698 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [February 24, 1872, 
Pharmacopcea Suecica. Editio Septima. 1869. 
Pharmacopcea Danica. Editio Secunda. 1869. 
Pharmacopcea Norvegica. Editio Altera. 1870. 
These are important recent additions to a class of 
pharmaceutical publications which, more perhaps than 
any others, afford an insight into the existing state of 
pharmacy and therapeutics in the countries from which 
they emanate. Denmark, Sweden and Norway are 
among the most northern kingdoms in which works of 
this description are published; but, although forming 
the extreme boundary in that direction of the region of 
advanced civilization, they are by no means behind other 
and more southern countries in the cultivation of those 
branches of science and art which contribute to the pro¬ 
duction of a good pharmacopoeia. The countries of 
Linnaeus, Berzelius and Scheele could hardly, indeed, be 
supposed to be deficient in botanical, chemical and phar¬ 
maceutical knowledge ; and accordingly we find that in 
Sweden and Denmark from early periods, and in Norway 
more recently, well-regulated medical and pharmaceutical 
institutions have existed, and officially-authorizod phar¬ 
macopoeias have been periodically produced. 
The ‘ Pharmacopcea Holmiensis ’ was published at 
Stockholm as far back as 1686. It was succeeded, in 
1775, by the ‘ Pharmacopcea Suecica,’ the fifth edition 
of which appeared in 1817. Of that edition the botanical 
part was prepared by the celebrated Swartz, and the 
chemical part by the no less celebrated Berzelius. 
The first Danish pharmacopoeia was published in 
1772, and subsequent editions or reprints appeared in 
1786, 1805, 1840 and 1850. This pharmacopoeia was 
used in Norway until the publication, in 1854, of the 
* Pharmacopcea Norvegica,’ of which the work under 
notice with that title is the second edition. 
These three pharmacopoeias have a close relationship, 
arising, not only from the contiguity and comparatively 
isolated position of the countries to which they belong, 
but from other circumstances connected with their pro¬ 
duction. They nearly resemble each other in size, in 
language, in arrangement, in the method of description 
adopted, and in the general nature of the substances 
described. They have also been further connected by 
an agreement entered into by the authorities from which 
they emanate that all important compound medicines, 
bearing the same name, and ordered in more than one of 
them, should correspond in composition and strength. 
It appears, however, from a statement in the. preface to 
the Norwegian Pharmacopoeia, that the compilers, al¬ 
though they have endeavoured to carry this important 
object into effect, have not as yet fully succeeded. The 
editors excuse the continued existence of some slight 
differences, on the ground of the present editions being 
the first in which the attempt at assimilation has been 
made, while in previous editions there were considerable 
differences which it was difficult to reconcile at once. 
The fact is thus accounted for, that although there is 
generally a close resemblance between the Aorks under 
notice, in which there are many points of accordance, 
there are nevertheless some differences, and some of a 
rather marked character. For instance, hydrocyanic 
acid, for which a process is given in the Norwegian 
Pharmacopoeia, is not noticed in the Pharmacopoeias of 
Denmark and Sweden, notwithstanding the fact that we 
are indebted to a distinguished Swedish pharmaceutist, 
whose name is often associated with the medicinal acid 
in this country, for having at least contributed to its 
discovery. 
All these Pharmacopoeias are published in Latin, for 
which we have reason to be thankful. A scientific no¬ 
menclature is generally adopted where it is applicable, 
and in the description of chemical substances the names 
used are those of Berzelius. Thus we have chloras 
Solicits for chlorate of potash, chloretum baricum for chlo¬ 
ride of barium, chloretum ferricum for perchloride of 
iron, chloretum hydrargyricum corrosivum for corrosive 
sublimate, and chloretum h ydrarg yrosum prccc ip it a turn for 
calomel. These names, however well suited for scien¬ 
tific use, have little to recommend them for the purposes 
of pharmacy. One of the points of non-accordance be¬ 
tween the Norwegian Pharmacopoeia and the others is 
in regard to the last of these names, which in the former 
work is changed to chloretum hydrargyroswn mite. The 
product, also, in this case, is directed to be obtained by 
sublimation, and not by precipitation. In the Swedish 
Pharmacopoeia precipitated calomel is the only sort or¬ 
dered, but the Danish Pharmacopoeia orders both the 
precipitated and the sublimed, the latter being named 
chloretum hydrargyrosum sublimation. Symbolic formula) 
are not used for representing chemical substances in the 
Swedish and Danish Pharmacopoeias, and no reference is 
made in those works to chemical notation; but in the 
Norwegian Pharmacopoeia the names of chemical sub¬ 
stances of definite and known composition have chemical 
formula) appended, in which the old system of notation 
is alone followed. In all the works the descriptions of 
chemical compounds correspond with the old and not 
the new system. 
The arrangement of the matter in all these works is 
similar to that of the British Pharmacopoeia, but with, 
this material difference, that, instead of the several com¬ 
pounds or preparations being brought together under 
the names of the most important constituents, they are- 
separated under subordinate heads, such as oxides, chlo¬ 
rides, sulphates, etc.; and there is no method adopted 
for bringing, for instance, the preparations of antimony, 
or iron, or mercury, into one list, for even the index 
fails to do this. 
The descriptions are generally concise and clear, and 
undue complications are avoided in the formula) and pro¬ 
cesses. It might, perhaps, be even objected that this, 
attempt at simplification has in some cases been carried 
too far. Chemical processes, as a rule, are not given. 
When they are given they are generally good, but wo 
observe one remarkable exception to this in the process 
given in the ‘ Pharmacopcea Danica’ for the preparation 
of chloroform. Not satisfied with the chlorof omnium 
venale , the characters of which, and the tests of its 
purity, are described, a detailed process is given for what 
is called chloroformium purum , but this unfortunately 
would yield an impure product. The process differs 
from that usually adopted, and which is given in the 
British Pharmacopoeia, in the omission of the use of oiL 
of vitriol for purifying the crude product. It is well 
known that mere washing with carbonate of soda, dry¬ 
ing with chloride of calcium, and redistilling, will not. 
yield pure chloroform ; yet this is the method indicated, 
in the case alluded to, for purifying the crude chloro¬ 
form. 
Some of the galenical processes differ from ours, and 
may afford useful hints for improving the processes in 
our Pharmacopoeia. The saving of time seems to have 
been generally studied. Infusions are made in from a 
quarter of an hour to half an hour; and tinctures, by 
digestion—-that is, with heat—rather than by maceration, 
in an equally shortened time. Percolation is not adopted 
in any case. We are inclined to think, however, that, 
in some of these cases, the quality of the product must, 
suffer from the substitution of a quick, but rough, for a 
more delicate and refined system of cookery. 
Among the general instructions given in each of these 
works are some relating to the keeping and dispensing* 
of medicines. Thus, for instance, it is stated that in dis¬ 
pensing pills, if the ingredients specified in a prescrip¬ 
tion fail to produce a good pill-mass, the dispenser is. 
authorized to use one or more of the following excipients, 
but no others, namely, water, syrup, spirit and powdered 
marshmallow-root; and to these the Norwegian Phar¬ 
macopoeia adds glycerine. All pills, when dispensed, 
are directed to be rolled in lycopodium. 
