Toxicology, or the history of Poisons, forms one of the most important
and elaborate branches of Forensic Medicine, and in tracing the subject
through all its numerous and interesting relations to Jurisprudence, we
shall experience no small degree of gratification by observing, how
greatly and progressively this obscure department of science has, within
the last few years, been enlightened by the discoveries of Chemistry and
Physiology.
The labours of the modern Chemist, indeed, have enabled us to recognise
and identify each particular substance by its properties and habitudes,
with an infallible delicacy, which the Physicians of a former age could
scarcely have anticipated, and much less practised.
The Physiologist, by an invaluable series of observations and
experiments, has demonstrated the particular organ, or texture, upon
which each individual poison exerts its energies; and the Pathologist
has been thus enabled to establish the mode in which it depraves the
health, or extinguishes the life of an animal. Nor has the Anatomist
withheld his contributions upon this interesting occasion, for he has
demonstrated the situation, extent, and intensity of the organic lesions
which result from the operation of these terrible agents upon the living
body; and has pointed out several appearances which occur from natural
causes, but which might be mistaken by the unskilful or superficial
observer, for the ravages of poison. It remains for the Forensic
Physician to converge into one focus the scattered rays which have thus
emanated from so many points, and thereby to elucidate and determine the
line of conduct which the medical attendant is called upon to pursue,
for the relief of the patient suffering under the torments of poison,
and for the establishment of the guilt or innocence of the party charged
with the perpetration of a crime, which may be said to rob courage of
its just security, while it transfers to cowardice the triumphs of
valour. That engines so powerful and secret in their work of
destruction, should have universally excited the terror of mankind is a
fact which cannot surprise us, and, when we consider how intimate are
the relations between fear and credulity, we need not seek farther for
the solution of the many problems to which the exaggerated statements of
ancient Toxicologists[111] have given origin; the most extraordinary of
those relate to the alleged subtlety of certain poisons, which was
believed to be so extreme as to defeat the most skilful caution, and at
the same time so manageable, as to be capable of the most accurate
graduation; so that, in short, the accomplished assassin was not only
thus enabled to ensure the death of his victim through the most secret,
and least suspicious agents, but to measure his allotted moments with
the nicest precision, and to occasion his death at any period that might
best answer the objects of the assassination. The writings of
_Plutarch_, _Tacitus_, _Theophrastus_, _Quintillian_, and _Livy_, abound
with such instances of _occult_ and _slow_ poisoning; most of which,
however, notwithstanding the weight they may acquire from their
testimony, bear internal evidence of their fallacious character.
_Plutarch_ informs us that a slow poison which occasioned heat, cough,
spitting of blood, a lingering consumption of the body, and a weakness
of intellect, was administered to _Aratus_ of Sicyon. This same poison
is also alluded to by _Quintillian_ in his declamations. _Tacitus_[112]
informs us that _Sejanus_ caused a _secret_ poison to be administered by
an eunuch to _Drusus_, who in consequence gradually declined, as if by a
consumptive disorder, and at length died. _Theophrastus_[113] speaks of
a poison, prepared from Aconite, that could be so modified as to
occasion death within a certain period, such as two, three, or six
months, a year, and even sometimes two years.
To such an extent does the crime of poisoning appear to have been
carried, about two hundred years before the Christian æra, that
according to _Livy_,[114] above one hundred and fifty ladies, of the
first families in Rome, were convicted and punished for preparing and
distributing poison. The most notorious and expert character of this
kind is handed down to us by the historians and poets under the name of
_Locusta_, who was condemned to die on account of her infamous actions,
but was saved in order that she might become a state engine, and be
numbered, as _Tacitus_ expresses it, “_Inter instrumenta regni_.” She
was accordingly employed to poison _Claudius_ by _Agrippina_, who was
desirous of destroying the Emperor, and yet feared to despatch him
suddenly, whence a slow poison was prepared by _Locusta_, and served to
him in a dish of mushrooms, of which he was particularly fond,
“_Boletorum appetentissimus_;” but it failed in its effects, as we learn
from _Tacitus_, until it was assisted by one of a more powerful nature.
