CHAPTER XII.. The Eighteenth Century.

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

Although there have been, even from the most remote times, individuals who have dedicated themselves exclusively to the cure of dental maladies, or to repairing the losses of the dental system by artificial means, and notwithstanding the progress gradually accomplished in this branch of the medical art, which progress was especially remarkable during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it is not to be denied that, up to the beginning of the eighteenth century, dentistry was, in great part, considered one with medicine and surgery in general. It is but natural that dental art (and the same may be said of every special branch of medicine) could not assume a real individuality until it had attained to the higher grades of its development. As a matter of fact, dentistry, toward the end of the seventeenth century, was already a true specialty, although it counted but few worthy representatives at that time. The definite separation between the science and art of dentistry and general medicine and surgery, although it may have been retarded, could not fail to take place; and this, as we shall presently see, was effected by the celebrated French dentist Pierre Fauchard.

But, to remain faithful to chronological order, we will first speak briefly of some other writers.

LUDWIG CRON, a barber of Leipsic, in a pamphlet published in 1717, with the title The barber’s apprentice versed in bleeding and tooth pulling, declares, in a still more emphatic and general way than De Lavauguyon, that it is useless to detach the gum before proceeding to extract a tooth. This barber, strong in his own experience, dares to assert absolutely useless this ancient practice, advised first by Cornelius Celsus, and recommended after him, and in homage to his authority, by many other writers. It is, therefore, possible that even previous to Cron and De Lavauguyon many operators had dispensed with the practice recommended by Celsus, although this had become an accepted canon of the high medical profession.

LORENZ HEISTER (1683 to 1758), of Frankfort-am-Main, one of the most celebrated surgeons of the eighteenth century, wrote a dissertation on toothache, treating besides very extensively of dental affections and their cure in a masterly work on surgery, published for the first time in 1718, and which went through numerous editions in various languages.

When the caries of a tooth is superficial, Heister advises the removal of the decayed part with the file; or, when the caries is deep down, the cavity ought first to be well cleaned with a toothpick or other like instrument, then filled with heated white wax, or mastic, the stopping being renewed as often as may be necessary. When a molar tooth is decayed, especially in the centre, the best way, says Heister, is to fill it with gold or lead leaf, or with a piece of the latter fitting into the cavity. If the carious cavity of a painful molar cannot be cleaned as it ought to be, the dropping of a little oil of cloves or of cinnamon or of guaiacum into it will be found useful, or even a few drops of spirit of vitriol; for in this manner one obtains at the same time the double advantage of destroying the impurities contained in the carious cavity and of soothing the pain. But if by chance the pain should persist, recourse must be had to the cauterizing iron, or to extraction. Sometimes, however, even the most violent toothache can be made to cease, either by scarifying the gums (a method already recommended by Pliny), by cauterizing the antitragus, or by pressing the aching tooth hard between the fingers, as Schelhammer and some other writers had advised.

Heister writes at length on the extraction of teeth, on the indications and counterindications appertaining thereto, on the instruments with which the operation should be carried out, and so on. Regarding the position of the patients, he thinks it best to place them on a low seat or on the ground, if the tooth to be extracted is situated in the lower jaw, but if an upper tooth is to be extracted, patients should be placed on a chair or on a bed.

Movable prosthetic pieces are mentioned for the first time by this author. Although he is very concise in his manner of speaking of artificial teeth (this indicating that dental prosthesis was considered outside the sphere of action of the general surgeon), we nevertheless learn from him that partial sets of teeth made of ivory or hippopotamus tusks, and without special appliances for fixing them, were then in use, which, when applied in the void between the neighboring teeth, were maintained in position simply by their form. The author advises keeping prosthetic pieces very clean, removing them every evening before going to bed, and not putting them back in the mouth until they have been well cleaned.

