compounds, pharmacopoeias should not, for greater precision, append the symbols to the definitions, and also quote the chemical authority for their constitution, as they quote a botanical authority when referring a vegetable substance to the plant which yields it. We say, then, that in selecting names to be used in prescribing, designations totally unscientific, and thus not liable to mutation, should be used whenever they can be found, and that the scientific terms should only be employed in the descriptive definitions which accompany these.

On the subject of the language in which a pharmacopoeia should be written, the London College is, in one sense, explicit enough, inasmuch as they have again put forth their book in Latin. There is something exquisitely amusing in the obstinacy with which they cling to their Latinity; but still more amusing is the coolness with which they do so, without offering one word of apology or even of explanation for this outrage upon common sense. As the College does not vouchsafe to us any account of the reasons which have induced them, in the year 1851, to persevere in this absurd practice, we are led to assume that they have no better reasons to give than that which their present president, Dr Paris, has assigned in an appendix to his Pharmacologia, published by him in 1838. There, in replying to the criticisms of a reviewer, who seems to have fallen foul of the London Pharmacopoeia of 1836, Dr Paris thus writes:

"Why written in the Latin language? It is asked, For what purpose this national work is written in a dead language, and one spoken in purity by no nation on the earth?' If not spoken, it is understood throughout the civilised world, and that cannot be said of any other language; but the reader will be pleased to understand, that the committee of the College were appointed to remodel the Pharmacopoeia, not to subvert the custom of the profession. Physicians have ever been, and continue, in the habit of writing their prescriptions in Latin, whether laudably or otherwise is not the question; as long as the custom continues, the Pharmacopoeia Committee can have no option. Were it necessary, I might adduce many sufficient reasons for the continuance of the practice, but I should be thus led into a digression inconsistent with my object."

The two reasons here given, and we know of none given since then, are, the custom of the profession, and the fact of Latin being understood throughout the civilised world. Let us look into these reasons for a moment. We shall not debate whether the custom of writing prescriptions in Latin be good or bad; but, assuming it to be so good that it is a thing never to be abandoned, we ask, what has this to do with the propriety of writing a whole pharmacopoeia in Latin? Could a physician not prescribe Calomel in Latin, if he find the word Calomelas given as its designation, without having all the directions for preparing it in the same language? Do the Edinburgh and Dublin Pharmacopoeias, because written in English, in the least prevent Scotch and Irish physicians from prescribing in Latin? But are the customs of the profession so sacred that, without any inquiry as to whether they be good or

bad, they are to be assumed as reasons for continuing an absurd practice? If so, when are we to improve, or how comes it that we have improved in any of our professional practices at all? The "custom of the profession" would have been just as good a reason for having continued to inflict upon us knee breeches and silk stockings, a full-bottomed wig and a cocked hat, as for continuing to write a whole pharmacopoeia in Latin.

But, a great reason for continuing to write in Latin, appears to be, that it is understood throughout the civilised world. We shall assume it to be proved, though we hold it to be no such thing, that the London Pharmacopoeia will be better understood in France, Germany, or Italy, because in Latin. How many copies of this work go to the whole Continent of Europe? Do fifty, or twenty, or ten? Go to a Parisian Pharmacien, and ask him to make up a prescription according to the London Pharmacopoeia, and see whether he will ever think of looking at the original. If he can find the formula at all, he will get it most assuredly rather from some Pharmacopée Universelle, or some other translation into French, which would have been made just as correctly from an English, as from a Latin original. And do the French people show, by their own practice, that they value Latin pharmacopoeias? Look at the Codex, and see whether it is not written, after a common sense fashion, in French.

But is the London Pharmacopoeia intended for foreign, or for English apothecaries? Is this Latin, which is understood throughout the civilised world, understood by the very people for whom it is written? Are our druggists' apprentices so learned, that there is not the least doubt upon this point? It is notoriously the reverse. Who are chemists and druggists? We speak not of the Morsons, and Bells, and Squires, and Redwoods; but of the people who take upon themselves, in country places, to dispense drugs, and call themselves apothecaries. Are these the people to be addressed in Latin, when it concerns processes where accuracy and a distinct understanding of what is meant, are of the first importance? A very trifling amount of honesty and candour, will teach us to reply that they are not, and that, until the highly laudable endeavours of our really good druggists to exalt and establish their profession, have completely succeeded, the general standard of learning in those who are found behind the counter in druggists' shops, is not such as to render it safe to address them in a language not their own. Even if it be true, which we do not admit, that all foreign people who may have to do once or twice in their lives with a London Pharmacopoeia, are so classically educated, that Latin is quite adapted to their capacity; why make the book fitted for those whom it does not so closely concern, when it is unfitted for those for whose daily use it is intended?

The two reasons for writing in Latin, given by Dr Paris, the only authority on the subject which we possess, are so futile, that

there surely must be some others which influenced the College in their present proceeding. What they are, it is not so easy to divine.

Is it because it can thus be made more clear and unmistakeable? Let any one, in reply to this, say, whether he thinks it more intelligible to call a thing a "demissum," than to name it a "precipitate"; or to speak of "patinas fictiles planas," than to use, with the Dublin Pharmacopoeia, the more homely phrase of "delf dinner-plates."

Is it because the writing in Latin is more elegant than it would be in English? Let any one honestly say what he thinks of such canine Latinity as this. Treating of weight, they say, "nos priore utimur quod et Troy weight vocatur"; and speaking of vessels for pharmaceutical purposes, "hæc autem rite vitrifacta1 habemus, quod vulgo Anglice Porcelain vel Stoneware nuncupantur." But what better than a hotch-potch of this kind could we expect from writing about modern technicalities in an ancient language?

