The creation of the College library and appointment of Merrett as first librarian

The College of Physicians which Merrett joined in the 1650s was on shaky ground politically. Having received a Royal Charter from Henry VIII in 1518, it attempted a policy of neutrality during the Civil war and Protectorate, having senior Fellows who supported Royalist and Puritan causes. However concerns arose over the ability of the College to regulate medical practice and physician education since its authority was derived from the Royal Charter, and the monarchy was now abolished. This insecurity was not helped by emerging competition in the form of the new Society of Chemical Physicians which was favoured in Puritan circles, and the rise of the Royal Society.

In the mid-century the College was led by eminent physicians. William Harvey had been elected president of the College in 1654 but turned down the presidency as at the age of seventy-three he was becoming increasingly infirm with severe gout and renal stones. In the same year Harvey donated his large library of over a thousand books and a collection of medical artifacts to the College and established a trust to pay for a library designed in classical style, and provide a stipend for a college librarian. This endowment was offered in the spirit of generosity to further the education of physicians but perhaps was motivated by the need for a safe haven for the collection. - Harvey’s house had been ransacked by parliamentary forces in 1642 and his books, anatomical observations and furniture stolen in retribution for his role supporting the Royalist cause as physician to Charles I. The attack occurred despite Harvey’s trenchant defence that he had followed the King ‘not only by permission but by command’, as part of his official duty.

Merrett came to Harvey’s attention as a rising star of the College and Harvey personally recommended him for the position of first ‘Harveian’ Librarian, a patronage and personal blessing Merrett never forgot.

On appointment in 1654 Merrett took up residence rent-free in College quarters at Amen Corner in the City, with the stipend of £20 per annum. Harvey’s endowment consisted of over 1200 books on topics of natural history, physics, geometry, geography, astronomy, music, travel, optics, anatomy and medicine, together with anatomical and nature specimens. Merrett busied himself in creating a comprehensive catalogue of the contents of the library and museum, and on seeking donations to augment the collection.

Merrett also took on legal and administrative tasks for the president including authoring ‘A Collection of the Acts of Parliament, Charters, Trials at law and Judges opinions’ which was a curation of decisions related to the College’s authority, created to support efforts to the renew the College’s charter. 

Origins of the Royal Society

Keen to explore new scientific areas, Merrett became a member of the ‘1645 Group’ of freethinkers shortly after arriving in London, which was formed that year of natural historians, physicians and mathematicians with the aim of fulfilling Francis Bacon’s ambition to create a state-sponsored learned society. The group included Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, John Evelyn and Jonathan Goddard, and they met at various London venues including Gresham College and local taverns to discuss topics of the day such as natural experiments, physick, geometry and astronomy. Once established as Harveian Librarian, Merrett hosted the group at College House. It is from this collective that the Royal Society arose in 1660, and Merrett among others drew up a list of forty founding members. The Royal Society was awarded a charter by Charles II in 1662. Merrett was voted chair of the Royal Society’s committee on Trades in 1664. In this position he published a series of papers - ‘The Art of refining’ which detailed processes as diverse as separating gold and silver from other metals, and on tin-mining and smelting. He translated ‘L’Arte Vetraria’ (‘The Art of Glass’) by Antonio Neri from Italian into English which described ‘wayes to make and colour glass, pastes, enamels, lakes and other curiosities’ and in doing so made widely accessible the advances in glass-making achieved by the Venetians. On December 17 1662 he presented a paper to the Royal Society titled ‘Some Observations concerning the ordering of wines’. This work included the first reference to using sugar and molasses to allow secondary fermentation of wine, making them ‘brisk and sparkling’. Merrett may be more famous for these observations in wine-making circles rather than in the medical world, as they preceded Dom Perignon’s experiments in creating champagne at the Benedictine Abbey at Hautvillers, by several decades.

Merrett also published ‘Pinax Rerum Naturalium Britiannicarum’ a catalogue of British Flora, fauna and minerals in 1666, having been asked to take on this task by William How after the previous atlas ’Phytologia Brittannica’ had gone out of print in 1650. Merrett worked with John Dale on the botanical section and employed Thomas Willisel to collect plants for him. The catalogue was the first to list of British birds and butterflies, described 1400 plant species, and included Merrett’s observations, largely correct, on the origin of fossils.

