The seven books of Paulus Ægineta, volume 3 (of 3)

by Aegineta Paulus

PAULUS ÆGINETA.

BOOK SEVENTH.

In this book, being the seventh and last of the whole work, we are to treat of the properties of all Medicines, both Simple and Compound, and more especially of those mentioned in the six preceding books.

SECT. I.—ON THE TEMPERAMENTS OF SUBSTANCES AS INDICATED BY THEIR TASTES.

It is not safe to judge from the smell with regard to the temperament of sensible objects; for inodorous substances consist indeed of thick particles, but it is not clear whether they are of a hot or cold nature; and odorous substances, to a certain extent, consist of fine particles and are hot; but the degree of the tenuity of their parts, or of their hotness, is not indicated, because of the inequality of their substance. And still more impracticable is it to judge of them from their colours, for of every colour are found hot, cold, drying, and moistening substances. But in tasting, all parts of the bodies subjected to it come in contact with the tongue and excite the sense, so that thereby one may judge clearly of their powers in their temperaments. Astringents, then, contract, obstruct, condense, dispel, and incrassate; and, in addition to all these properties, they are of a cold and desiccative nature. That which is acid, cuts, divides, attenuates, removes obstructions, and cleanses without heating; but that which is acrid, resembles the acid in being attenuant and purging, but differs from it in this, that the acid is cold, and the acrid hot; and, further, in this, that the acid repels, but the acrid attracts, discusses, breaks down, and is escharotic. In like manner, that which is bitter cleanses the pores, is detergent and attenuant, and cuts the thick humours without sensible heat. What is watery is cold, incrassate, condenses, contracts, obstructs, mortifies, and stupefies. But that which is salt contracts, braces, preserves as a pickle, dries, without decided heat or cold. What is sweet relaxes, concocts, softens, and rarefies: but what is oily humectates, softens, and relaxes.

SECT. II.—ON THE ORDER AND DEGREES OF THE TEMPERAMENTS.

A moderate medicine which is of the same temperament as that to which it is applied, so as neither to dry, moisten, cool, nor heat, must not be called either dry, moist, cold, or hot; but whatever is drier, moister, hotter, or colder, is so called from its prevailing power. It will be sufficient for every useful purpose to make four ranks according to the prevailing temperament, calling that substance hot, according to the first rank, when it heats, indeed, but not manifestly, requiring reflection to demonstrate its existence: and in like manner with regard to cold, dry, and moist, when the prevailing temperament requires demonstration, and has no strong nor manifest virtue. Such things as are manifestly possessed of drying, moistening, heating or cooling properties, may be said to be of the second rank. Such things as have these properties to a strong, but not an extreme degree, may be said to be of the third rank. But such things as are naturally so hot as to form eschars and burn, are of the fourth. In like manner such things as are so cold as to occasion the death of a part are also of the fourth. But nothing is of so drying a nature as to be of the fourth rank, without burning, for that which dries in a great degree burns also; such are misy, chalcitis, and quicklime. But a substance may be of the third rank of desiccants without being caustic, such as all those things which are strongly astringent, of which kind are the unripe juice of grapes, sumach, and alum.

Commentary. The following is a list of the ancient authorities on the Materia Medica and Pharmacy: Hippocrates (pluries); Dioscorides (de Materia Medica); Celsus (v); Scribonius Largus (pluries); Marcellus Empiricus; Pliny (H. N. pluries); Rei Rusticæ Scriptores; Apuleius (de Herbis); Antonius Musa (de Herba Betonica); Macer Floridus; Galenus (de Simpl.; de Comp. Med. sec. loc.; de Comp. Med. sec. gen.); Aëtius (i and ii); Oribasius (Med. Collect. xi et seq.); Sextus Platonicus (de Med. ex animal.); Zosimus Panopolita (de Zythorum confectione); Actuarius (Meth. Med.); Myrepsus (pluries); Psellus (de Lapidibus); Rhases (Contin. liber ult.; ad Mansor. iii); Avicenna (ii, et alibi); Serapion (de Simpl.; de Antidot.); Mesue (de Simpl.); Haly Abbas (Pract. ii and x); Averrhoes (Collig. v); Albengnefit (Libellus de Simpl. med. virt.); Geber (Chemia); Servitor (de Præpar. Med. i. e. xxviii Albucasis); Baitharis Præfatio ap. Casiri Biblioth. Arab. Hisp. p. 276; Ebn Baithar (Uebersetz von Sontheimer); Rei Rusticæ Scriptores Arabici ap. Casiri B. A. H.; Alchindus (Libellus de Med. compos. grad.)

