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. 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. 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 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 foetid 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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, “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. A chapter might be written entitled “royal poisoners.” King Charles IX. even figures as an experimentalist. 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. “In the reign of King John, the White Tower received one of the first and fairest of a long line of female victims in that Maud Fitzwalter who was known to the singers of her time as Maud the Fair. The father of this beautiful girl was Robert, Lord Fitzwalter, of Castle Baynard, on the Thames, one of John’s greatest barons. Yet the king, during a fit of violence with the queen, fell madly in love with this young girl. As neither the lady herself nor her powerful sire would listen to his disgraceful suit, the king is said to have seized her by force at Dunmow, and brought her to the Tower. Fitzwalter raised an outcry, on which the king sent troops into Castle Baynard and his other houses; and when the baron protested against these wrongs, his master banished him from the realm. Fitzwalter fled to France with his wife and his other children, leaving his daughter Maud in the Tower, where she suffered a daily insult in the king’s unlawful suit. On her proud and scornful answer to his passion being heard, John carried her up to the roof, and locked her in the round turret, standing on the north-east angle of the keep. Maud’s cage was the highest, chilliest den in the Tower; but neither cold, nor solitude, nor hunger could break her strength. In the rage of his disappointed love, the king sent one of his minions to her room with a poisoned egg, of which the brave girl ate and died.”—Her Majesty’s Tower, by Hepworth Dixon. Lond., 1869; i. p. 46. What drugs the Venetian poisoners used is uncertain. The Italians 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 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 The water torture was this:—a huge funnel-like vessel was fitted on to the neck, the edge of the funnel coming up to the eyes; on now pouring water into the funnel so that the fluid rises above the nose and mouth, the poor wretch is bound to swallow the fluid or die of suffocation; if indeed the sufferer resolve to be choked, in the first few moments of unconsciousness the fluid is swallowed automatically, and air again admitted to the lungs; it is therefore obvious that in this way prodigious quantities of fluid might be taken. 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., “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.” 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, II.—Growth and Development of the Modern Methods of Chemically Detecting Poisons.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. In the seventeenth century the Honourable Robert Boyle made some 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, Bergmann first described oxalic acid as obtained by the oxidation of saccharine bodies; but Scheele recognised its identity with the acid contained in sorrel. 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 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.
