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.
Stoughton’s “great cordial elixir” comes next, in 1712, and there is nothing more in the proprietary medicine line until 1722, when a patent for Robert Eaton’s Styptick medicine appears. In that year a curious patent was granted to George Sinclair for “raising and cultivating the plants which are commonly called or do produce the balsam of tolu, Peru, and capair, dragon’s blood, coloquintida, scamony, rhubarb, jalap, ipecacuanha (and others named), and curing the insect commonly called cochenele and cultivating the plant which they feed and live upon.” No particulars of the inventor’s ideas are given.
Benjamin Okell’s patent for Dr. Bateman’s pectoral drops, stated to act by moderate sweat and urine, and to be useful in rheumatism, afflictions of the stone, gravel, agues, and hysterics, was dated March 31, 1726, and was granted to him in recognition of the long study, application, and great expense he had been put to in finding out this remedy and bringing it to perfection. He furnished no particulars. Bateman’s drops probably always depended on opium for its efficacy, and in time various formulas for a medicine under that name for coughs came to be adopted. In 1833 the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy published the following formula “to represent Bateman’s Pectoral Drops because of its general use, and to secure uniformity.” They said the preparation was then being sold in strengths varying from 7½ to 100 grains to the pint. The formula prescribed was: Diluted alcohol, 4 gallons; red sanders, rasped, 2 oz. Digest for 24 hours, filter, add opium in powder 2 oz., catechu in powder 2 oz., camphor 2 oz., oil of anise ½ oz. Digest for ten days.
The patent for John Hooper’s Female Pills, granted in 1743 to John Hooper, apothecary and man midwife of Reading, contains a copy of an affidavit made by the patentee, who, being “obliged to give under his hand and seal a particular description of his invention,” came before the King in Chancery, and satisfied the royal representative with a specification declaring that his medicine was “compounded as followeth:—Of the best purging stomatick and anti-hysterick ingredients, duly proportioned and made into a powder, and beat into a mass for pills with sufficient quantity of a strong infusion of the above-mentioned ingredients; and when the same is made into pills about the bigness of a small pea, two or three are to be given to persons from 7 years of age to 15, and three or four from 15 years of age to 70 every other night.” Hooper must have been a humorist.
Betton’s British oils “for the cure of rheumatic and scorbutic and other cases” had been patented in 1742. The oil was “extracted from the black, pitchy, flinty roch or rock lying immediately over the coal in coal mines.” This was reduced to powder and then subjected to heat in a closed furnace, by which means the oil was obtained.
The patent for Dr. James’s fever powder (1747) is referred to at length elsewhere. It is agreed that the preparation could not be produced by the process detailed; but, according to Lord Mansfield, it was also defective in another respect. In a judgment given by that eminent authority in 1778 (in the case of Liardet v. Johnson) he illustrated an argument he was using by a reference to Dr. James’s patent, “in the specification of which,” he said, “he has mentioned the articles only of which those powders were composed, and omitted the proportion or quantity.” Consequently Lord Mansfield added, “Dr. James never durst bring an action for infringement, and it was certainly wise in him not to do so, for no patent could stand on such a specification.” His lordship went on to enlarge on the extreme importance of exact quantities in the exact formulas for medicines.
Dr. James also patented his “analeptic pills” in 1774. They were to be compounded of equal parts of pil. rufi, gum ammoniacum, and his own fever powder. The two first named ingredients were to be “placed in a large cave underground furnished with the conductors of electrical fire” by which they were to be dissolved. The powder was then to be added and the pills to be made up with gum arabic.
In the second half of the eighteenth century the patents for compounded medicines become more numerous, but they are generally of no present interest. The names of a very few have come down to our day. Ann Pike’s itch ointment (patented 1760) may be noticed. To prepare this, pomatum and calomel were first mixed and allowed to stand several days; another ointment was made with hogs’ lard and Jesuit’s bark, and this was likewise set aside for a few days. These two ointments were then blended together, mercury added to them, and the mass stirred daily for some time. Two other ointments were also made and combined like the others, the ingredients of these being deer suet, turbith mineral, lard, powdered tutty, flowers of brimstone, and wood soot.
In 1777 Robert Grubb patented a medicine called the Frier’s Drops, “for the cure of the venereal disease, scurvy, rheumatism, stranguary and gleets.” It contained calomel, antimony, guaiacum wood, balsam of Peru, hemlock, sugar candy, oil of sassafras, tartaric acid, and gum arabic, with spirit of wine. The particular interest of this is the name which may have been the original of the Friar’s Balsam named in the Medicine Stamp Act. The Friar’s Balsam known to us cannot be traced as a proprietary medicine.
