The London Pharmacopœia.
The collection of medicinal formulas was a favourite occupation of ancient medical writers. Galen and Avicenna, Mesué and Serapion, Nicholas Prepositus and Nicolas of Salerno were the authors of the dispensatories most esteemed up to the sixteenth century in Europe. The College of Medicine of Florence adopted an Antidotarium in the early part of that century, and in 1524 the Senate of Nuremberg made the Dispensatory of Valerius Cordus official in that city. Augsburg followed the example of Nuremberg, and the Pharmacopea Augustana of 1601 was probably the first work of the kind designated a Pharmacopœia and issued under authoritative sanction. A quasi-official Dispensatorium for the State of Brandenburg, forerunner of the Prussian Pharmacopœia, came next in 1608, and the London Pharmacopœia, which appeared in 1618, was the first really national publication of that character. The first French Codex was published in 1639, and no other work of similar standing was issued until the next century.
The College of Physicians was incorporated by Charter in the reign of Henry VIII, in the year 1518. The idea of preparing an official pharmacopœia was first considered by the College on June 25th, 1585, “but as the matter seemed weighty” (sed quoniam res videbatur operosa), the deliberation on it was postponed and was only resumed on October 10th, 1589. On this occasion ten committees were appointed and to these were assigned the work of selection and compilation distributed thus:—Committee 1 was charged with Syrups, Juleps, and Decoctions; 2 took Oils; 3, Waters; 4, Liniments, Ointments, Cerates, and Plasters; 5, Juices, Conserves, Candies, and Confections; 6, Extracts, Salts, Chemicals, and Metallic Preparations; 7, Powders and Dragees; 8, Pills; 9, Electuaries, Opiates, and Eclegmas (looches); 10, Lozenges and Eye-salves.
The work must have been carried on leisurely, for it is not mentioned in the minutes again until 1614, when eight fellows were appointed to examine certain foreign Antidotarii. In 1616, an editing committee was appointed, and all the collaborators were called upon to send their papers to this body. It then appeared that many which had been prepared had been lost, a misfortune attributed to the carelessness of the recently deceased President, Dr. Forster. His successor, Dr. Atkins, put more energy into the business and consequently the manuscript was completed and in type by the day after Palm Sunday, 1618. Sir Theodore Mayerne was commissioned to write a dedication of the work to King James I, and his Majesty’s proclamation requiring all the apothecaries in the realm to obey this Pharmacopœia and this only, was dated April 26th, 1618. It will be observed that exactly a century intervened between the incorporation of the College and the production of the Pharmacopœia.
The President was evidently a smart man, but the printer was still smarter, for while the former was out of town for a few days the printer rushed the publication through, “surreptitiously and prematurely,” as the College officially declared, with a number of errors and imperfections, on May 7th, 1618. This presumptuous printer was one John Marriot, at the inappropriate sign of the White Lily “in platea vulgo dicta Fleet Street.” On December 7th in the same year the College brought out a corrected edition, to which they appended an epilogue, expressing their opinion of their offending “typographus” in terms which left no excuse for not appreciating their dissatisfaction with him.
The first London Pharmacopœia did not err on the side of condensation. It comprised 1028 simples and 932 preparations and compounds. Among the simples were 31 animals and 60 parts of animals or derivatives from them. The herbs named numbered 271, and there were 138 roots and 138 seeds. Among the preparations were 178 simple and 35 compound waters, 3 medicated wines, 10 medicated vinegars, 1 vulnerary potion, 8 decoctions, 90 syrups, 18 mels and oxymels, 18 juices and linctuses, 115 candies and conserves, 43 species or powders, 58 electuaries, 36 pills, 45 lozenges, 151 oils of various kinds, 53 ointments, 51 plasters and cerates, and 17 chemicals.
