centuries, and, though not in the British Pharmacopœia, was official
under the name which Paracelsus gave it in the P.L. 1724, as Elixir of
Aloes in the P.L. 1746, and later as Tinct. Aloes Co. In the Ph. Ed.
it was called Tinct. Aloes et Myrrhæ, and this was the most usual name
for it until quite recent times, and probably is still. Paracelsus
wrote about it and extolled it as a compound which would prolong life
to its utmost limits. That he used the same ingredients mainly as
his successors is certain, but he never gave any clear formula. His
disciple, Oswald Crollius, however, deduced from his writings that
it was a tincture of aloes, myrrh, and saffron, with sulphuric acid.
Boerhaave substituted vinegar for the sulphuric acid and left most of
that behind by distillation. Van Helmont had previously made an Elixir
Proprietatis without any acid; and in many continental pharmacopœias
the elixir was made alkaline by the addition of carbonate of potash.
This also originated with Boerhaave. Other authors added a few spices.
The Elixir of Garus which still appears in the French Codex was the
same sort of preparation but with cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, and other
ingredients, diluted with syrup of maidenhair. Garus was a grocer,
who acquired great popularity under the Regency with his Elixir. St.
Simon says he cured the Maréchal de Villars with it, and that he would
probably have saved the life of the Duchesse de Berry if the physician
Chirac, jealous of his fame, had not administered to her a purgative
which killed her (“Mem. de St. Simon,” cxi, pp. 140–228).
BALSAM OF SULPHUR
was a famous medicine up to our own days. It appears now to have
dropped out of use. It was highly commended by Van Helmont, Rulandos,
Boyle, and indeed by most of the medical experts of the seventeenth
century, and was compounded from many different formulæ. The simple
balsam was made by boiling one pound of flowers of sulphur with four
times its weight of olive oil until the sulphur was dissolved and a
thick dark balsamic substance was obtained. This was the formula of
the P.L. 1746. But linseed oil and walnut oil were often prescribed
in preference to olive oil, and oil of anise, oil of amber, oil of
juniper, white wine, Barbadoes tar, turpentine, myrrh, aloes, and
saffron; one or more of these substances were combined with the balsam
in other receipts. The use of the balsam was generally for coughs,
asthmas, and lung diseases. Salmon says, “It is of good use to digest
crude humours and undigested matter in any part of the body, being
often anointed upon the same.” The terebinthinated balsam was given
in stone; a combination with iron, Balsamum Sulphuris Martis, was
prescribed in gravel. These balsams were applied externally to ulcers,
or taken in doses of from five to forty drops.
XVII
PHARMACOPŒIAS
But here is one prescription out of many:--
Sodæ sulphat. ʒvi, ʒss Mannæ optim.,
Aq. fervent, f℥iss, ʒii Tinct. Sennæ
Haustus (and here the Surgeon came and cupp’d him),
R. Pulv. Com. gr. iii Ipecacuanhæ
(With more besides if Juan had not stopp’d ’em).
Bolus Potassæ Sulphuret sumendus,
Et haustus ter in die capiendus.
BYRON: _Don Juan_, Canto x (41).
THE LONDON PHARMACOPŒIA.
The collection of medicinal formulas was a favourite occupation of
ancient medical writers. Galen and Avicenna, Mesué and Serapion,
Nicholas Prepositus and Nicolas of Salerno were the authors of the
dispensatories most esteemed up to the sixteenth century in Europe.
The College of Medicine of Florence adopted an Antidotarium in the
early part of that century, and in 1524 the Senate of Nuremberg
made the Dispensatory of Valerius Cordus official in that city.
Augsburg followed the example of Nuremberg, and the Pharmacopea
Augustana of 1601 was probably the first work of the kind designated a
Pharmacopœia and issued under authoritative sanction. A quasi-official
Dispensatorium for the State of Brandenburg, forerunner of the
Prussian Pharmacopœia, came next in 1608, and the London Pharmacopœia,
which appeared in 1618, was the first really national publication of
that character. The first French Codex was published in 1639, and no
other work of similar standing was issued until the next century.
