August 19, 2025 • 34 mins
In Unmasking of Robert-Houdin, Harry Houdini embarks on a provocative journey to challenge the legacy of the man he once idolized, the esteemed magician Robert-Houdin. Initially inspired by Houdins brilliance, Houdini adopted his name, adding an i to pay homage. However, feeling slighted by the Robert-Houdin family, he penned this work as a means to dismantle their revered image. Ironically, Houdinis efforts to discredit his predecessor backfired, leading to unexpected revelations. Join us as we explore the intricate relationship between two of magics greatest figures. - Summary by Cavaet
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Section eleven of The Unmasking of Robert Houdan. This is
a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain.
For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox dot org.
Recording by Caveat The Unmasking of Robert Houddin by Harry Houdini,
(00:21):
Chapter ten. Robert Houdin's ignorance of magic has betrayed by
his own pen. Statements in Robert Houddin's various works on
the Conjurer's Art corroborate my claim that he was not
a master magician, but a clever purloiner and adapter of
tricks invented and used by his predecessors and contemporaries. Whenever
(00:42):
in these books he attempts to explain or expose a
trick which was not part of his repertoire, he betrays
an ignorance which would be impossible in a conjurer verse
than the finer and more subtle branches of his art.
Neither do these explanations show that he was clever enough
as a mechanic to have invented the apparatus which he
claimed as his handywork. He states that practice and still
(01:02):
more practice are essential. Yet no intelligent performer, amateur or professional,
can study my collection of Robert Houdin programs, handbuilds, and
press notices without realizing that his repertoire contained little or
no trace of what should be the foundation of successful conjuring.
Sleight of hand. Changing his fingers over the various air
holes of the inexhaustible bottle was as near as he
(01:23):
ever came to slight of hand, even when he was
in the height of his success. According to the press notices,
he had a pleasing stage presence, and also dressed and
set forth his tricks richly. But it must be borne
in mind that then, as often today, the man sent
by an editor to criticize a conjurer's performance knew little
or nothing about the art and could not institute comparisons
(01:44):
between different magicians. Today, Robert Houdin would shine as an
exhibitor of illusions or mechanical toys, a pistol shot to
puff of smoke, and his conferator assistant has done the
real work behind the scenes. His lack of finesse as
a sleight of hand performer is nowhere more clearly shown
than in his own writings on page thirty seven of
(02:05):
his French expose of the Secrets of Magic, entitled comment
on Deviant Sorcery, page fifty one of the English translation
by Professor Hoffman Secrets of Conjuring and Magic. He thus
naively describes his masterpiece of coin parming. I myself practiced
parming long and perseveringly, and acquired thereat a very considerable
(02:27):
degree of skill. Used to be able to palm two
five franc pieces at once, the hand nevertheless remaining as
freely open as though it held nothing whatever. An amateur
of his own day would have blushed to admit that
he could palm but two coins. Men like T. Nelson
Downs the coin King, think nothing of palming twenty five
francs or silver dollars or forty half dollars. And even
(02:50):
this record has been broken even. Two writers who contributed
to the translation and editing of his works are Shelton
McKenzie and Professor Hoffman Angelo J. Lewis, and who have
drawn rich royalties for the same, apologize for his flagrant misstatements,
which they realize any man or woman with but a
slight knowledge recounting must recognize. His first contribution to the
(03:15):
history of magic was his memoirs, and while he does
not feature exposes of tricks in this work, he offers
in passing explanations of tricks and automata presented by other magicians.
For the most part, these explanations are obviously incorrect, and
so proved that he was ignorant of certain fundamental principles
of the art in which he claimed to have shown.
(03:36):
In the introduction of the American edition published eighteen fifty,
mister Mackenzie, the editor thus apologizes for one of Robert
Houdin's most flagrant mistakes in tracing the history of magic,
one error which Monsieur Hoddan makes must not be passed
over his account of Monsieur de Clemperland's celebrated automaton chess
player afterward Matsal's is entirely wrong. This remarkable piece of
(04:01):
mechanism was constructed in seventeen sixty nine and not seventeen
ninety six. It was the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria
who played with it, and not Catherine the Second of Russia.
It was in seventeen eighty three that it first visited Paris,
where it played at the Cafe de la Regiance. It
was not taken to London until seventeen eighty four, and
again in eighteen nineteen. It was brought to America in
(04:23):
eighteen twenty five by Messie Matzel and visited our principal cities,
its chief resting place being Philadelphia. Monsieur Matzel's death was
in eighteen thirty eight on the voyage from Cuba to
the United States, and not as Monsieur Huda says on
his return to France and the Automatan so far as
being taken back to France and was sold by auction
(04:44):
here finally purchased by the late doctor J. K. Mitchell
of Philadelphia, reconstructed by him, and finally deposited in the
Chinese Museum formerly Appeals, where it was consumed in the
Great Fires which destroyed the National Theatre, now the site
of the Continental Hotel, corner of Ninth and Chestnut Streets
and extending to the Chinese Museum, burnted down on July fifth,
(05:06):
eighteen fifty four. An interesting account of the Automaton chess player,
written by the Professor George Allen of this city, would
be found in the Book of the First American Chess Congress,
recently published in New York. Signor Blitz, in his book
Fifty Years in the Magic Circle, corroborates the McKenzie correction
by telling how he saw Matzel in Havana, Cuba, where
(05:27):
the famous German met his professional waterloo, first in small audiences,
then in the death of his faithful confederate Schlomburg. Finally
broken in health and spirit, Matzel sailed from Havana for Philadelphia,
but death overtook him at sea. His body was consigned
to the ocean depths, and his few effects were sold
to liquidate the cost of passage and other debts. That
(05:50):
Robert Houdin should make an air concerning a world famous automaton,
the history which could be traced through contemporary periodicals and
libraries is almost inconceivable, and proves the care arelessness with
which he gathered and presented facts. His inability to grasp
the principles on which other performers built their tricks is
shown most clearly when he attempts to describe and explain
the performances of the Arabian Mountebanks, whom he saw during
(06:13):
his stay in our Jeers. These tricks have been handed
down from one generation to another, and now that Arab
conjurers and acrobats are imported for hippodrome and vaudeville performances
in all civilized countries. The tricks described by Robert Houdin
are familiar to the general public. They are also copied
by performers of other nationalities, and can be seen in circus,
(06:34):
sideshows and affairs as well as the better grade of houses.
Having worked on the same bill with genuine Arabian performers,
I know just how the tricks are accomplished. Robert Houdin
undertakes to explain these tricks in chapter twenty two of
the American edition of his memoirs. As long as he
quotes reliable authorities like the Joannalde des Science, the explanations
(06:56):
are correct. Directly, attempts at independent exposure strikes far from
the correct explanation. On page four hundred and twenty four
states in the following experiment, two Arabs held a saber,
one by the hilt of the other by a point.