The names of the inventors of many of the compounds were duly attached to the formulas, some of which were very elaborate and complicated. Rufus of Ephesus, physician to the Emperor Trajan, the Arabian doctors, Nicolas, Rivierus, Fracastor, Fallopius, and many others are thus quoted. There were 211 preparations with more than ten ingredients in each, and one, the Antidotus Magnus Matthioli, called for 130 substances in its composition, among the 130 being Mithridatium and Theriaca which would have contributed another hundred between them. Medicated waters which had been invented by Arnold de Villa Nova in the 13th century still commanded respect, over 200 different kinds being provided. Worms, swallows, frogs’ spawn, and other animal remedies as well as the whole range of the vegetable kingdom were requisitioned to surrender their virtues to these waters by distillation. Syrups, honeys, oxymels, and lohochs were numerous and included syrups of white and red poppies, rhubarb, violets, marshmallow, coltsfoot, liquorice, oxymel of squills, and mel Egyptiaca. Powders of hot precious stones and of cold precious stones, powders of pearls and spices, and a compound senna powder; troches of various drugs; basilicon ointment and a multitude of plasters are formulated. Neapolitan ointment was our blue ointment, the mercury being killed by fasting spittle. An itch ointment was made with corrosive sublimate. May butter was a favourite ingredient in ointments. It was butter made in May, melted in the sun, strained and kept the year through. Oils was a term of wide significance. Not only were expressed and distilled oils included in the reference, but oils in which things had been infused, as oil of ants, of bricks, of earthworms, of wolves, and oil of vitriol was also in the same classification. Vipers in lozenges were there, lohoch of foxes’ lungs was the great remedy for asthmatic complaints, and a modification of Vigo’s plaster with its live frogs and worms and vipers’ flesh was not omitted. The full list of the animal substances recognised as medicinal in this Pharmacopœia and its two successors has been given in the Section on Animal Medicines.
Title-page of the London Pharmacopœia.
(From the reprint of the First Edition, 1627.)
Chemicals included calomel, turpeth mineral, flowers of sulphur, the mineral acids, preparations of steel and antimony, sugar of lead, and caustic potash. The inclusion of some of these may no doubt be attributed to the influence of Sir Theodore Mayerne.
After the first Pharmacopœia had been several times reprinted a new one appeared in 1650. Notable features of this issue were that the gallon hitherto 9 lb. of water was now fixed at 8 lb.; corrosive sublimate and red and white precipitate were among the additions, but it has to be remarked that the white precipitate of that day was not what we know by name but really a precipitated proto-chloride of mercury. Its true chemical composition was not recognised until some fifty years later by Deidier in his “Chimie Raisonné.” Tinctures formed a new class of preparations, seven of them being formulated, castor, saffron, and strawberries being among these. Syrup of buckthorn was added to the syrups, and Gascoin powder to the powders. Mercury was now killed by turpentine. Mezereon, Winter’s bark, and cochineal were among the new drugs; antimonial wine made from the regulus of antimony was adopted; and the skull of a man killed by violence, and moss from that skull were admitted.
The third Pharmacopœia (1677) did not present many remarkable features, and was apparently rather hastily produced. The most striking new formula it contained was one for “Aqua Vitæ Hibernorum sive Usquebagh.” Burnt alum, flowers of benzoin, balsams of capivi and tolu, contrayerva root, Jesuits’ bark, and resin of jalap were among the new drugs. Steel wine was added.
Sir Hans Sloane presided over the compilation of the P.L. of 1721, the fourth of the series. The preface to this edition claimed that all remedies owing their use to superstition and false philosophy had been thrown out, but perhaps the far-reaching effects of the false philosophy were not fully appreciated. Many of the absurd old formulas were retained, but an approach to greater simplicity is apparent. The transition from the old to the new pharmacy can be traced very easily in this volume. The names of the plants, we are told in the preface, are “not only distinguished by the names known in shops, but also by such as are sometimes used by the more eminent writers in botany.” Tinctures are growing in favour, their number being increased to 18. The number of waters and syrups is largely diminished, and puppies, hedgehogs, wagtails, bread-crust plaster, lapis lazuli pills, and Galen’s unguentum refrigerans are dismissed. The last-named has, however, refused to die to this day. Among new chemical preparations Hepar Sulphuris (pot. sulphuret.), Flores Salis Ammoniaci Martiales (ammonio-chloride of iron), Tinctura Martis cum Spiritu Salis (tinct. ferri perchlor.), Sal Martis (ferri sulphas), Aqua Sapphirina (solution of ammonio-sulphate of copper), Lunar Caustic, Tartar Emetic, Ens Veneris, Aurum Mosaicum, Ethiops Mineral, Spirit of Sal Volatile, Mynsicht’s tincture of steel, Elixir of Vitriol, and Lime Water may be mentioned.
