Part 29

Brave men trembled if a hand held out A nosegay or a letter, while the great Drank only from the Venice glass that broke, That shivered, scattering round it as in scorn If aught malignant, aught of thine was there, Cruel Tophana.

But probably nine-tenths of the crimes suspected were the mere result of the disordered fancies of the age. Knowing as we do on what frivolous evidence women were condemned as witches, it is permissible to be sceptical in regard to the testimony received by the frightened judges when one of these notorious criminals came before them. Nor are the alleged confessions of the women themselves necessarily conclusive. The so-called witches often supplied details of their negotiations with Satan, and of their Sabbatic excursions; and hysterical women in all ages have been addicted to the relation of fictitious narratives circumstantially describing both their vicious and their virtuous exploits. The rapid putrefaction of a corpse was considered to be sufficient evidence that the cause of death had been poison, though it is likely that the poisons then in use would have tended to preserve the body.

THE MARCHIONESS OF BRINVILLIERS

was one of the most interesting of the historic poisoners. She was the daughter of the civil lieutenant of Paris, Dreux d’Aubray, and her career as a criminal coincides with the early years of Louis XIV’s reign. She is described as elegant, “petite,” sweet in her disposition, and modest in her demeanour. According to her own confessions, produced at her trial, sometimes admitted, and sometimes denied by her (and characterised by Michelet as confused and impossible, and probably composed under the influence of fever), she commenced her career of crime at the age of 7 years by incestuous intercourse with her brother. She accused herself also of arson. She married the Marquis de Brinvilliers when she was about 20, and after helping him to dissipate their joint fortune, she obtained an order of separation as far as property was concerned, but continued to live with him as well as with his intimate friend, a sinister person who called himself Ste. Croix, and professed to have been a cavalry officer. His real name was Godin, and Michelet, who investigated all the court documents dealing with the case, makes him apparently the agent, and ultimately the victim, of an arch-fiend of the name of Penautier, a cleric who at least profited largely by the sudden deaths of various persons. He describes Ste. Croix as a person of austere manners and as the author of some ascetic books. Penautier was never formally accused, and it is not easy to disentangle the intrigues associated with the case. Whatever these may have been, Madame’s father, disgusted with the scandal created, got Ste. Croix placed in the Bastille. There it is alleged he met with the notorious Italian poisoner, Exili, and learned from him a number of poison secrets, though it is doubtful if the art was a new one to him. Perhaps Penautier got him released; anyhow he went in to the Bastille poor, and came out rich. He married and set up a fine establishment. But he still continued his liaison with the marchioness. During his imprisonment that lady had occupied herself in visiting and consoling patients in the hospitals. Now, according to the usual story, she made use of them by giving them poisoned confectionery, and watching the effects, merely for practice. Then she began to dose her father. His illness lasted eight months, his murderess nursing him tenderly meanwhile. Two brothers were also victims, and then she planned the death of her husband, but according to Mme. de Sévigné her accomplice, Ste. Croix, saved him by providing an antidote. The marquis lived to see his wife punished, but was one of those who exerted himself to get a pardon for her. Ste. Croix next died suddenly, in consequence, it is said, of his accidentally dropping a glass mask which he wore when compounding his poisons. This story, says Michelet, is a fable. A case of poisons in packets was found in his rooms, each neatly labelled with its effects. These, it was alleged, were addressed to the marchioness, who managed to escape to England, Penautier giving her letters of credit, says Michelet. Michelet says the packets of poison were addressed to Penautier. The marchioness was soon after taken at a convent at Liège by a detective who, pretending to be an Abbé, made love to her and induced her to go for a walk with him, when lie handed her over to his men, who took her to Paris. She was tortured (only formally, says Michelet), convicted, marched to Notre Dame with a rope round her neck to make the “amende honorable,” then decapitated, and her body burned.

One of the witnesses at her trial declared that the marchioness once showed her a little box containing some white stuff, and said there were a number of successions in that little parcel. The witness said she was the daughter of an apothecary and recognised that the substance shown her was sublimate.

It has been discussed by experts whether the poison on which Ste. Croix and his mistress chiefly relied was arsenic or sublimate. Most likely it was arsenic. A certain Guy Simon, an apothecary, was employed to experiment with it, and to discover its composition if possible. His report is worth quoting at some length as an illustration of the condition of toxicological science at that period, and incidentally of the simple faith in the almost miraculous powers of the poisoners which evidently possessed all classes at that time.

According to Chapuis (“Traité de Toxicologie”), Simon at first dropped a little of the liquor in the phials on oil of tartar and sea water, but nothing was precipitated. Then he digested some of it in a mattrass on a sand-bath, but on distilling it no substance of acid or acrid taste was yielded, and no fixed salts were left. Having poisoned a pigeon, a dog, and a fowl with the liquid, he could only discover on opening the dead bodies a little clotted blood in the ventricule of the heart. Some of the powder deposited by the liquid was given to a cat which vomited for half an hour and then died.

