[Introductory Paper in the series "THE STUDY OF PHARMACY," published in the Pharmaceutical Era (weekly) 
during 1895. Supplied to all Subscribers.] 
// I CONSISTING OF A q) _^-? / 
(Copynr/ht. 1895. By D. 0. Haynes <6 Co. All rights reserved.) 
to within this century, and, though in 
a modified manner, even exists at the 
present time. On the Continent of 
Europe the profession of medicine had 
long been divorced from that of phar- 
macy by stringent laws. In England, 
however, there existed a class of per- 
sons, styled apothecaries, who were le- 
gally empowered to exercise certain 
medical or surgical functions, more par- 
ticularly after the founding of Apothe- 
caries' Hall. The first medical act in 
England was passed in 1511, under the 
title, "An Act for the Appointing of 
Physicians and Surgeons." It vested 
the faculty of medicine in one body of 
men, who practiced medicine, surgery 
and pharmacy. The physicians' as- 
sistants were styled apothecaries, and 
they, gradually acquiring information 
respecting the properties of drugs, be- 
gan to transact business on their own 
account. (See the "Historical Sketch 
of the Progress of Pharmacy in Great 
Britain," by Theophilus Redwood; 8vo., 
London, 1880.) Since we inherited our 
medical institutions from England, the 
confusion of interests which prevailed 
there has, in some measure, descended 
to us, and the race of apothecaries, in 
the English sense, kept on flourishing 
in this country up to within the first 
half of this century at least. The ab- 
sence of any laws to the contrary drove 
many graduates of medicine, who were 
unsuccessful in a purely medical or 
surgical practice, into the ranks of the 
pharmacists, and this, again, induced 
many of the latter to obtain a medical 
degree in order to enable them to meet 
the competition successfully. This has 
been the case in the past, but applies 
also to the present time, although the 
best representatives of both professions 
-and they comprise the great majority 
-discountenance this amalgamation of 
the two interests and brand it as uneth- 
ical. 
Since the beginning of this century 
three principal periods may be distin- 
guished, each of which was inaugu- 
rated by some important occurrence or 
new departure. The first period is 
marked by the establishment of a 
National Pharmacopoeia in 1820, and 
of the first pharmaceutical schools; the 
second by the organization of the 
American Pharmaceutical Association 
in 1852; and the third by the creation 
of Boards of Pharmacy since 1870. 
THE PHARMACOPEIA AND SCHOOLS OF PHAR- 
MACY. 
After the first Pharmacopoeia of the 
United States of America had appeared 
(in 1820), it became more and more evi- 
dent that an intelligent use of it, and 
a faithful adherence to its require- 
ments, could be brought about only by 
educating the profession up to a higher 
standard. At the same time, the es-* 
tablishment of the national code ren- 
dered it highly desirable to bring about 
an improvement in the quality of drugs 
and medicines sold, by placing guards 
at the several points of entry, whose 
duty it should be to bar out inferior 
articles. Mainly with a view to the 
first object, but, also, distinctly recog- 
nizing the second, the pharmacists of 
Philadelphia founded a school (the Phil- 
adelphia College of Pharmacy) in 1821, 
and their example was followed by the 
pharmacists of New York in 1829, It 
is not necessary to follow the fortunes 
of these institutions here. This much 
may, however, be said, that they were 
important factors in creating a deeper 
interest in the vital questions pertain- 
ing to a success in the profession, and, 
though each of them, in its early days, 
had its periods of stagnation, yet each 
had enough earnest supporters to keep 
interest in its progress alive. 
Several other colleges of pharmacy, 
viz., those at Baltimore, Boston and 
Cincinnati, were started during this 
period, but did not become permanent 
teaching institutions until 1856, 1867 
and 1871, respectively. At the present 
time, there are some twenty-four col- 
leges and some twenty schools of phar- 
macy in actual operation, with more or 
less success. Some of them are inde- 
pendent corporations; others are de- 
partments of medical colleges or of uni- 
versities. Together, they send forth 
annually over one thousand graduates, 
and the advent of this young blood is 
from year to year more distinctly felt 
in the ranks of the profession. Not 
long after the organization of the New 
York College, a movement was started, 
which was participated in by the Phila- 
delphia College, to have a system of 
drug inspection established by Gov- 
ernment at the several ports of entry. 
This movement was successful, and re- 
sulted in a notable improvement in the 
quality of imported drugs and chemi- 
cals. The methods of inspection, how- 
INTRODUCTION. 
By Charles Rice, Ph. D. 
I. THE GROWTH OF PHARMACY IN THE UNITED 
STATES. 
It would be an interesting task, and 
one which would undoubtedly bring to 
light many curious and noteworthy 
facts regarding the progress and de- 
velopment of medical and pharmaceu- 
tical practice in this country, if some 
competent person, having the necessary 
experience, leisure and attachment to 
the subject, were to examine the older 
literature relating to this country, and 
search through the public archives, offi- 
cial and private records and corre- 
spondence as far as accessible, as well 
as the files of newspapers and profes- 
sional periodicals, to extract therefrom 
materials for a history of American 
pharmacy. It is true that, on the whole, 
the value of such an account, particu- 
larly for the period antedating this 
century, would be purely historical. 
Yet, the pharmaceutical art, crude as it 
was in those days, forms a link in the 
chain of human occupations in which 
the gradual progress of knowledge, 
based upon experimentation and a close 
observance of nature, can be distinctly 
traced. Indeed, it may be asserted, 
without fear of contradiction, that the 
training of a pharmacist, in the days 
when modern chemistry may be said to 
have been born-in the time of Priest- 
ley, Lavoisier, etc.-more than anything 
else, facilitated a deeper penetration 
into the secrets of nature. It is to be 
hoped that the researches spoken of 
above will some time be made, but the 
Bancroft of American pharmacy has 
not yet been born; or, if born, has not 
yet revealed himself. 
Since the time when New York be- 
came an English colony (1664), English 
methods of administration and English 
customs became more and more preva- 
lent. Concerning the practice of medi- 
cine and pharmacy it may be said that 
it differed from that of the mother 
country only in being more lax and un- 
restricted, and standing on a somewhat 
lower level, at least in the earlier times, 
when the two professions were usually 
combined in one and the same person. 
This condition of affairs prevailed up 2 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
ever, suffered from the drawback that 
they were not uniform; moreover, the 
several examiners did not agree in their 
views regarding the standards to be 
followed as a basis. As the New York 
drug market, where the imports were 
largest, suffered considerably from the 
uncertainty of the public analysts' re- 
sults, the College of Pharmacy of the 
City of New York issued a call, in 1851, 
addressed- to other colleges of phar- 
macy, requesting them to appoint, each, 
three delegates, to meet in convention 
in New York city, for the purpose of 
securing uniformity in the standards 
used by the several examiners of drugs 
and medicines at the different ports of 
entry. At this convention delegates 
were present from the colleges of New 
York, Boston and Philadelphia. The 
delegates from the Maryland and 
Cincinnati colleges sent communi- 
cations approving the object, but did 
not attend. At this meeting, the Im- 
portance and value of concerted action 
on matters concerning the profession 
were so vividly illustrated that the 
members present decided to issue a call 
to all incorporated and unincorporated 
pharmaceutical schools and societies, as 
well as to individual pharmacists, to 
meet in convention at Philadelphia on 
Oct. 6, 1852, for the purpose of organiz- 
ing a national association. At the ap- 
pointed time this convention met and 
organized as the American Pharmaceu- 
tical Association, the creation of which 
marks a distinct epoch in American 
Pharmacy, as it proved to be a power- 
ful lever in promoting the advancement 
and the raising the standard of the pro- 
fession in all directions. 
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION. 
At the very outset the association 
took steps to collect, from all parts of 
the country in which it had secured 
active members, statistics showing the 
number of pharmacists, the condition 
of the practice of medicine and phar- 
macy, the degree of professional educa- 
tion prevailing among the members of 
the profession, the standards and au- 
thorities followed, etc. Responses were 
submitted to the next convention. Some 
of these showed a lamentable state of 
affairs as existing in those days. Noth- 
ing better illustrates the great advance 
made since then than the following 
passages taken from the "Report of 
the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, 
in answer to the request of the Nation- 
al Pharmaceutical Convention of 1852, 
regarding the pharmaceutical statistics 
of Pennsylvania" (signed by Edward 
Parrish, William Procter, Jr., and Am- 
brose Smith): "There is a great lack of 
pharmaceutical knowledge and skill 
throughout the State of Pennsylvania. 
Even in the cities and large towns there 
is a large proportion of unqualified 
apothecaries, but in the remote coun- 
ties the ignorance to be found among 
those who deal in medicines is almost 
incredible. One of our correspondents 
reports that some of the drug dealers 
'do not know the difference between 
morphia and strychnia,' and another 
that 'nineteen in twenty of those who 
deal in medicines never so much as 
heard of the Pharmacopoeia.' Although 
we believe these remarks apply to gen- 
eral dealers rather than to druggists 
and apothecaries, yet we find in the 
practice of the latter, as reported, evi- 
dence of great deficiencies. About one- 
third of those heard from do not use 
official weights. The Dispensatory ap- 
pears to be generally employed as a 
guide in practice. * * * One reason 
of the low state of pharmacy may be 
found in the abundant prevalence of 
quackery and irregular practice among 
physicians. Our information from vari- 
ous sources leads us to the conclusion 
that this evil is declining since the ex- 
tension of county medical societies. In 
Pittsburg and Allegheny counties 'ec- 
lecticism, homoeopathy, hydropathy, 
etc., are on the decline.' In Lehigh 
County, where the 'infinitesimal system' 
was introduced twenty years ago, and 
in Northampton County, it has greatly 
fallen into discredit; and the same is 
becoming true of Armstrong, Blair, In- 
diana and Berks counties, while in a 
few localities it is still rampant. In 
Clarion County there are twenty quack 
doctors to five graduates, and one reg- 
ular druggist in a population of 25,921 
persons," etc. Regarding the city of 
Philadelphia the report, as might be ex- 
pected, was more favorable. Reports 
from other sections of the country re- 
vealed in most cases similar conditions. 
It required a more than usual moral 
courage thus to lay bare the sores from 
which the profession was suffering. 
But this very courage, and the unre- 
servedness with which the existence of 
the evils was pointed out, more than 
anything else, aided in bringing about 
a change. From year to year a dis- 
tinct improvement could be recognized, 
and a new generation has now grown 
up, which stands on a far higher level 
than that which preceded it. 
As a natural consequence of the im- 
petus thus given to the profession 
schools of pharmacy increased in num- 
ber, and most of them could show an 
increased attendance from year to year. 
The attention of the association was, 
among other things, also directed 
toward an improvement in the method 
of apprenticeship, or the character of 
apprentices admitted to the profession. 
This subject has often been under dis- 
cussion, and the necessity of requiring 
a higher standard of preliminary edu- 
cation is not only universally recog- 
nized, but also practically indorsed by 
many members. When it became clear 
that no legal measures could be secured 
to raise the standard of education of 
apprentices, the colleges of pharmacy 
came to the aid of the profession, some 
of them at first to their own financial 
disadvantage, by requiring applicants 
to subject themselves to a preliminary 
examination. This has been the means 
of keeping out, or weeding out, from 
the profession many a person who 
would have been no honor to it. Still, 
the colleges of pharmacy do not com- 
prise among their students more than 
a. moderate fraction of the beginners 
in pharmacy, and without further help 
the effects of their aid would not have 
been materially felt for many years. 
Fortunately, however, there arose cir- 
cumstances which induced the Legisla- 
tures of many of the States to enact 
laws making the exercise of the profes- 
sion of pharmacy conditional upon the 
possession of a certain amount -f ex- 
perience or knowledge, and creating 
Boards for the licensing of those who 
were found deserving of it. 
BOARDS OF PHARMACY. 
The creation of Boards of Pharmacy 
must be regarded as the beginning of 
the third epoch in the history of Ameri- 
can Pharmacy. A few laws regarding 
the practice of pharmacy had been in 
existence previous to this period; thus 
one in Georgia since 1847, and some 
local laws in New York and Pennsyl- 
vania, but it was not until 1870 that 
the efforts to have more comprehensive 
laws enacted were successful. The first 
law establishing a Board of Pharmacy 
and regulating the sale of poisons, con- 
structed upon a basis appropriate to 
existing conditions, was enacted in 
Rhode Island in 1870. Since then most 
of the States of the Union have passed 
similar laws, some of them more than 
one, each for distinct sections of a State- 
It would lead too far here to state 
their points of agreement or difference, 
or to go into other details. Most of 
these laws made some concessions to 
persons who were already established 
in regular business at the time when 
the respective acts went into effect, by 
granting licenses without examination. 
Others, again, made no exceptions. One 
of the notable consequences of this 
legislation has been this: that the study 
of pharmacy in its various branches is 
now pursued at home by hundreds of 
young men, who are unable to attend 
colleges of pharmacy, and who yet wish 
to obtain the knowledge requisite to 
pass the examination of the Boards of 
Pharmacy. It is probable that, in 
many cases, the passing of such an ex- 
amination is the chief object, rather 
than the acquisition of a thorough 
knowledge. But even this is better 
than the total neglect of all chances of 
improvement which is likely to happen 
in the case of many young men who do 
not have a goal to gain under some dif- 
ficulties. 
Among the factors which have very 
materially contributed to the progress 
of pharmacy in modern times must be 
named, first, the Pharmacopoeia, as re- 
vised under the instructions of the 
Decennial Conventions of 1880 and 
1890; second, the National Formulary, 
and third, the Pharmaceutical Press. 
Concerning the former two the reader 
is referred to the next following, article. 
As to the pharmaceutical press, its serv- 
ice to the profession cannot be over- 
estimated. It has disseminated knowl- 
edge and information everywhere, has 
brought about many reforms by timely 
criticism, has helped to ameliorate un- 
favorable conditions by suggesting rem- 
edies, and has brought the members of 
the profession closer together. For this 
reason it deserves the generous support 
of every one who is, even remotely, 
affiliated with pharmacy. 
With the improvement in pharma- 
ceutical education, and the gradual ad- 
vent of a new generation of better 
equipped men in all branches of the 
profession new conditions have arisen 
which, in their turn, will again make 
higher demands upon the members. 
More stringent laws have been passed 
concerning the adulteration and sophis- 
tication of food and drugs. Since the 
pharmacopoeia now establishes distinct THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
3 
standards of strength and purity, and 
since it is expected, that the pharma- 
cist of the present day possess the 
knowledge requisite to verify or apply 
these standards, the laws have put a 
greater responsibility on him. It is to 
his own interest to act in harmony with 
these laws, not only by obeying them 
strictly himself, but also by seeing 
them enforced by others, as well as by 
contributing to their improvement. 
It is not to be denied that the condi- 
tions surrounding the exercise of the 
profession of pharmacy at the present 
time are not as favorable as they have 
been in the past. Excessive and unre- 
stricted competition, unfair business 
methods, dullness of trade, and other 
causes have seriously interfered with 
the prosperity of the pharmacist. Nev- 
ertheless, if he will keep abreast of the 
progress of his own profession, and, as 
far as possible, also of that of materia 
medica and therapeutics, and if he, 
moreover, keep in harmonious contact 
with the medical profession, he will 
continue to fill his place with benefit 
to himself, and to the approval of the 
community at large. 
II. PHARMACOPEIAS. 
A Pharmacopoeia (Greek : ipap/iaicoTroiia 
Latin: pharmacopoeia or pharmaco- 
poea; German: Pharmakopoe; French: 
pharmacopge; Italian and Spanish: far- 
niacopea, etc.), in the modern sense of 
the word, is a work published by some 
recognized authority for the purpose of 
securing uniformity in the kind, qual- 
ity, composition and strength of the 
remedies used in the treatment of the 
sick. It may either be of a local char- 
acter or apply to a whole country, or 
to some special service, department, 
or political division of a country. The 
term has also frequently been applied 
to works published by individuals or 
bodies without the official indorsement 
of some governmental or professional 
authority. The Greek word tpappaKoiroiia 
is derived from ^>dppaKov (remedy, charm, 
etc.) and troteiv (to make). It was 
used by Greek writers (for instance, 
by Diogenes Laertius (third century 
A. D.), "De Vitis Philosophorum,'' 
VII., 64, 117) in the sense of "prepara- 
tion of medicines." As the title of a 
took treating of tb s subject, it is prob- 
ably not older than the beginning of 
the sixteenth century. Previous to this 
period, as well as for some time sub- 
sequently, certain other terms, such as 
Antidotarium, Formularium, Dispen- 
satorium, etc., were used in place of it. 
ANCIENT AND MEDIAEVAL PRECURSORS OF 
THE MODERN PHARMACOPEIAS. 
While the ancient nations did not pos- 
sess any works exactly corresponding 
to our modern pharmacopoeias, yet the 
gradually accumulating mass of facts 
relating to the collection, preparation 
and use of drugs and medicines re- 
sulted in the production of numerous 
works treating at least incidentally of 
these subjects. Many of these works 
are known to us only by title or through 
statements of other writers. Of those 
which have come down to us we shall, 
in the following account, mention only 
the more important ones, particularly 
those which have exerted some influ- 
ence upon the practice of medicine and 
the art of pharmacy in modern times. 
ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA.-Al- 
though a very large number of the an- 
cient literary documents of these coun- 
tries have so far been discovered and 
become accessible, yet there is no evi- 
dence that the medical art, in those re- 
mote times, had advanced beyond the 
stage of superstition, the use of charms 
and incantations and a crude knowl- 
edge of some simple domestic remedies 
There is no doubt that Egypt, and sub- 
sequently Greece, were the countries 
from which the progress of medical 
knowledge gradually spread to others. 
EGYPT has furnished us the oldest 
existing documents containing formulas 
and directions for the preparation of 
medicines. The oldest known is the 
Papyrus Ebers (discovered by Prof. 
Ebers in 1872), dating from the year 
1552 B. C. (see Medical Record, XI. 
(1876), 247-251). This remarkable work, 
written on papyrus in hieratic charac- 
ters, shows that the knowledge of medi- 
cine, surgery and materia medica had 
attained, already at that early period, 
a condition of development which could 
have been brought about only by the 
records of experiments carried on 
through many previous centuries. Much 
stress was laid on the proper diagnos- 
ing of certain diseases from symptoms, 
but the knowledge of anatomy and 
physiology possessed by the physicians 
of that period was too crude to throw 
the proper light on the real nature of 
the diseases. The Papyrus Ebers con- 
tains a large number of formulas of 
compounds, often in form of regular 
galenical recipes, with signs and terms 
expressing definite weights and meas- 
ures, precisely as is customary at the 
present day. Among the medicinal, or 
rather sanitary, agents employed by the 
ancient Egyptians, fumigations occu- 
pied so important a place that special 
sections are devoted to them in the 
medical papyri. The Egyptian texts 
use the word "kipu" or "kipi" to des- 
ignate "fumigation" or "to fumigate." 
This word is given as Kwpt by Plu- 
tarch ("Isis et Osiris," 81), but he mis- 
took it for a medicine to be taken in- 
ternally. According to the Papyrus 
Ebers, the "kipi" was composed of nu- 
merous ingredients, which, when 
burned, diffused an agreeable odor, sup- 
posed to ward off disease or contagion, 
and when chewed, perfumed the breath. 
A translation of the Papyrus Ebers was 
attempted bv H. Joachim ("Papyros 
Ebers: Das alteste Buch fiber Heilkun- 
de." Berlin, 1890). On the weights 
and measures mentioned in the work, 
and also on diseases of the eye, see 
Ebers, "Die Maasse und das Kanitel 
fiber die Augenkrankheiten." Leipzig, 
1889. Compare also Brugsch, H., "Die 
Aegyptologie." Leipzig, 1889. 
Of equally great interest, though a 
few centuries younger, is the medical 
papyrus of Berlin (published by H. 
Brugsch in "Recueil de Monuments 
egyptiens," I., 85-107), which was writ- 
ten about 1350 B. C. This also con- 
tains a great number of formulas with 
exact statements as to ingredients, 
weights and measures, all, however, in 
a condensed, laconic form, showing that 
it was written for persons accustomed 
to an old-established system. These 
formulas comprise internal and ex- 
ternal remedies, among which are em- 
brocations, cataplasms, salves, plasters, 
enemata, potions, decoctions, etc. The 
remedies themselves, in both of the be- 
fore-mentioned papyri, are derived from 
the three kingdoms of nature, consist- 
ing of human and other milk, human 
urine, the faeces, bile, blood, etc., of 
various animals; honey, wine, vinegar, 
certain gums and resins, various min- 
erals, etc. 
In addition to these and some other 
written documents there also existed 
formularies sculptured in stone. Such 
a formulary or pharmacopoeia was dis- 
covered by Prof. Dfimichen upon the 
walls of a regular pharmaceutical lab- 
oratory, built during the Graeco-Ro- 
man period, in the temple of Edfu (see 
"Zeitschrift f. agypt. Sprache," etc., 
1865, p. 59; 1879, p. 97). 
INDIA.-The oldest literature of the 
Hindus, which was reduced to writing 
at a much later period than that of 
Egypt, being originally transmitted by 
oral tradition only, might be supposed 
to contain at least fragments of a sci- 
ence of medicine or pharmacy existing 
in ancient times. An examination of 
the Vedic texts, however, and of their 
corresponding sacrificial or exegetical 
derivatives, the Brahmanas and Sutras 
reveals only a very meagre and crude 
knowledge, disease being usually 
ascribed to supernatural causes and its 
cure to the efficacy of charms and in- 
cantations. Yet there is no lack of 
Hindu medical works which have come 
down to us. At one time these were be- 
lieved to be very ancient, but this has 
long been shown to be a mistake. The 
most celebrated works of this kind are 
those which are ascribed to Sugruta 
and to Charaka, of neither of whom do 
we possess any historical data. Con- 
cerning Sugruta we know that his work 
must have been known to Sanfiq, the 
author of the "Book of Poisons" (Zeit- 
schrift d. Deutsch. Morg6nland. Ges., 
Vol. 34, p. 465, etc.), who wrote in the 
beginning of the tenth century. He is 
also quoted by Rhazes (ar-RS.zi), who 
died 932 A. D. (ibid., 545). Hence he 
could not have flourished later than 
the ninth century. Of Charaka we 
know that his work was translated 
from the Persian into Arabic by Man- 
kah, a Hindoo physician at the court 
of Hardn ar-Rashid (who reigned 786- 
809 A. D.). He was also known to 
Rhazes, and is quoted by Serapion and 
Albirfini (eleventh century). We have 
reason to know that the Sanskrit texts 
of these authors, such as we now pos- 
sess them, are not the original works, 
but that they are largely diluted with 
additional and often trivial matters. It 
is highly probable, though not yet con- 
clusively proven, that much of the 
medical knowledge of the Hindus came 
to them from the West, probably from 
Greece. Haas even suggested that the 
name Sugruta was originally nothing 
else but that of the Greek Hippocrates 
(Zeitsch. d. D. Morg. Ges., Vol. 30, 617; 4 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
Vol. 31, 647). Both Sugruta's and Cha- 
raka's works have been repeatedly pub- 
lished (Sugruta: Calcutta, 1835-36; 1873. 
Charaka: Calcutta, 1868 (part); 1877 
(whole); Bombay, 1877 (part), and 
more or less completely translated: Su- 
gruta, by Hessler (Erlangen, 1844-50; 
unreliable); A. M. Kunte (Bombay, 
1877, etc,, in part); U. Ch. Dutt (Cal- 
cutta, 1883; in part). Charaka, by A. 
Chandra Kaviratna, Calcutta, 1890. 
etc.; nine parts have appeared so far. 
comprising about one-sixth of the 
work). These works contain numerous 
formulas and directions for preparing 
medicines, but many of them are inane 
and irrational or are obscured by the 
presence of ingredients (plants, miner- 
als, etc.), which cannot be identified 
with certainty. Among later medical 
works, also containing many formulas 
and remedies, the most important are 
the Ashtfingahridaya by Vfigbhata, and 
the Bhfivaprakfiga by Bhfiva (the latter 
the main source of Wise's "Comment- 
ary on the Hindu System of Medicine" 
(London, 1860), both of which', are only 
a few centuries old. Regular treatises 
on pharmacy are not numerous. The 
following deserve mention: The Prayo- 
gfimrita ("Nectar of Remedies"), by 
Vaidyachint&man : the Dhatnratnama- 
19. ("Pearlstring of Minerals"), by De- 
vadatta- the Rasarftjalakshmf ("Virtue 
of Mercury"), by Ramegvara, and the 
Rasendrachintftmani ("Jewel of Mer- 
cury"), by Rfimachandra. Treatises 
on materia medica, or glossaries of 
simples are more common. The most 
extensive of these is the Nighanturaja, 
by Narahari of Cashmeer, being a dic- 
tionary of the products of nature, etc., 
with synonyms, so far only existing in 
manuscript. Another smaller, but use- 
ful, work is the Madanavinoda of Ma- 
danapMa, composed about 1300 A. D. 
(published at Calcutta, 1875). 
GREECE AND GREEK COLONIES. 
The first prominent historical per- 
sonage appearing upon the stage of 
Greek medicine, the influence of whose 
teachings is, in some directions, felt 
even at the present day, was Hippo- 
crates (about 467-377 B. C.). We know 
of many men before his time who had 
acquired more or less fame as physi- 
cians, and, indeed, the advanced knowl- 
edge of Hippocrates presupposes a 
course of development of the medical 
art extending through centuries before 
him, though possibly not in Greece. 
But with him a new era was inaugu- 
rated. The works composed by, or at- 
tributed to him, contain numerous di- 
rections for the preparation of certain 
medicines, but there is hone exclusively 
devoted to this subject. As we now 
possess his works they came to us 
through the hands of his successors, 
who put them together and edited them 
long after his death, and finally they 
were revised by the official diaskeuasts 
at the Alexandrian library. There is 
no evidence that the pharmaceutical 
art was in a forward state of develop- 
ment at that time in Greece. The 
"pharmakopolae" of those times sold 
their wares on the public market, deal- 
ing in all kinds of simples, charms, 
amulets, cosmetics, aphrodisiacs, anti- 
dotes, burning glasses (for lighting 
fires), etc. There was alsoa class of nhar- 
makoi or pharmakides (pappaKoi-^appaKidec; 
medical charlatans who pretended 
to be able to cure by means of 
simples or by sympathy. It was 
only after the teachings of Hip- 
pocrates and of his school became dis- 
seminated through the Greek-speaking 
countries that more attention was paid 
to materia medica and the art of pre- 
paring medicines. The study of plants, 
even aside from their utility in medi- 
cine, made also considerable progress 
at about that period, as is amply 
shown by the works of Theophrastus 
of Eresus (392 or 372-285 B. C.). 
Among Hippocrates' successors the fol- 
lowing may be mentioned: Diodes of 
Karystus (about 350 B. C.), who wrote 
a work on "root gathering" 'piC,orop.t.K.6v 
and one on poisons (it epi davaalvv (f>ap- 
paKuvY, Demetrius of Apamea (about 
250 B. C.), who wrote "The Drug 
Seller" (<j>appaK07TG)lric) ; Andreas of Ka- 
rystus (about 225 B. C.), who wrote 
"The Medicine Chest" (vap-dp^ •, Ni- 
kander of Klaros (about 200-130), who 
wrote on antidotes to poison (aAef Kbappana) 
and on dangerous animals and remedies 
against them (dypiana), from which the 
name of the latter "Theriak" is de- 
rived). A similar work was written 
by Mithridates of Pontus (124-64 B. C.), 
who originated the complex con- 
fection known under the name of 
Mithridatium, which formed the basis 
of the theriac of Andromachus. The 
latter, born in Creta, was Nero's court 
physician and wrote, about 60 A. D., a 
poem on the preparation and virtues 
of theriac. This compound played an 
important role for many centuries sub- 
sequently, and even at the present day 
still haunts more than one pharmaco- 
peia in a more or less modified form. 
At about the same time (65 A. D.) Ser- 
vilius Damocrates (or Democrates) com- 
posed various poems on certain reme- 
dies, among them also one on theriac. 
This compound, when prepared accord- 
ing to his directions, was subsequently 
known as "Confectio Damocratis." 
Of paramount importance for the de- 
velopment and more rational study of 
materia medica was Pedanius Diosco- 
rides of Anazarba, near Tarsus, in 
Cilicia, whose work vTmcl ("Materials," 
written about 78 A. D.), in five books, 
is a most valuable ' cyclopedia of 
simples and became the chief source 
of knowledge and reference for phar- 
macological writers down to the fif- 
teenth or sixteenth century. (Best edi- 
tion by C. Sprengel, 2 vols., Leipzig, 
1829-30. An elaborate commentary on 
the work was composed by Matthiolus, 
which was first published, in Latin, in 
Venice, 1554, and was many times re- 
printed, and also translated). 
No author need now be mentioned 
until the time of Claudius Galenus of 
Pergamum, in Mysia (131-about 210 
A. D.). In the numerous writings, 
partly genuine and partly spurious, 
which bear this great physician's 
name, there occur many formulas 
which were handed down, some even 
to modem times, as standard recipes. 
Two of his works treat especially of 
the composition of medicines, one of 
them more particularly with reference 
to their place of application and effect 
irept tjvv&eoeuQ pap/iaKuv Kara tottov^ 
and the other with reference to their 
classes or composition (Kara yevri\ The 
last-named work, in seven books, is 
that which gives the formulas of a 
large number of compound medicines 
or "Galenicals." It is to be noted, 
however, that in his own methods of 
treatment he seems to have preferred 
the more simple remedies. On the ma- 
teria medica of Galen see Israelson, L., 
"Die Materia Medica des Klaudios Ga- 
lenos." Jurjew^or JDorpat), 1894. 
The adulteration and sophistication 
of medicines is probably nearly as old 
as their use itself. Several ancient au- 
thors expressly treat of this subject. 
Galen himself, in his youth, had been 
taught how to imitate or sophisticate 
certain valuable drugs. And in his 
riper years he undertook journeys to- 
Cyprus, Palestine and Lemnos in order 
to procure certain drugs in a genuine 
state. Special care is said to have been 
exercised to procure genuine drugs for 
the use of the Roman emperors and 
their families. Medicines from Syria,. 
Egypt, the Pontus, Cappadocia, Spain- 
and Africa were procured or collected 
under the supervision of the governors: 
of the several provinces. In Creta there 
were special imperial officials who 
packed the indigenous remedies, marked 
them with their name and place of 
growth and sent them to the imperial 
storehouse, as well as to the publie 
market in Rome. Galen laid much 
stress on the importance of personal 
familiarity, on the part of a physician, 
with the remedies he uses-and this is, 
if anything, even more important at 
the present day. In one of his works 
he expresses a regret that the disciples 
of the medical art had begun to use 
pictures of the plants used ip medicine 
instead of collecting them themselves, 
and thus becoming more familiar with 
them. Incidentally it may be men- 
tioned here that botanical illustrations- 
are found in much earlier times. Thus, 
Cratenas is reported to have composed 
a work on materia medica with col- 
ored illustrations, which he dedicated 
to Mithridates, king of Pontus (124-64 
B. C.). 
Of later writers the more important 
are: Aetius of Amida in Mesopotamia 
(sixth century), who gives numerous 
formulas for plasters, salves, etc.: 
Alexander of Tralles in Lydia (525-604 
A. D.), and Paulus of Aegina (seventh 
century), both of whom likewise give 
many formulas in their writings. Pass- 
ing now over several centuries, the 
dreariest portion in the history of lit- 
erature, we find no author worthy of 
mention, until the first half of the 
twelfth century, when Nicolaus Prae- 
positus of Salerno compiled an "Anti- 
dotarium," containing about 150 com- 
plex formulas. This acquired great 
fame and became, together with Me- 
sue's and some other minor works, the 
source of the formularies of later times. 
In some of the Italian states the two 
works were even ordered to be the of- 
ficial guide of the apothecaries. In the 
second half of the thirteenth century 
Nicolaus Myrepsus of Alexandria com- THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
5 
piled an encyclopedic "Antidotarium' 
^6vvapep6v), containing not less than 
2,656 formulas in forty-eight chapters 
This work was written in Greek, but 
only a Latin translation has been pub- 
lished (first edition, Basle, 1549). Yet 
this work, subsequently called "Anti- 
dotarium Magnum," to distinguish it 
from the shorter work of Nicolaus 
Praepositus, which was entitled "Anti- 
dotarium Parvum," never received 
much recognition. 
ROME.-The olaest Roman author 
from whom formulas for domestic rem- 
edies have come down to us is M. Por- 
cius Cato (234-149 B. C.), who inter- 
weaves them, here and there, in his 
treatise on agriculture. Medical works 
proper are not met with in Roman 
literature until much later, because 
the medical art was exercised in 
Rome exclusively by foreigners, and 
those who exercised it were, more- 
over, held in but little esteem. 
The same may be said of the 
dealers in simples and other medicines, 
who were of the lowest class. They 
bore a variety of names. As early as 
the time of Cato we read of rhizotomi 
<"root cutters"), unguentarii or myro- 
polae ("dealers in salves," "dealers in 
perfumed oils"), pharmacopolae ("medi- 
cine or charm sellers"), thuriarii ("in- 
cense sellers"), pharmacopoei ("medi- 
cine or charm makers"), and even pan- 
topolae or katholikoi ("dealers in all"). 
In Galen's time the pharmacopolae also 
practiced bandaging and hawked about 
their remedies, put up in various kinds 
of vessels bearing labels giving the 
name of the remedy and of the invent- 
or, as well as directions for use-just 
as is done in our days. The owners of 
stalls were called seplasiarii, after the 
name of a street in Capua where they 
first established themselves in perma- 
nent domiciles. The spice dealers 
(aromatarii) at that time formed a dis-, 
tinct class. Allied to them were the 
pigmentarii, who dealt in dyes (hence 
the name), perfumes, salves and wine, 
and who also embalmed the dead. 