Heister also speaks of nasal prosthesis; this was then carried out by applying noses made of wood or of silver, properly painted. In cases of trismus, this author altogether rejects the forcible opening of the jaws by means of screw dilators and such like instruments, as they act too violently, and, according to him, only aggravate the morbid condition. Even the extraction of a tooth is useless in such cases, as the patient can always absorb a certain quantity of liquid food through the closed teeth. On the other hand, the author expresses himself in favor of the incision of the gums in cases of difficult dentition. According to him, convulsions and the other nervous symptoms which children are subject to during the period of dentition depend wholly on the hardness and strained condition of the gum. It is, therefore, natural that the symptoms should disappear when an incision of the gums, reaching to the tooth that is coming through, has caused the tension to cease.

The author speaks very particularly of the treatment of epulis and parulis; but his views on this subject contain nothing of great importance.

RENÉ JACQUES CROISSANT DE GARENGEOT (1688 to 1759), the celebrated French surgeon, speaks very little of dental surgery in his works. He declares himself averse to the carrying out of too many operations on the teeth, and especially disapproves the use of the file, because, according to him, it ruins the enamel. For a long time, especially in France, Garengeot was believed to have been the inventor of the key known by his name; but he merely perfected this instrument. In fact, through a later author, Lecluse, it clearly results that the key existed before Garengeot. “For extracting,” writes Lecluse, “one may make use of the pelican that Garengeot has constructed on the English key.” In a note, he afterward adds, “that the English key is an instrument used by dentists in England.” However, it is not in the least certain that the key is really an instrument of English origin.

Loder, who wrote at the end of the eighteenth century, informs us that the so-called English key was called the German key in England; it is, therefore, not improbable, that this instrument, as some maintain, had its origin in Germany.

JOHANN JUNKER (1679 to 1759), professor of medicine at the University of Halle, wrote on dental maladies, not only in a treatise on surgery, published in 1721, but also in three dissertations which were published some time later, and were entitled respectively: De affectibus dentium (1740), De dentitione difficili (1745), De odontalgia (1746). The author, however, for the most part, only repeats things already known; his writings have, therefore, little or no importance for us. He counsels the Cowper-Drake operation in treating the affections of Highmore’s antrum; in carrying out the operation, however, he thinks the extraction of the second molar to be preferable to that of the first. To prevent the formation of tartar on the teeth, he advises assiduous care in keeping the mouth clean, and recommends, among other things, rubbing the teeth with sage. He disapproves having recourse too readily to metal instruments to remove tartar from the teeth, because, according to him, it favors the production of dental caries. He holds it dangerous to extract the upper or lower canines when they are not loose, as, by reason of the depth of their roots an injury to the surrounding nerves may be the result, which not only might cause great pain, but in the case of the upper canines might lead to inflammation of the eye, and even of the dura mater!

When the caries is incipient, Junker advises rubbing the teeth several times a day for some time with common salt, in order that this should penetrate into their structure.

GUILLAUME MAQUEST DE LA MOTTE (1655 to 1737), a distinguished French surgeon and the writer of an excellent treatise (Traité complet de chirurgie, Paris, 1722), repeats the advice already given by preceding authors, to which he annexes the highest importance, that is, the opening in time of abscesses of the gums and of the palate even before they be completely matured, in order to prevent the suppurative process from extending and damaging the bone below. This author relates having several times arrested serious hemorrhage following on the extraction of teeth, by applying a little vitriol inside the alveolus, and, on this, graduated compresses, which the patient pressed on the part with the teeth of the opposite jaw.

