variegatum_, L., but Hanbury does not agree) was used in ancient
medicine under the name of Hermodactylus. Linnæus knew hermodactyls
brought from India and attributed them to _Iris tuberosa_. Royle
says they are sold in the bazaars of northern India under the name of
Surinjan, but he thought they were brought from the shores of the Red
Sea via Bombay. And notwithstanding the unfavourable opinions just
quoted, Radix Colchici and Hermodactylus appear among the simples of
the London Pharmacopœias of 1618 and 1639. They are then omitted, but
Colchicum reappears in the edition of 1788. This was in consequence
of the strong recommendation of Stoerck of Vienna, a practitioner and
medical teacher who had a passion for experimenting with discredited
remedies. Stoerck’s report, published in 1763, showed that the medicine
was a powerful and a dangerous one; but it was a most potent diuretic,
and he had administered it with success in dropsical cases in the
Vienna Hospital. He recommended particularly a colchitic oxymel. He
reports favourably on it as a remedy for asthma and in mucous catarrh,
but does not suggest it as a remedy for gout.
In the early part of the eighteenth century the bulbs of colchicum were
frequently recommended by physicians of repute to be carried in the
pocket or worn round the neck as an amulet.
In the latter part of the eighteenth century a French proprietary
article called D’Husson’s Eau Medicinale became popular. Its inventor
was an army officer, and it is not known how he acquired his medical
knowledge. I have no information as to the price at which the Eau
Medicinale was sold in France; but from some interesting communications
to the _Pharmaceutical Journal_ published in 1852 from medical
men, Thomas Bushell, of 117, Crawford Street, Portman Square, and
George Wallis, M.D., many details have been collected, among them
being the statement made by Mr. Bushell that the proprietors of the
Eau Medicinale were a firm of foreign perfumers in Bond Street; that
they told him the sale had at that time (1852) quite died out; that
four or five years previously they had sold a few bottles at 9_s._
6_d._ each, but that when it was in demand the price was
22_s._ a bottle. The bottles each contained 2 fluid drachms, and
the dose was 1 drachm, to be repeated if necessary in four to six hours.
According to Pereira, Cadet and Parmentier had endeavoured to ascertain
the composition of this medicine in 1782; but they only arrived at the
conclusion that it contained no metallic or mineral substance, and
that it was a vinous infusion of some bitter plant. Alyon, another
French inquirer, had guessed gratiola; an English doctor (Moore) had
diagnosed that it was a vinous infusion of white hellebore with
laudanum. Mr. Bushell, quoting from some references to the medicine
in the _Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal_ of 1810, relates
the experience of a Dr. Edwin Godden Jones, who had come to know of
D’Husson’s remedy while on the Continent with a gentleman who was
a great sufferer from gout, and who had derived much benefit from
the nostrum. The Edinburgh journal also mentioned that Sir Joseph
Banks, the President of the Royal Society, having experienced the
most extraordinary deliverance from his arch-enemy, made D’Husson’s
preparation his pocket companion. Attempts to discover the secret
of the mixture still resulted unsatisfactorily. Rhododendron,
chrysanthemum, digitalis, tobacco, and elaterium were among the new
guesses made. In 1814, however, a Mr. Want published a statement in
the _Medical and Physical Journal_ indicating that colchicum
was the basis of D’Husson’s remedy. Mr. Bushell states that Want had
previously made known his discovery in a popular journal entitled
_The Monthly_. There are three stories of the means by which
he came by his information. He himself said he got the first hint
from Alexander of Tralles, who recommended a remedy “Hermodactylon”
for the cure of gout, and that the Hermodactylus from which that
was compounded corresponded with colchicum. Dr. Wallis, of Bristol,
however, “in justice to a departed friend,” wrote that Want had derived
his knowledge entirely from Mr. C. T. Haden, when the latter was a
medical officer of the Brompton Dispensary. Dr. Wallis says that in
1811 Mr. Haden was practising in Derby with his father, an eminent
surgeon of that town. They had a patient who was anxious to try the
Eau Medicinale. The younger Haden examined the stuff and came to the
conclusion that it was made from colchicum, with which he had some
acquaintance through having made the oxymel. After many experiments
he was convinced of the accuracy of his opinion. Soon after Mr. Haden
left Derby and settled in Sloane Street, where he commenced the
publication of the _Medical Intelligencer_, the predecessor of
the _Lancet_. At the Brompton Dispensary he introduced colchicum
in the treatment of gout. Dr. Wallis alludes to the annoyance caused
to his friend by what he characterises as literary petty larceny,
forestalling his own communication on the subject.