The P.L. 1746 (the fifth) was very different from its predecessors. Among those who took an active part in its preparation were the President of the College, Dr. Plumptre, and Drs. Crowe, Mead, Heberden, and Freind. In the preface to this work the old “inartistic and irregular mixtures” and “the antidotes superstitiously and doatingly derived from oracles, dreams, and astrological fancies” are severely condemned, and the College declares its intention of freeing the book as much as possible from whatever remains of former pedantry. Notwithstanding these good intentions the old pharmacy is still abundantly represented. Crabs’ eyes, coral, bezoar stones, harts’ horns, woodlice, pearls, vipers, and skinks’ bellies continue to figure among the simples, and formulas for Mithridatium with 45 ingredients, and for theriaca with 61 are likewise retained. On the other hand, human fat, unicorn’s horn, mummy, spiders’ webs, moss from the human skull, bone from the stag’s heart, and lac virginale disappear. There are now 34 tinctures, while the medicated waters have been reduced to about 30 and the syrups to about 20. Tinctures of cummin, valerian, and cardamoms, syrup scilliticus, and pilula saponacea (soporific) are new; and lixivium saponarium (liquor potassæ), sal diureticus (potassæ acetas), causticum commune fortius (potassa cum calce), sal catharticus Glauberi, pilulæ mercuriales, and spiritus nitri dulcis make their first appearance.
The sixth P.L. (1788) proceeds on the same lines. The College claims to have paid special attention to the application of the advances of chemistry to pharmacy, and to have provided that very few traces of former superstition should remain. Mithridatium, theriaca, bezoar stones, vipers, and oil of bricks are dismissed, but woodlice remain. Materia medica synonyms are now according to Linnæus. Among the new drugs admitted we find aconite, arnica, cascarilla, calumba, kino, quassia, simarouba, castor oil, senega, and magnesia; and among the new preparations may be named Dover’s powder, James’s powder, Mindererus’s spirit, Rochelle salts, tartrate of iron, oxide of zinc, Huxham’s tincture of bark, ether, Hoffmann’s anodyne, the decoctions of sarsaparilla, tincture of calumba, compound tinctures of benzoin, cardamoms, and lavender, and extract of chamomile. Tincture of opium made with proof spirit deposes the Tinctura Thebaica made with wine, and elixir paregoricum assumes the name of tinct. opii camphorata. A number of other names are changed. It is significant of the declining familiarity of doctors with Latin that for the first time an English translation of the Pharmacopœia is authorised.
The seventh P.L. is dated 1809. The new chemical nomenclature is introduced, and the minim substituted for the drop. Acidum vitriolicum becomes acidum sulphuricum, and ferrum vitriolatum is changed to ferri sulphas. More than a hundred articles are omitted, and nearly that number substituted. Among the new drugs and preparations are arsenic, belladonna, cajeput, cusparia, digitalis, infusions of calumba, rhubarb, and digitalis, compound decoction of aloes, acetum colchici, confections of roses, rue, and almonds, pulv. kino co, pil. cambogiæ co, emp. opii, ung. zinci, Griffiths’ mixture and pills, Plummer’s pills, lin. hydrargyri, cataplasm of yeast. Prepared woodlice, crabs’ claws, tutty ointment, and the electuaries fall out.
The eighth P.L. (1824) recognised bismuth, cubebs, croton oil, and stramonium, and admitted confection of black pepper as a substitute for Ward’s paste, and colchicum wine in imitation of the Eau Medicinale d’Husson. But the conservative College lacked the courage to endorse the claims of morphine, iodine, and quinine, though these were pretty generally established in medical practice at the time.
The Pharmacopœia of 1836 was largely the work of Richard Phillips, a very competent pharmacist, who had mercilessly criticised the edition of 1824. This, the ninth P.L., was brought well up to date with notes indicating the methods of ascertaining the purity of medicines, better methods of preparing chemicals, and the introduction of the most important of the new products. The alkaloids aconitine, morphine, quinine, strychnine, and veratrine found admission. Iodine and bromine and their compounds, hydrocyanic and phosphoric acids, creosote, ergot, and lobelia were also among the novelties. Acetum cantharidum, aqua flor. aurant., aqua sambuci, cataplasma lini, decoct. cinchonæ (2), extract. colchici corm., extract. colchici acet., hydrarg. iodid. and biniodid., inf. krameriæ and inf. lupuli. lin. opii, liquor sodæ chlorinatæ, mist. spt. vini Gall., pil. rhei co. and tinct. colchici were the principal new compounds. Muriatic acid now became hydrochloric acid, subcarbonate of magnesia was advanced to be a carbonate, and tartarised antimony assumed the title of antimonii potassio-tartras.