While the practice of pharmacy in 
those days was yet in a crude and un- 
developed sta-te, more attention was 
paid to materia medica, as may be seen 
from the older authors (Theophrastus, 
etc.), and particularly from the great 
work on natural history by C. Plinius 
Secundus, the elder (23-79 A. D.). The 
first literary production specially re- 
lating to compound medicines and, in 
fact, constituting a formulary, is the 
work of Scribonius Largus (first cen- 
tury A. D.), "Compositiones," written 
in homely Latin, but of importance for 
the history of therapeutics of that 
period. This work contains, among 
other things, the first correct descrip- 
tion of the method of obtaining opium 
(XXII.: "Ex lacte ipso silvatici papa- 
veris capitum, non ex suco foliorum 
ejus, ut pigmentarii institores ejus rei 
compendii causa- faciunt"-from the 
very milksap itself of the heads of the 
wild poppy, not from the juice of its 
leaves, such as the spice and drug 
peddlers prepare it to save labor). Some 
valuable works of other authors, dat- 
ing from about this period and refer- 
ring to our subject, are lost. We might, 
however, mention Rufus of Ephesus 
(first century), whose treatise on ca- 
thartics was the source of various for- 
mulas subsequently held in great es- 
teem. When the ^practice of medicine 
had become more respected,, particu- 
larly under' the empire, writers on 
medical subjects in Rome preferred to 
use Greek, which accounts for the 
scarcity of medical works in Latin. 
MOHAMMEDAN CO U N T R I E S.- 
With the gradual decline of the Roman 
empire, culture and science tended 
towards Constantinople, but so far as 
medical science is concerned, no prog- 
ress was made, since it had practically 
become an axiom to follow the teach- 
ings of Hippocrates and Galen. The 
advent of the Arabs, however, infused 
new life into the torpid condition of 
medicine and other sciences. Under 
them the art of the apothecary first 
assumed a definite character, official 
regulations being established at Bag- 
dad, and in some other places, for the 
exercise of his profession. These regu- 
lations related to the quality as well 
as the prices of medicines, and pre- 
scribed which of the remedies men- 
tioned in the formularies of that period 
were to be kept on hand by the apothe- 
caries (who were then first called zan- 
dalSni, or "sandalwood dealers") for in- 
stant use. These features were subse- 
quently copied by western nations. 
At the end of the ninth century Sha- 
bfir ben Sahl wrote a sort of dispen- 
satory under the title "Ibdal" ("ex- 
change," "quid pro quo"), also called 
"Agrabadin" supposed to be derived 
from the Greek word aK.pt/3eia, "thor- 
oughness," often corrupted to "Kra- 
badin" or "Grabaddin," and about 
the middle of the twelfth century Abfi'l 
Hassan Hibet-Allah ibn Talmid com- 
posed a similar work, which was much 
used by Arabic apothecaries. The most 
important work, however, is that com- 
posed by the younger Mesue (accord- 
ing to Leo Africanus, Maswiyah el- 
Mfirdini, that is, of Maridin, on the 
Euphrates, reported to have died in 
1015 A. D. Others doubt whether he 
ever really existed and believe that 
some Latin-writing physician of the 
eleventh or twelfth century assumed 
the name; see Choulant, "Handbuch 
d. Biicherkunde f. d. iiltere Medioin," 
Leipzig, 1841, 351), which is preserved 
to us only in Latin, together with two 
other small works of the same author. 
Mesue's "Antidotarium, seu Grabaddin 
Medicaminum Compositorum," in con- 
junction with the "Antidotarium Par- 
vum" of Nicolaus Praepositus, remained 
for a long time the chief canon of 
pharmacy. It contains a large num- 
ber of formulas arranged in twelve 
chapters, each treating of a different 
form or class of remedies (first edition, 
Venice, 1471; and nine more Latin edi- 
tions, as well as four Italian transla- 
tions before the year 1500; many edi- 
tions subsequently). 
The writings of Avicenna (Abfi 'Ali 
el-Hosein Ben Abdallah ibn Sina, 978- 
1036 A. D.), the most celebrated of all 
Arabic physicians, particularly the sec- 
ond book ("fen") of his "Kanta," also 
contain many formulas which were in- 
corporated in subsequent collections. 
Other writers whose works furnished 
more or less contributions in this di- 
rection were Ibn Wafid el-Lachmi 
(about 1050 A. D.), called Albenguefid 
in mediaeval literature, whose work on 
simples has been published only in 
Latin translation. Serapion the 
younger (supposed to be the pseudo- 
nym of a non-Mohammedan author, 
perhaps of the twelfth century), wrote 
a similar work, which was much more 
esteemed and made use of than those 
of the two preceding. 
The most important Arabic writer on 
materia medica is Ibn Baitar (about 
1197-1248). His work on simples and 
foods, based on the works of Greek, 
Arabian, Persian and Syrian writers 
and on his own observations, is a per- 
fect storehouse of information and has 
exerted much influence upon the de- 
velopment of therapeutics and phar- 
macy among his countrymen. The 
Arabic text was published at Cairo in 
1874. Best translation, with commen- 
tary, by L. Leclerc, in Vols. 23, 25 and 
26 of "Notices et Extraits des Manu- 
scrits de la Bibliothgque Nationale" 
(4to, Paris, 1877-83). 
In connection with the Arabic writ- 
ers may be mentioned the only Persian 
author of a work on materia medica, 
based upon Greek, Arabic and Indian 
sources, namely, Abu Mansur Mowafiaq 
ben Alt al-Hirawi (often simply quoted 
as Alherwi), who lived in the ninth cen- 
tury. His work was published in Per- 
sian by Seligmann (8vo, Vienna, 1859). 
A German translation by Abdul-Chalig 
Achundow appeared in Vol. III. (1893) 
of "Historische Studien aus d. phar- 
makolog, Institut, Dorpat" (also sep- 
arately, 8vo, Halle, 1893). 
MEDIAEVAL EUROPE.-Although 
apothecaries established themselves as 
early as the thirteenth century in va- 
rious cities of Germany and France, 
yet it was customary, until about the 
beginning of the fifteenth century, for 
the countries situated to the north of 
the Alps to procure most of the com- 
plex preparations from Italy, where the 
pharmaceutical art was in a much 
more flourishing condition. The chief 
reason for this was, no doubt, the diffi- 
culty of procuring and transporting the 
numerous, often bulky and sometimes 
rare and costly, crude materials. When, 
however, the printing press rapidly 
multiplied copies of the most renowned 
formularies, particularly of those of 
Mesue and Nicolaus Praepositus, and 
traffic across the Alps became more 
regular and easy, the importation of 
ready-made preparations from Italy 
gradually diminished, to the material 
advantage of the development of the 
pharmaceutical art in the countries 
north of the Alps. Among the works 
printed at the end of the fifteenth and 
the beginning of the sixteenth century 
which served as formularies or phar- 
macopoeias, besides the Antidotaria 
of Mesue and Nicolaus Praepositus, 
were the following: "Compendium Aro- 
matorium," by Sala.dinus Asculanua 
(first edition, Bologna, 1488), in which 
much atteniiOE Wf! paid to the de« 6 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
scription of crude drugs and their pres- 
ervation; "Luminare Majus," by Jo- 
hannes Jacobus de Manliis de Boscho 
(first dated edition, Venice, 1490), a 
highly esteemed dispensatory. A coun- 
terpart of this is the "Luminare Minus" 
of Quiricus de Augustis de Torthona 
(first edition, Venice, 1497). The "An- 
tidotarium Florentinum" (Ricettario 
Fiorentino), of which the first edition 
appeared in 1498, is the first formulary 
or pharmacopoea issued by some pub- 
lic authority, in this case by the Sen- 
ate of the University of Florence. 
which had been prepared, under 
orders from the government, by 
Stoerck, Jacquin and Well. This 
work was several times revised, and 
also translated into German as 
well as Dutch, 4he Netherlands 
at that time forming a part of the Aus- 
trian empire. After the loss of the 
Dutch provinces a new departure was 
made, and the first pharmacopoeia for 
Austria proper appeared in 1812 under 
the title "Pharmacopoea Austriaca." 
The subsequent editions (revisions) ap- 
peared in 1814 (II.), 1820 (HI.), 1834 
(IV., this, being full of misprints, was 
reprinted in 1836), 1855 (V.), 1869 (VI.), 
1889 (VII.). The last-named edition 
went into legal effect on Jan. 1, 1890. 
It is in Latin and contains 578 articles, 
forty-three more than the preceding. 
A very good commentary on this 
work was published by Schneider and 
Vogl (the pharmaceutical part by A. 
Kremel), in 1889-90. 
A Hungarian Pharm. was first pub- 
lished at Budapest, in 1871, under the 
title "Magyar Gyogyszerkonyv; Phar- 
macopoea Hungarica," in Latin and 
Hungarian on opposite sides. A sup- 
plement to this appeared in 1883, in 
which, among other things, a series 
of antiseptic dressings were, for the 
first time, made official. A second edi- 
tion of the pharmacopoeia appeared in 
1888. This is very similar to the first. 
It contains 516 articles. A new edition 
is in course of preparation. 
The first Croatian Pharmacopoea ap- 
peared in 1888 under the title "Hrvats- 
ko-Slavonska Farmacopoea; Pharma- 
copoea Croatico-Slavonica" (Zagreb 
(= Agram), 1888). It contains 518 ar- 
ticles and is practically, a duplicate of 
the Hungarian (II.), having the Sla- 
vonic and Latin texts on opposite sides 
BELGIUM.-Previous to the year 
1815 the countries now known as Bel- 
gium, the Netherlands (or Holland) and 
some adjacent territories were subjecl 
to many political changes. Hence, al- 
though there was a "Pharmacopoea 
Belgica" published as early as 1659. 
this cannot be considered as a legiti- 
mate precursor of the modern work? 
under this title. Various cities of the 
present kingdom of Belgium published 
pharmacopoeias of their own, thus 
Antwerp ("Pharmacia Antverpensis,' 
1662; 1665; 1812);- Brussels ("Pharma- 
copoea Bruxellensis," 1641, -|-); Ghent 
("Antidotarium Gandavense," 1652, -|-). 
Liege ("Ph. Leodiensis," 1741). In 1774 
the "Ph. Austriaco-Provincialis" wa« 
prescribed for use by the Austrian Gov- 
ernment, but this was superseded ir 
1805 by the "Pharmacopoea Batava' 
(see under Netherlands). The first na 
tional pharmacopoeia proper was pub- 
lished in 1823. In 1854 appeared a nev 
edition under the title "Ph. Belgica 
Nova," and the last edition, which ir 
officially designated as the "second, 
appeared in 1885. It contains 596 ai 
tides. The text is published in Lath 
and in French, in separate editions 
though the former is declared to be the 
official version. The titles are ar 
ranged alphabetically, and in nomen 
clature and general treatment of« th- 
subjects the work much resembles th- 
French Codex. It has, however, avoid 
ed the numerous errors or blunders 
with which the latter is contaminated 
BOLIVIA has no Pharm. of its own. 
The French and Spanish Ph. are mostly 
in use. 
BRAZIL is* still without a Pharm.. 
though several attempts have been 
made to prepare one. Laws have, how- 
ever, been made from time to time 
which prescribe what medicines are to- 
be kept by pharmacists. Aside from 
the Spanish, Portuguese and French 
Pharm. and Dorvault's "L'Offlcine'" 
(though this is becoming antiquated). 
Chernoviz's "Formulario, ou Guia Me- 
dica," and Langgaard's "Novo For- 
mulario Medico e Pharmaceutico" (Rio 
de Janeiro) are in general use. 
BRITISH EMPIRE.-Up to the year 
1864 England, Scotland and Ireland 
possessed each its own Pharm. That 
for England was first published in 1618 
by the Royal College of Physicians of 
London under the title "Pharm. Lon- 
dinensis" (from the third edition under 
the title "Pharm. Collegii Regii Medi- 
corum Londinensis"). It was several) 
times reprinted with slight alterations, 
until 1650, when a revised edition was 
published. The succeeding revisions 
appeared in 1677 (III.); 1721 (IV.; in 
this edition vegetable drugs were for 
the first time defined as to origin); 
1746 (V.; this edition shows a great 
advance over its predecessor; many of 
the old, complicated formulas were sim- 
plified and much useless material was 
eliminated); 1788 (VI.); 1809 (VII.; 
owing to the numerous mistakes con- 
tained in this, and the faulty nomen- 
clature, both of which were severely 
criticised by Richard Phillips in the 
London Medical Review of 1810, a re- 
vised edition was issued in 1815); 1824 
(VIII.); 1836 (IX.), and 1851 (X.). The 
edition of 1836 was partly prepared and 
officially translated by Richard Phil- 
lips. That of 1851 was wholly prepared 
by him. All the official editions were 
in Latin. The text of the London 
Pharm. was incorporated, mostly in 
translation, into many other works, 
such as commentaries or dispensatories, 
either written for it alone or for all 
the British Pharmacopoeias together. 
Of the works of the latter class the 
most useful, which is even at the pres- 
ent day a valuable work of reference, 
was "Gray's Supplement to the Phar- 
macopoeia," by Theophilus Redwood 
(third and last edition, London, 1857). 
The London Pharm. was translated 
Into several foreign languages, even 
into Hindustani (Calcutta, 1824; litho- 
graphed; this seems to be very rare; 
the writer has never heard of another 
copy besides his own). 
The first pharm. for Scotland was 
published by the Royal College of Phy- 
sicians of Edinburgh in 1699 under the 
title "Pharmacopoeia Collegii Regii 
Medicorum Edinburgensis." Fourteen 
editions, partly reprints, of this work 
h ppeared subsequently, the last edition 
(in English) being published in 1841. 
The first pharm. for Ireland appeared 
In Dublin in 1806 under the title 
"Pharm. Collegii Medicorum Regis et 
Reginae in Hibernia." This was pre- 
ceded by two pamphlets containing 
specimens of the text proposed to be 
issued, which appeared in 1794 and 
III. HISTORY OF PHARMACOPEIAS. 
An exhaustive historical and biblio- 
graphical account of all the pharma- 
copoeias ever published would occupy 
many pages, but much of it would be 
of no practical benefit at the present 
day. In the following an attempt is 
made to put on record as much detail 
regarding the pharmacopoeias of the 
different countries as is believed to be 
of a more permanent historical or bibli- 
ographical value. The list comprises all 
the important countries of the world, 
even those which possess no pharma- 
copoeia of their own. In the case of 
the latter, wherever it was possible, the 
work or works generally recognized as 
standards are indicated. 
In many European countries special 
military pharmacopoeias have, from 
time to time, been issued. These are 
mentioned only casually. Among the 
earlier pharmacopoeias there are many 
which were more of a local character, 
being issued for use in certain cities or 
small territories. These could not be 
excluded, as most of these localities 
were autonomous in medical and phar- 
maceutical matters at the time. Many 
of the pharmacopeias below mentioned 
were reprinted, sometimes repeatedly, 
between two revisions, and in many 
cases with the year of reissue on the 
title page. No attention has been paid 
to these, as a rule. To save space the 
word "pharmacopoeia" has, in many 
places, been abbreviated to "Ph." or 
"Pharm.," and the sign -|- is added 
after certain dates to indicate that 
further editions or reprints appeared 
subsequently. 
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.-Several 
attempts have been made to prepare 
a national pharmacopoeia, the last 
commission being appointed in 1892, 
but up to the present time no progress 
has been made. The "Farmacopea del 
Pais" is mentioned in certain laws, but 
it is a mere fiction. Of foreign phar- 
macopoeias, the French and Spanish 
are most in use. 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.-In 1729 the 
Vienna Pharmaceutical Society pub- 
lished a pharmacopoeia under the title 
"Dispensatorium Pharmaceuticum Aus- 
triaco-Viennense," which was repeated- 
ly reprinted and revised. In 1739 ap- 
peared the "Dispensatorium Medico- 
Pharmaceuticum Pragense, and a 
revised edition of this was is- 
sued in 1749 under the title "Dispen- 
satorium Pharmaceuticum Pragense 
Renovatum," which was made official 
until 1774, when the "Pharmacopoea 
Austriaco-Provincialis" was issued, THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
7 
1805. The Dublin pharm. was revised 
in 1826 and in 1850, the last-named 
being issued in English. 
The disadvantage of having three 
different pharmacopoeias legalized in 
closely connected countries possessing 
one language was early recognized, but 
political considerations prevented a 
fusion, until the Medical Act of 1858 
was passed, which provided for the 
compilation of a joint work. After 
much labor and delay the first "British 
Pharmacopoeia" appeared in 1864, but 
the work was found to suffer from 
numerous defects, chiefly due to the 
difficulty encountered in attempting to 
reconcile the differences in pharmaceu- 
tical and therapeutical usages exist- 
ing in the three countries. It was, 
therefore, revised under the direction of 
the General Medical Council, by Rob. 
