.REVIEWS. 
41 
that may reconcile medical men and pharmaceutists with reference to the points on 
which dissatisfaction has been expressed. Several little works have appeared, having 
for their object the explanation of changes effected by the introduction of the British 
Pharmacopoeia, and tending to facilitate its ado. lion by prescribers and dispensers. 
These, although useful in their way, may all be considered as having rather an ephemeral 
object, and they have therefore been brought out in an inexpensive form. It has been 
thought indeed, as the British Pharmacopoeia is published in English at rather a high 
price, and as the copyright of the text is secured to the Medical Council, so that it can¬ 
not be brought out by other authors in a new dress, it might reasonably be expected 
that it should contain all that is requisite for its comprehension and application. 
Being in the vernacular language, a translation is not required, and it could not very 
well be annotated as our Pharmacopoeias have hitherto been, without using the text upon 
which to found the annotations, which would probably be considered an infringement of 
the copyright. We have had no intimation therefore of any work, such as Phillips’s 
‘ Translation of the Pharmacopoeia’ being in contemplation, nor indeed is there the same 
occasion for such a work now as there has been formerly, for the British Pharmacopoeia 
is much more full in descriptive and explanatory details than any of our previous Phar¬ 
macopoeias have been. The defects which unfortunately exist in the new Pharma¬ 
copoeia are not such as a commentator could set right; they can only be corrected by the 
high medical authority from which the work emanates. 
Under these circumstances there has naturally been some speculation w r ith reference 
to the purport of Mr. Squire’s book. It was difficult from its title to say what was its 
principal object, or what position it was intended to occupy with reference to the Phar¬ 
macopoeia. Was it to be emendatory, or explanatory, or supplementary ? The first of 
course it could not be, unless it were suggestively, without the authority of the Medical 
Council; but there was scope enough for an explanatory and supplementary work, 
although, as already stated, it would be difficult to give to such its full value without 
embodying the text of the Pharmacopoeia, and thus to some extent superseding the use 
of that work. This obviously was not contemplated by the author, for ‘ A Companion to 
the Pharmacopoeia’ clearly implies that it is to be used with the Pharmacopoeia, and not as 
a substitute for it. On looking through Mr. Squire’s book, we find that although much 
of the substance of the Pharmacopoeia is used, yet it is but rarely that the text is quoted 
literally. It is generally much abbreviated, and sometimes essentially altered, so that the 
new version cannot be taken fully to represent the original. The alterations are some of 
them given, we presume, as suggested amendments, and in this class may be included 
the method adopted of expressing the quantities of ingredients in some of the formulae by 
numbers, without indicating any specific weights or measures. The author states in the 
preface,—“ I have, as far as practicable, expressed the formulae in parts, which may be 
regarded either as pounds, quarter pounds, or ounces, or indeed any weights, English or 
foreign. The liquids, however, are always directed to be measured ; I have therefore placed 
at the top of each page this general direction, .Solids by weight , liquids by measure .” Thi?, 
as the author says, he has been able to carry out only partially, for there are many cases 
in which it is found to be inapplicable. We confess we think it of very questionable 
utility even in gases in which the author has applied it. Take, for instance, a very 
simple case, that of Unguentum simplex. This, by the new method, is represented thus : 
—“ Prepared lard, 3; white wax, 2; almond oil, 3; melt together.” In the Phar¬ 
macopoeia the quantities are given as ounces by weight of the solids and fluid ounces of 
the liquid, and as long as the quantities used are limited to ounces, these, or any other 
numbers bearing the same relation to each other, may be used ; but suppose the operator 
wishes to substitute pounds for ounces, he has in this case to make a calculation of the 
quantity of oil by measure that will correspond with the altered weight of the solids. 
Or suppose the operator wants to make ten gallons of Acidum Sulphwicum Aromaticurr, ; 
turning to the Pharmacopoeia, he finds a formula which yields two pints, and as he 
requires forty times this quantity, he very easily calculates the quantities of ingredients, 
which will be 6 pints of sulphuric acid, 10 gallons of rectified spirit, 5 pounds of 
cinnamon, and 3 pounds 2 ounces of ginger. But now, turning to the “Companion,’ 
he finds another version of the formula, in which we have, “ sulphuric acid, 3 ; rectified 
spirit, 40 ; cinnamon, in powder, 2; ginger, in powder, 14; macerate for seven days.” 
There is surely as much calculation required here as in the other case, or we should 
say rather more. In this case too, by abbreviating the formula; an essential part of the 
VOL. VI. E 
