About every other Christmas I go into full geek mode and binge-watch the extended versions of the Lord of the Rings movies. In the concluding part, ‘The Return of the King’, there’s a scene where Aragorn, finally having come to terms with his kingship, lays his hands on the wounded with the intent to restore them to health after battle. This scene is a reminder of an ancient healing ritual called the ‘Royal Touch’, which was performed by sovereigns on their subjects.
King Aragorn heals the wounded Faramir. From the deleted scenes of ‘The Return of the Ring’, Warner Bros., 2003.
In England, the practice of the Royal Touch stood in full bloom during the heydays of the so-called Scientific Revolution. By September 1664, twenty-three thousand subjects had been touched by King Charles II, with the last healing ritual being performed on a large scale in England by Queen Anne in April 1714. In France, the tradition of the Royal Touch survived into the days before the Revolution and was then continued to be practiced by the Bourbons until the early nineteenth century. Primarily supposed to cure scrofula (a form of tuberculosis then called ‘The King’s Evil’), the ritual also involved the distribution of so-called cramp rings to assuage epilepsy, muscular pains and other ailments.
Charles II performing the Royal Touch. Image Credit: King’s College London, Special Collections
Contrary to popular beliefs, if there was ever a period when science could be separated from the occult, the Scientific Revolution was not it. The foundation of the London Royal Society in 1660 was no doubt a milestone in the rise of modern scientific experimentalism as a collective endeavour. Hence, many present-day scientists are quite puzzled when they learn that Robert Boyle and other early members of the Society were believers in various ‘supernatural’ phenomena, ranging from second sight to poltergeist disturbances.
Moreover, while it’s still widely believed that magic was then already vanquished by science, Boyle and some of his colleagues didn’t leave it at mere belief but investigated reported occult goings-on – not to debunk such beliefs, but to corroborate them.
These investigations included the apparently well-attested cures by the Irish faith healer Valentine “the Stroker” Greatrakes, who treated various ailments, usually by applying gentle strokes (not unlike the mesmeric passes later applied by practitioners of ‘animal magnetism’ since the eighteenth century). Among Greatrakes’s patients and admirers were eminent men of science like the astronomer John Flamsteed, and few actually doubted the efficacy of Greatrakes’s interventions. There was, however, a somewhat heated public dispute over their interpretation.
Valentine Greatrakes curing a peasant boy. Line engraving by W. Faithorne, 1666. Image Credit: Wellcome Collection, London.
Thomist distinctions of divine miracles (actual violations or suspensions of the laws of nature) from preternatural marvels (phenomena that may resemble miracles, but were worked according to natural laws not yet understood) were already on the decline in Boyle’s day. Still, healings supposedly effected by the King’s ‘Royal Touch’ continued to be interpreted as genuinely supernatural and miraculous, and therefore as a divine seal of the King’s supposedly God-given authority and power. Since Greatrakes – a mere commoner – also claimed to act on divine orders, this was of course a problem.
The significance of a distinction between extraordinary natural phenomena and supernatural, divine miracles was hammered home, for example, in the title of a tract on Greatrakes, Wonders No Miracles, by the Anglican minister David Lloyd.
Cover of Lloyd’s book on Greatrakes. Image Credit: Wellcome Collection, London.
When Robert Boyle investigated Greatrakes, he likewise accepted many of his cures as genuine but not necessarily miraculous. Though at least privately Boyle did not seem to have ruled out that Greatrakes’s cures were divine in origin, he also considered natural explanations such as effects of warmth and friction. In line with contemporary mechanist natural philosophy, he also entertained the idea of quasi-material vital effluences or ‘spirits’ (an early modern concept for what was later called ‘gases’) as being responsible for Valentine’s cures.
Interestingly, Charles II himself did not seem too bothered over Greatrakes, even though the commoner also claimed to heal scrofula, just like the King. While critics denounced Greatrakes, who like the King claimed to act on divine authority, not so much as a swindler than as an ‘enthusiast’ (a then derogatory label for those who dared bypassing orthodox theological authority), a growing number of political opponents of Charles II accused the King of mimicking popish tricks.
When Marc Bloch unearthed the Royal Touch as the first modern historian in 1924 and revealed the remarkably long past of this practice, he noted: “Historians have written massive tomes on the idea of royalty without ever mentioning them”.
It would take roughly another half century before historians of science and medicine began to tackle the role of magic in a more concerted effort. And they have arrived at a rather unpopular conclusion: Scientists and intellectuals of various (and often competing) political and metaphysical persuasions have always stood on both sides of debates over the reality of ‘occult’ phenomena – even in supposedly secular times.
Literature
Bloch, Marc. (1973). Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France (J. E. Anderson, Trans.). London: Routledge (original French ed. in 1924) [Buy on Amazon] [Search on Abebooks].
Brogan, Stephen The Royal Touch in Early Modern England. Politics, Medicine and Sin. Woodbridge: Royal Historical Society/Boydell, 2015 [Buy on Amazon] [Search on Abebooks].
Elmer, Peter. (2013). Miraculous Conformist: Valentine Greatrakes, the Body Politic, and the Politics of Healing in Restoration Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press [Buy on Amazon] [Search on Abebooks].
Kaplan, Barbara Beigun. “Greatrakes the Stroker: The interpretations of his contemporaries.” Isis, 73 (1982), 178-185.
Schaffer, Simon. “Godly men and mechanical philosophers: Souls and spirits in Restoration Natural Philosophy.” Science in Context, 1 (1987), 55-85.
Werrett, Simon. “Healing the nation’s wounds: Royal ritual and experimental philosophy in Restoration England.” History of Science, 38 (2000), 377-399.
(Disclaimer: Forbidden Histories is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on this site, we may earn an affiliate commission, at no extra cost for you.)
Boyle’s relationship with Greatrakes was a bit more involved than most published records show. Boyle’s lab notes mention that he invited Greatrakes into his home (Boyle lived with his sister and niece) to heal the niece’s headaches. Boyle hesitated to proclaim miracles publicly because the Church of England’s doctrine of the cessation of miracles. Restoration England was a pressure cooker of disparate beliefs and desires. Although the Royal Society designated themselves as arbiters of truth claims, they had political headwinds to consider as well. https://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/87752