JOHANN ADOLPH GÖRITZ, of Regensburg, in one of his writings published in 1725, disapproves the too frequent recurrence to extraction of the teeth, that is, carrying out the operation when it is not absolutely necessary. He is also averse to the application of artificial teeth. In support of his opinion he relates a case in which, a certain time after the application of an artificial tooth, the natural ones to which it had been fixed became loose, so that it was necessary to proceed to the fixing of all three, that is, the artificial tooth and the two neighboring ones, to the firm teeth beyond them; these, however, became loosened in their turn, and it was at last necessary to extract six teeth. The great space thus created was filled with a prosthetic piece made of hippopotamus tusk; but the author did not believe much good would come of this either. In fact, he is of opinion that the natural teeth should be preserved by every possible means, and that, on the other hand, even in the case of a few being lost, it is better not to resort to substitutes. In the worst case, should the dental void cause too great inconvenience by damaging the pronunciation, or for some other reason, it may be filled by an “imitation” in soft wood.

If one takes into consideration the by no means slight inconvenience to which fixed artificial teeth gave rise, one cannot but admit the aversion to them, expressed by Göritz and others, to have been justified.

ERNST FERDINAND GEBAUER, in 1726, made known a case in which, a tooth having been badly extracted by an incapable surgeon, the upper jaw was so seriously injured that a diffusive carious process ensued, which after many years’ suffering brought the patient to the grave.

JOHANN BERNHARDT FISCHER (1685 to 1772), a very famous doctor, born in Lübeck, who had the honor of becoming archiater of the Russian Empire, related, in 1726, a case of replantation, similar to those by Pomaret and Carmeline; but HEINRICH BASS (1690 to 1754), of Bremen, professor of anatomy and surgery in Halle, endeavored to demonstrate that in these cases the tooth did not really take root, but was rather maintained in position by the contracting of the surrounding gum. One perceives from this that there were still, at that time, discordant opinions on the subject of replantation, and that this operation was far from occupying, in dental surgery, the accredited position it has acquired today.

Heinrich Bass also combats the abuse of extracting teeth inconsiderately, without absolute necessity, and expresses the opinion that this is especially blamable in the case of teeth of the upper jaw, principally because the extraction of either the canine or of the first or second large upper molars might easily produce the opening of Highmore’s antrum, and thus give rise to regrettable accidents. He is not, however, averse, like Göritz, to the use of artificial teeth; indeed, he advises the application of whole dental sets, even in the upper jaw, so long as there be two natural teeth existing to fix the prosthetic piece to.

PIERRE FAUCHARD, the founder of modern scientific dentistry, was born in Brittany about the year 1690, and died at Paris in the year 1761. His celebrated work, Le Chirurgien Dentiste, was already written in the year 1723, but not published until 1728. It marks a new epoch in the history of dental art. The most renowned physicians, surgeons, and anatomists of the time testified their admiration for Fauchard’s work, which was translated into German in 1733, and afterward went through two French editions in the years 1746 and 1786. We have been able to obtain the second edition of this most important treatise, and of this we now intend making use for accurately analyzing the work, as it is probably more complete than the first, whilst the third, having been published after the author’s death, is probably merely a reprint.

The work consists of two volumes in duodecimo, in all 863 pages. In the beginning there is the portrait of the author and a long and interesting preface. The portrait, which we here reproduce, has also its historical importance, and this for two reasons, the first of which being that in it Fauchard is revealed to us as a person of very distinguished appearance, and this gives us an idea of the social condition of the surgeon-dentists of his time; the second, because there are annexed to the portrait the following Latin verses, by a certain Moraine, in which, whilst eulogizing the writings of the author and his ability in the treatment of the teeth, and in restoring force and beauty to them, he counsels him “to despise the tooth of envy,” as it will certainly break against his merit.

Dum dextra et scriptis solamina dentibus affers Illorum in tuto sunt decor atque salus. Invidiæ spernas igitur, Faucharde, cruentos Dentes; nam virtus frangere novit eos.

That Fauchard, in common with all men of rare merit, had to combat all his life against envy, we are able to perceive from what we read at the end of the second volume of his work. The author here says that “the rumor having been falsely set about that he has abandoned the profession; which rumor cannot have been invented otherwise than by those individuals who, sacrificing honor to interest, would attract to themselves the persons who honor the author with their confidence; he therefore finds it necessary to give warning that he still continues the practice of his art in Paris, in the Rue de la Comédie Française, together with his brother-in-law and sole student, M. Duchemin.”

