^iSiSt  ^9™'  )     Revision  of  the  Pharmacopoeia.  517 
Let  the  slogan  "  The  Pharmacopoeia  is  For  All "  be  driven  home, 
and  the  pharmacopoeia  cannot  fail  to  become  popular. 
Criticisms  of  the  Pharmacopoeia. 
The  pharmacopoeia  is  a  much  criticized  book.  In  recent  years 
immediately  upon  the  issuance  of  a  revision  there  has  followed  a 
flood  of  reviews  and  criticisms. 
When  analyzed,  these  criticisms  are  found  for  the  most  part  to 
be  very  general.  Often  they  are  warped.  They  express  only  an 
individual,  and  at  times  a  rather  narrow,  view.  They  are  apt  to  be 
greatly  lacking  in  directness.  At  times  criticisms,  when  formu- 
lated, amount  only  to  a  proofreader's  error  either  in  spelling,  punc- 
tuation, or  even  the  transposition  of  a  figure  or  the  misplacement  of 
a  decimal.  Criticisms  of  this  character  are  prolific  just  after  a  new 
revision,  and  quickly  cease. 
The  Revision  Committee  have  manifested  a  rather  extreme  sen- 
sitiveness to  criticism.  In  a  book  of  such  scope  as  the  pharmacopoeia 
it  is  easy  to  find  something  with  which  one  may  disagree.  We  can 
conceive  that  it  would  be  rather  superhuman  to  put  together  a  book 
so  profoundly  affecting  a  diversity  of  interests  and  expect  to  escape 
criticism.  Indeed  it  would  be  an  evidence  of  stagnation  if  our  phar- 
macopoeia was  to  be  considered  as  containing  the  last  word.  Every 
successive  revision  is  only  a  step  toward  that  absolute  goal  which 
will  never  be  reached.  When  the  perfect  pharmacopoeia  shall  be 
issued,  man  will  no  longer  be  man. 
Constructive  criticism,  criticism  that  is  earnest,  that  is  deep,  and 
that  is  honest — is  helpful  and  is  to  be  desired.  If  any  fair  number 
of  workers  in  pharmacy  and  in  medicine  and  in  allied  arts  would 
formulate  painstaking  suggestions,  it  would  go  a  long  way  towards 
the  betterment  and  the  upbuilding  of  the  work. 
In  many  dissertations  upon  the  pharmacopoeia,  that  appear  just 
after  its  issuance,  there  is  a  preponderance  of  fault  finding,  of  the 
tearing  down  and  the  ripping  apart  order.  Very  few  are  sugges- 
tions that  build  and  strengthen. 
Criticisms  of  the  pharmacopoeia  should  come  before  the  revision, 
rather  than  after.  To  be  helpful,  they  should  be  constructive  rather 
than  destructive.  As  a  practical  hint,  we  might  add  that  it  would  be 
well  for  the  writer  of  criticisms  upon  the  pharmacopoeia  to  put  his 
suggestions  in  the  exact  language  which  the  writer  believes  should 
