When I was appointed as librarian of the Institute of Psychiatry in 1981, I arrived after an interregnum of six months, during which period the library had been kept ticking over (or not) by non‐professional clerical staff. I faced a very difficult problem in that I knew absolutely nothing about psychiatry. (The psychiatrists had decided, learning from bitter experience, that it would be better to appoint someone who seemed to know something about running libraries than someone who expressed a passionate interest in mental illness.) Psychiatry itself was in a remarkable state of flux at the time. American psychiatry had been completely dominated by psychoanalysts. This situation had changed with astonishing rapidity, coinciding with the publication of the third edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM‐III] in 1980. The Institute of Psychiatry had always been more scientifically‐oriented and less analytically‐minded than its American equivalents, but even so techniques and practices, and consequently the professional terminology, seemed to be changing by the day. I therefore had considerable difficulty working out what my customers were talking about. Fortunately help was at hand in the form of the new fifth edition of “Hinsie & Campbell” which came out just as I took up my post. Luckily we got two copies, so one could go out on the reference shelves and the other could be tucked under the library counter for library staff use. (It was, of course, a considerably smaller and more unobtrusive book in those days.)
The first edition of this dictionary had been edited by Leland Hinsie and Jacob Shatsky in 1940. Shatsky had dropped off by the time of the second edition of 1953 and was replaced by Robert Campbell. Campbell has been largely responsible for all the subsequent editions. Following the publication of DSM‐III he had, with amazing speed, analysed its working vocabulary. He had surveyed the new neurosciences – the beginnings of brain imaging, etc. The major antipsychotic and anxiolytic drugs had been discovered during the 1950s but work was in progress in discovering their mechanisms, and, as important, their limitations. It had been clear to all except the most hardened psychoanalysts that there is a genetic factor in the incidence of mental disorder. The beginnings of their arcane vocabulary had had to be taken into account. Campbell had done an excellent job of rapidly putting all this information together and explaining it in terms which I could understand. And here he still is, at the age of (I think) 83, still plugging away single‐handedly. There cannot be many major reference works of this sort that have been mainly one person's work for over half a century. Having been put out to grass as a semi‐obsolescent philosopher myself, I am extremely glad to see one of my elders and betters still going strong.
Although this is the doyen of psychiatric dictionaries, it is no longer alone in the field. Psychiatrists do not hatch dictionaries in the way that psychologists do – I have given up trying to keep track of the flow of psychology dictionaries. Nevertheless there are a number of other works that are useful for anyone trying to understand the vocabulary of the study of mental disorder. In view of the central role of the DSM in psychiatry, the most important to mention is probably the American Psychiatric Glossary (Shahrokh and Hales, 2003) specifically designed to explain the DSM terminology. The largest rivals to Campbell are probably Stedman's Psychiatry Words (Stedman, 2007) (RR 2007/391), which is extracted from and expanded from the Stedman's Medical Dictionary database (RR 2008/85), and Lexicon of Psychiatry, Neurology and the Neurosciences (Ayd, 2000) – now somewhat dated given the rapid development of the neurosciences in the past decade, but still worth using. Another broader resource is the Human Services Dictionary (Rosenthal, 2003) (RR 2003/374). I would mention the Dictionary of Ethical and Legal Terms and Issues (Sperry, 2007) which, in spite of its title, is aimed largely at mental health professionals, and would also note the Historical Dictionary of Psychiatry (Shorter, 2005) – in view of the extraordinary changes which have taken place in psychiatry over the past century, some means of keeping track of the changes in its vocabulary can be useful. Nevertheless, if I had to pick out just one reference dictionary in the mental health field I would undoubtedly fall back on Campbell.
My main concern with this edition is its bulk. The terminology of psychiatry and its related disciplines has got so complex that there is obviously no possibility of returning to the pocket‐sized text of older days. This volume could have been slimmed‐down a bit however. There is always a temptation when compiling a dictionary to extend a definition into a discussion – to overstep the mark between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia. The Oedipus Complex, for example, is a controversial topic and requires careful explanation. Two whole pages – four closely‐printed columns of elucidation, really strays into encyclopaedic territory however. Some of the entries are referenced to the original studies where a term was first used, while others are not. I have found these bibliographic references useful, but they take up space and the practice is inconsistent. Psychiatry and the neurosciences form part of the broader biomedical sciences. Campbell has to use terms in his definitions that are unlikely to be familiar to lay readers. This dictionary therefore really ought to be used in conjunction with general scientific and medical dictionaries. There are a few entries here which, though useful and well‐defined, really belong in broader reference texts: Chakrabarty v. Diamond Commissioner of Patents was an important case in which the US Supreme Court held that a human‐made genetically‐engineered living organism is patentable, but it is not particularly psychiatric. There are also a few cases where a term is defined twice under different synonyms, rather than choosing one and referring to it from the other. On the other hand, I would like to have seen more cross‐references, particularly when inverted terms are used. There is, for example, an entry under Evil, St Johns (an obsolete term for epilepsy) but no reference from St John's Evil. Similarly Inferiority, Functional but nothing under Functional Inferiority.
Minor criticisms aside, this is really an excellent reference book – one of the best single‐discipline dictionaries I have ever come across. I hope it will continue to grow and develop as its subject matter grows and develops. I also hope that Robert Campbell will go on compiling it indefinitely. I dislike any intimations of mortality, but I was disappointed that he had not selected a coadjutor for this edition. I hope that he will do so for the next, in order to ensure continuity. There must be some slip‐of‐a‐lad in his mid‐60s with an interest in the psychiatric vocabulary willing to take this task on.
All psychiatric libraries should give this book pride of place on their reference shelves. Psychiatry and the neurosciences are playing an increasingly important part in general medicine, so most major medical libraries should also consider it. There is a wide public interest in mental health and related topics. In terms of demand, public reference libraries should obviously first make sure that they have up to date dictionaries of psychology and of medicine. If they can afford the money and space this would be well worth adding.