The tenth and last of the London Pharmacopœias appeared in 1851. Henbane seeds, spigelia, oyster shells, and extract of digitalis were removed after longer or shorter periods of service, together with soda and potash waters, and biniodide of mercury and veratrine ointments, which had only found admission in the preceding edition. Cod-liver oil, chloroform, atropine, gallic and tannic acids, extract of nux vomica, tincture of aconite, tincture and ointment of belladonna, iodide of sulphur, chloride of zinc, and ammonio-citrate of iron, were the principal novelties now made official.
The first Edinburgh Pharmacopœia appeared in 1699 and the last in 1841, while the first Dublin Pharmacopœia was published in 1807 and the last in 1850. The Medical Act of 1858 authorised the fusion of the Pharmacopœias of the three kingdoms, and assigned the task of carrying out this work to the General Medical Council created by that statute. The first British Pharmacopœia was issued in 1864, but it failed to give satisfaction, and was superseded by a second dated 1867. The third and fourth editions were published in 1884 and 1898.
XVIII
SHAKESPEARE’S PHARMACY.
But law and the gospel in Shakespeare we find,
And he gives the best physic for body and mind.
Garrick: Shakespeare’s Mulberry Tree.
The two most familiar pharmaceutical allusions in Shakespeare’s writings are the apothecary and his shop in “Romeo and Juliet” (Act V., Sc. 1), and the juice of cursed hebenon which Hamlet’s uncle poured into the ear of his father (“Hamlet,” Act I., Sc. 5). Some remarks on both these noted allusions are given separately. The medical knowledge of Shakespeare has been discussed by several eminent doctors, notably by Dr. J. C. Bucknill, of Exeter, who published a very interesting work under that title in 1860, in which the writer almost went so far as to hint at the possibility that the great dramatist must have had some training in the medical science of the day before he took to the theatre business. A similar suggestion was made by Lord Campbell in regard to the poet’s legal knowledge.
Great interest in drugs and poisons was taken by the people generally in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, and the medical controversies of the period filled a good many books. It is certain that Shakespeare at least skimmed a good many of these. “Galen and Paracelsus” are mentioned in “All’s Well that Ends Well” (Act II., Sc. 3). In “Coriolanus” (Act II., Sc. 1) Menenius says of a letter from Coriolanus that it gives him an estate of seven years’ health, adding “the most sovereign prescription in Galen is but empiricutick, and,” compared with this letter, “of no better report than a horse-drench.”
Apothecaries are mentioned in “Henry VI” (Part II., Act III., Sc. 3), when Cardinal Beaufort, delirious on his deathbed, cries, “Bid the apothecary bring the strong poison that I bought of him.” Also in “Pericles” (Act III., Sc. 2), the amateur physician Cerimon, a Lord of Ephesus, who had studied medicine, and “by turning o’er authorities” had made himself familiar with “the blest infusions that dwell in vegetives, in metals, stones,” gives a prescription to his servant, saying, “Give this to the ’pothecary, and tell me how it works.” Apothecaries’ weights are used as metaphors in “All’s Well that Ends Well” (Act II., Sc. 3) when Lafeu, who has given Parolles “most egregious indignity,” which the latter says he has not deserved, replies “Yes, good faith, every dram of it; and I will not bate thee a scruple,” and by Falstaff, who, in his interview with the Chief Justice, refers rather enigmatically to drams and scruples. Falstaff again, in “Merry Wives of Windsor,” is responsible for the simile of those who “smell like Bucklersbury in simple time.” The Dr. Caius in the same play, with his “by gar” and comical English, is assumed by some interpreters to have been a burlesque on Sir Theodore Mayerne, but except that Mayerne was French and certainly spoke English with a foreign accent, there is no reason for associating him with the character. Mayerne never acquired English. In one of his later letters he writes of Lady Cherosbury, for Shrewsbury. There was a very famous Dr. Caius, who had been physician to Queen Elizabeth, who founded Caius College, Cambridge, and who died in 1573, not so very long before this play was written. But it is agreed that he could not have been the original of the caricature.