The College of Physicians was incorporated by Charter in the reign
of Henry VIII, in the year 1518. The idea of preparing an official
pharmacopœia was first considered by the College on June 25th, 1585,
“but as the matter seemed weighty” (_sed quoniam res videbatur
operosa_), the deliberation on it was postponed and was only resumed
on October 10th, 1589. On this occasion ten committees were appointed
and to these were assigned the work of selection and compilation
distributed thus:--Committee 1 was charged with Syrups, Juleps, and
Decoctions; 2 took Oils; 3, Waters; 4, Liniments, Ointments, Cerates,
and Plasters; 5, Juices, Conserves, Candies, and Confections; 6,
Extracts, Salts, Chemicals, and Metallic Preparations; 7, Powders and
Dragees; 8, Pills; 9, Electuaries, Opiates, and Eclegmas (looches); 10,
Lozenges and Eye-salves.
The work must have been carried on leisurely, for it is not mentioned
in the minutes again until 1614, when eight fellows were appointed to
examine certain foreign Antidotarii. In 1616, an editing committee was
appointed, and all the collaborators were called upon to send their
papers to this body. It then appeared that many which had been prepared
had been lost, a misfortune attributed to the carelessness of the
recently deceased President, Dr. Forster. His successor, Dr. Atkins,
put more energy into the business and consequently the manuscript was
completed and in type by the day after Palm Sunday, 1618. Sir Theodore
Mayerne was commissioned to write a dedication of the work to King
James I, and his Majesty’s proclamation requiring all the apothecaries
in the realm to obey this Pharmacopœia and this only, was dated April
26th, 1618. It will be observed that exactly a century intervened
between the incorporation of the College and the production of the
Pharmacopœia.
The President was evidently a smart man, but the printer was still
smarter, for while the former was out of town for a few days the
printer rushed the publication through, “surreptitiously and
prematurely,” as the College officially declared, with a number of
errors and imperfections, on May 7th, 1618. This presumptuous printer
was one John Marriot, at the inappropriate sign of the White Lily “in
platea vulgo dicta Fleet Street.” On December 7th in the same year the
College brought out a corrected edition, to which they appended an
epilogue, expressing their opinion of their offending “typographus” in
terms which left no excuse for not appreciating their dissatisfaction
with him.
The first London Pharmacopœia did not err on the side of condensation.
It comprised 1028 simples and 932 preparations and compounds. Among
the simples were 31 animals and 60 parts of animals or derivatives
from them. The herbs named numbered 271, and there were 138 roots and
138 seeds. Among the preparations were 178 simple and 35 compound
waters, 3 medicated wines, 10 medicated vinegars, 1 vulnerary potion,
8 decoctions, 90 syrups, 18 mels and oxymels, 18 juices and linctuses,
115 candies and conserves, 43 species or powders, 58 electuaries,
36 pills, 45 lozenges, 151 oils of various kinds, 53 ointments, 51
plasters and cerates, and 17 chemicals.
The names of the inventors of many of the compounds were duly attached
to the formulas, some of which were very elaborate and complicated.
Rufus of Ephesus, physician to the Emperor Trajan, the Arabian doctors,
Nicolas, Rivierus, Fracastor, Fallopius, and many others are thus
quoted. There were 211 preparations with more than ten ingredients
in each, and one, the Antidotus Magnus Matthioli, called for 130
substances in its composition, among the 130 being Mithridatium and
Theriaca which would have contributed another hundred between them.
