Tasuta

A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume I (of 2)

Tekst
iOSAndroidWindows Phone
Kuhu peaksime rakenduse lingi saatma?
Ärge sulgege akent, kuni olete sisestanud mobiilseadmesse saadetud koodi
Proovi uuestiLink saadetud

Autoriõiguse omaniku taotlusel ei saa seda raamatut failina alla laadida.

Sellegipoolest saate seda raamatut lugeda meie mobiilirakendusest (isegi ilma internetiühenduseta) ja LitResi veebielehel.

Märgi loetuks
Šrift:Väiksem АаSuurem Aa

MAGNETIC CURES

The external use of the magnet, to cure the tooth-ache and other disorders, is a remedy brought into fashion in modern times, but not a new discovery, as supposed by Lessing, who ascribes it to Paracelsus93. It was known to Aëtius, who lived so early as the year 500. That author says, “We are assured that those who are troubled with the gout in their hands or their feet, or with convulsions, find relief when they hold a magnet in their hand94.” He does not however give any proof of this from his own experience: and perhaps he doubted the truth of it. The above passage contains the oldest account known at present respecting this virtue; for the more ancient writers speak only of the internal use of the magnet.

It is evident therefore that this cure has not been discovered in later times, but that it has been preserved by the old physicians copying it from each other into their works. In like manner, many things are mentioned in the Materia Medica which were used or proposed by the ancients, but into the properties of which they never made sufficient inquiry.

Paracelsus recommended the magnet in a number of diseases, as fluxes, hæmorrhages, &c. Marcellus, who lived in the fifteenth century, assures us that it cures the tooth-ache95. The same virtue is ascribed to it by Leonard Camillus96, who lived in the sixteenth century: and Wecker97, who was nearly co-temporary, says that the magnet when applied to the head, cures the head-ache; and adds that Holler had taken this cure from the works of the ancients98. We read also in Porta99, that it was recommended for the head-ache; and in Kircher100, that it was worn about the neck as a preventive against convulsions, and affections of the nerves. About the end of the 17th century magnetic tooth-picks and ear-pickers were made, and extolled as a secret preventive against pains in the teeth, eyes and ears101.

[In addition to these external uses of the magnet, in which it was supposed to act by a peculiar power over the nervous system, it has been employed on account of its true magnetic properties. Thus Kirkringius, Fabricius Hildanus, and subsequently Morgagni, have used it to remove particles of iron which had accidentally fallen into the eyes. Kircher employed it also to cure hernia. The patient took iron-filings internally; and the loadstone in the state of powder mixed with some vegetable substance, thus forming a magnetic plaster, was applied to the hernia. Even Ambrose Paré states on the authority of a surgeon, that several patients had been thus cured.

About the 16th and early in the 17th century, two cases occurred, one near Prague in Bohemia, the other in Prussia, in which a knife was swallowed, but it unfortunately got too far and passed into the stomach. By the application of these magnetic plasters, the point became attracted towards the surface, so that it could be removed by incision102.

In the 18th century, after the properties of magnets had begun to be scientifically investigated, they were made of various forms and their effects studied in numerous parts of Europe, and many treatises were published on their supposed properties. Perhaps the most important and best authenticated, are those of MM. Audry and Thouret. These experimenters believed that they were effective agents.

Since that time, the use of magnets as remedial agents has been almost entirely laid aside and forgotten, it having been found that no constancy was exhibited in the results of their application, and that their occasional supposed efficacy depended upon other circumstances, which were overlooked from the sufferers’ attention being engrossed by the magnet. The application of the magnet to remove small particles of iron or steel which have accidentally fallen into the eyes, has been lately revived. In some manufactories, where these minute particles are constantly thrown off in the grinding of hardware and driven into the eyes, large magnets are kept fixed at a proper height, so that the workmen can resort to them immediately. Such is the case for instance at Fairbairne in Belgium, and we believe the same has been adopted in some of our own manufactories to catch the floating particles, and thus to prevent their being drawn into the lungs during respiration. The reader may form some idea of the effective manner in which magnets can be applied, from the following incident which occurred to Prof. Faraday, whilst experimenting with a powerful (electro-) magnet; an iron candlestick which happened to be standing near its poles on the table at which he was at work flew to them, attracted with such violence as to displace or break everything in its way.

In the 18th century, a new supposed magnetic power was discovered, and with various success has continued to be applied to the delusion of the public. About 1770, Father Hehl, a jesuit, the Professor of Astronomy at Vienna, who had great faith in the influence of the loadstone on human diseases, and had invented steel plates of a peculiar form, which he impregnated with magnetic virtues and applied to the cure of diseases, communicated his discoveries to Anton Mesmer, who subsequently invented animal magnetism or mesmerism. Mesmer made use of his friend Hehl’s plates to employ the magnet according to certain notions of his own. In his subsequent experiments magnets were gradually dispensed with, and as practised in modern times, they have been found unnecessary. Hence mesmerism or animal magnetism has no relation to the magnetism of the magnet, and may therefore form the subject of a future article.

