November 9,1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
371 
Triller’s Dispensatorium Pharmaceut. Universale, pub¬ 
lished in 1764 ; then Spielmann’s in 1783 ; then Reuss in 
1786 ; Mayr in 1798; Swediaur in 1803; Roeber in 
1803; Brugnatelli, an Italian pharmacist, in 1807; 
and then Yon Mons in 1821-2. In these most remark¬ 
able works the authors confined themselves to the col¬ 
lecting of various formula) from different countries. 
They did not make any selection, nor indicate remedies 
which might be more or less worthy of recommendation. 
Only the latter one amongst the works he had mentioned 
had made such an attempt, and that only in the slightest 
degree.. Jourdan’s Pharmacopee Universelle, pub¬ 
lished in 1828, began to make a selection. All these 
works had a remarkable success, most of them passing 
through several editions, or were published in various 
countries in translations. Some of them reached four edi¬ 
tions. In 1835, Geiger commenced the Pharmacopoea Uni¬ 
versalis at Heidelberg, but dying before its completion 
it was finished by Mohr. The authors of this work made 
a selection of articles, and described the value of them by 
means of three classes of type. The most valuable medi¬ 
cines were printed in large type, the less valuable in 
smaller type, and the useless medicines in still smaller 
type. The same principle was adopted in the Baden 
pharmacopoeia. The articles which were selected by 
the Commission of Baden being distinguished by par¬ 
ticular signs, so that the Baden pharmacists had a sort of 
universal pharmacopoeia to refer to. The next important 
treatise that appeared was the Codex Medicamentarius 
Hamburgensis, in the year 1835, which stated that from 
international reasons, which had particular value at that 
great trading place, it offered a rich selection of remedies 
to its readers; and therefore this Hamburg pharma¬ 
copoeia might in some measure replace a general 
pharmacopoeia. In 1846, the idea of a general pharma¬ 
copoeia was taken up in Italy, but it came to nothing. 
In 1847, the pharmacopoeia for the kingdom of Wiir- 
temberg appeared, and this was distinguished by a great 
selection of remedies, many of which it had taken 
from the Codex Hamburgensis. It distinguished the 
value of remedies by differently sized letters in the print¬ 
ing, but it had not had any influence upon pharmacists 
out of the country. In 1864, there appeared a General 
Pharmacopoeia by an author of the name of Strum, who 
merely collected, and* entirely resigned all criticism. 
They had, then, in this country in 1867, the most excel¬ 
lent British Pharmacopoeia, 'which effected a great sim¬ 
plification in this kingdom. In Germany a similar desire 
for this simplification of the various codexes led to the 
appointment of a Commission, which elaborated a Phar¬ 
macopoeia Germania) in 1865 ; second edition, 1867. This 
pharmacopoeia was no doubt a considerable progress uj)on 
what had formerly existed; and he believed it was now in¬ 
troduced as the Imperial Pharmacopoeia in Austria. The 
Danish Pharmacopoeia of 1868, and the Swedish of 1869, 
and the Norwegian of 1870, had agreed to give the 
same composition for all articles having the same name, 
which was a very great progress. In the years 1865-7-9 
the question of this universal pharmacopoeia was mooted 
at the International Pharmaceutical Congress; but he 
thought it would be very difficult for a reunion, as it 
■were, of men -who were not delegated by any other 
powers behind them, who might come together again or 
not, to do so serious a work as that of the general phar¬ 
macopoeia. Now the Pharmacopee Fra^aise of the 
year 1866 also recognized in its preface that a universal 
pharmacopoeia, or, at least, a European pharmacopoeia, 
was a very desirable thing. The pharmacopoeia itself 
was stated to be intended to help to prepare such a 
transition, such a union or harmony, and to have 
adapted itself in many details to the pharmacopoeias of 
other countries. There was also another attempt 
at a universal pharmacopoeia in Hager’s ‘ Pharmacopoea) 
Recentiores Anglica, Gallica, Germania), Helvetica, 
Russia) inter se collat®.’ He (Dr. Thudichum) had on 
the table a proof page of the proposed new pharmaco¬ 
poeia, in -which several classes of type had been 
used ; the important medicines being in large type, then 
the second class being smaller, and lastly, a small 
print for the common drugs. The value of the reme¬ 
dies was thus distinguished by the size of the print. 
That was the great principle introduced by Geiger and 
Mohr, and it was of the utmost consequence that it 
should be upheld. It wou*ld be easy for any pharma¬ 
copoeia anywhere to exist in its integrity by upholding 
a certain kind of print for its own individual medicines, 
and yet embodying the 'whole of the remedies from the 
other pharmacopoeias by giving them in different type. 
Therefore there was not the slightest difficulty for each 
country having its full and complete.pharmacopoeia, and, 
as it were, mixed up with it in a logical and alphabetical 
way, a universal pharmacopoeia, so that the pharmacists 
and physicians w'ould only have one book to refer to. 
Supposing that this work were not successful in being 
adopted by the public authorities of any country, he, 
nevertheless, claimed for it a very high scientific value, 
inasmuch as it would always, under all circumstances, 
be useful to any one as a book of reference. The so¬ 
ciety for carrying out the new pharmacopoeia began 
with eight members, and they had latterly been happy 
enough to add several other international gentlemen to 
it, and these gentlemen now constituted what they 
called a “ Pharmaconomic Society.” The name 
had been adopted in order to indicate that the in¬ 
tention is not to produce a book for teaching, but 
strictly a book of law; that was to say, a book which 
could be followed by any one, and be to him a full and 
satisfactory exponent of prescription and justification of 
pharmaceutical action. The first condition was con¬ 
ciseness, and they hoped not to exceed fifty sheets of 
printing. He questioned whether any single man, no¬ 
matter wuth what power endowed, would be capable 
of accomplishing such a work. It required the zea¬ 
lous and hearty co-operation of men distributed over 
all the countries concerned, men who could meet on. 
common ground and mutually accord their expe¬ 
riences. He had no doubt that although the proposed 
work would not teach in words, it would teach by simple 
classification of the remedies. There were some medi¬ 
cines which were of cardinal importance to the health¬ 
ful existence of man, and they were as old as history.. 
In old historical works whenever they found mention of 
remedies, aloes was in the account, and there were digi¬ 
talis and similar drugs. They would best see the- 
difference there was between a country which was well 
treated by its physicians and well supplied by its 
pharmacists and one that was so far behind civilization 
that its pharmacy and medicine -were both at a low 
standard by visiting such countries. Nevertheless, 
it was necessary for them, even in the best of circum¬ 
stances, to constantly remind the mass of physicians 
and the mass of pharmacists -what were the remedies, 
of cardinal value, w r hat were the remedies of sub¬ 
ordinate value, but still useful remedies, and those 
which were mere trash, and which were therefore not 
only to be treated with indifference, but to be positively 
rejected. Although these latter remedies were to be dis¬ 
carded, they.would still be found in the new Pharma¬ 
copoeia, and the fact of their having to be rejected 
would be indicated. He hoped that it would 
be understood that in anything he had said, he did not 
in any way commit the Pharmaconomic Society. In 
some cases there were three or four alternatives pre¬ 
sented to them, and it would depend greatly upon 
the opinions they could obtain from such bodies, 
as the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 
which way their decisions in matters of detail were 
given. If, therefore, he had stated any principle which 
they should subsequently find changed, he hoped they 
would not think it inconsistent, as these matters of 
detail were now under consideration. 
The meeting was adjourned to the 4th of December. 