Gale’s Spa Elixir, patented 1782, is notable as a specimen of condensed information. Its composition is thus described:—“R. fer. q.l.; cor, anima., sp.vin. esse.tinc. anima: super:aq: nat:, sp.sal: q.s.; dissolve, digest, correct, evaporate, and extract the elixir S.A.” The abbreviated terms and the punctuation are copied from the specification.
Nathaniel Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam was patented in 1785, Spilsbury’s Anti-scorbutic Drops in 1792, Ching’s Worm Lozenges in 1796, and Innocenza della Lena winds up the century with a formula conceived quite on the lines of the pharmacy then departing. It was for “A certain medicine called flogistical and fixed earth of Mars or powder of Mars.” It is not stated what the medicine was for, but its preparation was awe-inspiring. Mineral earth of iron, copper, crude antimony, mineral salt, and urine were digested for a considerable time in an unvarnished vessel, hermetically sealed, deep down in the earth. Subsequently the mixture was exposed to the rays of the sun for a period, more urine was added, and the interment and the exposure were several times repeated.
Roche’s Embrocation for whooping-cough, patented in 1803, was declared to be compounded of oil of elder, rose leaves, chamomile flowers, oil of caraway, oil of rosemary, cochineal, and alkanet root. This remedy is still popular, but it is understood to have a composition very different from that specified.
Perkins’s Metallic Tractors were patented on March 10th, 1798. Benjamin Douglas Perkins claimed to have discovered “an art of relieving and curing a variety of aches, pains, and diseases in the human body, by drawing over the parts affected or those contiguous thereto, in certain directions, various pointed metals, which from the affinity they have with the offending matter,” or from some other cause, “extract, or draw out the same, and thus cure the patient.” The metals used were combinations of copper, zinc, and gold; or of iron, silver, and platinum. The tractors were invented by Elisha Perkins, the father of Benjamin, who died at New York in 1799. The tractors were united together like a pair of compasses, and one of the arms was obtuse and the other pointed. They professed to apply galvanic action to the relief and cure of pain and disease. Galvani’s report of his experiments was only published about 1790, and not much earlier Mesmer’s animal magnetism had excited marvellous interest in Paris. Perkins’s Tractors had an enormous popularity for a time in England and in Denmark, but nowhere else to any extent. Two Bath doctors, named Falconer and Haygarth, professed to get as good results with tractors made of wood, many patients of the Bath Hospital declaring that these promptly relieved their pains. From these experiments it was argued that the alleged cures were entirely due to the imagination of the sufferers.
After 1800 medicinal compounds are only rarely patented. Of those known to the present generation, Ford’s Balsam of Horehound appears in 1816, Savory’s Seidlitz Powders were protected in 1815, Ridge’s Food, 1862, and Page Woodcock’s Wind Pills, 1852. A patent was taken in 1853 by Sir James Murray for aerating cod-liver oil with carbonic acid gas, and William Brockedon’s patent for compressing drugs and blacklead, which has borne fruit a thousandfold in these later days, was granted in 1843.
These pills acquired extraordinary popularity, particularly in Scotland and France, and to some extent in other countries, including England. Either these pills or Singleton’s Eye Ointment is the proprietary remedy still sold in this country with the longest history. It is claimed that the ointment was invented some forty years earlier than the pills, but it must be admitted that the records of the latter, especially in their early days, are more exactly authenticated.
Patrick Anderson, M.D.
Dr. Patrick Anderson was a Scotch physician of considerable reputation in London in the Stuart period. He is described on some of his books as Physician to Charles I. In 1635 he published a treatise entitled as follows:—“Grana Angelica; hoc est pilularum hujus nominis insignis utilitas; quibus etiam accesserunt alia quaedam pancula de durioris alvi incommodis propter materiam cognitionem, ac vice supplementi in fine adjuncta.” He stated that he had obtained the formula for these pills in Venice. After his death they were sold in Edinburgh by his daughter Miss Katherine Anderson, and she by a deed registered in the Commissary Court books of Edinburgh, the 16th December, 1686, declared that she had communicated the secret to Thomas Weir, surgeon, in Edinburgh, “and to no other person.”
