Part 21

Pil. Cochia originated with the Greco-Roman physicians, from Galen onwards, and all the formulas for it associate aloes with a more drastic purgative such as colocynth, which is the usual ingredient. The term, however, did not come into use until about the seventh century, and according to some authorities it was first formally adopted by Rhazes, the Arab. The predecessors of our pills were called “katapotia,” which meant things to be swallowed, and the earlier prescribers directed katapotia of such a size. Celsus, for example, orders katapotia of the size of an almond, of an Egyptian bean, and so on. Subsequently as patients became more fastidious they were humoured by the doctors, and katapotia of the size of a coccus, which was a lentil berry, were prescribed. Coccion meant a diminutive coccus, and as the pill of aloes and colocynth was frequently prescribed in this way the term came to distinguish those pills particularly. Paul of Ægina’s formula (sixth century) ordered aloes and colocynth pulp, and extract of wormwood, of each one part, with scammony two parts. To be made into pills of the size of a coccus. Eleven were to be taken for a dose. The early London Pharmacopœias contained formulas for pilulæ cocciæ majores, from Rhazes, and pilulæ cocciæ minores, from Galen. Only the latter survived. In the P.L., 1746, the name of Pilulæ cocciæ minores was changed to Pilulæ ex Colocynthide cum Aloe, and the formula ordered Socotrine aloes and scammony, of each 2 oz.; pulp of colocynth 1 oz.; oil of cloves, 2 drachms.

PLUMMER’S PILLS.

Pil. Calomel. Co. originated from a formula devised by Dr. Andrew Plummer, Professor of Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh in the middle of the eighteenth century. Dr. Plummer first published his formula in the “Edinburgh Medical Essays,” 1751. It was only a slight modification of the Pilulæ Æthiopicæ which were already official in the Edinburgh Pharmacopœia. These were originally a combination of Ethiops Mineral with the golden sulphide of antimony, but the Edinburgh College had substituted calomel for the former.

AMMONIATED TINCTURE OF QUININE.

Under this name Mr. Joseph Ince recorded in the Pharm. Journ., June 13th, 1874, that a preparation was made and called by this name which was a solution of 1 grain of sulphate of quinine in one drachm of compound spirit of ammonia. This did not meet with general approval, and in 1853 Mr. Bastick proposed an Ammoniated Solution of Quinine made by dissolving 32 grains of sulphate of quinine in 3½ ounces of proof spirit and ½ ounce of solution of ammonia. The present B.P. tincture contains less ammonia, and alcohol is employed instead of proof spirit.

COMPOUND SOAP PILLS.

Pil. Sapon. Co., formerly official as Pil. Sapon. c Opio, Pil. Opii, Pil. ex Opio, and when first authorised in the P.L., 1746, Pil. Saponacea, was adapted from a famous nostrum long sold as Matthews’s Pills, and as Starkey’s Pills. Starkey, a qualified physician, was understood to have devised the process, and Matthews was the vendor in whose name they were sold. But a little before his death in 1665 Starkey told Dr. George Wilson that the formula he had sold to Matthews was not his genuine and best process. In both, however, the characteristic ingredient was “soap of tartar,” which it was claimed added an aperient quality to the opium which made it safe to give in asthmas and other complaints when opium alone was objectionable. The soap of tartar was made by melting together in a crucible equal parts of cream of tartar and saltpetre, the compound being afterwards crystallised and powdered, and with it was incorporated 4 oz. of turpentine to each pound of the resulting salt. Matthews’s Pills were made from 4 oz. each of extract of opium, black hellebore, soap of tartar, and liquorice, with 1 oz. of saffron. Starkey’s deathbed formula ordered 4 oz. of extract of opium, 2 oz. each of nutmeg and mineral bezoar (calx of antimony), saffron and snake root, of each 1 oz., soap of tartar 8 oz., oil of sassafras ½ oz., tincture of antimony, 2 oz. These pills were also known as pilulæ pacificæ.

DECOCTIONS OF SARSAPARILLA.

Sarsaparilla, guaiacum, sassafras, and mezereon enjoyed fitful periods of fame in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, especially for the treatment of syphilis. From the time of their introduction the Paracelsists denounced these remedies, and Paracelsus himself was especially sarcastic about “the wooden doctors,” as he called those who relied on these woods. Still they were employed to an immense extent. A number of remedies were made from them, generally from a combination of them. One of these called the Lisbon Diet Drink became very popular in the eighteenth century. This was taken not only in syphilitic cases, but as an antirheumatic and generally purifying medicine. It was said to contain antimony, and the following was reputed to be a correct imitation of it:--Sarsaparilla, 90, red sandal, 90, yellow sandal, 90, rose root, 30, guaiacum wood, 30, sassafras, 30, mezereon bark, 15, sulphide of antimony, 60, boiling water, 3600. Infuse twelve hours and boil down to half, adding near the end of the boiling fifteen parts of liquorice. An English Dr. Leake wrote a book about this decoction in 1787, describing what he had seen of its good effects in the cure of venereal diseases, scurvy, and other stubborn chronic complaints. He had been to Lisbon, and intimated that he had obtained the correct formula, but he did not give it. He had, however, for some time made it, and would supply it in a concentrated form.

