Historical imply that he resided in that school. Of his work, SaSketches. ladin gives the following account: that there were two Antidotaria under the name of this Nicholaus, the one distinguished by the title of Nicholaus Magnus, and the other by that of Nicholaus Parvus; that the latter was in most frequent use, and was only an epitome of the former, containing but a part of the compositions, and those reduced to less quantities. Among the collections of pieces often published together as a supplement to Mesue, one is entitled Antidotarium Nicholai, and in this are contained the compositions which were deliyered by dispensatory writers, under the name of Nicholaus. This is the lesser antidotarium, and there is also a copy of the greater, published under the name of Nicholaus Alexandrinus, as translated from the Greek by Nicholaus of Reggio, the first translator of Galen. In this translation, as in the former antidotarium, the compositions are arranged in the order of the Latin alphabet whereas, in the original, the Greek alphabetical order seems to have been followed. Here, beside a much greater number of articles than in the other Nicholaus, those which they have in common are in greater quantities.

78 Foreign Public Pharmacopœcias.

The first Pharmacopoeia which was set forth by public authority, was that of Valerius Cordus, published in 1542, under the sanction of the senate of Nuremberg. This consists almost entirely of collections from the two authors above mentioned, with short notes in relation to such names of plants or drugs in the compositions as were of doubtful signification. Subsequent pharmacopoeias, however they might be rendered more copious by additions from other authors, also paid the like regard to Nicholaus and Mesue. This Pharmacopoeia of Cordus has been made more celebrated from the comments made on it by Hoffman. In 1561, Clusius published at Antwerp a Latin translation of the Florentine Antidotarium. In 1581 was published at Bergamo, in Italy, the Pharmacopoeia Bergamensis, which was followed by the Pharmacopoeia Augustana, at Augsburg in 1601; republished at Rotterdam, with notes by Zwelfer in 1654, and again in 1666. The pharmacopoeia of the faculty at Paris first appeared in 1637; and about the same time there was published at Paris a collection of Arabian formulæ, called the Persian Pharmacopoeia. In the latter end of the 17th century, the incorporated physicians of Sweden published their Dispensatory under the title of Phamacopoeia Holmiensis, which was republished in 1775 and 1784 by the title of Pharmacopoeia Suecica. The Prussian Dispensatory, Pharmacopoeia Borussica, was first published in 1799. The Pharmacopoeia of Vienna was first published in 1729, and republished in 1765.

Besides these, we have seen or heard of the following:

The Dispensatory of Wirtemburg, of which the first edition is that of 1771.

Pharmacopoeia Genevensis, published in 1780, republished in Italian in 1800.

Dispensatorium Lippiacum in 1792. Pharmacopoeia Bremensis in 1792. Pharmacopoeia Austriaco-provincialis, 1794. Pharmacopoeia Austriaco-castrensis, 1795. Pharmacopoeia Rossica, published at St Petersburgh first in 1798, and again in 1803.

Of the British Pharmacopoeias, the earliest is that of

79

the London college, which was first published in 1618. Historical It was again published either at the close of the 17th, Sketches. or beginning of the 18th century, in 18mo; again in 1746 in 4to, and last in 1791. The college is now British pubpreparing a new edition, and has circulated among its lic Pharmsmembers a specimen of the proposed alterations. We coparias. have been favoured with a perusal of this specimen, and we have no doubt, that with respect to accuracy of preparation, and judicious selection of remedies, the new work will not be inferior to the late editions of the Edinburgh and Dublin Pharmacopoeias. In point of nomenclature, however, we cannot help thinking, that the committee have in a great measure failed in their desire to avoid error and confusion. Should the nomenclature of the specimen be adopted in the published edition, we fear that the novelty of the terms will be the smallest objection to their use; but that being so perfectly different, both from the language of modern chemistry and of the late pharmacy of the London druggists and apothecaries, will occasion serious inconvenience both to prescribers and compounders. It would be indecorous for us to particularize instances, but we chiefly allude to the names of the secondary salts, which we consider as very objectionable. The new edition will be evidently much improved, many new articles are admitted, and not a few of such as were less efficacious, or which may be prepared extemporaneously, are omitted.