To Dr. Weir letters patent for the pills were granted by King James II, 1687, with letters of Certification, &c., by King William and Queen Mary, 1694; and Testification by the Town Council of Edinburgh, 1694. From Dr. Weir by regular succession and assignation, the secret was conveyed to his widow, 1711; thence to their son Alex. Weir, 1715; then to Lilias Weir, his sister, 1726; by her to Dr. Thomas Irving, her nephew, 1770; then to his widow, Mrs. Irving, 1797; by her to her son, James Irving, 1814, but the old lady appears to have retained an interest in them until her death in 1837, at the age of 99. During her life, and probably before and after, the “shop” where the pills were made and sold was on the second floor of a house in the Lawn Market opposite the site of the West Bow, a steep street which led down to the Grassmarket. The house still remains, the date 1690 being carved on the lintel. After certain assignations and trusteeships the property came into the hands of a Mr. J. Rodger who sold his rights to Messrs. Raimes, Blanshard & Co. in 1876. They and their successors, Raimes, Clark & Co., Limited, have been the proprietors since the date mentioned, and they inform me that there is still a small demand for them.
Formulas for “Anderson’s Scots Pills” will be found in all the manuals of pharmacy published in Europe and America, but they differ considerably. Paris in “Pharmacologia” said they were a compound of aloes and jalap with oil of anise; the French Codex which adopted them, or at least the name, compounded them of aloes and gamboge with oil of anise; Niemann, whose formulary had a quasi-official sanction in Holland early in the nineteenth century gave a much more complicated recipe, adding to the aloes both jalap and gamboge, together with sulphur, burnt ivory, liquorice powder, and soap. “Pharmaceutical Formulas” states that they are well represented by Pil Aloes et Myrrhæ B.P., “which (saving excipient) contains the same ingredients as those mentioned in a copy of the original document deposited in the Rolls House.”
Anodyne necklaces were perhaps the most extensively advertised of the quack remedies of the eighteenth century. The introduction of them is generally attributed to one of the Chamberlen family, well known in medical history as the inventors of the modern midwifery forceps.
In a collection of quack advertisements in the British Museum, all published in the last half of the seventeenth century, there is a handbill issued by Major John Coke, “a licensed physician and one of his Majesty’s Chymists” advertising miraculous necklaces for children breeding teeth “preventing (by God’s assistance) feavers, convulsions, ruptures, chincough, ricketts, and such attendant distempers.” These are 5s. each. A number of titled people whose children have used these necklaces are named. A correspondent of Notes and Queries (Mr. J. Elliot Hodgkin, 6th Ser., Vol. IX.) quotes a reference to anodyne necklaces from a pamphlet published in 1717 dedicated to Dr. Chamberlen and the Royal Society, evidently an advertisement which it may not be too uncharitable to suppose was written by Chamberlen himself. But another correspondent of the same journal (6th Ser., Vol. X.) quotes from Smith’s “Book for a Rainy Day” another reference to the necklaces in which they are alluded to as Mr. Burchell’s, and are said to be “so strongly recommended by two eminent physicians, Dr. Tanner, the inventor, and Dr. Chamberlain,” to whom he had communicated the prescription. The necklaces were composed of artificially prepared beads, small like barleycorns, and they were sold at 5s. each. The beads were often made of peony wood, a substance which Oribasius (fourth and fifth centuries) recommended to be hung round the neck for the cure of epilepsy. They were especially recommended for children cutting teeth, and for pregnant women. No doubt they served like any other hard substance to help in the former trouble to open the gums, but the idea suggested was that they gave out a certain vapour or effluvium which reduced the feverish condition.
“May I die by an anodyne necklace,” is an expression used by one of the characters in “The Vicar of Wakefield” (Ch. XX.). In a comment on this allusion by the eminent authority on the eighteenth century, Mr. Austin Dobson, it was explained that hanging was there euphemistically referred to. Mr. Dobson’s mistake was pointed out in Notes and Queries, and he acknowledged it.
The Collier de Morand was a neckband sold for goitre. It was made of carded cotton on which was sprinkled a powder consisting of equal parts of sal ammoniac, common salt, and burnt sponge. Paracelsus recommended that coral should be worn round the necks of children to preserve them from the effects of sorcery.
