notions; and, tending to produce a habit of inconclusive reasoning, render our practice inert, and its principles fluctuating. Laying aside, therefore, all subtility of distinction, and refinement in hypothetical reasoning, were I permitted to refer to the testimony derived from an experience of twelve years in the treatment of ophthalmia, under almost every possible variety of circumstance that could influence the disease, I would give unlimited assent to the opinion of those who inculcate bold and rapid depletion as the safest and most effectual mode of treat

ment.

In the present state of medical science, where even the phe nomena of disease, most generally admitted as facts, are often disguised, or rest on the unstable basis of doubtful analogy, positive assertions must wear the unseeming garb of unbecoming confidence. But, if such assertions were ever allowable, I would confidently affirm with Scarpa and some others, that a tardiness in the use of evacuants, particularly a sparing use of the lancet, is the chief cause of subsequent disorganization and destruction of the eye, in the various shapes of suppuration, ulceration, sloughing and rupture of the cornea, adhesions of the iris, opacities, &c.; and, if these bad results do not occur, such omissions will tend to form and protract an obstinate chronic stage, from the debility induced in the vessels of the membranes, owing to previous excessive action and distension.

That this mode of treatment will succeed in every instance, it would be absurd to advance; and such an assertion would imply a power not within the sphere of human exertion, however wisely directed. In some few cases, the rapid progress and violent symptoms are so urgent as to set at defiance all our resources and disorganization is effected in the course of a few hours. But this very seldom occurs; and, in a great majority of cases, a prompt application of proper means in the commencement will arrest every bad symptom.

In the spring and summer months of the year 1813, ophthal mia extensively prevailed in the British garrison of Palermo. Many of the inhabitants were likewise attacked with it. No less than 193 cases occurred in the 62d regiment, between April and September, in all the different gradations of severity. Of this number, only one eye was lost by ulceration and sloughing of the cornea; and this occurred in a scrofulous habit, and in an eye impaired and rendered opaque from early infancy by the small-pox.

The excellent interior economy of the regiment enabled me to see the patients almost at the first moment of attack; and unless the case was very slight, blood was immediately extracted,

the quantity being regulated by the extent and severity of the inflammation, and apparent habit of the patient, but seldom or never under thirty ounces in any case where the lancet appeared necessary.

Frequently, where peculiar severity marked the case, both temporal arteries were opened at the same time, and sixty or seventy ounces rapidly extracted, which was followed by the most im mediate relief. In every violent case of ophthalmia, there is, for the most part, an increased vascular action, particularly in the branches of the temporal artery, which enables the surgeon to extract the necessary quantity of blood. To prevent secondary hæmorrhage, the divided artery was secured by the tenaculum, as the pressure of a tight bandage round the temples will, in severe cases, add to the tumefaction of the palpebre, and increase the pain and inflammation. Nor should the ligatures be applied in a careless manner. Both the divided ends of the artery will sometimes require to be secured, particularly in warm climates, where increased atmospheric temperature gives additional force to arterial action. Under such circumstances, unless the artery is secured by ligature, serious loss of blood may occur; particularly in the night-time, when a compress or bandage is liable to be rubbed off or disturbed.

It might prove tedious and uninteresting to detail the secondary means that were used; such as alvine evacuations, scarifications of the turgid vessels on the conjunctiva; incisions into, or removing a portion of, the tumid chemosis. In some cases, where the inside of the eyelids became much swelled, and assumed a granulating spongy appearance, which formed the principal source of the purulent secretion, relief was obtained by removing a portion of it, as recommended by Mr Ware. Blisters were found a doubtful expedient, and should not be employed during the violent inflammatory stage, or previous to evacuants. A pint of the common sea water, with a small portion of the tartrite of antimony dissolved in it, was found a good purgative; producing, at the same time that it opened the bowels, a gentle diaphoresis on the surface.

The pernicious custom of dark rooms and closed windows should, in most instances, be avoided, particularly in warm climates. In the acute stage of ophthalmia, by raising the temperature of the ward, they render any good effects from the exclusion of light doubtful; and tend powerfully to protract the chronic stage by keeping the patients, as it were, in a warm bath of animal effluvia, by denying a free circulation of air, and the admission of light, the stimulus of which, perhaps, proves the best remedy in old protracted cases.

The extensive abstraction of blood here recommended, will no doubt appear surprising, and bordering on temerity, to those who are influenced by the terrors of subsequent debility, and the false inferences connected with that term. But, in violent cases of ophthalmia, no alternative remains between permanent injury of sight, or perhaps total blindness, and a temporary reduction of strength, which is very speedily restored. Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1st September 1815.

III.

Copy of a Letter on Pharmaceutical Nomenclature, addressed to His Excellency Sir JAMES WYLIE, M. D. Physician to His Imperial Majesty ALEXANDER. By ROBERT LYALL, Doctor of Medicine and Surgery, &c.

