Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

PHARMACOPOEIA (lit. the art of the Oa...

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V21, Page 355 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

See also:

PHARMACOPOEIA (lit. the See also:art of the OapµaK07robbs, or See also:drug-compounder)  , in its See also:modern technical sense, a See also:book containing directions for the See also:identification of simples and the preparation of See also:compound medicines, and published by the authority of a See also:government or of a medical or pharmaceutical society . The name has also been applied to similar compendiums issued by private individuals . The first See also:work of the See also:kind published under government authority appears to have been that of See also:Nuremberg in 1J42; a passing student named See also:Valerius See also:Cordus showed a collection of medical receipts, which he had selected from the writings of the most eminent medical authorities, to the physicians of the See also:town, who urged him to See also:print it for the benefit of the apothecaries, and obtained for his work the See also:sanction of the senatus . An earlier work, known as the Antidotarium florentinum, had been published under the authority of the See also:college of See also:medicine of See also:Florence . The See also:term " See also:pharmacopoeia" first appears as a distinct See also:title in a work published at See also:Basel in 1561 by Dr A . Foes, but does not appear to have come into See also:general use until the beginning of the 17th See also:century . Before 1542 the See also:works principally used by apothecaries were the See also:treatises on simples by See also:Avicenna and See also:Serapion; the De synonymis and Quid See also:pro quo of See also:Simon Januensis; the See also:Liber servitoris of Bulchasim See also:Ben Aberazerim, which described the preparations made from See also:plants, animals and minerals, and was the type of the chemical portion of modern pharmacopoeias; and the Antidotarium of Nicolaus de See also:Salerno, containing Galenical compounds arranged alphabetically . Of this last work there were two See also:editions in use—Nicolaus See also:magnus and Nicolaus parvus: in the latter several of the compounds described in the large: edition were omitted and the formulae given on a smaller See also:scale . Until 1617 such drugs and medicines as were in See also:common use were sold in See also:England by the apothecaries and grocers . In that See also:year the apothecaries obtained a See also:separate See also:charter, and it was enacted that no See also:grocer should keep an See also:apothecary's See also:shop . The preparation of physicians' prescriptions was thus confined to the apothecaries, upon whom pressure was brought to See also:bear to make them dispense accurately, by the issue of a pharmacopoeia in May 1618 by the College of Physicians, and by the See also:power which the wardens of the apothecaries received in common with the censors of the College of Physicians of examining the shop; of apothecaries within 7 M. of See also:London and destroying all the compounds which they found unfaithfully prepared . This, the first authorized London Pharmacopoeia, was selected chiefly from the works of Mezue and Nicolaus de Salerno, but it was found to be so full of errors that the whole edition was cancelled, and a fresh edition was published in the following See also:December .

At this See also:

period the compounds employed in medicine were often heterogeneous mixtures, some of which contained from 20 to 70, or more, ingredients, while a large number of simples were used in consequence of the same substance being supposed to possess different qualities according to the source from which it was derived . Thus crabs' eyes, pearls, See also:oyster-shells and See also:coral were supposed to have different properties . Among other ingredients entering into some of these formulae were the excrements of human beings, See also:dogs, mice, geese and other animals, calculi, human See also:skull and See also:moss growing on it, See also:blind puppies, earthworms, &c . Although other editions of the London Pharmacopoeia were issued in 1621, 1632, 1639 and 1677, it was not until the edition of 1721, published under the auspices of See also:Sir Hans See also:Sloane, that arty important alterations were made . In this issue many of the ridiculous remedies previously in use were omitted, although a See also:good number were still retained, such as dogs' excrement, earthworms, and moss from the human skull; the botanical names of herbal remedies were for the first See also:time added to the See also:official ones; the See also:simple distilled See also:waters were ordered of a See also:uniform strength; sweetened See also:spirits, cordials and ratifias were omitted as well as several compounds no longer used in London, although still in See also:vogue elsewhere . A See also:great improvement was effected in the edition published in 1746, in which only those preparations were retained which had received the approval of the See also:majority of the pharmacopoeia See also:committee; to these was added a See also:list of those drugs only which were supposed to be the most efficacious . An See also:attempt was made to simplify further the older formulae by the rejection of superfluous ingredients . In the edition published in 1788 the tendency to simplify was carried out to a much greater extent, and the extremely compound medicines which had formed the See also:principal remedies of physicians for 2000 years were discarded, while a few powerful drugs which had been considered too dangerous to be included in the Pharmacopoeia of 1765 were restored to thei! previous position . In 1809 the See also:French chemical nomenclature II was adopted, and in 1815 a corrected impression of the same was issued . Subsequent editions were published in 1824, 1836 and 1851 . The first See also:Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia was published in 1699 and the last in 1841; the first See also:Dublin Pharmacopoeia in 1807 and the last in 185o . The preparations contained in these three pharmacopoeias were not all uniform in strength, a source of much inconvenience and danger to the public, when powerful preparations such as dilute hydrocyanic See also:acid were ordered in the one See also:country and dispensed according to the See also:national pharmacopoeia in another .