The Rev. Thomas Daffy, who invented the Elixir Salutis with which his name has been associated for about 250 years, was rector of Redmile in Leicestershire from 1660 to 1680. He had been appointed rector of Harby in the same county in Cromwell’s time, but the Countess of Rutland, who presumably “sat under” him, was a lady of evangelical ideas, and the Rev. Thomas was apparently of a “high” tendency, for according to Nichols’s “History of Leicestershire,” “he was removed from that better living to this worse one to satisfy the spleen of the Countess of Rutland, a puritanical lady who had conceived a feeling against him for being a man of other principles.” Just when he invented his elixir does not appear, but it is to be hoped that the profits from it made up for the sacrifice he had to make in consequence of his “other principles.” It is clear from the references to the medicine which are found in general literature and from the fact that it was imitated in the Pharmacopœia (under the formula for Tinctura Sennæ Co.) that it acquired considerable popularity. The following advertisement from the Post Boy of January 1, 1707, tells most of what is known about the elixir:—
Daffye’s famous Elixir Salutis, prepared by Catherine Daffye, daughter of Mr. Thomas Daffye, late rector of Redmile in the vale of Belvoir, who imparted it to his kinsman, Mr. Anthony Daffye, who published the same to the benefit of the community and to his own advantage. The original receipt is now in my possession left to me by my father. My own brother, Mr. Daniel Daffye, apothecary in Nottingham, made this Elixir from the said receipt and sold it there during his life. Those who know it will believe what I declare; and those who do not may be convinced that I am no counterfeit by the colour, taste, smell, and operation of my Elixir. To be had at the Hand and Pen, Maiden Lane, Covent Garden.
Catherine Daffy was not a clever advertiser, for her announcement seems calculated to assist Anthony Daffy’s preparation as much as her own, and it is likely that this was not her intention. Such little evidence as exists goes to show that it was Anthony’s and not Catherine’s Elixir that maintained the fame which had been won.
Daffy’s Elixir is still made by Sutton & Co., of 76 Chiswell Street, the successors to Dicey & Co., of Bow Church Yard, who were themselves successors to Benjamin Okell, who was carrying on the business in 1727, but when or from whom, or for what consideration the property was transferred to them from the Daffy family, is not known. The old-fashioned handbills wrapped round the bottles state that the Elixir was “much recommended to the public by Dr. King, Physician to King Charles II, and the late learned and ingenious Dr. Radcliffe.” Unhappily, however, “a low set of mercenary vendors” have been making imitations of this “noble and generous Elixir,” using “foul and ordinary spirits instead of clean and pure brandy, and base and damaged drugs,” of which none could be guilty “but such as never feel for any but themselves.”
This medicine still figures in the French Codex and in other continental Pharmacopœias. It is an alcoholic tincture of canella, cloves, nutmegs, ginger, and other spices, with bay berries, to which are added amber, galbanum, myrrh, aloes, elemi, and other resins, and one-sixth by volume of turpentine. After digestion this mixture is distilled to a yield of about two-thirds of the original bulk. The balm was formerly given in doses of 5 or 6 drops in kidney disorders, but it is now only used externally in rheumatism and for chilblains, and for strengthening the sight. For the last-named purpose the hand is wetted with the balm and held before the eyes.
Fioraventi was a famous Italian quack in the latter half of the seventeenth century. He practised in Naples, Rome, Venice, Milan, and Florence, and was specially honoured in his native city of Bologna, where he was made a Doctor, a Chevalier, and a Count; titles of which he made the utmost use. He published numerous works on medicine, devised various “Nostra,” and pretended to give the exact formulas for these, but they were always so complicated that no doubt the rich clients whose patronage Fioraventi cultivated would prefer to buy the remedies ready compounded. His medical advice though crammed with bombast was generally sensible, but in all cases he recommended one or another of “our” remedies. These included “our Balm Artificiall” (the compound just referred to), “our Electuaria Anglico,” “our Sirrup Solutivo,” “our Lignum Sanctum,” “our Oleum Benedictum,” and so forth. Above all Fioraventi made play with his “Petra Philosophale.” Philosophers had long disputed, he says, whether it was possible to produce a medicine which would cure all diseases. There was no longer any occasion for dispute; the discovery of “our Petra Philosophale” was conclusive. The directions for making this remedy were very complicated, and of course it was essential that they should be followed minutely. Briefly, the process was to take so much “Sal Niter, Roche Allum, and Roman Vitrioll” (I take the names from an old English translation), “add some Sal Gemmæ, and distil. Then mix Mercury, Sope, Quick Lime, and Common Ashes, sublime off the Mercury, and add it to the first distillate. To the mixture add so much steel, iron, and gold, dry the compound to a stone, which ‘keep as a precious Jewell’ in a closed glass vessel.”