Warington and Theoph. Redwood (prac- 
tically the latter alone), and a new edi- 
tion issued in 1867. A supplement con- 
taining thirty-four additions appeared 
in 1874. A new revision, prepared by 
Professors Attfield, Redwood and Bent- 
ley, appeared! in 1885. It contains 895 
articles. This edition had the advan- 
tage of being able to profit from the 
preceding appearance of new editions 
of the pharmacopoeias of the United 
States, Germany and France, as well 
as from the large amount of pharma- 
copoeial literature which had accumu- 
lated during the preceding decade. Yet 
the work did not appear as satisfac- 
tory as was expected, more particu- 
larly to the pharmaceutical profession, 
because it showed some defects which 
were chiefly due to the limited ex- 
perience on the part of the re- 
visers with the actual requirements 
of the practical pharmacist and 
dispenser, and to their not being au- 
thorized to avail themselves of the ad- 
vice and assistance of experts on such 
matters. In 1886, the General Council 
of Medical Education and Registration 
of the United Kingdom-generally des- 
ignated by the shorter title "General 
Medical Council"-appointed Prof. John 
Attfield, one of the editors of the Brit- 
ish Pharmacopoeia of 1885, as "Re- 
porter on the Brit. Pharm. to the Medi- 
cal Council," the office being intended 
to be permanent, for the purpose of 
gathering up, during each year, from 
the current literature whatever may 
have a bearing upon the Brit. Pharm., 
with a view to its revision and im- 
provement. In accordance with this 
arrangement annual reports have been 
issued by Prof. Attfield since 1887. In 
1888, the third reprint of the British 
Pharm. of 1885 was issued, and in De- 
cember, 1890, appeared the first sup- 
plement under the title "Additions 
Made in 1890 to the British Pharm. of 
1885," which contains forty-four ar- 
ticles. In the preparation of this "Ad- 
dendum" (as it is usually called), the 
pharmaceutical profession of Great 
Britain was, for the first time, invited 
to participate, at least so far as to be 
asked to suggest desirable additions or 
improvements of existing formulas. At 
the present time preparations are being 
made to issue an Imperial British Phar- 
macopoeia, designed for use in the 
United Kingdom, as well as in the col- 
onies and other British possessions, 
including the Dominion of Canada and 
India. In order to be adapted to so 
large a territory, comprising different 
nations, customs, climates, etc., it will 
have to be much more comprehensive 
than the present work, but it is likely 
to become an important factor toward 
the attainment of greater uniformity 
in the kinds, quality and strength of 
medicines used among civilized nations. 
There are no commentaries to the 
British Pharm. or dispensatories cor- 
responding to those in vogue in this 
country. The nearest approach to 
them is the "Companion to the Brit- 
ish Pharmacopoeia," by Squire, which 
has been continued, by revised edi- 
tions, up to the present time. Some 
years ago a work was announced to 
be in preparation containing the text 
of the British Pharm., with exhaustive 
commentary, but its issue appears to 
have been prevented by a threat 
of prosecution by the General 
Medical Council. At least it was so 
reported in a journal. It is possible 
that financial reasons were at the bot- 
tom of this, if it is true. But, if so, the 
interference was unwise and not con- 
ducive to the progress of either medi- 
cine or pharmacy. Some method could 
surely have been found by which the 
rights of the Medical Council, as au- 
thors of the pharmacopoeia, could have 
been protected, while at the same time 
a large amount of useful knowledge 
could have been disseminated by a work 
handled daily and hourly almost in 
every dispensing establishment and in 
physicians' offices. 
In most of the British colonies and 
possessions the present British Pharm. 
is chiefly in use. In Canada, the United 
States Pharmacopoeia Is also largely 
followed. 
One of the dependencies of Great 
Britain, viz., India, has a pharm. of its 
own. In 1842 Dr. W. B. O'Shaughnes- 
sy, by order of the government, under 
the authority of the East India Com- 
pany, issued "The Bengal Dispensa- 
tory" (Calcutta) as a precursor to 
"The Bengal Pharmacopoeia and Gen- 
eral Conspectus of Medical Plants," 
which he published in Calcutta in 
1844. In 1868 a "Pharmacopoeia 
of India" was published at the 
same place by Dr. Ed. J. War- 
ing, under authority of the Secre- 
tary of State for India. This is now 
but rarely used, except as a work of 
reference, the British Pharm. having 
taken its place as far as this is pos- 
sible in India. The main object of is- 
suing a separate pharm. for India was 
to encourage and officially authorize 
the use of East Indian drugs, among 
which are many possessing valuable 
properties. A useful companion to this 
work is the "Supplement to the Ph. of 
India," by Moodeen Sheriff, published 
by order of the government of Madras 
in 1869 This work contains synonyms 
of the pharmacopoeial articles in 
fourteen languages. Though not spe- 
cially pharmaceutical, the following 
work ought to be mentioned here, as it 
comprises, among an immense mass of 
other matter, everything of importance 
that has ever been published on drugs 
of Indian, origin or cultivated in India: 
"A Dictionary of the Economic Prod- 
ucts of India." By George Watt, etc. 
(6 vols. Calcutta, 1884-1893.) 
In order to afford a uniform guide 
for the preparation of the most com- 
monly used official remedies, the Brit- 
ish Pharmaceutical Conference under- 
took the publication of an unofficial 
formulary, which appeared in 1887 
under the title "Unofficial Formulary 
of the British Pharmaceutical Confer- 
ence." This is usually quoted under 
the abbreviation "U. F. B. P. C." It 
contains thirty-seven articles. In 18S9 
a supplement containing nine addition- 
al articles was issued. 
BULGARIA.-The Russian pharm. is 
generally followed. 
CENTRAL AMERICAN STATES.- 
These States have no pharm. of their 
own. Various authorities are followed, 
mostly the French and Spanish pharm., 
Dorvault's "L'Officine," and in some 
places also the United States, Mexican 
and British pharmacopoeias. 
CHILI.-The first Chilian Pharm. ap- 
peared in 1886, under the title "Far- 
macopea Chilena, obra premiada por 
el Supremo Gobierno de la Republica 
como Farmacopea Nacional. Por Adol- 
fo Murillo, mSdico, Carlos Middleton, 
farmaceutica " (8°. Leipzig, 1886). 
The text is in Spanish, synonyms of 
the titles being given in Latin. It bears 
much resemblance to the last French 
Pharm., but is free from most of the 
errors contained in the latter. 
CHINA.-As a matter of course China 
has no pharmacopoeia in the modern 
sense of the word. But there are nu- 
merous native works treating of the 
selection and preparation of animal, 
vegetable and mineral substances for 
use as medicines. The best known and 
most extensive work on this and kin- 
dred subjects is the "Pen tsao kang 
mu" (called in Japanese "Honzo-ko 
moku") of Li-shi-chen, written about 
1560 A. D. This is an encyclopedia 
("pen-tsao" means "herb book") com- 
piled from about 1,000 different au- 
thors on some 1,900 drugs from the 
three kingdoms of nature, giving among 
other things their medical properties 
and about 12,000 formulas. It has 
often been printed in China, usually in 
forty volumes (some containing illus- 
trations). A synopsis of the contents 
is given by E. Bretschneider in his "Bo- 
tanicon Sinicum" (8vo. London, 1882, 
pp. 54-69). 
COLOMBIA, UNITED STATES OF.- 
The French and Spanish pharm. are 
chiefly in use. In Panama and some 
other places the British and United 
States pharm. are also occasionally 
followed. 
COSTA RICA.-See Central Ameri- 
can States. 
CROATIA.-See Austria-Hungary. 
DENMARK.-In 1658 the "Dispen- 
satorium Hafniense" was published at 
Copenhagen, andi this was several times 
reprinted. The first official pharm. ap- 
peared in 1772, the second in 1805, the 
third in 1830, the fourth in 1840, and 
the fifth in 1850. The latter was, how- 
ever, counted as the first work really 
deserving this name. Hence the next 
edition, which was published in 1868, 8 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
was designated as "editio secunda;" 
supplements to this appeared in 1874, 
1876 and 1886. A new revision, contain- 
ing 608 articles, appeared in 1893. The 
text of this is, for the first time, in 
Danish, only the titles being in Latin. 
In the latter the peculiar nomencla- 
ture in vogue in the Scandinavian and 
a few other countries has been re- 
tained ("chloretum chinicum" for qui- 
ninae hydrochloras or chininum hydro- 
chloricum; "sulfas atropicus" for atro- 
pinae sulphas or atropinum sulphuri- 
cum, etc.). A special pharm. for Schles- 
wig-Holstein ("Pharm. Slesvico-Holsa- 
tica"), which belonged to Denmark up 
to the year 1867, appeared in 1837. 
Much similarity exists between the 
Danish, Norwegian and Swedish phar- 
macopeias, which is the result of de- 
liberate design, as these countries are 
closely allied in customs, tradition and 
language. Not many years ago the 
proposition was made to prepare a 
common pharm. for the three countries. 
This plan appears to have been aban- 
doned for political reasons. 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. - The 
French and Spanish pharm. are in use. 
ECUADOR. - The French, United 
States and British pharm. are mostly 
followed. 
EGYPT.-The French pharm., and, 
since the British occupation, also the 
Brit, pharm., are officially recognized. 
The German, Austrian and Italian 
pharm. are also in use. 
FINLAND.-See Russia. 
FRANCE.-In 1353 King John, "the 
good," commanded the apothecaries to 
follow the "Antidotarium" of Nicolaus 
Praepositus. Strict regulations regard- 
ing the practice of pharmacy were is- 
sued in 1536, and many additional 
ones afterwards. As early as 1546 a 
"Ph. Lugdunensis" was published at 
Lyons, which was several times re- 
printed. A "Paraphrase sur la Phar- 
macopee" was published by Brigon 
Bauderon of Mascon in 1588. In 1590 
the Paris Faculty of Medicine was di- 
rected to prepare a "dispensatory," but, 
as nothing was done. Parliament in 
1597 ordered twelve members of the 
faculty, designated by name, to pre- 
pare the work. The order was, how- 
ever, not obeyed until 1637, when the 
"Pharmacopoea Parisina" (see below) 
made its appearance. Several French 
cities early possessed! pharmacopoeias 
of their own: Burdigal ("Ph. Burdi- 
galensis," 1643); Lille ("Pharm. Lillen- 
sis, 1640-|-); Strasburg ("Ph. Argen- 
toratensis," 1722-|-); Toulouse ("Ph. 
Tolosana," 1648, 1695); . Valenciennes 
("P. Valentianensis," 1651). A few other 
so-called pharmacopoeias (for instance, 
those of Metz, then belonging to 
France, Marseilles, etc.), may be 
omitted, as they were of a more or less 
ephemeral character. In 1637 appeared 
the "Ph. Parisina," as a precursor to 
the first official pharm., which was is- 
sued, in 1639, under the title. "Codex 
Medicamentarius, seu Pharm. Parisien- 
sis, in lucem edita a Ph. Harduino." 
Revisions of this appeared in 1645, 
1732, 1748 and 1758. For the next six- 
ty years no further revision appeared, 
although the "Pharmacopge de Lyon," 
published by Vitet in 1778, to some ex- 
tent served as a new edition of the 
Paris Codex. The next national phar- 
macopoeia appeared in 1818 under the 
title "Codex Medicamentarius, seu 
Pharm. Gallica," the text being in 
Latin. In the next and following edi- 
tions the text was given in French, 
only the synonyms of the titles being 
in Latin. These editions appeared in 
1827 (II.), 1839 (III.), 1866 (IV.) and 
1884 (V.). The last revision w'as a 
very unsatisfactory one, as the revis- 
ers do not seem to have paid any at- 
tention to the new pharmacopoeias of 
the United States and df Germany, 
which had appeared a year or two pre- 
viously, or to the copious literature re- 
lating to pharmacopoeial improvements 
which had been published outside of 
France. Immediately after the work 
had appeared a great number of errors 
were discovered in it, and the govern- 
ment felt compelled to make a new is- 
sue, in which 132 alterations were in- 
corporated. Shortly afterward, how- 
ever, a special pamphlet, entitled "Er- 
ratum," was sent out, in which eighty- 
three additional changes were directed 
to be made; this "Erratum," however, 
not only does not give all the errors, 
but is not free from errors itself. Prep- 
arations are being made for the issue 
of a new revision. It is to be hoped 
that the lesson learnt in 1884 will en- 
able the revisers to bring forth a more 
perfect work. In connection with the 
French Pharm. should be mentioned 
the well-known work of Dorvault, 
"L'Officine ou Repertoire G6ndral de 
Pharmacie Pratique," an exhaustive 
commentary and supplement to the 
pharmacopoeias preceding that of 1884. 
A revised edition (12th) of this work, 
by Asselin and Houzeau, appeared in 
1889. This is still much used in 
France, and still more so, either in the 
original French or in Spanish transla- 
tion, in some parts of the West Indies 
and of Centrar and South America. 
GERMANY.-The first official formu- 
lary which appeared in Germany was 
that of Valerius Cordus (1515-1544), 
published by the city of Nuremberg 
in 1546 under the title "Pharmacorum 
Omnium quae quidem in usu sunt con- 
ficiendorum ratio; vulgo vocant Dis- 
pensatorium pharmacopolarum." This 
work contains only a few simples, but 
chiefly formulas taken from Greek, Ro- 
man and Arabic medical authors, par- 
ticularly from Galen, Rhazes, Avicen- 
na, Mesue and Nicolaus Praepositus. 
All the preparations are of a galenical 
character and comprise articles taken 
from the three kingdoms of nature. The 
titles of the preparations are usually 
chosen from the name of one of the 
ingredients. Many of the titles had 
been in use before; others were newly 
coined. Some of these have continued 
to the present day, though in some 
cases the composition has ceased to 
correspond with the title. Cordus' Dis- 
pensatory was often reprinted, both at 
Nuremberg and elsewhere. There is a 
Paris edition of 1548, three of Lyons 
(1552, 1559, 1599), two of Venice (1556, 
1563), etc. The first edition contained 
neither tinctures nor extracts or chemi- 
cals. Distillation was directed in the 
preparation of essential oils. In the 
Nuremberg edition of 1592 the text was 
revised and a number of additions 
made, among them some American 
drugs (sassafras, sarsaparilla and to- 
bacco). Chemicals also first appeared 
in this edition, namely, native miner- 
als or salts, such as alum, borax, salt- 
petre, etc., and some artificial salts 
prepared from the ashes of plants or 
other substances. The use of the me- 
tallic salts, such as turpeth mineral, 
calomel, etc., which had been advo- 
cated by Paracelsus, was especially 
prohibited. Extracts and distilled wa- 
ters were added. In the next revision, 
of 1598, large additions and changes 
were made. Among the additions were 
Brasil wood, Guaiac wood, Mechoacan 
root and many preparations from the 
animal kingdom. Various inorganic 
substances, such as white arsenic, real- 
gar, orpiment, corrosive sublimate, 
calomel, etc., were also admitted. The 
next edition, of 1612, was not much 
changed and remained in force until 
1666, when the fifth and last revision 
was published. In this the materia 
medica was much altered, in many 
cases for the worse, many kinds of ani- 
mal excrements and other disgusting 
substances being introduced. On the 
other hand, there were added cinchona, 
jalap, balsams of Peru and tolu, tinc- 
tures and many new chemical salts 
under the then prevailing alchemistic 
nomenclature; also the. well-known 
"pilulae perpetuae" and the drinking 
cups of antimony. With the excep- 
tion of organic proximate principles 
and chemicals at that time unknown, 
this last edition of Cordus' work con- 
tained nearly all classes of prepara- 
tions found in our modern pharma- 
copoeias. An unofficial formulary had 
been published, previous to the appear- 
ance of Cordus' dispensatory, at Augs- 
burg in 1538, where the physicians is- 
sued a work under the title "Conclu- 
siones et Propositiones Universam Me- 
dicinam Complectentes," containing 
formulas which were afterward gen- 
erally followed in that section of the 
country. Augsburg was, at that time, 
the principal centre of the German 
trade with Italy and the Levant, hence 
many of the imported medicines came 
by way of Augsburg. In 1564 the first 
edition of the Augsburg pharmacopoeia 
("Adolphi Occo Pharmacopoea, seu 
Medicamentarium pro Republica Au- 
gustana," usually Quoted as "Ph. Au- 
gustana") was published, which was 
often revised, the last edition appear- 
ing in 1784. Cologne followed the ex- 
ample in 1565 by the publication of the. 
"Dispensatorium ITsuale pro Pharmaco- 
poeis inclytae Reipublicae Coloniensis," 
which was replaced by the "Pharm. 
Coloniensis" in 1627. 
The disunited condition of the coun- 
tries inhabited by the German nation 
up to within recent times has been the 
means of bringing into the world many 
pharmacopoeias issued for separate 
cities and principalities, namely the 
following: Baden ("Ph. Badensis, 1841); 
Bavaria ("Ph. Bavarica," 1822; last ed., 
1859); Brandenburg ("Dispensatorium 
Brandenburgicum," 1698 -|-; this 
formed the starting point of the later THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
9 
Prussian Pharmacopoeia); Bremen 
<"Ph. in Usum Officinarum Reipublicae 
Bremensis," 1792); Brunswick ("Dis- 
pensatorium Pharm. Brunsvicense," 
1777); Erfurt ("Neue Pharmakopoe," 
published by Trommsdorff in 1808. 
This was made official by the French 
during the occupation, in place of the 
"Pharm. Borussica"); Fulda ("Dispen- 
satorium Fuldense," 1787); Hamburg 
("Dispensatorium Hamburgense," 1716; 
"Codex Hamburgensis," 1835, 1845, 
1852); Hanover ("Ph. Hanoverana," 
1706; last ed., 1861. Of this a separate 
-edition was published for Silesia, at 
Warsaw, in 1744); Hessen ("Dispensa- 
torium Electorale Hassiacum," 1806, 
identical with that of Westphalia (see 
below); "Pharm. Hassiae," 1827, 1860); 
Lippe ("Dispensatorium Lippiacum," 
1792); Lubeck ("Lubecensium Officina- 
rum Catalogus Medicamentorum," 
1725); Munster (."Dispensatorium Mo- 
■nasteriense,"1739); Oldenburg ("Pharm. 