DEA

EAR SIR, AS I think the subject of my last conversation with your Excellency of the greatest importance; as I am also of opinion, that pharmaceutical nomenclaturists have of late misled themselves in thinking they were following the principles of Linnæus, while they have been grossly deviating from them; and as I am anxious to see the confusion of our medicinal terminology removed, I hope you will excuse the freedom of the few following observations.

At the present moment, almost every country of Europe, almost every university, has its own pharmacopoeia, with its peculiar nomenclature; and even the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland can boast its three pharmacopoeias, with their various terminologies. The disadvantages arising from these circumstances have been often pointed out, and the want of one general nomenclature been as often lamented. But as it is scarcely to be expected, however desirable, that the heads of all the universities in Europe shall assemble to form and render valid one system of nomenclature, and as you have, in my opinion, a better opportunity in Russia, from the nature of your high situation, as well as of the laws of the country, * than any individual, of carrying my ideas into effect if approved of, I most willingly submit them to your consideration.

* I allude here to the influence of an Imperial Ukaze. VOL. XII. NO. 48. D d

The Philosophia Botanica I have repeatedly read and studied, and still oftener admired the genius of its author, displayed in the accuracy, conciseness, and precision of the terminology,in its application to science in general, but above all to botany, my favourite pursuit. But my admiration has always been at its height, when I thought of its advantages in rescuing us from the obscurity predominant among the most celebrated botanists, I may say naturalists, in consequence of the want of one general immutable terminology, with the addition of the synonyms. It is owing, in the first place, to the formation of his Classes and Orders, but especially, in the second place, to the invention of trivial names, that the works of Linnæus have contributed so greatly to the advancement of science. And I question much, if the Linnæan system would have been so much admired, or have immortalized its author, had it not been followed by this valuable invention.

Perhaps a nomenclature for medicines might be formed on the same principles, and in the same manner; i. e. we might have Classes and Orders, Genera and Species; and every medicine, with its specific character, might have a trivial name. But my object at present is to insist upon the names of medicines being fixed and immutable, so that they might be known, if possible, throughout the world by those names, and which might very appropriately (as before) be called their officinal names.

The rules for the formation of the officinal names are chiefly three: 1st, That they shall be well considered before being adopted; 2dly, That they shall consist as often as possible of one, and, except when impossible, at most of two words; and, 3dly and principally, That they shall be immutable.

No man can more highly admire the chemical nomenclature of Lavoisier and his followers, than I do; and none wish more earnestly to connect general science, especially chemistry, with pharmacy, both in terminology and practice. Yet as science, particularly chemical science, has of late made such improvements, and it is to be hoped will continue to advance with rapid progress; and as the names of bodies, more particularly compound bodies, must be changed with every revolution; and, as stability of one language or name is the most important con

* I allude pointedly here to the brilliant discoveries of Davy respecting the alkalies and some of the earths, which will cause a total change of chemical nomenclature; although I believe some chemists, except for emendations, previously imagined that the system of nomenclature was arrived at the ne plus ultra of perfection.

sideration in pharmaceutical nomenclature, I cannot see the propriety of attempting to make the officinal and the chemical name always the same; and I am convinced, that, in a few years, should the plan prevalent at present be continued, the confusion now experienced will so greatly increase, as to force the medical colleges and faculty to adopt some general universal nomenclature. However, to keep up the connexion with the sciences, I think it would be proper and advantageous always to add among the synonyms, the name, ancient and modern, by which the medicine is known to chemists or mineralogists, &c. For the compound substances (of three, or four, or five ingredients) it will also be sufficient, in general, that they be designated in two, or, at most, three words; for if I do not greatly deceive myself, in opposition to high authority, we should seldom nominate medicines, from all, or even two or three, of their component parts, nor from their effects; because, if we attempt it, the names will either be so long, that they will never be adopted by medical men in their prescriptions, or, if shortened, will fail to accomplish the design; and because it is almost impossible to indicate all the effects of all or most of the ingredients of compound medicines, and, were it accomplished, our language would be confused with such words as these, cathartica, diuretica, sudorifica, &c. and their combinations. For illustration of what I have now stated, pardon me for referring to the nomenclature of the Pharmacopoeia Castrensis Ruthena, especially of the pills and powders, as well as to many of the names employed by the Edinburgh and London Colleges. I would further remark, that the man who prescribes calomel, for instance, without knowing its composition, its effect, its dose, &c. is just as unlikely to know what submurias hydragyri is, or perhaps still more so, as he may not be well acquainted with chemistry; whereas the good practitioner will, in general, recollect the composition, &c. or ingredients of the medicine he prescribes, whatever name he uses. I would therefore say, instead of letting the name indicate the nature or effect of the medicine, let the knowledge of its composition, dose, uses, effects, &c. be in the mind of the physician, which is of more importance, and will render the assistance of such a name unnecessary. However, I would certainly prefer such rames as are here alluded to, when they were not otherwise objectionable.

*

*The Pharmacopoeia Castrensis Ruthena, on which great labour was bestowed, was published by Sir James Wylie in the year 1808, who adopted the new nomenclature, with some improvements and changes.