3S4 
PHAKMACEUTICAL MEETING, EDINBUEGH. 
A meeting of the Society was held in St. George’s Hall, on Tuesday evening, 18th 
December; Mr. Kemp, President, in the chair. 
After a few remarks by the Chairman, he introduced Dr. Scoreshy-Jackson, F.E.C.P., 
and Lecturer on Materia Medica, who read the following communication:— 
“ Analytical Eeview of the Codex Medicamentarius or Pharmacopee Pran^aiseby 
E, E. Scoresby-Jackson, M.D., F.E.S.E., Fellow of the Eoyal College of Physicians, 
Physician to the Eoyal Infirmary, Lecturer on Clinical Medicine and on Materia Medica, 
Edinburgh. 
Mr. President and Gentlemen,—When I received your secretary’s note, stating that the 
Council wished me to read a paper to the Society, I had before me the new edition of 
the ‘ Codex Medicamentarius ’ of France, studying it, as I think we ought to do all such 
works from whatever country they may come, with the view of enlarging, confirming, and 
modifying my knowledge of materia medica ; and it occurred to me that it might be 
interesting to you to get a bird’s-eye view of the volume before proceeding to study it 
more minutely. Now, in the examination of a work such as this, it seems to me that 
the best mode of procedure is to divide the labour into two parts, analytical and critical: 
that is, in the first place, to approach the subject with an impartial mind and with the 
determination to grasp it in its integrity, before we proceed to inquire to what extent it 
quadrates with our preconceived notions of the various matters of which it treats. In 
order to accomplish the first part of this process, we must adopt a plan directly opposed 
to that of the anatomist in his dissections. Instead of beginning at the surface, we must 
get at the skeleton at once ; and having done this, we may next proceed to the considera¬ 
tion of the finer textures ; and lastly, when we have made ourselves familiar with the 
work as a whole, we may try to improve it, or, in other words, we may pass to the second 
or critical review of the work. In a single address, and that of comparatively short 
duration, I can hope to do little more than to show you the skeleton ; but since even in 
this elementary part of the work some portion may be more interesting than others, I 
shall endeavour to direct your attention to such of the bones of the skeleton as will be 
most likely to interest you, and perhaps I shall not be very far wrong if I fix upon the 
galenical preparations for this purpose. But in the first place a general survey. The 
‘ French Pharmacopcnia ’—at least the copy of it which I have before me as I write—is 
a handsome, portly volume, royal octavo in size, and consisting of 831 pages. It is 
published with the sanction and by the direction of the Government, and is supposed to 
contain a reference to every medicinal preparation which the pharmaceutist is likely to 
be called upon to supply. It is a code of instruction imposed equally upon physicians 
and pharmaceutists, and professes to be at once the guide of the practitioner, and the * 
security of the Government for the protection of the people. To this end, it is admitted 
that it must not be a stereotyped work, but one essentially progressive, brought up at 
definite intervals for complete revision, in order that it may be a faithful reflex of exist¬ 
ing science. The first edition of the present Codex appeared in 1818, the second in 1837. 
In 1850, the Codex having by that time fallen to the rear of science, it was deemed ne¬ 
cessary to grant a dispensation from its formulse in order that medicines of more*recent 
origin and others of more trustworthy preparation might be legally employed, and from that 
time such remedies as were recommended by the Academy of Medicine, and the formulae 
for which had been sanctioned by the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, were ad¬ 
mitted either to rank with or to supersede those of the Codex. But in 18G1 the Codex 
was so far out of date, that its revision became imperative ; an application to that effect 
was made to the Emperor, who signified his approval at Fontainebleau on the 20th of 
June of that year, and by subsequent ministerial decrees, a commission charged with the 
undertaking was appointed. The Commission consisted of eighteen members, sixteen of 
whom were selected for their knowledge of medicine and pharmacy. Their names, a 
sufficient guarantee for the excellence of the work, are MM. Dumas (President), Eayer, 
Bouchardat, Grisolle, Eegnault, Tardieu, Wurtz, Bussy, Chatin, Guibourt, Le Canu, 
Buignet, Gobley, Mayet, Mialhe, and Schaeuffele, with whom were associated MM. Petit 
and Mourier, of the first and second division of the Department of Public Instruction. 
The work of that Commission, published in July of the present year, is what we have 
now to examine. 
