Poisons, Their Effects and Detection: A Manual for the Use of Analytical Chemists and ExpertsBlyth, Alexander Wynter
Science
Poisons, Their Effects and Detection: A Manual for the Use of Analytical Chemists and Experts
Blyth, Alexander Wynter
Poisons
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 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:--
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account