90 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XVIII. No. ^45 



SCIENCE; 



A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER OF ALL THE ARTS AND SCIENCES 



PUBLISHED BY 



N. D. C. HODGES. 



47 Lafayette Place, New York. 



SoBSCRiPTioNs.— United States and Canada $3.50 a year. 



Great Britain and Europe 4.50 a year. 



Communications will be welcomed from any quarter. Abstracts of scientific 

 papers are solicited, and one hundred copies of the issue containing such will 

 be mailed the author on request in advance. Rejected manuscripts will be 

 returned to the authors only when the requisite amount of postage accom- 

 panies the manuscript. "Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti- 

 cated by the name and address of the writer; not necessarily for publication, 

 but as a guaranty of good faith. We do not hold ourselves responsible for 

 any view or opinions expressed in the communications of our correspondents. 



Attention is called to the "Wants" column. All are invited to use it in 

 soliciting information or seeking new positions. The name and address of 

 applicants should be given in full, so that answers will go direct to them. The 

 ** Exchange ^ column is likewise open. 



JUGGLERY.' 



Recently I met witli a certain observation the source of 

 which, to my regret, I failed to note. I therefore take the 

 opportunity of appealing to my readers for their kind help 

 in identifying the passage or quotation in question, because 

 it has a scientific bearing of a very obvious nature. The 

 observation was as follows: A writer, in speaking of the fal- 

 lacies of the senses, described the Hindoo juggler's trick of 

 causing a small plant to grow out of a flower-pot in which, 

 a few moments before, the conjurer had placed some seeds. 

 The pot is covered over or concealed by a blanket, and when 

 the covering is withdrawn the apparently marvellous and in- 

 stantaneous growth of the seed into a perfect plant is witnessed. 

 Now, the writer in question goes on to state that an amateur 

 photographer had taken a "snap-shot" at the conjurer and 

 his performance, and when the negative was developed no 

 plant could be seen growing in the pot at all. The infer- 

 ence is that the spectators only fancied they saw a plant, and 

 that the success of the trick is due to the juggler making his 

 audience believe they see what does not really exist. In 

 plain language, he is supposed to hypnotize the spectators, 

 and the illusion is to be regarded not as due to his dexterity 

 but to his power of making the spectators believe they see 

 what he wishes them to behold. 



Assuming the incident with the camera to be true and of 

 good report, how is the omission of the flower in the pot to 

 be accounted for ? If a photograph of the scene had been 

 taken at all, it must necessarily have included all the details 

 within range of the lens, and, as Boucicault makes one of 

 his characters in "The Octoroon" say, "The apparatus 

 doesn't lie." I do not pretend to criticise the statement at 

 all. I am merely anxious to know if any of my readers 

 interested in psychical matters can confer a favor by re- 

 ferring me to the original source of the story. My own 

 recollection is that I casually met with the reference in an 



^ Dr. Andrew Wilson, in the Illustrated News of the World. 



Amei'ican magazine, which I glanced at while waiting for a 

 friend. The name of the magazine and its date (which must 

 be recent, I fancy) have both escaped my recollection. 



After thinking over the above incident, one is inclined to 

 be somewhat sceptical of the story as I have related it — 

 although my version, I admit, may not be absolutely cor- 

 rect. A perusal of a paper by Chevalier Hermann, the 

 conjurer, confirms me in my scepticism. He tells us that 

 when he visited India he could find no foundation in actual 

 fact for the marvellous stories of Hindoo jugglery, including 

 the fact of "youths tossing balls of twine in the air and 

 climbing up on them out of sight." What Herr Hermann 

 did see in India, he tells us, he could have imitated " witb 

 little preparation," and that he " would not presume to in- 

 troduce them upon the stage." This is a decided blow to 

 the reputation of our Indian friends, and after this assertion 

 the tales of fakirs being buried for sis weeks, and recover- 

 ing thereafter, may reasonably be doubted also, although I 

 shall feel interested in hearing from any of my Indian read- 

 ers accounts of what they have actually seen in the way of 

 startling magic. It will be interesting if I quote what Her- 

 mann has to say of the flower-pot trick, which the unknown 

 psychologist has tried to explain on the basis that the con- 

 jurer causes his audience to see what does not exist — a 

 startling enough theory, by the way, since it supposes that 

 all sorts and conditions of men looking on could be simul- 

 taneously hypnotized. 



In Bombay a troupe of jugglers appeared in front of the 

 hotel in which Herr Hermann was staying After a short 

 address, an empty flower-pot was produced. This was filled 

 with earth, which was moistened with water, and into the 

 pot a few mango seeds were dropped. A large piece of cloth 

 was used to cover the pot, which rested upon a tripod of 

 bamboo sticks. Then followed an address to the audience, 

 and the operator walked slowly round the covered pot, 

 " dexterously allowing his robes to envelop it at each turn," 

 while the other members of the troupe chanted a kind of in- 

 cantation. After some three minutes occupied in this per- 

 formance, the incantation ceased, the cloth was removed, 

 and in it was seen growing a mango-tree about three feet in 

 height, the plant having apparently grown after the planting 

 of the seed. This is a bare description of what the Western 

 conjurer saw his Eastern rivals perform, and it sounds very 

 wonderful, no doubt. Hermann's explanation of the trick, 

 however, causes us to repeat the hackneyed expression that 

 "it is not at all startling when you know how it's done.'* 

 What the Hindoo wizard did was to remove the pot from 

 beneath the cloth — a dexterous proceeding enough, hut not 

 a whit more wonderful or clever than things we see done at 

 the Egyptian Hall or at other entertainments of like nature 

 — -and to substitute the growing mango, which he carried 

 concealed under his robe. "This," adds Hermann, "he did 

 rather clumsily, while he let the robe rest, as if by accident^ 

 over the covered flower-pot previously displayed." 



This recital is interesting scientifically, because, as I have 

 said, we hear so much about Indian jugglery and esoteric 

 mysteries, which no science is supposed to be capable of 

 explaining, that one may find some justification for a con- 

 tinued display of scepticism when still more mysterious feats 

 are gravely detailed. I find that the facts about Indian magic 

 and mystery set forth in books in grave, circumstantial array 

 do not always coincide with what actually occurs; hence my 

 appeal to Indian readers of these lines for accounts of things 

 they may have seen in the way of live burials and resuscita- 

 tions (if such things are still in vogue) and like phenomena. 