A third then came forward, and, after raising his clothes
so as to leave the abdomen quite bare, laid himself
on the flat edge of the blade, while a fourth
(07:18):
mounted on his back and seemed to press the whole
weight of his body on him. This trick may be
easily explained. Nothing proves the audience that the saber is
really sharpened, or that the edge is more cutting than
the back, although the Arab who holds it by the
point is careful to wrap it in a handkerchief, in
this imitating the jugglers who pretend they have cut their
fingers with one of the daggers they using their tricks. Besides,
(07:40):
in performing this trick, the invulnerable turns his back on
the audience. He knew the advantage to arrive from this circumstance. Hence,
at the moment when about to lay himself on the saber,
he very adroitly pulled back over his stomach that portion
of his clothing that he had raised. Lastly, when the
fourth actor mounted on his back, he rested his hands
on the shoulders of the Arabs who held the saber.
(08:02):
The latter apparently maintained his balance, but in reality they
supported the whole weight of his body. Hence, the only
requirement for this trick is to have the stomach more
or less pressed in. And I will explain presently that
this can be effected without any danger or injury. In
this explanation, Robert Houdin is entirely wrong. The real secret
of laying on top sharp edged razor, sword or saber
(08:24):
rests on the fact that the performer does actually lie
upon it in a perfectly motionless position, weary to move
but the width of a hair backward or forward or sideways,
the weapon would slice his body, resulting in instant death
or horrible mutilation. I have watched cheap performers of this
class of work in die museums or affairs walk up
a ladder of sharp swords which I had previously held
(08:46):
in my hand. They would place the foot down with
infinite precision and then press it into place. This procession
will not result in cutting, but let the performers slip
or slide, and the flesh would be cut instantly. I
have also seen an acrobat working in a circus, select
two raisors in first class condition, placed them on a
(09:07):
socket with the edges of the razor's uppermost, and with
his bare hands he would do what is known as
a hand stand on the keen edges of the blades.
This trick of absolute balances acquired by persistent practice from
youth up again Robert Houdao errs woefully in comparing the
saber swallower to the swallower of broken bottle heels and stones.
(09:28):
Saber swallowing is one trick. Swallowing pebbles and broken glass
belongs in quite a different class. And when I say this,
I do not mean powdered glass, but pieces of glass,
first broken, then chewed, and finally swallowed. On page four
hundred and twenty six, Robert Houdan puts the two tricks
in the same class, as follows. When the trick of
(09:50):
swallowing bottle heels and pebbles was to be done, the
Aeolsia would put them in his mouth. But I believe,
I may say certainly that he removed them at the
moment when he placed his head in the fold to
the Muccadin burnoos. However, had he swallowed them, there would
have been nothing wonderful about this when we compare with
what was done some thirty years back in France by
a mountain bank called the sabers swallower. This man who
(10:13):
performed in the streets and threw back his head so
as to form a straight line with his throat, and
really thrust down his gull at a saber of which
only the hilt remained outside his mouth. He also swallowed
an egg without cracking it, or even nails and pebbles,
which he caused to resound by striking his stomach with
his fist. These tricks were the result of a peculiar
phenomenon in the mountebank's throat, But if he had lived
(10:34):
among the Aeusia, he would assuredly be the leading man
of the company. The saber swallower never releases hold on
the weapon. The pebble and bottle heeled swallower does, but
brings them up again by a system of wretching results
from long practice. The Japanese have an egg swallowing trick
in which they swallow either small side ivory balls or
(10:55):
eggs and reproduce them by wretching so unnoticeable they could
easily show the mouth empty. This trick dates back to
the offerings of that celebrated water spoutter Blaze Manfredi, or
the Manfree, who traveled all over Europe. This man could
swallow huge quantities of water and then ejected in streams
or in small quantities, or fill all sorts of glasses.
(11:17):
In fact, this one trick made him famous. The European
magazine London, March seventeen sixty five, pages one ninety four
to five gives a most diverting description of his trick,
taken from an old letter, and here quoted. I have
seen at the September fair in Frankfort a man who
professed drinking fifty quarts of water in a day, and
(11:38):
indeed proved that he was capable of executing what he
pretended to. I saw him perform frequently, and remember it
as well as it was. But yesterday he said. He
was an Italian who was short and squat his chest, face, forehead,
eyes and mouth very large. He pretended to be fifty
years old, though he did not seem forty. He was
called the famous blaze Manfredi, a native of mal At Frankfort.
(12:02):
He frequently performed three times a day, or besides his performances,
twice a day on the public stage, which nobody approached
without pain. He attended private houses. When called upon by
great people, he called for a large bucket of fair
warm water, and twenty little glass bottles, flat like cupping glasses,
so that they could stand topsy turvy. Some of these
(12:24):
he filled with water plunging them into the bucket with
a great deal of ceremony, and usually swallowed two or
three to wash his mouth and gargle his throat. He
threw up the water again immediately show the spectators he
had no drugs between his teeth, whence he could be
suspected to derive any advantage. After this plausible prelude, he
made an Italian harangue, which I cannot acquaint you with
(12:44):
the merits of, because I am a stranger to the language.
After his harangue, he usually took off two dozen of
his little bottles, which he filled from the bucket, and
a moment afterwards returned the liquor through his mouth. But
what most extraordinary is that this water, which he throw
out with violence, appeared red like wine, And when he
discharged it into two different bottles, it was red in
one and rusted like beer in the other. As soon
(13:06):
as he shifted the bottles to the country sides, they
changed their complexions respectfully to that of wine or beer.
And so successfully, so long as he continued vomiting. In
the meantime, I observed that the water grew less discolored
in proportion. As he continued to discharge. This was the
first act. Then he ranged his two dozen bottles opposite
him on a table and exposed everybody's view. Then he
(13:30):
took an equal number of bottles, plunged them anew into
the bucket, swallowed them too, and returned them in water
very transparent rose water, orange, flower water, and brandy. I
have smelt the several odors of his liquors. Nay. I
have seen him set fire to a handkerchief dipped in
that which smelled like brandy, and it burned the blue
like spirituous liquors. Nay. He frequently promised at venice to
(13:53):
give the water back again in milk and oil, but
I think he did not keep his word. In short,
he concluded the scene with swallowing successfully thirty or forty
glasses of water, always from the saint bucket, And after
having giving notice the company by his man, who served
as an interpreter, that he was going to disembogue, he
threw his head back, and spouting out the fair water,
(14:14):
he made it spring up with impetuosity like that of
the strongest jet d' oh. This last week delighted the
people infinitely more than all the rest, And during the
month he was at Frankfort. Numbers from all parts came
to see this slovenly exercise. Though he repeated it more
than once a day, he had more than four hundred
spectators at a time. Some threw their handkerchiefs, summed their
(14:35):
gloves upon the stage, that he might wet them with
the water he had cast up, and he returned them
differently perfumed, sometimes with rosewater, sometimes with orange flower water,
sometimes with brandy. Another famous juggler and water spoutter was
Flora Marchand, whose picture is herewith reproduced. Judging from his dress,
he antedated Manfridi. Bell's Messenger of July sixteenth, eighteen sixteen
(15:00):
tells of a sword swallower whose work is extremely pertinent
to this discussion, and the clipping is quoted verbatim. The
French papers gave a curious account of one James de Falise,
a Norman about fifty years of age, living in the
Rue Saint Holarrey. It is said that this extraordinary man
will swallow whole walnuts, shell and all a tobacco pipe,
(15:23):
three cars rolled together arose with all its leaves, long
stalk and thorns, a living bird and a living mouse,
and lastly, a live eel like to the Indian jugglers,
he swallows the blade of a saber about thirteen inches
long of polished steel. This operation he performs very slowly
and with some precaution, although he invinces no symptom of pain.