The college of Edinburgh first published their Pharmacopoeia in 1722; and improved editions have successively appeared in 1736, 1747, 1756, 1775, 1783, 1792, 1803, and 1805, this last being little more than a new impression of the preceding. The Dublin college first published, or rather printed, a Pharmacopœia in 1794; and they have lately, viz. in 1807, republished it with considerable improvements. In this edition they have chiefly followed the plan of the Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia, but they retain the usual pharmaceutical names of the simples, though they have in general adopted the reformed chemical nomenclature. The most material improvements will be noticed in the appendir to this article.

80

Besides the Pharmacopoeias printed under the autho- Foreign rity of public colleges, a great many have been pub- private Dislished by individuals both on the continent and in Bri- pensatorics. tain. We shall notice the principal of these in chronological order.

The earliest of these that we find on record, after those of Nicholaus, is the Antidotarium Speciale of Wecker, which was printed in 1561. Four years after appeared the Antidotarium of Montagna, published at Venice; and at the same place in 1600, appeared a work by Fioraventi, entitled Secreti Rationale Intorno Alla Medicina. In 1608, Renodæus published at Paris his Officina Pharmaceutica seu Antidotarium. Mynsicht's Armamentarium Medico-chymicum appeared in 1631; and in 1656, Schroeder published at Leyden his Pharmacopoeia Medico-Chemica. In 1676 Charas published his Pharmacopée Galenique et Chemique at Paris, and in 1684 the same work was republished in Latin at Genoa. In 1698 appeared the celebrated Pharmacopée Universelle of Lemery; and in the same year the Pharmacopoeia Spagyrica of Poterius. Of those that have appeared in the 18th century, beside those mentioned in the introduction to MATEria Medica, we,

may

Historical may notice as being of superior merit; Triller's DisSketches. pensatorium Pharmaceuticum Universale, published at Frankfort in 1764; Spielman's Pharmacopoeia Generalis at Strasburg in 1783, and Reuss's Dispensatorium Universale at the same place. British pri- In our own country, several useful works of this kind vate Dishave been produced. One of the earliest (D), and pensatories. among the most remarkable of these, is the Pharmacopoeia Officinalis et Extemporanea, or Complete English Dispensatory of Dr Quincy, which was first published in 1718, again in 1722, and in 1739 had reached the eleventh edition, now before us. Considering the time at which it was written, this is an excellent performance, and is the more interesting, as it formed the foundation on which were composed those more accurate and scientific works the New Dispensatory of Lewis, and the Edinburgh New Dispensatory. Quincy's Dispensatory was followed by similar works, as by James's Dispensatory in 1747, Lewis's in 1753, and the Edinburgh New Dispensatory by Webster in 1786. At length, in 1803, Dr Andrew Duncan, Junior, published his Edinburgh New Dispensatory, which, from the important additions and improvements progressively introduced in four editions, must be considered as a new work, and has entirely superseded every similar publi

82 Collections

1

cation.

Of collections of formulæ, both by continental and f formula. English writers, there is no want; but it will be difficult for an unexperienced prescriber to make a judicious selection from among them. The best we have seen in this country are, the Thesaurus Medicaminum, now admitted to be the production of Dr R. Pearson; the Pharmacopoeia Chirurgica; and perhaps we may add those published in Dr Kirby's Tables of the Materia Medica. The first of these was published in 1794, and a third edition of it materially improved appeared in 1804. The Pharmacopoeia Chirurgica is a valuable selection of formulæ, chiefly intended for surgeons, and drawn up principally from the practical Pharmacopoeia of the different London hospitals. The first edition appeared, we believe, in 1794; and in 1802 there was published a fifth edition, with the addition of a synoptical table of the formulæ contained in the volume, arranged according to the order of their principal incredients. The formulæ annexed to each of the classes in Dr Kirby's Tables are intended principally to serve as examples of the method of prescribing the principal articles enumerated in the class to which they are attached. They are selected partly from the best writers on extemporaneous prescription and the practice of medicine, and are partly derived from the private experience of the author or his medical friends.

Of the older collections of formulæ, we may notice the Pharmacopoeia Extemporanea of Fuller, which contains 1000 select formulæ, arranged in alphabetical order, and accompanied by practical and pharmaceutical remarks. This work went through many editions, both in England and on the Continent. The best which we

have seen is that published at Paris in 1768, under the Historical care of Theodore Baron.

Sketches.

