THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[August 26,1871. 
1GT 
uneasy and humiliated at the admission, and said to my¬ 
self, by way of excuse,—probably, after all, our editor’s 
philological learning has not been commensurate with 
his pharmaceutical; or, what is more likely, he has con¬ 
sidered philology to be incompatible with pharmacy, 
and therefore needed not trouble himself in finding a 
positive answer to the inquiry made of him. 
Not able to give us the derivation of such a common¬ 
place household word as Opodeldoc! This I thought was 
infra clic/., words which, with a little vain-glory, I trans¬ 
lated “not a very deep dig.” I resolved, therefore, to 
take the task in hand, and dig for myself; and, as I had 
been able to satisfy my mind regarding the root and 
branches of such obscure pharmaceutical terms as 
“Tinker o’Falairy,” “Glory o’Lyme,” “Jessie Wit’s 
Bark,” “ Ascetic-as-sid,” and many others of a similar 
character, I thought there would be no difficulty in 
finding some clue to the parentage of Opodeldoc. I set 
about, therefore, consulting all the lexicons, dictiona¬ 
ries and works of reference that I could find, exult- 
ingly thinking that I would be able to solve the diffi¬ 
culty, and perhaps appear in print with a full and par¬ 
ticular account of the birth and introduction to society 
of this apparently puzzling word. After much research, 
however, and the consultation of numerous works from 
which aid might hilly be expected, I had to knuckle in, 
and, like the editor, acknowledge my want of success. 
I reconciled myself, it is true, to my sour grapes by 
finding the following terse remarks in Blancard’s 
‘Physical Dictionary,’ 9th ed., 1726, under the word 
“Opodeldoc’; “’Tis a fictitious name, having no real 
signification.” 
Having failed in the antique I tried the modem, but 
only to meet with similar want of success. Pereira was 
silent on the subject, Neligan was equally mute, and 
Christison did not even honour the word with ink-shed, 
as, so far as I can find, it is not once mentioned in his 
‘ Dispensatory.’ 
I had learned, however, in my research that the word 
was employed by Mindererus, Paracelsus and other me¬ 
diaeval writers,—men who flourished at a period when 
the study of our ancient classics was considered to be of 
little use unless it could be made subservient to the 
introduction and employment of new and pedantic 
terms; and notwithstanding what Blancard says, I had 
come to the conclusion not to give any reception to 
the dogma of the spontaneous generation of words; that 
is, without assigning to them some primitive signification 
which might be ascertained if we could only brush away 
from them the rubbish with which time and change had 
obscured them. 
As the speediest method of cutting the knot, I agreed, 
therefore, to avail myself of the scientific use of the 
imagination (which many have done before me in similar 
straits) and find roots for myself, taking similarity of 
sound as the basis of my operations ; a course of action 
which, I know, is sometimes honoured with the remark, 
“As the fool thinks so the bell clinks.” 
I venture, therefore to suggest as the roots of this 
word Opodeldoc, birds, juice, and 6e\y a>, I soothe or 
charm; Latin, mulceo. Syncopating the s, the word 
becomes oirodeAyu, and employing the adjective form 
we have oirodeAKTiicos, meaning the soothing juice or 
balsam. The syncopation of the final letter of the word 
ottos is found in several compound Greek words, such 
as oiro-^aXcrapov, oiro-KdAiracoy, biro-Kivydgwyov, biro-irdya£ 
and others, and it would very naturally take place in 
the case of the word biro-6e\yco, and besides, the mutation 
of the rough lingual 6 into the softer medial 5 is, though 
somewhat rare, not an unknown occurrence, especially 
in JEolic Greek; and though this be not a purely 
classical word, its compounders may possibly have 
fashioned it according to classic laws. Were we, then, 
to adopt this latter change, the word would become, 
using Roman letters, opodelgo, and conventionality or 
euphemism might lead to opodeldo or opodeldoc . Meta¬ 
morphoses far more striking than this are to be met 
with in our present pharmaceutical nomenclature. Wo 
have liquorice from glycyrrhiza, fennel from fcemculum , 
chamomile from chamccmelon (the apple on the ground) 
and so on, and in a work recently published, Prior’s 
‘ Names of British Plants,’ second edition, illustrations 
of the most curious kind are to be met with in almost 
every page. 
These few remarks regarding the etymology of this 
word will, I hope, be considered as nothing more than 
suggestive; but if some of our London brethren, who 
have the resources of the British Museum library at 
their command and many other antiquarian stores, would 
only devote a little time and research to the subject, we 
might be enabled to remove its etymology from the 
domain of supposition and doubt to the region of fact 
and certainty, and I hope that very soon some one will 
do so and favour us with the result. 
EXPERIMENTS WITH CARBOLIC ACID. 
BY ANGUS MACKINTOSH, M.D., CALLINGTON. 
In the interest of science, as bearing specially on the 
effects of carbolic acid on organic substances, I desire to 
record a few experiments, with their results, which I 
carefully performed with carbolic acid in November 
last, with the view of proving further to my own satis¬ 
faction certain chemical and physiological changes that 
I have observed in treating ulcers and severe surgical 
injuries with the acid. The results at which I arrived 
were published last year; and, in consequence, Messrs. 
F. C. Calvert and Co., the well-known chemists of Man¬ 
chester, kindly forwarded to me several samples of the 
different preparations made by them, to be tried in 
smallpox, etc. I have now tested them in many cases 
of smallpox with almost unparalleled success, and also 
in various surgical operations; and, in justice to Messrs. 
Calvert and Co., must say that I consider their prepara¬ 
tions immensely superior to any other of the acid yet 
given to the profession. 
Having had reason for years to question the accuracy 
and correctness of the germ-theory of disease, and of the 
modus operandi of the antiseptic system of treatment, so 
ably brought before the profession by my respected 
teacher, Professor Lister, I last year called the attention 
of the profession to the fact that the beneficial effects of 
carbolic acid on wounds, etc. were not to be attributed 
solely to the destruction of atmospheric germs, but 
mainly, if not completely, to the chemical and stimulat¬ 
ing effects of it on the constituents of the blood and 
surroundi n g parts. The following experiments confirm 
the opinion then expressed:— 
Class I. Experiment i.—On November 8th, 1870, I 
mixed a quarter of a pound of bullock’s blood (fresh) 
with two ounces of F. C. Calvert and Co.’s carbolic acid 
No. 5 (proportion, 10 of water to 1 acid), and covered 
the whole so as to admit no air. The temperature was 
50 deg. Itesult, July 10th, 1871: No signs of putre¬ 
faction. 
Experiment ii.—On November 8th, 1870, I mixed a 
quarter of a pound of bullock’s blood (fresh) with two 
ounces of Calvert’s carbolic acid No. 5 (proportion, 10 of 
water to 1 acid), and left the whole uncovered and ex¬ 
posed to the air. The vessels used in this and the pre¬ 
vious experiments were placed side by side in the same 
apartment. Eesult, July 10th, 1871: Not the slightest 
signs of or tendency to putrefaction. 
Experiment iii.—On November 9th, 1870, I weighed 
two ounces of lean fresh beef, and placed it in a pot 
with two ounces of carbolic acid (Calvert’s No. 5, 10 
water to 1 acid), and covered the contents completely 
from the atmosphere. Eesult, July 12th, 1871: The 
meat was perfectly free from putrefaction. 
Experiment iv.—On November 9th, 1870, I weighed 
two ounces of lean fresh beef, and placed it in a pot with 
