Χαλκίτις,
Chalcitis, is possessed of astringent, acrid, caustic, and escharotic powers. In subtility of particles it is intermediate between misy and sori; but when burnt its parts become still finer.
Commentary. We will first give an abstract of the information furnished by the ancient authorities themselves regarding this much-disputed article in their Materia Medica, and reserve what we have to say as to the substance itself to the conclusion. Galen is the author who has given the fullest account of the nature and formation of the misy, sori, and chalcitis (see Opera, ed. Basil, T. ii, 127); but as his description of them is lengthy, we prefer giving the abstract of the same furnished by Aëtius. It is to be borne in mind then that what follows is upon the authority of Galen, who visited the copper-mines of Cyprus for the express purpose of ascertaining the nature of the misy, sori, and chalcitis. “At the mine in Cyprus, in the mountains of the Soli, there was a great cave dug in the mountain, at the right side of which, that is to say, on our left hand as we entered, there was a passage into the mine in which I saw certain specimens of the three substances stretched upon one another like zones, the lowest being that of sori, upon it chalcitis, and then that of misy. In process of time the chalcitis changes into misy by degrees, and the sori can change into chalcitis, but requires a much longer space of time. So that it is no wonder that these three substances should be possessed of homogeneous (similar) powers, as differing from one another only in tenuity and density of their parts, the grossest being the sori, and the finest the misy, whereas chalcitis possesses an intermediate power. When burnt they become more attenuant, but less styptic.” (p. 30, ed. Aldi.) Galen (l. c.) states distinctly that the misy is an efflorescence which forms upon the chalcitis, similar to the verdigris which forms upon copper (or bronze), and that the three substances in question are convertible into one another. He also states that a specimen of chalcanthos, when long kept, turns to chalcitis. Pliny gives a very confused account of the misy, sori, and chalcitis, which betrays evident marks of a very imperfect acquaintance with the subject; but it is quite obvious that he meant to describe the very same substances as those which Dioscorides and Galen describe under these names, as is obvious from his ascribing the same medicinal powers as they do to each of these articles. (See H. N. xxxiv, 29, 30, 31, with the notes of Harduin.) Dioscorides gives but a very brief description of these substances, with the origin of which he most probably was not so well acquainted as Galen. He describes the best kind as being like bronze or copper (χαλκοειδῆ), friable, free of stones, not old, and having long and glancing fibres. He says of it that it has styptic, heating, and escharotic powers, and that it clears away impurities about the canthi and eyes; that it is one of the mild septics; is useful in erysipelas, herpes, hemorrhages of the uterus and nose, with the juice of leeks; that when dried it is useful in epulis, spreading sores, and diseases of the tonsils; that when burnt it is more useful in ophthalmic remedies in the form of a powder with honey; that it melts down and cleanses callus and asperity of the eyelids; and removes fistulæ when introduced in the form of a collyrium. (v, 115.) It occurs in one of the Hippocratic treatises (De Ulceribus), but its meaning there is not well defined. By blue chalcitis is probably meant chalcanthos, or blue vitriol. Celsus prescribes it frequently as a caustic and escharotic application. (v. 9, et pluries.) As stated already (see Misy), Avicenna gives an account of these substances under the head of “Atramentum sutorium,” the chalcitis being further distinguished by the name of colcotar. He refers to Galen’s description of them already given, but either he or his translator evidently misinterprets the original, for he represents Galen as saying that the atramentum rubeum (sori) is formed from the colcotar. He says of all the three substances that they are caustic, escharotic, and styptic; and he recommends them in the same instances as Dioscorides and Galen do. (ii, 2, 47.) Serapion, as already stated, describes them under the name of vitreolum or zeg, including also the chalcanthos in the same chapter. It may be interesting to our readers to see his version of the passage of Galen given above from Aëtius. “Vidi in mineris tres venas extensas unam super aliam per longum spacium, et vena inferior erat zeg rubeum (sori?), et secunda quæ erat super eam erat colcotar (chalcitis?), et tertia superior erat zeg viride (misy?), et hoc est quod zeg rubeum convertitur et fit colcotar et colcotar fit zeg viride.” He afterwards gives Galen’s account of the medicinal powers of chalcitis, which does not differ materially from our author’s. (De Simpl. 386.) Rhases, under the head of vitreolum, gives, in abridged extracts from Dioscorides and Galen, their descriptions of sori, chalcitis, and misy, which he calls vitreolum ruffum, colcotor, and vitreolum viride. (Contin. l. ult. 747.) Averrhoes quotes Galen’s account of the origin of the three vitriols which he calls vitreolum rubeum (sori?), v. viride (misy?), and cholcotar (chalcitis?). (Collig. v, 43.) And now, respecting the nature of the three metallic substances misy, sori, and chalcitis, we have to state it as our deliberate opinion, that, provided the authority of Galen be held decisive of the question, there can be no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that they were merely varieties of the chalcanthum, arising principally from age or differences in the proportion of the ingredients entering into its composition. (See below.) Probably then the chalcitis was a specimen of pure sulphate of copper which had contracted an efflorescence from age. The misy or zeg viride of the Arabians no doubt owed its colour to a predominance of the sulphate of iron; while in the sori we may suppose that zinc or other impurities gave it its peculiar characters.
