Commentary. See most of the authorities referred to in [the preceding section].
Our author’s definitions seem to be taken from Galen. (De Tumoribus and Meth. Med. xiv.) Galen states that the steatoma is to be cured solely by a surgical operation; that the meliceris may be treated by discutients, septics, or excision with the knife; and that the atheroma admits only of excision, or the application of septics.
Aëtius may be referred to as an interesting authority upon this subject. The steatoma, he says, is a preternatural tumour, free from discoloration, and soft to the touch. He recommends excision for it. The contents of the atheroma consist of a pultaceous substance surrounded by a membranous tunic, within which are also sometimes found hairs; nay, Philoxenus affirms that he had found animals like gnats and flies. The meliceris also has a membranous coat, and its contents resemble honey. He approves also of the surgical operation for the meliceris and atheroma, but permits to attempt their reduction by means of discutients consisting of such ingredients as ammoniac, ceruse, turpentine, galbanum, vinegar, &c. He makes no mention of septics; indeed arsenic does not enter into any of his compositions.
Oribasius and Actuarius lay down the same rules of treatment as our author. Nonnus as usual epitomises him with some slight alterations. The active ingredients in one of his septic applications are sandarach and hellebore. Leo is brief and indistinct.
Celsus marks the differences of these tumours with his characteristic terseness and precision: “Atheromati subest quasi tenuis pulticula: meliceridi liquidior humor; ideoque pressus fluit: steatomati pingue quiddam.” He recommends excision. (vii, 6.)
Avicenna’s plan of treatment is so like our author’s, that we need not give it in detail. The steatoma is to be removed solely by an operation. For the two others he permits the use of septic applications, such as arsenic, quicklime, hellebore, the lees of wine, &c. Haly’s definitions are similar to those of our author, and he recommends either excision or the use of septics, such as vitriol. The treatment laid down by Alsaharavius is quite the same. In the barbarous translation of his works they are called by the names of alsahamia, asalia, and accida. (Pract. xxix, 1, 22.)
Vegetius, the veterinary surgeon, describes these tumours as they appear in cattle. He directs them to be treated by excision. (Mulom. ii, 30.)
It will be remarked from the text, that the ancients were well acquainted with the caustic powers of the calx cum kali. In fact, our author in this section has given a prescription for the paste now commonly used for forming issues.
It appears from the works of Fabricius of Aquapendente, that the practice of treating atheroma and meliceris by septic applications was sufficiently common in his time. Andreas Laurentius approves of removing scrofulous tumours in this way when they are deep-seated and have a broad base. He thus enumerates the septics used in his age: “Secundo extrahi potest struma caustico, nunc affixo in ejus medio candente ferro, nunc admotis erodentibus et putrefacientibus ut sandaraca, arsenico, argento liquido usto, oleo quod ex atramento sutorio igne elicitur, calce non extincta cum sapone, axungia porcina cum argenti sublimati portiuncula, pulvere mercurii, erinaceorum cumbustorum, testæ sæpiæ, auripigmenti.” He also recommends us to tie the base of the tumour with a thread wet in a solution of arsenic (De strum. nat.) The treatment of atheroma by caustics is well described in the ‘Bibliotheca Chirurgica’ of Manget.