Medicated waters which had been invented by Arnold de Villa Nova in the
13th century still commanded respect, over 200 different kinds being
provided. Worms, swallows, frogs’ spawn, and other animal remedies as
well as the whole range of the vegetable kingdom were requisitioned
to surrender their virtues to these waters by distillation. Syrups,
honeys, oxymels, and lohochs were numerous and included syrups of white
and red poppies, rhubarb, violets, marshmallow, coltsfoot, liquorice,
oxymel of squills, and mel Egyptiaca. Powders of hot precious stones
and of cold precious stones, powders of pearls and spices, and a
compound senna powder; troches of various drugs; basilicon ointment
and a multitude of plasters are formulated. Neapolitan ointment was
our blue ointment, the mercury being killed by fasting spittle. An
itch ointment was made with corrosive sublimate. May butter was a
favourite ingredient in ointments. It was butter made in May, melted in
the sun, strained and kept the year through. Oils was a term of wide
significance. Not only were expressed and distilled oils included in
the reference, but oils in which things had been infused, as oil of
ants, of bricks, of earthworms, of wolves, and oil of vitriol was also
in the same classification. Vipers in lozenges were there, lohoch
of foxes’ lungs was the great remedy for asthmatic complaints, and
a modification of Vigo’s plaster with its live frogs and worms and
vipers’ flesh was not omitted. The full list of the animal substances
recognised as medicinal in this Pharmacopœia and its two successors has
been given in the Section on Animal Medicines.
[Illustration: TITLE-PAGE OF THE LONDON PHARMACOPŒIA.
(From the reprint of the First Edition, 1627.)]
Chemicals included calomel, turpeth mineral, flowers of sulphur, the
mineral acids, preparations of steel and antimony, sugar of lead,
and caustic potash. The inclusion of some of these may no doubt be
attributed to the influence of Sir Theodore Mayerne.
After the first Pharmacopœia had been several times reprinted a new one
appeared in 1650. Notable features of this issue were that the gallon
hitherto 9 lb. of water was now fixed at 8 lb.; corrosive sublimate and
red and white precipitate were among the additions, but it has to be
remarked that the white precipitate of that day was not what we know
by name but really a precipitated proto-chloride of mercury. Its true
chemical composition was not recognised until some fifty years later
by Deidier in his “Chimie Raisonné.” Tinctures formed a new class of
preparations, seven of them being formulated, castor, saffron, and
strawberries being among these. Syrup of buckthorn was added to the
syrups, and Gascoin powder to the powders. Mercury was now killed by
turpentine. Mezereon, Winter’s bark, and cochineal were among the new
drugs; antimonial wine made from the regulus of antimony was adopted;
and the skull of a man killed by violence, and moss from that skull
were admitted.
The third Pharmacopœia (1677) did not present many remarkable features,
and was apparently rather hastily produced. The most striking new
formula it contained was one for “Aqua Vitæ Hibernorum sive Usquebagh.”
Burnt alum, flowers of benzoin, balsams of capivi and tolu, contrayerva
root, Jesuits’ bark, and resin of jalap were among the new drugs. Steel
wine was added.
Sir Hans Sloane presided over the compilation of the P.L. of 1721,
the fourth of the series. The preface to this edition claimed that
all remedies owing their use to superstition and false philosophy had
been thrown out, but perhaps the far-reaching effects of the false
philosophy were not fully appreciated. Many of the absurd old formulas
were retained, but an approach to greater simplicity is apparent. The
transition from the old to the new pharmacy can be traced very easily
in this volume. The names of the plants, we are told in the preface,
are “not only distinguished by the names known in shops, but also by
such as are sometimes used by the more eminent writers in botany.”
Tinctures are growing in favour, their number being increased to 18.
The number of waters and syrups is largely diminished, and puppies,
hedgehogs, wagtails, bread-crust plaster, lapis lazuli pills, and
Galen’s unguentum refrigerans are dismissed. The last-named has,
however, refused to die to this day. Among new chemical preparations
Hepar Sulphuris (pot. sulphuret.), Flores Salis Ammoniaci Martiales
(ammonio-chloride of iron), Tinctura Martis cum Spiritu Salis (tinct.
ferri perchlor.), Sal Martis (ferri sulphas), Aqua Sapphirina (solution
of ammonio-sulphate of copper), Lunar Caustic, Tartar Emetic, Ens
Veneris, Aurum Mosaicum, Ethiops Mineral, Spirit of Sal Volatile,
Mynsicht’s tincture of steel, Elixir of Vitriol, and Lime Water may be
mentioned.
