Jump to content

Talk:Flying ointment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Application of ointment

[edit]

Can anybody find a source for the practice of applying the ointment vaginally with a phallic stick? Seems awfully sensationalist to me.

I too would like to see some sources for this. ...But where to look?! As for the sensational aspect (no pun intended), I think that uptake through the vaginal mucosa might simply have been found to be the most practical option. The concoction is unlikely to have tasted delicious and could well have been wholly unpalatable -- in which case, absorption through mucosa other than the oral would have been preferable. The sketch by Goya of "witches flying to the Sabbath" included in the article depicts fairly clearly the manner in which the ointment could have been administered: discard the sensational elements of the picture (the levitation, the second naked woman), then take the woman grasping the broomstick and seat her on the edge of a bed and you have a fairly straightforward and efficient way of administering a potent unpalatable drug using a common household object.
Moreover, if the use of the ointment was largely for the purposes of hedonism then a sexual component cannot be ruled out.

Is there any record of anyone actually trying this recipe? It seems like it should be fairly toxic, though maybe the dose given is low enough for it to work... (No, I'm not volunteering.)

That's the problem with some of these substances: the effective dose is dangerously close to the lethal dose. That's why you're probably wise to refrain from trying them. I've refrained from trying any of the myriad "flying ointment" recipes around for the same reason.
Septegram 13:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In "Drawing Down the Moon," there is an account of a young pagan woman making a flying paste of belladonna and nearly poisoning herself, having to be sent to the ER to be saved. (Yes, this *is* potentially poisonous even when applied transdermally, though the entry seems to imply that it isn't!) As of yet I have not seen any *medieval* source indicating that flying ointment was actually used, let alone vaginally with broomsticks. It may be true, but since I've never seen a medieval source describe it, I remain somewhat skeptical.

Concerning records on someone trying a medieval recipe, have a look at: Erwin Richter, "Der nacherlebte Hexensabbat - Zu Will-Erich Peuckerts Selbstversuch mit Hexensalben", in: Forschungsfragen unserer Zeit, Jg. 7, Lief. 3, p. 97 - 100, 1960 (German). Denisoliver 13:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too much to hope there's an edition in English, I suppose?
Septegram 16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, an English translation of the text is necessary! --74.179.99.253 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this discussion is old, but this page came up on a discussion list so I thought I'd check it out. For my sins, I *do* have some experience with salves of this type: two events to be precise, and the second one was such that I'd like to see the "threat level" on this page raised to 'severe'. Not any of the recipes on this page (I wouldn't in fact, trust the web at all, not even Wikipedia, for stuff like this) but one that was indeed allegedly intended for use on mucous membranes. I applied a small amount to the inside of each wrist, and in a much lower dosage than implied in the paper for mucous membranes, it induced vomiting within twenty minutes. My guess is that the recipes break down into two lots - those that don't work, and those that have effective dosages so close to the LD50 that they're positively dangerous outside the laboratory. That said, I recall a Channel4 (UK) documentary series that covered the subject - if I can track down the expert presenter for that episode there's probably some peer-reviewed medical literature. Ffetcher (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue of dosage and the botanical concentration of the substances makes a huge difference. But as Ffetcher said its very dangerous and your probably playing with your life. Its best not to trust any of these recipes mentioned over the net. To be smart simply just dont do it. Its not worth it.

Henry123ifa (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of this ointment

[edit]

"Belladonna acts upon the cerebrospinal system, as showing such symptoms as dilatation of the pupils (mydriasis), presbyopia, obscurity of vision, blindness (amaurosis), visual illusions (phantasms), suffused eyes, occasionally disturbance of hearing (as ringing in the ears, etc.), numbness of the face, confusion of head, giddiness, and delirium. In very large doses it can cause extravagant delirium and a deep coma-like sleep.
Belladonna and opium exert the opposite effects, especially as regards their action on the brain, the spinal cord, and heart. They can be used as antidotes to each other in cases of overdose and poisoning." Text taken from: http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/bell002.htm
So it would seem that belladona produces the dreamlike illusionary effects, while opium is involved to 'bring down' someone from the experience. --74.179.99.253 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard anaesthesia

[edit]

This ointment should be evaluated with the recognition that the combination of opium and tropane alkaloids was a routine anaesthetic from ancient Greece until the 19th century.[1] (please note that by "routine" I do not mean "safe" - but if you were having cataract surgery done in the first century B.C. what would you choose?) The irony here is that the description of this "flying ointment" dates from a two-century interval during which this treatment was taboo in Europe (see Opium). Mike Serfas 04:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On flying sensation

[edit]

Erwoid has at least one description where the subject experiences flying after ingestion of belladona. Many report lucid dreams and being places they were not (astral projection?). http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.cgi?A=Search&S1=9&S2=-1&S3=-1&C1=-1&S4=-1&GenderSelect=-1&Context=-1&DoseMethodID=-1&Title=&AuthorSearch=&A1=-1&Lang=&Group=-1&Str= Mike 01:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slxpluvs (talk • contribs)

