SECTION III.
Of the Chymical Properties and Analysis of Antimony.
It appears from Dioscorides, Pliny and Galen, that in their time antimony was not chymically examined, nor used internally though they recommend it as an external application. It is not surprising that modern chymists should differ concerning its constituent parts, since they cannot be separated without losing something in the operation. Their proportions are also various in different specimens of the crude mineral, a pound of some yielding ten or eleven ounces of regulus, whilst others scarce afford eight ounces[23].
But whatever may be their opinion concerning the effects of crude antimony, they are almost unanimous in affirming, that it contains a portion of arsenic, which by different management, may be either converted into an efficacious remedy or a deadly poison.[24]
It is a fact, says Hoffman, proved beyond all doubt among the chymists, that antimony is composed of sulphur and a mercurial or arsenical substance[25]. The same is asserted by Stahl. Antimony, says he, consists of two or three mineral substances, sulphur, a portion of arsenic, and an imperfect metallic matter. That arsenic enters its composition is proved by the red tinge of sulphur of antimony; its great power of vomiting, and that sickness of stomach and faintness with which its operation is attended; by the resemblance of glass of antimony, to the saturnine arsenical glass; by its solution in aquaregia, and many other appearances. But it is particularly demonstrated, by the purity of antimony, which is regenerated from regulus and pure sulphur, which is much finer and milder than vulgar or native antimony[26].
The author of the New Dispensatory, however, in opposition to these weighty authorities, and to the concurring testimony of almost all the chymists, affirms, that this opinion, however plausible, does not seem to have any just foundation. Nothing arsenical, he says, has ever been separated from pure antimony. The most violent antimonial preparations are rendered inactive by means which do not lessen the poisonous quality of arsenic, and the most inactive are rendered virulent by operations in which arsenic would either be dissipated, or its violence abated[27].
This opinion, contradicted by the general voice of mineralogical and chymical writers, since it is not supported by more convincing proofs, should not have been published in a book intended for the use of every pupil in pharmacy; if the prevailing opinion of the poisonous quality of antimony should be erroneous, it cannot affect the lives of mankind, but if it is well founded, what words can express the dangerous tendency of a false doctrine so universally propagated!
He has not indeed treated this subject with his usual accuracy, for with Hoffman and other celebrated chymists, he elsewhere compares antimony to arsenic, as well with respect to its virulence, as the means of correcting it: Orpiment, says he, from which a perfect arsenic is obtainable in notable quantity, is when it participates more largely of sulphur, almost perfectly innocent; and sulphur, which restrains the power of the antimonial semimetal, remarkably abates the virulence of this poisonous mineral also[28].
Poppius affirms, that an impure, bituminous and arsenical sulphur, noxious to the eyes, nose, and lungs, with a blue flame and arsenical smell, which cannot be endured without danger, is raised during the calcination or sublimation of antimony[29].
Glauber also directs antimonial cups to be made for the purpose of communicating an emetic quality to acid liquors, which according to him produce the same effects as those prepared from orpiment[30]; Boerhaave asserts that antimony seems to be of the same nature with arsenic[31]; Macquer informs us, that some of the antimonial ores contain a portion of the same poisonous mineral[32]; and Cronstedt affirms that all of them are arsenical[33].