ON THE ARSENIC-EATERS OF STYllIA. 
619 
and if he takes a rather full dose he brings a good deal of wind off his stomach, but 
never vomits. He stated that his father had taken arsenic before him, and in 
considerable quantity, and that in the immediate neighbourhood of Liegist numbers use 
it, several taking it daily, and many in larger doses than he. He said that all who 
take it are healthy; that he never knew of anyone vomiting from its use, and he 
believed that, like the use of tobacco, if the dose is very gradually diminished, an arsenic- 
eater can break himself of the habit. 
One of the objections which has been made to the acknowledgment of the reality of 
arsenic-eating is, that the substance swallowed has not been ascertained by chemical 
examination really to be arsenic. This link in the chain of evidence I am able to 
supply. The white substance which I saw Schober and Flecker swallow, part of which 
I have now in my possession, is pure arsenious acid. It sublimes into octahedral 
crystals, and leaves no appreciable residue. The yellow substance which Schober used 
is a fair sample of the orpirnent of commerce, and contains, as that substance usually 
does, a considerable portion of free arsenious acid. 
I am of course not in a position to give any opinion as to the extent to which arsenic- 
eating prevails in Styria,—my time would not have permitted me to enter upon such an 
inquiry, nor would it be easy to get satisfactory information as to a practice which is 
generally kept secret; confirmation of the fact of its existence is more interesting to us 
scientifically than its extent; and that it is a fact, my personal observation enables 
me confidently to affirm. That arsenic-eating in Styria is a universal habit, or one 
indulged in by even a majority of the male peasantry, I do not for a moment suppose; 
but the averment “that the story of the Styrian arsenic-eaters is not only unsup¬ 
ported by adequate testimony, but isinconsistent, improbable, and utterly incredible” 
(Kesteven, Assoc. Med. Journal, 1856, p. 811); or that these are “absurd and 
exaggerated statements, utterly inconsistent with all that is known concerning the 
action of arsenic in this or other countries, and but for the fact that they for a time 
received the literary support of Professor Johnston, and were diffused by him in an 
amusing book, they would not have required any serious refutation” (Taylor, ‘On 
Poisons,’ 2nd ed., p. 92); or that it is a “mass of absurdity,” “a pure fable” 
(Christison, Edin. Med. Journal, 1855-56, pp. 709, 710)—are, although justified by the 
state of knowledge at the time they were made, no longer tenable; but on the contrary, 
we can no longer doubt, to use nearly the words of Roscoe, “ that decisive evidence has 
been brought forward, not only to prove that arsenic is well known and widely 
distributed in Styria, but that it is likewise regularly eaten in quantities usually 
considered sufficient to cause immediate death.” 
It is probable that many of the physiological actions attributed to it are fanciful, and 
that its use is mixed up with a good deal of superstition, as for example, in the case of 
the poacher who takes it to give him courage to pursue his depredations on ground that 
is new to him; or that of the ostler, who in giving it to his horses to improve their 
coats, thinks that it will have no beneficial effect unless he partakes of it at the 
same time. 
It is evident that the confirmation of the existence of the practice of arsenic-eating 
must lead us to modify some of the opinions that are entertained with regard to the 
influence of habit on the action of poisons. It has long been notorious, that by habit, 
the human body may be brought to bear with impunity, doses of organic poisons, such 
as opium, which, to those uuaccustomed to them, would certainly prove fatal; but “it 
has hitherto been considered by toxicologists that, except within very narrow limits, 
habit appears to exercise no influence on the action of mineral poisons” (Taylor, ‘ On 
Poisons,’ p. 89). Though, the experiment of M. Flandin, by which he proved that he 
could bring dogs to bear fifteen grains of arsenious acid in powder in twenty-four hours, 
without injury to their appetite or health, and the practice of administering arsenic to 
horses, have long been known as pointing rather in the contrary direction,—this has been 
supposed to be due to some peculiarity in the constitution of the lower animals. The 
facts which have been ascertained with regard to the Styrian arsenic-eaters, and which 
the above observations confirm, entitle us to maintain that the modifying effect of habit 
is not confined to organic poisons, but extends to those of mineral nature, at all events 
to arsenic .—Edinburgh Medical Journal. 
