BJHS, 1998, 31, 1±19
Patronage and power: the College
of Physicians
and the Jacobean court.
FRANCES DAWBARN*
Poe's (sometimes spelled Po) ®rst
appearance in the Annals
is dated 5
December 1589.
Between that date and 1609, he
made dozens more appearances in the records, each of
which con®rms that he was not
going to be easy to control and that the College held him
in the deepest contempt.
Following his initial appearance, the College's judgement, given
on 18 December 1589, was that Poe
was `ignorant and completely unlearned in every
respect¼and [he was] forbidden to
practice '.%'
Had Poe suffered the
fate of many others
who appeared before the Comitia
without the support of patrons the case might have
ended there and his name have
been heard no more. However, Poe's patrons stepped
forward and the Annals record that at `the intervention
of Mr. North and that most noble
man the Earl of Essex on his
behalf [Poe was] excused the payment of all ®nes for his
42 Trevor-Roper, op. cit. (5), 91.
43 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 26.
44 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 91.
45 J. Shackleford, op. cit. (25),
102.
46 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 62.
Patronage and power 11
previous practice '.%( The ban, it should be remembered,
applied only to London and seven
miles around.
On 18 May 1590 Poe appeared
before the Comitia again, this time described as a `deacon
of Lincoln' (in which case he may
already have possessed what in the eyes of the College
would have been a limited licence
to practise, issued to him by the diocese of Lincoln)
seeking `a licence to practise in
the French disease, in fevers and in rheumatism'.%) In
applying for such a licence Poe
was dutifully abiding by the College statutes, but the
College was unimpressed, perhaps
because the treatment of venereal diseases was usually
the preserve of surgeons. `He was
examined', the Annals
tell us, `and
found to be a
completely ignorant man'.
However, `at the instance [sic]
and petition of certain people
his previous illegal practice was
overlooked and the ®ne due was remitted on condition that
he did not practise any part of
medicine in the future '.%*
It was during the next meeting of
the Comitia, on 30 June 1590, that problems arose for
Thomas Moffet. It was `held in
Dr. Muffett's house after a splendid feast ' and `a letter
from the Earl of Essex on behalf
of Leonard Poe was read'.
The letters exchanged between the
College and Essex are worth quoting at length as not
only do they indicate the
interests, frustrations and tensions of both parties, they also
illustrate the risky nature of
patronage brokerage. The Earl's letter opens with the
customary formal greetings and
continues:
At the earnest request of some
good freends, I entertained not long ago, this Bearer Mr. Po to be
one of my phisitions, since which
Time, I heare that he hath been molested and often called in
question by you for his privat
practising vpon his freends, and some matters (which have been
vntruely suggested) laid to his
charge.&!
Clearly, if the Earl was aware of
the College statutes (which is uncertain) he did not
think they applied to physicians
who practised privately on their friends. He continues:
Whereof I vnderstand he hath and
can discharge himself by very good proof as also that his
sufficiency, for the cures of
diuers diseases hath manie ways appeared, by soondrie good
testimonies.
As of March 1590 the only
testimonies recorded in the Annals on Poe's behalf are those
of Mr North, Mr Oliver `the Earle
of Essex's man', Captain Bradbone, Mrs Gournie, Mr
Ward and Mr Pemberton. In
addition, he had cured conditions such as loss of hearing,
`gonorrhe', melancholy, the falling
sickness and various fevers. The Earl continues:
These are therfore to very
earnestly to praie you that you will not only to ceasse to trooble him
hereafter, for emploieng his skill
and trauell to the bene®t and good of freends, who have a
particular desire to deale with
him: But also to graunt him such Toleration: as yow haue in like
cases geven to some of lesse
experience and desert, and I shall accompt my self much beholding
to yow for the same.&"
Just what constituted a `Toleration'
is not clear from the Annals, but it may have been
some kind of de facto ` private ' licence which the
College was able to issue at its discretion.
47 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 62.
48 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 66.
49 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 66.
50 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 66.
51 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 72.
12 Frances Dawbarn
The Earl clearly believed that
this was so, or perhaps was informed by Poe that it was;
however, the Annals are remarkably silent about other
cases in which similar `Tolerations'
were granted, and indeed describe
the existence of any such licence as a `manifest
vutruth'.&#
I am perswaded [the Earl's letter
continues] that my phisition Mr. Dr. Muffet, is so well
acquainted with him [Poe], as his
Information of his sufficiency (wherewith he hath already with
his letters acquainted Mr.
