On procidentia. Galen correctly describes procidentia as arising from ulceration of the cornea and protrusion of the iris. (De Diff. Morb. 13.) Aëtius has treated of it with his usual accuracy. He recommends various escharotic applications containing chalcitis, misy, and the like, which, when properly managed, may probably have answered the purpose equally well with the antimonium muriatum and argentum nitratum used by Scarpa and other modern oculists. Avicenna treats of the complaint like the Greeks. Some of his compositions contain antimony with ceruse, burnt lead, and the like. Haly Abbas describes the disease minutely in nearly the same terms, and recommends nearly the same remedies as our author, namely, such as are of a repressing nature. He properly remarks that it is one of the consequences of ulceration of the cornea. Alsaharavius gives a similar account, and recommends general depletion.
On hypopyon. Aëtius gives much more judicious directions for the treatment of this complaint than our author. He properly recommends general bloodletting at the commencement, and afterwards local, by means of leeches and cupping instruments; and then emollient, paregoric, and discutient applications to the eye. Galen (Meth. Med.) makes mention of an oculist in his time who effected wonderful cures in this complaint by shaking the patient’s head. When this does not succeed, Galen directs us to perforate the coats of the eye, and let out the matter. (See [Book Sixth].) Scarpa does not approve of this practice, unless the collection of matter be considerable. However, Plempius and most of the earlier modern authorities in surgery decidedly recommend it. Haly Abbas recommends a discutient cataplasm containing opopanax, ammoniac, and fenugreek. Alsaharavius properly directs bleeding and masticatories at the commencement.
On leucoma. Aëtius directs his attention principally to the general treatment, and properly cautions against the use of strongly stimulant applications, as they only increase the evil. He allows afterwards moderately detergent ones, containing verdigris, burnt copper, squama æris, flos æris, sal ammoniac, and the like. His compositions are taken for the most part from Galen’s works (de Med. sec. loc. iv.) Aëtius disapproves of applications for changing the colour of the leucoma. Alexander recommends the detergent applications mentioned by our author. Nonnus copies from him. Haly Abbas describes it by the name of albedo oculi, and recommends nearly the same remedies as our author. He particularly praises green glass finely pulverized, which is still a popular remedy in Scotland. Alsaharavius makes mention of the juice of the lesser centaury as an useful application. Scarpa speaks favorably of this remedy, and further recommends the Sapphirian collyrium, the ingredients of which are similar to those which entered into the ancient applications. It consists of a solution of scr. ij of sal ammoniac and gr. iv of ærugo in oz. viij of aqua calcis, allowed to stand for twenty-four hours, and then filtered. Rhases recommends an ointment containing arsenic.
On pterygium. Aëtius correctly remarks that pterygium generally begins from the inner canthus, rarely from the outer, and scarce ever from above or below. He gives prescriptions for a variety of applications, which, like our author’s, contain burnt copperas, magnesian stone, sal ammoniac, and the like. Galen briefly commends the same. Nonnus, Serapion, and the others approve of this practice. Modern oculists, however, trust to nothing but the operation, which will be described in the [Sixth Book]. Haly Abbas describes the disease very accurately by the name of ungula; and recommends general bleeding, purging, restricted diet, and a variety of collyria. Alsaharavius gives the same account of the ungula, and when it becomes callous (nervosus), recommends an operation. Jesu Haly recommends, before attempting a surgical operation, to make trial of escharotic applications. Rhases also approves of this plan of treatment. The most active ingredients in his prescriptions are sal ammoniac, copperas, and arsenic. Some of his compositions are merely detergent.
On carbuncle and cancer. we are not aware that the parts about the eye are particularly liable to anthrax, nor do we recollect to have ever met with such a case; and yet, as Alexander and our author remark, the disease may occur there as well as in other parts of the body. Rowley describes carbuncle both of the eye and eyelids. Aëtius has given a very circumstantial account of the symptoms and treatment of anthrax. He forbids the early application of cataplasms, and seems to depend most upon constitutional treatment, by clysters, purging, and bleeding. Afterwards cooling and styptic fomentations are to be applied by means of a sponge, along with other treatment similar to our author’s. Alexander’s plan of treatment is nearly the same, and is laid down with excellent judgment. That of Oribasius is similar.