(15:44):
After every solid body that he swallows, he always takes
a small dose of wine expressly prepared for him. Does
not seem to make any effort to kill the living
animals that he takes in his mouth, but boasts that
he can feel them moving in his stomach. In my
collection is the hand bill of a stone swallower who
exhibited at number ten Cockspur Street, London, charging an emission
(16:05):
fee of half a crown. These performers actually swallowed the
water stones and pebbles, etc. And wretched them up again
so cleverly and at such clearfully selected instances, that the
audience did not know that disgorging had been accomplished. Swallowing
glass was a different matter, and all the modern ostriches
have all wound up at city hospitals where surgeons have
(16:27):
removed broken glass, knife blades and other foreign matter by
means of an operation. I quote the above instances simply
to prove that the stones were actually swallowed and then disgorged,
and not hidden as Robert Houdin claimed in the Folds
of the Mokkaden Bernous. In this one chapter alone, Robert
Houdain quotes six authorities in explaining tricks he witnessed, which
(16:47):
fact only strengthened my belief in the borrow districts, as
well as his explanations from able and graphic writers on
the art of magic. The next work descriptive of the
conjurer's art offered by Robert Houdin was Les secret de
la Preste's Digita et de la Magi under the title
of The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic, or How to
Become a Wizard. It was translated and edited by Professor
(17:10):
Hoffman and published in eighteen seventy eight by George Ratlings
and Company, London and New York. Absolutely no originality is
displayed in this book, and the majority of the tricks
explained can be found in French books of similar character
which appeared before Robert Houdin turned author. The proof of
this statement can be found by reading any of the
following works upon which Robert Houdin patently drew for his
(17:33):
material Novelle Maggi blanche de voillas at corps pas de
prest Titian in two volumes by J. N. Ponson, published
in Paris in eighteen fifty three. Grande imitationon er varre
pratique des celebs Foschion's Press Digitators, Paris, eighteen fifty five.
(17:55):
Nouveau Manuel Complete.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Sociers descine et ventri Queen executes, head, communiquets parstment, monsieur
conte Physician dear Roy, Paris, eighteen thirty seven. Ancience et
nouveaux tours at escammantage, of which there are innuminrable editions.
(18:17):
Emanuel de Sossier recuaission, physiques, mathematics, Tours descartes et de giberse,
suive dejau de Sossiete, Paris, eighteen o two. His third work,
Maggis at fersi Amusement, translated by Professor Hoffmann under the
(18:38):
title of The Secrets of Stage Conjuring and published in
English in eighteen eighty one, is marred by an almost
continuous strain and a statements in incorrect explanations and downright falsification.
On page seventeen of the American edition, Robert Houdin starts
a dramatic tale of inventing a detector locke, by which
he protected a rich neighbor, Monsieur de la Scopier, from robbery,
(19:00):
and incidentally in return, secured funds with him which opened
his theater in the Palis of Royal. In his Memoirs,
Robert Houdin states that the opening of the theater was
made possible by the invention of the writing and drawing automaton,
whose history has been traced in chapter three. The reader
con choosed between the two stories, one is as plausible
as the other, But.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
To return to the detector lock. Count or Monsieur D'urescopier,
having complained grievously to his humble neighbor, the watchmaker Robert Houddan,
that he and his family were being robbed, begged that
the latter suggest some means of catching the thief. Robert
Houdin then recalled a childish device by which he had
caught his school fellows in the act of pilfering his desk,
(19:41):
et cetera. And he proposed to the Count that the
same device, elaborated to meet the strength of a full
grown man, be attached to his wealthy patron's desk. As
first planned, the detector lock was to shoot off a
pistol on being tampered with, and then brand the hand
of the thief with the nitrate of silver. Count D'alurescapier
objected to branding a man for a lo, so Robert
(20:01):
Houdan substituted for the nitrate of silver a sort of
cat's claw which would clap down on the robber's hand
and draw blood. The Count deposited ten thousand francs in
his desk and caught the robber his confidential servant red handed.
The ten thousand francs he presented to Robert Houddan as
a reward for stopping the thefts. A charming tale this makes,
(20:22):
but unfortunately for Robert Houdan's claim to originality, the detector
lock with not a novelty. In his day, the lock
would first alarm the household by setting off a pistol
and then brand the thief's hand. Is described by the
Marquis of Worcester in his book Century of Inventor as
locks and locksmithing formed my hobby. While in England, I
(20:43):
purchased the entire set of patent books to add to
a collection of locks and fastenings from every other known
country of the world. In the introduction of the first
Book of Patent's for Inventions relating to locks, latches, bolts,
et cetera. From eighty seventeen seventy four to eighteen sixty six,
the following quotation will be found the Marquis of Worcester
(21:03):
in his Saintgerier of Inverchon thus describes the first detector lock,
invented eighty sixteen forty by some mechanical genius of that day.
This lock is so constructed that if a stranger attempts
to open it, it catches his hands. A trap catches
a fox, though not as far as maiming him for life,
yet so mark of him as if he suspected he
(21:24):
might easily be detected. It appears that to this lock
was fitted a steel barb, which, if a certain tumbler
was overlifted near picking or otherwise, which projected against the
hand of the operator by spring. I have seen such
a lock as this in the collection of Hobb's Heart
and Company, London, who had it in their position for
many years. In every respect it answers the description of
(21:46):
the invention claimed by Robert Houdin as his own. Chapter
seven of the Secrets of Stage Conjuring is devoted to
Robert Houddin's very incorrect explanation of the famous Indian baskets trick,
even his own trans Later, Professor Hoffman takes issue with
Rebert Hoddan, as will be seen by reading his footnote
on page one hundred and four. We will not venture
(22:08):
to question the fact vouched by so high an authority
as Robert Hoddan, that the Indian basket trick may sometimes
be performed after the manners above described, but we doubt
very much whether such is the usual or customary method.
Robert hu Dance states that the child is placed in
the basket and the Indian fastens down the lid with
leather straps. To facilitate this operation, he rests his knees
(22:30):
against the basket and the bottom of the latter, thus
being turned toward the audience. The boy slips out through
a cunningly contrived trap and quickly conceals himself under the
rope of the magician, whose attitude favors this concealment, as
the basket trick is the Hindu's magician's most wonderful offering
a truthful account of his method to performing the same
may be interesting. In the first place, Robert Houdin's explanation
(22:53):
is impossible and unreasonable because the Hindu magician does not
wear flowing robes in which the child could be concealed.