About the year 1798, a man named Perkins invented a method of treating various diseases with metallic bars called tractors; these were applied to and drawn over various parts of the body, and were supposed to cure numerous maladies, such as ulcers, head-aches, &c. These instruments were patented. A few years afterwards, Dr. Falconer had wooden tractors made so exactly to resemble those of Perkins, that they could not be distinguished by the eye; on employing these on a large scale at the Bath hospital, he found that exactly the same effects and cures were produced by one as the other. Since that time these tractors have hardly been heard of, and are now forgotten.

Quite recently, a new means has been contrived in England for deluding the public, in the form of rings, which are to be worn upon the fingers or toes, and are said to prevent the occurrence of, and cure various diseases. They are called galvanic rings. But this invention may be with propriety classed with the real magnet, animal magnetism and tractation.

 

What has been stated relative to the metallic tractors, equally applies to the magnetic rings; for although by the contact of the two metals of which they are composed an infinitesimally minute current of electricity, hence also of magnetism, is generated, still from the absurd manner in which the pieces of metal composing the ring are arranged, and which displays the most profound ignorance of the laws of electricity and magnetism, no trace of the minute current traverses the finger or toe on which the ring is worn; so that a wooden, any other ring, or none at all, would have exactly the same effect, as regards the magnetism or galvanism.]

SECRET POISON

Under this name are generally understood all poisons which can be administered imperceptibly, and which gradually shorten the life of man, like a lingering disease. They were not first discovered in the 17th century in France and Italy as many believe, but were known to the ancient Greeks and Romans, by whom they were used. I must however allow, that they were never prepared with more art at any period, or in any country, or employed oftener and with more success, than they were in these countries, and at that time. If it be true that they can be prepared in such a manner as to occasion death at a certain period previously determined, or that the person to whom they are given will die within a certain time limited, it must be confessed that the ancient poisoners have been far exceeded by the modern. But this advantage will be considered as scarcely possible, when one reflects upon the many variable circumstances which have an influence on the operation of medicines and poisons; and it has often happened that a company have swallowed the same poison, at the same time, and in the same quantity, some of whom have died sooner and some later, while some have survived. Thus died Pope Alexander VI. in the year 1503, and Cæsar Borgia recovered without any loss of health, though, by the bottles being changed through mistake, he drank of the poison that had been prepared for the other guests alone. At any rate, I am of opinion that the celebrated Tophania, when she engaged to free wives from disagreeable husbands within stated weeks and days, must have had certain and very accurate information respecting their constitution and manner of living, or, as the physicians say, their idiosyncrasy.

Some physicians have doubted respecting secret poison103; and others have only denied that its effects can with certainty be regulated to a fixed time104. I agree in opinion with the latter; but the former can be confuted by many examples both of ancient and modern times; for that the ancients were acquainted with this kind of poison, can be proved by the testimony of Plutarch, Quintilian, and other respectable authors. We are told by Plutarch, that a slow poison, which occasioned heat, a cough, spitting of blood, consumption, and a weakness of intellect, was administered to Aratus of Sicyon105; and Quintilian in his Declamations, speaks of this poison in such a manner as proves that it must then have been well known106. It cannot be said that such an invention was too great for that period, or that it required more knowledge of chemistry than any one possessed; for the Indians in America are acquainted with a most perfect poison of this kind, and can employ it with so much skill, that the person to whom it is given cannot guard against the treachery, even with the utmost precaution, but infallibly dies, though in a lingering manner, often after the expiration of some years107.

Theophrastus speaks of a poison which could be moderated in such a manner as to have effect in two or three months, or at the end of a year, or two years; and he remarks that the death, the more lingering it was, became the more miserable. This poison was prepared from aconitum, a plant which, on that account, people were forbidden to have in their possession, under pain of capital punishment108. He relates also, that Thrasyas had discovered a method of preparing from other plants a poison which, given in small doses of a drachm, occasioned an easy but certain death, without any pain, and which could be kept back for a long time without causing weakness or corruption. This Thrasyas, whose scholar Alexias carried the art still further, was a native of Mantinea, a city in Arcadia, and is celebrated by Theophrastus on account of his abilities, and particularly his knowledge of botany; but those are mistaken who ascribe to him the discovery of secret poison.