In total, this was a substantial body of scientific work on a surprisingly eclectic range of subjects. Although some content was derivative, and a documentary exercise, it drew opprobrium from some quarters. Dodds who wrote an account of Merrett’s life for the Proceedings of the Royal Society in 1954, witheringly summarises the Royal Society contributions in the comment ‘he published a number of books on botany and historical subjects, but none of these is of great interest’, although he does credit Merrett with being a very successful clinician.

Relationship between College of Physicians and the Royal Society

Although Merrett thrived and saw no conflict between his work with the Royal Society and the College, others did. In fact, for the older College fellows steeped in Galenic practice based on classical learning, the Experimental Philosophy championed by the Royal Society was unwelcome. The logical inference from their ethos was that if anyone could gain knowledge by observation and experimentation, then why would the long period of physician training in Latin, Greek, anatomy and rote-learning of extensive tracts of Galen be needed? So traditional physicians viewed this approach as a dangerous threat to their profession, education, and standing within the medical hierarchy. Consequently, two camps in the College arose - Baldwin Hamey Junior, (President 1660-1676 and major donor to the college), Edward Alston and Thomas Wharton were in the faction opposing the Royal Society’s views, and notably these individuals had been in leadership positions since the 1650s. They were endorsed by vocal outsiders such as Henry Stubbe who accused the Royal Society of being ‘Bacon-faced’ and dismissive of classical medical education. Merrett, Jonathan Goddard and George Ent on the other hand were in the supportive camp - unsurprisingly as each had been a founder member of the Royal Society. In an attempt to find an acceptable way forward Merrett worked on a compromise, suggesting significant reforms to medical education such that experimental methods were taught alongside Galenic practice.

Merrett’ s ideas on the reform of physician training

It should be recognised that for physicians and the College in the seventeenth century, the theory and practice of Galenic medicine had held sway in England for around 500 years. This convention persisted despite new findings such as Harvey’s description of the circulation of the blood. Students of Physic studied at Oxford or Cambridge for up to seven years on classics and a wide range of subjects, then travelled to the continent and learnt anatomy through practical study and dissection in Italian medical schools such as Padua, or at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Further study of the principles of Galen focused on book learning of the core beliefs of balancing the four humours of black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm with interventions such as purging, bloodletting, use of emetics and cupping. Students also learnt that diagnosis was based on observation and reason, that maintaining fitness through a healthy regimen was better than treating disease, and fundamentally, that it was their theoretical knowledge which distinguished them from ‘mere empirics’. This traditional training would take many years, even decades.

In his proposed reforms Merrett suggested that the first stage of physician training should comprise a foundation of two years of classical university education in Greek and Latin, including teaching in philosophy and the ‘Principles of nature’. This radically reduced the number of years at university from seven to two. Stage two was then a period of anatomical training at a venue such as Leiden. Stage three was hospital training so the student would be exposed to many patients with diverse conditions and be able to learn from clinical observation and the different treatments applied. Merrett recommended hospitals such as La Charite and L'Hotel-Dieu in Paris for this part of training, and it was to be a much more an active, hands-on process of clinical learning than traditional Galenic practice where the only physical contact with patients tended to be taking the pulse and examining urine. For stage four Merrett advocated that the student should gain pharmaceutical knowledge in producing and dispensing medicines, thereby reducing dependence on apothecaries, but also incorporating the principles of artisanal practice and distillation of drugs he had learned in his work in the Trades section of the Royal Society. Many aspects of this plan foreshadow changes in medical education in the 18^th century, and resonate even to this day, especially the clinical element. A reduction in the previously very lengthy period of training was more realistic and less expensive for students to embark on and provided them with more practically based clinical knowledge. It is notable that as a compromise, Merrett conceded that the logos of Galen was still important for understanding the body, even if it could be ‘supplemented by the fruits of experiment’.

