Van Helmont, Descartes, Batista Porta, and other leaders of science, in the seventeenth century, espoused the theory cordially enough. Van Helmont's contribution to the evidence on which it was founded is hard to beat. In his "De Magnetica Vulnerum Curatione," written about 1644, he relates that a citizen of Brussels having lost his nose in a combat in Italy, repaired to a surgeon of Bologna named Tagliacozzi, who provided him with another, taking the required strip of flesh from the arm of a servant. This answered admirably, and the Brussels man returned home. But thirteen months later he found his nose was getting cold; and then it began to putrefy. The explanation, of course, was that the servant from whom the flesh had been borrowed had died. Van Helmont adds, "Superstites sunt horum testes oculati Bruxellae"; there are still eye-witnesses of this case at Brussels.
Moss from a dead man's skull is a principal ingredient in all the sympathetic ointments, and the condition that the dead man should have died a violent death is generally insisted on. But Van Helmont, quoting from one Goclenius, adds another condition still more absurd. It is that the dead man's name should only have three letters. Thus, for example, Dod would do, but not Dodd.
Sir Gilbert Talbot (in the time of Charles II) communicated to the Royal Society particulars of a cure he had made with Sympathetic Powder. An English mariner was stabbed in four places at Venice, and bled for three days without intermission. Sir Gilbert, who happened to be at Venice at the same time, was told of this disaster. He sent for some of the man's blood and mixed Sympathetic Powder with it. At the same time he sent a man to bind up the patient's wounds with clean linen. Soon after he visited the mariner and
