108 
ALOES. 
blackish resinous aloes of nauseous smell; and, lastly, a refuse variety, mixed with all 
sorts of impurities, which is traditionally described as caballine , or horse-aloes. This 
last is, we suspect, very little an article of commerce just now, and no one who knows 
the value of animal life in this country at present need think that it is used by horse- 
doctors. Mesue, by the bye, tells us that the rougish dealers in his day used to try to 
improve the look of their worst aloes by washing it in urine and saffron, so as to give 
it a yellower colour. 
Such being the physical characters, we are taught to believe that the first variety 
comes from Socotra (the Insula Dioscoridis of the later Greeks), the second from Bar- 
badoes, the third from the Cape. We find, moreover, that the British Pharmacopoeia 
gives its sanction to the Socotrine and Barbadoes only. But here we may look with 
curiosity at the returns of the Board of Trade for 1866, from which we take the follow¬ 
ing quantities as imported in that year: — 
Imported from Declared value 
per cwt. 
lbs. 
£. 
s. 
d. 
Holland. 
15,514 
. 7 
10 
0 
British India, Bombay, and Scinde . 
23,226 
. 7 
9 
6 
Barbadoes. 
75.873 , 
. 8 
10 
0 
Other parts.. 
1,669 . 
. 7 
9 
4 
British Possessions in South Africa . 
791,594 . 
. 1 
15 
1 
East Coast of Africa. 
2,631 . 
1 
13 
1 
These figures are curious, to say the least. The total quantity imported is 910,507 lbs. 
Of this 114,282 lbs., or somewhat about one-eighth, are of the orthodox sorts (for the 
Bombay includes the Socotrine), and are worth, as imported, about Is. 6 cf. per lb.; 
whilst the Cape (which seems as cursed in its drugs as in its wine) contributes seven- 
eighths of the whole at the prime value of 3^. per lb.! As none but the 114,282 lbs. 
of the best enters into legitimate pharmacy, what becomes of the 794,225 lbs. of the 
worst? Making every allowance for exportation to America and France, where the 
Cape aloes is officinal , what a vision these figures give us of cheap griping physic— 
what material for quack pills. 
When we ask to what the difference of one kind from another is due—whether to 
climate, to species of aloe , or to mode of preparation—-we get very uncertain answers ; 
and in what that difference consists we are equally at a loss. The pharmaceutists of 
the last century affirmed that the Socotrine contained most soluble matter, and consi¬ 
dered it the best and the only kind fit for the Pharmacopoeia ; they also thought the 
Barbadoes griped, because of its excess of so-called resin. At the present day the Bar¬ 
badoes is most in favour, as being most active; and its excellence, which is rated by 
Mr. Squire as half as strong again as Socotrine*, is thought to be due to its less propor¬ 
tion of resin. On this point, we are assured by a friend who has taken aloes for forty 
years, that the difference lies in the quality, and not in accidental impurity or dose of 
the drugs ; and that the Barbadoes produces quite a different sort of sensation from the 
Socotrine. One thing is clear, that the best aloes is not considered too good for a valu¬ 
able horse, and the Barbadoes goes to the stable whilst the Cape goes to the cottage. 
The insoluble part of aloes is of no definite taste, but melts in the mouth and sticks 
to the teeth. It probably consists mainly of the mere common juices of the plant; but 
it may sometimes, according to Mr. Squire, contain some portion of the true bitter 
extract which has been spoiled and rendered insoluble by oxidation during careless 
manufacture; and this, which is possibly mischievous, is got rid of in the watery extract, 
as well as what is inert. 
In order not to be tedious, let us now endeavour to wind up what we have to say in 
the following axioms, whose brevity must be their apology for their apparent dog¬ 
matism :— 
Aloes should always be given in the solid form. It takes twice or thrice the quantity 
in solution to produce the same effect. All the tinctures, wines, and elixirs are as 
wasteful as nasty. Even the favourite decoction is a mistake. It were far better to 
* See ‘ Companion to the British Pharmacopoeia,’ 6 th ed., p. 20 . 
