POISONS:
THEIR EFFECTS AND DETECTION.
A MANUAL FOR THE USE OF ANALYTICAL
CHEMISTS AND EXPERTS.

[v]

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

The present edition, which appears on the same general plan as before, will yet be found to have been in great part re-written, enlarged, and corrected.

Analytical methods which experience has shown to be faulty have been omitted, and replaced by newer and more accurate processes.

The intimate connection which recent research has shown to exist between the arrangement of the constituent parts of an organic molecule and physiological action, has been considered at some length in a separate chapter.

The cadaveric alkaloids or ptomaines, bodies playing so great a part in food-poisoning and in the manifestations of disease, are in this edition treated of as fully as the limits of the book will allow.

The author, therefore, trusts that these various improvements, modifications, and corrections will enable “Poisons” to maintain the position which it has for so many years held in the esteem of toxicologists and of the medical profession generally.

[vii]

CONTENTS.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

[1]

POISONS:
THEIR EFFECTS AND DETECTION.

PART I.—INTRODUCTORY.

I.—The Old Poison-Lore.

§ 1. It is significant that the root “tox” of the modern word toxicology can be traced back to a very ancient word meaning “bow” or “arrow,” or, in its broadest sense, some “tool” used for slaying: hence it is no far-fetched supposition that the first poison-knowledge was that of the septic poisons. Perchance the savage found that weapons soiled with the blood of former victims made wounds fatal; from this observation the next step naturally would be that of experiment—the arrow or spear would be steeped in all manner of offensive pastes, and smeared with the vegetable juices of those plants which were deemed noxious; and as the effects were mysterious, they would be ascribed to the supernatural powers, and covered with a veil of superstition.

The history of the poison-lehre, like all history, begins in the region of the myths: there was a dark saga prevailing in Greece, that in the far north existed a land ruled by sorcerers—all children of the sun—and named Aeëtes, Perses, Hecate, Medea, and Circe. Later on, the enchanted land was localised at Colchis, and Aeëtes and Perses were said to be brothers. Hecate was the daughter of Perses; she was married to Aeëtes, and their daughters were Medea and Circe. Hecate was the discoverer of poisonous herbs, and learned in remedies both evil and good. Her knowledge passed to Medea, who narcotised the dragon, the guardian of the golden fleece, and incited Jason to great undertakings.

In the expedition of the Argonauts, the poets loved to describe Hecate’s garden, with its lofty walls. Thrice-folding doors of ebony barred the entrance, which was guarded by terrible forms: only the initiated few, only they who bore the leavened rod of expiation, and the concealed conciliatory offering of the Medea, could enter into the sanctuary. Towering above all was the temple of the dread Hecate, whose priestesses offered to the gods ghastly sacrifices.

[2]

§ 2. The oldest Egyptian king, Menes, and Attalus Phylometer, the last king of Pergamus, were both famous for their knowledge of plants. Attalus Phylometer was acquainted with hyoscyamus, aconite, conium, veratrum, and others; he experimented on the preparation of poisons, and occupied himself in compounding medicines. Mithradetes Eupator stood yet higher: the receipt for the famous theriaca, prepared in later years at an enormous price, and composed of fifty-four different ingredients, is ascribed to him. The wonderful skill shown by the Egyptians in embalming and technical works is sufficient to render it fairly certain that their chemical knowledge was considerable; and the frequent operations of one caste upon the dead must have laid the foundations of a pathological and anatomical culture, of which only traces remain.

The Egyptians knew prussic acid as extracted in a dilute state from certain plants, among the chief of which was certainly the peach; on a papyrus preserved at the Louvre, M. Duteil read, “Pronounce not the name of I. A. O. under the penalty of the peach!” in which dark threat, without doubt, lurks the meaning that those who revealed the religious mysteries of the priests were put to death by waters distilled from the peach. That the priests actually distilled the peach-leaves has been doubted by those who consider the art of distillation a modern invention; but this process was well known to adepts of the third and fourth centuries, and there is no inherent improbability in the supposition that the Egyptians practised it.

§ 3. From the Egyptians the knowledge of the deadly drink appears to have passed to the Romans. At the trial of Antipater,[1] Verus brought a potion derived from Egypt, which had been intended to destroy Herod; this was essayed on a criminal, he died at once. In the reign of Tiberius, a Roman knight, accused of high treason, swallowed a poison, and fell dead at the feet of the senators: in both cases the rapidity of action appears to point to prussic acid.

The use of poison by the Greeks, as a means of capital punishment, without doubt favoured suicide by the same means; the easy, painless death of the state prisoner would be often preferred to the sword by one tired of life. The ancients looked indeed upon suicide, in certain instances, as something noble, and it was occasionally formally sanctioned. Thus, Valerius Maximus tells us that he saw a woman of quality, in the island of Ceos, who, having lived happily for ninety years, obtained leave to take a poisonous draught, lest, by living longer, she should happen to have a change in her good fortune; and, curiously enough, this sanctioning of self-destruction seems to have been copied in Europe. Mead relates that the people of Marseilles of old had a poison, kept by the public authorities, in which cicuta was an ingredient: a dose was allowed to any one[3] who could show why he should desire death. Whatever use or abuse might be made of a few violent poisons, Greek and Roman knowledge of poisons, their effects and methods of detection, was stationary, primitive, and incomplete.

Nicander of Colophon (204-138 B.C.) wrote two treatises, the most ancient works on this subject extant, the one describing the effects of snake venom; the other, the properties of opium, henbane, certain fungi, colchicum, aconite, and conium. He divided poisons into those which kill quickly, and those which act slowly. As antidotes, those medicines are recommended which excite vomiting—e.g., lukewarm oil, warm water, mallow, linseed tea, &c.

