Commentary. It appears probable that our author’s plant is Ajuga chamæpitys, but here commentators are by no means agreed. It is briefly mentioned by Nicander (Alex. 65), and by Celsus as a medicine which opens the pores or mouths of vessels (v, 4), but it does not occur, we believe, in the Hippocratic treatises. Of the three species described by Dioscorides, the first is probably this plant, the second is a species of teucrium, and the third ajuga iva. His characters of the first agree in the main with those given to it by our author, who, as well as Galen, Aëtius, and Oribasius, evidently copy from him. The other two species, he says, are possessed of similar powers. All the Arabians concur in representing it as being diuretic, emmenagogue, a medicine that expels the fœtus, and a laxative. See Rhases (Cont. l. ult. i, 153); Avicenna (ii, 2,131); Serapion (c. 179); Averrhoes (Collig. v, 32.) Avicenna in particular recommends it for the cure of sciatica and gout, and for this virtue it was celebrated as long as it retained a place in our Dispensatory. See Quincy (116.) It was an ingredient in the famous Portland powder. It is still to be found in the shops, where it bears the names of Iva arthritica and Teucrium chamæpitys. See Gray (Suppl. to Pharmacop. 49.)
Χαμάιδρωψ,
Chamædrops; some call this plant Chamædrys, and some Teucrium, being possessed of similar powers to the Chamædrys.
Commentary. According to Dioscorides it is the same as the Χαμάιδρυς.
Χαμαισύκη,
Chamæsyce, Ground Fig, has detergent and acrid powers, so that the twigs and juice of it remove myrmecia and acrochordones. They therefore clear away thick cicatrices in the eyes with honey, and cure dimness of vision and incipient suffusions.
Commentary. From the place assigned to it by Dioscorides it was evidently a spurge. It is acknowledged to be the Euphorbia chamæcyce. Our author appears to have borrowed the characters which he gives it from Dioscorides. (iv, 167.) Galen and the others do the same. It does not occur in the works either of Hippocrates or Celsus, nor have we been able to find it in those of the Arabians. We are not aware of its having been used by modern authorities.
Χαμέλαια,
Chamelæa, Mezereon, or Spurge Olive, is possessed of detergent powers. It therefore cleanses foul ulcers and eschars with honey.
Commentary. Notwithstanding the difference of opinion which has prevailed among the commentators regarding this plant, we see no good grounds for doubting that it was the Daphne Mezereon, which we believe to have been naturalized in this country by the Romans for its medicinal uses. Dioscorides says of its leaves that they are like to those of the olive, but more slender and thick, biting to the taste and scarifying the trachea. Its leaves, he adds, purge phlegm and bile downwards, especially if taken in a pill with double the quantity of southernwood mixed with one part of the chamelæa; let it be taken in water or honey as a pill; but it is insoluble, for it is evacuated as it was taken; the powdered leaves mixed up with honey cleanse foul ulcers, and such as are covered with eschars. (iv, 169.) We do not meet with it in the works of Hippocrates nor of Celsus. Galen and the other Greek authorities treat of it in very general terms like our author. Beyond all doubt is this the mezereon of Serapion, who commences his chapter on it by giving extracts from the descriptions of the chamelæa given by Dioscorides, Galen, and our author. He then gives a very lengthy account of it from Arabian authorities, first from Alcanzi and next from Aben Mesuai, which we regret that our necessary limits prevent us from giving a proper abstract of. He says that persons of a gross constitution, and more especially old men, bear this medicine best, and he recommends us to administer it with myrobalans, or tamarinds, or prunes. He further directs it to be given in water that has been boiled. Altogether there is not a more important chapter in Serapion than the one on Mezereon. (c. 373.) Mesue also gives a very interesting account of the mezereon, which he illustrates with extracts from Dioscorides and Galen on the chamelæa. He assigns to it powers to purge yellow and black bile, and says that its greatest use is in dropsy. It is also, he says, anthelminthic. He recommends tents smeared with it for fistulæ and sinuous ulcers. (De Simpl. 22.) Haly Abbas also gives an excellent account of it, representing it as a medicine which purges phlegm, yellow and black bile. (Pract. 2, 54, 564.) Rhases describes the two chamæleons and the chamelæa together under the head of Laureola. He quotes “the Book of Poisons” as stating that in the dose of two drachms it proves fatal. He gives quotations from Dioscorides, Galen, and our author. (Cont. l. ult. i, 413.) Avicenna, in like manner, describes the two chamæleons and the chamelæa under the head of mezereon, but evidently recognised the distinction between the last and the first two. He commends the mezereon particularly in dropsy. (ii, 2, 455.) The above sketch, it will be remarked, clearly proves the identity of the χαμέλαια of the Greeks, and the Mezereon of the Arabians. We admit, however, that it does not prove their identity with the Daphne Mezereon. To us it appears, however, that the physiological effects of the mezereon, as described by our best authorities of the present day, correspond very well with the effects of the chamelæa or mezereon as described by Dioscorides and Serapion. In particular compare Pereira (805) with Serapion (l. c.) It is proper to mention, however, that Sibthorp held the χ. to be Daphne oleoides. Both the Daphne Mezereon, and D. Gnidium are retained in the modern Greek Pharmacopœia. (108.)