More than a century and a half has passed by since Fauchard was obliged to defend himself against lies invented and set about to his damage by envious colleagues, but even at the present day, when, given the high grade that civilization has reached, and professional competition ought not to make use of other weapons than intelligence, study, and application, some do not hesitate to have recourse to means equally disloyal, ignoble, and shameless as those practised by some contemptible dentists of the middle of the eighteenth century.

The preface of Fauchard’s book is especially important for the notices therein contained regarding the author, as well as the conditions of dental art at that period. And first of all, we find in it the proof of what we have already said elsewhere, namely, that even before Fauchard, there were not only tooth-pullers but also dentists properly so called. Indeed, Fauchard makes mention also of the examination that aspirant dentists had to undergo as far back as the year 1700. It may interest our readers if we here give in detail some extracts in which the author speaks on these subjects:

“Although surgery in general,” says Fauchard, “has been greatly perfected in these latter times; although important discoveries have been made in anatomy and in the modes of operating, and many learned and interesting observations have been published, nevertheless, dentists nowhere find in works on surgery sufficient aids to guide them in all their operations.” These last words should be sufficient alone to prove that the dentists spoken of by Fauchard were not mere tooth-pullers.

“The authors who have written on anatomy, on surgical diseases and operations, have only treated very superficially the part relating to maladies of the mouth and teeth. If some writers have spoken in particular about the teeth and their diseases, as, for instance, Urbain Hemard and B. Martin, they have not done so in a sufficiently ample manner.

“Besides, there does not exist any public or private course of surgery in which the theory of dental maladies is amply taught and in which one can receive fundamental instruction in this art, so necessary for the healing of these maladies and of those of the neighboring parts.

“This branch of the art having been but little cultivated, if not wholly abandoned by the most celebrated surgeons, their negligence has caused it to fall into the hands of persons without theory and without experience, who practise it in a haphazard fashion, guided neither by principles nor method. In Paris, it is only since 1700 that people’s eyes have become opened to this abuse.

“In this town, those who intend to become dentists are now obliged to undergo an examination, but although the examiners be most learned and well versed in all the other parts of surgery, I think, if I may be allowed to express my opinion, that as they do not ordinarily themselves practise dental surgery, it would not be amiss on these occasions to admit an able and experienced dentist, who might sound the aspirant as to the difficulties which have come before him in the course of the long practice of his art, and who could communicate to them the means of surmounting them. In this way one would not have to acknowledge that the attainment of the greater part of dental experts is below mediocrity.

“To supply this want of instruction it would have been of great use if some able dentist, for example the late Monsieur Carmeline, who, in his day, practised with general applause, had made us acquainted with his mode of operating and with the knowledge acquired through the successful treatment of a great number of important cases.

“What this celebrated surgeon-dentist has not done, I today dare to undertake. I shall at least afford an example of what he might have done with greater erudition and better success.

“From my youth I was destined to the surgical profession; the other arts I have practised have never made me lose sight of it. I was the disciple of Alexandre Poteleret, surgeon-in-chief to His Majesty’s ships, who had great experience in diseases of the mouth. To him I owe the first rudiments of the knowledge I have acquired in the surgical speciality I practise, and the progress I made under this able man gave me the emulation that has led me to further important discoveries. I have collected among different writers what seemed to me most reliable. I have frequently discussed these matters with the ablest surgeons and doctors of my acquaintance, and have neglected nothing in order to profit by their counsels and by their ideas.

“The experience which I have acquired during an uninterrupted practice of more than forty years has led me insensibly to the acquirement of further knowledge and to the modification of what seemed to me defective in my earlier ideas. I offer to the public the results of my labors and of my studies, hoping that they may be of some use to those who wish to exercise the profession of surgeon-dentist.”