Simon explains that poisons generally sink to the bottom of water, and when tested by fire the innocent part is dissipated and only the acrid and piquant principle remains. But this poison of Ste. Croix’s, floated on water, and tried by fire, left only something sweet and innocent. It in fact ruled the elements, and killed animals without leaving any trace. Utterly baffled, the expert concludes: “It is a terrible, diabolic, intangible (insaissable) poison.”

TOFANA.

About the same time the woman Tofana was selling her Aquetta di Napoli in Italy, but she was not brought to justice until 1709, when she confessed to the Pope and the Emperor Charles VI that her drops contained arsenic, and that by them she had caused the deaths of more than six hundred persons. The Emperor repeated her story to his physician, Garelli, by whom it was communicated to Hoffmann, who published it in his “Rational Medicine.” She preferred to prepare her drops by rubbing arsenic into the broken joints of a hog just killed and then collecting the juice. Tofana took refuge in a convent and lived for some twenty years after her condemnation. A letter from the English Secretary of State to the Commissioners of Customs, dated July 29, 1717, is on record, cautioning them against admitting a liqueur called Aqua Tufania from Italy, as accounts of its dangerous character had been received from the British envoys at Naples and Genoa.

THE CHAMBRE ARDENTE.

After the execution of the Marchioness of Brinvilliers, secret poisoning, far from being suppressed, appears to have become almost fashionable. The Government at least pretended to believe in widespread conspiracies. It may have been a political trick, as has been alleged, to get rid of some inconvenient opponents; but, however this may have been, a special commission was appointed by the French Government to inquire into the truth of certain rumours, and this commission acquired the title of the Chambre de Poisons, or Chambre Ardente. Louis XIV consented to the institution of this special court on learning that the notorious Ste. Croix, the coadjutor of Mme. de Brinvilliers, had at one time nearly secured the position of maître d’hôtel in his palace at Versailles. It principally concerned itself with the revelations made by two women who called themselves La Voisin and La Vigoureux, who with an unfrocked priest, who had assumed the name of Le Sage, had carried on a fortune-telling business of enormous extent in the city. They claimed the power of exhibiting the devil to their clients, and it was charged against them that they had sold a powder of succession to those who would pay for it. Many highly connected aristocrats were implicated, and some faced the commission while others left the country rather than expose themselves to the shame of exposure. La Voisin had kept records of her business, but those which were produced displayed rather the ridiculous than the criminal side of the conspiracy. The Duchesse de Foix had come to her for bosoms; Madame de Varsi wanted hips. Others had paid her fancy prices for petitions written with a special ink guaranteed to make them loved by the king. La Voisin was extremely insolent to her judges, and apparently she and her accomplices were all sentenced to be burned. According to Voltaire the sentence was executed in the case of all of them; but the account given by Madame de Sévigné, and by historians who lived nearer the period, go to show that the death punishment was only inflicted on La Voisin.

NEGRO CÆSAR’S ANTIDOTE.

In Prestwich’s “Dissertation on Poisons” (1775) an extract is given from the “Carolina Gazette” of May 9, 1750 stating that the General Assembly, the governing body of the colony, had authorised the publication of “Negro Cæsar’s Cure for Poison.” The General Assembly had purchased Negro Cæsar’s freedom, and granted him £100 a year for life as the price of this formula. It consisted of roots of plantain and wild horehound (? of each) 3 oz. boiled together in two quarts of water down to 1 quart and strained. Of this the patient was to drink one-third every morning fasting for three consecutive mornings. Certain conditions of diet were laid down, and it was quaintly added that if after the three days’ treatment no benefit had resulted it was “a sign that the patient has either not been poisoned, or has been by such poison as Cæsar’s antidote will not remedy.”

ARSENIC EATING.

About the middle of the 19th century some discussion took place in various popular and medical journals in reference to the alleged practice of eating arsenic in Styria and the neighbouring countries. Drs. Christison, Swaine Taylor, and Pereira were somewhat more than sceptical, but several doctors and others wrote confirming the statements from their personal knowledge. One of the most notable testimonies was contributed by Dr. Craig Maclagan of Edinburgh in the “Edinburgh Medical Journal” (1865). Dr. Maclagan had visited Styria and had introductions to several doctors in that country who had reported cases known to them. Two men were brought to Dr. Maclagan at the village of Liegist in Middle Styria, and in his presence took, one about 4½ and the other 6 grains of white arsenic. Dr. Maclagan brought home some of the substance which the Styrian doctor had given to these men, and on testing it found it to be genuine white arsenic. He also brought back some samples of the urine voided by the men some time after eating the arsenic, and found in it distinct evidence of the presence of the poison. The arsenic was taken by the men on a piece of bread, and in one case was washed down with a draught of water. How extensive was the habit, Dr. Maclagan could not say. The peasants called it Hydrach or Huttereich; the correct word was said to be hutten-rauch, furnace smoke. One of the men took his dose about twice a week, the other generally once a week. They had of course begun with doses of less than a grain. It was understood to be a tonic and stimulant, and to aid the respiration in climbing. It was also believed to promote sexual desire. Having acquired the habit the occasional dose was much missed if omitted for long.

IMMUNITY.