Every Hindu performer I have ever seen or short trousers
and was barefooted. The correct method of performing the trick,
which has been handed down through the generation of Hindus,
is as follows. The boy's subject is placed in a
(23:13):
net in which he is firmly tied, and after having
had his big toes and thumbs fastened down with bandages,
then with many a grunt and groan, he is lifted
into the basket. The subject, however, pretends that the basket
is too small, so he is really seated on one
side and keeps his back in the air. This is
done to give the appearance eventually that was impossible for
him to crouch down or around the basket. The lid
(23:36):
of the basket is now placed on his back, and
a large sheet is thrown over the entire apparatus, which
conceals from the audience every movement made by the subject
now commences. The Hindu patter in reality, yells, groans in incantations,
while the magician and the assistant strike the basket with
swords or canes, stamp on the ground, gnash their teeth,
et cetera. Gradually the cover of the basket sinks until
(23:59):
the basket seems empty to the spectators at least. The
fakir now takes the cover off the basket, leaving the
sheet over it. However, then he jumps into the presumably
empty basket, stamps all around, takes out the net which
are found the turbaned worn by the subject, and the
thumb tie, further proof that the basket is still empty.
The Fakir seats himself in the basket as shown in
(24:21):
the illustration. The lid of the basket is now replaced
and under this friendly cover, the sheet is taken off
and the basket tied up. Now commences. The true Hindu
magic magician is a real actor. He apparently abdures Mohommet.
He gets very angry and with fierce looks and ejaculations
and muttered curses, he drabs up a sword or cane
and jabs it through different parts of the basket. During
(24:45):
all this time, the subject with something of a contortionist
is wriggling about on the bottom of the basket, keeping
out of the reach of the sword, and in fact
often guiding its thrust between his legs. Every movement on
the part of the fakir has been carefully thought out
and rehearsed in advance. By this time the fakier has
convinced his audience that the basket is empty. To be sure,
he has not allowed any spectators to come to near
(25:07):
him or the basket, nor has any hand save his,
touched it. But his clever acting almost persuades even an
intelligent or skeptical onlooker that the basket is empty. With
a lid of the basket replaced, this time above the
friendly sheet, and the basket tied, he resumes his weird incantations.
He screams and runs back and forth, playing on a
(25:29):
small instrument with a hideous tone, which is a cross
between the whistle of its locomotive with a cold and
a sword off and hammered down flute which has been
inserted a tin whistle. As this nerve racking music holds
the spectators under its awful spell, the basket begins to rock.
The contortionous subject gradually raises himself inside the basket, and
when the noise is at its height, he straightens up
(25:51):
in the basket and raises it with his back as
far as it will go. To the uninitiated. It actually
appears as if he had returned to an empty basket
in his original position. The trick is a marvelous deception,
but only a Hindu can exhibit it with success, for
no white person would ever indulge in the screechings, imbecilities,
and contortions which the spectacular and convincing features of this trick.
(26:16):
Sometimes the trick has varied. Instead of the subject being
found in his original position, he is seen running toward
the crowd as from a distance. This is accomplished by
having two subjects, one in the basket and one hidden
on the outskirts of the crowd. Who are doubles or
at least can show remarkable resemblance, are addressed exactly alike.
The earliest programs of Hindu jugglers in my collection are
(26:37):
dated eighteen eighteen. The mister Ramasami featured on this bill.
Latest was his name thus Ramo Sami, and was engaged
to perform alone between the acts of the Broken Heart
of the Garrick Theater of London. From Ramo Sami, Continental
and British traditions learned the trick of druggling brass balls.
(26:57):
On page one hundred and thirty five. Professor Hoffman, in
a footnote commends Robert Houdin for the very impartial manner
in which he approaches the question of spiritualism and spiritualistic
manifestations in his day a comparative novelty. In default of
the absolute certainty, he wisely reserves his opinion. Where However,
as in the case of the Davenport Brothers he had
(27:18):
an opportunity of personally observing the alleged phenomena, he has
neither difficulty in penetrating nor hesitation in denouncing the imposture.
We ventured to believe that any of the so called
spiritualistic manifestations which had come under the test of Robert
Houdin's examination would have met the similar fate. With this commendation,
I cannot agree. Robert Houdin once had all the LeVay
(27:41):
he wished at a most remarkable manifestation, and made no
attempt to hide the fact that it was baffled by
this phenomena. The Memoirs of Marquis de Millville contained a
Robert Houdin letter in which admits he could find no
explanation of tests just witnessed. The letter translated from Agui
Das nineteen ho yahundatz fon Uriata eighteen ninety six, published
(28:06):
in Berlin, Germany, by whosays vlag Is herewith quoted. I
returned from the Saunds as greatly astonished as it was
possible for me to be, and I am thoroughly convinced
it was I entai out of the possibility and no
chance whatever that was, either by accident or practice trickery
to produce such wonderful materializations Robe Huda May eighteenth, eighteen
(28:26):
forty seven. He further shows its ignorance of sunces as
often in his times, by his attempts to describe the
methods employed by the Davenport Brothers, to whom he devotes
chapter thirteen, which might be described as a chapter of errors.
These picturesque American entertainers, the Damnport Brothers heild from Buffalo,
New York, Usa. Ira Erastus was born in September seventeenth,
(28:50):
eighteen thirty nine, and William Henry February one, eighteen forty one.
They fairly startled the world by their so called manifestations
of spiritualism during the sixxies, and were alternately lauded and
reviled for their performances. Both were below medium height and
rather handsome man and will be seen from the accompanying
engraving looked much alike. Their career, which started in America,
(29:13):
ran from eighteen fifty three to the early seventies. They
made a trip to Europe in eighteen sixty four, remaining
until August eighteen sixty nine. Both married abroad Ira, a
daughter of France Mademoiselle Louise Toulat, and William Henry a
Polish girl, Miss Matilda mag On. The whole their foreign
tour was most profitable, though in some cities they paid
(29:35):
a high price for their notoriety. England, they waged bitter
warfare with John Henry Anderson while Mark and Professor Redmond
on the occasion of their Paris opening the Sally Hertz.
They claimed that the hoodlum element mobbed the theater and
broke up their performance at the instigation of anree Robin,
who was playing in opposition Hamilton, who had just succeeded
to the management of Robert Dawn's theater in a letter
(29:58):
published after witnessing their initial performances, and now that he
shared this belief. But as Robert Houddain and Henry Robin
were bitter rivals, I believe Hamilton's letter was the result
of two things. First the intense ill will he harbored
against Robert, and second, as he had Robert hou Dan
as his mentor, he was really ignorant of the Damnport
methods and therefore not in a position to defend them.
(30:20):
The letter, which is given in full, appeared in Gazette
de Tranjais, Paris, September twenty seventh, eighteen sixty five. Bessus Davenport, Yesterday,
I had the pleasure of being present at the seance
you gave, and came away from it convinced that the
jealousy alone was the cause of the outcry raised against you.
(30:41):
The phenomena produced surpassed my expectations, and your experiments were
full of interest to me, and consider it my duty
to add that these phenomena are inexplicable, and the more
so by such persons as have thought themselves able to
guess your supposed secret, and who are in fact far
indeed from having discovered the truth Hamilton. After their return
(31:03):
to America, the Davenport brothers retired from public life, purchased
a farm, and rested on their laurels and a corpulent
bank account. One of them is said to have admitted
that all their work was skillful manipulation and not spiritualistic manifestations. Nevertheless,
their names will live so long as spiritualism is talked
of or cabinet effects tolerated by the public. The trick,
(31:24):
as offered by the Davenbot brothers, consisted of their being
tied hand and foot at opposite ends of the cabinet,
which was hung with musical instruments, bells, et cetera. The
two men slipped in and out of the rope that
delay or apparent damage to the ropes, and musical instruments
were played with arms, presumably in bondage. Rovert dan, In
attempting to expose the trick, made two flagrant errors. First,
(31:46):
he claims that, by dint of special practice on the
part of our mediums, the thumb is made to lie
flat in the hand, when the whole assumes a cylindrical
form of scarcely greater diameter than the wrist, and second
that the Davenport brothers had trained themselves to see the dark.