Apollodorus lived at the commencement of the third century B.C.: he wrote a work on poisonous animals, and one on deleterious medicines; these works of Apollodorus were the sources from which Pliny, Heraclitus, and several of the later writers derived most of their knowledge of poisons.

Dioscorides (40-90 A.D.) well detailed the effects of cantharides, sulphate of copper, mercury, lead, and arsenic. By arsenic he would appear sometimes to mean the sulphides, sometimes the white oxide. Dioscorides divided poisons, according to their origin, into three classes, viz.:—

1. Animal Poisons.—Under this head were classed cantharides and allied beetles, toads, salamanders, poisonous snakes, a particular variety of honey, and the blood of the ox, probably the latter in a putrid state. He also speaks of the “sea-hare.” The sea-hare was considered by the ancients very poisonous, and Domitian is said to have murdered Titus with it. It is supposed by naturalists to have been one of the genus Aplysia, among the gasteropods. Both Pliny and Dioscorides depict the animal as something very formidable: it was not to be looked at, far less touched. The aplysiæ exhale a very nauseous and fœtid odour when they are approached: the best known of the species resembles, when in a state of repose, a mass of unformed flesh; when in motion, it is like a common slug; its colour is reddish-brown; it has four horns on its head; and the eyes, which are very small, are situated between the two hinder ones. This aplysia has an ink reservoir, like the sepia, and ejects it in order to escape from its enemies; it inhabits the muddy bottom of the water, and lives on small crabs, mollusca, &c.

2. Poisons from Plants.—Dioscorides enumerates opium, black and white hyoscyamus (especially recognising the activity of the seeds), mandragora, which was probably a mixture of various solanaceæ, conium (used to poison the condemned by the people of Athens and the dwellers of ancient Massilia), elaterin, and the juices of a species of euphorbia and apocyneæ. He also makes a special mention of aconite, the name of which is derived from Akon, a small city in Heraclea. The Greeks were well aware of the deadly nature of aconite, and gave to it a mythical[4] origin, from the foam of the dog Cerberus. Colchicum was also known to Dioscorides: its first use was ascribed to Medea. Veratrum album and nigrum were famous medicines of the Romans, and a constituent of their “rat and mice powders;” they were also used as insecticides. According to Pliny, the Gauls dipped their arrows in a preparation of veratrum.[2] Daphne mezereon, called by the Romans also smilax and taxus, appears to have been used by Cativolcus, the king of the Eburones, for the purpose of suicide, or possibly by “taxus” the yew-tree is meant.[3]

The poisonous properties of certain fungi were also known. Nicander calls the venomous mushrooms the “evil fermentation of the earth,” and prescribes the identical antidotes which we would perhaps give at the present time—viz., vinegar and alkaline carbonates.

3. Mineral Poisons.—Arsenic has been already alluded to. The ancients used it as a caustic and depilatory. Copper was known as sulphate and oxide; mercury only as cinnabar: lead oxides were used, and milk and olive-oil prescribed as an antidote for their poisonous properties. The poison-lehre for many ages was considered as something forbidden. Galen, in his treatise “On Antidotes,” remarks that the only authors who dared to treat of poisons were Orpheus, Theologus, Morus, Mendesius the younger, Heliodorus of Athens, Aratus, and a few others; but none of these treatises have come down to us. From the close similarity of the amount of information in the treatises of Nicander, Dioscorides, Pliny, Galen, and Paulus Ægineta, it is probable that all were derived from a common source.

§ 4. If we turn our attention to early Asiatic history, a very cursory glance at the sacred writings of the East will prove how soon the art of poisoning, especially in India, was used for the purpose of suicide, revenge, or robbery.

The ancient practice of the Hindoo widow—self-immolation on the burning pile of her husband—is ascribed to the necessity which the Brahmins were under of putting a stop to the crime of domestic poisoning. Every little conjugal quarrel was liable to be settled by this form of secret assassination, but such a law, as might be expected, checked the practice.

Poison was not used to remove human beings alone, for there has been from time immemorial in India much cattle-poisoning. In the Institutes of Menu, it is ordained that when cattle die the herdsman shall carry to his master their ears, their hides, their tails, the skin below their navels, their tendons, and the liquor oozing from their foreheads. Without doubt these regulations were directed against cattle-poisoners.

The poisons known to the Asiatics were arsenic, aconite, opium, and various solanaceous plants. There has been a myth floating through the ages that a poison exists which will slay a long time after its introduction.[5] All modern authors have treated the matter as an exaggerated legend, but, for my own part, I see no reason why it should not, in reality, be founded on fact. There is little doubt that the Asiatic poisoners were well acquainted with the infectious qualities of certain fevers and malignant diseases. Now, these very malignant diseases answer precisely to the description of a poison which has no immediate effects. Plant small-pox in the body of a man, and for a whole fortnight he walks about, well and hearty. Clothe a person with a garment soaked in typhus, and the same thing occurs—for many days there will be no sign of failure. Again, the gipsies, speaking a tongue which is essentially a deformed prakrit, and therefore Indian in origin, have long possessed a knowledge of the properties of the curious “mucor phycomyces.” This was considered an alga by Agaron, but Berkeley referred it to the fungi. The gipsies are said to have administered the spores of this fungi in warm water. In this way they rapidly attach themselves to the mucous membrane of the throat, all the symptoms of a phthisis follow, and death takes place in from two to three weeks. Mr Berkeley informed me that he has seen specimens growing on broth which had been rejected from the stomach, and that it develops in enormous quantities on oil-casks and walls impregnated with grease. The filaments are long, from 12 to 18 inches, and it is capable of very rapid development.

There is also a modern poison, which, in certain doses, dooms the unfortunate individual to a terrible malady, simulating, to a considerable extent, natural disease,—that is phosphorus. This poison was, however, unknown until some time in the eleventh century, when Alchid Becher, blindly experimenting on the distillation of urine and carbon, obtained his “escarboucle,” and passed away without knowing the importance of his discovery, which, like so many others, had to be rediscovered at a later period.