“_Post quem nihil amplius edit._” This same _Locusta_ prepared also the
poison with which _Nero_ despatched _Britannicus_, the son of
_Agrippina_, whom his father _Claudius_ wished to succeed him on the
throne. This poison appears to have proved too slow in its operation,
and to have occasioned only a dysentery. The Emperor accordingly
compelled her by blows and threats, to prepare in his presence one of a
more powerful nature, and as the tale is related by _Suetonius_, it
appears that it was then tried on a kid, but as the animal did not die
until the lapse of five hours, she boiled it for a longer period, when
it became so strong as instantaneously to kill a pig to which it was
given. In this state of concentration it is said to have despatched
_Britannicus_ as soon as he tasted it.[115] Vide _Tac. An._ 13. _s._ 15.
16. Now it would clearly appear from these statements that _Locusta_,
avowedly the most accomplished poisoner of ancient Rome, was wholly
incapable of graduating the strength of her poisons to the different
purposes for which they were applied.
The records of modern times will furnish examples no less atrocious than
those we have just related. _Tophana_, a woman who resided first at
Palermo, and afterwards at Naples, may be considered as the _Locusta_ of
modern history; she invented and sold those drops so well known by the
names of _Aqua Toffania_; _Aqua della Toffana_; _Acquetta di Napoli_, or
simply _Acquetta_. This stygian liquor she distributed by way of charity
to such wives as wished for other husbands; from four to six drops were
sufficient to destroy a man, and it was asserted that the dose could be
so proportioned as to operate within any given period.[116] It appears
that in order to secure her poison from examination, she vended it in
small glass phials, inscribed, “_Manna of Saint Nicolas Bari_,” and
ornamented the vessel with the image of the Saint. Having been put to
the rack she confessed that she had destroyed upwards of six hundred
persons, for which she suffered death by strangulation in the year
1709[117]. In 1670 the art of secret poisoning excited very considerable
alarm in France; the _Marchioness de Brinvillier_, a young woman of rank
and great personal beauty, having intrigued with, and subsequently
married an adventurer named _Saint Croix_, acquired from him the secret
of this diabolical act, and practised it to an extent that had never
before been equalled. She poisoned her two brothers through the medium
of a dish at table. She also prepared poisoned biscuits, and to try
their strength she distributed them herself to the poor at the Hotel
Dieu. Her own maid was likewise the subject of her experiments. To her
father she gave poisoned broth, which brought on symptoms characteristic
of those induced by corrosive sublimate. Her brothers lingered during
several months under much suffering. The detection of this wretch is
said to have been brought about in the following manner. _Saint Croix_,
whenever engaged in the preparation of his poisons, was accustomed to
protect himself from their dangerous fumes by wearing a glass mask,
which happening to fall off by accident, he was found dead in his
laboratory.[118] A casket directed to the Marchioness, with a desire
that in case of her death it might be destroyed unopened, was found in
his chamber, a circumstance which in itself was sufficient to excite the
curiosity and suspicion of those into whose hands it fell. The casket
was accordingly examined, and the disclosure of its contents at once
developed the whole plot, and finally led to the conviction of this
French Medea, who after a number of adventures and escapes, was at
length arrested and sent to Paris, where she was beheaded, and then
burnt, on the 11th of July, 1676. The practice of poisoning, however,
did not cease with her execution, and it became necessary in 1679 to
establish a particular Court, for the detection and trial of such
offenders; which continued for some time to exert its jurisdiction under
the title of CHAMBRE DE POISON, or CHAMBRE ARDENTE.
With respect to the secret modes in which poisons have been supposed
capable of acting, mankind have ever betrayed the most extravagant
credulity, of which the numerous tales upon record afford ample proof;
such as that reported of _Parasapis_ by _Plutarch_, from _Ctesias_, in
his life of _Artaxerxes_, who, it is said, by anointing a knife on one
side by poison, and therewith dividing a bird, poisoned _Statira_ with
one half, and with the other regaled herself in perfect security. We are
also told of _Livia_ who poisoned the figs on a tree which her husband
was in the habit of gathering with his own hands. _Tissot_ informs us
that _John_, king of Castille, was poisoned by a pair of boots prepared
by a Turk; _Henry_ VI, by gloves[119]; Pope _Clement_ VII, by the fumes
of a taper[120]; and our king _John_, in a wassail bowl, contaminated by
matter extracted from a living toad. To these few instances of credulity
may be added the offer of the priest to destroy queen _Elizabeth_ by
poisoning her saddle[121], and the _Earl of Essex_, by anointing his
chair.