OT: Signatures

[edit]

Please remember to sign your edits with four tildes, thus: ~~~~
That will show your signature.
Septegram 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Verlum

[edit]

Annoyingly the source give no indication who is is.Slatersteven (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But as Francis bacon writes about the Lancashire witches it seems to be him.Slatersteven (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon was the first Baron Verulam, so it is likely him.--Auric talk 15:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, my spelling aside.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Slatersteven, I've added your name into your signatures. It seems you signed with five tildes. Revert if you prefer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Curses unmasked!!!!16:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Joke article?

[edit]

This is the first time I've read an article that seems to be a joke yet gives no indication that it is in the text or talk page. Am I missing something here? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this is a joke article?--Auric talk 23:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Witchcraft aids made from the fat of small children? And the comments on this talk page – applying with a phallus? Is this a real thing? It seems ludicrous. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well depends on how you define real, it's as real as the idea that a carpenter can raise the dead.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the actual folk-medicine roots which are likely less outrageous, but you have to remember that most of what we "know" about this stuff from the early modern period and earlier comes from the church and those with a vested interest in demonizing witchcraft. So it's not surprising at all that there would be over-the-top claims made about this stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's also about ridiculous superstitions, but notable enough to be mentioned. —PaleoNeonate – 21:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really class it as a superstition. This is more like using digitalis for heart problems. It works, but not because of magic.--Auric talk 00:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It works?Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the description, at least. --Auric talk 14:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that might be something we need to change... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal

[edit]

@The Quixotic Potato: related to what was removed (I did not check the original to see if those were really among the fantastical claims, or if they are synthesis in later culture): Regino of Prüm, Canon Episcopi, Witch-cult hypothesis. If the first removal is to be restored, it should be verified and better sourced. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also The Botany of Desire (removed source)--Auric talk 00:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flying ointment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flying ointment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transdermal Administration, Alkaloid Specificity and Recent Undo

[edit]

MountainTraveler (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very new here so I apologize if this isn't the exact right place for this inquiry but it seems that the details surrounding the chemical constituents of the various herbs listed in the ointment isn't contingent with the citations listed let alone the real facts. At least that's what I assume about the "citations" listed because most don't appear publicly viewable and the one I did view I couldn't find the section where this supposed fact is even written. You'd be hard pressed to find any kind of source with that kind of incorrect information so even if the citation for some strange reason does say this I think it can easily be discarded without a second thought. It's very likely a Wiki editor just misinterpreted the literature's original words because it appears objectively so that clearly not "all" of the herbs listed in these ingredients contain Scopolamine, Atropine and Hyoscyamine. Wolfsbane and Hemlock for example, they don't contain any of these alkaloids so it really should just say "most" if not just "several" rather than "all".

Atropine absorbing through the skin to have psychoactive effects is also something else that no citation or reputable source has ever concluded from what I understand. In fact the exact opposite has been concluded through scientific research which maintains that of these 3 alkaloids; only Scopolamine is notably active transdermally (through the skin) and actually the whole point of transdermal administration is to avoid intake of Atropine and Hyoscyamine which are more dangerous and aren't the "desired" or preferred alkaloids in witchcraft; scopolamine is. And the other poisonous plants such as Wolfsbane (which contains Aconitine) are there to purportedly have antidote-like reactions to the Scopolamine. The purpose of adding other poisons to the already poisonous concoction was to reverse the effects of the "desired poison" which was Scopolamine. For instance using bradycardia to counter the tachycardia of scopolamine while still maintaining its psychoactive effects. Finding ways to make it less dangerous.

Edit Solution: I think the solution here would be to change back "all" to just "most" and Atropine having effects when absorbed through the skin to instead Scopolamine having effects when absorbed through the skin. Possibly getting rid of the citations or adding a "citation needed" marker but honestly these are such basic confirmable components that finding a reputable source shouldn't be hard anyways. It has been proven that Scopolamine is the only one of these alkaloids absorbed effectively through the skin and the information I said about the chemical components of these herbs is easily confirmable from any basic or general source pertaining to the descriptions of these specific plants.

We have an RS that (apparently) says the opposite, so you need an RS saying the above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Growing the plants

[edit]

I have started a project trying to grow the main ingredients of "flying ointment". I have documented some successes and failures, together with photographs of some of the plants, here: https://postpeakmedicine.wordpress.com/2020/09/22/the-care-and-use-of-toxic-plants/

--Petergray4045 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and?Slatersteven (talk)

...and I've added said photographs to the Wikipedia page under "Gallery". It would help if you were more specific - it took me a while to work out what you were (probably) talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergray4045 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_ointment&oldid=1247959993"