300 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2nd s. VII. Apbil 9. '69. 



namely, the strange and apparently unimpeachable 

 character of the evidence. Digby was believed 

 to be a man of worth and veracity : the facts he 

 declares were such as no man is incompetent to 

 attest : they were publicly declared before one of 

 the best known academies in Europe, and the 

 narrative was forthwith printed and circulated in 

 various languages. The names of the individuals 

 concerned were given ; and the facts asserted 

 were never contradicted. In spite of all this, no 

 one feels that the narrative finds belief in his own 

 mind : and the reason, or one sufficient reason, is 

 clear enough. Digby assures us that the means of 

 doing similar wonders may be in the hands of 

 everyone, and he states what they are ; they are 

 tried, and do not succeed ; at least, in later times, 

 no one has testified to their success. Digby's ac- 

 count is as follows. His friend, Mr. Howel, badly 

 wounded in the hand by a sword-cut, and in such 

 a state that the surgeons were apprehensive of 

 mortification, went to Digby to ask for the appli- 

 cation of the unusual remedies for which he was 

 notorious. Digby asked for anything which had 

 some of the blood upon it, and received a garter 

 with which the wound had been bound up as soon 

 as given. Digby dipped the garter into a solution 

 of the vitriolic powder, and Mr. Howel, who was 

 in conversation in another part of the room, and 

 not aware of what was going on, started, and on 

 being asked what was the matter, declared that 

 pain had left him, and that he felt as if a cold wet 

 napkin had been spread over the wound. Digby 

 then dismissed him, telling him to throw away all 

 the applications, and to keep the part neither too 

 hot nor too cold. After dinner, Digby took the 

 garter out of the basin, and dried it before a fire. 

 Howel's servant soon came to say that his master 

 was as bad as ever. Digby told him to return, 

 and said his master would be relieved before he 

 got home ; he then restored the garter to the 

 basin. The wound made rapid progress, and was 

 entirely healed in five or six days. Did Digby 

 give his friend a new period of torture merely to 

 satisfy himself of what he knew perfectly well 

 already ? The reader must make out for himself 

 the meaning of the following sentence. After the 

 first relief had been given the narrative goes on 

 thus : — 



"This was presently reported to the Duke of Buckingham, 

 and a little after to the king, who were both very curious 

 to" know the circumstance of the business, which was, 

 that after dinner I took the garter out of the water . . ." 



The words ^'^ which was" are quite unintelligible 

 unless they be mistranslation or misprint for 

 " whence it was," meaning that Digby arrested 

 the cure to satisfy the duke or the king. 



I doubt whether the sympathetic powder be the 

 greatest of the wonders which Digby published to 

 the Academy of Montpellier. But these I shall 

 not eater on: nor would I have attempted any 



account of Digby's theory, had I not found in my 

 copy a little abridgement, in a handwriting of 

 the seventeenth century, which may serve the 

 purpose. 



" On Sir Kenehn Digbie's seven principles. 

 " And why not six or eight? why seven ? why odde? 

 Because" 'tis a mysterious worke of God. 

 It's that Archetypall light which tirst displaies 

 Or'e y6 whole hemisphere Sol's orient raies. 

 These beat on vitriolated atoms scatter 

 In the mixt aire their subdivided matter, 

 Which filtered in y" vast expanse, doth find 

 Each one his proper mate ; these after kind 

 Embraces, with them powerfully allure 

 Balsaraick vertue to perfourme y^ cure." 



From what we know of the drugs then in use, 

 and of the strength of the preparations, it is likely 

 enough that low diet, perfect cleanliness, and ap- 

 plying the salve to the weapon, which is one way 

 of not applying it to the wound, would be found 

 very efiicacious. With the exception of salving 

 the weapon, the method is common in our own 

 time. And we must not forget that " abstinence," 

 in that day, meant not eating very much more 

 than nature requires. We are speaking of the 

 people among whom it was a current saying that 

 a goose is too much for one and too little for two : 

 which, even after allowing for the birds not being 

 of so fine a growth as in our day, leaves a very 

 handsome notion of the dinner power of the hu- 

 man race as then existing. Was it ever suggested, 

 among our ancestors of the seventeenth century, 

 to apply Digby's principle to physicians' cases? 

 If all the medicine had been given to some 

 large wax doll with a practicable mouth, instead 

 of to the patient, after one or two impressive 

 ceremonies, it may be that we should have had 

 very startling accounts of the success of the treat- 

 ment. 



It may be observed that the theory above sug- 

 gested involves the question at issue between the 

 homcEopathist and the allopathist. Which me- 

 thod cures most is a question of dry fact, involv- 

 ing no theory at all, to be settled for himself by 

 everyone who observes, and to be settled by 

 authority in all other minds. This point decided, 

 those who, on any ground, believe in the superior 

 efficacy of homoeopathy, have to find out, as well 

 as they can, whether that superiority be due to the 

 infinitesimal dose being a provision for no medi- 

 cine at all, or a better mode of giving some medi- 

 cine. It is amusing to see how frequently the 

 question of theory is discussed by those who are 

 at issue about the fact, to which they have paid 

 no attention. The same thing happens with phre- 

 nology. It is alleged that a peculiar external 

 form of the head is always, or nearly always, ac- 

 companied by a peculiar mental habit or power : 

 and the theory is that it is the quantity of brain 

 in that part of the head to which the habit or 

 power is to be referred. Without settling the 