In consequence of this inconvenience the Medical See also:

Act of 1858 ordained that the General Medical See also:Council should cause to be published a book containing a list of medicines and compounds, to be called the See also:British Pharmacopoeia, which should be a substitute throughout Great See also:Britain and See also:Ireland for the separate pharmacopoeias . Hitherto these had been published in Latin . The first British Pharmacopoeia was published in the See also:English See also:language in 1864, but gave such general dissatisfaction both to the medical profession and to chemists and druggists that the General Medical Council brought out a new and amended edition in 1867 . This dissatisfaction was probably owing partly to the fact that the majority of the compilers of the work were not engaged in the practice of See also:pharmacy, and therefore competent rather to decide upon the kind of preparations required than upon the method of their manufacture . The See also:necessity for this See also:element in the construction of a pharmacopoeia is now fully recognized in other countries, in most of which pharmaceutical chemists are represented on the committee for the preparation of the legally recognized manuals . National pharmacopoeias now exist in the following countries: See also:Austria, See also:Belgium, See also:Chile, See also:Denmark, See also:France, See also:Germany, Great Britain, See also:Greece, See also:Holland, See also:Hungary, See also:India, See also:Japan, See also:Mexico, See also:Norway, See also:Portugal, See also:Russia, See also:Spain, See also:Sweden, See also:Italy, See also:Switzerland, the See also:United States of See also:America and See also:Venezuela . All the above-mentioned were issued under the authority of government, and their instructions have the force of See also:law in their respective countries, except that of the United States, which was prepared by commissioners appointed by medical and pharmaceutical See also:societies, and has no other authority, although generally accepted as the national textbook . The French Codex has probably a more extended use than any other pharmacopoeia outside its own country, being, in connexion with Dorvault's L'Officine, the See also:standard for druggists in a large portion of Central and See also:South America; it is also official in See also:Turkey . The sum-See also:total of the drugs and preparations it contains is about 1250, or See also:double the See also:average of other modern pharmacopoeias . The progress of medical knowledge has led to a See also:gradual but very perceptible alteration in the contents of the pharmacopoeias . The See also:original very complex formulae have been simplified until only the most active ingredients have been retained, and in many cases the active principles have to a large extent replaced the crude drugs from which they were derived . From time to time such See also:secret remedies of druggists or physicians as have met with popular or professional approval have been represented by simpler official preparations .

The rapid increase in medical and pharmaceutical knowledge renders necessary frequent new editions of the national pharmacopoeias, the See also:

office of which is to furnish definite formulae for preparations that have already come into extensive use in medical practice, so as to ensure uniformity of strength, and to give the characters and tests by which their purity and potency may be determined . But each new edition requires several years to carry out numerous experiments for devising suitable formulae, so that the current Pharmacopoeia can never be quite up to date . This difficulty has hitherto been met by the publication of such non-official formularies as See also:Squire's See also:Companion to the Pharmacopoeia and Martindale's Extra Pharmacopoeia, in which all new remedies and their preparations, uses and doses are recorded, and in the former the varying strengths of the same preparations in the different pharmacopoeias are also compared . The need of such works to supplement the Pharmacopoeia is shown by the fact that they are even more largely used than the Pharmacopoeia itself, the first having been issued in 18 and the second in 13 editions at comparatively See also:short intervals . In England the task of elaborating a new Pharmacopoeia is entrusted to a See also:body of a purely medical See also:character, and legally the pharmacist has not, as in other countries, a See also:voice in the See also:matter, notwithstanding the fact that, although the medical practitioner is naturally the best See also:judge of the See also:drug or preparations that will afford the best therapeutic result, he is not so competent as the pharmacist to say how that preparation can be produced in the most effective and satisfactory manner, nor how the purity of drugs can be tested . In the preparation of the See also:fourth edition ofthe British Pharmacopoeia in 1898 some new departures were made . A committee of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain was appointed at the See also:request of the General Medical Council to advise on pharmaceutical matters and the valuable assistance rendered by it is acknowledged in the See also:preface of that work . A See also:census of prescriptions was taken to ascertain the relative frequency with which different preparations and drugs were used in prescriptions, and suggestions and criticisms were sought from various medical and pharmaceutical bodies at See also:home and in the colonies . As regards the purely pharmaceutical See also:part of the work a committee of reference in pharmacy, nominated by the pharmaceutical societies of Great Britain and Ireland, was appointed to See also:report to the Pharmacopoeia Committee of the Medical Council . Some difficulty has arisen since the passing of the See also:Adulteration of See also:Food and Drugs Act concerning the use of the Pharmacopoeia as a legal standard for the drugs and preparations contained in it . The Pharmacopoeia is defined in the preface as only " intended to afford to the members of the medical profession and those engaged in the preparation of medicines throughout the British See also:Empire one uniform standard and See also:guide whereby the nature and See also:composition of substances to be used in medicine may be ascertained and determined." It is obvious that it cannot be an See also:encyclopaedia of substances used in medicine, and can only be used as a standard for the substances and preparations contained in it, and for no others . It has been held in the Divisional Courts (Dickins v .

Phoenix-squares

Randerson) that the Pharmacopoeia is a standard for official preparations asked for under their pharmacopoeial name . But there are many substances in the Pharmacopoeia which are not only employed in medicine, but have other uses, such as See also:

sulphur, See also:benzoin, tragacanth, See also:gum arabic, ammonium carbonate, beeswax, oil of See also:turpentine, See also:linseed oil, and for these a commercial standard of purity as distinct from a medicinal one is needed, since the preparations used in medicine should be of the highest possible degree of purity obtainable, and this standard would be too high and too expensive for See also:ordinary purposes . The use of See also:trade synonyms in the Pharmacopoeia, such as See also:saltpetre for purified See also:potassium nitrate, and See also:milk of sulphur for precipitated sulphur, is partly answerable for this difficulty, and has proved to be a See also:mistake, since it affords ground for legal See also:prosecution if a chemist sells a drug of ordinary commercial purity for trade purposes, instead of the purified preparation which is official in the Pharmacopoeia for medicinal use . This would not be the See also:case if the trade synonym were omitted . For many drugs and chemicals not in the Pharmacopoeia there is no standard of purity that can be used under the Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act, and for these, as well as for the commercial quality of those drugs and essential See also:oils which are also in the Pharmacopoeia, a legal standard of commercial purity is much needed . This subject formed the basis of discussion at several meetings of the Pharmaceutical Society, and the results have been embodied in a work entitled Suggested See also:Standards for Foods and Drugs, by C . G . See also:Moor, which indicates the average degree of purity of many drugs and chemicals used in the arts, as well as the highest degree of purity obtainable in See also:commerce of those used in medicine . An important step has also been taken in this direction by the publication under the authority of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain of the British Pharmaceutical Codex, in which the characters of and tests for the purity of many non-official drugs and preparations are given as well as the character of many glandular preparations and antitoxins that have come into use in medicine, but have not yet been introduced into the Pharmacopoeia . This work may also possibly serve as a standard under the Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act for the purity and strength of drugs not included in the Pharmacopoeia and as a standard for the commercial grade of purity of those in the Pharmacopoeia which are used for non-medical purposes . Another legal difficulty connected with modern pharmacopoeias is the inclusion in some of them of synthetic chemical remedies, the processes for preparing which have been patented, whilst the substances are sold under trade-See also:mark names such as veronal . The scientific chemical name is often See also:long and unwieldy, and the physician prefers when See also:writing a See also:prescription to use the shorter name under which it is sold by the patentees .