The P.L. 1746 (the fifth) was very different from its predecessors.
Among those who took an active part in its preparation were the
President of the College, Dr. Plumptre, and Drs. Crowe, Mead, Heberden,
and Freind. In the preface to this work the old “inartistic and
irregular mixtures” and “the antidotes superstitiously and doatingly
derived from oracles, dreams, and astrological fancies” are severely
condemned, and the College declares its intention of freeing the
book as much as possible from whatever remains of former pedantry.
Notwithstanding these good intentions the old pharmacy is still
abundantly represented. Crabs’ eyes, coral, bezoar stones, harts’
horns, woodlice, pearls, vipers, and skinks’ bellies continue to figure
among the simples, and formulas for Mithridatium with 45 ingredients,
and for theriaca with 61 are likewise retained. On the other hand,
human fat, unicorn’s horn, mummy, spiders’ webs, moss from the human
skull, bone from the stag’s heart, and lac virginale disappear. There
are now 34 tinctures, while the medicated waters have been reduced to
about 30 and the syrups to about 20. Tinctures of cummin, valerian,
and cardamoms, syrup scilliticus, and pilula saponacea (soporific) are
new; and lixivium saponarium (liquor potassæ), sal diureticus (potassæ
acetas), causticum commune fortius (potassa cum calce), sal catharticus
Glauberi, pilulæ mercuriales, and spiritus nitri dulcis make their
first appearance.
The sixth P.L. (1788) proceeds on the same lines. The College claims
to have paid special attention to the application of the advances of
chemistry to pharmacy, and to have provided that very few traces of
former superstition should remain. Mithridatium, theriaca, bezoar
stones, vipers, and oil of bricks are dismissed, but woodlice remain.
Materia medica synonyms are now according to Linnæus. Among the new
drugs admitted we find aconite, arnica, cascarilla, calumba, kino,
quassia, simarouba, castor oil, senega, and magnesia; and among
the new preparations may be named Dover’s powder, James’s powder,
Mindererus’s spirit, Rochelle salts, tartrate of iron, oxide of zinc,
Huxham’s tincture of bark, ether, Hoffmann’s anodyne, the decoctions
of sarsaparilla, tincture of calumba, compound tinctures of benzoin,
cardamoms, and lavender, and extract of chamomile. Tincture of opium
made with proof spirit deposes the Tinctura Thebaica made with wine,
and elixir paregoricum assumes the name of tinct. opii camphorata. A
number of other names are changed. It is significant of the declining
familiarity of doctors with Latin that for the first time an English
translation of the Pharmacopœia is authorised.
The seventh P.L. is dated 1809. The new chemical nomenclature is
introduced, and the minim substituted for the drop. Acidum vitriolicum
becomes acidum sulphuricum, and ferrum vitriolatum is changed to ferri
sulphas. More than a hundred articles are omitted, and nearly that
number substituted. Among the new drugs and preparations are arsenic,
belladonna, cajeput, cusparia, digitalis, infusions of calumba,
rhubarb, and digitalis, compound decoction of aloes, acetum colchici,
confections of roses, rue, and almonds, pulv. kino co, pil. cambogiæ
co, emp. opii, ung. zinci, Griffiths’ mixture and pills, Plummer’s
pills, lin. hydrargyri, cataplasm of yeast. Prepared woodlice, crabs’
claws, tutty ointment, and the electuaries fall out.
The eighth P.L. (1824) recognised bismuth, cubebs, croton oil, and
stramonium, and admitted confection of black pepper as a substitute for
Ward’s paste, and colchicum wine in imitation of the Eau Medicinale
d’Husson. But the conservative College lacked the courage to endorse
the claims of morphine, iodine, and quinine, though these were pretty
generally established in medical practice at the time.
