April 21, 2000

Lives of the Conjurers

In a 1876 book printed in London and titled, "Lives of the Conjurors," author Thomas Frost discusses the interesting life histories of magicians, without giving away any professional secrets and concentrating on the impact these persons had on the entertainment world in general. When he gets to the conjurors of his own day, he provides his readers with some observations about the flim-flamartists who were plying their trade so successfully, riding the coattails of the conjurors--a situation not unlike what we are faced with today. In fact, this has been the situation all through history.

I quote from Frost's book in order to indicate to you the parallels to be found between this present situation and that of 125 years ago. The language is somewhat different, the references are of course dated, but we can see here that human nature has not changed very much.

"Some amount of mischief may have been done by Mesmerists, and a great deal has undoubtedly been wrought by so-called Spiritualists; but a broad and readily recognised line separates the conjuror from the quack. The former honestly avows, that he is going to take advantage of the fallibility of our senses to perform a seeming impossibility by means which we cannot detect but which he acknowledges to be derived from the natural laws by which the universe is governed. The latter pretends to be the medium of a supernatural power, and attempts, not merely to illude1 the senses, but to impose upon the understanding."

For "spiritualists," we can read, "psychics" and "channellers." Mr. Frost also uses the term, "quack" for all swindlers in general. The stance of the conjuring profession today is quite the same as what is expressed here: we are entertainers, and we are not possessed of supernatural powers.

"It is one of the most curious features of the extraordinary delusion which, during the last thirty years, has taken possession of so many minds, that it has found votaries chiefly amongst the more highly educated classes. That the scheming knaves who direct the imposture, the wire-pullers of Spiritualism, should as a matter of preference, mark for their dupes those whose purses are well-filled is not surprising; but that the best-educated sections of society should furnish the largest proportion of dupes is a fact which cannot be accounted for by the preference of the 'mediums' for such subjects, and may well suggest a doubt as to the potency of education in the development of the intellect."

This is a most interesting observation indeed. I have always insisted that there is a difference - a very great difference - between those who are well-educated and/or possess high IQs, and those who are smart. Education and intelligence cannot compete with experience and the willingness to think critically. Frost appears to doubt that education produces intellect, and I would agree with that conclusion. Ideally, education provides one with the ability to determine and discover facts about the real world. But it takes a recognition of the fallibility of the intellect, and of certain bravery for accepting that weakness, to produce someone who is truly "smart."

"Whenever the Spiritualists have ventured to exhibit their mysteries before the public, they have invariably been detected, exposed, and driven from the field."

At this point, author Frost does not describe accurately what has occurred in this century. Yes, the "psychics" and the "channellers" are, and will continue to be, detected and exposed. But they are certainly not "driven from the field" easily, largely due to the support offered them by the media - who fawn over their favorite flim- flam artists long after they have been discounted by science and by most of the public. There always remains a percentage of that public who will be deluded, and the willingly so, because they are offered an attractive view of the universe that will not stand up to examination.

"The discomfiture of the notorious Brothers Davenport will be remembered by many of my readers; but it may not be so generally known that the gentleman by whom it was given was Mr. Maskelyne, the clever conjuror now performing at the Egyptian Hall."

As a point of information, to readers who may not be familiar with the Brothers Davenport or with Mr. Maskelyne, I will tell you that the former performers were very famous swindlers of the late 1800s, Ira and William, who became world-famous for their demonstration of what they claimed were spiritualistic phenomena. They would be bound hand and foot in a huge cabinet on stage, the lights would be brought down, and all manner of shenanigans would then take place. Musical instruments would be played and thrown out of the cabinet, a spectator invited inside would have his clothes turned inside out, and in general the audience was asked to believe that the spirits, rather than the two brothers, had been responsible for what was seen. John Nevil Maskelyne was the famous magician of the period, who with his partner Cooke very proficiently exposed the frauds of his day.