This poison was much used at Rome about two hundred years before the Christian æra. As several persons of distinction died the same year at that period, and of the like distemper, an inquiry being made into the cause, a maid-servant gave evidence against some ladies of the first families, who, she said, prepared and distributed poison; and above a hundred and fifty of them were convicted and punished109. As so many had learnt this destructive art, it could not be suppressed; and we find sufficient proofs in the Roman history that it was continually preserved. Sejanus caused such a secret poison to be administered by an eunuch to Drusus, who gradually declined afterwards, as by a consumptive disorder, and at length died110. Agrippina, being desirous of getting rid of Claudius, but not daring to despatch him suddenly, and yet wishing not to leave him sufficient time to make new regulations respecting the succession to the throne, made choice of a poison which should deprive him of his reason, and gradually consume him. This she caused to be prepared by an expert poisoner, named Locusta, who had been condemned to death for her infamous actions, but saved that she might be employed as a state engine. The poison was given to the emperor in a dish of mushrooms; but as, on account of his irregular manner of living, it did not produce the desired effect, it was assisted by some of a stronger nature111. This Locusta prepared also the poison with which Nero despatched Britannicus, the son of Agrippina, whom his father Claudius wished to succeed him on the throne. As this poison occasioned only a dysentery, and was too slow in its operation, the emperor compelled Locusta by blows, and by threatening her with death, to prepare in his presence one more powerful. It was first tried on a kid; but as the animal did not die till the end of five hours, she boiled it a little longer, until it instantaneously killed a pig to which it had been given, and this poison despatched Britannicus as soon as he had tasted it112. For this service the emperor pardoned Locusta, rewarded her liberally, and gave her pupils whom she was to instruct in her art, in order that it might not be lost.

The art of preparing this poison must have been well understood also at Carthage. When M. Attilius Regulus, the Roman general, who had been taken by the Carthaginians, was sent to Rome to propose to the senate that the Carthaginian prisoners might be restored in exchange for him, he prevented this negotiation, because he knew that a poison had been administered to him, by which the state would soon be deprived of his services. He returned, therefore, to Carthage, in compliance with the promise he had made to the enemy, who put him to death with the most exquisite torture113.

 

All these poisons were prepared from plants, particularly aconite, hemlock and poppy, or extracted from animal substances. Among those made from the latter, none is more remarkable than that supplied by the sea-hare, lepus marinus, with which, as Philostratus says114, Titus was despatched by Domitian. Without here attempting to define the substances employed by the ancients to compose their poisons, I shall only observe, that the lepus marinus, the terrible effects of which are expressly mentioned by Dioscorides, Galen, Nicander, Aëtius, Ælian115, Pliny116, and others, is that animal called at present in the Linnæan system Aplysia depilans117, as Rondelet conjectured, and has been since fully proved by Bohadsch118. This animal poison however seems to have been seldom used, as it easily betrays itself by some peculiar symptoms. It appears that it was not known to Aristotle, at least he makes no mention of it119. With the far stronger, and now common mineral poisons the ancients were not acquainted; for their arsenic was what we call orpiment, and not that pernicious metallic oxide which formed the principal ingredient of those secret poisons which in latter times were in France and Italy brought to a diabolical perfection120.

No one was ever more infamous by this art than Tophania, or Toffana, a woman who resided first at Palermo, and afterwards at Naples. She sold those drops, which from her acquired the name of aqua Tophania, aqua della Toffana, and which were called also acquetta di Napoli, or only acquetta; but she distributed her preparation by way of charity to such wives as wished to have other husbands. From four to six drops were sufficient to destroy a man; and it was asserted that the dose could be so proportioned as to operate in a certain time. As she was watched by the government, she fled to an ecclesiastical asylum; and when Keysler was at Naples in 1730, she was then still living, because no one could, or was willing to take away her life, while under that protection. At that time she was visited by many strangers out of curiosity.

In Labat’s Travels through Italy121 we also find some information which may serve still further to illustrate the history of Tophania. She distributed her poison in small glass phials, with this inscription, Manna of St. Nicholas of Bari, and ornamented with the image of the saint. A miraculous oil, employed by folly in the cure of many diseases, drops from the tomb of that saint which is shown at Bari in the kingdom of Naples; and on this account it is dispersed in great abundance under the like name. It was therefore the best appellation which Tophania could give to her poison, because the reputed sanctity of it prevented the custom-house officers from examining it too closely. When the viceroy was informed of this, which I think was in 1709, Tophania fled from one convent to another, but was at length seized and thrown into prison. The clergy raised a loud outcry on account of this violation of ecclesiastical freedom, and endeavoured to excite the people to insurrection. But they were soon appeased on a report being spread that Tophania had confessed she had poisoned all the springs in the city. Being put to the rack, she acknowledged her wickedness, and confessed to having caused the death of not less than 600 persons; named those who had protected her, who were immediately dragged from churches and monasteries; and declared that the day before she had absconded, she had sent two boxes of her manna to Rome, where it was found in the custom-house, but she did not accuse any one of having ordered it. She was afterwards strangled, and to mitigate the archbishop, her body was thrown at night into the area of the convent from which she had been taken. Tophania however was not the only person at Naples who understood the making of this poison; for Keysler says that at the time he was there it was still secretly prepared and much employed.