Hippocrates, although he appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the properties of most of the vegetable substances of the Old World, still employed in the practice of medicine, has left no regular treatise on the Materia Medica and pharmacy of his time. Theophrastus has treated more fully and ingeniously of botany and vegetable physiology than any other Greek writer; but except in two or three instances he scarcely alludes to the medicinal powers of the articles which he describes. In short, Dioscorides is the first and great authority on the Materia Medica,—his contributions to which can never be too highly appreciated; for, as Alston justly remarks, the science in ancient times remained ever after in nearly the same state as he left it. The genius of Galen, it is true, shed a considerable degree of lustre over the subject by his philosophical theory regarding the general actions of medicines; but his descriptions of particular substances, and even his detail of their properties, are mostly borrowed from Dioscorides. The Greek authors, subsequent to his time, can scarcely be said to have added one single article to the list of medicinal substances described by him. Aëtius, however, although he can advance no great claim to originality, has given, as we shall see presently, a remarkably lucid exposition of the Galenical principles of therapeutics. Of Pliny’s great work, so replete with the most rare and curious information on almost every department of ancient literature, we feel reluctant to speak otherwise than in terms of unqualified eulogy, and yet candour obliges us to admit that on all medical subjects this writer is but a very indifferent authority. For, being evidently possessed of no practical acquaintance with professional matters, he appears to have been wholly incapable of discriminating real from pretended facts in medicine, and has accordingly jumbled important and useless matter together in many instances with very little judgment, nor can his opinions be much relied upon except when he copies closely from Dioscorides. The same objection cannot be made to his countryman Celsus; but the plan of his work being limited, the account which he gives of these matters is confined to a classification of simple substances, and a few formulæ for the formation of the more important pharmaceutical compounds. The Arabians added camphor, senna, musk, nux vomica, myrobalans, tamarinds, and a good many other articles to the Materia Medica; but, upon the whole, they transmitted the science to us in much the same shape as regards arrangement and general principles as they received it from their Grecian masters. At the same time it is impossible to take even a cursory view of the great work of Ebn Baithar, now fortunately rendered accessible to many European scholars by Dr. Sontheimer’s translation of it into German, without being struck with the amazing industry, enterprise, and talent displayed by that wonderful people in this department of medical science. In this collection, more than 1400 medicinal and dietetical articles are described, many of them no doubt in nearly the same terms as they had been noticed by Dioscorides and Galen, but of original matter relative to substances then for the first time introduced into the practice of medicine, there is no lack; and it is only to be regretted that a proper key to these stores is still a desideratum which it is to be feared will not soon be supplied. Ebn Baithar’s list of medicinal substances, however, is far more copious than those of the other Arabians, who in general follow closely in the footsteps of the Greek authorities, and seldom supply anything very original of their own. For example, the Materia Medica of Rhases contains only 765 articles, and that of Avicenna only 747, which it is to be remarked, is a smaller number than is contained in the work of Dioscorides, wherein Alston states that he counted above 90 minerals, 700 plants, and 168 animal substances, making 958 in all. This is nearly triple the number of simples contained in the Materia Medica of the Edinburgh Dispensatory at the present day, which amount only to 341 articles; so that if this branch of medical science has received any material improvement in modern times, it must arise principally from our superior accuracy in estimating the virtues of the substances now in use, or in making more ingenious compositions of their elementary ingredients. At all events, it is quite clear that the Greek, Roman, and Arabian physicians were amply provided with medicines of every possible character, and there is no reason to suppose that they were in anywise behind us in the skilful management of them. It has been affirmed, indeed, in some late publications which we have seen, that the ancients had never classified the articles in the Materia Medica according to the nature of their actions; but this we need scarcely assure the reader is a very erroneous account of the matter: and in proof of this we could have wished, if our limits had permitted us, to have introduced here some of the classified lists of medicinal substances as given by the ancient authorities, and more especially those of Aëtius and Serapion.