Incredible and absurd as these opinions now appear, they continued until
a late period to alarm mankind, and to perplex and baffle judicial
investigations; even _Lord Bacon_ in his charge against the _Earl of
Somerset_ for the murder of _Sir Thomas Overbury_, in the Tower, seemed
to give credit to the story of _Livia_, and he seriously stated, that
“_Weston_ chased the poor prisoner with poison after poison; poisoning
salts, poisoning meats, poisoning sweetmeats, poisoning medicines and
vomits, until at last his body was almost come, by the use of poisons,
to the state that _Mithridates’s_ body was by the use of treacle and
preservatives, that the force of poisons was blunted upon him;” _Weston_
confessing, when he was reproached for not despatching him, that he had
given enough to poison twenty men.[122] The power of so graduating the
force of a poison as to enable it to operate at any given period seems
to have been considered possible by the earlier members of the Royal
Society, for we learn from _Spratt’s_ history of that learned body, that
very shortly after its institution, a series of questions were drawn up
by the direction of the Fellows, for the purpose of being submitted to
the Chinese and Indians, viz. “_Whether the Indians can so prepare that
stupifying herb, Datura, that they make it lie several days, months,
years, according as they will have it, in a man’s body, without doing
him any hurt, and at the end kill him without missing half an hour’s
time?_”
That mankind were, in a very early stage of their existence, not only
acquainted with the deadly effects of certain natural substances when
applied in minute quantities, but that they availed themselves of such
knowledge for the accomplishment of the worst purposes, is very
satisfactorily shewn by the records of sacred as well as profane
authors. But such is the ambiguity of ancient writers upon this subject,
and so intimately blended are all their receipts with the practices of
superstition, that every research, however learned, into the exact
nature of the poisons which they employed, is necessarily vague and
unsatisfactory. Of this one fact, however, we may be perfectly
satisfied, that they were solely derived from the animal and vegetable
kingdoms, for the discovery of mineral poisons was an event of later
date; owing however to the defect of botanical nomenclature, it is even
doubtful whether the plants which are designated by the terms _Cicuta_,
_Aconitum_, &c. in ancient authors, were identical with those we
designate by the same names. (See _Pharmacologia_, edit. v. vol. 1, p.
66.) With respect to the poisons of _Locusta_, all cotemporary writers
speak of the venom of the toad as the fatal ingredient of her potions,
and in the Alexipharmaca of _Dioscorides_ we find the symptoms
described, which are said to be produced by it;[123] but what is very
extraordinary, the belief of the ancients on this matter was all but
universal. _Pliny_ is express on the subject; _Ætius_ describes two
kinds of this reptile,[124] the latter of which, as Dr. _Badham_ has
suggested, was probably the frog, as well from the epithet, as that he
ascribes deleterious powers only to the former. It is scarcely necessary
to observe that this ancient belief has descended into later times; we
find Sir _Thomas Browne_ treating such an opinion as one of the vulgar
errors; and we have before alluded to the legend of king _John_ having
been poisoned by a wassail bowl in which matter extracted from a living
toad was said to have been infused. In still later times, we have heard
of a barrel of beer poisoned by the same reptile having found its way
into it. _Borelli_ and _Valisnieri_ maintain that it is perfectly
harmless, and state that they had seen it eaten with impunity.
_Spielman_[125] expresses the same opinion, “_Minus recte itaque
effectus venenati a bufonibus metuuntur._” _Franck_,[126] on the
contrary, accuses _Gmelin_ of too much precipitancy in rejecting the
belief respecting toad-poison,[127] Modern naturalists recognise no
poisonous species of toad; even the most formidable of the species, to
appearance, that of Surinam, is said to be perfectly harmless.