Oldenburgica," 1801); the Palatinate 
("Dispensatorium Medico-Pharmaceu- 
ticum," Mannheim, 1764); Quedlinburg 
("Quedlinburgensis Officina Pharma- 
ceutica," 1665); Ratisbon ("Dispensa- 
torium Pharmaceuticum Ratisbonen- 
se," 1727, 1737); Saxony (Piderit's 
"Pharmacia Rationalis," Cassel, 1779- 
81, was made official by the French in 
1805. In 1820 appeared the "Pharm. 
Saxonica," last ed. in 1859); Silesia 
(see above under Hanover); Stralsund 
("Actuarium Pharmacopoeae Stralsun- 
densis," 1645); Strasburg (see under 
France, to which it belonged from 1681 
to 1870);-Westphalia ("Dispensatorium 
Westphalicum," 1808. This is a re- 
vised edition of Piderit's "Pharmacia 
Rationalis;" see under Saxony); Wur- 
temberg ("Pharm. Wirtembergica," 
14 41; last ed., 1847); Wurzburg 
("Pharm. Herbipolitana, 1782; "Pharm. 
Virceburgensis, 1796). Several of the 
before-mentioned works were repeat- 
edly revised, and some of them many 
times reprinted. A few of them are 
more properly to be reckoned among 
local ordinances concerning the charges 
for medicines and giving a list of those 
which must be kept on hand, than 
among real pharmacopoeias. It is dif- 
ficult to draw the line sharply. 
The most important of all former 
German pharmacopoeias was, undoubt- 
edly, the Prussian. This had its be- 
ginning in the Brandenburg Dispensa- 
tory of 1698, the last revision, or 
sixth edition, of which appeared in 
1781. In 1799 the first "Pharm. Bo- 
russica" was published. The succeed- 
ing editions appeared in 1801 (II.). 
1813 (HI.), 1827 (IV.), 1829 (V.), 1846 
(VI.; this is regarded as the best phar- 
macopoeia of its time); the last edition 
appeared in 1862 (VII.). Foui' editions 
of a special military pharmacopoeia 
were also published, the last one in 
1868. 
The problem of a common pharm. 
for all German States had often been 
agitated. In 1861 Dr. Walz proposed 
the publication, by private enterprise, 
■of a German pharmacopoeia., which was 
to be recommended for adoption, or at 
least as a model, to the several Ger- 
man States. The work appeared in 
1865 under the title "Pharmacopoea 
Germaniae." Among the compilers 
were two Austrians, as it was at that 
time believed that the work might be 
accepted by all the German-speaking 
people. But the war of 1866 between 
Prussia and Austria rendered the pro- 
ject as originally conceived impracti- 
cable. A second edition of the work 
was then issued in 1867, in which the 
Austrian members were omitted. Yet 
even this failed of recognition. It was 
only after the establishment of the 
German Empire that the desired ob- 
ject was attained. In 1872 was issued 
the first "Pharmacopoea Germanica," 
which superseded all the individual 
pharmacopeias at that time in force in 
the different States of the Empire. 
Some amendments to this were pub- 
lished in 1873. When the time for a 
new revision arrived, the government 
invited all medical and pharmaceu- 
tical bodies and the prominent men in 
both professions to submit proposals 
regarding the new revision. Contribu- 
tions were received from many sources, 
and these were printed by govern- 
ment in a large folio volume of 691 
pages. The Committee of Revision 
consisted of thirty-three members, un- 
der the presidency of Dr. Struck, the 
director of the Imperial Health De- 
partment. The original draft of the 
new pharm. was first printed in Ger- 
man (folio), for use of the members 
chiefly; was then translated into Latin 
and finally issued) in 1882, to go into 
effect on Jan. 1, 1883. An official Ger- 
man translation was likewise published. 
An English translation, by C. L. Loch- 
man, appeared in New York in 1884. 
In 1887 the government organized a 
Permanent Pharmacopoeia Commis- 
sion. This body held its first session in 
April, 1887, and issued, in 1890, the 
third edition of the German pharm. 
under the title "Arzneibuch fiir das 
Deutsche Reich. Dritte Ausgabe 
Pharmacopoea Germanica. Editio III." 
It contains 603 articles. With the ex- 
ception of the titles of the pharma- 
copoeia! articles, the text is entirely in 
German, the Latin language having 
been abandoned in accordance with the 
changes in educational matters then 
proposed, and) subsequently carried 
out, one of the principal features of 
which was to curtail the scope of in- 
struction in the classical languages in 
the schools and gymnasiums. The new 
pharm. had the advantage of a much 
larger number of expert advisers and 
co-operators than its predecessors, most 
efficient help being furnished more par- 
ticularly by the Pharmacopeia Com- 
mittee of the German Pharmaceutical 
Association (Deutscher Apotheker Ver- 
ein). At the end of the year 1893 a 
small supplement "Nachtrag zum 
Deutschen Arzneibuche") was issued. 
This contained alterations to twenty- 
nine articles of the pharm. and fifteen 
new articles, together with some modi- 
fications in the tables of doses, etc. 
Some very important commentaries on 
the third edition of the German pharm. 
deserve mention here: "Kommentar 
zum Arzneibuch f. d. Deutsche Reich," 
etc., by H. Hager, B. Fischer and C. 
Hartwich (2 vols. 8vo. Berlin, 1891- 
92). "Commentar z. Arzneibuch f. d. 
D. R.," by Bruno Hirsch and Alfred 
Schneider (8vo. Gottingen, 1891-92). 
"Kommentar," etc. (as before), by G. 
Vulpius and E. Holdermann (8vo. Leip- 
zig, 1891). 
The example set by the profession in 
the United States (1886 to 1888) and 
Great Britain (1887) in preparing na- 
tional formularies of unofficial prep- 
aration's was followed, in 1891, by 
Germany, where the "Deutscher Apo- 
theker Verein" published a similar 
work under the almost unquotable 
title "Arzneimittel welche in dem Arz- 
neibuch fur das Deutsche Reich, Dritte 
Ausgabe (Pharmacopoea Germanica, 
editio III.) nicht enthalten sind" (Rem- 
edies which are not contained in the 
Arzneibuch, etc.). This contains 811 
articles. 
GREECE.-The first Greek Pharm. 
was published) in Athens under King 
Otto in 1837 under the title 
^appaKorrotla trapa 'luavvov Bovpov, Eaveptov 
A.avdep£pov, Twcz^ 'Zaproplov etc. ("Greek 
Pharmacopoeia, by Joannes Bouros, Xav- 
erios Landerer, Joseph Sartorius," etc.) It 
was based on the French, Bavarian and 
other pharmacopoeias. The text is in 
Latin and modern Greek, side by side. 
Synonyms are given in Italian, French, 
English, Spanish and Turkish wher- 
ever possible or deemed necessary, 
but they are full of mistakes. In 1868 
Prof. Landerer had the work reprinted 
with a supplement (~apapTr//ia) of the 
newer preparations, an etymological 
glossary (containing many errors) and 
a table of antidotes. This reprint was 
officially recognized by the govern- 
ment, but at the present time it is only 
rarely used or referred to. The French 
Codex and the German Pharm. are the 
leading authorities. 
GUATEMALA.-See Central Ameri- 
can States. 
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.-The United 
States Pharm. is generally followed. 
HAYTI has no pharm. of its own. 
The French Codex is mostly followed; 
also, to some extent, the British and 
United States pharm. 
HONDURAS.-See Central American 
States. 
HUNGARY.-See Austria-Hungary. 
ITALY.-Italy was the first country 
iix Europe in which an official phar- 
macopoeia was published. This was 
the "Antidotarium Florentinum" (Flor- 
ence, 1-198), already mentioned above 
under Mediaeval Europe. Other sim- 
ilar works were published for the fol- 
lowing cities or states: Bergamo 
(Ph. Bergomensis," 1580-I-); Bologna 
("Antidotarium Bononiense," 1574-|-; 
subsequently "Antidotarium Collegii 
Medicorum' Bononiensis," 1750-|-); 
Ferrara ("Pharmacopoea Ferrariensis," 
1725-I-); Genoa ("Formulario Farma- 
ceutico," 1791); Mantua ("Antidotari- 
um Mantuanum," Venice, 1559); Mes- 
sina ("Pharm. seu Antidotarium Mes- 
sanense," 1629); Naples ("Antidota- 
rium Neapolitanum," 1649); Parma 
("Pharm. Parmensis," 1823; in 1839 ap- 
peared another edition of this work for 
Piacenza, Parma and Modena in com- 
mon); Rome ("Antidotarium Roma- 
num," 1583-1-; "Codice Farmaceuti- 
co." 1868-69); . Sardinia ("Pharm. Sar- 
doa," Cagliari, 1773; the last edition, 10 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
"Farmacopea per gli Stati Sard!," 
1853); Turin ("Pharm. Taurinensis," 
1736); Venice ("Pharm. Veneta," 1617; 
"Codice Farmaceutico," Padua, 1790). 
Up to 1859 the Austrian pharm. was 
the official guide in the Lombardy and 
in Venice, and up to 1866 in Venice 
alone. After both of these territories 
had been annexed to Italy, some of the 
Italian pharmacopoeias came more 
prominently into use in these sections 
of the country. In many of the Italian 
States the dispensatory published by 
Orosi under the title "Farmacologia 
teorica e practica, ovvero Farmacopea 
Italiana" was used as a standard au- 
thority; later also the "Farmacopea 
Nazionale e Generale, Materia Medica 
e Terapia," by Ruata (8vo. Verona 
and Padua, 1883). 
A commission for the publication of 
a national pharmacopeia was appointed 
soon after the unification of the king- 
dom of Italy, and several attempts 
were made to prepare the work ready 
for issue, but no result was obtained 
until repeated changes had been made 
in the personnel of the commission. The 
work finally appeared in 1892 under 
the title "Farmacopea ufficiale del Reg- 
no d'Italia" (8vo. Rome). The main 
titles of the pharmacopoeial articles, 
of which there are 597, are in Italian, 
with Latin synonyms. This pharm. 
contains some novel features, some cf 
them of questionable utility. Thus, 
for instance, in the case of powerful 
drugs, the percentage of active prin- 
ciples which they contain or are ex- 
pected to contain is given, without any 
directions how this percentage is to be 
determined. For instance, under Bel- 
ladonna it is stated that "the root and 
leaves contain about 0.5 per cent, of 
hyoscyamine and atropine." Under Ja- 
borandi: "Contains pilocarpine (about 
1 per cent.)." Under Colchicum: "The 
bulbs contain 0.08 to 0.2 per cent, of 
colchicine; the seeds 0.2 to 0.4 per 
cent.," etc. Yet in none of these and a 
number of other cases is there a process 
of assay given. In a pharmacopoeia it 
is clearly illogical to demand of any 
drug or preparations definite condi- 
tions, expressed by figures, when there 
is no reliable process known or given 
by which uniform results can be ob- 
tained. 
JAPAN.-In 1880 a mixed commis- 
sion of twenty-one Japanese and Eu- 
ropean experts was appointed by the 
government for the purpose of prepar- 
ing a pharmacopoeia. Among the Eu- 
ropeans were Prof. Eijkman, Dr. Lang- 
gaard, Dr. von dier Heyden, Dr. Geerts, 
etc. This commission concluded its la- 
bors in 1886, and published the first 
Japanese pharm. under the title "On 
yaku zuki Nippon yaku kiyoko ho." It 
forms a volume of nearly 400 pages, 
8vo., the text being in Japanese. It 
contains 475 titles, with an appendix 
of various tables and a Japanese and 
Latin index. The original draft was 
made in German, which was then 
translated into Japanese and subse- 
quently into Latin. The Japanese text 
was declared! to be the official one. The 
scientific chemical, botanical and zoo- 
logical terms are given in Latin, in 
Roman characters, with Japanese 
transliteration. In the treatment of 
the subject, the United States, British 
and German pharmacopoeias were 
chiefly followed, but with notable 
independence on the part of the au- 
thors. The sign v, placed under an 
unusual quantity of a powerful rem- 
edy by the prescriber, is to denote the 
fact that the unusual amount was or- 
dered designedly. In European prac- 
tice it is customary to express this by 
an exclamation sign (!) placed after 
the figures or words expressing the 
quantity. In some countries prescrib- 
ers are compelled to write out such 
unusual quantities in words. As an aid 
to the better understanding and study 
of this work Zonroku Goige and Sui- 
matsu Takahashi published a "phone- 
tic" edition, in which the Latin names 
of chemicals and drugs were trans- 
lated phonetically into Japanese (8vo., 
Tokio, 1886). A new edition of this 
work was issued in 1891 under the 
title "Pharmacopoea Japonica. Editio 
altera. Tokyo, Anno XXIV. Meiji 
(1891)." It is wholly in Latin and 
contains 440 articles. In chemical 
nomenclature the method used in the 
German and Austrian pharmacopoeias 
was followed ("Kalium aceticum" for 
"Kalii (or Potassii) Acetas," etc.). 
LIBERIA.-The United States and 
British pharm. are usually followed. 
MEXICO.-In 1874 the Pharmaceu- 
tical Society of Mexico published a 
pharmacopoeia under the title "Far- 
macopea Mexicana de la Sociedad Far- 
maceutico de Mexico," which was of- 
ficially recognized by government. It 
was one of the best pharm. of its time. 
In 1884 a second edition ("Nueva Far- 
macopea Mexicana," etc.) was pub- 
lished by the same society, the main 
work being performed by Prof. Alfon- 
so Herrera. It presents, among other 
special features, a very copious ma- 
teria medica, much attention being 
paid to native drugs or products. The 
text is in Spanish, in two columns. In 
general, the work rather corresponds 
to what we would call a dispensatory, 
since it treats also of the medical prop- 
erties and uses of the several drugs 
and preparations. It is a very care- 
fully prepared and useful work. In 
1890 the same society published a sup- 
plement undier the title "Apendice & la 
segunda edicion de la Nueva Farma- 
copea Mexicana de la Sociedad Farma- 
cfiutica de Mexico. Escrita por la Co- 
mision Permanente de la Farmacopea." 
This work is a literary curiosity, teem- 
ing with blunders of fact, orthography 
and nomenclature (see the review of 
the work in the American Druggist, 
1891, page 291). 
NETHERLANDS.-The frequent po- 
litical changes in the Low Countries 
were not without influence upon the 
existence or validity of the pharmaco- 
peias which appeared from time to 
time within their borders. The earlier 
pharmacopoeias were of a local charac- 
ter and as such were not readily af- 
fected by political changes. These are 
the following: Alcmar ("Pharm. Alc- 
mariensis," 1723); Amsterdam ("Pharm. 
Amstelodamensis," 1636; last edition, 
1792); Dort ("Pharm. Dordiracena," 
1708; last edition. 1766); Groningen 
("Pharm. Groningana," 1729-I-); Haar- 
lem ("Pharm. Harlemensis," 1693; last 
edition, 1741); The Hague ("Pharm. 
Hagana"-afterwards "Ph. Haglensis" 
-1652; last edition, 1758); Leiden 
("Pharm. Leidensis," 1638-|-); Leeu- 
warden ("Pharm. Leovardiensis," 1687; 
last edition 1745); Rotterdam ("Pharm. 
Roterodamensis," 1709; last edition, 
1835); Utrecht ("Pharm. Ultrajectina," 
1656; last edition, 1749). At one time 
the Netherlands were undei' the domin- 
ion of Austria. Hence the Austrian 
pharmacopoeia which was issued in 
1774 received the title "Pharm. Aus- 
triaco-Provincialis," being intended for 
all the countries under the Austrian 
sceptre or influence. A Dutch trans- 
lation of this was published in 1781. 
After the establishment of the Bata- 
vian Republic (1795-1806) a commis- 
sion was appointed to draft a pharm. 
This was completed and published in 
1805, under the title "Pharm. Ba- 
tava." It was a work of great merit, 
being by far the best pharm. of its 
time. It was extended and comment- 
ed upon by Nieman, in 1811 (second 
edition, 1824) in an exhaustive man- 
ner. 
The first "Pharm. Neerlandica" ap- 
peared in 1851, in two editions-one in 
Latin, the other in Dutch. It had a 
great resemblance to the French Co- 
dex. A revised edition-also in Latin 
and Dutch-was issued in 1871. It con- 
tained 655 titles. In 1884 a Govern- 
ment Commission was appointed ta 
prepare a new edition. This appeared 
in 1889, under the title "Neder- 
landsche Pharmacopee. Derde Utgave 
(3d edition), 's Gravenhage, 1889." 
It contains 596 articles. With the ex- 
ception of the titles of the official arti- 
cles, the text is entirely in Dutch. It 
was shortly afterward followed by a 
Latin translation, under the title 
"Pharmacopoea Neerlandica. Editio 
tertia, Hagae Comitis, 1889." While 
in the case of the two previous edi- 
tions the Latin text was recognized as 
official, in the third edition the Dutch 
text was ordered to be taken as the 
standard. 
In 1891 the Rotterdam branch of the 
Netherlands Pharmaceutical Society 
(Nederlandsche Maatschappij ter Be- 
vordering der Pharmacie) followed the 
example of other countries, by issuing 
an unofficial formulary, on the plan of 
the National Formulary of the United 
States, under the title "Supplement 
op de derde Utgave der Nederlandsche 
Pharmacopee." It contains 573 articles. 