§ 5. The Hebrews were acquainted with certain poisons, the exact nature of which is not quite clear. The words “rosch” and “chema” seem to be used occasionally as a generic term for poison, and sometimes to mean a specific thing; “rosch,” especially, is used to signify some poisonous parasitic plant. They knew yellow arsenic under the name of “sam,” aconite under the name of “boschka,” and possibly “son” means ergot.[4] In the later period of their history, when they were dispersed through various nations, they would naturally acquire the knowledge of those nations, without losing their own.

§ 6. The part that poison has played in history is considerable. The pharmaceutical knowledge of the ancients is more graphically and terribly shown in the deaths of Socrates, Demosthenes, Hannibal, and Cleopatra, than in the pages of the older writers on poisons.

[6]

In the reign of Artaxerxes II. (Memnon), (B.C. 405-359), Phrysa poisoned the queen Statira by cutting food with a knife poisoned on one side only. Although this has been treated as an idle tale, yet two poisons, aconite and arsenic, were at least well known; either of these could have been in the way mentioned introduced in sufficient quantity into food to destroy life.

In the early part of the Christian era professional poisoners arose, and for a long time exercised their trade with impunity. Poisoning was so much in use as a political engine that Agrippina (A.D. 26) refused to eat of some apples offered to her at table by her father-in-law, Tiberius.

It was at this time that the infamous Locusta flourished. She is said to have supplied, with suitable directions, the poison by which Agrippina got rid of Claudius; and the same woman was the principal agent in the preparation of the poison that was administered to Britannicus, by order of his brother Nero. The details of this interesting case have been recorded with some minuteness.

It was the custom of the Romans to drink hot water, a draught nauseous enough to us, but, from fashion or habit, considered by them a luxury; and, as no two men’s tastes are alike, great skill was shown by the slaves in bringing the water to exactly that degree of heat which their respective masters found agreeable.[5]

The children of the Imperial house, with others of the great Roman families, sat at the banquets at a smaller side table, while their parents reclined at the larger. A slave brings hot water to Britannicus; it is too hot; Britannicus refuses it. The slave adds cold water; and it is this cold water that is supposed to have been poisoned; in any case, Britannicus had no sooner drunk of it than he lost voice and respiration. Agrippina, his mother, was struck with terror, as well as Octavia, his sister. Nero, the author of the crime, looks coldly on, saying that such fits often happened to him in infancy without evil result; and after a few moments’ silence the banquet goes on as before. If this were not sudden death from heart or brain disease, the poison must have been either a cyanide or prussic acid.

In those times no autopsy was possible: although the Alexandrian school, some 300 years before Christ, had dissected both the living and the dead, the work of Herophilus and Erasistratus had not been pursued, and the great Roman and Greek writers knew only the rudiments of human anatomy, while, as to pathological changes and their true interpretation, their knowledge may be said to have been absolutely nil. It was not, indeed, until the fifteenth century that the Popes, silencing ancient scruples, authorised dissections; and it was not until the sixteenth century that Vesalius, the first worthy of being considered a[7] great anatomist, arose. In default of pathological knowledge, the ancients attached great importance to mere outward marks and discolorations. They noted with special attention spots and lividity, and supposed that poisons singled out the heart for some quite peculiar action, altering its substance in such a manner that it resisted the action of the funeral pyre, and remained unconsumed. It may, then, fairly be presumed that many people must have died from poison without suspicion, and still more from the sudden effects of latent disease, ascribed wrongfully to poison. For example, the death of Alexander was generally at that time ascribed to poison; but Littré has fairly proved that the great emperor, debilitated by his drinking habits, caught a malarious fever in the marshes around Babylon, and died after eleven days’ illness. If, added to sudden death, the body, from any cause, entered into rapid putrefaction, such signs were considered by the people absolutely conclusive of poisoning: this belief, indeed, prevailed up to the middle of the seventeenth century, and lingers still among the uneducated at the present day. Thus, when Britannicus died, an extraordinary lividity spread over the face of the corpse, which they attempted to conceal by painting the face. When Pope Alexander VI. died, probably enough from poison, his body (according to Guicciardini) became a frightful spectacle—it was livid, bloated, and deformed; the gorged tongue entirely filled the mouth; from the nose flowed putrid pus, and the stench was horrible in the extreme.

All these effects of decomposition, we know, are apt to arise in coarse, obese bodies, and accompany both natural and unnatural deaths; indeed, if we look strictly at the matter, putting on one side the preservative effects of certain metallic poisons, it may be laid down that generally the corpses of those dying from poison are less apt to decompose rapidly than those dying from disease—this for the simple reason that a majority of diseases cause changes in the fluids and tissues, which render putrefactive changes more active, while, as a rule, those who take poison are suddenly killed, with their fluids and tissues fairly healthy.

When the Duke of Burgundy desired to raise a report that John, Dauphin of France, was poisoned (1457), he described the imaginary event as follows:—

“One evening our most redoubtable lord and nephew fell so grievously sick that he died forthwith. His lips, tongue, and face were swollen; his eyes started out of his head. It was a horrible sight to see—for so look people that are poisoned.”