Anglada, Jos.—“TraitÉ de Toxicologie GÉnÉrale, &c.” Montpellier et Paris, 1835. Autenrieth.—“Kurze Anleitung zur Auffindung der Gifte.” Freiburg, 1892. Bandlin, O.—“Die Gifte.” Basel, 1869-1873. Baumert, G.—“Lehrbuch der gerichtl. Chemie.” Braunschweig, 1889-92. Bayard, Henri.—“Manuel Pratique de MÉdecine LÉgale.” Paris, 1843. Bellini, Ranieri.—“Manuel de Tossicologia.” Pisa, 1878. Berlin, N. J.—“Nachricht, die gewÖhnlichen Gifte chemisch zu entdecken.” Stockholm, 1845. Bernard, C.—“LeÇons sur les Effets des Substances Toxiques et MÉdicamenteuses.” Paris, 1857. Bertrand, C. A. R. A.—“Manuel MÉdico-LÉgale des Poisons introduits dans l’Estomac, et les Moyens ThÉrapeutiques qui leur conviennent: suivi d’un Plan d’Organisation MÉdico-Judiciaire, et d’un Tableau de la Classification GÉnÉrale des Empoisonnemens.” Paris, 1818. Binz, C.—“Intoxicationen” in Gerhardt’s “Handbuch der Kinderkrankheiten.” iii. Heft. TÜbingen, 1878. Blyth, A. Wynter.—“A Manual of Practical Chemistry: The Analysis of Foods and the Detection of Poisons.” London, 1879. Bocker, Frieder. Wilhelm.—“Die Vergiftungen in forensischer u. klinischer Beziehung.” Iserlohn, 1857. BÖhm, R., Naunyn, B., und Von Boeck, H.—“Handbuch der Intoxicationen.” (Bd. 15 of the German edition of Ziemssen’s CyclopÆdia.) Brandt, PhÖbus, und Ratzeburg.—“Deutschlands GiftgewÄchse.” Berlin, 1834-38 (2 vols. with 56 coloured plates). Briand, J., et Chaude, Ern.—“Manuel Complet de MÉdecine LÉgale.” (The latest edition, 1879.) The chemical portion is by J. Bouis. Buchner, E.—“Lehrbuch der gerichtlichen Medicin fÜr Aerzte u. Juristen.” 3rd ed. MÜnchen, 1872. Casper, J. L.—“Handbuch der gerichtlichen Medicin.” 7th ed. Berlin, 1881. Chevallier, A.—“TraitÉ de Toxicologie et de Chimie Judiciaire.” Paris, 1868. Chiaje, Stef.—“Enchiridis di Tossicologia teorico-pratica.” 3rd ed. Napoli, 1858. Christison, Robert.—“A Treatise on Poisons.” Edinburgh, 1830. (A third edition appeared in 1836.) Cornevin, C.—“Des Plantes VÉnÉneuses.” Paris, 1887. Devergie, Alphonse.—“MÉdecine LÉgale, ThÉorique, et Pratique.” 3rd ed. Paris, 1852. Dragendorff, Jean Georges.—“Die gerichtlich-chemische Ermittelung von Giften in Nahrungsmitteln, Luftgemischen, Speiseresten, KÖrpertheilen.” &c. St. Petersburg, 1868. 3rd ed. GÖttingen, 1888. —— “Untersuchungen aus dem Pharmaceutischen Institute in Dorpat. BeitrÄge zur gerichtlichen Chemie einzelner organischer Gifte.” Erstes Heft. St. Petersburg, 1871. —— “Jahresbericht Über die Fortschritte der Pharmacognosie, Pharmacie, und Toxicologie.” Herausgegeben von Dr. Dragendorff. 1876. Duflos, A.—“Handbuch der angewandten gerichtlich-chemischen Analyse der chemischen Gifte, ihre Erkennung in reinem Zustande u. in Gemengen betreffend.” Breslau u. Leipzig, 1873. Eulenberg, Dr. Hermann.—“Handbuch der Gewerbe-Hygiene.” Berlin, 1876. Falck, C. Ph.—“Die Klinischwichtigen Intoxicationen.” (Handbuch der spec. Pathologie u. Therapie red. von R. Virchow, Bd. 2.) Erlangen, 1854. Falck, Ferd. Aug.—“Lehrbuch der praktischen Toxicologie.” Stuttgart, 1880. Flandin, C.—“TraitÉ des Poisons, ou Toxicologie appliquÉe À la MÉdecine LÉgale, À la Physiologie, et À la ThÉrapeutique.” Paris, 1847, 1853. FrÖhner, Eug.—“Lehrbuch der Toxicologie fÜr ThierÄrzte.” Stuttgart, 1890. Galtier, C. P.—“TraitÉ de Toxicologie MÉdico-LÉgale et de la Falsification des Aliments,” &c. Paris, 1845. —— “TraitÉ de Toxicologie MÉdicale, Chimique et LÉgale,” &c. Paris, 1855. A later edition of the same work. Greene, Will. H.—“A Practical Handbook of Medical Chemistry, applied to Clinical Research and the Detection of Poisons.” Philadelphia, 1880. GuÉrin, G.—“TraitÉ Pratique d’Analyse Chimique et de Recherches Toxicologiques.” Paris, 1893. Guy, W. A., and Ferrier, David.—“Principles of Forensic Medicine.” London, 1874. Harnack, Erich.—“Lehrbuch der Arzneimittellehre,” &c. Hamburg, 1883. Hasselt, van, A. W. M.—“Handbuch der Giftlehre fÜr Chemiker, Aerzte, Apotheker, u. Richtspersonen.” (A German translation of the original Dutch edition, edited by J. B. Henkel. Braunschweig, 1862. Supplemental vol. by N. Husemann, Berlin, 1867.) Helwig, A.—“Das Mikroskop in der Toxicologie.” 64 photographs, roy. 8vo, Mainz, 1865. Hemming, W. D.—“Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology.” London, 1877. Hermann, L.—“Lehrbuch der experimentellen Toxicologie.” 8vo. Berlin, 1874. Hoffmann, E. R.—“Lehrbuch der gerichtlichen Medicin.” 5th ed. Wien, 1890-91. Husemann and A. Hilger.—“Die Pflanzenstoffe in chemischer, pharmakologischer, u. toxicologischer Hinsicht.” 2nd ed. Berlin, 1882. Husemann, Th., and Husemann, A.