276  Proposed  Changes  in  the  Pharmacopeia.  { Am j/°e%£7h7arm" 
valuable  matter — that  it  had  no  sale  or  demand,  while  the  Dispensa- 
tory, based  upon  it,  became  one  of  the  most  successful  medical  books 
ever  published.  So  completely  did  it  overshadow  and  in  effect  suppress 
the  Pharmacopoeia  that,  until  within  the  last  ten  years,  very  few  in 
either  the  medical  or  pharmaceutical  professions  knew  of  its  existence 
separate  from  the  Dispensatory."  (p.  16.)  The  language  at  the  com- 
mencement of  this  passage  is  noteworthy  :  "  From  that  time — became 
a  mere  skeleton  !" 
Such  is  Dr.  Squibb's  estimate  of  a  u  plan  which  has  worked  well  for 
more  than  fifty  years  !"  (p.  4)  "  Up  to  i860  inclusive,  it  was  accepted 
as  the  best  attainable  authority  !"  (p  39  )  The  Pharmacopoeia  revision 
has  been  u  so  admirably  done  by  Drs.  Wood  and  Bache  in  the  past," 
(p.  11.)  that  under  the  fostering  care  of  these  two  eminent  physicians 
it  "  became  a  mere  skeleton  "  !  and  was  "  in  effect  suppressed  "  !  In 
what  more  favored  regions  of  the  earth,  beneath  what  fairer  and  more 
genial  skies,  under  what  more  faithful  tendance  and  careful  nurture  by 
the  learned  medical  profession  will  Dr.  Squibb  seek  to  find  a  Pharma- 
copoeia endowed  with  a  healthier  life  or  developed  with  a  fleshier 
fulness  r 
It  needs  not  the  sentiment  of  personal  respect  and  admiration  for 
these  two  honored  names  (so  strangely  misconceived)  to  call  forth  a 
vindication  of  their  labors  and  their  influence.  Can  any  unbiased  mind 
suppose  that  the  far-famed  Drs.  Wood  and  Bache  "  were  indirectly 
well  paid  for  their  labor  by  this  plan  of  making  a  Pharmacopoeia  which 
should  require  a  Dispensatory,  and  then  making  a  Dispensatory  as  a 
private  and  profitable  enterprise,  whose  success  depended  on  its  being 
still  more  profitable  to  those  who  bought  and  used  it  than  to  its 
authors"?  (p.  12.)  With  what  shadow  of  propriety  —  with  what 
pretence  of  plausibility — can  it  be  affirmed  or  intimated  that  the  Dis- 
pensatory would  have  been  less  valuable,  less  popular,  less  profitable — if 
the  Pharmacopoeia  had  been  badly  revised,  or  if  the  edition  of  1820 
had  never  been  revised  at  all  r  How  can  that  which  earned  success 
by  "  being  still  more  profitable  to  those  who  bought  and  used  it,"  by 
any  possibility  have  rewarded  its  authors  for  labor  otherwise  bestowed  ? 
As  an  humble  member  of  the  Revision  Committee  of  i860,  it  was 
the  writer's  fortune  to  be  an  intimate  witness  of  the  laborious  care  and 
the  critical  acumen  with  which  these  earnest  Nestors  of  their  profes- 
sion applied  themselves  to  their  prolonged  and  wearisome  duties,  intent 