The third story told by Mr. Bushell is the most curious of the three.
He was apprenticed near Covent Garden two or three years after Mr.
Want had published his discovery, and frequently went to Mr. Grimley,
a herbalist, in the Garden, to buy medicinal herbs. Mr. Grimley, he
said, told him that Want had “discovered” the colchicum secret in this
wise:--His wife’s father having a bad attack of gout, a nursemaid in
Mrs. Want’s service told them that she once lived with a little French
gentleman who made a famous medicine for gout called “Eau Medicinale.”
He kept his materials very secret, but this promising young detective
had managed to secure a piece of the principal ingredient used, which
she then gave to Want. Want took it to Grimley, and between them they
made out what it was. Grimley further said that he had been in the
habit of selling quantities of colchicum to a little Frenchman who used
to come in a hackney coach and take with him 1 to 1½ cwt. at a time.
Want’s tincture was made from 1 part of the fresh bulb of the
colchicum autumnale and 2 parts of alcohol 36°; dose 5 or 6 drops in
a tablespoonful of water. Sir Everard Home, who studied colchicum
preparations with much care, preferred a wine made from the corms;
and he believed that he had succeeded in removing the deleterious
constituents of the medicine by filtering out a deposit which formed
after a few days of maceration. Williams and Haden advocated the
employment of the seeds. Copland, Bushell, and Frost advised the
flowers.
Drying the corms was found to reduce considerably their medicinal
and poisonous effects. Prosper Alpin states that the Egyptian women
of his time were in the habit of taking as many as ten bulbs of some
hermodactyl after roasting them like chestnuts at bedtime. They
believed they produced the embonpoint which was regarded as a female
attraction.
JAMES’S POWDER.
The antimonial preparation which attained the most permanent popularity
was Dr. James’s Fever Powders. The inventor, Dr. Robert James, was
a life-long friend of Dr. Johnson. The two went to school together
at Lichfield, in which town James at one time practised. He was also
in practice in Sheffield and Birmingham before he came to London. He
first settled in Southampton Street, Covent Garden, but removed later
to Craven Street, Strand. He was a man of considerable attainments,
and is described as cordial, impetuous, improvident, but thoroughly
loved by his associates. He was the author of a massive Dictionary of
Medicine, and Dr. Johnson said of him: “No man brought more mind to
his profession.” Dr. Munk, in his “Roll of the College of Physicians,”
adds to this, however: “But he tarnished the fair fame he might
otherwise have attained by patenting his powder and falsifying the
specification.” Dr. James died in 1776 at the age of 73.
[Illustration: DR. JAMES.]
The patent for his fever powder was taken out in 1747. It is on record
that Johnson introduced him to John Newbery, a noted bookseller of the
time, who had a shop at the corner of St. Paul’s Churchyard and Ludgate
Hill. Newbery became the agent and part proprietor of the medicine. It
is still owned and prepared by the direct descendants of John Newbery,
who carry on business in Charterhouse Square.
The specification of the patent directs to “Take antimony, calcine it
with a continual protracted heat in a flat unglazed earthen vessel,
adding to it from time to time a sufficient quantity of any animal
oil and salt well dephlegmated; then boil it in melted nitre for a
considerable time, and separate the powder from the nitre by dissolving
it in water.” The doctor adds to his specification a process for a
mercurial pill with antimony, made by amalgamating equal parts of
martial regulus of antimony with “pure silver” (_sic_), adding
a proportionable quantity of sal ammoniac, then distilling off the
mercury and using it again. This performance was to be repeated nine
or ten times, the mercury being at last dissolved in spirits of nitre
(nitric acid), distilled to dryness, the caput mortuum calcined till
it was of a golden colour, and this powder, after spirits of wine had
been burnt upon it, was ready to be made into pills. Dr. James gave the
moderate dose of the antimonial powder at 30 grains, and that of the
mercurial at 1 grain.
Paris says that James “usually combined his antimonial powder with
some mercurial, and always followed it up with large doses of bark.”
He suggests that the adjuncts largely accounted for the success of the
medicine.