The reason why dentists before the time of Fauchard published hardly anything concerning their art, was perhaps out of a sentiment of jealousy, which rendered them (that is, the best of the profession and therefore the ones most capable of writing) but little disposed to make known to others the results of their studies and of their experience, lest the fruits of their long labors should be utilized by others and they themselves be materially damaged by competition. That this sentiment of jealous egotism really existed in many dentists may be, in a certain manner, deduced from a few words of Fauchard himself, who, although he has the very great merit of breaking with mean, old-world prejudices, nevertheless expresses the prevalent idea of the time, consisting in the belief that every artificer, every inventor, had not only the right, but also the duty of surrounding his discoveries with secrecy and mystery. These are the words in which, making known a certain improvement in dental prosthesis invented by him, he at the same time expressed his conviction that by so doing he is acting against his own interests:

“I have perfected and also invented several artificial pieces both for substituting a part of the teeth and for remedying their entire loss, and these pieces substitute them so well that they serve perfectly for the same uses as the natural teeth. To the prejudice of my own interests I now give the most exact description possible of them.”

Now, although a man of elevated mind, such as Fauchard, may have been capable of sacrificing his material interests to higher aims, it is not, however, to be wondered at, taking also into consideration the lesser degree of culture and of professional ability of his predecessors, that none among them should have been found sufficiently disinterested to publish the results of their particular studies and experience, besides all those technical details which according to the ideas of that time constituted the secrets of the profession.

In the course of this history, we have seen that the dental art was practised from the most remote times and in the most various countries, remaining, notwithstanding, for centuries in an embryonal condition. It was toward the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century that, in the midst of the highly advanced civilization of the great French capital, it attained a high degree of development, entitling it to be considered a special branch of the medical art.

It would, therefore, be wrong to believe that the dental art was created, for the most part, by Fauchard, and one clearly perceives, from the perusal of his work, that although he made most important contributions to this specialty, which he cultivated with passion, nevertheless, the greater part of the things therein treated of were already known before his time, although no reference to them is to be found in previous works; and this for the reasons we have already suggested. The highest merit of Fauchard consists, still more than in his inventions and improvements, in his having most ably collected and incorporated in a single work the whole doctrine of dental art, theoretical as well as practical, thus setting in full light the importance of the specialty, and giving it a solid scientific basis.

France is therefore the first country where modern dentistry reached a high degree of development and also the first country where, earlier than elsewhere, that is, about 1700, the dentists began to form a well-defined class, to belong to which it was necessary to pass a special examination. This examination, as we learn from Fauchard, was held before a commission of which no dentist formed a part, and exactly for this reason gave but negative results and responded but little to its intended aim. The greater number of those who were authorized to practise dentistry after undergoing this examination showed a professional ability below mediocrity. Nevertheless, although few in number, good and able dentists were in no way wanting, as clearly appears from the preface to Fauchard’s work, and better still from the following paragraph, wherein the author speaks of the great perfection reached by dental surgery in Paris:

“The teeth and the other parts of the mouth being subject, as we have seen in the course of this work, to so many important diseases, requiring the aid of the most able dentists, it is strange that the sovereigns of foreign countries, the heads of republics, and also the administrators of our own provinces do not provide for the expense of sending young surgeons to Paris, to be instructed in a part of surgery so essential, and, notwithstanding, so ignored and neglected everywhere excepting in this great city, where it has reached its highest perfection, both as regards the embellishment of the mouth and the cure of diseases, often of a most serious nature. These scholars would, thereafter, form others and would render great services to their nation and to their fellow citizens.”

