Chronicles of Pharmacy, Vol. 1 (of 2)Wootton, A. C.
History
Chronicles of Pharmacy, Vol. 1 (of 2)
Wootton, A. C.
Pharmacy -- History
Needless to say, the war now waxed fiercer than ever. The physicians
were divided among themselves, and the anti-dispensarians refused to
meet the dispensarians in consultation. The apothecaries naturally
recommended the anti-dispensarians to their patients, and consequently
it was only the independent ones who could afford to maintain the
struggle. Scurrilous pamphlets were written on both sides, and one
long poem, Garth’s Dispensary, which was less venomous than most of
the literature on the subject, but which as a poem had no merits which
could justify the reputation it attained, complicated the struggle
from the physicians’ point of view. Johnson says that in addition to
its intrinsic merit it “co-operated with passions and prejudices then
prevalent.” His sympathies are indicated by his remark that “it was on
the side of charity against the intrigues of interest, and of regular
learning against licentious usurpation of medical authority.” One
line in the book (the last in the passage quoted below) has attained
currency in the English language. Expressing satirically the complaints
of the apothecaries, Garth says:
Our manufactures now the doctors sell,
And their intrinsic value meanly tell;
Nay, they discover too (their spite is such)
That health, than crowns more valued, costs not much;
Whilst we must shape our conduct by these rules,
To cheat as tradesmen or to fail as fools.
THE APOTHECARIES WIN.
Notwithstanding the sympathy of Dr. Johnson, Pope, and many other
famous contemporaries, the quarrel ended in the comparative triumph of
the apothecaries.
The physicians, though reluctant to enforce what they believed to be
their statutory powers, were goaded into law, and at last brought
an action against a London apothecary named William Rose, who they
alleged had infringed the Act passed in the reign of Henry VIII. Rose
had attended a butcher in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields named Seale, and
had administered “proper medicines” to him. He had no licence from
the Faculty, and in his treatment of Seale had not acted under the
direction of any physician. He had neither taken nor demanded any fee
for his advice.
Those were the facts found by the jury who first heard the case. The
College claimed a penalty of five pounds per month for the period
during which Rose had thus practised. The Charter granted to the
physicians in the tenth year of Henry VIII, and confirmed by an Act of
Parliament passed in the fourteenth and fifteenth year of that reign,
contained a clause forbidding any person not admitted by the College
to practise the faculty of medicine in London or within seven miles
thereof under a penalty of one hundred solidi for every month during
which he should thus infringe the law.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account