the belief in the efficacy of sympathetic remedies,
namely, that by acting on part of a thing or on a symbol of it, one
thereby acts magically on the whole or the thing symbolised, is the
root-idea of all magic, and is of extreme antiquity. DIGBY and others,
however, tried to give a natural explanation to the supposed efficacy
of the Powder. They argued that particles of the blood would ascend from
the bloody cloth or weapon, only coming to rest when they had reached
their natural home in the wound from which they had originally issued.
These particles would carry with them the more volatile part of the
vitriol, which would effect a cure more readily than when combined with
the grosser part of the vitriol. In the days when there was hardly any
knowledge of chemistry and physics, this theory no doubt bore every
semblance of truth. In passing, however, it is interesting to note
that DIGBY'S _Discourse_ called forth a reply from J. F. HELVETIUS
(or SCHWETTZER, 1625-1709), physician to the Prince of Orange, who
afterwards became celebrated as an alchemist who had achieved the magnum
opus.(1)

(1) See my _Alchemy: Ancient and Modern_ (1911), SESE 63-67.

Writing of the Sympathetic Powder, Professor DE MORGAN wittily argues
that it must have been quite efficacious. He says: "The directions were
to keep the wound clean and cool, and to take care of diet, rubbing the
salve on the knife or sword. If we remember the dreadful notions upon
drugs which prevailed, both as to quantity and quality, we shall readily
see that any way of NOT dressing the wound would have been useful. If
the physicians had taken the hint, had been careful of diet, _etc_.,
and had poured the little barrels of medicine down the throat of a
practicable doll, THEY would have had their magical cures as well as the
surgeons."(2) As Dr PETTIGREW has pointed out,(3) Nature exhibits very
remarkable powers in effecting the healing of wounds by adhesion, when
her processes are not impeded. In fact, many cases have been recorded in
which noses, ears, and fingers severed from the body have been rejoined
thereto, merely by washing the parts, placing them in close continuity,
and allowing the natural powers of the body to effect the healing.
Moreover, in spite of BACON'S remarks on this point, the effect of
the imagination of the patient, who was usually not ignorant that a
sympathetic cure was to be attempted, must be taken into account; for,
without going to the