If we may venture to offer a conjecture upon this subject, we are
inclined to consider the origin of this opinion to have been derived
from the frequency with which the toad entered into the composition of
spells or charms, into philtres or love potions, and which, like the bat
and the owl, most probably derived its magical character from the gloom
and solitude of its habitation. _Shakspeare_ has accordingly introduced
this reptile into the witches’ enchanted cauldron, in _Macbeth_.
“Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison’d entrails throw.
Toad that under coldest stone
Days and nights hast thirty-one
Swelter’d venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i’ the charmed pot!”
This opinion receives further strength when it is considered how
frequently poisons were administered under the insidious form of charms
or incantations.[128]
It has, however, been shewn by late experiments that the toad has, under
particular circumstances, the power of ejecting from the surface of the
body an acrid secretion which excoriates the hands of those that come in
contact with it; and this fact may perhaps have assisted in supporting
the general belief respecting the poisonous nature of this reptile.
_Pelletier_ has ascertained, that this corrosive matter, contained in
the vesicles which cover the skin of the common toad, (_Rana Bufo_) has
a yellow colour, and an oily consistence, and to consist of,—1st, an
acid partly united to a base, and constituting 1/20th part of the whole.
2d, very bitter fatty matter. 3d, an animal matter bearing some analogy
to gelatine.
It would also appear from the writings of _Dioscorides_, _Galen_,
_Nicander_, _Ætius_, _Ælian_, and _Pliny_, that the ancients derived a
very energetic poison from the Sea Hare, _Lepus Marinus_,—the _Aplysia
Depilans_ of _Linnæus_; and, if we may credit _Philostratus_, it was
with such a poison that _Titus_ was killed by _Domitian_.
There is, however, ample ground for supposing that the poisons of the
ancients were, for the most part, obtained from the vegetable kingdom,
and from the class of Narcotic plants;[129] that they were compounded of
a great variety of such ingredients, together with others that were
quite inert and useless, and which merely served to disguise their
composition.
Ancient writers also allude to the blood of the bullock as a poison;
_Themistocles_ is said by _Plutarch_ to have destroyed himself by this
fluid; and _Strabo_ states that _Midas_ died of drinking the hot blood
of this animal, which he did, as _Plutarch_ mentions, to free himself
from the numerous ill dreams which continually tormented him. Some
historians assign the death of _Hannibal_ to the same draught.
With respect to the poisons employed by _Tophana_, the Locusta of modern
days, and her infamous successors, there is less doubt; _Arsenic_,
_Corrosive Sublimate_, _Sugar of Lead_, and _Antimony_,[130] were
amongst the most powerful of their instruments of torture and death.
According to the declaration of the Emperor _Charles_ VII to his
physician _Garelli_, the _Aqua Toffania_ was a solution of arsenic in
_Aqua Cymbalariæ_.[131] Dr. _Hahneman_ considered its basis to have been
an arsenical salt. Others have, with little probability, regarded Opium
and Cantharides as the active ingredients. _Franck_,[132] speaking of
the _Aqua Toffania_, agrees with _Gmelin_,[133] that it is no other than
a solution of arsenic. The _Pulvis Successionis_, another instrument of
death, whose title announces the diabolical intention with which it was
administered, has been supposed to have been a preparation of lead;
while others have considered it to have consisted of diamond dust, and
to have acted mechanically.
Having thus noticed a few of the more remarkable and interesting
features in the literary history of Toxicology, we shall proceed to
consider the subject of Poisons, in relation to their operation.
A Poison, (_Toxicum_, _Venenum_, _Virus_), has been very correctly
defined by _Gmelin_ to be a substance which when administered
internally, or applied externally, in a small dose, impairs the health,
or destroys life. This definition is adopted by _Mead_, _Sproegel_,
_Plenck_, and _Tortosa_, and is to be preferred to every other,[134] not
only for its simplicity, but for its independence of any theory relative
to the _modus operandi_ of such agents. But it will be seen that, by
accepting this definition, we are necessarily led to admit the fact,
that poisoning may be acute, or chronic, that is to say, that it may at
once destroy life, or produce a disease which can be protracted to any
indefinite period. After the erroneous and vague notions which have been
entertained upon the subject of “_Slow poisons_,” it is highly essential
that the latitude of our belief should be accurately ascertained, and
the precise meaning of our terms defined.