To relieve the pains of cancer, Aëtius recommends soothing applications and an anti-stimulant diet, consisting principally of milk. Avicenna, Alsaharavius, and most of the ancient authorities join in praising milk as the principal article of food in cancer of the eye. Avicenna’s applications contain ceruse, opium, and the like. Haly Abbas recommends general bleeding, if the patient’s strength permit, with emollient lotions, and collyria: the diet to consist of birds, kids, and lambs. According to Rhases, cancer of the eye is attended with excruciating pains, redness, and distension of the veins, loss of appetite, and inability to bear all applications.
On mydriasis. Aëtius treats mydriasis, or preternatural dilatation of the pupil, like our author, by general and local bleeding, clysters, an attenuant diet, and friction of the extremities. They no doubt considered that the disease arises from congestion in the brain. Avicenna refers the disease to cephalæa and injuries of the head. Scarpa quotes with approbation the account given by Celsus of mydriasis, by which he thinks was meant not only cases of dilated pupil but also of incipient amaurosis occurring suddenly. Celsus approves of opening the bowels freely. Haly Abbas describes the disease, but thinks it almost incurable. It sometimes occurs, he says, from a blow, and sometimes from abscess within the uva. Alsaharavius attributes the disease to congestion, and directs bleeding, purging, and cooling applications. He calls it dilatatio. According to Jesu Haly, it is produced by dryness of the uva, or abscess within that tunic, or pressure on the brain. The first species is to be relieved by diluents and relaxants, such as the warm bath. For the second he recommends suitable cataplasms and purgative pills. The third is to be treated by general and local bleeding, cupping, and fomentations with water, vinegar, and salt. Constriction of the pupil he directs us to treat upon the same principles as our author. His account of it is mostly taken from Aëtius. Leo describes, under the name of symptosis, constriction of the pupil; under that of paremptosis, an affection of the optic nerves; under that of platycoria, a preternatural dilatation of the pupil, for which he recommends astringents; and under that of myocephalos, procidentia of the lens, for which he recommends astringents, and even copperas.
On nyctalopia. Aëtius recommends, according to the circumstances of the case, general and local bleeding, drastic purgatives, errhines, and the like. He, Celsus, Alexander, Rhases, Avicenna, Mesue, Jesu Haly, Haly Abbas, and Alsaharavius, like our author, speak favorably of the application from the roasted liver of a goat. Instead of it Hippocrates recommends the liver of an ox. His treatment otherwise consists of bleeding, purging with elaterium, and, in desperate cases, of trepanning the head at the bregma and evacuating the water. (De Visu.) The general treatment of the Arabians is like that of the Greeks. Thus Alsaharavius recommends bleeding, purging with hiera, gargles, sternutatories, and the like. This is also the practice of Jesu Haly.
The term nyctalopia is not used by all the ancient authorities in the same sense. Thus Hippocrates applies it to that morbid state of vision in which the patient is blind during the day but sees better in the evening. Aëtius, Alexander, Paulus, and Actuarius, on the contrary, apply it to that state in which the patient sees clearly during the day but becomes blind in the evening.
On glaucoma and suffusion. Aëtius and Oribasius give nearly the same account of these complaints as Paulus, and yet that of Aëtius seems slightly different. He says that there are two kinds of glaucoma: that the first, to which the name is properly applied, arises from a dryness and concretion of the crystalline humour, which is changed to a sea-green (glaucum) colour; but that the other arises from a suffusion, the humour near the pupil having become congealed and dry. According to Leo, the affection of glaucoma arises when the crystalline humour is congealed, as it were, and having become white, obstructs vision: this occurs in old age and is incurable. Haly Abbas was aware that the disease is sometimes seated in the crystalline lens, but did not know that it always is so. Hippocrates recommends masticatories and the actual cautery. Haly Abbas and Alsaharavius approve of making trial of remedies similar to those mentioned by our author, before attempting the operation. Rhases forbids bleeding when the disease arises from the state of the eye itself. Canamusali, who flourished about the year 1258, recommends a seton in the nape of the neck for the cure of suffusion. (De Oculis, vi.) Rhases considers the case incurable when the pupil has become insensible to the stimulus of light.