To his disappointment Merrett’s proposals were met with disapproval on both sides - the traditionalists found them too radical, and the experimentalists did not like the fact that some aspects of Galenic practice were retained. So little changed immediately, but as the century progressed and experimentalism gained ground, a younger group of Fellows ascended to leadership in the College and the dominance of Galenic teaching could not be sustained.  A convergence of other factors including the effects of the Plague, and competition with the apothecaries and other empirics (as described below), contributed to this evolution.

Plague year, 1665

Plague had been endemic in London since the first pandemic of Black Death in 1348-49, and between 1603 and 1665 there were only four years without cases. Peaks occurred in ten-to-thirty-year cycles, but by 1665 a quiet few decades had led to complacency. In May cases in London started rising rapidly and by June over 6000 people had died of plague.  With deaths rising at a frightening rate, at the behest of Charles II’s Privy Council on May 17^th, the College was ordered to update public health guidance on the outbreak. College leaders responded promptly publishing an update on health advice to the public on May 25 titled: ‘Certain necessary directions, as well for the Cure of the Plague, as for Preventing the infection: with many easie Medicines of small charge, very profitable to His Majesties Subjects’.  The advice contained guidance on the provision of medical services, the movement of goods and people, how to diagnose the disease, how to clean houses and clothes, and how to perfume the air. There are also ‘recipes’ for remedies to be used internally, and externally to the skin such as poultices and pastes.

Prior to 1665, after the Restoration of the monarchy, Charles II renewed the College’s charter in 1663. This was received with relief as it offered reassurance as to the College’s role and standing, and from that time onwards it became known in common parlance as the Royal College of Physicians, although the charter was never officially passed in law. One important consequence was to provide physicians with legal cover to leave their posts in London, which many of them did during the summer of 1665. In fact, most of the London’s elite began fleeing to the country as deaths rose exponentially in July and August, peaking in September.

Despite the health demands of the population, the President of the College, Sir Edward Alston, senior fellows and most physicians are reported to have left London by the end of the summer. As Samuel Pepys recorded in his diary on October 6, 1665: "But Lord, how empty the streets are, and melancholy, so many poor sick people in the streets, full of sores, and so many sad stories overheard as I walk, everybody talking of this dead, and that man sick, and so many in this place, and so many in that. And they tell me that in Westminster there is never a physician, and but one apothecary left, all being dead – but that there are great hopes of a great decrease this week. God send it".

The public quickly overserved, as Pepys had, that the physicians had deserted, and turned to apothecaries and other empirics for any medical care they could offer.

Merrett stayed in his College quarters initially through the summer of 1665 but in the absence of nearly all fellows and staff, disquiet about the safety of the College’s silverware and finances led to a plan to seal the valuables in an iron chest within the college. Merrett oversaw this process but shortly afterwards the College was broken into and the entire contents of the chest stolen. This was a huge blow as the college lost nearly all its valuables and £1000 in cash rendering it virtually bankrupt. The thieves were never caught. Some years later a finger was pointed at Merrett as being complicit in the theft, but there was no evidence for this, and Merrett continued in his role. It soon transpired that this misfortune was a bitter harbinger of further calamity to befall the College.

The Great Fire of London, 1666

Dryden describes 1666 as ‘Annus Mirabilis - the year of wonders’ - perhaps ironically, but for the Royal College of Physicians and Merrett, it was anything but. The Great Fire of London having originated in Pudding Lane on September 2nd, was fanned by unusually strong winds and by September 4th had consumed much of the city and was edging towards the medieval St Paul’s cathedral. The College building at Amen Corner, was only a stone’s throw from St Paul’s. As Londoners were hastily moving possessions in carts and aboard river boats, on September 3rd Merrett began to set aside books and possessions which were a priority to be moved if the fire extended to the College. And reach the College it did on September 4th between three and four o’clock, but not before the spectacular sight of St Paul’s falling victim. Surrounded by wooden scaffolding as part of a renovation by Wren, the roof caught fire with six acres of lead melting and ‘running as rivers into the street and stones flying like grenades’ as vividly described by the diarist John Evelyn. When the fire reached the crypt it is said the ‘whole building blew up into bright flames and lit the sky’.

