433 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [November 26, 1870, 
Cjomspnienre. 
*** No notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Obscure Prescriptions. 
Sir,—I forward a copy of another peculiar prescription 
also bearing the signature “ Watson Bradshaw.” I was in¬ 
formed it had been dispensed without difficulty at the phar¬ 
macy of Mr. Wilkinson, Regent Circus, Oxford Street. 
I should be obliged if he or some other correspondent would 
state in your columns what recognized preparations are in¬ 
dicated by the names written in this prescription. 
A Puzzled Druggist. 
London, 15th Nov. 1870. 
43, Welheclc Street, Cavendish Square, W. 
Nov. 15, 1870. 
Six',—A respectable chemist in my vicinity has just handed 
to me for my amusement, I presume, a copy of your serial of 
Nov. 12th. I find therein a letter from a correspondent 
who styles himself as “ Major Associate.” I am not find¬ 
ing fault with your remarks, which I consider very appro¬ 
priate, and I shall not condescend to offer any obseiwations 
on the “animus lividus et moi'dax” which must have ani¬ 
mated the writer; but I certainly must be permitted to think 
that in the columns of a justly influential Joui-nal like youi's, it 
is unwise, nay, unfaii', to associate the name of a Physician 
with such a vile specimen of Latinity as that I find inserted 
in connection with myself. 
Your correspondent ought to know that if he aspire to any 
“ honoui’,” which a Society of your reputation is calculated 
to confer, that he is shedding no lustre on himself or his fra¬ 
ternity by making such gross blunders as he has sought to 
fasten upon xne. 
I simply write this, lest any respectable reader might 
espouse the belief that I really was the ‘ Ipse Auctor ’ of the 
vile Latinity^ in question. I he errors are so flagrant that I 
think the writer ought to blush for his own ignorance and 
temerity. 
For Cinerii read Cinerei. 
For Hebdomadce lege JLebdomadd. 
For Allcalince read Alkalini. 
For Amarce read A mart. 
I beg utterly to deny ever having indited such barbarous 
Latin as that imputed to me, and remain, 
Yours faithfully, 
Watson Bradshaw, 
Formerly Surgeon H.M. Loyal Navy. 
43, Welheclc Street, Cavendish Square, W. 
Nov. 20, 1870. 
Sir,—You have not only omitted to insert my letter, wherein 
I l’epudiated the Authorship of a Pi'escription full of false 
Latinities; but you have absolutely, in defiance of my care¬ 
fully-couched pi'otest, suffered your columns to be made the 
ready vehicle of a repetition of such injustice. 
Undei’stand, Sir, I consider it infinitely ‘infra dig.’ to enter 
the arena with such coi'respondents as yours appear to be, 
and condescend to dissert upon the squabblings of silly drug¬ 
gists ; but when I find my name is so unblushingly paraded 
in your Journal, in such a mode as to serve merely to excite 
the cachinnations of a few ignorant readers, by'identifying me 
with Inconect Latinity, it is time that I should take up arms, 
and emphatically remind you that you are immeasurably ti-ans- 
gressing the license of all tolerable Journalism. What right 
do you conceive yourself to possess to make use of my name 
in a private matter between my patients and myself? 
My patients are invariably reminded that they can only 
have their medicines compounded by the especial druggists, 
to whom I hand them over. 
I have a perfect personal right, and shall continue to exer¬ 
cise it whenever I think proper, of inditing my pi'esci'iptions 
in any mode I may deem expedient, without the risk, I should 
think, of subjecting myself to the Censorship of a posse of 
angry druggists. 
You are widely over-rating your legitimate sphere of action 
if you consider that you have a right to dictate to the Medi¬ 
cal Profession how they should conduct their own private 
affairs. 
You have no right whatever to interfere with Medical Men, 
much less to allow your correspondents to take their names 
in vain. 
You have been guilty of an actionable offence (Constructive 
Libel) in having twice allowed my name to appear in your 
columns under a false and invidious guise. I 'null not re¬ 
tread the ground (see last letter), but, having counsel’s 
opinion on the subject, I have to inform you that unless you 
do me all just l’eparation for the unwai’rantable manner in 
which my name has introduced into your columns, I shall 
direct my solicitor to institute immediate legal proceedings. 
I beg to observe, finally, that you have no moral or legal 
right to make use of my name under any pi'etext whatever. 
Your obed 1 serf 
Watson Bradshaw, 
Formerly Surgeon H.M. Loyal Navy , 
*#* We are soi’ry Mr. Watson Bradshaw considers our 
publication of the prescriptions an injustice to him. They 
were printed exactly according to the copies sent by our cor¬ 
respondents, but we were informed that the writing of the 
originals was difficult to decipher. 
The letter of our correspondent F. J. B. affords inter¬ 
nal evidence of his freedom from personal animus in asking 
for an explanation of a prescription he could not understand. 
Probably he did not know of the existence of Mr. Watson 
Bradshaw, and was as little concerned as ourselves whether 
his Latinity be classical or “ vile.” 
That was not the point to wdiich attention was directed, 
and Mr. "Watson Bradshaw is entirely mistaken in supposing 
any question raised as to his Latinity. 
The difficulty experienced by F. J. B. was of a totally 
different nature, and, as w r e think, one much more serious. 
How was he to dispense an unintelligible prescription ? How 
to convince his customer that his inability to dispense it was 
not a result of incompetence, but was, as it now appears from. 
Mr. Watson Bradshaw’s letter, due to a proceeding by which 
that prescriber limits the compounding of his patients’ medi¬ 
cine to certain druggists ? 
Had the name of any particular druggist been indicated 
on the prescriptions, perhaps no difficulty w r ould have arisen 
but this does not appear to have been part of the system by 
wdiich Mr. Watson Bradshaw hands his patients over to 
especial druggists, for notwithstanding his reminding patients 
of this fact, we find that his pi'escriptions are taken to other- 
druggists, in distant parts of the country to be dispensed. 
Though w T e have not offered any comment on the practice 
of writing prescriptions in such a manner as not to be gene¬ 
rally intelligible to pharmacists, we believe wm should be 
justified in expressing an opinion on a matter so closely 
connected with phannacy, and that, in doing so, we should 
not be considered “ to dictate to the medical profession.” 
Howevei', w r e are enabled to show r , as a matter of fact, that 
such a practice is dangerous, by a case that has come under 
our notice, in which a prescription, similar to those published 
and written in unusual terms, was actually dispensed in a 
country town, remote from the prescriber’s residence, much 
in the same manner as a hieroglyphic inscription might be- 
translated; the medicines thus administered on speculation 
being, among others, the extracts of henbane and belladonna 
and a preparation of mercury. A proceeding so fraught with 
danger to the patient was unquestionably improper on the- 
part of the dispenser, but the fact must not be overlooked 
that a large share of censure is due to the writer of the pre¬ 
scription, in so far as he furnished the druggist with a pro¬ 
vocation to go beyond his legitimate sphere of action, in order 
to meet the wants of a customer under circumstances which 
rendered a reference to the prescriber impossible. 
Mr. Watson Bradshaw’s remarks do not touch this point,, 
and it is solely in the wish to afford him full publicity that w r & 
give space to liis letters, by wdiich it appears that from having 
regarded this Journal as a source of amusement, he now 
makes it an object for scolding. At the same time, to avoid 
any ground for suspicion that we desire to misrepresent his 
Latinity, we publish a fac simile of one of his prescriptions 
wdiich may also account for the difficulty experienced by- 
F. J. B. in deciphering the one he sent us a copy of.—E d^ 
Pn. J. 