Χάλκανθος,
Atramentum Sutorium, Copperas or Vitriol, is water concreted in the metal mines of Cyprus, having a very strong astringency with no contemptible degree of heat; and of all substances it is the most effectual for pickling and drying humid flesh. In process of time it changes to chalcitis.
Commentary. No person who reads the account of this substance given by Dioscorides and Pliny can doubt of its being blue vitriol, or an impure sulphate of copper procured by the evaporation of water found in mines of copper. Pliny’s description of it is quite characteristic: “Color est cœruleus, perquam spectabili nitore vitrumque esse creditur.” He also states that it is the same as the “atramentum sutorium.” (H. N. xxxiv, 32.) Celsus says the same of it, and ranks it with styptics (v, 1); with corrosive substances (v, 6); with caustics (v, 7, 8); with escharotics (vi, 11); and recommends it when strongly heated or roasted to remove callus (v, 28, 12), and for other purposes. Whether the blue chalcitis of Hippocrates (De Ulcer. 13), alluded to in the preceding article, be blue vitriol as some have supposed (Pereira, Mat. Med. 494), we cannot pretend positively to determine, but we think it probable. Galen describes most graphically his visit to the copper mines of Cyprus, where, among other strange sights, he witnessed the process of procuring chalcanthum. He mentions that a specimen of it which he carried with him in the course of twenty years was converted into chalcitis on its surface, while its centre remained chalcanthum, and that he meant to keep it until its centre should change likewise, and until the chalcitis should be converted into misy. Dioscorides describes several varieties of the chalcanthum, one of which is called pectum, being procured by natural evaporation; and another ephthon or coctum, as being procured by boiling. The best kind, he says, is blue, heavy, compact, and translucent. He says it is astringent, heating, and escharotic; kills the lumbricus latus when taken to the amount of a drachm; that it is emetic, cures those who have swallowed mushrooms when drunk with water, and that it purges the head when a piece of wool smeared with it is introduced into the nostrils. (v, 114.) Oribasius gives a minute description of the chalcanthum, but it is confessedly taken from Dioscorides. (Med. Coll. 13.) Aëtius says distinctly that the water running from the copper mines of Cyprus concretes into chalcanthum, and that it changes into chalcitis. He, in fact, evidently borrows from Galen. Avicenna, as formerly stated by us, gives a description of this substance along with misy, sori, and chalcitis, under the general head of “atramentum sutorium.” (ii, 2, 47.) He also treats of it separately under its proper name, but his account of it is entirely made up from Dioscorides. (166.) Serapion’s, in like manner, is copied from Dioscorides. (c. 386.) Haly Abbas’s chapter on the vitriols is so barbarously translated, that we cannot pretend to unfold his account of this substance. (Pract. ii, 47.) Though, as we have stated above, we think there can be no doubt that the chalcanthos of Dioscorides and Pliny was an impure sulphate of copper procured from the “waters of cementation” issuing from copper mines, it is proper to mention that after mature consideration of the subject, with the assistance of an esteemed authority on the Materia Medica in London, we have arrived at the conclusion that either the term must have been applied loosely to other metallic sulphates, or the ancient sulphate of copper must have contained a very large admixture of the sulphates of iron and of zinc. Probably, then, the term chalcanthos was used anciently in as loose a manner as the terms vitriol and copperas have been in modern times. (See Tournefort’s Mat. Med.) It is further deserving of remark under this head, that the description of the impure sulphate of copper, which is given in the modern Greek Pharmacopœia, corresponds exactly with Dioscorides’s description of the chalcanthos. In the Pharmacopœia it is directed that the sulphate of copper should not contain much of the sulphates of zinc and iron. And now, in conclusion, as this is one of the most important subjects connected with ancient pharmacy, we shall briefly state our reasons for holding, contrary to the opinion of many recent authorities of high reputation, that the chalcanthum either consisted principally of copper, or at least contained a large proportion of that metal in its composition. 1st. The name implies that the Greeks thought it a cupreous substance, and Pliny seems to say that the name had been properly given. (l. c.) 2d. Pliny’s description of it applies exactly to blue vitriol. (l. c.) 3d. Dioscorides’s description of it tallies with the description of the sulphate of copper given in the modern Greek Pharmacopœia. 4th. The chalcanthos was indisputably formed from the evaporation of waters issuing from mines of copper, that is to say, from “waters of cementation.” Compare Galen (l. c.) with Pereira (Mat. Med. 495.) 5th. It was administered as an emetic. See Dioscorides (l. c.) 6th. It was used externally as a powerful escharotic. See Dioscorides, Celsus, and Galen (pluries.) 7th. It was ranked among the poisons. See Cicero (ad Familiares, ix,) and the Arabian authorities on Toxicology.
Χαλκὸς κεκαυμένος,
Æs ustum, Burnt Copper, is acrid, with a share of astringency. It therefore is the best of remedies for the cicatrization of ulcers upon dry bodies; but if washed it agrees better with tender bodies.
Χαλκοῦ ἄνθος,
Æris flos, the Flower of Copper, is possessed of more subtile powers than burnt copper, or than the squama æris. Wherefore, when added to collyria, it clears away asperities and sycoses of the eyelids.