President) you will graunt him this curtesie for my sake. Thus I commit
you to god. From the Court the
20th Maie 1590. You verie loving freend. R. Essex.&$
It seems that Poe, knowing Moffet
to be a favoured client of the Earl, was prompted to
ask him to act as an intermediary
between himself and the College. By his actions as a
patronage broker, Moffet had not
only declared his interest in the career of Leonard Poe,
and his opinion of him as a
physician (` his sufficiency'), but had also passed his opinion
on to the President, something
which the Earl, not unreasonably, thought might in¯uence
the decision of the College.
Moffet's action as a broker and client of the Earl, compromised
his allegiance to the College,
and caused embarrassment not only to him but to the College
President and Comitia. He may
have been relieved that they had dined so splendidly before
reading the letter. A reply,
dated the same day, was duly sent from the College to the Earl
of Essex:
Right honourable and verie good
Lord. It hath pleased your honour to write vnto us in the behalf
of Leonard Po for his quiet
practise and Tolleration in physick. And for that we perceaue by your
Lords letter there hath been a moste
vntrue Information deliuered unto you as well touching the
man: as also of our proceeding
towardes him and the like : We are humblie to intreat your honor
that it would please you to
reseaue a truth by this our Testimoniall sent from the whole body of
the College. Touching the man, for
that we were willing in regard of your Lord to have shewed
him what favour we coold, so far
foorth the other wholsome laws of this Realme, made for the
preseruation of her Maiesties
subiects in that behalfe: or the due regard of our oth and conscience
woold have permitted: we caused
him to be called to our ordinary examinations wherein in very
truth we found him so vtterly
ignorant and vnfurnished not only in all the partes of Physick: but
also in all other knowledge there vnto
appertaining, as vpon our credit we never remember so
weak a man to have appeared before
us.
Thus far the College asked
nothing of the Earl other than he heed their opinion of Poe
based upon their examination of
him. They invoke not only the `wholesome laws of this
Realme' but also their `oth and
conscience' as physicians and point out that Poe has not
been subjected to any questioning
other than `ordinary examinations'. That they ignore
the request for Poe to be allowed
`quiet [that is, private] practise ' is an indication of the
seriousness of the College's
attempt to monitor and regulate the practice of medicine in
London, wherever and however it
was carried out. It also suggests that no such thing as
a `Toleration' existed. The
letter continues:
And albeit Mr. Muffet in respect
of his dutie to your Lord had before indeed something delt with
vs in his behalf by letter : Yet
being present at his examination and hearing his unexpected
weakness in so meane matters as
were propounded vnto him: was very much abasshed and sorie,
that he had been woon to deale in
so bad a matter.
Having run the risks of patronage
brokerage, which must have been included among his
` dutie[s] ' to the Earl, and
emerged rather the worse for wear, Moffet, `abasshed and sorie '
52 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 67.
53 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 67.
Patronage and power 13
was nevertheless rescued by his
senior colleagues, who perhaps found his conduct not
unsurprising given his opinion on
the matter of the empiric, mentioned above. The letter
continues, indignantly con®rming
the College's opinion of Poe by revealing that he had lied
in order to further his cause:
Touching our selues and our
dealings, Whereas the said Po, hath insinuated to your Lord that we
have graunted the like Tolleration
in the like cases, to some of lesse experience, and desert then
him self : We coold wish that the
man had rather vsed any other meanes to have furthered his
Ignourance and weaknes, then so
muche to have abused so honourable personage with so
manifest vntruthes.&%
What impresses about the
remainder of this reply is that whilst still insisting upon Poe's
`Ignourance and weaknes' and
expressing horror and outrage at the abuse of ` so
honourable personage' as the
Earl, the College's overiding concern is to remind Essex of
its professional and legal
standing, and its statutory right to examine and fail Poe. They
refer again to their oath (`the
straightness of our oth') as physicians, and appeal to the
`good and discreet ' Lawes of the
Realme which `haue provided¼that¼none suche [as
Poe] shoold be permitted'. And
whilst invoking the power of the Statutes of the College,
they come very close to telling
the Earl to mind his own business: `we most humblie
beseech your honour to pardon us:
and leaue the matter to the good order and discreet
coorse of our Lawes¼in all
matters meerly remaying in our power'. And concealed as
indignation at Poe's effrontery
is their astonishment that Essex should have chosen ` so
vtterly ignorant' an individual
for his physician.
