Definition
One who keeps a shop or building where medicines are compounded or prepared according to the prescriptions of physicians, or where medicines are sold. The legal definition, drawn from the federal Revenue Act of July 13, 1866, is broader than colloquial usage: any person engaged in either the preparation or the sale of medicines qualifies. The term encompasses what modern law and commerce would call a pharmacist or pharmacy operator.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A pharmacist; historically, one who made and sold their own medicines, particularly in the medieval or early modern eras. Also used to mean a pharmacy or drugstore, or a glass jar of the type once used to store medicine.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): One who prepares and sells drugs or compounds for medicinal purposes.
The gap matters for research: in ordinary usage, apothecary carries a strong historical or archaic flavor and implies the maker-seller combined in one person. The legal definition, by contrast, is deliberately expansive — it reaches anyone who sells medicines, regardless of whether they compound them. A researcher reading a 19th-century statute or regulatory dispute should not assume the legal term tracks the common understanding of a skilled compounder; the legal definition was broad enough to capture simple drug retailers as well.
Common Confusion
Apothecary vs. Druggist: The historical dictionaries are consistent on this point. A druggist, strictly speaking, buys and sells drugs without compounding or preparing them — a narrower occupation. An apothecary, legally defined, includes both the compounder and the seller, making apothecary the broader term. The distinction had practical significance in licensing and tax law contexts where the two categories were separately regulated or taxed. Modern usage has largely collapsed this distinction; both terms have been displaced by pharmacist and pharmacy in contemporary statutes and regulation.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is primarily encountered in 19th-century federal and state statutes, licensing disputes, and regulatory materials — rarely in contemporary legal sources. Several navigational points:
The 1866 federal definition controls in cases arising under that Act and its revenue provisions. Researchers working with Reconstruction-era tax law, licensing frameworks, or commerce regulation should anchor to that statutory text rather than general dictionary meanings of the period.
The apothecary/druggist distinction generated real litigation in the 19th century, particularly around licensing requirements and scope-of-practice questions. Louisiana appellate decisions cited in Bouvier's confirm the distinction was litigated at the state level. A researcher tracing a regulatory lineage should check whether the jurisdiction adopted the broader federal definition or applied a narrower local understanding.
The term appears in medical licensing histories and is a predecessor concept to modern pharmacy law. Researchers working on the evolution of professional licensing, scope of practice, or drug regulation will find apothecary as the antecedent category to pharmacist. The transition in terminology from apothecary to pharmacist to pharmacy operator tracks the broader professionalization of medicine and drug dispensing across the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Anderson's entry cross-references druggist and merchant, signaling that in some frameworks the apothecary was treated as a species of general merchant for purposes of commercial or trade law — a framing relevant to contract and liability questions in older case law.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries agree closely on the core definition, all tracing to the same 1866 statutory language. Black's (both editions) and Bouvier's quote the Revenue Act directly and emphasize the same druggist/apothecary distinction. Anderson's is the outlier — it declines to define the term independently and simply refers the reader to druggist and merchant, suggesting that by the time of that dictionary's compilation the term was already losing independent legal significance.
Black's 2nd edition adds case citations (Woodward v. Ball; Westmoreland v. Bragg; Com. v. Fuller) that Black's 1st edition and Bouvier's omit, making the 2nd edition the more useful starting point for case-based research on the term's judicial application.
None of the historical dictionaries address the licensing or professional standards dimensions that would become central to pharmacy law in the 20th century — a significant gap for researchers tracing regulatory continuity. The historical dictionaries define who an apothecary is; they do not address what an apothecary was permitted or required to do.
Jurisdictional Note
State law varied on whether apothecary and druggist were treated as distinct categories for licensing purposes. Louisiana precedent, cited in Bouvier's, confirms the broader/narrower distinction was enforced at the appellate level. Researchers should not assume a uniform national standard governed the term outside the specific federal statutory context.