, a noted empiric and chemist in the latter end of the sixteenth
, a noted empiric and chemist in the latter end of the sixteenth and the
beginning of the seventeenth centuries, was the son of an
eminent goldsmith in the city of London, who had an employment of considerable value in the jewel-office undef
the reign of queen Elizabeth. He was born April 16,
1550; and having been carefully instructed in the first
rudiments of learning while at home, was, about the year
1569, sent to the university of Cambridge, where he studied with great diligence and success, and some time in
the year 1574 took the degree of master of arts. It appears from his own writings, that he applied himself for
many years in that university, to the theory and practice
of chemistry, with sedulous industry. He came up to
London, probably before he attained the age of forty, and
began soon after his arrival to publish to the world the
effects of his chemical studies. In the year 1598, he sent
abroad his first treatise, concerning the excellency of a
medicine drawn from gold; but, not having taken the necessary precautions of applying to the college of physicians for their licence, he was, some time in the year 1600,
summoned before the president and censors. Here he
confessed that he had practised physic in London at least
more than six months, and had cured twenty persons of
several diseases, to whom he had given purging and vomiting physic, and to others, a diaphoretic medicine, prepared from gold and mercury, as their case required; but
acknowledged that he had no licence, and being examined,
in several parts of physic, and found inexpert, he was interdicted practice. About a month after, he was committed to the Counter-prison, and fined in the sum of five
pounds “propter illicitam praxin
” that is, for prescribing
physic against the statutes and privilege of the college;
but upon his application to the lord chief justice, he was
set at liberty, which gave so great umbrage to the college,
that the president and one of the censors waited on the
chief justice, to request his favour in defending and
preserving the college privileges; upon which Mr. Anthony
submitted himself, promised to pay his fine, and was forbidden practice. But not long after he was accused again
of practising physic, and upon his own confession was
fined five pounds; which, on his refusing to pay it, was
increased to twenty pounds, and he committed to prison
till he paid it; neither were the college satisfied with this,
but commenced a suit at law against him in the name of
the queen, as well as of the college, in which they succeeded, and obtained judgment against him; but after some
time, were prevailed upon by the intreaties of his wife, to
remit their share of the penalty, as appears by their warrant to the keeper of the prison for his discharge, dated
under the college seal, the 6th of August, 1602. After
his release, he seems to have met with considerable patrons, who were able to protect him from the authority of
the college; and though Dr. Goodall tells us, that this
learned society thought him weak and ignorant in physic,
yet he contrived to obtain the degree of doctor of physic
in some university. This did not hinder new complaints
being brought against him, by Dr. Taylor, and another
physician, who grounded their proceedings chiefly on his
giving a certain nostrum, which he called “Aurum potabilt!,
” or potable gold, and which he represented to the
world as an universal medicine. There were at this time
also several things written agaiust him, and his manner of
practice, insinuating that he was very inaccurate in his
method of philosophizing, that the virtues of metals as to
physical uses were very uncertain, and that the boasted
effects of his medicine were destitute of proof. Dr. Anthony, upon this, published a defence of himself and his
Aurum potabile in Latin, written with a plausible display
of skill in chemistry, and with an apparent knowledge of
the theory and history of physic. This book, which he
published in 1610, was printed at the university press of
Cambridge, and entitled “Medicinac Chymicae, et verj
potabilis Auri assertio, ex lucubrationibus Fra. Anthonii
Londinensis, in Medicina Doctoris. Cantabrigise, ex
officina Cantrelli Legge celeberrimae Academics Typographi,
” 4to. It had a very florid dedication to king James
prefixed. He, likewise, annexed certificates of cures, under the hands of several persons of distinction, and some
of the faculty; but his book was quickly answered, and
the controversy about Aurum potabile grew so warm, that
he was obliged to publish another apology in the Englis
language, which was also translated into Latin, but did not
ans.wer the doctor’s expectation, in conciliating the opinion
of the faculty, yet, what is more valuable to an empiric, it
procured the genera' good-will of ordinary readers, and
contributed exceedingly to support and extend his practice, notwithstanding all the pains taken to decry it. What
chiefly contributed to maintain his own reputation, and
thereby reflected credit on his medicine, was that which is
rarely met with among quacks, his unblemished character
in private life. Dr. Anthony was a man of unaffected piety,
untainted probity, of easy address, great modesty, and
boundless charity; which procured him many friends, and
left it not in the power of his enemies to attack any part of
his conduct, except that of dispensing a medicine, of
which they had no opinion. And though much has been
said to disgredit the use of gold in medicine, yet some very
able and ingenious men wrote very plausibly in support of
those principles on which Dr. Anthony’s practice was
founded, and among these the illustrious Robert Boyle.
The process of making the potable gold is given in the
Biog. Britannica, but in such a contused and ignorant
manner that any modern chemist may easily detect the
fallacy, and be convinced that gold does not enter into the
preparation. The time Jn which Anthony flourished, if
that phrase may be applied tq him, was very favourable to
his notions, chemistry being then much admired and very
little understood. He had therefore a most extensive and
beneficial practice, which enabled him to live hospitably
at his house in Bartholomew close, and to be very liberal
in jiis alms to the poor. He died May 26, 1623, and was
buried in the church of St. Bartholomew the Great, where
a handsome monument was erected to his memory. His
principal antagonists were, Dr. Matthew Gwinne, of the
college of physicians, who wrote “Aurum non Aurum,
sive adversaria in assertorem Chymiæ, sed veræ Medicinæ
desertorem Franciscum Anthonium,” Lond. 1611, 4to,
and Dr. Cotta, of Northampton, in 1623, in a work entitled, “Cotta contra Antonium, or an Ant-Antony, or an
Ant-Apology, manifesting Dr. Anthony his Apology for
Aurum potabile, in true and equal balance of right reason,
to be false and counterfeit,
” Oxford, 4to.
Dr. Anthony by his second wife had two sons: Charles,
a physician of character at Bedford, and John, the subject
of the following article.