In the year 1659, under the government of Pope Alexander VII., it was observed at Rome that many young married women were left widows, and that many husbands died when they became disagreeable to their wives. Several of the clergy declared also, that for some time past various persons had acknowledged at confession that they had been guilty of poisoning. As the government employed the utmost vigilance to discover these poisoners, suspicion fell upon a society of young married women, whose president appeared to be an old woman who pretended to foretell future events, and who had often predicted very exactly many deaths to persons who had cause to wish for them. To ascertain the truth, a crafty female, given out to be a person of considerable distinction, was sent to this old woman, pretending that she wished to obtain her confidence, and to procure some of her drops for a cruel and tyrannical husband. The whole society were by this stratagem arrested; and all of them, except the fortune-teller, whose name was Hieronyma Spara, confessed before they were put to the torture. – “Where now,” cried she, “are the Roman princes, knights and barons, who on so many occasions promised me their protection! Where are the ladies who assured me of their friendship! Where are my children whom I have placed in so distinguished situations!” In order to deter others from committing the like crime, one Gratiosa, Spara’s assistant, three other women, and the obstinate Spara herself, who still entertained hopes of assistance till the last moment, were hanged in the presence of innumerable spectators. Some months after, several more women were executed in the same manner; some were whipt, and others were banished from the country. Notwithstanding these punishments, the effects of this inveterate wickedness have been from time to time remarked. Le Bret, to whom we are indebted for the above account, says122 that Spara was a Sicilian, and acquired her knowledge from Tophania at Palermo. If that be true, the latter must have been early initiated in villany, and must have become when very young a teacher of her infamous art. Keysler calls her a little old woman.

The art of poisoning never excited more attention than it did in France about the year 1670123. Mary Margaret d’Aubray, daughter of the lieutenant-civil Dreux d’Aubray, was in the year 1651 married to the Marquis de Brinvillier, son of Gobelin president of the Chamber of Accounts, who had a yearly income of thirty thousand livres, and to whom she brought a portion of two hundred thousand. He was mestre-de-camp of the regiment of Normandy, and during the course of his campaigns became acquainted with one Godin de Sainte Croix, a young man of a distinguished family, who served as a captain of cavalry in the regiment of Trassy. This young officer, who was then a needy adventurer, became a constant visitor of the marquis, and in a short time paid his addresses to the marchioness, who lost her husband after she had helped to dissipate his large fortune, and was thus enabled to enjoy her amours in greater freedom. Her indecent conduct, however, gave so much uneasiness to her father, that he procured a lettre de cachet, had Sainte Croix arrested while in a carriage by her side, and thrown into the Bastille124. Sainte Croix there got acquainted with an Italian named Exili, who understood the art of preparing poison, and from whom he learnt it. As they were both set at liberty after a year’s imprisonment, Sainte Croix kept Exili with him until he became perfectly master of the art, in which he afterwards instructed the marchioness, in order that she might employ it in bettering the circumstances of both. When she had acquired the principles of the art, she assumed the appearance of a nun, distributed food to the poor, nursed the sick in the Hôtel-Dieu, and gave them medicines, but only for the purpose of trying the strength of her poison undetected on these helpless wretches125. It was said in Paris, by way of satire, that no young physician, in introducing himself to practice, had ever so speedily filled a churchyard as Brinvillier. By the force of money, she prevailed on Sainte Croix’s servant, called La Chaussée, to administer poison to her father, into whose service she got him introduced, and also to her brother, who was a counsellor of the parliament, and resided at his father’s house. To the former the poison was given ten times before he died; the son died sooner; but the daughter, Mademoiselle d’Aubray, the marchioness could not poison, because perhaps she was too much on her guard; for a suspicion soon arose that the father and son had been poisoned, and the bodies were opened. She would however have escaped, had not Providence brought to light the villany.

Sainte Croix, when preparing poison, was accustomed to wear a glass mask; but as this once happened to drop off by accident, he was suffocated, and found dead in his laboratory. Government caused the effects of this man, who had no family, to be examined, and a list of them to be made out. On searching them, there was found a small box, to which Sainte Croix had affixed a written request, that after his death it might be delivered to the Marchioness de Brinvillier, or in case she should not be living, that it might be burnt126. Nothing could be a greater inducement to have it opened than this singular petition; and that being done, there was found in it a great abundance of poisons of every kind, with labels on which their effects, proved by experiments made on animals, were marked. When the marchioness heard of the death of her lover and instructor, she was desirous to have the casket, and endeavoured to get possession of it, by bribing the officers of justice; but as she failed in this, she quitted the kingdom. La Chaussée, however, continued at Paris, laid claim to the property of Sainte Croix, was seized and imprisoned, confessed more acts of villany than were suspected, and was in consequence broke alive on the wheel in 1673.