—“Handbuch der Toxicologie.” Berlin, 1862. (Suppl. Berlin, 1867.) Kobert, Rud.—“Lehrbuch der Intoxicationen.” Stuttgart, 1893. Koehler, R.—“Handbuch der speciellen Therapie, einschliesslich der Behandlung der Vergiftungen.” 3rd ed. 2 vols. roy. 8vo. TÜbingen, 1869. Lesser, Adolf.—“Atlas der gerichtlichen Medicin.” Berlin, 1883. Loew, Oscar.—“Ein natÜrliches System der Gift-Wirkungen.” MÜnchen, 1893. Ludwig, E.—“Medicinische Chemie in Anwendung auf gerichtliche Untersuchungen.” Mahon, A.—“MÉdecine LÉgale et Police MÉdicale.” Paris, 1807. Marx, K. F. H.—“Die Lehre von den Giften.” GÖttingen, 1827-29. Maschka, J.—“Handbuch der gerichtlichen Medicin.” TÜbingen, 1881-82. This work is under the editorship of Dr. Maschka, and contains separate articles on medico-legal and toxicological questions by various eminent toxicologists, somewhat after the manner of Ziemssen’s CyclopÆdia. Mende, Lud. Jul. Casp.—“AusfÜhrliches Handbuch der gerichtlichen Medicin.” 1819-32. Mohr, Fried.—“Chemische Toxicologie.” Braunschweig, 1874. Montgarny, H. de.—“Essai de Toxicologie, et spÉcialement avec la Jurisprudence MÉdicale.” Paris, 1878. Montmahon, E. S. de.—“Manuel MÉdico-LÉgale des Poisons,” &c. Paris, 1824. Mutel, D. Ph.—“Des Poisons, considÉrÉs sous le rapport de la MÉdecine Pratique,” &c. Montpellier et Paris, 1835. Nacquet, A.—“Legal Chemistry: A guide to the detection of Poisons, Examination of Stains, &c., as applied to Chemical Jurisprudence.” New York, 1876. A translation from the French; see “Foods, their Composition and Analysis,” page 43. Nicolai, Joh. Ant. Heinr.—“Handbuch der gerichtlichen Medicin.” Berlin, 1841. The chemical portion is by F. R. Simon. Ogston, F.—“Lectures on Medical Jurisprudence.” London, 1878. Orfila, Matthieu Jos. Bonaventura.—“TraitÉ des Poisons, ou Toxicologie GÉnÉrale.” Paris, 1st ed., 1814; 5th ed., 1852. Orfila et Lesueur.—“TraitÉ de MÉdecine lÉgale.” Paris, 1821; 4th ed., Paris, 1848. Otto, F. G.—“Anleitung zur Ausmittelung der Gifte.” Braunschweig, 1856; 5th ed., 1875. 6th ed. by Robert Otto, Braunschweig, 1884. Praag van, Leonides, u. Opwyrda, R. J.—“Leerboek voor practische giftleer.” In Zwei Theilen. Utrecht, 1871. Rabuteau, A.—“ÉlÉmens de Toxicologie et de MÉdecine LÉgale, appliquÉes À l’Empoisonnement.” Paris, 1873. 2nd ed. by Ed. Bourgoing. Paris, 1888. Reese, John J.—“Manual of Toxicology, including the consideration of the Nature, Properties, Effects, and Means of Detection of Poisons, more especially in their Medico-legal relations.” Philadelphia, 1874. Remer, W. H. G.—“Lehrbuch der polizeilich-gerichtlichen Chemie.” Bd. 1 u. 2. 3. Auflage, Helmstadt, 1824. Schneider, F. C.—“Die gerichtliche Chemie fÜr GerichtsÄrzte u. Juristen.” Wien, 1852. Schneider, P. J.—“Ueber die Gifte in medicinisch-gerichtlicher u. gerichtlich-polizeilicher RÜcksicht.” 2nd ed., 1821. Selmi, F.—“Studi di Tossicologia Chimica.” Bologna, 1871. Sobernheim, Jos. Fr. u. Simon, J. F.—“Handbuch der praktischen Toxicologie,” &c. Berlin, 1838. Sonnenschein, L.—“Handbuch der gerichtlichen Medicin.” Berlin, 1860. A new edition by Dr. A. Classen. Berlin, 1881. Tardieu, A.—“Étude MÉdico-LÉgale et Clinique sur l’Empoisonnement, avec la Collaboration de M. T. Roussin pour la partie de l’expertise relative À la Recherche Chimique des Poisons.” Paris, 1867. Taylor, Alfred Swaine.—“On Poisons in relation to Medical Jurisprudence and Medicine.” 3rd ed. 1875. Manual, 1879. —— “Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence.” 3 vols. London, 1873. Werber, Ant.—“Lehrbuch der praktischen Toxicologie.” Erlangen, 1869. Wood, Horatio C.—“Therapeutics, Materia Medica, and Toxicology.” Philadelphia, 1874. Woodmann, W. Bathurst, and Tidy, Ch.—“A Handy-Book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology.” London, 1877. Wormley, Theodore G.—“Micro-Chemistry of Poisons, including their Physiological, Pathological, and Legal Relations.” New York, 1857. Wurtz, A.—“TraitÉ ElÉmentaire de Chimie MÉdicale, comprenant quelques notions de Toxicologie,” &c. 2nd ed. Paris, 1875. |