{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036585365853658534, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021341463414634148, 'mean_word_length': 5.083333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[The "conclusions of Pharmacy" in Nancy, at the end of the 18th century: between "synthèses" and "thèses"].

A special requirement of the law for apothecaries in Nancy in 1764 imposed on the candidates for a master's degree was the written response to four questions following their practical examinations. Two documents heretofore unpublished show the results of this obligation: the Conclusions de Pharmacie by Joseph Pierson (1765) and the Conclusions de Pharmacie et de Chimie by François Mandel (1771). The authors of the present article comment on these documents and make an attempt to place them in the confused history of "synthèses" and "thèses".