In the first chapter of his work, Fauchard speaks “of the structure, position, and connection of the teeth; of their origin and of their growth.” He distinguishes in each tooth a body, a root, and a neck, making the remark, however, that this last is to be considered as forming part of the body. According to the author, the name of “crown” can only be applied suitably to the body of the molar teeth, but not to that of the incisors or of the canines, which has no resemblance with a crown. Although in the adult the number of the teeth is normally thirty-two, it may be that some persons have, nevertheless, thirty-one, thirty, twenty-nine, or even only twenty-eight teeth, and this independently of any eventual loss, but for the simple reason that the wisdom teeth are often cut very late in life (even after fifty years of age), or do not all come forth, or sometimes are never cut at all. The author refers to some cases of a supernumerary tooth situated in general between the two superior central incisors and similar in form to the lateral incisors. He also observed two individuals who had each thirty-four teeth, sixteen in the lower and eighteen in the upper jaw, and in these cases the two supernumeraries were situated behind the incisors. Fauchard declares the popular opinion expressed also by some ancient authors, of the milk teeth having no roots, to be false. The roots of these teeth, he says, are gradually worn away before the latter are shed, when the permanent teeth are just on the point of coming through; however, if it so happens that one or more of the milk teeth be extracted some time before the period in which they are usually shed, their roots are found to be as long and as strong in proportion to the body as those of the permanent teeth. In children one finds, besides the twenty deciduous teeth, the germs of the thirty-two permanent ones, for which reason it may be said that children have in all thirty-two teeth without counting the germs that may sometimes be found at the extremities of the roots of the large molars. As, however, the existence of such germs is an exceptional fact, the twelve large molars, if extracted, are not ordinarily regenerated. This may be possible, however, if the germs in question exist, and, indeed, the author observed two persons in both of whom a large molar had been regenerated in the place of the one which had to be extracted.

Fauchard gives an excellent description of the alveoli and of the roots of the teeth; he alludes to the varieties which these latter may present, and to the importance of the same from the point of view of extraction. Thus, speaking of the molars, he says: “Their roots sometimes touch one another at the points, whilst at the base, close to the body of the tooth, they are far apart. These are the so-called dents barrées (barred teeth), which it is so difficult to extract, it being unavoidable to bring away together with the tooth the spongy osseous part occupying the interval between the roots.”

In this same chapter the author calls our attention to some anomalies worthy of note. He says that he has observed teeth that seemed to him to be derived from the union of two or three germs. He also relates that a colleague of his showed him a tooth that appeared to be formed by the union of two, between the roots of which was a third tooth whose crown was united to the vault formed by the roots of the first two.

Fauchard describes exactly the pulp cavity and the root canals, and speaks of their gradual restriction, ending in an almost entire disappearance in old age. He treats of the nerves, of the arteries, and of the veins of the teeth in a most detailed manner; then, after alluding to their general structure, he goes on to speak of the microscopic constitution of the enamel, following in this the description given of it in 1699 by the academician La Hire.

In regard to the development of the teeth, Fauchard repeats what Urbain Hémard had previously written. He apparently ignores the researches of the Italian anatomists, from whom, and especially from Eustachius, Urbain Hémard had literally reproduced all that concerns odontogeny.

In the second chapter Fauchard speaks “of the maladies of children at the period of teething and of the remedies best adapted thereto.” Among other means of treatment, he advises the incision of the gum when this is red, swollen, and distended and the tooth below it can be felt. For the incisors and canines a simple incision ought to be made in the same curve as the dental arch; for the molars a crosswise incision should be made directly down to the tooth below, taking care not to leave any strips of uncut gingival tissue, lest these, being distended by the emerging tooth, should continue to be the cause of pain and other morbid phenomena.

Although Fauchard does not tell us anything substantially new about teething maladies and their treatment, he nevertheless treats this subject with much practical good sense, and does not merely make servile repetition of what preceding authors have written about it.

In the three following chapters the author speaks of the utility of the teeth, of the rules to be observed for their preservation, of the modes of keeping them white, and of strengthening the gums.