NICARAGUA.-See Central Ameri- 
can States. 
NORWAY.-Norway did not possess 
a pharm. of its own until 1854, the 
Swedish pharm. having been used in 
the country up to that time. A second 
edition of the "Pharm. Norwegica" 
was published in 1870, and this was 
reprinted, with additions, in 1879. It 
contains 398 articles. In nomencla- 
ture and other respects it bears a 
close relationship to the Swedish and 
Danish pharmacopoeias. A new and 
revised edition of the Norwegian 
pharm. is expected to appear in the 
beginning of the year 1895. 
PARAGUAY.-The French, Spanish THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
11 
and Portuguese pharmacopoeias are 
usually followed. 
PERSIA-In 1681 Father Ange de 
la Brosse de St. Joseph published at 
Paris the "Pharmacopoea Persica, ex 
idiomate Persico in Latinum con- 
versa." That this is no translation of 
an original Persian work was recog- 
nized by Thomas Hyde, the learned 
librarian of the Bodleian Li- 
brary at Oxford (died 1707), 
who thought it was the work of 
Father Mathieu, a missionary belong- 
ing to the same order as Father Ange. 
Leclerc (in his "Histoire de M6decine 
Arabe," Paris, 1876, vol. II., 481) re- 
ports that it is a translation of an 
Arabic work existing in the National 
Library at Paris. It bears internal 
evidence of the intimate acquaintance 
of the author with European medi- 
cines, some of which were at that time 
probably still unknown to the Per- 
sians, while others, which were cer- 
tainly known to them (for instance, 
opium) were omitted. In 1771 Mir Mo- 
hammed Hussain, of Khorasan, wrote 
a Persian pharmacopoeia, and subse- 
quently an encyclopaedia of materia 
medica (Makhz&n el-adlwiya-treasury 
of medicine; see on this, "The Vegeta- 
ble Materia Medica of Western In- 
dia," by W. Dymock, 2d ed., preface.) 
PERU.-The French and Spanish 
pharmacopoeias are usually consulted. 
In some places also those of Great 
Britain and the United States. 
POLAND.-See Russia. 
PORTUGAL.-In 1704 Caetano de 
Santo Antonio published a "Pharma- 
copea Lusitana Galenica" at Coimbra. 
This was republished at Lisbon as 
"Pharm. Lusitana" in 1711, and twice 
reprinted. It is also quoted as "Pharm. 
Ulissiponensis," but the writer has 
never seen a copy having this title. 
In 1785 appeared Paiva's "Farma- 
copea Lisbonense," which was semi- 
official, and in Coimbra, in 1794, the 
"Farmacopea do Pinto," which was, 
however, soon forgotten over the ap- 
pearance in the same year of the first 
official pharm., prepared by Dr. 
Tavares, and published at Lisbon under 
the title "Farmacopeia geral para o 
Reino o Dominios de Portugal." In 
1825 this was replaced by the "Pharm. 
Lusitana," and this was followed in 
1838 by the "Codigo Pharmaceutico 
Lusitano," which was revised in 1858. 
Finally a new "Pharmacopea Portu- 
gueza" was issued in 1876. This was 
prepared with much care and judg- 
ment. The text is in Portuguese, ex- 
cept the synonyms of the titles, which 
are in Latin. It forms a notable con- 
trast to the Spanish pharmacopoeia, 
since it was, unlike the latter, shorn 
of much of the obsolete rubbish of the 
therapeutics of olden times. 
RUMANIA issued a pharm. in 1861 
under the title "Pharm. Romana" (Buk- 
harest). A second revised edition ap- 
peared in 1874. The text throughout 
is in Rumanian, without Latin 
synonyms. It bears some resemblance 
to the Austrian pharmacopoeia. 
RUSSIA.-Until the year 1866 Russia 
had no official general pharmacopoeia. 
There was one for the army, which 
was first issued in 1765. A revised edi- 
tion of this appeared in 1779 under the 
title "Pharm. Castrensis Rossica." In 
1783 there appeared a special pharm. 
for the navy (Pharm. Navalis). Both 
of these were superseded in 1808 by the 
"Pharm. Castrensis Ruthenica," edited 
by Dr. James Wylie of Moscow. This 
was several times revised, the last edi- 
tion being issued in 1866. A civil 
pharmacopoeia appeared as early as 
1778 at St. Petersburg (reprinted in 
1782) under the title of "Pharm. Ros- 
sica,". and a second edition in 1798 (re- 
printed in 1803). But these were not 
officially recognized, the pharmacists 
being compelled to consult almost 
every prominent European pharm. to 
fill the prescriptions brought to them 
from time to time. The most generally 
followed foreign work was the "Pharm. 
Borussica." In 1866 the first official 
civil pharm., prepared by Dr. Trapp, 
was issued. This was followed by re- 
vised editions in 1871, 1880 and 1891. 
The title of the pharm. is "Rossnskaya 
Pharmakopeya," etc. The text of the 
work is in Russian. The main titles 
and synonyms, however, and the names 
of the ingredients entering into any 
preparation are in Latin. The number 
of articles in the last edition is 808. A 
special pharm. for the use of the imperi- 
al court was published m 1874. Hence, 
there are four pharmacopoeias in exist- 
ence-the military, naval, civil and 
court pharmacopoeia. The military 
pharm. is, in some respects, more in 
the nature of a dispensatory, as it 
gives details not usually included in a 
pharm. 
A separate pharm. was published for 
Poland at Warsaw in 1817 under the 
title "Pharmacopoea Regni Poloniae," 
but this did not remain long in force. 
Finland issued a pharm. of its own 
(Pharm. Fennica) in 1819 at Abo. Re- 
vised editions of this appeared at Hel- 
singfors in 1850 (H.), 1863 (III.) and 
1885 (IV.). The text of this pharma- 
copoeia is in Latin. It bears a great 
resemblance to the several Scandina- 
vian pharmacopoeias, and in certain 
features still more to the German 
pharm. (2d edit.) In extent it is one 
of the smallest, comprising only about 
400 articles. 
SALVADOR.-See Central American 
States. 
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.-See Den- 
mark. 
SERVIA.-A Servian pharm. was 
published in Belgrad in 1881 under the 
title "Pharm. Serbica. Editio Prima." 
The text is wholly in Latin. Among 
the tables is one, in Servian, giving 
a list of poisons and antidotes. It is 
without exception the most slovenly 
edited pharmacopoeia ever published, 
and the most remarkable specimen of 
governmental book printing. At the 
end is a list of not less than 257 mis- 
prints and errata, covering five pages. 
But this list is far from being com- 
plete. 
SOUTH AFRICAN COLONIES AND 
STATES.-In nearly all of them the 
British Pharm., and preparations made 
in accordance with it, are in vogue. 
SPAIN.-Previous to the appearance 
of a national work certain provinces 
and cities issued pharmacopoeias of 
their own, viz.: Almeria ("Pharm. Al- 
melpviana," 1724; "Ph. Almeriana," 
1726); Catalonia ("Pharm. Catalona," 
Barcelona, 1686); Madrid ("Pharm. 
Matritensis," 1739-|-); Salamanca 
("Pharm. Salamanca," by J. Bravo, 
1588); Saragossa and Valencia ("Of- 
ficina Medicamentorum," 1601-|-). In 
1521 was published in Madrid the "Ex- 
amen Apothecariorum," which had 
been written by Pedro Benedicto Mateo 
in 1497, and which, according to Mal- 
laina, had all the characters of a 
pharmacopoeia. The first national 
pharm. appeared in Madrid in 1794 
under the title "Pharm. Hispana." This 
and the three next editions of 1798, 
1803 and 1817 were in Latin. The 
fifth (1865) and sixth (1884) editions 
are in Spanish, with Latin synonyms 
of the titles. The title of the last edi- 
tion is "Farmacopea Oficial Espanola." 
Of all modern pharmacopoeias this 
shows the least progress, having re- 
tained many of the unscientific and 
obsolete drugs and preparations of the 
past. In other respects it appears to 
have followed the French Codex as a 
guide and pattern. In the number of 
articles, of which it contains nearly 
1,700, it is only exceeded by the last 
mentioned work. 
SWEDEN.-A "Pharm. Holmiensis" 
was published in Stockholm in 1686 
The first work bearing the title of 
"Pharm. Suecica" appeared in 1705, 
but it was not recognized as official. 
The first official pharm. appeared in 
1775, and the succeeding editions in 
1779 (II.), 1784 (III.), 1790 (IV.), 1817 
(V.; in this edition the chemical part 
was edited by Berzelius, and the bo- 
tanical and zoological by Swartz; it 
was the most advanced and most per- 
fect pharm. of its time); 1845 (VI.); 
1869 (VII., with supplement of 1879). 
The last edition, as well as some of 
the preceding ones, has been several 
times reprinted with amendments. It 
bears much resemblance to the Danish 
and Norwegian pharmacopoeias. The 
text is in Latin, and the number of 
titles 677. A revised edition is in 
course of preparation. 
SWITZERLAND.-A "Pharm. Hel- 
veticorum" was published in Geneva 
in 1677. It had no official character. In 
1684 there appeared in the same city 
an edition of Charas' "Pharmacopoea 
Regia Galenica et Chymica," which 
was followed as authority for a long 
time. The Basle Medical Society in 
1771 published a "Pharm. Helvetica" 
in 2 vol. fol., containing an introduc- 
tion by Albert von Haller. A "Pharm. 
Genevensis" appeared in 1780, and was 
several times reprinted. A special 
pharm. for the Canton of Tessin was 
published in 1848 (not seen by the 
writer). In 1852 an elaborate draft of 
a pharm. for the Canton of Berne was 
published at Berne under the title 
"Pharmacopoeae Bernensis Tentamen." 
This may be regarded as the precursor 
of the "Pharm. Helvetica," published at 
Schaffhausen in 1865 by the Swiss 
Pharmaceutical Society. This work 
was accepted by and officially recog- 
nized by a number of the Cantons, but 
not by all. A second edition appeared 
in 1872, and a large supplement in 1876. 
The text is in Latin. A commission, 
under the presidency of Prof. Schaer, 
was engaged for several years in the- 12 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
preparation of a new work, which was 
completed and issued in 1893 in three 
languages-German, French and Italian. 
The title is "Pharmacopoea Helvetica. 
Editio tertia." It contains 794 articles. 
The text of each edition is in the re- 
spective modern language, only the 
titles of the articles being in Latin. 
It is the first pharm. which attempts 
to introduce methods of assay for a 
number of drugs and preparations, with 
distinct directions regarding the meth- 
ods of assay. Yet there are features of 
uncertainty surrounding most of these 
methods, since in most cases they dis- 
regard the necessity of identifying the 
products obtained to the exclusion of 
added substances. In other respects it 
is one of the best pharmacopoeias ever 
Issued. Curiously enough, when the 
■question of its official acceptance was 
submitted to the several Cantons, that 
of Glarus (the only one out of 22) re- 
fused to accept it. 
TURKEY.-It is not surprising that 
Turkey has no pharmacopoeia, for those 
who know the methods of administra- 
tion prevailing in Turkey and its de- 
pendencies are aware that a law re- 
garding the exercise of the professions 
of medicine and pharmacy or sanitary 
laws cannot be expected to be obeyed 
and strictly followed in any but the 
larger cities, and under a military or 
semi-military commander. Officially 
the French Codex is recognized 
throughout Turkey by authority of the 
Imperial Medical Council at Constanti- 
nople, but the cosmopolitan nature of 
the inhabitants of this and many other 
cities of the empire renders reference 
to various other pharmacopoeias neces- 
sary. 
URUGUAY.-The French, Spanish, 
Portuguese and occasionally other 
pharmacopoeias are followed. 
VENEZUELA.-Most in use are the 
French and Spanish pharmacopoeias. 
The Medical Council at Caracas some 
years ago took initiatory steps to pre- 
pare a national pharmacopoeia, but 
nothing has come of it so far 
IV. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
The first pharm. which was published 
in the United States was a military one, 
a small volume published in 1778 at 
Philadelphia for the Military Hospital 
■of the U. S. Army, located at Lititz, 
Lancaster County, Pa., under the title 
"Pharmacopoeia simpliciorum et effi- 
caciorum in usum noscomii militaris 
ad exercitum foederatarum Americae 
civitatum pertinentis; hodiernae nos- 
trae inopiae rerumque angustiis, feroc: 
hostium servitiae, belloque crudeli ex 
inopinato patriae nostrae illato debitis, 
maxime accommodata" ("Pharma- 
copoeia of the more simple and effica- 
cious (remedies) for the use of the Mili- 
tary • Hospital of the Army of the 
United States of America; particularly 
adapted to our present poverty and dis- 
tress, which is due to the ferocious 
cruelty of the enemy and to the bloody 
war unexpectedly waged against our 
fatherland"). Only one copy of this 
edition is known to exist, which is in 
the library of the office of the Surgeon- 
General of the U. S. army at Washing- 
ton. Of a second edition, issued in 
1781, there appears to be likewise only 
a single copy in existence. (See Amer. 
Journ. Pharm., 1884, pg. 483). Upon 
the title page of this edition appears 
the name of Dr. William Brown, as 
author. It is entirely in Latin (in both 
editions), in 32 pages. It contains 84 in- 
ternal and 16 external remedies. 
Previous to the year 1820 various 
European pharmacopoeias, particularly 
those of London, Edinburgh and Dub- 
lin, were used in the United States. 
The want of a National pharm. 'was 
to some extent filled by the following 
works: "The American Dispensatory," 
by John Redman Coxe (Philadelphia, 
1806-I-), and "The American New Dis- 
pensatory," by James Thacher (Boston, 
1810-I-), which were the precursors of 
the dispensatories now in vogue in this 
country. In 1792 the physicians of 
Charleston, South Carolina, adopted a 
scale of prices for medical treatment 
and medicines somewhat on the plan 
of similar ordinances in vogue in 
Europe. In 1808 the "Pharmacopoeia 
of the Massachusetts Medical Society," 
which was chiefly based upon the last 
preceding edition of the Edinburgh 
pharm., was published at Boston, and in 
1816 the "Pharm. of the New York 
Hospital" at New York. The first 
movement toward the creation of a 
national pharm. was started by Dr. Ly- 
man Spalding in a plan laid before 
the Medical Society of the County of 
New York in January, 1817. (For de- 
tails of the history of the Pharma- 
copoeia of the United States of America 
consult the introduction to the seventh 
revision of this work, published in 
1893.) The first convention for the 
formation of a national pharm. as- 
sembled at Washington on January 1, 
1820, at which time the drafts which 
had been prepared by the several dis- 
trict conventions were consolidated and 
revised. The finished work was pub- 
lished in Boston on December 15, 1820, 
in Latin and English. The contents 
were divided into "Materia Medica," of 
which there was a primary and a sec- 
ondary list, and into "Preparations," 
though the title of the latter section 
was omitted. A second edition, or 
rather reprint, was issued in 1828. Be- 
fore the convention of 1820 adjourned 
it made provisions for a revision of the 
work by arranging for the call of a con- 
vention in 1830. Owing, however, to a 
misunderstanding two separate conven- 
tions were held in this year, one meet- 
ing at New York and the other at 
Washington, and two separate pharma- 
copoeias resulted from this, one being 
published at New York in 1830, which 
was, however, repudiated by the lead- 
ing pharmacists of this city; the other 
at Philadelphia in 1831. Fortunately 
the bodies which had met at New York 
subsequently abandoned the plan of 
continuing a separate revision in the 
future, and in 1840 the third general 
convention assembled in Washington. 
The Committee of Revision appointed 
by this convention was authorized to 
request the co-operation of the colleges 
of pharmacy, and this resulted in the 
contribution of much valuable material. 
The new revision was published in 
1842, the text being for the first time in 
English, only the titles and synonyms 
being in Latin. At the next convention, 
in 1850, the incorporated colleges of 
pharmacy were, for the first time, in- 
vited to participate in the deliberations. 
Previous to this time only incorporated 
medical colleges or societies had been 
invited to send delegates. The first 
edition of the work appeared in 1851. 
and a second edition was issued in 
1855. The next two conventions met at 
the appointed time, in 1860 and 1870, 
and the fifth and sixth editions (fourth 
and fifth revisions) of the U. S. P. were 
issued, respectively, in 1863 and 1873. 
Several years before the next succeed- 
ing convention of 1880 a very lively in- 
terest was awakened in the proposed 
new revision of the work, and various 
plans were brought forward toward 
effecting a radical change in the man- 
ner of revising and publishing the phar- 
macopoeia in the future. Much pre- 
liminary work was also bestowed, prin- 
cipally on the part of the American 
Pharmaceutical Association, upon the 
plan and contents of the next edition. 
The convention which assembled at 
Washington in 1880 was the most rep- 
resentative of any that had so far 
been held, and after a general plan of 
revision had been adopted, a Committee 
of Revision and Publication was ap- 
pointed, consisting of twenty-five mem- 
bers residing in various parts of the 
United States. As a result of their 
labors the sixth decennial revision (or 
seventh edition) of the U. S. P. was is- 
sued toward the end of the year 1882. 