A compound decoction of sarsaparilla was introduced into the London Pharmacopœia of 1788, and the Liquor Sarsæ Co. Conc. of the B.P. is the direct descendant of that preparation.

Sirop de Cuisinier has long been a popular preparation of sarsaparilla in France, and has been officially recognised by the Codex for a century. A compound syrup of sarsaparilla was introduced into the United States Pharmacopœia in 1820 expressly as an imitation of the French syrup. The original Sirop de Cuisinier was evidently a proprietary article, but I have not been able to trace its history. The Codex formula prescribes sarsaparilla, with flowers of borage and white roses, senna, and aniseed, made into a syrup with honey, sugar, and water. The U.S.P. substituted liquorice for the borage. It has often been employed as a vehicle for corrosive sublimate, but a number of experiments have shown that unless this mixture is quite fresh the sublimate will be reduced to calomel.

SEIDLITZ POWDERS

are a well known misnomer. Fr. Hoffmann discovered the Seidlitz spring in 1724, and found that it owed its medicinal effect to sulphate of magnesia with some sulphate of soda. Seidlitz or Sedlitz is a small town near Seidschutz in northern Bohemia. There is evidence that at one time sulphate of magnesia was obtained commercially from this spring as it was from the Epsom water, and in this country then, and in some Continental countries still, Seidlitz salt was and is a synonym for sulphate of magnesia. In Christison’s Dispensatory it was suggested that the name as applied to the powders which have so long been known in Great Britain was a corruption of Seignette’s powders. Other writers suggested that the name may have resulted from a confusion between Seidlitz and Selters. The most probable explanation, however, was given in The Chemist and Druggist of February 23 and March 2, 1901, from which it appeared that Thomas Field Savory, of Bond Street, London, took out a patent in 1815 for “the combination of a neutral salt or powder which possesses all the properties of the medicinal spring in Germany under the name of the Seidlitz powders.” The specification was for the production of three powders, namely, (1) tartrated soda, (2) bicarbonate of soda, and (3) tartaric acid, but these chemicals were not designated by their usual names, but old-fashioned methods of producing them were set forth. Then it was stated that ʒij of No. 1, ℈ij of No. 2, and ℈ij of No. 3 were to be taken and mixed in the manner so familiar to us. In 1823 Mr. Savory brought an action against Messrs. Price & Son, of 4, Leadenhall Street, for alleged infringement of his patent, which, however, the Court held to be invalid in consequence of the elaborate directions in the specification for the production of the several ingredients, all of which were chemicals sold in all chemists’ shops. At the same trial it seems to have been admitted that the combination was both new and useful. There is no record of any objection to the title.

In 1778 Bergmann published a treatise on artificial mineral waters, giving analyses of the most popular, and recommending the use of the factitious waters as preferable to the natural ones. About the same time a French pharmacien, named Vanel, introduced a powder with which to make the favourite Eau de Seltz, or Selters water. Apparently the salts for making mineral waters acquired a certain degree of popularity, and it is likely that Seidlitz salt was among them. Nothing would make this palatable, and Mr. Savory’s idea of substituting a pleasant draught for a nauseous one was at least a commercial success.

TURNER’S CERATE.

Daniel Turner, M.D., the inventor of Turner’s Cerate, which appeared in several Pharmacopœias as Ceratum Calaminæ, was at first a surgeon in London, but was admitted a Licentiate of the College of Physicians in 1711, and practised in Devonshire Square, Bishopsgate. In William Munk’s Roll of the Royal College of Physicians an opinion of him is quoted that he was too fond of displaying his talents upon paper; the result being that he published many volumes which are now forgotten. (A commentary which might be made on most other authors.) It is also said of him that his cases were not stated in the most delicate terms, nor was politeness among his excellences. As several of his works were about syphilis it may be that his style was merely perspicuous. He wrote comments on Dover’s “Ancient Physician” and on Mr. Ward’s Pill and Drop. His biographer, however, quotes from him with approval a pious exhortation to physicians not to be ashamed to avow their religious principles even if they kept their politics to themselves. “It can be no disgrace,” he wrote, “for a physician who owns himself to be no more than Nature’s minister to acknowledge himself also the servant of Nature’s Master.”