In the path of the fire ball, the College’s home since 1614 stood no chance. Merrett was able to rescue around 148 of the prioritised books, plus Harvey’s portrait which was cut from its frame, Harvey’s cane, a collection of archives, college annals and silverware. Years later Merrett’s son Christopher was to describe his father on ‘the terrible night when the College caught fire’…. ‘walking down Warwick Lane which was on fire on both sides, with arms full of books followed by bedel’ (college warden). There is no record of any other Fellows or college staff assisting in this desperate task, as most remained out of London, or had fled the fire.

The building itself was completely devastated, and the College lost the remaining estimated 1100 books from Harvey’s library, its museum collection, portraits and many college records and archives. Merrett’s rooms, his personal library and all his possessions were destroyed.

The College was now homeless and within two years had lost its wealth, library and possessions. Its reputation and that of physicians had also suffered dearly during the Plague as they were not seen to have supported the sick of London. The College elders convened at the homes of various fellows and Sir Edward Alston was re-elected as President. The rescued College annals are peculiarly uncommunicative as the state of mind and plans of the College seniors during the months after the Fire, revealing that from December 22nd 1666 to March 26th 1667 the comitia meetings were held at the house of Sir John Langham, Knight, ‘but nothing worthy of commemoration was done’.

After this overwhelming blow, a sense of purpose and resolve gradually returned as Fellows and Censors resumed examinations of candidates and regulatory activities, and began fund-raising for a new College building, and library. The College benefitted from the generosity of wealthy College elects such as Baldwin Hamey Jr, who helped it establish a new home nearby in Warwick Lane, and enterprises such the creation of Honorary Fellowships. One of these bore spectacular fruit in 1680 as Honorary Fellow Henry Pierrepont, the Marquis of Dorchester, left his extensive library of three thousand volumes to his daughter Grace, and fortuitously she arranged for the entire collection of books to be donated to the College, creating the Dorchester Library. This replenished the College’s resources with very many remarkable volumes, including a copy of the Wilton Psalter from the thirteenth century, over a hundred books originally belonging to John Dee (Elizabethan astrologer, mathematician and occultist), an original copy of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, works by Cicero and Avicenna, volumes of Galen’s Methodus Medendi, and many more which remain in the Dorchester Library to this day.

Merrett as Censor

While after 1666 there was no library to maintain until a new library in Warwick Lane was built, Merrett occupied other roles, serving as a Censor for a total of eleven years non-consecutively between 1651 and the 1670. The role of the Censor as established in the charter of 1518 was to firstly to conduct an oral examination of candidates to grant a license to practice medicine. This required candidates to have a detailed knowledge of Galenic medical theory, an understanding of diagnosis and prognosis, expertise in anatomy and physiology, an understanding of drugs and remedies, and the capacity to argue medical principles in Latin. The failure rate was high, and many candidates had to re-apply. Secondly the Censor heard grievances - acting as judge in medical disputes between physicians, between patients and physicians, and over allegations of incompetence or malpractice. A third role was in regulating practice by imposing professional standards on the conduct of physicians, and fourthly - the most onerous task - was to prosecute empiric practitioners which included unlicensed physicians, apothecaries, surgeons, midwifes, travelling quacks and traditional folk healers. To achieve this the Censor was charged with inspecting apothecaries’ shops, seizing and destroying fraudulent or counterfeit medicines, imposing fines, and mounting court cases against persistent offenders. A final role was in safeguarding patients in London by developing public health measures and enforcing the regulations. Usually, four Censors were in post at any one time, but the role was taxing, becoming progressively more difficult as the seventeenth century progressed. This was because the population of London was growing rapidly, and there were increasing numbers of apothecaries and other empirics, plus an influx of military healers and surgeons after the Civil war. The public demanded medical services and the number of physicians granted licences by the college was unable to meet this consumer pressure. In 1660 there were forty Fellows created, with typically twelve candidates for examination enrolling each year, and by 1680 there were still only eighty Fellows in London. With thousands of empiric practitioners, it was impossible for the Censors to inspect properties and check standards, let alone prosecute the worst offenders. In fact, prosecutions had always been low - notably there were only 714 prosecutions between 1550-1640 but the volume of irregular practitioners had grown vastly. The ability to enforce regulations was not helped by the College’s moral authority being undermined by the exodus of physicians at the height of the plague.