Is it from a mere desire to keep up, what Dr Paris himself calls, the "semblance of learning"? Then why not Greek rather than Latin? It is an older language, more connected with the early history of medicine, and one less commonly cultivated than Latin, and therefore more likely to give the "semblance of learning" to a body which wrote in it. It would be a fine thing to see a work bearing some such title as, Η Φαρμακοποιία της των Ιατρων Λονδίνου Ακαδημιας Tns Baσideias. And there would be a positive advantage in it. There may be an occasional mistake just now, from a half-educated druggist's apprentice working with a Latin pharmacopoeia, which he thinks he understands, but does not. With the Greek, this would never happen; it would prove at once more than a match for him; he would give it up altogether, and quietly wait (as, however, it is fair to admit he generally does, even with the Latin) till Dr Steggall or Dr Collier, or some other compassionate man of letters, favours him with a translation.

Is it sheer love of antiquity that makes them refuse to write in modern English? Then again, why Latin? or why Greek? why not go back to Egypt, from which, it is said, the Greeks first learned the art of medicine, and let us have a truly antiquarian pharmacopoeia in hieroglyphics? We could not pretend to give the hieroglyphic title for a pharmacopoeia, but we should think a "cock and a bull" would be among the signs.

The real thing which keeps alive this ridiculous custom of writing in Latin, is none of these. It is the pedagogue spirit which still haunts Pall Mall East. The London College of Physicians (we speak of them only corporately, for many of them, individually, we esteem and honour), have ever been slow to per

1 We do not believe that the word vitrifacta is Latin at all. Where did the College get it? Did they take it or make it?

ceive what was for the advancement of the profession in usefulness; more taken up with the "semblance of learning" than with the reality of progress; and often found in the way, like a fat lounger in a thoroughfare, making little progress himself, obstructing the trottoir, and impeding those who are anxious to go on.

Let them drop the Latin, and write in the vernacular, and they will make a still better pharmacopoeia of it next time.

We have no space left to discuss our third query, Of what authority should a pharmacopoeia be? The London College threaten all who do not follow their injunctions, with the Queen's displeasure, and open their work, as usual, with a formidable minute of the Privy Council authorising this. The Dublin College are armed with an act of Parliament, and come down upon the offender, shillelah fashion, with a fine of ten pounds. The Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia uses no such arguments, and yet is, we believe, as well followed as either of the others. We think it a pity that her gracious Majesty should be required to knit her brows, or that ten pounds should be exacted, if a druggist chooses to make, for instance, his Tincture of Calumba with rectified instead of proof spirit (which, by the way, makes a much finer preparation); and yet, if these legal documents mean anything, this is the case. We do not see that a pharmacopoeia need have any other authority than that which flows from intrinsic excellence. If it have this quality, it will be followed; if it have not, it will be departed from, let the Privy Council say what they like.

Such are some of the general points which we think ought to be attended to in attempting to obtain for us a national pharmacopoeia. Let it contain

1st, A good, correct, well-defined catalogue of the Materia Medica.

2d, Good manufacturing processes for the preparation of chemicals.

3d, Plenty of formula for galenical preparations, so as to embrace the best of all that are in use in the different parts of the kingdom.

4th, Let it be written in our mother tongue.

5th, Let its nomenclature be simple and unmistakeable.

6th, Let it be so good that it shall need no authority but its own merits to recommend it for universal adoption.

Lastly, Let the Royal Colleges set about this, if they are asked to do it, in a cordial spirit. They would find it a good plan to have associated with them some of our leading chemists and druggists, whom we hope to see ere long holding a proper professional status. And thus let us have a National Pharmacopoeia, both useful and creditable to the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

On the Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment of Spermatorrhæa. By M. LALLEMAND. Translated and Edited by H. J. M'DOUGALL. Second Edition. London, 1851.

WE are sorry to see this work in an English dress, believing that the tendency of all such productions is very seriously to aggravate the evils for which they profess to afford a remedy. The filthy advertisements and still more filthy publications to which they refer -that daily disgrace the newspapers, are well known to be the most fruitful source, of those monomaniacal delusions, which commit so many unfortunate victims to the rapacity of unprincipled quacks. But we do not hesitate to say, that the minute details and highlycoloured portraits which M. Lallemand has given to illustrate the alleged effects of youthful indiscretion, are in no respect less calculated to produce the same baneful effect, while the position and scientific character of their author render them even more dangerous than the publications of avowed empiricism.

"I am clear in my own mind," says the shrewd and honest John Hunter, "that the books on this subject have done more harm than good;" and we feel sure that every practitioner who directs much attention to the subject, must be of the same opinion. Indeed, as the mind and not the body requires correction, in cases of the kind in question, it is plain that everything which tends to cause or increase the impression of corporeal infirmity, must oppose the patient's recovery. While writing these remarks, we have seen a gentleman who wrote from the country a few days ago, to intimate his intention of seeking advice for the most complete prostration of energy, and depravation of all the bodily functions, resulting from some early imprudence. He tells us that he first became aware of his distressing state from the perusal of a book-that he corresponded with the author,-and spent some money in taking medicine, which had done him no good. Now this patient is obviously in good health, and suffering merely from mental uneasiness, on account of what he, in his ignorance of physiology, supposed to be a symptom of disease, while truly a sign of health. Having had the truth explained to him, he returns home completely free from all his gloomy fancies, and safely protected from empirical imposition. But if, instead of this reception, he had had his secretions subjected to microscopical examination, and been supplied with a copy of M. Lallemand's work for private study, we think the probability is, that his hallucination, so far from being dissipated, would have been confirmed, and increased the morbid craving for remedial treatment.

As to the cauterisation of the prostatic portion of the urethra, which is the great practical principle that M. Lallemand has endeavoured to establish, we beg to remark in the first place, that the very worst cases of the derangement for which he considers it