The favourite powder of the professional poisoner, arsenic, was known to crowned heads in the fourteenth century; and there has come down to us a curious document, drawn out by Charles le Mauvais, King of Navarre. It is a commission of murder, given to a certain Woudreton,[8] to poison Charles VI., the Duke of Valois, brother of the king, and his uncles, the Dukes of Berry, Burgundy, and Bourbon:—

“Go thou to Paris; thou canst do great service if thou wilt: do what I tell thee; I will reward thee well. Thou shalt do thus: There is a thing which is called sublimed arsenic; if a man eat a bit the size of a pea he will never survive. Thou wilt find it in Pampeluna, Bordeaux, Bayonne, and in all the good towns through which thou wilt pass, at the apothecaries’ shops. Take it and powder it; and when thou shalt be in the house of the king, of the Count de Valois, his brother, the Dukes of Berry, Burgundy, and Bourbon, draw near, and betake thyself to the kitchen, to the larder, to the cellar, or any other place where thy point can be best gained, and put the powder in the soups, meats, or wines, provided that thou canst do it secretly. Otherwise, do it not.” Woudreton was detected, and executed in 1384.[6]

A chapter might be written entitled “royal poisoners.” King Charles IX. even figures as an experimentalist.[7] An unfortunate cook has stolen two silver spoons, and, since there was a question whether “Bezoar” was an antidote or not, the king administers to the cook a lethal dose of corrosive sublimate, and follows it up with the antidote; but the man dies in seven hours, although Paré also gives him oil. Truly a grim business!

The subtle method of removing troublesome subjects has been more often practised on the Continent than in England, yet the English throne in olden time is not quite free from this stain.[8] The use of poison is[9] wholly opposed to the Anglo-Saxon method of thought. To what anger the people were wrought on detecting poisoners, is seen in the fact that, in 1542, a young woman was boiled alive in Smithfield for poisoning three households.[9]

§ 7. Two great criminal schools arose from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries in Venice and Italy. The Venetian poisoners are of earlier date than the Italian, and flourished chiefly in the fifteenth century. Here we have the strange spectacle, not of the depravity of individuals, but of the government of the State formally recognising secret assassination by poison, and proposals to remove this or that prince, duke, or emperor, as a routine part of their deliberations. Still more curious and unique, the dark communings of “the council of ten” were recorded in writing, and the number of those who voted for and who voted against the proposed crime, the reason for the assassination, and the sum to be paid, still exist in shameless black and white. Those who desire to study this branch of secret history may be referred to a small work by Carl Hoff, which gives a brief account of what is known of the proceedings of the council. One example will here suffice. On the 15th of December 1513 a Franciscan brother, John of Ragubo, offered a selection of poisons, and declared himself ready to remove any objectionable person out of the way. For the first successful case he required a pension of 1500 ducats yearly, which was to be increased on the execution of future services. The presidents, Girolando Duoda and Pietro Guiarina, placed the matter before the “ten” on the 4th of January 1514, and on a division (10 against 5) it was resolved to accept so patriotic an offer, and to experiment first on the Emperor Maximilian. The bond laid before the “ten” contained a regular tariff—for the great Sultan 500 ducats, for the King of Spain 150 ducats, but the journey and other expenses were in each case to be defrayed; the Duke of Milan was rated at 60, the Marquis of Mantua at 50, the Pope could be removed at 100 ducats. The curious offer thus concludes:—“The farther the journey, the more eminent the man, the more it is necessary to reward the toil and hardships undertaken, and the heavier must be the payment.” The council appear to have quietly arranged thus to take away the lives of many public men, but their efforts were only in a few cases successful. When the deed was done, it was registered by a single marginal note, “factum.”

What drugs the Venetian poisoners used is uncertain. The Italians[10] became notorious in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for their knowledge of poisons, partly from the deeds of Toffana and others, and partly from the works of J. Baptista Porta, who wrote a very comprehensive treatise, under the title of Natural Magic,[10] and managed to slide into the text, in the sections on cooking (De Re Coquinaria, lib. xiv.), a mass of knowledge as to the preparation of poisons. There are prescriptions that little accord with the title, unless indeed the trades of cook and poisoner were the same. He gives a method of drugging wine with belladonna root, for the purpose of making the loaded guest loathe drink; he also gives a list of solanaceous plants, and makes special mention of nux vomica, aconite, veratrum, and mezereon. Again, in the section (De Ancupio, lib. xv.) he gives a recipe for a very strong poison which he calls “venenum lupinum;” it is to be made of the powdered leaves of Aconitum lycoctonum, Taxus baccata, powdered glass, caustic lime, sulphide of arsenic, and bitter almonds, the whole to be mixed with honey, and made into pills the size of a hazel-nut.

In the section De Medicis Experimentis he gives a process to poison a sleeping person: the recipe is curious, and would certainly not have the intended effect. A mixture of hemlock juice, bruised datura, stramonium, belladonna, and opium is placed in a leaden box with a perfectly fitting cover, and fermented for several days; it is then opened under the nose of the sleeper. Possibly Porta had experimented on small animals, and had found that such matters, when fermented, exhaled enough carbonic acid gas to kill them, and imagined, therefore, that the same thing would happen if applied to the human subject. However this may be, the account which Porta gives of the effects of the solanaceous plants, and the general tone of the work, amply prove that he was no theorist, but had studied practically the actions of poisons.

The iniquitous Toffana (or Tophana) made solutions of arsenious acid of varying strength, and sold these solutions in phials under the name of “Acquetta di Napoli” for many years. She is supposed to have poisoned more than 600 persons, among whom were two Popes—viz., Pius III. and Clement XIV. The composition of the Naples water was long a profound secret, but is said to have been known by the reigning Pope and by the Emperor Charles VI. The latter told the secret to Dr Garelli, his physician, who, again, imparted the knowledge to the famous Friedrich Hoffman in a letter still extant. Toffana was brought to justice in 1709, but, availing herself of the immunity afforded by convents, escaped punishment, and continued to sell her wares for twenty years afterwards. When Kepfer[11] was in Italy he found her in a prison at[11] Naples, and many people visited her, as a sort of lion (1730). With the Acqua Toffana, the “Acquetta di Perugia” played at the same time its part. It is said to have been prepared by killing a hog, disjointing the same, strewing the pieces with white arsenic, which was well rubbed in, and then collecting the juice which dropped from the meat; this juice was considered far more poisonous than an ordinary solution of arsenic. The researches of Selmi on compounds containing arsenic, produced when animal bodies decompose in arsenical fluids, lend reason and support to this view; and probably the juice would not only be very poisonous, but act in a different manner, and exhibit symptoms different from those of ordinary arsenical poisoning. Toffana had disciples; she taught the art to Hieronyma Spara, who formed an association of young married women during the popedom of Alexander VII.; these were detected on their own confession.[12]