Of the drugs and pharmaceutical preparations named by Shakespeare most would be familiar to anyone acquainted with the literature of the day. “Throw physick to the dogs,” says Macbeth to the physician who is telling him of the mental illness of Lady Macbeth. Then, his mind recurring to the war in which he was engaged, he demands of the doctor “What rhubarb, senna, or what purgative drug would scour these English hence?” (Act V., Sc. 3). In the same play (Act I., Sc. 3), Banquo asks when the witches vanish, “Have we eaten of the insane root That takes the reason prisoner?” There are many allusions in classical literature to herbs which destroyed the reason. In Plutarch’s life of Antony, for example, there is an account of some Roman soldiers in the Parthian war eating a root which deprived them of all memory, and it is said they occupied themselves in digging, and in hurling stones from one place to another. Among the ingredients of the witches’ cauldron (Act IV., Sc. 1), the animal substances named recall much of the pharmacy of the period, but only one vegetable drug, “root of hemlock, digg’d i’ the dark,” is named. Lady Macbeth (Act II., Sc. 2) tells how she has drugg’d the possets of Duncan’s grooms, so that “death and nature do contend about them Whether they live or die.” In Act V., Sc. 1, she complains that “all the perfumes of Arabia” will not sweeten her hand from the smell of blood. It is also in this play that the description of Edward the Confessor curing the King’s Evil (see Vol. I, p. 299) occurs.
In the “Comedy of Errors” (Act IV., Sc. 1) Dromio of Syracuse tells Antipholus of Ephesus that he has found a bark for him, put the freightage on board, and bought “the oil, the balsamum, and aqua-vitae.” In Act V., Sc. 1, the Abbess declares that Antipholus having taken sanctuary in the Priory she will not let him stir, “Till I have used the approved means I have, with wholesome syrups, drugs, and holy prayers, To make of him a formal man again.”
In “Much Ado about Nothing” (Act III., Sc. 4) Margaret recommends the love-sick Beatrice to “get you some of this distilled Carduus Benedictus, and lay it to your heart; it is the only thing for a qualm.” This drug was in great repute in Shakespeare’s time and was used for a multitude of complaints. Woodall says the distilled water of it “doth ease the pain of the head, conformeth the memory, cureth a quartane, provoketh sweat, and comforteth the vital spirits.” The Physician in “King Lear” (Act IV., Sc. 4), tells Cordelia there are “many simples operative whose power will close the eye of anguish.”
The story of “All’s Well that Ends Well” is based on a secret remedy for fistula which Helena had acquired from her deceased father, and with which she heals the King. The Queen in “Cymbeline” is an amateur pharmacist. In Act I., Sc. 6, she tells the doctor that he has taught her how “to make perfumes, distil, preserve”; and in Act V., Sc. 5, the doctor tells the King that on her deathbed she confessed she had “a mortal mineral” which would “by inches waste you.”
In the “Midsummer Night’s Dream” (Act III., Sc. 1), a fairy named Cobweb gives Bottom the opportunity of alluding to the usefulness of cobwebs for cut fingers. “In Twelfth Night” Sir Toby Belch jocularly addresses Maria as “My nettle of India” (Act II., Sc. 5), probably Indian hemp. We read of “parmaceti,” “the sovereign’st thing on earth for an inward bruise,” and also of the “villainous saltpetre” in Act I., Sc. 3, of “Henry IV.” Part I.; in the second part (Act I., Sc. 2) there is an allusion to the fashion of diagnosis by the examination of a person’s water; and in Act IV., Sc. 4, we find mention of the deadly character of aconitum, and in the same scene of gold “preserving life in medicine potable.” In “Antony and Cleopatra,” the Queen greets Antony’s messenger with the remark that though so much unlike him yet that “coming from him, that great medicine hath with his tinct gilded thee” (Act I., Sc. 5), evidently an allusion to the tincture of gold. Another reference to potable gold is found in “All’s Well that Ends Well.”
The plantain for a broken shin is called for by Costard in “Love’s Labour’s Lost” (“plantain, a plain plantain; no salve, sir, but a plantain,” Act III., Sc. 1); plantain leaf for a broken shin is also recommended by Romeo (Act I., Sc. 2). In the same scene occur the words so dear to homeopaths: “One fire burns out another’s burning.” In “King John” (Act V., Sc. 2,) revolt is likened to a plaster which will heal “inveterate canker of the wound by making many.”
