Chapter III: Part 3

There is no occasion to disguise the fact that we do not get as many or possibly as good papers sent to the Conference as we should like, but when we consider the needs of a weekly press and the number of small societies which absorb in the aggregate a large number of papers, our experience need cause us neither surprise nor alarm. I should like, however, to ask many of those who are doing original work and writing papers in connection with pharmacy to consider whether there is any place so suitable for them to be read as at these meetings.

The authors may feel certain of a larger audience to listen to their papers and a far more capable set of men to discuss them than can be found at any other time or place. In provincial towns the papers are read to a few local men, and the discussion is taken part in by fewer still, and even at the monthly meetings at Bloomsbury Square the discussions have a great tendency to fall into the hands of very few men. However capable these men may be, they cannot possibly have the wide and varied experience of the aggregate of the men who attend this Conference. I would, therefore, venture to urge thoughtful pharmacists to contribute papers to this Conference, and I should like them to come in such numbers that we may be compelled to add another day or two to our meeting.

I mentioned just now the friends whom we have met at these Conference meetings, and before I close I must briefly allude to those we have lost. The first name that will occur to you, I am sure, is that of our genial botanist, the late Professor Bentley, who was president at Nottingham in 1866 and Dundee in 1867. Many of us knew him first and best at Bloomsbury Square as our dear and honored teacher, but to many others the Conference must have been the means of their meeting him, and by all was he respected and beloved. He reached a good ripe age, and of him it might be said--as of many other men who have lived and been true to themselves and their calling--“He has done his work well and earned his rest.” The next, an even greater loss to us as a Conference, because of his younger age and the promise there was in him of greater achievements for pharmacy, is our late treasurer, Mr. R. H. Davies, I, with many others, made his acquaintance through this Conference, and I feel, as I am sure many of you do, that I have lost a personal friend with whom intimacy would have ripened year by year into stronger bonds.

OFFICINAL OR OFFICIAL.

In the _Pharmacentische Rundschau_ for January, 1895, is found an interesting discussion on the use of the words officinal and official by Theodore Husemann, of Göttingen, and Charles Rice, of New York. It would be interesting to our readers to give the views of both of these well-known writers in full. At present, however, we reprint in full the views of Dr. Rice:

“In compliance with a request by the editor of this journal, the writer presents a few facts, as well as his personal views, regarding the use of the words “official” and “officinal” when applied to drugs and medicinal preparations.”

It should be stated at the outset that the writer accepts the ordinary derivation of the two words, and the meanings assigned to them in accordance with their origin. Nor does he deny that it has been customary, up to within a few decades, to apply the English word “officinal” quite generally in the sense of “pharmacopœial.” Yet, within the memory of most readers of the _Rundschau_, voices arose in favor of a change, the word “official” being proposed to replace “officinal” in the special sense of “pharmacopœial.” It is evident that some cause arose which produced the feeling that such a change was necessary and the cause is not far to seek. In those countries in which the exercise of pharmacy is under the control of the government, and where the stock of a pharmacist, so far as it is used in physicians’ prescriptions, contains comparatively few remedies besides those directed by the Pharmacopœia, the two meanings of the word “officinal,” viz: 1, the original one “pertaining to an ‘officina;’ pertaining to or kept in a drug store,” and, 2, the more modern one, “pharmacopœial; authoritative,” practically cover each other. This is particularly the case in Germany, where the word “officinell,” and in France, where “officinal” is in general use in the second sense mentioned above. It is different in this country, where the pharmacist is compelled to carry a large stock of non-pharmacopœial preparations, many of which are prescribed by physicians.

The two meanings of the word “officinal” have two widely differing boundaries. They may be likened to two concentric circles. In the first mentioned sense (“kept in a drug store”) the word occupies the area of the larger circle; in the second sense (“pharmacopœial”) usually that of the inner, smaller circle. In some parts of this country the inner circle--to continue the simile--is much smaller in proportion to the outer than in others. In some it may attain an area of perhaps three-fourths or four-fifths of the larger; in others it may even outgrow the former outer circle. Only in rare cases will the peripheries of the two circles coincide. Since the two meanings long ago ceased to cover each other, the necessity arose to use different words to express the two different meanings, and it was therefore, proposed to employ the closely related word “official” in the sense of “pharmacopœial,” and to use the word “officinal” only in the general sense “kept in a drug store,” which is, indeed, in accordance with its original meaning and origin. Those who object to the use of “official” in the sense of “pharmacopœial” say that _officialis_ means “governmental; pertaining to an office or official, etc.” That it is, therefore, correct to say, for instance: “The official preparations for the reception of the President are completed,” but incorrect to say: “He made all the official preparations in his own laboratory.” There is, however, no danger of any misunderstanding in these two sentences, indeed, much less danger than would be “officinal.”

Professor Husemann, in his letter, brings within the space of his discussion the terms “medicamenta magistralia,” and “formulæ magistrates.” He shows, himself, that while the word _officinalis_[1] was, in more recent times, applied to drugs and preparations of an authoritative character or origin, it was formerly used in its broader sense “what is at any time to be had in a drug store,” in which sense it was the opposite of _magistralis_ (magistral, or magisterial), or that which is not kept ready made, but has to be prepared or compounded extemporaneously. It will be noticed that there is a much better logical correspondence between the terms

_Medicamenta magistralia_ = medicines whose composition is
fixed or prescribed by the _magister_ (a person), that is the
attending physician, and

_Medicamenta officialia_ = medicines whose composition is
fixed or prescribed by an _official_ (a person), that is the
Committee of Revision as a body--

than there would be between the former and _medicamenta officinalia_, which term refers to the _shop_ and not to the _person_ of authority.

As to the word “unofficinal,” this means properly “not pertaining to, not kept by or dealt in by a pharmacist.” If used in this strictly literal sense, however, its scope or applicability will become more and more contracted in the course of time, as it may eventually become difficult to mention articles to which the word may justly apply. It should be abandoned altogether. “Unofficial” much better expresses the idea sought to be conveyed by it. A few examples will show the use and meaning of the several words: Fleming’s tincture of Aconite is not official (or “Unofficial;” not “unofficinal,”) but it is officinal. Tinctura Opii Deodorati is official, and ought to be everywhere officinal.

Concerning the right of any person, or body of men, to coin a new word, or to use one already in existence, for the purpose of expressing a new idea, or removing an ambiguity, there can be no question, provided only that the selected word be appropriate and in harmony with the genius of the language. Of course, its acceptance by the public at large, or by the profession, for the use or benefit of which it was coined or selected, cannot be enforced. Yet, if it is found to answer its purpose, and if its superiority over the term formerly used in place of it is recognized, it will gradually and surely come into general use.

The judgment of the writer is that the employment of the word “official” in the sense of “pharmacopœial” is justifiable on linguistic grounds, and that it is, moreover, fully justified by the condition of pharmacy in this country, where a clear distinction between “all sorts of medicines,” and “pharmacopœial medicines” has become necessary. Of course, the Committee of Revision,” which hoped to settle the controversy by an “official” vote, according to which the word “official” was hereafter to be used in place of “officinal,” when applied to pharmacopœial preparations or directions (see U. S. Pharm., 1890, p. xxxvi.), did not mean thereby to encroach upon the ordinary meaning of the word, which appears, for instance, on the title page of the Pharmacopœia in the sentence: “Official from January 1, 1890.”

[1] Professor Husemann did not find this word in _Du Cange’s
Glossarium Mediæ et Infinæ Latinitatis_. It is, however, contained
in the latest edition (by Favre; Niort 1883-87), Vol. VI. p. 37.