Contemporaneously with Toffana, another Italian, Keli, devoted himself to similar crimes. This man had expended much as an adept searching for the philosopher’s stone, and sought to indemnify himself by entering upon what must have been a profitable business. He it was who instructed M. de St. Croix in the properties of arsenic; and St. Croix, in his turn, imparted the secret to his paramour, Madame de Brinvilliers. This woman appears to have been as cold-blooded as Toffana; she is said to have experimented on the patients at the Hôtel Dieu, in order to ascertain the strength of her powders, and to have invented “les poudres de succession.” She poisoned her father, brothers, sister, and others of her family; but a terrible fate overtook both her and St. Croix. The latter was suffocated by some poisonous matters he was preparing, and Madame de Brinvilliers’ practices having become known, she was obliged to take refuge in a convent. Here she was courted by a police officer disguised as an abbé, lured out of the convent, and, in this way brought to justice, was beheaded[13][12] and burnt near Nôtre Dame, in the middle of the reign of Louis XIV.[14]

The numerous attempts of the Italian and Venetian poisoners on the lives of monarchs and eminent persons cast for a long time a cloud over regal domestic peace. Bullets and daggers were not feared, but in their place the dish of meat, the savoury pasty, and the red wine were regarded as possible carriers of death. No better example of this dread can be found than, at so late a period as the reign of Henry VII.,[15] the extraordinary precautions thought necessary for preserving the infant Prince of Wales.

“No person, of whatsoever rank, except the regular attendants in the nursery, should approach the cradle, except with an order from the king’s hand. The food supplied to the child was to be largely ‘assayed,’ and his clothes were to be washed by his own servants, and no other hand might touch them. The material was to be submitted to all tests. The chamberlain and vice-chamberlain must be present, morning and evening, when the prince was washed and dressed, and nothing of any kind bought for the use of the nursery might be introduced until it was washed and perfumed. No person, not even the domestics of the palace, might have access to the prince’s rooms except those who were specially appointed to them, nor might any member of the household approach London, for fear of their catching and conveying infection.”[16]

However brief and imperfect the foregoing historical sketch of the part that poison has played may be, it is useful in showing the absolute necessity of a toxicological science—a science embracing many branches of knowledge. If it is impossible now for Toffanas, Locustas, and other specimens of a depraved humanity to carry on their crimes without detection; if poison is the very last form of death feared by eminent political persons; it is not so much owing to a different state of society, as to the more exact scientific knowledge which is applied during life to the discrimination of symptoms, distinguishing between those resulting from disease and those due to injurious substances, and after death to a highly developed pathology, which has learned, by multiplied observations,[13] all the normal and abnormal signs in tissues and organs; and, finally, to an ever-advancing chemistry, which is able in many instances to separate and detect the hurtful and noxious thing, although hid for months deep in the ground.

II.—Growth and Development of the Modern Methods of Chemically Detecting Poisons.

§ 8. The history of the detection of poisons has gone through several phases. The first phase has already been incidentally touched upon—i.e., detection by antecedent and surrounding circumstances, aided sometimes by experiments on animals. If the death was sudden, if the post-mortem decomposition was rapid, poison was indicated: sometimes a portion of the food last eaten, or the suspected thing, would be given to an animal; if the animal also died, such accumulation of proof would render the matter beyond doubt. The modern toxicologists are more sceptical, for even the last test is not of itself satisfactory. It is now known that meat may become filled with bacilli and produce rapid death, and yet no poison, as such, has been added.

In the next phase, the doctors were permitted to dissect, and to familiarise themselves with pathological appearances. This was a great step gained: the apoplexies, heart diseases, perforations of the stomach, and fatal internal hæmorrhages could no longer be ascribed to poison. If popular clamour made a false accusation, there was more chance of a correct judgment. It was not until the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the present century, however, that chemistry was far enough advanced to test for the more common mineral poisons; the modern phase was then entered on, and toxicology took a new departure.

§ 9. From the treatise of Barthélémy d’Anglais[17] in the thirteenth century (in which he noticed the poisonous properties of quicksilver vapour), up to the end of the fifteenth century, there are numerous treatises upon poison, most of which are mere learned compilations, and scarcely repay perusal. In the sixteenth century, there are a few works, such, for example, as Porta, which partook of the general advancement of science, and left behind the stereotyped doctrine of the old classical schools.[18]

In the seventeenth century the Honourable Robert Boyle made some[14] shrewd observations, bearing on toxicology, in his work on “The usefulness of Natural Philosophy,” &c.: Oxford, 1664. Nicolas L’Emery also wrote a Cours de Chimie,—quite an epitome of the chemical science of the time.[19]

In the eighteenth century still further advances were made. Richard Mead published his ingenious Mechanical Theory of Poisons. Great chemists arose—Stahl, Marggraf, Brandt, Bergmann, Scheele, Berthollet, Priestley, and lastly, Lavoisier—and chemistry, as a science, was born. Of the chemists quoted, Scheele, in relation to toxicology, stands chief. It was Scheele who discovered prussic acid,[20] without, however, noting its poisonous properties; the same chemist separated oxalic acid from sorrel,[21] and made the important discovery that arsenic united with hydrogen, forming a fœtid gas, and, moreover, that this gas could be decomposed by heat.[22] From this observation, a delicate test for arsenic was afterwards elaborated, which for the first time rendered the most tasteless and easily administered poison in the whole world at once the easiest of detection. The further history of what is now called “Marsh’s Test” is as follows:—