Impact of the growth of the apothecaries and other empirics

The origins of apothecaries date back to the Guild of Peppers formed in 1180, which after joining with the Spicers created the Worshipful Company of Grocers in 1428. The Charter of the College of Physicians gave the College the right to exercise regulatory power over the apothecaries. In 1617 the apothecaries split from the Grocers company and were granted a Royal Charter by King James I. However, they remained within the regulatory oversight of the College, and although were meant to dispense medicine, apothecaries often diagnosed and prescribed medications in contravention to College regulations.

Merrett may have borne the brunt of enforcing the colleges standards and regulations after the plague and fire. With increasing animosity between apothecaries and the College in the late 1660s, a war of words broke out prompted by Merrett publishing a pamphlet in 1669 titled "A Short View of the Frauds and Abuses Committed by Apothecaries". Merrett’s aim was to outline the infringements he observed and act as staunch defender of the College in an effort to exert its authority.

The pamphlet accused apothecaries of various abuses including falsifying medicines by substitution or adulteration, multiplying bills and prescriptions (providing unnecessary medicines) and inflating prices by overcharging. Merrett gave specific examples including apothecaries using out-of-date decayed ingredients, omitting expensive ingredients such as saffron or ambergris, giving medicine for cases which only required good nursing, creating imaginary diseases and worst of all, prescribing medicines without physician consultation. Merrett framed himself as a reluctant reformer, acting in the interests of the public and speaking in the ‘common language of all Physicians’. Crucially he suggested that physicians could take on the role of apothecaries by preparing their own medicines.

Not surprisingly the apothecaries retaliated strongly via a spirited but anonymous paper ‘Lex Talionis’ (an eye-for-an-eye). This defended the apothecaries’ role in providing a vital service to the population, and counter-charged that if physicians were to make their own medicines, they too would commit similar errors and frauds. They asserted that physicians did not possess the artisanal skills to prepare and distil medicines and simply did not have the wherewithal or numbers to open dispensaries across London and further afield. They were correct in those assumptions.

Most woundingly the author(s) of Lex Talionis accused Merrett of an underhand attempt to promote the interests of the Royal Society by creating a wedge between physicians and apothecaries, in his advocacy of a new experimental role for physicians.

Merrett and the Court Cases

Having worked continuously in College roles since 1654, in the 1680s Merrett became embroiled in a series of three major court cases versus the Royal College of Physicians which centred on the events arising from the Great Fire of London. By 1669 the college had abolished the post of Harveian Librarian and offered Merrett £50 to give up his lease on the now destroyed College house. Merrett refused to give back the books he had saved, using them as leverage in a first court case launched in February 1680. Merrett applied to the Court of the King’s Bench demanding the College show cause why he was not continued in post as Harveian Librarian, why his salary was in arrears and had not been paid, and argued that he should be reinstated to the position. The College’s defence was that the library no longer existed therefore the librarian post had been legitimately abolished, that Merrett had failed in his duty to protect the books as the majority of the collection had been destroyed by the Fire, and that they had paid Merrett to surrender the lease. Merrett contested these statements, but lost the judgement given in 1681. Within weeks the College expelled him from the Fellowship on the stated grounds of ‘non-attendance at public meetings on four occasions, when summoned by the bedle’. The President Sir John Micklethwaite announced the expulsion on September 30 1681, declaring Merrett ‘non Socius’ (not a Fellow).

Merrett swiftly appealed the decision citing that his expulsion was unjust, the College had violated official procedures, and that he should be reinstated. The judgement on this occasion was again for the College, establishing that professional medical corporations had the disciplinary power to expel Fellows.

Finally, the President Sir John Micklethwaite launched a further legal case seeking return of the library books still in Merrett’s possession. This turned into a protracted two-year battle lasting till 1683 but ended in favour of the College with Merrett being ordered to return the books to the newly constructed library in Warwick Lane, without any compensation for his lost post or unpaid salary.