83

on

We know of very few works that have been written, containing practical rules for the writing of prescrip- Work OR tions. In our own country, almost the only work on extempora the subject with which we are acquainted, is Quincy's neous preLectures on Pharmacy; a work now very little known, scription, though the principal parts of it were introduced under their proper heads, in the later editions of the complete English Dispensatory. Quincy's rules, though now a little antiquated, are for the most part very good; and allowing for the imperfect state of chemical science in the beginning of the 18th century, may still be perused with advantage. Similar rules, which were indeed little more than modifications of those given by Quincy, were laid down by Dr Lewis in his New Dispensatory.

$4

One of the most celebrated foreign elementary works Gaubius. on this subject, and that which we believe is best known in this country, is Libellus de Methodo Concinnandi Formulas Medicamentorum, by Gaubius, a second edition of which was published at Leyden in 1752. After laying down some general rules to be observed before prescribing, Gaubius gives an account of the nature and construction of formulæ in general, and then treats particularly of the several forms of medicines usually employed. These he divides into internal and external, reckoning among the former powders, boluses, electuaries, eclegmata or lynctuses, pills, lozenges, &c. which he distinguishes into tabelle and rotuli, infusions, decoctions, expressed juices, emulsions, juleps, mixtures, and draughts or coutracted mixtures. External forms he divides into injections, adspergines (powder sprinkled on the surface), fomentations, dry epithems, cataplasms or poultices, baths, fumigations, plasters, cerates, ointments, odoriferous balsams, liniments, epispastics or blistering plasters, frictions, collyria or eye-waters, errhines or snufis, denti frices or tooth-powders, apoplilegmatisms, gargles, ciysters, suppositories, and pessaries. He gives ample rules for the preparation of each of these forms, with examples. This work, however, from the antiquated style and prolixity with which it is written, and the obsolete names that every where occur throughout the examples, is of little use except as a book of reference.

85

In 1754, Joannes Petrus Eberhard, professor of me- Eberhar dicine in the university of Halle, in the duchy of Magdeburg, published his Methodus Conscribendi Formulas Medicas, a small pamphlet in 18mo, containing rules arranged in a tabular form. In this little work the author first treats of the nature of a medical formula, and explains the characters usually employed in prescription. He then lays down his plan of division, and lastly treats of the preparation of each particular form, with practical hints respecting the ingredients proper for each form, with their proportional doses, and the cases to which they are more particularly adapted. This work was first intended for the professor's pupils, but he published it under the conviction that it would be found of advantage by practitioners in general. On the whole, it is a Tt 2 useful

li storical useful publication, but is as much too brief as that of Skethes. Gaubius is too prolix. The rules are not illustrated by examples.

Grüner.

36 The best work that we have seen on the elements of extemporaneous prescription, is entitled, Via et Ratio Formulas Medicas conscribendi, by Grüner, professor of medicine in the university of Jena. As we have seen only one copy of this work, belonging to the college. library Edinburgh, and when this article went to press, could not procure a second perusal of it, we cannot present our readers with any analysis of its contents; but from the favourable impression we received on examining it several years ago, we consider it as a valuable work.

87 Alibert.

The last writer on this subject whom we shall notice is M. Alibert, who, at the end of the second volume of his Nouveaux Elémens de Thérapeutique et de Matiere Medicale, has given what he calls a New Essay on the Art of Prescribing; in the first part of which he treats of the general rules of the art, and in the second explains the particular formule which act on the vital properties of the different organic systems of the human body. M. Alibert's arrangement is peculiar, and we shall therefore give a sketch of it. He arranges his formulæ under six sections, and divides each section into several articles. In the first section he treats of the formulæ or compound medicines which the medical art principally directs towards the vital properties of the system of the digestive organs. In the first article of this section he describes the compound medicines which are particular ly directed to the muscular contractility of the stomach, in common language, emetics; in the second article, those which are particularly directed to the muscular contractility of the intestinal canal, viz. cathartics; in the third article he treats of those which are particularly adapted to the changes of the vital properties that

result from the presence of worms in the stomach and Historical intestines, namely, anthelmintics; in the fourth article, Sketches. of those which are particularly directed against the effects of poisons introduced into the stomach or intestines; and in the fifth, of those compound medicines which are particularly directed to the vital properties of the larger intestines.

In the second section he treats of these medicines which the art particularly adapts to the vital properties. of the urinary passages; diuretics.

In third section he describes those that particularly. refer to the vital properties of the respiratory organs, viz. expectorants and refrigerants.