The Pharmacopœia of 1836 was largely the work of Richard Phillips, a
very competent pharmacist, who had mercilessly criticised the edition
of 1824. This, the ninth P.L., was brought well up to date with notes
indicating the methods of ascertaining the purity of medicines, better
methods of preparing chemicals, and the introduction of the most
important of the new products. The alkaloids aconitine, morphine,
quinine, strychnine, and veratrine found admission. Iodine and bromine
and their compounds, hydrocyanic and phosphoric acids, creosote, ergot,
and lobelia were also among the novelties. Acetum cantharidum, aqua
flor. aurant., aqua sambuci, cataplasma lini, decoct. cinchonæ (2),
extract. colchici corm., extract. colchici acet., hydrarg. iodid.
and biniodid., inf. krameriæ and inf. lupuli. lin. opii, liquor sodæ
chlorinatæ, mist. spt. vini Gall., pil. rhei co. and tinct. colchici
were the principal new compounds. Muriatic acid now became hydrochloric
acid, subcarbonate of magnesia was advanced to be a carbonate, and
tartarised antimony assumed the title of antimonii potassio-tartras.
The tenth and last of the London Pharmacopœias appeared in 1851.
Henbane seeds, spigelia, oyster shells, and extract of digitalis were
removed after longer or shorter periods of service, together with soda
and potash waters, and biniodide of mercury and veratrine ointments,
which had only found admission in the preceding edition. Cod-liver oil,
chloroform, atropine, gallic and tannic acids, extract of nux vomica,
tincture of aconite, tincture and ointment of belladonna, iodide
of sulphur, chloride of zinc, and ammonio-citrate of iron, were the
principal novelties now made official.
The first Edinburgh Pharmacopœia appeared in 1699 and the last in
1841, while the first Dublin Pharmacopœia was published in 1807 and
the last in 1850. The Medical Act of 1858 authorised the fusion of the
Pharmacopœias of the three kingdoms, and assigned the task of carrying
out this work to the General Medical Council created by that statute.
The first British Pharmacopœia was issued in 1864, but it failed to
give satisfaction, and was superseded by a second dated 1867. The third
and fourth editions were published in 1884 and 1898.
XVIII
SHAKESPEARE’S PHARMACY.
But law and the gospel in Shakespeare we find,
And he gives the best physic for body and mind.
GARRICK: _Shakespeare’s Mulberry Tree_.
The two most familiar pharmaceutical allusions in Shakespeare’s
writings are the apothecary and his shop in “Romeo and Juliet” (Act V.,
Sc. 1), and the juice of cursed hebenon which Hamlet’s uncle poured
into the ear of his father (“Hamlet,” Act I., Sc. 5). Some remarks on
both these noted allusions are given separately. The medical knowledge
of Shakespeare has been discussed by several eminent doctors, notably
by Dr. J. C. Bucknill, of Exeter, who published a very interesting
work under that title in 1860, in which the writer almost went so far
as to hint at the possibility that the great dramatist must have had
some training in the medical science of the day before he took to the
theatre business. A similar suggestion was made by Lord Campbell in
regard to the poet’s legal knowledge.
Great interest in drugs and poisons was taken by the people generally
in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, and the medical controversies of the period
filled a good many books. It is certain that Shakespeare at least
skimmed a good many of these. “Galen and Paracelsus” are mentioned in
“All’s Well that Ends Well” (Act II., Sc. 3). In “Coriolanus” (Act II.,
Sc. 1) Menenius says of a letter from Coriolanus that it gives him an
estate of seven years’ health, adding “the most sovereign prescription
in Galen is but empiricutick, and,” compared with this letter, “of no
better report than a horse-drench.”
Apothecaries are mentioned in “Henry VI” (Part II., Act III., Sc.