In this case the pharmacist is compelled to use the more expensive patented See also:

article and the patient complains of the See also:price . If he uses the same article under its pharmacopoeial name when the patented article is pre-scribed he See also:lays himself open to prosecution by the patentee for infringement of patent rights . The only See also:plan, therefore, is for the physician to use the chemical name (which cannot be patented) as given in the Pharmacopoeia, or—for those synthetie remedies not included in the Pharmacopoeia—to use the scientific and chemical name given in the British Pharmaceutical Codex . See also:International Pharmacopoeia.—Increased facilities for travel have brought into greater prominence the importance of an approach to uniformity in the formulae of the more powerful remedies, in See also:order to avoid danger to patients when a prescription is dispensed in a different country from that in which it was written . Attempts have been made by international pharmaceutical and medical conferences to See also:settle a basis on which an international pharmacopoeia could be prepared, but, owing to national jealousies and the attempt to include too many preparations in such a work it has not as yet been produced . The standardization of preparations of patent medicines, as regards the amount of active principles they contain, can only conveniently and economically be done in operating on large quantities, and must naturally See also:lead to the preparations being standardized at wholesale houses, who issue a See also:guarantee with them; but it is not yet certain that deterioration may not take See also:place after standardization, in such as those of See also:ergot or See also:digitalis, so that it is somewhat questionable whether the standardization is of permanent value in all cases . Probably more dependence is to be placed on careful selection of the drug, and skill in its preparation and preservation by the See also:retail pharmacist, who should be personally responsible for the quality and purity of the preparations he sells . Although the attempt to See also:form an international pharmacopoeia has failed, a project for an imperial pharmacopoeia which should be adapted to the general and See also:local requirements of all parts of the British Empire has met with better success . With the aid of the medical and pharmaceutical authorities in each of the seventy administrative divisions of the British Empire an See also:Indian and Colonial addendum to the British Pharmacopoeia of 1898 was compiled and published in 1900 in which each article receives official sanction in the countries indicated at the See also:foot of the monographs . This was regarded as a preparatory step to the publication of a See also:complete imperial pharmacopoeia . Several unofficial universal pharmacopoeias have been published in England and in France, which serve to show the See also:comparative strength of parallel preparations in different countries . The metric or decimal mode of calculation and the centigrade scale of temperature are adopted in all pharmacopoeias except those of Great Britain (in which the metric equivalents are now given) and in some instances of Greece .

The majority omit chemical formulae . An alphabetical arrangement is followed in all . The maximum closes of preparations are given in several pharmacopoeias and the physician must indicate on his prescription, if he exceeds this limit, by using a See also:

note of exclamation after each article, that he purposely intends such a See also:close to be employed . The great increase of medical literature and international See also:exchange of medical See also:journals has led to the See also:adoption in almost every country of all the really valuable remedial agents, and the more extended use of active principles has given rise to an approximation in strength of their solutions . The difficulty of nomenclature could probably be overcome by a list of synonyms being given with each article, and that of language by the use of Latin . The greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of uniformity are the tinctures and extracts—a class of preparations containing many very powerful drugs, but in which the same name does not always indicate the same thing; thus, See also:extract of See also:aconite signifies an extract of the See also:root in the pharmacopoeias of the United States, Japan and Russia, extract of the leaves in the Danish and Portuguese, inspissated juice of the fresh leaves in the See also:Greek, and alcoholic extract of the root in that of Spain and Italy, and alcoholic extract of the dried leaves in the Chilean pharmacopoeias . It appears probable, however, that the growth of pharmaceutical See also:chemistry will indicate, in time, which of those in use form the most active and trustworthy preparations, while the general adoption of the metric See also:system will lead to clearer approximation of strength than hitherto . The method adopted by the Portuguese Pharmacopoeia comes nearest to that uniformity which is so desirable in such preparations, as the tinctures of the fresh plants are all pre-pared with equal parts of the drug and alcoholic menstruum; simple tinctures in general, with unfortunately a few exceptions, with one part of the drug in five parts of See also:alcohol of given strength; ethereal tinctures are in the proportion of one part in ten; and the tinctures of the alkaloids and their salts contain one part of the See also:alkaloid in ninety-nine of menstruum . Homoeopathic and eclectic practitioners as well as dentists have also their See also:special pharmacopoeias . See See also:Bell and Redwood, Progress of Pharmacy (London, 188o) ; See also:Scherer, Literature pharmacopoearum (See also:Leipzig and See also:Sorau, 1822) ; See also:Flint, Report on the Pharmacopoeias of all Nations (See also:Washington, 1883) . (E . M .

End of Article: PHARMACOPOEIA (lit. the art of the OapµaK07robbs, or drug-compounder)
[back]
PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS OF ZINC
[next]
PHARMACOSIDERITE

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.