Part 24

Dr. Munk, however, states that “Dr. Goddard was a good practical chemist and the inventor of certain volatile drops, the Guttæ Goddardianæ vel Anglicanæ, as they were termed on the Continent, long in great repute and commended by Sydenham, who gave them a preference over all other volatile spirits whatsoever for ‘energetically and efficaciously attaining the end for which they are applied.’”

There was a Dr. William Goddard admitted a Fellow of the College in 1634 of whom Dr. Munk records that “on the 23rd of November, 1649, having been contumacious and refusing to attend at his place in the College, though repeatedly summoned by the President, he was, by a vote of his colleagues, dismissed from his fellowship: Decrete Collegii, in Collegii societale locum amisit.” Dr. Goddard carried the matter into the Court of King’s Bench, but was defeated.

This was most likely Salmon’s W. Goddard, and seems more like the genuine Goddard of the Drops fame. Contumaciousness was sometimes a synonym for exploiting a quack remedy.

In Dr. Martin Lister’s “Journey to Paris,” 1698, that rather garrulous York doctor states that while he was in Paris (in company with some members of a diplomatic party) he was sent for by the Prince de Conti to see his son, and was requested to bring with him some of the late King Charles’s drops. The doctor replied that he had nothing with him, and could only prescribe such medicines as would be found in any of their shops. It was the drops, however, that the Prince wanted and not the extempore invention of this comparatively unknown practitioner. For apparently the attendance of Dr. Lister was excused, and he makes the reflection, after intimating that the young prince died, “It is evident that there is as false a notion of physic in this country as with us, and that it is here also thought a knack more than a science or method; accordingly little toys, the bijoux of quacks are mightily in request.” Dr. George Henning who edited Dr. Lister’s narrative states that these drops were made from raw silk which “yields an incredible quantity of volatile salt and the finest spirit I ever tasted.” He adds that raw silk is indeed nothing but a dry jelly of the insect kind, and therefore it must be very cordial and stomachic.

EAU MEDICINALE D’HUSSON.--COLCHICUM.

The medicinal use of colchicum preparations for gout is comparatively recent and the knowledge of its value for that purpose is undoubtedly due to its success in a secret proprietary remedy. The authors of “Pharmacographia” give some interesting historical notes on Colchicum autumnale, L., or meadow saffron, which show how general was the belief in its deleterious qualities in both classical and mediæval times. Dioscorides alludes to the poisonous properties of Kolchikon, which he says grew in Messenia and Kolchis. Pliny and Galen likewise allude to colchicum as a poison. Pliny recommends milk as an antidote.

Hermodactylus is recommended for gout in the writings of Alexander of Tralles, and Paul Egineta (sixth and seventh centuries), and the Arab doctors, Avicenna, Serapion, and Mesué, describe a similar remedy under the name of Surengian. It is also recommended by Ambrose Paré, Sylvius (de la Boe), and other authorities in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but Tragus (1552) warns his readers against its use for gout, for which he says it is recommended in Arab writings. Grevin (1568) observes “ce poison est ennemy de l’homme en tout et par tout.” Lyte, translating Dodoens (1578), says “Medow or wilde saffron is corrupt and venomous, therefore not used in medicine.” Gerard declares the roots of “Mede Saffron” to be “very hurtfull to the stomacke.”

Evidently some species of colchicum (Planchon thinks C. 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 9s. 6d. each, but that when it was in demand the price was 22s. 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.

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.