§ 10. Proust[23] observed that a very fœtid hydrogen gas was disengaged when arsenical tin was dissolved in hydrochloric acid, and that arsenic was deposited from the inflamed gas on cold surfaces which the flame touched. Trommsdorff next announced, in 1803, that when arsenical zinc was introduced into an ordinary flask with water and sulphuric acid, an arsenical hydrogen was disengaged; and if the tube was sufficiently long, arsenic was deposited on its walls.[24] Stromeyer, Gay-Lussac, Thénard, Gehlen, and Davy later studied this gas, and Serullas in 1821 proposed this reaction as a toxicological test. Lastly, in 1836, Marsh published his Memoir.[25] He elaborated a special apparatus of great simplicity, developed hydrogen by means of zinc and sulphuric acid, inflamed the issuing gas, and obtained any arsenic present as a metal, which could be afterwards converted into arsenious acid, &c.

This brief history of the so-called “Marsh’s Test” amply shows that Marsh was not the discoverer of the test. Like many other useful[15] processes, it seems to have been evolved by a combination of many minds. It may, however, be truly said that Marsh was the first who perfected the test and brought it prominently forward.

§ 11. Matthieu Joseph Bonaventura Orfila must be considered the father of modern toxicology. His great work, Traité de Toxicologie, was first published in 1814, and went through many editions. Orfila’s chief merit was the discovery that poisons were absorbed and accumulated in certain tissues—a discovery which bore immediate fruit, and greatly extended the means of seeking poisons. Before the time of Orfila, a chemist not finding anything in the stomach would not have troubled to examine the liver, the kidney, the brain, or the blood. The immense number of experiments which Orfila undertook is simply marvellous. Some are of little value, and teach nothing accurately as to the action of poisons—as, for example, many of those in which he tied the gullet in order to prevent vomiting, for such are experiments under entirely unnatural conditions; but there are still a large number which form the very basis of our pathological knowledge.

Orfila’s method of experiment was usually to take weighed or measured quantities of poison, to administer them to animals, and then after death—first carefully noting the changes in the tissues and organs—to attempt to recover by chemical means the poison administered. In this way he detected and recovered nearly all the organic and inorganic poisons then known; and most of his processes are, with modifications and improvements, in use at the present time.[26]

§ 12. The discovery of the alkaloids at the commencement of this century certainly gave the poisoner new weapons; yet the same processes (slightly modified) which separated the alkaloids from plants also served to separate them from the human body. In 1803 Derosne discovered narcotine and morphine, but he neither recognised the difference between these two substances, nor their basic properties. Sertürner from 1805 devoted himself to the study of opium, and made a series of discoveries. Robiquet, in 1807, recognised the basic characters of narcotine. In 1818 Pelletier and Caventou separated strychnine; in 1819 brucine; and in the same year delphinine was discovered simultaneously by Brande, Lassaigne, and Feneuille. Coniine was recognised by Giesecke in 1827, and in the following year, 1828, nicotine was separated by Reimann and Posselt. In 1832 Robiquet discovered codeine; and in 1833 atropine,[16] aconitine, and hyoscyamine were distinguished by Geiger and Hesse. Since then, every year has been marked by the separation of some new alkaloid, from either animal or vegetable substances. So many workers in different countries now began to study and improve toxicology, that it would exceed the limits and be foreign to the scope of this treatise to give even a brief résumé of their labours. It may, notwithstanding, be useful to append a short bibliography of the chief works on toxicology of the present century.

§ 13.—BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE CHIEF WORKS ON TOXICOLOGY (NINETEENTH CENTURY).

[20]

PART II.

I.—Definition of Poison.

§ 14. The term “Poison” may be considered first in its legal, as distinct from its scientific, aspect.

The legal definition of “poison” is to be gathered from the various statute-books of civilised nations.

The English law enacts that: “Whoever shall administer, or cause to be administered to, or taken by any person, any poison or other destructive thing, with intent to commit murder, shall be guilty of felony.”

Further, by the Criminal Consolidation Act, 1861: “Whosoever shall, by any other means other than those specified in any of the preceding sections of this Act, attempt to commit murder, shall be guilty of felony.”

It is therefore evident that, by implication, the English law defines a poison to be a destructive thing administered to, or taken by, a person, and it must necessarily include, not only poisons which act on account of their inherent chemical and other properties after absorption into the blood, but mechanical irritants, and also specifically-tainted fluids. Should, for example, a person give to another milk, or other fluid, knowing, at the same time, that such fluid is contaminated by the specific poison of scarlet fever, typhoid, or any serious malady capable of being thus conveyed, I believe that such an offence could be brought under the first of the sections quoted. In fine, the words “destructive thing” are widely applicable, and may be extended to any substance, gaseous, liquid, or solid, living or dead, which, if capable at all of being taken within the body, may injure or destroy life. According to this view, the legal idea of “poison” would include such matters as boiling water, molten lead, specifically-infected fluids, the flesh of animals dying of diseases which may be communicable to man, powdered glass, diamond dust, &c. Evidence must, however, be given of guilty intent.

The words, “administered to or taken by,” imply obviously that the framers of the older statute considered the mouth as the only portal of entrance for criminal poisoning, but the present law effectually guards against any attempt to commit murder, no matter by what means. There is thus ample provision for all the strange ways by which poison has been introduced into the system, whether it be by the ear, nose,[21] brain, rectum, vagina, or any other conceivable way, so that, to borrow the words of Mr. Greaves (Notes on Criminal Law Consolidation), “the malicious may rest satisfied that every attempt to murder which their perverted ingenuity may devise, or their fiendish malignity suggest, will fall within some clause of this Act, and may be visited with penal servitude for life.”