As Releasing myself from fastenings of all sorts, from ropes
to straitjackets, has been my profession for twenty years. I
(32:08):
am in a position to contradict Robert Houdin's first claim positively.
I have met thousands of persons who claimed the rope
as well as the handcuff trick was accomplished by folding
the hand together or making the wrist larger than the hand.
But never have I met a man or woman who
could make their hands smaller than their wrists. I have
even gone so far as to have iron bands made
(32:29):
and press my hands together, hoping eventually to make my
hand smaller than my wrists, but this has failed too.
Even if the entire thumb were cut away, I believe
it would still be impossible to slip a rope that
was properly bound around the wrist. You may take any
cuff of the adjustable make or the ratchet cuff, placed
it in a small woman's wrist, and you will find
that even she will be unable to slip her wrists.
(32:50):
I do not mean by this any handcuff that will
not come to any size, or the common cuffs, which,
when locked, will lock only to a certain size. But
I mean that a cuff that can be and adjusted
to any size of a wrist. In rope tying, the
principal trick is to allow yourself to be tied according
to certain methods of crossing your hands or wrists, so
that you, by eventually straightening your hands you have enough
(33:12):
room to allow them to slip out very easily. Is
not always the size of the wrist that counts. It
is the matter of holding your hands when the knots
are being tied. The gift of seeing in the dark
with which Robert Houdin endowed the Damaports is equally preposterous.
Professor Hofmann defends Robert hu Dan by citing instances of
prisoners who had been confined in cells from an indefinite
(33:33):
period who had learned to see in the dark. This
is quite true, but they did not alternate daylight and darkness.
Eminent opticians and oculists to form me that the faculty
of seeing in the dark cannot be acquired by parties
like the Davenports who spend most of their time in
the light, while the Davenports were pioneers in rope tying
(33:53):
and cabinet sounces. Had Robert Hudan been the clever slight
of hand performer or inventory claims to have been, these
tricks would have been clear and solvable to him. But
as he obviously joined the ranks of the amazed and
bewildered masses, making only a futile attempt to explain the performances,
he convicts himself of ignorance regarding his own art. A
man who has made a fortune in the world of
(34:14):
magic and desires to hand down to posterity a clean
record of his attainments will be clever enough and manly
enough to avoid any attempt to explain that which he
does not understand. By his flagrant misstatements regarding the tricks
of his predecessors and contemporaries. Robert Houdin, however, convicts himself
if ignorance regarding the fundamental principles of magic, and arouses
(34:35):
in the minds of broad intelligent readers doubts regarding his
claims to the invention of the various tricks and automata
which he declares to have been the output of his brain,
the production of his own deft hands. End of Section eleven.
Section eleven of The Unmasking of Robert Houdan. This is
a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain.
For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox dot org.
Recording by Caveat The Unmasking of Robert Houddin by Harry Houdini,
(00:21):
Chapter ten. Robert Houdin's ignorance of magic has betrayed by
his own pen. Statements in Robert Houddin's various works on
the Conjurer's Art corroborate my claim that he was not
a master magician, but a clever purloiner and adapter of
tricks invented and used by his predecessors and contemporaries. Whenever
(00:42):
in these books he attempts to explain or expose a
trick which was not part of his repertoire, he betrays
an ignorance which would be impossible in a conjurer verse
than the finer and more subtle branches of his art.
Neither do these explanations show that he was clever enough
as a mechanic to have invented the apparatus which he
claimed as his handywork. He states that practice and still
(01:02):
more practice are essential. Yet no intelligent performer, amateur or professional,
can study my collection of Robert Houdin programs, handbuilds, and
press notices without realizing that his repertoire contained little or
no trace of what should be the foundation of successful conjuring.
Sleight of hand. Changing his fingers over the various air
holes of the inexhaustible bottle was as near as he
(01:23):
ever came to slight of hand, even when he was
in the height of his success. According to the press notices,
he had a pleasing stage presence, and also dressed and
set forth his tricks richly. But it must be borne
in mind that then, as often today, the man sent
by an editor to criticize a conjurer's performance knew little
or nothing about the art and could not institute comparisons
(01:44):
between different magicians. Today, Robert Houdin would shine as an
exhibitor of illusions or mechanical toys, a pistol shot to
puff of smoke, and his conferator assistant has done the
real work behind the scenes. His lack of finesse as
a sleight of hand performer is nowhere more clearly shown
than in his own writings on page thirty seven of
(02:05):
his French expose of the Secrets of Magic, entitled comment
on Deviant Sorcery, page fifty one of the English translation
by Professor Hoffman Secrets of Conjuring and Magic. He thus
naively describes his masterpiece of coin parming. I myself practiced
parming long and perseveringly, and acquired thereat a very considerable
(02:27):
degree of skill. Used to be able to palm two
five franc pieces at once, the hand nevertheless remaining as
freely open as though it held nothing whatever. An amateur
of his own day would have blushed to admit that
he could palm but two coins. Men like T. Nelson
Downs the coin King, think nothing of palming twenty five
francs or silver dollars or forty half dollars. And even
(02:50):
this record has been broken even. Two writers who contributed
to the translation and editing of his works are Shelton
McKenzie and Professor Hoffman Angelo J. Lewis, and who have
drawn rich royalties for the same, apologize for his flagrant misstatements,
which they realize any man or woman with but a
slight knowledge recounting must recognize. His first contribution to the
(03:15):
history of magic was his memoirs, and while he does
not feature exposes of tricks in this work, he offers
in passing explanations of tricks and automata presented by other magicians.
For the most part, these explanations are obviously incorrect, and
so proved that he was ignorant of certain fundamental principles
of the art in which he claimed to have shown.
(03:36):
In the introduction of the American edition published eighteen fifty,
mister Mackenzie, the editor thus apologizes for one of Robert
Houdin's most flagrant mistakes in tracing the history of magic,
one error which Monsieur Hoddan makes must not be passed
over his account of Monsieur de Clemperland's celebrated automaton chess
player afterward Matsal's is entirely wrong. This remarkable piece of
(04:01):
mechanism was constructed in seventeen sixty nine and not seventeen
ninety six. It was the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria
who played with it, and not Catherine the Second of Russia.
