Newspaper advertising of tlic English proprietaries — 

 even the mere Hsting so common during the late 

 colonial years — became very rare after the Philadel- 

 phia College of Pharmacy pamphlet was issued. 

 Apothecary George J. Fischer of Frederick, Mary- 

 land, might mention seven of the old familiar names 

 in 1837,"" and another druggist in the same city might 

 present a shorter list in 1844,"^^ but such advertising 

 was largely gratuitous. Since the English patent med- 

 icines had become every druggist's property, people 

 who felt the need of such dosage would expect every 

 druggist to have them in stock. There was no more 

 need to advertise them than there was to advertise 

 laudanum or leeches or castor oil. Even the Supreme 

 Court of Massachusetts in 1837 took judicial cogni- 

 zance of the fact that the old English patent medicine 

 names had acquired a generic meaning descriptive of 

 a general class of medicines, names which everyone 

 was free to use and no one could monopolize.'"* 



As the years went by, and as advertising did not 

 keep the names of tlie old English medicines before 

 the eyes of customers, it is a safe assumption that their 

 use declined. Losing their original proprietary status, 

 they were playing a different role. New American 

 proprietaries had stolen the appeal and usurped the 

 function which Bateman's Drops and Turlington's 

 Balsam had possessed in 18th-century London and 

 Boston and Williamsburg. As part of the cultural 

 nationalism that had accompanied the Revolution, 

 American brands of nostrums had come upon the 

 scene, promoted with all the vigor and cleverness once 

 bestowed in English but not in colonial American ad- 

 vertising upon Dalby's Carminative and others of its 

 kind. While these English names retreated from 

 American advertising during the 19th century, vast 

 blocks of space in the ever-larger newspapers were de- 

 voted to extolling the merits of Dyott's Patent Itch 

 Ointment, Swaim's Panacea, and Brandreth's Pills. 

 More and more Americans were learning how to read, 

 as free public education spread. Persuaded by the 

 frightening symptoms and the glorious promises, 

 citizens with a bent toward self-dosage flocked to buy 

 the American brands. Druggists and general stores 

 stocked them and made fine profits."* While bottles 



Hit, p0iiiic„i Examiner, Frederick, Maryland, .^pril 19, 1837. 



"" Frederick Examiner, Frederick, Maryland, January 31, 1844. 



"* Massachusetts Supreme Court, Thomson vs. Winchester, 19 

 Pick (Mass.), p. 214, March 1837. 



^ '"James Harvey Young, "Patent medicines: the early post- 

 fronlier phase," Journal of the Illinois Stoif IJistorimt Sr.drlv, 

 Autumn 1953, vol. 46, pp. 254-264. 



Figure 13. — Opodeldoc 

 Bottle fiom the collection 

 of Mrs. Leo F. Redden, 

 Kenmore, New York. 



{Smitlisonian photo 44201-ii.) 



of British Oil sold two for a quarter in 1885 Wisconsin, 

 one bottle of Jayne's Expectorant retailed for a dol- 

 lar."" It is no wonder that, although the old English 

 names continue to appear in the mid-1 9th-ccntury 

 and later druggists' catalogs and price currents,'" 

 they are muscled aside by the multitude of brash 

 American nostrums. Many of the late 19th century 

 listings continued to follow the procedure set early in 

 the century of specifying two grades of the various 

 patent medicines, i.e., "English" and "American," 

 "genuine" and "imitation," "U. S." and "stamped." 

 American manufactories specializing in pharmaceuti- 

 cal glassware continued to offer the various English 

 patent medicine bottles until the close of the 

 century."" 



In a thesaurus published in 1899, Godfrey's, Bate- 

 man's, Turlington's, and other of the old English pat- 

 ent rcinedies were termed "extinct patents." '" The 

 adjective referred to the status of the patent, not the 

 condition of the medicines. If less prominent than in 



"" Cody and Johnson Drug Co., op. cit. (footnote 97). 



'" Van Schaack, Stevenson & Rcid, Annual prices current, 

 Chicago, 1875; Morrison, Plummer & Co., Price current of drugs, 

 chemicals, oils, glassware, patent medicines, druggists sundries . . . , 

 Chicago, 1880. 



"- Hagerty Bros. & Co., Catalogue 0/ Druggists' glassware, 

 sundries, fancy goods, etc.. New York, 1879; Whitall, Tatum & 

 Co., .Annual pr lie list, Millville, Nevvjei-scy, 1898. 



'" Emil Hiss, Thesaurus oj proprietor preparations and pharma- 

 ceutical specialties, Chicago, 1899, p. 12. 



178 



BULLETIN 218: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM CJI HISTORY .\ND TECHNOLOGY 