Since poison is often exhibited, not for the purpose of taking life, but from various motives, and to accomplish various ends—as, for example, to narcotise the robber’s victim (this especially in the East), to quiet children, to create love in the opposite sex (love philters), to detect the secret sipper by suitably preparing the wine, to expel the inconvenient fruit of illicit affection, to cure inebriety by polluting the drunkard’s drink with antimony, and, finally, to satisfy an aimless spirit of mere wantonness and wickedness, the English law enacts “that whosoever shall unlawfully or maliciously administer to, or cause to be taken by, any other person, any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony.”

There is also a special provision, framed, evidently, with reference to volatile and stupefying poisons, such as chloroform, tetrachloride of carbon, &c.:—

“Whoever shall unlawfully apply, or administer to, or cause to be taken by any person, any chloroform, laudanum, or other stupefying or overpowering drug, matter, or thing, with intent, in any such case, thereby to enable himself or any other person to commit, or with intent, &c., to assist any other person in committing, any indictable offence, shall be guilty of felony.”

§ 15. The German statute, as with successive amendments it now stands, enacts as follows:[27]—

“Whoever wilfully administers (beibringt) to a person, for the purpose of injuring health, poison, or any other substance having the property of injuring health, will be punished by from two to ten years’ imprisonment.

[22]

“If by such act a serious bodily injury is caused, the imprisonment is not to be less than five years; if death is the result, the imprisonment is to be not under ten years or for life.

“If the death is wilfully caused by poison, it comes under the general law: ‘Whoever wilfully kills a man, and if the killing is premeditated, is on account of murder punishable with death.’”

The French law runs thus (Art. 301, Penal Code):—“Every attempt on the life of a person, by the effect of substances which may cause death, more or less suddenly, in whatever manner these substances may have been employed or administered, and whatever may have been the results, is called poisoning.”[28]

There is also a penalty provided against any one who “shall have occasioned the illness or incapacity for personal work of another, by the voluntary administration, in any manner whatever, of substances which, without being of a nature to cause death, are injurious to health.”[29]

§ 16. Scientific Definition of a Poison.—A true scientific definition of a poison must exclude all those substances which act mechanically,—the physical influences of heat, light, and electricity; and parasitic diseases, whether caused by the growth of fungus, or the invasion of an organism by animal parasites, as, for example, “trichinosis,” which are not, so far as we know, associated with any poisonous product excreted by the parasite;—on the other hand, it is now recognised that pathogenic micro-organisms develop poisons, and the symptoms of all true infections are but the effects of “toxines.” The definition of poison, in a scientific sense, should be broad enough to comprehend not only the human race, but the dual world of life, both animal and vegetable.

Husemann and Kobert are almost the only writers on poisons who have attempted, with more or less success, to define poison by a generalisation, keeping in view the exclusion of the matters enumerated. Husemann says—“We define poisons as such inorganic, or organic substances as are in part capable of artificial preparation, in part existing, ready-formed, in the animal or vegetable kingdom, which, without being able to reproduce themselves, through the chemical nature of their molecules under certain conditions, change in the healthy organism the form and general relationship of the organic parts, and, through annihilation of organs, or destruction of their functions, injure health, or, under[23] certain conditions, destroy life.” Kobert says:—“Poisons are organic or inorganic unorganised substances originating in the organism itself, or introduced into the organism, either artificially prepared, or ready formed in nature, which through their chemical properties, under certain conditions, so influence the organs of living beings, that the health of these beings is seriously influenced temporarily or permanently.”

In the first edition of this work I made an attempt to define a poison thus:—A substance of definite chemical composition, whether mineral or organic, may be called a poison, if it is capable of being taken into any living organism, and causes, by its own inherent chemical nature, impairment or destruction of function. I prefer this definition to Kobert’s, and believe that it fairly agrees with what we know of poisons.

II.—Classification of Poisons.

§ 17. At some future time, with a more intimate knowledge of the way in which each poison acts upon the various forms of animal and vegetable life, it may be possible to give a truly scientific and philosophical classification of poisons—one based neither upon symptoms, upon local effects, nor upon chemical structure, but upon a collation and comparison of all the properties of a poison, whether chemical, physical, or physiological. No perfect systematic arrangement is at present attainable: we are either compelled to omit all classification, or else to arrange poisons with a view to practical utility merely.

From the latter point of view, an arrangement simply according to the most prominent symptoms is a good one, and, without doubt, an assistance to the medical man summoned in haste to a case of real or suspected poisoning. Indeed, under such circumstances, a scheme somewhat similar to the following, probably occurs to every one versed in toxicology:—

A. Poisons causing Death immediately, or in a few minutes.

There are but few poisons which destroy life in a few minutes. Omitting the strong mineral acids, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, with the irrespirable gases,—Prussic acid, the cyanides, oxalic acid, and occasionally strychnine, are the chief poisons coming under this head.

B. Irritant Poisons (symptoms mainly pain, vomiting, and purging).

Arsenic, antimony, phosphorus, cantharides, savin, ergot, digitalis, colchicum, zinc, mercury, lead, copper, silver, iron, baryta, chrome, yew, laburnum, and putrid animal substances.

[24]

C. Irritant and Narcotic Poisons (symptoms those of an irritant nature, with the addition of more or less pronounced cerebral indications).

To this class more especially belong oxalic acid and the oxalates, with several poisons belonging to the purely narcotic class, but which produce occasionally irritant effects.

D. Poisons more especially affecting the Nervous System.

1. Narcotics (chief symptom insensibility, which may be preceded by more or less cerebral excitement): Opium, Chloral, Chloroform.

2. Deliriants (delirium for the most part a prominent symptom): Belladonna, hyoscyamus, stramonium, with others of the Solanaceæ, to which may be added—poisonous fungi, Indian hemp, lolium temulentum, œnanthe crocata, and camphor.