After two years of attrition,
during which a further letter was sent from the Earl, which
`tooke¼little effect'&& judging by the steadfast refusal
of the College to license Poe, the
outcome was, however, a triumph
for patronage. Aided by the Earl, Poe marshalled his
forces and a copy of the
following letter was sent to the College:
Whereas we haue receauid
sufficient testimony from diuers gent and others of qualitie, of the
excellent knowledge which Leonard
Po: a Practisioner in Phisick hath by long endevour and
experience attained vnto: and of
the fortunat successe wherewith god hath blessed him in curing
manie greefs and daungerous
Diseases, which some of the like qualitie maligning indevour to
inhibit and impeach his honest
trauels vndertaken by him for the perservation of her Maiesties
subiectes in health and strength
of their bodies. Whereof also there appeareth verie honourable
aprobation. Thies are to require
you, and everie of you to whome it maie in any sort appertaine
to permit and suffer the said
Leonard Poe quietlie to exercise the said practise of Phisick, that
those good parts wherewith he is
endued, maie not be obscured, but that he maie vse the same
to his owne commendacion and the
bene®t of such as shall haue need of his assistance. Whereof
you maie not faile, as you, and
everie of yow will answer to the contrary at your utmost perill.
From the Court at Whitehall, the
last of Februarie 1592.
To the whole College and Societie
of Phisitions, within the citie of London, or els where: and to
all Maiors, Sherifes, Justices of
the peace, Bailie®es, Constables Hedboroughs and to all others
her Maiesties officers, Ministers
and louing subiects to whome it shall appertaine:
and to everie of them.
L. Archbishop Cantuar. L.
Chamberlaine
L. Threw L. Cobham
L. Admiral L. Buckhurst&'
54 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 67.
55 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 79.
56 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 78±9.
14 Frances Dawbarn
Neither the remarkable threat in
the closing remarks of this letter, nor its elevated
recipents, were yet sufficient to
de¯ect the College in its dogged course of action. Having
examined Poe yet again and found
him `completely ignorant' an unnamed Fellow of the
College was sent to the Earl's
house with its reply so that he `could more fully explain the
case of the College to his
lordship'.&(
To no avail. Essex
persisted in his patronage of Poe,
which indeed, over the years was
shared by other eminent court ®gures: Francis Bacon,&)
the Earl of Suffolk, the Earl of
Salisbury (whose deathbed Poe attended) and the Earls of
Southampton and Northampton.&* He also attended the last illness
of the great musician
Orlando Gibbons and performed the
post-mortem.'!
During Poe's protracted and
acrimonious relationship with the College many accusations
of malpractice were brought which
would have ®nished a man with lesser, or no patrons.
In 1598 he was accused of causing
the death of `one Scull ' through the administration of
so violent a purgative that the
man died of `vomiting and scouring'.'" And in 1601 he was
`blamed for the untimely death of
a certain young noble man named Allen, to whom he
had given some medicine'.'# Despite these and other offences,
and its considerable formal
statutory authority, the College
was unable to resist the power of the court and Poe's rise
was assured.
In 1606 he was issued with a
general licence to practise, whereupon, taking his new
duties extremely seriously he
accused one `Owen, a surgeon, of illicit and bad practice '.'$
By 1609 Poe had become not only a
Fellow of the College but a royal physician; the
signatories to the letter of
recommendation for his Fellowship, sent on his behalf to the
President of the College, Sir
William Paddy, include `R. Salisburye, J. Northampton,
T. Suffolk and W. Worcester'.'% In 1612, still apparently proud
of his new-found authority
` [he] alleged ill practice
against Dr. Dee' (Arthur, son of John Dee).'& And when in 1615
he obtained a mandate from James
for an MD from Cambridge, his triumph was
complete.''
Poe's case is by no means unique,
although it is one of the most spectacular and lengthy,
and his list of patrons among the
most impressive. Indeed the College, Poe's patrons and
Poe himself must be congratulated
for their tenacity over so a long period of time! The
second case, that of Francis
Anthony, was of a shorter duration, but characterized equally
impressively by patrons who were
more than willing to protect their favoured client and
the physic he offered.
57 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 86.
58 J. E. Leary, Francis Bacon and the
Politics of Science,
Iowa, 1994, 50.
59 Annals of the Royal College
of Physicians of London, Marlborough, 1608±29, typescript (tr. J. Emberry,
C. Heathcote and M. Hellings), 4
vols., iii, 9.
60 DNB, xvi, 15.
61 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 114.
62 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 134±5.
63 Annals, op. cit. (1), ii, 189.
64 Annals, op. cit. (59), iii, 9.
65 Annals, op. cit. (59), iii, 37.
66 DNB, xvi, 14.