A very active officer of justice, named Desgrais, was despatched in search of the Marchioness de Brinvillier, who was found in a convent at Liège, to which she had fled from England. To entice her from this privileged place, which folly had consecrated for the protection of vice, Desgrais assumed the dress of an abbé, found means to get acquainted with her, acted the part of a lover, and, having engaged her to go out on an excursion of pleasure, arrested her. Among her effects at the convent, there was found a confession, written by her own hand, which contained a complete catalogue of her crimes. She there acknowledged that she had set fire to houses, and that she had occasioned the death of more persons than any one ever suspected. She remarked also, that she had continued a virgin only till the seventh year of her age. Notwithstanding all the craft which she employed to escape, she was conveyed to Paris, where she at first denied everything; and, when in prison, she played picquet to pass away the time. She was however convicted, brought to a confession of her enormities, became a convert, as her confessor termed it, and went with much firmness to the place of execution, on the 16th of July, 1676; where, when she beheld the multitude of the spectators, she exclaimed in a contemptuous manner, “You have come to see a fine spectacle!” She was beheaded and afterwards burnt; a punishment too mild for such an offender127. As she had been amused with some hopes of a pardon, on account of her relations, when she mounted the scaffold, she cried out, “C’est donc tout de bon!128

Among a number of persons suspected of being concerned in this affair, was a German apothecary, named Glaser, who on account of his knowledge in chemistry, was intimate with Exili and Sainte Croix. From him they had both procured the materials which they used, and he was some years confined in the Bastille; but the charge against him being more minutely investigated, he was declared innocent, and set at liberty. He was the author of a Treatise on Chemistry, printed at Paris in 1667, and reprinted afterwards at Brussels in 1676, and at Lyons in 1679.

By the execution of this French Medea, the practice of poisoning was not suppressed; many persons died from time to time under very suspicious circumstances; and the archbishop was informed from different parishes that this crime was still confessed, and that traces of it were remarked both in high and in low families. For watching, searching after, and punishing poisoners, a particular court, called the Chambre de Poison or Chambre ardente, was at length established in 1679. This court, besides other persons, detected two women named La Vigoreux and La Voisin129, who carried on a great traffic in poisons. The latter was a midwife. Both of them pretended to foretell future events, to call up ghosts, and to teach the art of finding hidden treasures, and of recovering lost or stolen goods. They also distributed philtres, and sold secret poison to such persons as they knew they could depend upon, and who wished to employ them either to get rid of bad husbands, or recover lost lovers. Female curiosity induced several ladies of the first rank, and even some belonging to the court, to visit these women, particularly La Voisin; and who, without thinking of poison, only wished to know how soon a husband, a lover, the king or his mistress, would die. In the possession of La Voisin was found a list of all those who had become dupes to her imposture. They were arrested and carried before the above-mentioned court, which, without following the usual course of justice, detected secret crimes by means of spies, instituted private trials, and began to imitate the proceedings of the holy inquisition. In this list were found the distinguished names of the Countess de Soissons, her sister the Duchess de Bouillon, and Marshal de Luxembourg. The first fled to Flanders to avoid the severity and disgrace of imprisonment; the second saved herself by the help of her friends; and the last, after he had been some months in the Bastille, and had undergone a strict examination, by which he almost lost his reputation, was set at liberty as innocent. Thus did the cruel Louvois the war minister, and the Marchioness de Montespan, ruin those who opposed their measures. La Vigoreux and La Voisin were burnt alive on the 22nd of February 1680, after their hands had been bored through with a red-hot iron and cut off. Several persons of ordinary rank were punished by the common hangman; those of higher rank, after they had been declared by this tribunal not guilty, were set at liberty; and in 1680 an end was put to the Chambre ardente, which in reality was a political inquisition.

It is certain that notwithstanding such punishments, like crimes have given occasion to unjust succession both in Italy and in France, and that attempts have been made for the same purpose even in the northern kingdoms. It is known that in Denmark Count Corfitz de Ulfeld was guilty, though it was not proved, of having intended to give the king a poison, which should gradually destroy him like a lethargy130. Charles XI. also, king of Sweden, died by the effects of such a poison. Having ruined several noble families by seizing on their property, and having after that made a journey to Torneo, he fell into a consumptive disorder which no medicine could cure. One day he asked his physician in a very earnest manner, what was the cause of his illness? The physician replied, “Your majesty has been loaded with too many maledictions.” “Yes,” returned the king, “I wish to God that the reduction of the nobility’s estates had not taken place, and that I had never undertaken a journey to Torneo!” After his death his intestines were found to be full of small ulcers131.

