328 



ANNUAL EEPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 192 8 



a conjuror's trick. Mager rejects Bleton as a charlatan who used the 

 rod to amuse his spectators. 



Whatever may be the ultimate cause of the movement of the rod 

 the immediate cause is almost universally recognized as some con- 

 scious or subconscious movement of the diviner's hands. The move- 

 ments may be divided into three classes: (1) Those based upon 

 fraud and practical jokes; (2) those due to unconscious imposture, 

 as with people who believe that they are endowed with some special 

 gift wherein they are superior to their fellows, and the claim for the 

 power of water divining is often associated with personal egotism; 



Figure 2. — The BlSton method 



Figure 3. — Charles Adams of Rowberrow 



(3) after these categories are separated, there remains so large a 

 residue for which some other explanation is necessary that the con- 

 clusion has been adopted that there must be some external physical 

 force which directly or indirectly causes the movement of the rod. I 

 was at one time inclined to share this view. A friend in whose prac- 

 tical insight I had full faith told me of the success of water divining 

 on his station in western Victoria. I had previously heard the evi- 

 dence of some Australian cases, without being impressed by it ; but in 

 this instance there seemed more reason to suspect some special power. 

 The diviner said the gift was hereditary, that he could not recognize 

 water in an iron pipe, that the rod never answered on a wet day, or 