3. Convulsives.—Almost every poison has been known to produce convulsive effects, but the only true convulsive poisons are the alkaloids of the strychnos class.

4. Complex Nervous Phenomena: Aconite, digitalis, hemlock, calabar bean, tobacco, lobelia inflata, and curara.

§ 18. Kobert’s Classification.—The latest authority on poisons—Kobert—has classified poisons according to the following scheme:—

I. POISONS WHICH CAUSE COARSE ANATOMICAL CHANGES OF THE ORGANS.

II. BLOOD POISONS.

III. POISONS WHICH KILL WITHOUT THE PRODUCTION OF COARSE ANATOMICAL CHANGE.

IV. POISONOUS PRODUCTS OF TISSUE CHANGE.

§ 19. I have preferred an arrangement which, as far as possible, follows the order in which a chemical expert would search for an unknown poison—hence an arrangement partly chemical and partly symptomatic. First the chief gases which figure in the mortality statistics are treated, and then follow in order other poisons.

A chemist, given a liquid to examine, would naturally test first its reaction, and, if strongly alkaline or strongly acid, would at once direct his attention to the mineral acids or to the alkalies. In other cases, he would proceed to separate volatile matters from those that were fixed, lest substances such as prussic acid, chloroform, alcohol, and phosphorus be dissipated or destroyed by his subsequent operations.

Distillation over, the alkaloids, glucosides, and their allies would next be naturally sought, since they can be extracted by alcoholic and ethereal solvents in such a manner as in no way to interfere with an after-search for metals.

The metals are last in the list, because by suitable treatment, after all organic substances are destroyed, either by actual fire or powerful chemical agencies, even the volatile metals may be recovered. The metals are arranged very nearly in the same order as that in which they would be separated from a solution—viz., according to their behaviour to hydric and ammoniac sulphides.

There are a few poisons, of course, such as the oxalates of the alkalies, which might be overlooked, unless sought for specially; but it is hoped that this is no valid objection to the arrangement suggested, which, in greater detail, is as follows:—

A.—POISONOUS GASES.

1. Carbon monoxide.
2. Chlorine.
3. Hydric sulphide.

[26]

B.—ACIDS AND ALKALIES.

1. Sulphuric acid.
2. Hydrochloric acid.
3. Nitric acid.
4. Potash.
5. Soda.
6. Ammonia.
7. Neutral sodium, potassium, and ammonium salts.

In nearly all cases of death from any of the above, the analyst, from the symptoms observed during life, from the surrounding circumstances, and from the pathological appearances and evident chemical reactions of the fluids submitted, is put at once on the right track, and has no difficulty in obtaining decided results.

C.—POISONOUS SUBSTANCES CAPABLE OF BEING SEPARATED BY DISTILLATION FROM EITHER NEUTRAL OR ACID LIQUIDS.

1. Hydrocarbons.
2. Camphor.
3. Alcohols.
4. Amyl-nitrite.
5. Chloroform and other anæsthetics.
6. Carbon disulphide.
7. Carbolic acid.
8. Nitro-benzene.
9. Prussic acid.
10. Phosphorus.

The volatile alkaloids, which may also be readily distilled by strongly alkalising the fluid, because they admit of a rather different mode of treatment, are not included in this class.

D.—ALKALOIDS AND POISONOUS VEGETABLE PRINCIPLES SEPARATED FOR THE MOST PART BY ALCOHOLIC SOLVENTS.

There would, perhaps, have been an advantage in arranging several of the individual members somewhat differently—e.g., a group might be made of poisons which, like pilocarpine and muscarine, are antagonistic to atropine; and another group suggests itself, the physiological action of which is the opposite of the strychnos class; solanin (although classed as a mydriatic, and put near to atropine) has much of the nature of a glucoside, and the same may be said of colchicin; so that, if the classification were made solely on chemical grounds, solanin would have followed colchicin, and thus have marked the transition from the alkaloids to the glucosides.

The glucosides, when fairly pure, are easily recognised; they are destitute of nitrogen, neutral in reaction, and split up into sugar and other compounds when submitted to the action of saponifying agents, such as boiling with dilute mineral acids.

It is probable that this class will in a few years be extended, for several other organic anitrogenous poisons exist, which, when better known, will most likely prove to be anhydrides.

Ergot, picrotoxin, the poison of Illicium religiosum, cicutoxin, Æthusa cynapium, Œnanthe crocata, croton oil, savin oil, the toxalbumins of castor oil and Abrus.

The above division groups together various miscellaneous toxic principles, none of which can at present be satisfactorily classified.

[28]

E.—POISONS DERIVED FROM LIVING OR DEAD ANIMAL SUBSTANCES.

F.—THE OXALIC ACID GROUP.

G.—INORGANIC POISONS.

III.—Statistics.

§ 20. The number of deaths from poison (whether accidental, suicidal, or homicidal), as compared with other forms of violent, as well as natural deaths, possesses no small interest; and this is more especially true when the statistics are studied in a comparative manner, and town be compared with town, country with country.

The greater the development of commercial industries (especially those necessitating the use or manufacture of powerful chemical agencies), the more likely are accidents from poisons to occur. It may also be stated, further, that the higher the mental development of a nation, the more likely are its homicides to be caused by subtle poison—its suicides by the euthanasia of chloral, morphine, or hemlock.

Other influences causing local diversity in the kind and frequency of poisoning, are those of race, of religion, of age and sex, and the mental stress concomitant with sudden political and social changes.

[29]

In the ten years from 1883-1892, there appear to have died from poison, in England and Wales, 6616 persons, as shown in the following tables:—

DEATHS FROM POISON IN ENGLAND AND WALES DURING THE TEN YEARS 1883-92.