The oftener poisoning in this manner happens, the more it is to be wished that preventives and antidotes were found out, and that the symptoms were ascertained; but this is hardly possible as long as it is not known of what the poison properly consists. Governments, however, have wisely endeavoured to conceal the recipes, by suppressing the criminal procedures. Pope Alexander VII. caused them to be shut up in the castle of St. Angelo; in France, it is said, they were burnt together with the criminals; in Naples only the same precaution was not taken. I do not know that observations on the bodies of persons destroyed by slow poison have been ever published; for what Pitaval says on that subject is not sufficient132. People talk of powders and pills, but the greater part of this kind of poison appears to be a clear insipid water, and that prepared by Tophania never once betrayed itself by any particular effects on the body. The sale of aqua-fortis was a long time forbidden at Rome, because it was considered as the principal ingredient; but this is very improbable. At Paris it was once believed that succession powder consisted of diamond dust pounded exceedingly fine. Without assenting to this idea, one may contradict Voltaire, who conceives that diamond dust is not more prejudicial than powder of coral. It may be rather compared to that fine sand which is rubbed off from our mill-stones, and which we should consider and guard against as a secret poison, were we not highly negligent and careless of our health in the use of food133. In the casket of Sainte Croix were found corrosive sublimate, opium, regulus of antimony, vitriol, and a large quantity of poison ready prepared, the principal ingredients of which the physicians were not able to distinguish. Many have affirmed that sugar of lead was the chief ingredient134; but the consequences of the poison did not seem to indicate the use of that metal. For some years past a harmless plant, which is only somewhat bitter and astringent, the ivy-leaved Toadflax (Linaria Cymbalaria), that grows on old walls, has been loaded with the opprobrium of producing this slow poison, while at the same time it has been celebrated by others on account of its medicinal properties; but it is perhaps not powerful enough to do either mischief or good; and it is probable that it has been added to poisons either through ignorance, or to conceal other ingredients; for the emperor Charles VI., who was king of the Two Sicilies at the time when Tophania was arrested, told his physician Garelli, who communicated the same in a letter135 to the celebrated Hoffmann, in 1718 or 1719, that the poison of that Italian Circe was composed of an arsenical oxide, dissolved in aqua cymbalariæ, and which I suppose was rendered stronger and more difficult to be detected by a salt that may be readily guessed. It is dreadful to think that this secret poison is administered as a febrifuge by ignorant or unprincipled physicians, quacks, and old women. It drives off obstinate fevers, it is true; but it is equally certain that it hastens death: it is therefore a cure, which is far worse than the disease, and against which governments and physicians cannot exclaim too severely. It was remarked at Rome, by accident, that lemon juice and the acid of lemons are, in some measure, counter-poisons; and a physician named Paul Branchaletti, respecting whom I can find no information, wrote a book expressly on this antidote to these drops, according to the account of Keysler, who however adds, “Everything hitherto found out, supposes that one has taken the drops only for a short time, or that one has had an opportunity to be upon one’s guard when suspicious circumstances occurred, and to discover the threatened danger.”

