The old ignorant kings and queens were said to remove the scrofula (king's
evil) by the touch. Gouty old Queen Anne was the last to exercise the
royal prerogative to any extent.
A scrofulous _development_ is the result of imperfect action, and
obstruction of some one or more of the five excretory organs of the human
system. These are the skin (or glands of the same), the lungs, the liver,
the kidneys, and the colon. The most that the regular physician does in
scrofula (or one who is not a specialist in this branch of physic) is to
attend to the general health of the patient of a scrofulous diathesis,
build up the strength, and endeavor to increase the vitality. This _in a
measure_ tends to reduce the scrofulous development. Now, will not a child
sleeping continually with an aged person or invalid tend to reduce the
vitality of the child? Yes, it absorbs the disease of the one, while the
vitality is thrown off for the benefit of the weaker person. Here, you
see, one person may partake of the vitality of another by touch. Then may
not the continued touch of a healthy person (king or subject) affect the
health of a weaker, on the principle of increased vitality?
But it really removes no cause, hence cannot take the place of an
alterative, or anti-scrofulous medicine. The "crew of wretched souls" who
waited the king's touch really believed that he "solicits Heaven." Hence
the cure. The coin which he hung about the neck of these "strangely
visited people, all swollen and ulcerous, pitiful to the eye," called
their attention continually to "the healing benediction."
Pyrrhus, who was placed upon the throne by force of arms B. C. 306, was
said to cure the "evil" by the "grace of God." Valentine, who only held
his throne--A. D. 375--by the help of Theodosius, not by the "grace of
God"--claimed to cure scrofula by the latter power, as did Valentine II.,
whose wicked temper ended his life in a "fit of passion."