The fever powder acquired great fame in James’s lifetime, and after
his death imitations were numerous. One of these is of interest
because of an advertisement against it written by Dr. Johnson. The
man who ventured to imitate the genuine product was named Hawes, and
he had once been in the employment of Dr. James. He professed that he
had learned how to make the powder during his service, but Dr. James
signed an affidavit against his pretensions a short time before his
death. Later Hawes asserted that when the doctor made that affidavit
he was not in the possession of his mental faculties. To this Francis
Newbery replied by an advertisement quoting affidavits by many of
James’s patients and acquaintances. A paragraph was appended which
Newbery himself stated was written by Dr. Johnson, and as a section
of literature rather foreign to the famous author, it seems worthy of
reproduction. It ran thus:--
“The public will now be fully enabled to judge of Mr. Hawes’s
pretensions to the knowledge of this medicine; and they will
determine what degree of credit they ought to pay to the
assertions of a man who has made so daring an attempt to impose
upon their understanding; who in contradiction to Dr. James’s
deposition has represented himself as possessing a secret with
which he was never entrusted, and as having performed operations
at which he was never present; and who, to invalidate the
Doctor’s testimony, has declared him to be reduced to fatuity at
a time when the vigour of his mind was known and acknowledged by
the physician and surgeon who attended him, and by patients of
the highest rank who continued to entrust him with health and
life.”
In 1774 Dr. James patented an “analeptic pill.” It was composed of
his own fever powder with pil. rufi and gum ammoniacum, the last two
ingredients to be dissolved in an underground cave furnished with the
conductors of electric fire.
The first official substitute for James’s powder was introduced into
the London Pharmacopœia of 1787. The formula was devised by a Dr.
Higgins, and the experiments were made in the laboratory of the Society
of Apothecaries. It was composed of equal parts of tersulphuret of
antimony and hartshorn shavings. This was found to be stronger than
the original, and further experiments were made for the College by Dr.
Pearson, who reported in 1791 that James’s powder consisted of about
equal parts of oxide of antimony and phosphate of lime. The formulas
in the London Pharmacopœias of 1809 and 1824 were consequently reduced
in strength, one part of the antimonial salt with two parts of horn
shavings being substituted. The ingredients were heated to redness
in a crucible and afterwards powdered. For the Pharmacopœia of 1851,
Mr. Richard Phillips experimented, and mainly confirmed Dr. Pearson’s
results. The formula remained as in 1824. Meanwhile the Edinburgh
Pharmacopœia continued to adopt the stronger combination, while the
Dublin Pharmacopœia prescribed a different preparation altogether,
tartarised antimony and phosphate of soda solutions being mixed, and
a precipitate consisting of teroxide of antimony and phosphate of
lime being produced by precipitation by the addition of a solution of
chloride of calcium and ammonia. This was a modification of a process
advocated by Chevenix in a paper published in _Phil. Trans._,
1801. His process was recommended by Abernethy and many other of the
leading practitioners of his time. In the British Pharmacopœias the
simple formula of one part of antimonious oxide and two parts of
calcium phosphate has been adopted. The name of Dr. James’s Powder as
a synonym has now been dropped.
It has been suspected that Dr. James did not actually invent the
powder, but adopted it from an Italian recipe which was certainly
popular when he introduced it. In Colborne’s “English Dispensatory,”
published in 1756, directions are given for making Mr. Lisle’s Powder
for Fevers, sent to the author, he says, by a friend in Italy.
Hartshorn shavings are to be boiled in a large quantity of water for
six hours; the water is then to be strained off, the hartshorn to be
dried by a slow fire, and finely powdered. Equal weights of this and of
diaphoretic antimony are to be heated in a crucible, stirring all the
time with a long iron, for eight hours or as long as it smokes. This
powder is said to have been in great reputation for some years, having
been successful in cases when hardly any hope seemed left. Twenty
grains is indicated as a moderate dose at not less than six hours’
interval, and it is noted that the first and second doses often cause
vomiting.
Whether this was the original of James’s invention or not it may be
presumed that the formula was a guide to those doctors and chemists who
were busying themselves with the analysis of his powder. Another claim
of precedence was made by a patent medicine dealer of London named
William Baker, who alleged that Dr. James’s process was an infringement
of a patent or at least a copy of a formula invented by a German named
Schwanberg.