It was in seventeen eighty three that it first visited Paris,
where it played at the Cafe de la Regiance. It
was not taken to London until seventeen eighty four, and
again in eighteen nineteen. It was brought to America in
(04:23):
eighteen twenty five by Messie Matzel and visited our principal cities,
its chief resting place being Philadelphia. Monsieur Matzel's death was
in eighteen thirty eight on the voyage from Cuba to
the United States, and not as Monsieur Huda says on
his return to France and the Automatan so far as
being taken back to France and was sold by auction
(04:44):
here finally purchased by the late doctor J. K. Mitchell
of Philadelphia, reconstructed by him, and finally deposited in the
Chinese Museum formerly Appeals, where it was consumed in the
Great Fires which destroyed the National Theatre, now the site
of the Continental Hotel, corner of Ninth and Chestnut Streets
and extending to the Chinese Museum, burnted down on July fifth,
(05:06):
eighteen fifty four. An interesting account of the Automaton chess player,
written by the Professor George Allen of this city, would
be found in the Book of the First American Chess Congress,
recently published in New York. Signor Blitz, in his book
Fifty Years in the Magic Circle, corroborates the McKenzie correction
by telling how he saw Matzel in Havana, Cuba, where
(05:27):
the famous German met his professional waterloo, first in small audiences,
then in the death of his faithful confederate Schlomburg. Finally
broken in health and spirit, Matzel sailed from Havana for Philadelphia,
but death overtook him at sea. His body was consigned
to the ocean depths, and his few effects were sold
to liquidate the cost of passage and other debts. That
(05:50):
Robert Houdin should make an air concerning a world famous automaton,
the history which could be traced through contemporary periodicals and
libraries is almost inconceivable, and proves the care arelessness with
which he gathered and presented facts. His inability to grasp
the principles on which other performers built their tricks is
shown most clearly when he attempts to describe and explain
the performances of the Arabian Mountebanks, whom he saw during
(06:13):
his stay in our Jeers. These tricks have been handed
down from one generation to another, and now that Arab
conjurers and acrobats are imported for hippodrome and vaudeville performances
in all civilized countries. The tricks described by Robert Houdin
are familiar to the general public. They are also copied
by performers of other nationalities, and can be seen in circus,
(06:34):
sideshows and affairs as well as the better grade of houses.
Having worked on the same bill with genuine Arabian performers,
I know just how the tricks are accomplished. Robert Houdin
undertakes to explain these tricks in chapter twenty two of
the American edition of his memoirs. As long as he
quotes reliable authorities like the Joannalde des Science, the explanations
(06:56):
are correct. Directly, attempts at independent exposure strikes far from
the correct explanation. On page four hundred and twenty four
states in the following experiment, two Arabs held a saber,
one by the hilt of the other by a point.
A third then came forward, and, after raising his clothes
so as to leave the abdomen quite bare, laid himself
on the flat edge of the blade, while a fourth
(07:18):
mounted on his back and seemed to press the whole
weight of his body on him. This trick may be
easily explained. Nothing proves the audience that the saber is
really sharpened, or that the edge is more cutting than
the back, although the Arab who holds it by the
point is careful to wrap it in a handkerchief, in
this imitating the jugglers who pretend they have cut their
fingers with one of the daggers they using their tricks. Besides,
(07:40):
in performing this trick, the invulnerable turns his back on
the audience. He knew the advantage to arrive from this circumstance. Hence,
at the moment when about to lay himself on the saber,
he very adroitly pulled back over his stomach that portion
of his clothing that he had raised. Lastly, when the
fourth actor mounted on his back, he rested his hands
on the shoulders of the Arabs who held the saber.
(08:02):
The latter apparently maintained his balance, but in reality they
supported the whole weight of his body. Hence, the only
requirement for this trick is to have the stomach more
or less pressed in. And I will explain presently that
this can be effected without any danger or injury. In
this explanation, Robert Houdin is entirely wrong. The real secret
of laying on top sharp edged razor, sword or saber
(08:24):
rests on the fact that the performer does actually lie
upon it in a perfectly motionless position, weary to move
but the width of a hair backward or forward or sideways,
the weapon would slice his body, resulting in instant death
or horrible mutilation. I have watched cheap performers of this
class of work in die museums or affairs walk up
a ladder of sharp swords which I had previously held
(08:46):
in my hand. They would place the foot down with
infinite precision and then press it into place. This procession
will not result in cutting, but let the performers slip
or slide, and the flesh would be cut instantly. I
have also seen an acrobat working in a circus, select
two raisors in first class condition, placed them on a
(09:07):
socket with the edges of the razor's uppermost, and with
his bare hands he would do what is known as
a hand stand on the keen edges of the blades.
This trick of absolute balances acquired by persistent practice from
youth up again Robert Houdao errs woefully in comparing the
saber swallower to the swallower of broken bottle heels and stones.
(09:28):
Saber swallowing is one trick. Swallowing pebbles and broken glass
belongs in quite a different class. And when I say this,
I do not mean powdered glass, but pieces of glass,
first broken, then chewed, and finally swallowed. On page four
hundred and twenty six, Robert Houdan puts the two tricks
in the same class, as follows. When the trick of
(09:50):
swallowing bottle heels and pebbles was to be done, the
Aeolsia would put them in his mouth. But I believe,
I may say certainly that he removed them at the
moment when he placed his head in the fold to
the Muccadin burnoos. However, had he swallowed them, there would
have been nothing wonderful about this when we compare with
what was done some thirty years back in France by
a mountain bank called the sabers swallower. This man who
(10:13):
performed in the streets and threw back his head so
as to form a straight line with his throat, and
really thrust down his gull at a saber of which
only the hilt remained outside his mouth. He also swallowed
an egg without cracking it, or even nails and pebbles,
which he caused to resound by striking his stomach with
his fist. These tricks were the result of a peculiar
phenomenon in the mountebank's throat, But if he had lived
(10:34):
among the Aeusia, he would assuredly be the leading man
of the company. The saber swallower never releases hold on
the weapon. The pebble and bottle heeled swallower does, but
brings them up again by a system of wretching results
from long practice. The Japanese have an egg swallowing trick
in which they swallow either small side ivory balls or
(10:55):
eggs and reproduce them by wretching so unnoticeable they could
easily show the mouth empty. This trick dates back to
the offerings of that celebrated water spoutter Blaze Manfredi, or
the Manfree, who traveled all over Europe. This man could
swallow huge quantities of water and then ejected in streams
or in small quantities, or fill all sorts of glasses.
(11:17):
In fact, this one trick made him famous. The European
magazine London, March seventeen sixty five, pages one ninety four
to five gives a most diverting description of his trick,
taken from an old letter, and here quoted. I have
seen at the September fair in Frankfort a man who
professed drinking fifty quarts of water in a day, and
(11:38):
indeed proved that he was capable of executing what he
pretended to. I saw him perform frequently, and remember it
as well as it was. But yesterday he said. He
was an Italian who was short and squat his chest, face, forehead,
eyes and mouth very large. He pretended to be fifty
years old, though he did not seem forty. He was
called the famous blaze Manfredi, a native of mal At Frankfort.
(12:02):
He frequently performed three times a day, or besides his performances,
twice a day on the public stage, which nobody approached
without pain. He attended private houses. When called upon by
great people, he called for a large bucket of fair
warm water, and twenty little glass bottles, flat like cupping glasses,
so that they could stand topsy turvy. Some of these
(12:24):
he filled with water plunging them into the bucket with
a great deal of ceremony, and usually swallowed two or
three to wash his mouth and gargle his throat. He
threw up the water again immediately show the spectators he
had no drugs between his teeth, whence he could be
suspected to derive any advantage. After this plausible prelude, he
made an Italian harangue, which I cannot acquaint you with
(12:44):
the merits of, because I am a stranger to the language.