93In his Kollektaneen. Berlin, 1790, ii. p. 117.
94Aëtii Op. 1. ii. c. 25.
95In Stephani Artis Med. Princip. ii. p. 253.
96De Lapidibus, lib. ii. p. 131.
97J. J. Wecker, De Secretis.
98I took the trouble to search for this passage in Jac. Hollerii lib. de morbis internis, Parisiis 1711, 4to, but I could not find it, though the beginning of the book treats expressly of head-aches.
99Magia Naturalis, lib. vii.
100Kircheri Magnes, sive De Arte Magnetica, lib. iii. c. i.
101P. Borrelli, Hist. et Observ. Medico-physic. cent. 4. obs. 75.
102Observations sur l’usage de l’aimant en médecine, par MM. Audry et Thouret.
103Heberden in the Neue Hamburg. Mag. xvii. p. 219. I am convinced that many of the accounts we have of the extraordinary effects of poison are fabricated, like those mentioned in Frid. Hoffmanni Dissert. de Læsionibus externis, abortivis Venenis ac Philtris. Francof. 1729, et recusa Lips. 1755. That author, however, denies some which are true. It is, for example, certain that camphor and rue do not produce the effects ascribed to them by Dioscorides, Paulus Ægineta, and others; but there are without doubt other substances which will produce these effects.
104Sennerti Instit. Med. ii. 2, 12.
105He gave to Aratus a poison, not speedy and violent, but of that kind which at first occasions a slow heat in the body, with a slight cough, and then gradually brings on a consumption. One time, when Aratus spat up blood, he said, “This is the effect of royal friendship.” See Plutarch, Vit. Arati.
106Quint. Declamat. xvii. 11.
107With the poison of the Indians, however, the ancients could not be acquainted, as it is prepared from a plant unknown in Europe before the discovery of America. Kalm, in his Travels, does not name it, and in that he has done right; for, as the plant is now to be found everywhere, no government could guard against a misapplication of it, were it publicly known.
108They say a poison can be prepared from aconite so as to occasion death within a certain period, such as two, three, or six months, a year, and even sometimes two years. Those, we are told, whose constitutions are able to hold out longest, die in the greatest misery; for the body is gradually consumed, and must perish by continual wasting. Those die easiest who die speedily. No remedy has been found out for this poison. – Theophr. Hist. Plant. ix. c. 16.
109Livius, lib. viii. c. 18.
110Taciti Annal. lib. iv. c. 8.
111The account given by Tacitus deserves to be read; see lib. xii. c. 66.
112The history of this horrid affair may be found both in Tacitus, Annal. xiii. c. 15 and 16, and in Suetonius, vi. cap. 33. Respecting Locusta, see also Juvenal, sat. i. 71.
113This account is given by Aulus Gellius from the now lost works of Tuditanus. – Noct. At. lib. vi. cap. 4. Cicero often speaks of the magnanimity of Regulus; as, for example, in his Oration against Piso, and in his Offices, book iii. chap. 27; but he makes no mention of his having been poisoned. Valerius Maximus also, book i. chap. i. 14, says nothing of poison.
114Apollonii Vit. lib. vi. c. 14.
115Histor. Animal. lib. ii. c. 45.
116Lib. ix. c. 48, and lib. xxxii. c. 1.
117In Linnæi Systema Nat., through an error of the press, stands Laplysia, which word has since become common. Ἀπλυσία signifies an uncleanness which cannot be washed off; and in Aristotle’s History of Animals, b. v. ch. 15, and Pliny, b. ix. ch. 45, it is the name of a zoophyte. In the like manner other errors in the System of Linnæus have been copied into the works of others, such as Dytiscus instead of Dyticus, &c.
118J. B. Bohadsch De quibusdam animalibus marinis. Dresdæ, 1761, 4to, p. 1–53. In this work there is a full description, with a figure of this animal, under the name of Lernæa, which was used in the first editions of Linnæus.
119The accounts given by the ancients of the sea-hare have been collected in Grevini Lib. de Venenis, Antverpiæ 1571, p. 209. In the Annals of Glycas, iii. (Script. Byz.), it is said that Titus was despatched by this poison; and in the first book, b. 27, he says the sea-hare occasions speedy and inevitable destruction to man.
120See Stenzelii Diss. de venenis terminatis et temporaneis, quæ Galli les poudres de succession vocant; resp. J. G. Arnold. Vitebergæ, 1730. This tract contains several historical relations; but the reader is often referred to authors who either do not say that for which they were quoted, or who must relate the same thing in a different manner in some other place. As for example, Galen in b. ii. c. 7, De Antidotis, speaks of poisons without mentioning secret poison in particular. Avicenna is made to say, in his book De Viribus Cordis, that the Egyptian kings often employed this poison; but if by that quotation we are to understand Fen. undecima de dispositionibus cordis, I have sought for this information in vain. In lib. iv. fen. 6. tract. 2. c. 14, it is said “Fel canis aquatici interficit post hebdomadam.” Rhodiginus also does not relate that for which he is quoted by Stenzel. p. 7.
121Vol. iv. p. 33.
122J. F. le Bret, Magazin zum Gebrauche der Staaten und-Kirchen-Geschichte, part iv. Francf. and Leips. 1774, 8vo, p. 131–141.
123The following account is collected from Causes celèbres, par M. Guyot de Pitaval, tome i. – Lettres de Mad. de Sevigné, tome iv. – Histoire du Règne de Louis XIV., par M. de Reboulet. Avignon, 1746, v. p. 159. – Histoire de Louis XIV., par M. B. de la Martinière, 1740, iv. p. 229. – Le Siècle de Louis XIV., par Voltaire, etc.
124Voltaire says that the father did not get Sainte Croix thrown into the Bastille, but sent to his regiment. This however is not the case, for this reprobate was at that time not in the army.
125This circumstance is denied by Voltaire, but only, as appears, to contradict Pitaval, whom he calls un avocat sans cause.