In “Henry VI.,” part II. (Act V., Sc. 1) York quotes the legend of Achilles’ spear “able to kill or cure”; while in “Hamlet” (Act IV., Sc. 7) Laertes declares that he will anoint his sword with unction bought of a mountebank;
“No mortal that but dips a knife in it,
Where it draws blood, no cataplasm so rare,
Collected from all simples that have virtue
Under the moon, can save the thing from death
That is but scratched withal.”
The action of drugs as charms is much in evidence in “Othello.” The father of Desdemona accuses the Moor of having
“Practised on her with foul charms,
Abused her delicate youth with drugs or minerals
That awaken motion.”
And again Brabantio tells the Duke that Desdemona has been stolen from him
“And corrupted
By spells and medicines bought of mountebanks.”
These allusions all occur in scenes 2 and 3 of the first Act; in the latter also Iago promises Roderigo that Desdemona shall soon be to Othello “bitter as coloquintida.” At the end of this play Othello describes his “subdued eyes dropping tears as fast as the Arabian trees their medicinal gum.”
Autolycus refers to aqua vitæ as a restorative in the “Winter’s Tale” (Act IV., Sc. 3), as does the nurse in “Romeo and Juliet” when she finds her mistress dead (Act IV., Sc. 5). The “popinjay” takes snuff in “Henry IV.” (part I., Act I., Sc. 3), Cleopatra calls for mandragora to drink “that I might sleep out this great gap of time my Antony is away” (“Ant. and Cleop.,” Act I., Sc. 5). “Not poppy nor mandragora, nor all the drowsy syrups of the world,” said Iago, shall medicine Othello against the poison he has given him (“Othello,” Act III., Sc. 3). “Sleepy drinks” are mentioned in the “Winter’s Tale,” (Act I., Sc. 1), and in the same play (“Winter’s Tale,” Act II., Sc. 1) Shakespeare uses the word “land-damn,” which some of his commentators have been disposed to identify with laudanum. The King of Sicily grossly insults his wife, Hermione, declaring her to be an adultress, Antigonus warmly defends her and assures the King that he has been “abused by some putters-on who will be damn’d for’t,” and he adds,
“Would I knew the villain,
I would land-damn him.”
The idea is that this may be a misprint for laudanum, meaning, “I would poison him.” It must be added that this explanation does not find much favour, and perhaps it is rather far-fetched. It is mentioned by Stevens as having been proposed by Dr. Farmer, but Furness thinks that Stevens was poking fun at the solemn nonsense of his learned friend. But the other interpretations are not much better. There is, it appears, an old dialect word “lan-dan” which meant following a man with kettles and other rough music. Another suggested meaning is an association with an old Saxon word (hland) for urine, conveying the notion that the villain is to be made ill by a suppression of urine. Both these explanations seem ludicrously insufficient to express the anger of the speaker. Damn him up with land, that is, bury him alive, is gruesome enough, but this is an obscure way of expressing the proposal. Johnson disposes of the term by the theory that it was “a word which caprice brought into fashion, and reason and grammar drove irrevocably away. It has also been assumed, and this looks likely, that the punctuation has got misplaced and that the sentence should read “I would—Lord damn him.”
Shakespeare’s favourite daughter Susannah was married to Dr. John Hall, and it is possible that the doctor and his wife lived with the poet in his later years at Stratford. Dr. Hall was a practitioner of some eminence, and wrote a book in Latin (translated into English in 1657 by James Cook) entitled “Select Observations ... Cures Empirical and Historical on Very Eminent Persons in Desperate Disorders.” The following, which is Observation 60, is worth quoting for the picture it gives of pharmacy in the Elizabethan age.
“Talbot, the first born of the Countess of Salisbury, aged about one year, being miserably afflicted with a fever and worms, so that death was only expected, was thus cured. There was first injected a clyster of milk and sugar. This gave two stools and brought away four worms. By the mouth was given hartshorn burnt, prepared in the form of a julep. To the pulse was applied Ung Populeon ʒii mixed with spiders’ webs, and a little powder of nutshells. It was put to one pulse of one wrist one day, to the other the next. To the stomach was applied mithridate; to the bowel the emplaster against worms. And thus he became well in three days, for which the Countess returned me many thanks and gave me great reward.”