Pharmacologia. 365 
sition, there are more who enter into practice very imperfectly 
initiated even in the rudiments of that science, and quite unac- 
quainted with the facts and theories which lead to the modifica- 
tion of the terms employed in abstract chemistry. And, lastly, 
admitting the Physician, the Student, the Apothecary, and his 
assistants and apprentices, to be perfect in the doctrines and no- 
menclature of chemistry, the terms thence derived are, from 
their complexity and length, quite unsuited to the brevity and 
perspicuity required in the prescription of the Physician. Con- 
sequently, where chemical nomenclature has been adopted to its 
full extent, as in the French Codex, it becomes preposterously 
extravagant and absurd; and where only partially employed, 
as in the London Pharmacopeeie, it involves erroneous terms, 
and enforces misconception. What can be more absurd than 
the term Sub-deuto-carbonas potassii of the Codex; or more 
erroneous than that of Hydrargyri Submurzas, as applied by 
the London College? Why not rest content with Kali and 
Calomel? 
In Dr. Paris’s section ‘On the application and misapplication 
of Chemical Science,’’ he has interwoven some very just re- 
marks respecting the connexion of Chemistry and Pharmacy, and 
has given a concise abstract of Chemico-pharmaceutical his- 
tory. There are, however, parts of this section which we had 
hoped would have been omitted in the present edition, and to 
which we refrain from offering reply or observation ; not that we 
are alarmed by our author’s assertions, nor silenced by what 
he is pleased to term “ the animated but cool and candid de- 
fence of the late Professor of Chemistry in the University of 
Oxford,” nor satisfied with the evidence which he adduces in 
favour of his own University, nor convinced of the chemical per- 
fection of the late Pharmacopeeia; but because we are certain 
the observations which have excited our author’s angry ani- 
mosity were neither written in the spirit, nor published with the 
intention, which he is pleased, in a paragraph at page 99 of the 
book we are reviewing, to assign to them. 
That substances may occasionally be chemically inconsistent, 
but medically compatible, and, vice versd, is a position of our 
author which we are willing to admit in its utmost extent, and 
cordially join with him in deprecating the too prevalent and 
fashionable absurdity of attempting to account for the pheno- 
mena of life upon principles deduced from the analogies of inert 
matter. Upon this subject we cannot do better than quote the 
late Dr. William Hunter, who saw the mischief of these delu- 
sive but tempting theories, and who adverted to them in his lec- 
tures with his usual judgment and facetiousness. ‘‘ Gentle- 
men,” said he, “‘ Physiologists will have it that the stomach is 
a mill; others, that it is a fermenting vat; others again, that it 
is a stew-pan: but, in my view of the matter, it is neither a mill, 