After his harangue, he usually took off two dozen of
his little bottles, which he filled from the bucket, and
a moment afterwards returned the liquor through his mouth. But
what most extraordinary is that this water, which he throw
out with violence, appeared red like wine, And when he
discharged it into two different bottles, it was red in
one and rusted like beer in the other. As soon
(13:06):
as he shifted the bottles to the country sides, they
changed their complexions respectfully to that of wine or beer.
And so successfully, so long as he continued vomiting. In
the meantime, I observed that the water grew less discolored
in proportion. As he continued to discharge. This was the
first act. Then he ranged his two dozen bottles opposite
him on a table and exposed everybody's view. Then he
(13:30):
took an equal number of bottles, plunged them anew into
the bucket, swallowed them too, and returned them in water
very transparent rose water, orange, flower water, and brandy. I
have smelt the several odors of his liquors. Nay. I
have seen him set fire to a handkerchief dipped in
that which smelled like brandy, and it burned the blue
like spirituous liquors. Nay. He frequently promised at venice to
(13:53):
give the water back again in milk and oil, but
I think he did not keep his word. In short,
he concluded the scene with swallowing successfully thirty or forty
glasses of water, always from the saint bucket, And after
having giving notice the company by his man, who served
as an interpreter, that he was going to disembogue, he
threw his head back, and spouting out the fair water,
(14:14):
he made it spring up with impetuosity like that of
the strongest jet d' oh. This last week delighted the
people infinitely more than all the rest, And during the
month he was at Frankfort. Numbers from all parts came
to see this slovenly exercise. Though he repeated it more
than once a day, he had more than four hundred
spectators at a time. Some threw their handkerchiefs, summed their
(14:35):
gloves upon the stage, that he might wet them with
the water he had cast up, and he returned them
differently perfumed, sometimes with rosewater, sometimes with orange flower water,
sometimes with brandy. Another famous juggler and water spoutter was
Flora Marchand, whose picture is herewith reproduced. Judging from his dress,
he antedated Manfridi. Bell's Messenger of July sixteenth, eighteen sixteen
(15:00):
tells of a sword swallower whose work is extremely pertinent
to this discussion, and the clipping is quoted verbatim. The
French papers gave a curious account of one James de Falise,
a Norman about fifty years of age, living in the
Rue Saint Holarrey. It is said that this extraordinary man
will swallow whole walnuts, shell and all a tobacco pipe,
(15:23):
three cars rolled together arose with all its leaves, long
stalk and thorns, a living bird and a living mouse,
and lastly, a live eel like to the Indian jugglers,
he swallows the blade of a saber about thirteen inches
long of polished steel. This operation he performs very slowly
and with some precaution, although he invinces no symptom of pain.
(15:44):
After every solid body that he swallows, he always takes
a small dose of wine expressly prepared for him. Does
not seem to make any effort to kill the living
animals that he takes in his mouth, but boasts that
he can feel them moving in his stomach. In my
collection is the hand bill of a stone swallower who
exhibited at number ten Cockspur Street, London, charging an emission
(16:05):
fee of half a crown. These performers actually swallowed the
water stones and pebbles, etc. And wretched them up again
so cleverly and at such clearfully selected instances, that the
audience did not know that disgorging had been accomplished. Swallowing
glass was a different matter, and all the modern ostriches
have all wound up at city hospitals where surgeons have
(16:27):
removed broken glass, knife blades and other foreign matter by
means of an operation. I quote the above instances simply
to prove that the stones were actually swallowed and then disgorged,
and not hidden as Robert Houdin claimed in the Folds
of the Mokkaden Bernous. In this one chapter alone, Robert
Houdain quotes six authorities in explaining tricks he witnessed, which
(16:47):
fact only strengthened my belief in the borrow districts, as
well as his explanations from able and graphic writers on
the art of magic. The next work descriptive of the
conjurer's art offered by Robert Houdin was Les secret de
la Preste's Digita et de la Magi under the title
of The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic, or How to
Become a Wizard. It was translated and edited by Professor
(17:10):
Hoffman and published in eighteen seventy eight by George Ratlings
and Company, London and New York. Absolutely no originality is
displayed in this book, and the majority of the tricks
explained can be found in French books of similar character
which appeared before Robert Houdin turned author. The proof of
this statement can be found by reading any of the
following works upon which Robert Houdin patently drew for his
(17:33):
material Novelle Maggi blanche de voillas at corps pas de
prest Titian in two volumes by J. N. Ponson, published
in Paris in eighteen fifty three. Grande imitationon er varre
pratique des celebs Foschion's Press Digitators, Paris, eighteen fifty five.
(17:55):
Nouveau Manuel Complete.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Sociers descine et ventri Queen executes, head, communiquets parstment, monsieur
conte Physician dear Roy, Paris, eighteen thirty seven. Ancience et
nouveaux tours at escammantage, of which there are innuminrable editions.
(18:17):
Emanuel de Sossier recuaission, physiques, mathematics, Tours descartes et de giberse,
suive dejau de Sossiete, Paris, eighteen o two. His third work,
Maggis at fersi Amusement, translated by Professor Hoffmann under the
(18:38):
title of The Secrets of Stage Conjuring and published in
English in eighteen eighty one, is marred by an almost
continuous strain and a statements in incorrect explanations and downright falsification.
On page seventeen of the American edition, Robert Houdin starts
a dramatic tale of inventing a detector locke, by which
he protected a rich neighbor, Monsieur de la Scopier, from robbery,
(19:00):
and incidentally in return, secured funds with him which opened
his theater in the Palis of Royal. In his Memoirs,
Robert Houdin states that the opening of the theater was
made possible by the invention of the writing and drawing automaton,
whose history has been traced in chapter three. The reader
con choosed between the two stories, one is as plausible
as the other, But.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
To return to the detector lock. Count or Monsieur D'urescopier,
having complained grievously to his humble neighbor, the watchmaker Robert Houddan,
that he and his family were being robbed, begged that
the latter suggest some means of catching the thief. Robert
Houdin then recalled a childish device by which he had
caught his school fellows in the act of pilfering his desk,
(19:41):
et cetera. And he proposed to the Count that the
same device, elaborated to meet the strength of a full
grown man, be attached to his wealthy patron's desk. As
first planned, the detector lock was to shoot off a
pistol on being tampered with, and then brand the hand
of the thief with the nitrate of silver. Count D'alurescapier
objected to branding a man for a lo, so Robert
(20:01):
Houdan substituted for the nitrate of silver a sort of
cat's claw which would clap down on the robber's hand
and draw blood. The Count deposited ten thousand francs in
his desk and caught the robber his confidential servant red handed.
The ten thousand francs he presented to Robert Houddan as
a reward for stopping the thefts. A charming tale this makes,
(20:22):
but unfortunately for Robert Houdan's claim to originality, the detector
lock with not a novelty. In his day, the lock
would first alarm the household by setting off a pistol
and then brand the thief's hand. Is described by the
Marquis of Worcester in his book Century of Inventor as
locks and locksmithing formed my hobby. While in England, I
(20:43):
purchased the entire set of patent books to add to
a collection of locks and fastenings from every other known
country of the world. In the introduction of the first
Book of Patent's for Inventions relating to locks, latches, bolts,
et cetera. From eighty seventeen seventy four to eighteen sixty six,
the following quotation will be found the Marquis of Worcester
(21:03):
in his Saintgerier of Inverchon thus describes the first detector lock,
invented eighty sixteen forty by some mechanical genius of that day.