Medical opinion has varied concerning the relative merits of the
proprietary medicine and its official imitation. Christison in his
Dispensatory (1842) expresses an opinion which was very generally
held at least in his time when he says, “No one can deny that the
antimonial powder of the Pharmacopœias is an irregular preparation
inferior in activity as well as certainty to the nostrum sold by Dr.
James’s representatives.” Some dispensers will recollect that up to
recent years it was not at all unusual for prescribers specially to
order “Pulvis Jacobi Vera.”
That Dr. James was a man of great ability and industry is testified
by his great Dictionary and also by his “Pharmacopœia Universalis or
New English Dispensatory.” The latter is a most valuable guide to
the Pharmacy of the eighteenth century, and is not only full in its
information but particularly advanced in much of its criticism.
It may be of interest to add that the famous novelist G. P. R. James
was a grandson of the Doctor.
ST. JOHN LONG’S LINIMENT.
John St. John Long after he became famous was always reticent about his
origin; but it was believed that he was the son of a basket maker, some
said of the name of Driscoll, that he was born in or near Doneraile,
and in his youth assisted his father: that later, being possessed of
some artistic talent, he practised as a portrait painter in Dublin and
afterwards in Limerick. An advertisement appeared in a Limerick paper
of Feb. 10, 1821, which was as follows:--
“Mr. John St. John Long, Historical and Portrait Painter; the
only pupil of Daniel Richardson, Esq., late of Dublin, proposes
during his stay in Limerick to take portraits from Italian Head
to whole length; any person desirous of getting theirs done in
historical, hunting, shooting, fishing, or any other character;
or their family grouped in one or two paintings from life-size
to miniature, so as to make an historical subject, choosing one
from history,” &c.
The advertisement went on to announce that specimens might be seen at
his (the artist’s) residence, 116, George’s St. He was also willing to
take views in the country, and would give instructions “to a limited
number of pupils of respectability.” He succeeded fairly well in
Limerick, but evidently not well enough to satisfy his ambition.
[Illustration: JOHN ST. JOHN LONG.
(From a print in the British Museum.)]
He is next found in London, where he got some employment from Sir
Thomas Lawrence, assisting him in his studio; was elected a member of
the Royal Society of Literature, also of the Royal Asiatic Society.
One of his occupations was to colour anatomical drawings for the
professors and pupils of one of the minor surgical schools of London.
This perhaps suggested the opening of his brilliant career as an
unqualified doctor.
His treatment consisted of the application of a liniment, and the
inhalation of a vapour. The liniment had the extraordinary virtue of
selecting between sound and unsound tissues. If the part to which it
was applied was healthy no effect would be produced; but if there were
seeds of disease beneath the surface the liniment might be relied
upon to draw out the virus which could then be easily disposed of;
thus tubercles on the lungs were extracted and the disease cured.
Consumption was the principal disease which Long professed to treat;
but gout, rheumatism, palsy, liver disorders, and other frequent
complaints were dealt with by him. He was a handsome Irishman with
fascinating manners, and the gift of inducing confidence. His
consulting rooms in Harley Street were crowded, chiefly by ladies, from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and all the day patients were seated round a piece of
furniture which looked like a piano but from which a number of tubes
extruded supplied with mouth pieces from which they were inhaling or
smoking the medicated vapour. Hopeless cases he declined; those which
he preferred were those which were in the imaginary stage.
At the height of his popularity St. John Long was making an income
of over £13,000 a year (_Gent. Mag._ 1843). That was in 1829.
The next year, 1830, he was tried for manslaughter, a young Irish
lady, Miss Catherine Cushin, having died after, and it was alleged
in consequence of, his treatment. A number of aristocratic patients
gave evidence in his favour, and Mr. Justice Park, who tried him,
summed up strongly on his behalf. But the jury found him guilty, and
he was sentenced to pay a fine of £250 or to be imprisoned until the
money was paid. Long ostentatiously produced a roll of notes, counted
out the amount, and then drove off from the court in the Marquis of
Sligo’s carriage. Next year a coroner’s jury returned another verdict
of manslaughter against him in connection with the death of a Mrs.