In this revision radical changes were 
made, the intention being to render the 
work as independent of commentaries 
as possible. The arrangement of the 
titles was alphabetical throughout, the 
classification of articles into materia 
medica (primary and secondary lists) 
and preparations being abolished. Crude 
drugs and chemicals, wherever possible 
or necessary, were defined, described 
and tests of identity and purity added. 
Actual weights and measures were re- 
placed by the indenominate system of 
"parts by weight," except in the case 
of fluid extracts. Many obsolete arti- 
cles were dropped and many new ones 
admitted, the total number of titles 
being 997. The new work was very fa- 
vorably received by the medical and 
pharmaceutical professions of this 
country, as well as by competent critics 
abroad. Certain new features, how- 
ever, which had been introduced by or- 
der of the convention of 1880, and 
which at that time were deemed neces- 
sary, and had been, as it was believed, 
wrongly kept out of the work by 
previous committees, were gradually 
found to be less suitable for this coun- 
try than had been anticipated. This 
was chiefly the case with the system 
of "parts by weight," which can suc- 
cessfully prevail only in those countries 
where prescribers direct all ingredients 
in their prescriptions by weight. The 
committee kept careful track of the ex- 
pressions of opinion regarding this sub- 
ject which appeared in the course of 
time, and were prepared at the suc- 
ceeding convention to propose a remedy: 
During the latter part of the decade 
the committee undertook the task of 
compiling, from the literature which 
had appeared in the United States and 
other countries, all criticisms and sug- THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
13 
gestions bearing upon the work, and 
issued a "Digest of Criticisms on the 
U. S. Pharm., Sixth Decennial Revision 
(1880)" in three parts for the use of 
their successors. In 1890 a new conven- 
tion assembled at Washington. At 
this 29 medical schools or colleges, 23 
medical societies, 31 pharmaceutical as- 
sociations or societies, 25 schools or 
colleges of pharmacy, and the U. S. 
Army, Navy and Marine Hospital Serv- 
ice were represented by 148 regular 
delegates and 20 alternates, and a Com- 
mittee of Revision, consisting of 26 
members, was appointed. After a thor- 
ough discussion the system of "parts 
by weight" was ordered to be aban- 
doned, and the metric system of 
weights and measures to be adopted 
in its place. A detailed account of the 
instructions given to the Committee of 
Revision .will be found in the preface of 
the new work (The Seventh Decennial 
Revision, or Eighth Edition), which 
was issued on August 15, 1893. This 
work became official on January 1,1894. 
It contains 994 articles. Since its pub- 
lication it has been subjected to the 
criticism of competent judges, as well 
as to practical tests, and, though not 
free from errors-what human work 
ever is?-has received general com- 
mendation and recognition by both pro- 
fessions. The next convention for re- 
vising the U. S. Pharm. will assemble 
in Washington on the first Monday of 
May, 1900. 
In connection with the U. S. Pharm. 
should be mentioned the commentaries 
which have appeared from time to time 
to explain and supplement it. In 1833 
appeared the first edition of "The Dis- 
pensatory of the United States of 
America," by George B. Wood, M. D., 
and Franklin Bache, M. D., which was, 
from that time until the present, usual- 
ly quoted as "U. S. Dispensatory." Since 
its appearance it has been sixteen times 
revised and enlarged, the last edition 
(of 1,930 pages) having been issued in 
1894. In 1889 Prof. Alfred Stille and 
Prof. John M. Maisch published a simi- 
lar work under the title "National Dis- 
pensatory." The fifth edition of this 
work (of 1,903 pages) was likewise is- 
sued in 1894. Both works embrace the 
text of the U. S. Pharm. of 1890, by 
permission of the Committee of Re- 
vision. A commentary to the U. S. 
Pharm. of 1880 was published by Prof. 
O. A. Wall and Prof. Qscar Oldberg 
in 1884, under the title "A Companion 
to the U. S. Pharmacopoeia." All of 
these works, and more particularly the 
two first named in their new editions, 
have a large circulation throughout the 
United States. 
In 1886 the American Pharmaceutical 
Association undertook the publication 
of a national formulary which would 
provide standard formulas for the most 
commonly employed unofficial prepara- 
tions. This work took its origin from 
the "New York and Brooklyn Formu- 
lary," which had been prepared some 
years previously for the cities of New 
York, Brooklyn and their vicinity, and 
which had been accepted as a guide 
and standard in so many other local- 
ities that the societies by whom it had 
been issued offered it to the American 
Pharm. Association as a basis for the 
foundation of a more comprehensive 
work. The offer was accepted, and 
the "National Formulary of Unofficial 
Preparations, First Issue," was pub- 
lished in 1888. It contains 435 articles. 
This work has rendered important ser- 
vice to the pharmaceutical profession, 
inasmuch as it has enabled the phar- 
macist in many cases to furnish reliable 
preparations made by himself in the 
place of those which he had heretofore 
been compelled to purchase ready made. 
Moreover, it enabled physicians to pre- 
scribe preparations of known compo- 
sition instead of proprietary ones, re- 
garding which there is always some 
doubt. The work is now undergoing re- 
vision. 
V. GENERAL PHARMACOPEIAS. 
Many works have been published de- 
signed to comprise the text of all, or 
at least of the more prominent phar- 
macopoeias, or to serve as general 
pharmacopoeias, irrespective of the 
contents of the several national works. 
Among the earlier authors of such 
works are the following: Lemery 
("PharmacopSe Universelle," Paris, 
1697, many times reprinted); Triller 
("Dispensatorium Pharm. Universale," 
Frankfort o' M., 1764-|-); Spielmann 
("Pharm. Genera lis," Strasburg, 
1783-I-); Reuss ("Dispensatorium Uni- 
versale," Strasburg, 1786-|-); Mayr 
("Disp. Universale," Vienna, 1798); 
Swediaur ("Pharm. Medici Practici 
Universalis," Leipzig, 1803); Charas 
("Pharmacopee Royale, Galenique et 
Chymique," Paris, 1672-]-); Dorncellius 
("Dispensatorium Novum," Lisbon, 
1600-|-); BrugnatePi (Farmacopea 
Generale," Pavia, 1807; a previous edi- 
tion (1802) under another title); 
Quincy ("Pharm. Officinalis et Extem- 
poranea," London, 1717-|-). Of more 
recent works the following deserve 
special mention: A. J. Jourdan ("Phar- 
macopSe Universelie," Paris, 1828; sec- 
ond'edition 1840); P. L. Geiger ("Pharm. 
Universalis," Heidelberg, 1835-1845). 
The most important, however, is the 
work of Dr. Bruno Hirsch, "Universal- 
Pharmakopbe. Eine vergleichende Zu- 
sammenstellung der zur Zeit in Europa 
und Nordamerika giiltigen Pharmako- 
pben" ("Universal Pharmacopoeia-a 
comparative digest of the pharmaco- 
poeias at present in force in Europe and 
the United States," 2 vols., 8vo, Leip- 
zig, 1885-89). This work contains 
practically the whole text of the 
several pharmacopoeias which had 
appeared in 1885 (except those of 
Mexico, Portugal and Servia), as 
well as of those which appeared 
during the publication of the work 
(1885-1889), in such a way that the 
similarities andi differences of the sev- 
eral texts, regarding one and the same 
drug and preparation, are shown at a 
glance. It is a work of reference 
which will be indispensable to every 
revision committee in this and other 
countries for many years to come. 
VI. INTERNATIONAL PHARMACOPEIAS. 
Many years ago efforts were made 
to bring about greater harmony in the 
different pharmacopoeias, and a propo- 
sition was brought forward to pre- 
pare an International Pharmacopoeia. 
Opinions differed greatly as to the feasi- 
bility of the plan, as well as regarding 
the scope or contents of such a work. 
Steps were finally taken to have a 
draft of the work prepared, but na- 
tional jealousy on several occasions 
rendered its acceptance by other na- 
tions impossible. It was not to be ex- 
pected that each civilized nation would 
abandlon its own pharm., which was 
especially adapted to the habits of 
its own people and to its own domestic 
resources, and that it would adopt in 
place of it a work prepared without 
regard to such considerations-one 
which would possibly introduce unfa- 
miliar preparations or change the 
strength of such as were in common 
use. The utmost that could be expect- 
ed was that the different nations, 
whenever revising their own pharm.. 
would gradually approximate such 
preparations as were considered amen- 
able to international regulation, to the 
proposed standard. Another hope 
which was expressed was this, that 
the International Pharmacopoeia 
might be used and followed as an in- 
dependent work in different countries, 
alongside of the national pharmaco- 
poeias; in this way that the prescrib- 
ers were to designate the preparation - 
of the International Pharm. in a spe- 
cial manner. At the International 
Pharm. Congress, held at Brussels, in 
1886, Baron A. von Waldheim of Vien- 
na presented the draft of an Interna- 
tional Pharmacopoeia. But in its prep- 
aration the other members of the com- 
mission, appointed at the preceding 
congress, had not been sufficiently con- 
sulted, and it has, therefore, never 
been officially accepted or come into 
use. At the last congress held in Chi- 
cago, in 1893, the project was brought 
up again and placed in charge of a 
committee, to report at the next con- 
gress. In September of 1893 the Pan- 
American Medical Congress met at 
Washington. It was there proposed 
to attempt the preparation of a Pan- 
American Pharmacopoeia, and a com- 
mittee was appointed to carry out the 
proposition, if possible, This commit- 
tee has developed a plan of work 
which may lead to good results, pro- 
vided the pharmaceutical bodies, or 
governmental, authorities, or profes- 
sional individuals, to be selected in 
the different countries, will promptly 
organize and execute the tasks as- 
signed to them. At best it will re- 
quire several years to settle even the 
scope of the work. It is proposed tha'- 
as many of the representatives as can 
arrange for it shall meet at the next 
Pan-American Congress, which will as- 
semble in the City of Mexico, in 1S9L 
VII. GENERAL REMARKS. 
A pharmacopoeia should represent 
the broad results of therapeutic obser- 
vations and investigations accepted by, 
or at least acceptable to. the medical 
profession at large, in the country for 
which the work is written. In general, 
therefore, it should not introduce in- 
sufficiently tried new remedies or 
methods, but should accept only those 
which have, by matured and careful 
study, been found worthy of recogni- 
tion. An exception to this rule may 
occasionally be found admissible, when 14 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
a new form of preparation is intro- 
duced to take the place of one which 
has been found unsatisfactory. On 
the other hand, it ought to contain all 
remedies which are used in legitimate 
practice, and which the physician 
openly and designedly uses to obtain 
definite results. At the present time it 
is impossible to open any medical peri- 
odical or text-book on therapeutics 
without constantly encountering the 
names of the newer synthetic chemi- 
cal remedies, such as antipyrine, sulfo- 
nal, phenacetin, aristol, etc., and yet 
these are kept out of the United States 
Pharmacopoeia. Up to the year 1890 
there was probably a sufficient excuse 
for this because the permanency of 
many of these compounds was not yet 
fully assured, and the proprietary 
claims surrounding most of these sub- 
stances were regarded as an ethical 
barrier against their recognition. It 
appears, however, that the views re- 
garding the status of these remedies 
are gradually changing in favor of 
their future recognition. Most surely 
they should not be classed with pro- 
prietary nostrums, for in most cases 
their chemistry, mode of manufacture, 
constants of nature, reactions and 
tests are scientifically determined and 
known, and it is equally certain that 
they wall be employed by the medical 
profession, whether they are recog- 
nized by the pharmacopoeia or not. 
Their multiplication, aside from other 
causes, will gradually diminish the 
number of many of the more old- 
fashioned, and, to a large extent, 
empirical preparations now official. 
Eventually the time might ar- 
rive when the majority of the en- 
ergetic and efficient remedies used 
by the physician would have to be 
looked for in works of reference out- 
side of the pharmacopoeia. It is to 
be hoped that this matter will be well 
considered and that the present re- 
strictions will be removed at the next 
Convention. 
The question has often been raised, 
why did the Committee of Revision 
not introduce a table of doses in the 
pharmacopoeia? And it has been an- 
swered at various times, more or less 
completely, sometimes at great length. 
This may be done more briefly, as fol- 
lows: Doses of medicines can and 
should be determined on and author- 
ized only by medical men, who are 
competent to judge of their effects. 
This work cannot be undertaken by 
pharmacists. As long as the medical 
colleges, societies and associations do 
not authorize their delegates to the 
Convention, and their representatives, 
if they have any, in the Committee of 
Revision, to vote for the insertion of 
doses, none of them would feel justi- 
fied in consenting to it, as there is a 
deep-seated impression abroad, that 
the establishment of an official table 
of doses would place a dangerous wea- 
pon into the hands of unscrupulous 
persons, and might involve many phy- 
sicians in suits for damages. All ef- 
forts, therefore, in favor of the intro- 
duction of doses into the pharm. 
should be directed to the medical pro- 
fession, and no blame for their omis- 
sion should be attached to the Com- 
mittee of Revision, which is power- 
less in the matter. It is suggested 
that a proposition be made to the 
medical profession, probably best to 
its representative body, the American 
Medical Association, to sanction a table 
of doses, prepared by a committee of 
therapeutic experts, to be printed in the 
pharmacopoeia, with the distinct an- 
nouncement that the doses given are 
the average ones to produce the ordi- 
nary expected effects, but that every 
physician has the right to use larger 
or smaller doses, whenever such may, 
in his judgment, be required. 
VIII. THE REVISION UF A PHARMA- 
COPOEIA. 
is a work which must, necessarily, dif- 
fer according to circumstances. There 
are several modern pharmacopoeias 
which have undergone no thorough re- 
vision in many years, owing to the 
comparatively stationary or conserva- 
tive character of materia medica and 
pharmacy in their country. These will, 
however, soon be compelled to take 
example by the more progressive ones 
which are kept, as far as practicable, 
on a level with the progress of thera- 
peutics. Naturally, the methods em- 
ployed in carrying on 'the revision of a 
pharmacopoeia depend, in a great 
measure, upon the extent to which the 
revision ia to be carried, and upon the 
complexion of the Committee of Re- 
vision. If the committee, as in Russia, 
consists practically of one man en- 
dowed with proper authority, the task 
is comparatively easy. With an in- 
crease of the number of revisers, more 
particularly if they live in different 
places and have to carry on most of 
their work by correspondence, the dif- 
ficulties increase. Previous to the sixth 
revision of the U. S. P. (1880) the ma- 
jority of the Committee of Revision re- 
sided at Philadelphia, or, at least, the 
sessions of the committee were held in 
that city. Beginning with the pharma- 
copoeia of 1880, however, the commit- 
tee was made so large (25 members in 
1880, 20 in 1800) that frequent per- 
sonal meetings became impracticable 
and the work had to be done, almost 
entirely, by correspondence. As it is 
not generally known how this corre- 
spondence was carried on and in what 
manner the committee operated to at- 
tain a final result, the following report 
will not be unwelcome, as it may afford 
hints to others desirous of carrying on 
committee work by correspondence, or 
may elicit suggestions embodying im- 
provements. The report will refer 
chiefly to the operations of the com- 
mittee elected in 1890. It will not dwell 
at length upon matters which have al- 
ready been mentioned in the preface of 
the Pharmacopoeia (1890), pg. xxix. to 
xxxviii. 
At the meeting of the Committee 
which was held at Washington imme- 
diately after the Convention, it was, 
among other things, resolved that cor- 
respondence and voting on motions was 
to be carried on by circulars. Fourteen 
votes should be required to carry any 
motion (these were subsequently re- 
duced to twelve, after the death of two 
members), and a period of at least four- 
teen days was to elapse between the 
sending out of voting sheets and the 
announcement of a vote, in order to 
give every member a chance of for- 
warding his vote in proper time. It 
may, however, be stated right here, 
that no advantage was taken in any 
case of the non-arrival of a vote with- 
in the stipulated limit of fourteen days. 
If it was known that one or more mem- 
bers were absent from home, the time 
was extended, or steps taken to reach 
them. In some cases the vote, though 
legitimately carried, was declared in- 
formal, in order to give members 
known to be interested in a subject and 
who could not be reached in time, an 
opportunity of being heard. The guid- 
ing principle throughout was this, that 
no member who desired to argue or to 
vote on a subject should, by any parlia- 
mentary proceeding, be prevented from 
doing so, until all were ready to de- 
cide the matter by a vote. Even then 
it happened occasionally that an im- 
portant point was raised in the vot- 
ing sheet of a member, which rendered 
it incumbent on the chairman to com- 
municate it to the other members, so 
that they might, if they wished, call 
for a new vote. It was understood that 
if any member did not send in his vote 
within fourteen days, and did not ask 
the chairman for delay, unless absent 
from home, or otherwise unable to re- 
spond, he was supposed to have at 
least no objection to the motion offered. 