Having been roundly and disastrously defeated, Merrett has been described as a vexatious litigant, but to him the cases had merit and were important to his sense of justice. Moreover, they were critical to his career as a physician and academic, and existential in that he was running out of money and time. While the reason for his expulsion from Royal College of Physicians was technical, it seems likely this was a motivated by a sense of retribution on the part of the College for loss of the books (he was severely censured for their loss after the fire), and Merrett’s perceived extortionate demands, resulting in the expensive court cases and consequent breakdown in the relationship between Merrett and college elders. In mitigation one can argue - how was he meant to save all the nearly 2000 library books with minimal assistance? He had returned to London to deal with the matter, few had anticipated the fire travelling so fast and widely, no plans had been made by the College for emergency relocation of the books, and no single other fellow (other than the bedle, a college employee) came to his aid. It was during the court case that one of his sons gave the testimony describing his father running the gauntlet of the fire, his arms full of books. Merrett can perhaps be seen as a useful scapegoat for the College to justify the disaster that had befallen them.

It is notable that at time of the court cases the cost of legal fees for an individual was substantial with estimates ranging from £200-£600 - that is, two to five years of income for a successful London physician. In a further affront Merrett was expelled from the Royal Society for non-payment of fees in 1685, having been in arrears since 1668. So not only was he financially ruined but he had lost his Fellowship and reputation.

A bright career had crashed and burned.

Final years in practice

After the expulsion from the College Merrett lived in the newly built Hatton Garden district of London and practised as a private physician to provide an income for over a decade. With his wife Ann Jenour, who he had married in 1643, he had at least two sons, two daughters and grandchildren who survived him.

Seemingly indefatigable, months before his death in August 1695 he published a public broadside in which he offered medicines of his own making ‘without cost’ to150 parishioners in the parish of St Andrew’s Holborn, thus confirming that amazingly he was still active in medicine at the age of 81 years. In the broadside he describes himself as ‘ager 81 years and upwards, dr in physic, practitioner in London since 1638, fellow of both royal societies, keeper of Dr Harvey’s museum and censor for 11 years of the college of Physicians’. There is no description of the medicines he dispensed, although he was known to have cultivated his own herb garden. In creating and dispensing his own medicines, it seems he was practising what he preached.

Was Merrett an Accomplisht Physician? Reflections on his rise and fall.

After a meteoric academic rise, becoming a Fellow of the College in 1651 and being personally anointed by Harvey to become Librarian in 1653, Merrett rose further in the College taking on increasing responsibility as Censor in enforcing standards and regulations at a time when this was becoming increasingly fraught. He attempted to mediate when the College felt threated by the creation of the Royal Society and forge a path forward in medical education by melding Galenic principles with the new philosophy of investigation.

In his interactions with the empirics Merrett acted as a bulwark for the College, actively trying to reinforce their position. But his pamphlets directed toward the apothecaries were peremptory and accusatory, and he fought against the backlash. His clear hierarchical delineation of the Accomplisht Physician, good apothecary and chyrugeon was workable in the Tudor and the early Stuart era but by the time of the Restoration there were too few physicians to provide medical care for the population, they were expensive and catered mainly to the upper classes, and the public were willing to consult with apothecaries and take their advice. The old divisions could not stand. Merrett’s battles capture a significant moment in history when the old medical order was dying, elite physicians felt threatened by the empirics, and there were tensions between the old Galenists and newer experimentalists. Merrett tried to resolve these dilemmas by compromise, but he failed to gain collateral support and his solutions proved unacceptable to all parties. Ultimately the apothecaries won the right to prescribe in a court case in 1704, but some of Merrett’s ideas on medical education have been subsequently adopted.

Why did the relationship between the College and Merrett break down? They offered him £50 in compensation for his role long after the fire, in 1669, but this seemed paltry. He kept some books as leverage in the dispute about his role, as felt he was owed this by the College. The College leaders took a pragmatic view that the books belonged to them and there was no longer need for a librarian. Both sides rigidly maintained these positions through three long high court cases, believing they were right. A less self-righteous Merrett who was able to appreciate the views of others, and a less vengeful and hidebound College might have settled out of court much earlier. Stripping Merrett of his Fellowship on the pretext on non-attendance at meetings seems motivated by annoyance. The College annals record little of substance on the matter and the president who authorised the proceedings, Sir John Micklethwaite, died shortly afterwards. A new leadership took over, and any possibility of reconciliation was lost. Dodds in his account of Merrett’s life concludes ‘one cannot help feeling that many writers have stressed Merrett’s bad points and passed lightly over his good ones ….. it is very strange that he should have been harshly treated when men of the calibre of Scarborough and Ent were powers in the College’.

