate, and they will accordingly
form a subject of investigation in the course of the present work.
The powers of the stomach would seem to consist in decomposing the
_Ingesta_, and reducing them into simpler forms, rather than in
complicating them, by favouring new combinations.
But every rational physician must feel in its full force, the absurdity
of expecting to account for the phænomena of life upon principles
deduced from the analogies of inert matter, and we therefore find that
the most intelligent physiologists of modern times have been anxious to
discourage the attempt, and to deprecate its folly. Sir Gilbert Blane,
in his luminous work on MEDICAL LOGIC, when speaking of the different
theories of digestion, tells us that Dr. William Hunter, whose peculiar
sagacity and precision of mind detected at a glance the hollowness of
such delusive hypotheses, and saw the danger which theorists run in
trusting themselves on such slippery ground, expressed himself in his
public lectures, with that solidity of judgment combined with
facetiousness of expression, which rendered him unparalleled as a public
teacher. “Gentlemen,” said he, “Physiologists will have it that the
stomach is a mill—others, that it is a fermenting-vat—others again, that
it is a stew-pan,—but in my view of the matter, it is neither a mill, a
fermenting-vat, nor a stew-pan—but a STOMACH, Gentlemen, a STOMACH.”
What can illustrate in a more familiar and striking manner the singular
powers of _Gastric Chemistry_, than the fact of the shortness of time in
which the aliment becomes acid in depraved digestion? A series of
changes is thus produced in a few hours, which would require in the
laboratory as many weeks,[116] while in acute affections of the
alimentary canal the functions of the stomach are nearly suspended, and
hence under such circumstances, whatever is introduced into this organ
remains unchanged, even the nutritious mucilages are not digested.
From what has been said, it is very evident that the mere chemist can
have no pretensions to the art of composing or discriminating
remedies; whenever he arraigns the scientific propriety of our
Prescriptions, in direct contradiction to the deductions of true
medical experience,—whenever he forsakes his laboratory for the
bed-side, he forfeits all his claims to our respect, and his title to
our confidence. It is amusing to see the ridiculous errors into which
the chemist falls, when he turns physician; as soon as Seguin found
that Peruvian bark contained a peculiar principle that precipitated
_Tannin_, he immediately concluded that this _could not be any other_
than _Gelatine_, and upon the faith of this blunder, the French,
Italian, and German physicians,[117] gave their patients nothing but
_Clarified Glue_, in intermittent fevers!—But I desist—not however
without expressing a hope, in which I am sure my medical brethren will
concur, that, should Mr. Brande again condescend to favour us with a
commentary upon Boerhaave, he will select that passage in his work,
where, alluding to the application of Chemistry to Physic, he
emphatically exclaims, “EGREGIA ILLIUS ANCILLA EST, NON ALIA PEJOR
DOMINA.”