From a passage in the fifth chapter we learn that tooth brushes were then already in use. Fauchard, however, advises the use of small sponges in their stead. He says: “Those who use brushes of horsehair, or pieces of cloth or of linen for cleaning the teeth, do not reflect that all these materials are too rough, and that the practice of using them frequently and without discretion often exercises a destructive action upon the teeth. Not without good reason, I advise the abandonment of this usage, it being preferable, after having had the teeth cleaned by the dentist, to wash the mouth every morning with tepid water, and to rub the teeth up and down, inside and outside, with a small, very fine sponge wetted in water; and it is still better to add to this water a fourth part of aqua vitæ the better to fortify the gums and render the teeth firm.”

Instead of a small sponge, says Fauchard, the end of a root of marshmallow or lucern, which has first been subjected to a special preparation, may be used with benefit for rubbing the teeth. The author gives a long and minute description of this preparation, which we, however, omit, because devoid of historical interest.

As, however, the above means are not always sufficient for preserving the teeth and gums in good condition, it is necessary in many cases, says Fauchard, to make use of some paste, powder, or mouth wash. The author mentions a great number of compositions of this kind, giving the formula for each one—almost always most complicated—and indicating the peculiar advantages of each of them. We will here quote one of the formulæ as an example.

“A spirituous water, desiccative, balsamic, antiscorbutic, efficacious against many maladies of the mouth:

“℞—good sarsaparilla, four ounces; aristolochia rotunda, dried rinds of bitter organes, of lemons, and pomegranates, ana three ounces; pyrethrum, two ounces; cloves, one ounce; mustard seeds, one ounce; wild rocket seeds, two ounces. Pound well in a mortar and put the whole into a retort with a long neck. Add thereto half a pound of pulverized candied sugar and the same quantity of clarified rose honey. Pour in three pints of good spirit of wine. Cork the retort well and leave all to digest in a cool place for five or six days. Then heat the retort forty-eight hours in the water bath over a slow fire, without letting the liquid come to the boil. Afterward, when cold, decant in a glass bottle, to be kept well corked. Pour another three pints of spirit of wine on the residue of the drugs; cork the retort again, replacing it in the water bath for forty-eight hours, and regulating the fire as above. Then, after letting it cool, pour off the liquid into the same bottle. Next remove all the residue from the retort, place it in a thick, white linen cloth, and force the remaining liquid through it, and add to that in the bottle. Put back half of the entire quantity of liquid in the same retort, and add thereto aloetic elixir and baume du commandeur, ana four ounces; pulverized dragon’s blood, three ounces and a half; pulverized gum of guaiac and Peruvian balsam, ana three ounces; gum lac, two ounces. Cork the retort again and replace it in the water bath for forty-eight hours, as above. Let cool, decant the liquid in another glass bottle, and cork well. Pour the remaining half of the first liquid upon the rest of the drugs, replace the retort in the water bath for forty-eight hours, let cool, and pour the contents in the last bottle. Filter the liquid well, and pour it into a bottle of sufficient size to be able to add the following liquids: aqua vulneraria and first cinnamon water, ana three pints; second cinnamon water, three half-pints; spirit of cochlearia, four pints. Shake the bottle well, filter again, and store in well-corked bottles.”

The author adds that the doses of the different drugs may be reduced in proportion to the quantity of liquor to be prepared; and that he prepares so large a quantity at a time because of the great sale he has for it among his clients.

The preparation in question is counselled by the author as a remedy against pathological conditions, and of the gums especially. One makes use of it in the following manner: Pour from seven to eight drops into a wineglass of water; wet the tip of the finger and rub the gums and the teeth well. Or mix seven or eight drops in a good spoonful of water, using a fine sponge to rub the teeth and gums.

The example we have cited suffices to show how much care one took at that time in the preparation of substances destined to be used in the preservation of the teeth, and demonstrates at the same time that Fauchard, inventor of that and many other preparations, besides being an able surgeon-dentist, was also exceedingly well versed in dental materia medica.