Turner’s original formula for his Ceratum de Lapide Calaminari was to melt together 3½ lb. of freshly made unsalted butter, 3½ lb. of the best yellow wax, and 4 lb. of pure and newly-prepared olive oil. These when melted to be strained through a linen cloth, and while cooling, 3 lb. 10 oz. of the best calamine stone, “sufficiently triturated and passed through a Sierce,” to be sprinkled into the mixture with constant stirring till it sets.

Turner’s comments on this cerate are worth quoting, because they incidentally illustrate the pharmacy of the period. He says:--

“As I have had ample experience of this cerate, I may be allow’d, I hope, to judge of its singular properties and good effects in all cutaneous ulcerations and excoriations either from scalding, burning, or fretting of the said parts by means of salt, acrid, or sharp humours; upon which accounts, not straining a tittle beyond its deserved euology, I am bold to affirm it will do more in all these superficial hurts of the body than either Unguentum Tutiae, Diapompholyx, Nutritum, Desiccativum Rubrum, Rosatum, or all the epuletic medicines now in use; and for which cause I can, for the public benefit, sincerely recommend it to all the professors of the art; and do wish that the Apothecaries would keep it made up in their shops, to deliver, at a suitable price, to indigent or poor people, instead of their ridiculous Locatellus’s Balsam, and other improper medicines which they call for ignorantly to heal their skin-deep maladies. I know the medicine has been imitated by several, and I have seen somewhat like it in some gentlemen’s salvatories; but I know not more than two persons I ever communicated it to, as I was wont to prepare it for my own use. The medicine thus prepared is of a good consistence and a true cerate, serving both for pledget or plaister, neither sticking troublesomely, nor running off or about by the heat of the parts; but keeping its body and performing things incredible. Whoever thinks fit to take it into practice will never repent it, nor perhaps (when he has experienced it as I have done) think I have said too much in its Commendation. This is the medicine I have so often taken notice of, which, that I might contribute my mite to the Surgeon’s Treasure of Medicine, I here have publish’d, and leave it to take its fate.”

The other preparations to which Dr. Turner refers as being at that time in public demand may be briefly noted. Tutty was another impure oxide of zinc generally containing some oxide of lead or copper. It was obtained from the flues of smelting furnaces where zinc ores were purified. Tutty was so called from an Arabic or Persian name given to zinc, or to a zinc and tin bronze imported from China and used as a gong metal by the Chinese. The tutty ointment was properly made up with viper’s fat. Pompholyx was one of the names given to oxide of zinc prepared by combustion. It was a Greek word meaning a bubble in melted metal, from pomphos, a blister. Unguentum Diapompholyx contained besides the flowers of zinc, white lead, the juice of nightshade berries, and frankincense. Unguentum Nutritum was an acetate of lead ointment. Unguentum Desiccativum Rubrum was compounded from litharge, bole armeniac, calamine, and camphor. Unguentum Rosatum was similar to cold cream.

XXI

NOTED NOSTRUMS

From powerful causes spring the empiric’s gains, Man’s love of life, his weakness, and his pains; These first induce him the vile trash to try, Then lend his name that other men may buy. CRABBE:--The Borough.

PATENT MEDICINES.

In the early days of English commerce monopolies were granted by the sovereigns at their own pleasure, and often for their personal profit. Queen Elizabeth so largely abused her power in this direction that towards the end of her reign the discontent of her subjects compelled her to promise she would offend no more: and her successor, James I, gave a similar undertaking. The abuse, however, was continued until the Statute of Monopolies, passed in 1624, regulated all such grants, placing the power in the hands of Parliament, and limiting the period of privilege to fourteen years.

For the first century or thereabout of the administration of this Act, specifications of processes or formulas were not a condition of the patent. The idea was the introduction into the country of new industries, and it was supposed that the artificers who would have to be employed in any such industries would certainly acquire such necessary skill and knowledge about any new manufacture as would prevent any perpetuation of the monopoly. It was during the reign of Queen Anne that the law officers began to require that specifications should be filed before letters patent were issued. But the condition was not by any means uniformly or intelligently insisted upon, as will be seen immediately in the case of certain patented medicines.

The term “patent medicines,” as now popularly used, means generally secret medicines, and the meaning is therefore in exact contradiction to the expression. Truthfully to declare the composition of many of these proprietary compounds would ruin their sale. Not that the ingredients are often improper or injurious; this rarely occurs; but because the success of these remedies depends in most instances rather on the mystery with which the makers can surround them than on their exceptional merit.

But some old medicines which became popular, including a few the reputation of which lives to this day, were actually patented. The first compound medicine for which a patent was granted under the Act of 1624 was No. 388, and was dated October 22, 1711. It was granted to Timothy Byfield for his sal oleosum volatile, “which by abundant experience hath been found very helpfull and beneficiall as well in uses medicinall as others.” No particulars of the ingredients or method of manufacture are given.