No motion, however, was deemed actu- 
ally caried, unless there were fourteen 
(afterward twelve) affirmative votes re- 
ceived by mail. Since it would have 
involved endless delay in the adminis- 
tration of details in the hands of the 
chairman, to secure a mover and sec- 
onder to any motion which the chair- 
man desired to bring before the com- 
mittee, authority was given to the 
chairman to originate a motion him- 
self and to have it put to a vote. This 
was a most essential feature, and one 
that expedited the work most mate- 
rially. Here it might be appropriate 
also to speak of the manner of carry- 
ing on the correspondence. This was 
effected by the aid of the well-known 
copying process (hectograph, etc.). Each 
circular or communication for distri- 
bution was first written, then from 40 
to 80 (in some cases over 100) copies 
printed. Sets of printed envelopes 
bearing the addresses of the members 
of the committee were kept by the 
chairman, and envelopes bearing the 
chairman's address had been furnished 
to every member. After a circular of, 
say, 10 folio pages (involving from 400 
to 800 separate prints) had been printed 
it was "assembled," the necessary num- 
ber of copies put in the envelopes for 
mailing, and the remainder filed away 
for future use. In connection with all 
circulars containing a motion or some 
propositions to be voted on, a separate 
voting sheet was sent, on which were 
briefly recapitulated the several points 
involved, and on which .the member to 
whom it was addressed was to write 
his vote ("aye" or "no"), with any re- 
marks he might wish to offer, together 
with the date and his signature. This THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
15 
sheet he was to mail back, without de- 
lay, to the chairman. In some cases 
the vote was to be rendered by postal 
cards, inclosed with the circular and 
bearing the chairman's address. It is, 
of course, always advisable to secure 
prompt responses by saving to the cor- 
respondents as much of their time as 
possible. The total number of circulars 
issued up to the end of the year 1894 is 
264, comprising 1,282 folio pages. In- 
cluding special circulars to sub-com- 
mittees, duplicate issues and voting 
sheets, this represents about 72,000 
separate sheets printed by hand. 
Each member of the committee was 
provided with large blank or scrap 
books, one for mounting therein the 
text of the U. S. P. of 1880 (cut from 
a copy printed on one side of the paper 
only), with the corresponding portions 
of the text of the "Digest of Criti- 
cisms," and the other for the filing 
of circulars. Each article of the phar- 
macopoeia with the corresponding part 
of the "Digest" was also mounted upon 
a separate sheet of writing paper, and 
the whole then divided into sections 
corresponding to the topics assigned to 
each sub-committee mentioned below. 
Each section of sheets was forwarded 
to the chairman of the sub-committee, 
who looked after the proper circulation 
of the sheets among his colleagues, who 
thus were enabled to read the com- 
ments and suggestions for improve- 
ments, etc., which each of them made 
in his turn. In some of the sub-com- 
mittees these sheets circulated two or 
three times; in others this was unneces- 
sary. As soon as any portion of the 
completed work of a sub-committee 
reached the general chairman, the lat- 
ter caused it to be copied and circu- 
lated among the members of the Com- 
mittee of Revision f<y examination and 
criticism. Some portions had to be sub- 
mitted repeatedly before an agreement 
could be arrived at. Whatever dis- 
crepancies appeared between the re- 
sults arrived at by different sub-com- 
mittees were further discussed until 
finally the matters were decided either 
by a unanimous agreement or by a ma- 
jority vote. As all these matters had 
to go through the hands of the gen- 
eral chairman, and were attended to 
with as little delay as possible, a satis- 
factory harmony was established and 
maintained throughout the work. 
COMMITTEES OF THE U. S. P 
The chairman was also authorized 
to appoint all committees, except that 
on Finance, which was elected from 
among nominees presented by a Com- 
mittee on Nomination, consisting of 
three members, including the chair- 
man. After a general plan for carry- 
ing on the work of revision had been 
presented by the chairman, the fol- 
lowing Sub-Committees were appoint- 
ed: 
1. Sub-Committee on Therapeutics, 
comprising all the practicing phy- 
sicians on the committee. Every 
member of the committee posses- 
sing the degree of M. D. was asked 
to state whether he desired to be 
regarded as coming under that 
category. A few of these mem- 
bers, thereupon, expressed their 
wish to remain excluded from the 
list. This sub-committee had 
charge of all therapeutic ques- 
tions which arose from time to 
time. It was understood that it 
was to have the preponderance in 
decision over the admission of 
new drugs and preparations in the 
Pharm., even when apparently 
outvoted by the other members. 
Concerning expurgations, its ad- 
vice was also sought, and in many 
cases accepted, though in this case 
the reports of other members re- 
garding the actual use or disuse of 
a preparation were generally suffi - 
cient to decide the case. 
2. Sub-Committee on Botany and Phar- 
macognosy. This had charge of all 
botanical matters, including the 
botanical nomenclature and the 
descriptions of vegetable and ani- 
mal drugs. 
3. Sub-Committee on Reagents and 
Inorganic Chemicals. This com- 
mittee was the first to make a re- 
port, which referred to volumet- 
ric solutions. The revision of the 
constants of nature, reactions of 
identity and tests of purity and 
strength of the subjects assigned 
to this Sub-Committee involved a 
large amount of experimental 
work, the results of which are 
given in a commentary accom- 
panying the members' papers. 
In 1892 this Sub-Committee pub- 
lished a small pamphlet contain- 
ing the text of the Reagents and 
Volumetric solutions proposed for 
the U. S. P., which assisted ma- 
terially in expediting the further 
work of this and other sub-com- 
mittees. 
4. Sub-Committee on Acids, Chemical 
Solutions and a few special Arti- 
cles'. The proper strength and spe- 
cific gravity of certain mineral 
acids was a subject which received 
close attention on the part of the 
General Committee (see U. S. P. 
1890, pg. xxxv). After a decision 
on this subject had been arrived 
at, the Sub-Committee was enabled 
to revise the formulas submitted to 
it. 
5. Sub-Committee on Proximate Princi- 
ples and other Organic Chemicals. 
The revision of the text of the 
organic chemicals, particularly 
that of the alkaloids, glucosides 
and indifferent principles, also in- 
volved much original work, par- 
ticularly as regards solubilities, 
melting points and tests of iden- 
tity. This Sub-Committee re- 
ceived valuable assistance from 
several experts, not members of 
the Revision Committee, as well 
■ as from several manufacturing 
houses. 
6. Sub-Committee on Assay Processes. 
This had charge of the study of 
the assay processes of opium, cin- 
chona and nux vomica, as well as 
those proposed for other drugs. 
Much work was bestowed, particu- 
larly on the assay of opium, the 
assistance of a number of experts 
outside of the Revision Committee 
being also secured. 
1. Sub-Committee on Fluid and Solid 
Extracts, Tinctures, Wines and 
their Menstrua. Before this and 
several other Sub-Committees could 
propose actual working formulas, 
it was necessary to fix the strength 
of the galenical preparations in ac- 
cordance with the instructions of 
the Convention, namely, by metric 
weight and measure. As it was in 
many cases impossible to convert 
the formulas of the previous phar- 
macopoeia (of 1880), in which the 
quantities were given in "parts by 
weight," into the absolutely cor- 
responding terms of weight and 
measure in the metric system, 
without complicating the new 
formulas with inconvenient frac- 
tions, the several quantities had to 
be rounded off, in such a manner, 
however, that the strength of the 
preparations should be altered as 
little as possible. At the same 
time certain preparations were de- 
signedly more or less altered, for 
reasons which are given in the 
preface to the U. S. P. 
8. Sub-Committee on Fixed and Vola- 
tile Oils. A comparison of the text 
of these articles in the new phar- 
macopoeia with that in the pre- 
ceding one, or with that in other 
pharmacopoeias, will show that 
the pharmacist is now for the first 
time put in possession of official 
data sufficing in most cases for 
determining 'the character and 
purity of these rather variable 
commercial products. 
9. Sub-Committee on Cerates, Oint- 
ments, Plasters, Liniments, Pa- 
pers and Glycerites. 
10. Sub-Committee on Syrups and Aro- 
matic Waters. The introduction 
of the alternative process of pre- 
paring a number of syrups by 
cold percolation involved many 
experiments, but is believed to 
have met with general approval. 
11. Sub-Committee on Abstracts and 
Emulsions. This was appointed 
at a later period. 
12. Sub-Committee on Unassigned Arti- 
cles. 
13. Sub-Committee on Nomenclature. 
Although the subject of nomen- 
clature was in charge of a special 
committee, yet many of the other 
sub-committees, in the course of 
their work, had occasion to pro- 
pose modifications in nomencla- 
ture. 
14. Sub-Committee on Weights, Meas- 
ures and Pharmacopoeial Tables. 
Before these different sub-commit- 
tees were constituted, the members 
of the General Committee were re- 
quested to indicate their preferences. 
In this way it was possible to assign 
each work to members who were thor- 
oughly familiar with the subject. 
The correspondence between the 
members themselves, the members and 
the general chairman and the official 
circularsl sent out by the latter during 
the period of the actual revision con- 
tain a large mass of valuable material, 
which would make interesting reading, 
a large portion of which is, however, 
superseded either by papers on cer- 16 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA. 
tain subjects published by their au- 
thors or by being- incorporated in the 
pharmacopoeia, or by referring to mat- 
ters which were, after investigation, 
dropped. 
As one sub-committee after another 
completed its work, wholly or in 
part, the general chairman wrote out 
the text of each article in the form in 
which it was intended to be printed on 
paper of uniform size, particular care 
being devoted to uniformity in general 
treatment, in the sequences of the sev- 
eral paragraphs, in the processes and 
methods involved, and in the language 
employed. Any inequalities and dis- 
crepancies which were discovered in the 
work of the several sub-committees 
had to be eliminated, often requiring 
a matter to be subjected to a new vote. 
Tn the more important departments, 
the corresponding sheets of the manu- 
script were submitted to members of 
the corresponding sub-committees for 
examination. All missing links, of 
which an unexpected number is liable 
to be discovered when heterogeneous 
parts are joined together, had to be 
supplied, often involving numerous ex- 
periments. 
When the manuscript was finally 
practically completed, steps were taken 
for its publication. At the request of 
the chairman, the Finance Committee 
took the matter under consideration, 
as the result of which a resolution 
was offered and carried that a Publica- 
tion Committee be created, to consist 
of the Chairman of the Committee of 
Revision and four other members to be 
appointed by him; that this committee 
should be charged with the duty of at- 
tending to all business matters con- 
nected with the publication and sale 
of the pharmacopoeia; that it should 
be authorized to make contracts for 
printing, electrotyping, binding and 
any other wrork which may be required 
to make a merchantable book; and that 
the action of the Publication Commit- 
tee should be subject to approval by 
the Committee of Revision. Accord- 
ingly the Publication Committee was 
constituted (see back of title page of 
U. S. P.). It was determined in the 
outset that the committee would not 
consent to release control over the 
work, and also that the mechanical 
preparation of the book and the agency 
for its sale should form the subjects 
of two separate contracts. Invitations 
were sent out to a number of printing 
houses of repute, to submit bids for 
composition work, printing and bind- 
ing, on the basis of detailed specifica- 
tions prepared by the' Publication Com- 
mittee. The received bids were opened 
on Dec. 30, 1892, and the contract was 
awarded to the J. B. Lippincott Co. of 
Philadelphia. Subsequently a number 
of publishing houses were invited to 
submit bids for the sale and agency of 1 
the work. As a result of this compe- ' 
tition, the contract was awarded to 
! Messrs. P. Blakiston, Son & Co. of Phil- 
adelphia. It may be added for the 
- comfort of those who proposed in the 
Pharmacopoeial Convention of 1890 
the creation of a Business Committee, 
separate from the Revision Committee, 
that no hitch has at any time occurred 
in the business arrangements, nor is 
likely to occur under the rules which 
have been laid down. 
The contract for composition work, 
etc., contained detailed specifications 
regarding the number of galley proofs, 
revises and plate proofs to be supplied. 
Each member of the Committee of Re- 
vision and such other persons as were 
to be designated by the Chairman re- 
ceived two copies of every proof di- 
rectly, by mail, from the printing of- 
fice, the Chairman receiving five or 
more, as was necessary. Each sheet of 
proof was dated, and the members and 
others were instructed, after reading 
it and correcting any errors or pro- 
posing alterations, to mail one copy 
without delay to the Chairman, so 
that it would reach him within a fixed 
number of days. If no proof was sent 
by any member within this time, it 
was to be understood that no altera- 
tions were found necessary. Upon ar- 
rival of the several proofs, the Chair- 
man, who had already read his own, 
examined each one, and made such 
other changes in his set as were found 
necesssary. This required much care 
and constant reference to other parts 
of the work, either already in type or 
still in manuscript, because a change 
in one place often necessitated one or 
more changes elsewhere. Sometimes 
the alterations proposed by different 
proof-readers were practically irrecon- 
cilable, thus throwing the responsibil- 
ity of a final decision upon the Chair- 
man, though in a few particularly im- 
portant cases the point at issue was 
once more submitted to a vot^ When 
a set of galley proofs had finally been 
fully corrected one copy was sent by 
the Chairman to the printer and an- 
other filed for reference. The revises 
were sent by the printer in the shape 
of page proofs to all the members, as 
in the case of the galley proofs, and 
the members mailed copies of those on 
which they had noted corrections to 
the Chairman. The latter combined 
these, so far as possible, with his own, 
and forwarded a copy to the printer, 
who, after making the necessary 
changes, caused the several pages to 
be electrotyped. 
Plate proofs were then furnished to 
the Chairman and to such of the other 
members as needed them for reference. 
The time required for putting the 
whole text into type was eighteen 
weeks, and nearly 30,000 sheets of the 
several kinds of proof were mailed r 
during this time from the printing of- , 
flee to the several addresses. . 
It might seem as if the writer's j 
work had received more prominent 
treatment in this report than that of - 
the other members of the Committee. 
If this is so, it could not well be 
helped, since the transactions of a , 
body, such as the Committee of Re- 
vision, are best seen when viewed . 
from the central point. But it should । 
be distinctly understood that, what- < 
ever success has attended the enter- ] 
> prise, was mainly due, on the one- 
hand, to the conscientious, unweary- 
, ing and unstinted labor of the mem- 
' bers having the important sub-divi- 
: sions of the work in charge, and, on 
1 the other hand, to the spirit of har- 
mony which prevailed throughout, and 
which forms a most pleasant remem- 
brance to all who were associated in 
the work. 
RESEARCH COMMITTEES. 
The Committee of Revision, since the 
publication of the U. S. P., has not been 
idle, but has set out to prepare for the 
next revision. 
Early in 1894 it was decided to ap- 
point a number of Research Commit- 
tees, to be equipped with funds, as 
may be required, for the purpose of 
carrying on investigations on subjects 
having a bearing on the pharmaco- 
poeia. The Research Committees so 
far created are the following: 
Research Committee A.-To inquire 
into the feasibility of devising practi- 
cal methods of assay for drugs con- 
taining no sharply defined proximate- 
principles capable of being readily 
separated in a sufficiently pure state 
(such as Ergot, Digitalis, Rhubarb, 
etc.). This committee is at work and 
will furnish reports from time to time. 
Chairman, Dr. W. M. Mew of Wash- 
ington, D. C. 
Research Committee B.-Revision of 
the descriptions and tests of inorganic 
chemicals, including salts of inorganic, 
bases with organic acids; revision of 
the volumetric assays of the U. S. P.; 
study of the proper limits of purity or 
strength of the chemicals now official 
or likely to become so hereafter. This 
committee has already published pa- 
pers on the following subjects (all the 
results of researches of its chairman, 
Prof. Charles O. Curtman of St. Louis): 
1, on "The Arsenic Tests of the U. S. 
Pharm.;" 2, on "The Volumetric Deter- 
mination of Liquor Plumbi Subaceta- 
tis;" 3, on "Artificial Manganese Diox- 
ide;'' 4, on "The Hydration of Calcium 
Bromide and Iodide;" 5, on "The Qual- 
ity of Potassium Iodide of the Mar- 
ket;" 6, on "Potassium Bromide, sold 
as 'U. S. P.';" 7, .on "Bromine from 
American Sources;" 8, on "The Purity 
of Iodine Sold as- 'Resublimed.' " 
Research Committee C.-To inquire 
into the feasibility of incorporating 
into- the U. S. P. methods of identify- 
ing such drugs, as may be found to per- 
mit it, in a powdered condition. Chair- 
man, Dr. H. H. Rusby of New York. 
This committee has also been organ- 
ized and is engaged upon -work. 
Research Committee D.-To revise 
the descriptions and tests of the or- 
ganic chemicals. This committee, of 
which the writer is chairman, will make . 
its first report some time during the 
coming year. 
Research Committee E.-To deter- 
mine the most suitable menstrua, and 
the best processes for preparing, and. 
adjusting the strength of, Extracts, 
Fluid Extracts, and kindred prepara- 
tions. Chairman, Professor Joseph P. 
Remington of Philadelphia. 
Other Research Committees are soon 
to be organized. The chairmen of 
those already established have been 
purposely announced above, so that 
any reader of this paper who desires 
to offer any suggestions -regarding the 
subjects undertaken by them may 
know whom to address. 
The leading educational feature of THE PHARMACEUTICAL ERA for 1895 will^be A SERIES OF ESSAYS, 
to be published in weekly portions covering a complete lecture course in pharmacy, by recognized authorities: 
TO SECURE THIS LECTURE COURSE complete it is only necessary to subscribe for THE PHARMACEU- 
TICAL ERA for 1895. Orders for subscription should be sent in promptly to insure the complete set. The sub- 
scription price is 82.00 a year postpaid, for the United States, Canada and Mexico; to foreign countries in the Postal 
Union an additional charge of $1.00 for postage. Address all orders direct to the publishers. 
D. 0. HAYNES & CO., 106 Fulton St.,"NEW YORK.