Methodus medendi : a sketch of the development of therapeutics / by Sir William Henry Allchin.

  • Allchin, William Henry, Sir, 1846-1911.
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Methodus medendi : a sketch of the development of therapeutics / by Sir William Henry Allchin. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    54/94 (page 50)
    MKTi 10DUS M E DENt)I. eliminated, and the compoHitioii of many of the preparations simplified in successive editions. The fir.st London Pliarmacopfeia, that of 1018, contained one thous- and and twenty-eight separate article.s, wliicli entered intotlie composi- tion of nine lumdred and tliirty-two compounds. Of tliese latter, collated as they for the most part were from various sources, thirteen were derived from Galen; one hundred and nine formulie were taken from Mesua, who lived in the eleventh century ; fourteen from Fernelius, Avho died in 1518 ; whilst Sir Theodore Mayei-ne, wlio had a large share in the preparation of the work, was instrumental in introducing calomel, the mineral acids, several preparations of steel and antimony, sugar of lead, and caustic potash, among other chemicals, which, as previou.sly mentioned, were being more extensively prepared and studied about this time. The greater number of this enormous bulk of medicaments were harmless and useless, and combined in such numbers that one hundred • and sixty-one of the formulae of this pharmacopoeia contained ten to nineteen ingredients; forty-four contained twenty to twenty-nine; three contained from forty to fifty- nine ; and three over fifty separate items, among the last being the Mithridatium andTheriacumand theAntidotus Mathioli already referred to. In 1650 corrosive .sublimate and white precipitate were added. It was the 1746, or fifth, edition which exhibited the gi-eatest reform and “assumed many of the characteristics of the pharmacopoeias of our own times.” Already in the previous edition of 1721 a consider- able simplification was apparent: the number of simples was reduced to seven hundred and thirty-five, and, as Dr. Munk says, “ the compilers of the pharmacopceia hoped to comprise within moderate bulk such a variety of medicines as would satisfy as well the love of old as well as the love of modern prescriptions; those who ]Dreferred simplicity, equally as those who .still adhered to complexity in officinal formulae. The work really was what it thus purports to be, a compromise and a transition from the polypharmacy of a previous generation to the simpler methods of prescription which were then becoming popular.” The work was notable also for including for the first time potassium sulphide, the tinctures of ammonio-chloride and the perchloride of iron, sulphate of iron, nitrate of sih'er, tartar emetic, and lime-water. Although the edition of 1746 exhibited a marked improvement, for the articles of the materia medica mmibered only two hundred and seventy-two, and human mummy was for the first time excluded, yet it still gave a place to the Mithridatium and the Venice treacle among the three hundred and seventy-eight compounds that it contained. But these were exceptions, and no other preparation