126This request was as follows: – “I humbly beg that those into whose hands this box may fall, will do me the favour to deliver it into the hands only of the Marchioness de Brinvillier, who resides in the Rue Neuve Saint Paul, as everything it contains concerns her, and belongs to her alone; and as, besides, there is nothing in it that can be of use to any persons except her; and in case she shall be dead before me, to burn it, and everything it contains, without opening or altering anything; and in order that no one may plead ignorance, I swear by the God whom I adore, and by all that is most sacred, that I advance nothing but what is true. And if my intentions, just and reasonable as they are, be thwarted in this point, I charge their consciences with it, both in this world and the next, in order that I may unload mine, protesting that this is my last will. Done at Paris this 25th of May in the afternoon, 1672. “De Sainte Croix.”
127Martinière says that she was burnt alive, together with all the papers respecting her trial. The latter is improbable, and the former certainly false, notwithstanding the account given in the Encyclopédie.
128The following description of Brinvillier may perhaps be of use to our physiognomists: – “In order to satisfy the curiosity of those who may be desirous of knowing if such a celebrated criminal partook of the beauties of her sex, I shall observe that nature had not been sparing of them to the marchioness; her features were exceedingly regular, and the form of her face, which was round, was very graceful. This beautiful outside concealed a heart extremely black. Nothing proves more that metoposcopy, or the science of physiognomy, is false; for this lady had that serene and tranquil air which announces virtue.” – Pitaval, p. 269.
129Some information respecting La Voisin may be found in Lettres Historiques et Galantes par Madame de C – . A Cologne, 1709–1711, 4 vols. 12mo, ii. p. 101, and iv. p. 376. The authoress of these letters was Mad. du Noyer.
130Leben des Grafen von Ulfeld, von H. P. aus dem Dänischen übersetzt. Copenhagen und Leipzig, 1775, 8vo, p. 200.
131This anecdote was told to me by the celebrated Linnæus. An account of what appeared on opening the body of this prince may be seen in Baldinger’s Neues Magazin für Aerzte, vol. i. p. 91.
132“The lieutenant-civil continued still to grow worse. After having languished a long time, being seized with a loathing of every kind of food presented to him, his vomitings still continuing, and nature being at length exhausted, he expired without any fever. The three last days he had wasted very much; he was become extremely shrunk, and he felt a great heat in his stomach. When opened, that part and the duodenum were found to be black, and sloughing off in pieces; the liver was mortified, and as it were burnt. The counsellor was ill three months, had the like symptoms as the lieutenant-civil, and died in the same manner. When opened, his stomach and liver were found in a similar state.” – pp. 274, 275.
133In one year a ton of sand, at least, which is baked with the flour, is rubbed off from a pair of mill-stones. If a mill grinds only 4385 bushels annually, and one allows no more than twelve bushels to one man, a person swallows in a year above six pounds, and in a month half a pound of pulverized sandstone, which, in the course of a long life, will amount to upwards of three hundred weight. Is not this sufficient to make governments more attentive to this circumstance? [Although not very agreeable to the reader to learn that he swallows above six pounds of mill-stone powder in the course of the year, it may perhaps ease his mind to know that the learned author is entirely mistaken in regarding it as a poison. The inhabitants of the northern countries of Europe frequently mix quartz powder with their heavy food to assist in its digestion; and we are informed by Professor Ehrenberg, that in times of scarcity, the inhabitants of Lapland mix the siliceous shells of some species of fossil Infusoria with the ground bark of trees for food. It is probably from this circumstance that the infusorial deposit derives its name of Berg-mehl, or Mountain-meal.]
134For the following important information I am indebted to Professor Baldinger: – “There is no doubt that the slow poison of the French and Italians, commonly called succession powder (poudre de la succession), owes its origin to sugar of lead. I know a chemist who superintends the laboratory of a certain prince on the confines of Bohemia, and who by the orders (perhaps not very laudable) of his patron, has spent much time and labour in strengthening and moderating poisons. He has often declared, that of sugar of lead, with the addition of some more volatile corrosive, a very slow poison could be prepared; which, if swallowed by a dog or other animal, would insensibly destroy it, without any violent symptoms, in the course of some weeks or months.”
135Garelli, the emperor’s principal physician, lately wrote to me something remarkable in the following words: – “Your elegant dissertation on the errors respecting poisons brought to my recollection a certain slow poison, which that infamous poisoner, still alive in prison at Naples, employed to the destruction of upwards of six hundred persons. It was nothing else than crystallised arsenic, dissolved in a large quantity of water by decoction, with the addition, but for what purpose I know not, of the herb cymbalaria. This was communicated to me by his imperial majesty himself, to whom the judicial procedure, confirmed by the confession of the criminal, was transmitted. This water, in the Neapolitan dialect, is called aqua del Toffnina. It is certain death, and many have fallen a sacrifice to it.” – Hoffmanni Med. Rationalis System., p. ii. c. 2. § 19.