2. (Ph. E.) As the last, omitting the ginger.
3. (Ph. D.) Jalap, 2 oz.; bitartrate of potassa, 31⁄2 oz.; ginger, 1⁄2 oz. (all in fine powder); mix by careful trituration.—Dose, 20 to
60 gr.; as a purgative in habitual costiveness, dropsies, &c.; also in worms, the tumid bellies of children, &c.
4. (B. P.) Jalap, in powder, 5; acid tartrate of potash, 9; ginger, in powder, 1; mix.—Dose, 20 to 60 gr.
5. (Pulvis lenitivus; Sucre orange purgativ.) From refined sugar, 3⁄4 lb.; jalap and cream of tartar, of each 2 oz.; oil of orange peel, 1⁄4 oz. A popular purgative on the Continent.—Dose, 1 to 3 dr.
Powder, James’s. Syn. Pulvis Jacobi, P. febrifugus Jacobi, L. The antimonial powder, or compound powder of antimony, of the Pharmacopœias (see above) is the preparation which usually passes under this name; but the true James’s powder is a nostrum the pretended secret of the preparation of which is claimed to be possessed by only two parties in the kingdom. The patent specification of the once celebrated Dr James runs as follows:—
“Take of antimony, calcine it with a continued protracted heat, in a flat, unglazed earthen vessel, adding to it, from time to time, a sufficient quantity of any animal oil and salt, well dephlegmated; then boil it in melted nitre for a considerable time, and separate the powder from the nitre by dissolving it in water.” On this it has been remarked that it yields a product totally different from that which Dr James and his successors have sold under the name, and he has hence been charged with concealing the real formula for his powder, and publishing a false one in its stead.
According to Dr Robinson, the original formula for this nostrum, and that still adopted by the vendors of the proprietary article at the present day, is—Tartarised antimony, 1 part; prepared burnt hartshorn and calx of antimony, of each 5 parts; carefully mixed together, and divided into 21-gr. powders. (‘Phil. Journ. Pharm.,’ vi, 282.)
From analyses recently made of three specimens of James’s powder (‘Newberry’s,’ ‘Butler’s,’ and a sample of 60 years old obtained by Mr Squire), it appears that antimonious acid was present in different proportions, from about 45% to 33%, the amount being greatest in the old specimen; teroxide of antimony was also present to the extent of from 9% to less than 1%, the greatest quantity being again in the old preparation; the remainder in each specimen consisted chiefly of phosphate of lime; no trace of tartaric acid was discoverable in any of the samples.
Perhaps no nostrum ever received such extensive patronage from the faculty as James’s powder. Dr James himself was remarkably successful in its use; but whether his success depended upon his powder or the mercurials and bark which he commonly employed at the same time is still undetermined.