In the fourth section he treats of those compound me dicines which are particularly directed to the vital properties of the dermoid system, or the skin; namely, diaphoretics, emollients, and epispastics.

In the fifth section he notices those medicines which are particularly directed to the vital properties of the nervous system; viz. antispasmodics, narcotics, sternu tatories and sialagogues.

In the sixth and last section he treats of the compound medicines that the art particularly directs toward the vital properties of the system of generation.

Some other late French writers on Pharmacy have. given a number of examples of medical formula, especially M. Bouillon La Grange, in his Manuel du Pharmacien. In all these formulæ is employed the new French standard of weights and measures, commonly accompanied by the synonymous troy weights and measures, as used by the French apothecaries under the old government; but as neither of these are familiar to English readers, we shall here add two tables of the French weights and measures of capacity, reduced to English wine measures and troy and apothecary weights.

APPENDIX.

THE new edition of the Dublin Pharmacopoeia haying appeared since the printing of our article MATERIA MEDICA, it becomes us to notice the principal improvements introduced by the Dublin college; and as particular circumstances prevented our doing so under PHARMACY, we have reserved them for an appendix to the present article. We shall also take this opportunity of supplying some omissions in the article MATERIA MEDICA, rendered unavoidable by the circumstance of that article coming on at the conclusion of a volume, beyond which we could not with propriety extend it, especially by the addition of a complete table of the synonymous Latin names of all the officinal compounds.

We shall notice the additions and improvements of the Dublin college in the same order which we have observed in MATERIA MEDICA, Part IV.

CHAP. I. Animal Substances.

2. MURIAS AMMONIÆ (E).

Preparation c. CARBONAS AMMONIÆ. See MATERIA MEDICA, N° 238.

In the preparation of this salt, the Dublin college now employ carbonate of soda for decomposing the muriate of ammonia, instead of chalk. The only advantage of this seems to be that the decomposition is effected at a lower temperature,

Solution of Preparation d. AQUA CARBONATIS AMMONIÆ. carbonate MATERIA MEDICA, No 239.

of ammo

Here too carbonate of soda is employed in the proportion of 28 oz. to the pound of muriate of ammonia. Preparation f. HYDROSULPHURETUM AMMONIÆ. MATERIA MEDICA, N° 241.

This is now introduced into the Dublin Pharmacopoeia, and is directed to be prepared much in the same manner as in the pharmacopoeia of Edinburgh.

Preparation h. ALCOHOL AMMONIATUM AROMATICUM. MATERIA MEDICA, No 243.

The only change made in the preparation is, in substituting oz. of nutmegs for 2 drs. of the essential oil, and distilling off the ammoniated alcohol, thus rendering the solution of the aromatic principles more complete.

5. CERVUS ELAPHUS.

Preparation a. PHOSPHAS CALCIS. MATERIA MEDICA, N° 254.

The Dublin college order this under the name of Pulvis cornu cervini usti, to be prepared in the usual manner as directed by the Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia.

Preparation b. DECOCTUM CORNU CERVINI, Dub. Appendix. Decoction of hartshorn.

horn.

94

This is made by boiling two ounces of burnt harts- Decoction horn reduced to powder, and 3 drs. of gum arabic, in of harts3 pints of water to 2 pints, continually stirring, and then straining the liquor.

In this way a considerable quantity of the phosphate of lime is, by means of the gum arabic, suspended in the water; but we do not think this so good a method of administering the remedy as giving the powder itself, mixed with syrup or mucilage.

CHAP. II. Vegetable Substances..

24. ALCOHOL. MATERIA MEDICA, No 294. Preparation a. ALCOHOL.

The new process of the Dublin college for preparing alcohol is as follows: A gallon of rectified spirit of wine is first mixed with an ounce of caustic potash in powder; then a pound of pearl ashes dried at the heat of 300° of Fahrenheit, and reduced to powder, is added while still warm, and the mixture digested for three days in a close vessel with frequent agitation. The spirit is then poured off, mixed with half a pound. of dried muriate of lime (which is usually obtained from the residuum after the preparation of pure ammonia), and distilled with a moderate heat till what remains in the retort begins to grow thick.

26. ACIDUM ACETOSUM IMPUrum, Preparation b. ACIDUM ACETOSUM FORTE, E. MATERIA MEDICA, No 307.

ACIDUM ACETICUM, Dub.

95 Alcobol

same