3), when Cardinal Beaufort, delirious on his deathbed, cries, “Bid
the apothecary bring the strong poison that I bought of him.” Also
in “Pericles” (Act III., Sc. 2), the amateur physician Cerimon, a
Lord of Ephesus, who had studied medicine, and “by turning o’er
authorities” had made himself familiar with “the blest infusions that
dwell in vegetives, in metals, stones,” gives a prescription to his
servant, saying, “Give this to the ’pothecary, and tell me how it
works.” Apothecaries’ weights are used as metaphors in “All’s Well
that Ends Well” (Act II., Sc. 3) when Lafeu, who has given Parolles
“most egregious indignity,” which the latter says he has not deserved,
replies “Yes, good faith, every dram of it; and I will not bate thee
a scruple,” and by Falstaff, who, in his interview with the Chief
Justice, refers rather enigmatically to drams and scruples. Falstaff
again, in “Merry Wives of Windsor,” is responsible for the simile of
those who “smell like Bucklersbury in simple time.” The Dr. Caius in
the same play, with his “by gar” and comical English, is assumed by
some interpreters to have been a burlesque on Sir Theodore Mayerne,
but except that Mayerne was French and certainly spoke English with
a foreign accent, there is no reason for associating him with the
character. Mayerne never acquired English. In one of his later letters
he writes of Lady Cherosbury, for Shrewsbury. There was a very famous
Dr. Caius, who had been physician to Queen Elizabeth, who founded
Caius College, Cambridge, and who died in 1573, not so very long before
this play was written. But it is agreed that he could not have been the
original of the caricature.
Of the drugs and pharmaceutical preparations named by Shakespeare most
would be familiar to anyone acquainted with the literature of the
day. “Throw physick to the dogs,” says Macbeth to the physician who
is telling him of the mental illness of Lady Macbeth. Then, his mind
recurring to the war in which he was engaged, he demands of the doctor
“What rhubarb, senna, or what purgative drug would scour these English
hence?” (Act V., Sc. 3). In the same play (Act I., Sc. 3), Banquo asks
when the witches vanish, “Have we eaten of the insane root That takes
the reason prisoner?” There are many allusions in classical literature
to herbs which destroyed the reason. In Plutarch’s life of Antony, for
example, there is an account of some Roman soldiers in the Parthian
war eating a root which deprived them of all memory, and it is said
they occupied themselves in digging, and in hurling stones from one
place to another. Among the ingredients of the witches’ cauldron (Act
IV., Sc. 1), the animal substances named recall much of the pharmacy
of the period, but only one vegetable drug, “root of hemlock, digg’d
i’ the dark,” is named. Lady Macbeth (Act II., Sc. 2) tells how she
has drugg’d the possets of Duncan’s grooms, so that “death and nature
do contend about them Whether they live or die.” In Act V., Sc. 1, she
complains that “all the perfumes of Arabia” will not sweeten her hand
from the smell of blood. It is also in this play that the description
of Edward the Confessor curing the King’s Evil (see Vol. I, p. 299)
occurs.
In the “Comedy of Errors” (Act IV., Sc. 1) Dromio of Syracuse
tells Antipholus of Ephesus that he has found a bark for him, put
the freightage on board, and bought “the oil, the balsamum, and
aqua-vitae.” In Act V., Sc. 1, the Abbess declares that Antipholus
having taken sanctuary in the Priory she will not let him stir, “Till I
have used the approved means I have, with wholesome syrups, drugs, and
holy prayers, To make of him a formal man again.”
In “Much Ado about Nothing” (Act III., Sc. 4) Margaret recommends
the love-sick Beatrice to “get you some of this distilled Carduus
Benedictus, and lay it to your heart; it is the only thing for a
qualm.” This drug was in great repute in Shakespeare’s time and was
used for a multitude of complaints. Woodall says the distilled water
of it “doth ease the pain of the head, conformeth the memory, cureth
a quartane, provoketh sweat, and comforteth the vital spirits.” The
Physician in “King Lear” (Act IV., Sc. 4), tells Cordelia there are
“many simples operative whose power will close the eye of anguish.”
The story of “All’s Well that Ends Well” is based on a secret remedy
for fistula which Helena had acquired from her deceased father, and
with which she heals the King. The Queen in “Cymbeline” is an amateur
pharmacist. In Act I., Sc. 6, she tells the doctor that he has taught
her how “to make perfumes, distil, preserve”; and in Act V., Sc. 5, the
doctor tells the King that on her deathbed she confessed she had “a
mortal mineral” which would “by inches waste you.”