Re-evaluation

There has been a more recent re-evaluation of Merrett’s contribution to this historic period. In 2012 Mauke published an account of Merrett’s achievements and argues that there was a central paradox to Merrett’s career in that he proposed progressive methods (experimentation, artisanal distillation and production of medicines by physicians themselves, and reform to medical education) while trying to maintain conservative goals (preserving the role of the College, defending of a hierarchy of practitioners, and excluding apothecaries). Merrett’s attempts at mediation between the empirics and physicians were doomed to failure due to the growing demands of the public for medical care which could not be met by physicians alone. His ideas on medical reform were entangled in the agenda on apothecaries, while his wider thoughts on the contents of medical education and shortening the period of training were accepted in years to come.

Afterlife

Merrett’s last wishes that after a turbulent life he should rest in eternal peace, buried deeply beneath St Andrew’s Church did not come to pass. Several centuries after his death St Andrew’s church north graveyard was bought up and excavated to make way for the Holborn Viaduct, a major Victorian project designed to link Holborn with Newgate Steet, which was opened by Queen Victoria in 1869. The bodies within the church grounds were exhumed and moved to the church crypt. Then in 1941 St Andrew’s Church was hit directly by a German incendiary bomb and burnt down leaving only the outer walls and tower standing. The churchyard was extensively damaged, and any remaining monuments or plaques in the crypt were lost. The church was restored in 1961 to Christopher Wren’s original design. But seemingly as a final insult the crypt was excavated in 2001-2002 as part of an archaeological exploration, and all remains were transferred to the City of London Cemetery in Ilford, Essex. Any physical traces of Merrett would have been moved unmarked to Ilford and lost among the remains of thousands of others.

Little more was heard until 2017 when a blue memorial plaque was unveiled at Merrett’s birthplace in Winchcombe after a campaign by local historians to commemorate Merrett being the first person to record the addition of sugar to wine for secondary fermentation and use the word ‘sparkling’ to describe the resulting product, predating the Method Champenoise. The irony that Merrett was born to an innkeeper in a public house is not lost. The Ridgeview Wine estate has now trademarked the name Merrett in his honour. The blue plaque reads: ‘Birthplace of Christopher Merrett 1614-1695. Scientist, Physician, Naturalist and Metallurgist. In 1662 he documented how to put the fizz in sparkling wine’. 

While Merrett might be gratified to be celebrated first and foremost as a scientist and wine artisan in keeping with his founding role at the Royal Society, he trained first in medicine and continued to be a medical practitioner until the very end of his life. In the final entry in his Will, signed within a day of his death, he records himself simply as Christopher Merrett, Physician.

Anita Simonds

Harveian Librarian

References

• Royal College of Physicians. "Christopher Merrett." RCP Museum: Inspiring Physicians. Accessed December 2025. https://history.rcp.ac.uk/inspiring-physicians/christopher-merrett
• Dodds C. Christopher Merrett FRCP (1614-1695) First Harveian Librarian. Proc Roy Soc Med 1954:47;1053-54.
• Cook HJ. The decline of the old medical regime in Stuart London. 1986, Cornell University Press.
• Gillam S. https://history.rcp.ac.uk/blog/christopher-merrett-and-beginnings-champagne
• Mauck A. ‘By merit raised to that bad eminence’. Christopher Merrett, artisanal knowledge, and professional reform in Restoration London. Med Hist 2012; 56:26-47.
• Merrett C. A Short View of the Frauds and Abuses Committed by Apothecaries. London1669.
• Merrett C. The Accomplisht Physician, the Honest Apothecary, and the Skilful Chyrurgeon’ London 1670.
• College Annals 1647-1682, Royal College of Physicians, London.