The modern employment of serums in the treatment of zymotic diseases goes a long way towards explaining the fact of the immunity of individuals in respect to bacterial poisons. But the possibility of immunity against such poisons as arsenic, opium, or serpent venom appears to rest on a different basis. In 1896 Professor (now Sir) Thomas R. Fraser, M.D., F.R.S., reported to the Royal Institution a long investigation dealing with the alleged resistant power of certain tribes or sects in India, Africa, &c., who can suffer the bites of unquestionably venomous snakes without becoming seriously affected. After quoting numerous reports from old and recent works showing that this immunity is an actual fact, Professor Fraser described a long series of experiments extending over many years with venom which he had obtained from India, America, Africa, and Australia. The venom, he stated, is a complex substance and is not a ferment. Ascertaining the minimum lethal dose for each animal he experimented on frogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and other animals, and beginning with one-tenth, one-fifth, or one-half of that dose, and gradually increasing it, he found it possible to administer four or five times, and in the case of rabbits up to even fifty times the lethal dose. From the immunised animal a serum was prepared which was antidotal in very minute quantities if mixed with the venom, but if administered separately by hypodermic injection, though at the same moment with the venom, some twelve and a half times as much was found to be necessary, and it was estimated for a normal bite of an average man no less than 11½ ounces would have to be administered hypodermically soon after the bite to prevent probably a fatal result. The most interesting observation was that the poison taken into the stomach was almost innocuous, and yet exercised a protective effect. In many of the narratives given by travellers describing the feats of the snake charmers it has been related that they will squeeze the venom from the serpent’s mouth and swallow it. This would evidently be one of their methods of rendering themselves proof against the poison when injected by a bite. Professor Fraser’s paper is published in full in “Nature” April 16 and 23, 1896. The author gives his reasons for believing that the action of the antidote is chemical.

MODERN TOXICOLOGY.

Systematic and scientific investigation of alleged poisoning was scarcely known before the end of the eighteenth or the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. The advance of chemical and physiological knowledge, however, was soon applied to the more certain detection of the criminal use of toxic agents. Orfila’s “Traité de Toxicologie,” published in 1814, the result of a multitude of experiments, was the work which led the way in the establishment of exact tests. Dr. Swaine Taylor in England, Sir Robert Christison in Scotland, Casper in Germany, and a host of other medical chemists pursued the subject, and gradually toxicology reached an assured position. How slow was this attainment may be gathered from the testimony of an expert in a French murder trial in 1823 that globules of fatty mutton had been mistaken for white arsenic.

To Marsh’s arsenic test, made known in 1836, may be traced the practical fall of the poison which for so many centuries had reigned supreme among the deadly agents employed by the most cowardly but most dreaded of the tribe of assassins. The power of proving the presence of the metal which was afforded by the method then set forth brought out the chemical expert, and led to angry controversies. The skilled experimenter was apt to be very confident of his results, and naturally others who claimed to be as skilful as himself disputed his conclusions. Theories of the almost universal diffusion of arsenic were vigorously maintained, and on one occasion in France, in 1839, when Orfila had demonstrated the presence of arsenic extracted from the organs of the person supposed to have been poisoned, Raspail undertook to extract as much from the judge’s armchair.

Meantime the resources of the poisoners had been vastly extended by the discovery of the alkaloids. Many of these substances possessed extreme toxic power, and the invention of the means of detecting them was necessarily a gradual process. It was attained, though; and it may be asserted that at present either by chemical or physiological tests the recognition of the administration of any of the dangerous alkaloids is as certain as is that of the metallic poisons.

About the year 1870 a new complication occurred when an Italian chemist named Dr. Selmi proved that putrefactive animal matter and certain bacteria yielded alkaloidal products, often poisonous, to which the name of ptomaines was given. Selmi was engaged as an expert in the investigation of a case in which it was suspected that an individual had been poisoned. A product was obtained, apparently an alkaloid, but which Selmi could not identify with any known vegetable substance. He came to the conclusion that it was of animal origin, and after a long series of experiments he proved his theory. Several eminent toxicologists at first asserted that ptomaines could be distinguished from vegetable alkaloids by the property of yielding Prussian blue with ferric salts. This test, however, proved fallacious as several series of vegetable alkaloids, notably the pyridic and the allylic, gave the same reaction. The distinction between animal and vegetable alkaloids is a delicate one, and has to be established by an accumulation of chemical evidence.

Leucomaines, which are also alkaloidal products, are distinguished from ptomaines by being formed in the body from living tissues, as a result of their activity. These were first separated by Armand Gautier in 1886. Their constitution is more complex than is that of the ptomaines, but they are not generally of a poisonous character.

XXIII

PHARMACY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

“The advance in every section of chemistry during this century (the 19th), and especially during the latter half of it, has literally been by leaps and bounds. Although practically a creation of our own time, no branch has been more fruitful in result, in suggestion, or in possibility, than that of organic analysis.” (SIR THOMAS E. THORPE:--“Essays in Historical Chemistry,” 1894.)

Three great achievements characterise the pharmacy of the nineteenth century, namely, the discovery of alkaloids in its early years, of anæsthetics in the middle period, and of synthetic organic products in its later years.