Why Fioraventi should have troubled to invent any other remedies after this, or why his patients should have been called upon to buy any others, is not explained.
was originally made by the Capucin monk, Aignan, whose religious name was Father Tranquille. The Capucins of the Louvre were noted in the seventeenth century for their medical skill, and Father Tranquille was one of them. Twenty herbs were used in compounding this balsam, among them poppy, tobacco, lavender, and rue. These were infused in oil. “The Baume may be made still more effective,” writes Père Rousseau, who was a fellow monk with Father Tranquille, “by adding as many large live frogs as there are pounds of oil. These are to be boiled in the oil until they are almost burnt. Their juice and fat combine with the oil and greatly augment the excellence of the remedy.” Mme. de Sévigné, writing to her daughter, December 15, 1684, says, “I am sending you the most precious treasure I have: my half bottle of Baume Tranquille. I could not send a full bottle; the Capucins have no more.”
Baume de Vie, which is represented by Decoct. Aloes Co., B.P., was first sold by a French apothecary named Le Lievre, of the Rue de la Seine, Paris. A second edition of his book recommending it is dated 1760. He describes himself as “le sieur Lelievre apothicaire, distillateur du Roi.” He says of it that it gently evacuates the heterogeneous humours, restores and fortifies the stomach, reanimates the system without causing any fever or other inconvenience, preserves the humid radical (a fluid supposed to be the principle of life and the generator of vigour), makes the blood circulate, absorbs from it all acids and renders them balsamic, and counteracts debility. He also advises its use for horses, cattle, and dogs. Le Lievre’s formula, as given by Cadet de Gassicourt, was as follows:—
Socotrine aloes, treacle, of each 1 oz.; gentian, ½ oz.; rhubarb, 6 drachms; saffron, agaric, zedoary, myrrh, of each 2 drachms; sugar, 4 oz.; proof spirit, 2 lb.
Haarlem Oil or Dutch Drops have been made in Haarlem since the year 1672, when they were invented by one Claas Tilly, and they are still manufactured in Haarlem by a person who claims to be a direct descendant of the inventor. The preparation is stated in Paris’s “Pharmacologia” to have as a base the residue left in the still after the redistillation of turpentine; a red, thick, resinous matter, sometimes called balsam of turpentine. But the same author adds that a preparation often sold as Dutch Drops is a mixture of oil of turpentine, tincture of guaiacum, and spirit of nitre, with oils of amber and cloves. Dutch Drops are asked for all over the world and are known to old-fashioned people as “Medicamentum.” In remote places they are kept in the house and a few drops taken occasionally as a preventive of disease.
The following advertisement which is taken from Reed’s Weekly Journal, February 22, 1722, throws light on the origin of the still popular “Godfrey.”
To all retailers and others. The general cordial formerly sold by Mr. Thomas Godfrey, of Hunsdon, in Hertfordshire, deceas’d, is now prepar’d according to a receipt written by his own hand, and by him given to my wife, his relation, is now sold by me Tho. Humphreys of Ware, in the said county, Surgeon, or at John Humphreys, at the Head and Sheers in Jewin Street, near Cripplegate, London. Also may be furnished with Arcanums and Vomits, and will be allowed the same for selling as formerly.
Godfrey’s Cordial was named in the Medicine Stamp Act of 1812, and was no doubt a proprietary medicine at that time. It now appears to be made by anyone who chooses to make it. In Paris’s “Pharmacologia,” (8th edition, 1833) the following receipt which he says was obtained from a “wholesale druggist who makes and sells many hundred dozens a year,” was printed:—
“Infuse 9 oz. of sassafras; 1 oz. each of carraway, coriander, and anise seeds, in 6 pints of water. Simmer down to 4 pints. When cold add 3 oz. of tincture of opium.”
In 1833 the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy adopted the subjoined formula for Godfrey’s Cordial in order to ensure uniformity:—
“Tinct. Opii, 1½ pint; molasses, from the sugar refiners, 16 pints; alcohol, 2 pints; water, 26 pints; carbonate of potash, 2½ oz.; oil of sassafras, 4 drachms.”