Lloyd. He was again tried but on this occasion was acquitted. Strong
articles against him appeared in many of the principal newspapers,
but his aristocratic clients as a rule remained faithful to him. He
published a book in defence of his system and included in it a number
of extraordinary testimonials, together with a series of smart attacks
on the medical profession. He retained his popularity to the last; but
it was not to be for long. He was attacked by the disease over which he
had claimed to exercise so much power, and he died from consumption in
1837 in the 37th year of his age. A graceful monument was erected in
Kensal Green Cemetery to his memory by his patients and admirers “to
show how much its inhabitant was respected by those who knew his worth,
and the benefits derived from his remedial discovery.” His estate
became the subject of a lengthy litigation, the principal claimant
being an elderly woman of evidently humble surroundings, who, it was
proved, was his lawful wife. He had married her when a lad, but had
afterwards induced her to agree to an amicable separation. It was then
remembered how steadfastly the charlatan had resisted the blandishments
of his society friends, many of whom in very high circles had shown
their infatuation with the attractive Irishman.
The formula and good will in the liniment were ultimately sold for ten
thousand pounds, but it does not seem to have retained its popularity
after the personality of its inventor had been removed. Nevertheless it
possessed certain properties which were thought by some of its users
to be little short of miraculous. For example, when applied to the
skin the particular part where the pain was most severe would develop
redness quicker than the other parts. In the course of a little time,
the rubbing being continued, a fluid varying in colour according, as
was believed, to the nature of the illness, would ooze from the skin,
though the cuticle remained unbroken. Lastly, the treatment being
still continued, the part affected would gradually resume its healthy
appearance. In the _Lancet_ of June 23, 1838, may be found the
report of a meeting of the “Medico-Botanic Society,” held on the
13th of that month, at which Dr. Macreight communicated the result
of an investigation into the composition of this famous liniment,
an imitation of which had been made by himself and Mr. Fownes, the
well-known chemist. The explanation of the analysis was accompanied by
a good many disparaging comments on Long, and suggestions that there
was nothing very wonderful about his liniment after all. The formula
which Dr. Macreight and Mr. Fownes devised for a liniment which they
said corresponded exactly with the quack compound was as follows:--
Yolk of one egg; pure oil of turpentine, 1½ oz.; strong acetic acid, 1
oz.; distilled water, 3 oz.
Dr. Macreight notices one of St. John Long’s recommendations to apply
a cabbage leaf to the skin when the discharge had been obtained, and
remarks “this in many respects is superior to a common cataplasm, which
is clumsy and dries up rapidly; but of course no regular practitioner
would employ cabbage leaves while the simple and elegant contrivance,
lint covered with oiled silk, was within his reach.” Perhaps if a
medical man had constructed the cabbage leaf, it might have been also
regarded as “a simple and elegant contrivance.”
SEIGNETTE’S SALTS.
(Soda Tartarata, Sodii potassio-tartras, Rochelle salts, Sel de
Seignette, Sal polychrestum Seignette.)
Peter Seignette was an apothecary at Rochelle in the later half of the
seventeenth century. He had at least a local scientific reputation, and
a paper of his describing certain remarkable natural products of his
locality was printed in the “Transactions” of the Academy of Sciences
of Paris. A little before 1672 Seignette was making some soluble tartar
(tartrate of potash), and inadvertently used carbonate of soda with
the cream of tartar instead of carbonate of potash. At that time the
distinction between the fixed alkalies had not been discovered. The
product was a salt different from that which he had expected, and
Seignette was ready to believe that he had made a valuable discovery.
He ascertained that his new salt had laxative properties, he called
it Sal Polychrestum, and advertised it by means of prospectuses, or
handbills. From one of these it appears that he sold it at “20 sols la
prise,” say 10_d._ for a dose. Each dose was sold in an envelope
on which appeared the design of a goose. One of the prospectuses states
that Seignette’s salt was sold in Paris by Lemery, but another refers
customers to the “Messieurs Seignette, at present at Paris, lodging on
the Quay de le Megisserie.”
Peter Seignette died in 1716, and his son continued to sell the powder.
Many attempts to analyse it were made by pharmacists, but it remained
a secret until 1731 in which year both Boulduc and Geoffroi, both
noted pharmaciens of Paris, solved the problem. Boulduc’s paper on the
subject was published in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, Paris,
and Geoffroi sent his account to Sir Hans Sloane of London and it was
published in the “Philosophical Transactions,” (436, p. 37).