"During the provincial tour made by the Davenports on the termination of their London season at Hanover Square Rooms, they gave a morning seance at the Town- hall, Cheltenham, on which occasion Mr. Maskelyne acted as one of the committee appointed by the audience for the independent investigation of the phenomena presented. In the semidarkness which the Spiritualists find necessary for their manifestations, spirit-hands were seen, bells were rung by invisible means, tambourines flung out of the cabinet in which the Davenports were supposed to be securely bound, and an air of Lover's2, was played very indifferently upon a violin and a guitar. "The doors of the cabinet were then opened, and the Davenports were seen, with their hands and feet bound, as when they were closed. Again they were shut up, and the various noises were repeated; but, in the midst of the wonder evoked by them a piece of drugget3, which had been used to exclude the light fell from one of the windows, and Mr. Maskelyne was thus enabled to see Mr. Ira Davenport eject the instruments, and immediately re-secure himself with the ropes. As the representative of the audience, Mr. Maskelyne, in the discharge of his duty, announced what he had seen, and some disturbance ensued. A doctor of divinity, who was also on the platform, declared that he had seen nothing of the kind, and considerable controversy ensued. but the evidence of one credible person who has witnessed any occurrence is worth that of a dozen' who have not seen it, and whose testimony can prove nothing."

What I may differ somewhat with this last piece of philosophy, I find here an excellent example of a person who is predisposed to see miracles, ignoring obvious evidence. Though I know that I repeat myself on this point, I must make it: no amount of evidence, no matter of what good quality, will ever un-convince the confirmed believer. However, I suspect, in the case quoted above, that the "doctor of divinity" was actually Dr. J. B. Ferguson, whose claim to divinity was questionable, since he was employed by the Davenports to speak for them on stage, and was obviously aware of the trickery that they used.

"More recent attempts to impose upon the public have resulted in similar exposures and defeats, the efforts of Anderson4 towards which have been ably seconded during the last two years by Dr. Lynn and Messrs. Maskelyne and Cooke. Nothing has ever been done at Spiritualistic seances, even when held in the obscurity and privacy of a believer's drawing-room, with the gas lowered, other than is done by those gentlemen, who ridicule the idea of spiritual intervention in conjuring tricks, and honestly declare themselves to be no more than entertainers of the public with legerdemain and natural magic. The latest device of the Spiritualists was the claiming of the Egyptian Hall conjurors as 'mediums,' but the conjurors repudiate the connection."

We currently have just such claims being made about yours truly and many other conjurors who have chosen to expose the fakers. It seems unbelievable to many persons that anything they do not understand or cannot solve, is not due to supernatural forces. Their only conclusion is that someone who does a really good card trick, must be working with the Devil. Or worse.

The battle then, as today, was waged by the conjurors against the swindlers. And it may continue to always be so. Despite the observations of author Frost, and of countless others who have attempted to point out some rather obvious facts about these matters, there will always be those who believe in nonsense and will be flim- flammed out of their money and their sanity. But it is their choice.


References:

1 - "illude"means to "deceive"

2 - Mr. Lover was a popular tunesmith of the day

3 - "drugget" is a kind of cheap opaque cloth

4 - John Henry Anderson was another popular conjuror of the period who similarly exposed fakers.


Puzzle

The problem with the UK 2-pound coin was solved by a good number of correspondents. Any closed-circle arrangements of interlocked cogged wheels MUST have an EVEN number of wheels, if it is to operate -- which we assume this set was supposed to do. No odd number of wheels can ever work. There are 19 in the illustrated work.

It's a matter of "parity." Look it up. Look at it this way: 2 wheels, fine. Three wheels, in a circle, no way. Each pair produces a clockwise accompanied by a counter-clockwise rotation, and in any odd setup, that means the last two to start moving will be moving in the same mode -- clockwise or vice-versa. Can't happen....

But there's another problem here, which no one mentioned. Though it's too small to determine in the illustration, the ratios of any set of wheels would have to be exact, and not just any relationship. Otherwise, even in a setup with an even number of wheels, the second-last one to move might be going at many times the angular velocity of the one it's going to turn, and that's BIG trouble......!

No puzzle this week, but soon......