Eau de Melisse des Carmes, an aromatic spirit, recommended as a cordial for internal administration, and to bathe the temples, was first compounded in the pharmacy of the Barefooted Carmelites, near the Palace of the Luxembourg in the Faubourg St. Germain in 1611. In the course of the century the preparation became a valuable property, and though its composition was kept secret by the monks, formulas innumerable were published. Richelieu, Elizabeth of Bavaria, mother of the Regent during Louis XIV’s minority, and later, Voltaire, “reclaimed” it. Patents authorising the monks to carry on the manufacture and sale were granted by Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI, but when the last was applied for in 1780, the College of Pharmacy opposed it, but withdrew their opposition for the consideration of £40 a year which the monks agreed to pay them. In 1791 when the monastic orders were suppressed and their property confiscated, forty-five Carmelites of the Monastery of the Vaugirard formed themselves into a commercial company to manufacture and sell the Eau des Carmes. Their deed of association provided that the property should remain in the hands of the forty-five down to the last survivor. This one was a certain Brother Paradise, who took as a partner a M. Royer and died in 1831 on the premises in the Rue Taranne where the company had been constituted. M. Royer died a few years later, and his widow married a M. Boyer in 1840 who wrote a “Monographie Historique,” which it is believed was edited for him by Alexander Dumas.
The following formula for a preparation resembling the Eau des Carmes was published by Baumé after many experiments, and was adopted by the compilers of the Codex:—
“Balm, in flower, freshly gathered, and freed from the stalks, 2 lbs.; lemon peel, fresh, 4 oz.; coriander seeds, 8 oz.; nutmegs, cloves, cinnamon, each bruised, 2 oz.; angelica roots, dried, 1 oz.; spirit of wine, highly rectified, 10 pints.”
The original formula for these is given as follows by Dr. William Salmon in his edition of “Bate’s Dispensatory”:—
R. Humane Bones or rather scales, well dryed, break them into bits, and put them into a retort, and join thereto a large Receiver which lute well; and distil first with a gentle Fire, then with a stronger, increasing the fire gradatim; so will you have in the Recipient a Flegm, Spirit, Oyl, and Volatile Salt. Shake the Receiver to loosen the Volatile Salt from the sides, then close your Receiver and set it in the earth to digest for three months, after that digest it in a gentle heat fourteen days, then separate the Oyl which keep for use.
Salmon says they that please may make it according to the prescription, but he gives an alternative formula which was “to rectify the Oyl from the Flegm, then to grind the Volatile Salt with the Oyl, and so by a long digestion to join them together.” Salmon also tells us that if these drops are distilled from the bones of the skull they are good for apoplexy, vertigo, megrims, &c., but “if you want it for gout of any particular limb it is better to make it from the bones of that limb. The dose is 6 to 12 drops, but it has an evil scent.” You can, however, correct that, and “Elixirate” the preparation, bringing it “even to a Fragrancy” if you add so much Spirit of Nitre as will dissolve the oil, and then mix it with four times its weight of spirit of wine. Then you should give 20 to 60 drops in a glass of Canary. “So you will have a medicine beyond all comparison ten times exceeding the other in worth and efficacy.”
Who was the inventor of this medicine? Salmon says, “The author of this Recipe was not that Goddard whose Recipes and Prescriptions are scattered up and down in several places of this book, but the famous W. Goddard, a great Philosopher and Physician who deserved well of the World in his Day and Time, and who has even in this Remedy left himself an Immortal name. And this is the true Medicine which was purchased of the Doctor by King Charles the Second, so much famed through the whole kingdom, and for which he gave him, as it is reported, fifteen hundred pounds sterling.” Other statements say that Charles bought the formula for £5,000 or £6,000.
Salmon had lived in the reign of Charles II, and may be expected to have been correct in regard to such a recent event. But in the Roll of the Royal College of Physicians by William Munk, M.D., published by the College in 1878 I find the invention of these drops attributed to Jonathan Goddard, M.D., a person of some historical fame, due to a large extent to his association with Oliver Cromwell, whom he accompanied as first physician to his army through his Irish and Scotch campaigns. Cromwell made him Warden of Merton College, Oxford, and in other ways showed his confidence in him. In the Little Parliament which succeeded the Long Parliament Dr. Goddard was the sole representative of the University of Oxford, and became a member of the Council of State. With this record it is not surprising that the doctor did not become a favourite with Charles II. when that monarch returned to London. Dr. Goddard was removed from his Wardenship, but subsequently became Professor of Physic at Gresham College, London, and it was there that he and a few other scientific associates founded the Royal Society. It is difficult to believe that he was the inventor of the drops of which Salmon writes; and it is impossible to accept the statement that he offered, or that the King agreed to purchase, the secret of their composition from him.
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.
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.
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.