This lock is so constructed that if a stranger attempts
to open it, it catches his hands. A trap catches
a fox, though not as far as maiming him for life,
yet so mark of him as if he suspected he
(21:24):
might easily be detected. It appears that to this lock
was fitted a steel barb, which, if a certain tumbler
was overlifted near picking or otherwise, which projected against the
hand of the operator by spring. I have seen such
a lock as this in the collection of Hobb's Heart
and Company, London, who had it in their position for
many years. In every respect it answers the description of
(21:46):
the invention claimed by Robert Houdin as his own. Chapter
seven of the Secrets of Stage Conjuring is devoted to
Robert Houddin's very incorrect explanation of the famous Indian baskets trick,
even his own trans Later, Professor Hoffman takes issue with
Rebert Hoddan, as will be seen by reading his footnote
on page one hundred and four. We will not venture
(22:08):
to question the fact vouched by so high an authority
as Robert Hoddan, that the Indian basket trick may sometimes
be performed after the manners above described, but we doubt
very much whether such is the usual or customary method.
Robert hu Dance states that the child is placed in
the basket and the Indian fastens down the lid with
leather straps. To facilitate this operation, he rests his knees
(22:30):
against the basket and the bottom of the latter, thus
being turned toward the audience. The boy slips out through
a cunningly contrived trap and quickly conceals himself under the
rope of the magician, whose attitude favors this concealment, as
the basket trick is the Hindu's magician's most wonderful offering
a truthful account of his method to performing the same
may be interesting. In the first place, Robert Houdin's explanation
(22:53):
is impossible and unreasonable because the Hindu magician does not
wear flowing robes in which the child could be concealed.
Every Hindu performer I have ever seen or short trousers
and was barefooted. The correct method of performing the trick,
which has been handed down through the generation of Hindus,
is as follows. The boy's subject is placed in a
(23:13):
net in which he is firmly tied, and after having
had his big toes and thumbs fastened down with bandages,
then with many a grunt and groan, he is lifted
into the basket. The subject, however, pretends that the basket
is too small, so he is really seated on one
side and keeps his back in the air. This is
done to give the appearance eventually that was impossible for
him to crouch down or around the basket. The lid
(23:36):
of the basket is now placed on his back, and
a large sheet is thrown over the entire apparatus, which
conceals from the audience every movement made by the subject
now commences. The Hindu patter in reality, yells, groans in incantations,
while the magician and the assistant strike the basket with
swords or canes, stamp on the ground, gnash their teeth,
et cetera. Gradually the cover of the basket sinks until
(23:59):
the basket seems empty to the spectators at least. The
fakir now takes the cover off the basket, leaving the
sheet over it. However, then he jumps into the presumably
empty basket, stamps all around, takes out the net which
are found the turbaned worn by the subject, and the
thumb tie, further proof that the basket is still empty.
The Fakir seats himself in the basket as shown in
(24:21):
the illustration. The lid of the basket is now replaced
and under this friendly cover, the sheet is taken off
and the basket tied up. Now commences. The true Hindu
magic magician is a real actor. He apparently abdures Mohommet.
He gets very angry and with fierce looks and ejaculations
and muttered curses, he drabs up a sword or cane
and jabs it through different parts of the basket. During
(24:45):
all this time, the subject with something of a contortionist
is wriggling about on the bottom of the basket, keeping
out of the reach of the sword, and in fact
often guiding its thrust between his legs. Every movement on
the part of the fakir has been carefully thought out
and rehearsed in advance. By this time the fakier has
convinced his audience that the basket is empty. To be sure,
he has not allowed any spectators to come to near
(25:07):
him or the basket, nor has any hand save his,
touched it. But his clever acting almost persuades even an
intelligent or skeptical onlooker that the basket is empty. With
a lid of the basket replaced, this time above the
friendly sheet, and the basket tied, he resumes his weird incantations.
He screams and runs back and forth, playing on a
(25:29):
small instrument with a hideous tone, which is a cross
between the whistle of its locomotive with a cold and
a sword off and hammered down flute which has been
inserted a tin whistle. As this nerve racking music holds
the spectators under its awful spell, the basket begins to rock.
The contortionous subject gradually raises himself inside the basket, and
when the noise is at its height, he straightens up
(25:51):
in the basket and raises it with his back as
far as it will go. To the uninitiated. It actually
appears as if he had returned to an empty basket
in his original position. The trick is a marvelous deception,
but only a Hindu can exhibit it with success, for
no white person would ever indulge in the screechings, imbecilities,
and contortions which the spectacular and convincing features of this trick.
(26:16):
Sometimes the trick has varied. Instead of the subject being
found in his original position, he is seen running toward
the crowd as from a distance. This is accomplished by
having two subjects, one in the basket and one hidden
on the outskirts of the crowd. Who are doubles or
at least can show remarkable resemblance, are addressed exactly alike.
The earliest programs of Hindu jugglers in my collection are
(26:37):
dated eighteen eighteen. The mister Ramasami featured on this bill.
Latest was his name thus Ramo Sami, and was engaged
to perform alone between the acts of the Broken Heart
of the Garrick Theater of London. From Ramo Sami, Continental
and British traditions learned the trick of druggling brass balls.
(26:57):
On page one hundred and thirty five. Professor Hoffman, in
a footnote commends Robert Houdin for the very impartial manner
in which he approaches the question of spiritualism and spiritualistic
manifestations in his day a comparative novelty. In default of
the absolute certainty, he wisely reserves his opinion. Where However,
as in the case of the Davenport Brothers he had
(27:18):
an opportunity of personally observing the alleged phenomena, he has
neither difficulty in penetrating nor hesitation in denouncing the imposture.
We ventured to believe that any of the so called
spiritualistic manifestations which had come under the test of Robert
Houdin's examination would have met the similar fate. With this commendation,
I cannot agree. Robert Houdin once had all the LeVay
(27:41):
he wished at a most remarkable manifestation, and made no
attempt to hide the fact that it was baffled by
this phenomena. The Memoirs of Marquis de Millville contained a
Robert Houdin letter in which admits he could find no
explanation of tests just witnessed. The letter translated from Agui
Das nineteen ho yahundatz fon Uriata eighteen ninety six, published
(28:06):
in Berlin, Germany, by whosays vlag Is herewith quoted. I
returned from the Saunds as greatly astonished as it was
possible for me to be, and I am thoroughly convinced
it was I entai out of the possibility and no
chance whatever that was, either by accident or practice trickery
to produce such wonderful materializations Robe Huda May eighteenth, eighteen
(28:26):
forty seven. He further shows its ignorance of sunces as
often in his times, by his attempts to describe the
methods employed by the Davenport Brothers, to whom he devotes
chapter thirteen, which might be described as a chapter of errors.
These picturesque American entertainers, the Damnport Brothers heild from Buffalo,
New York, Usa. Ira Erastus was born in September seventeenth,
(28:50):
eighteen thirty nine, and William Henry February one, eighteen forty one.
They fairly startled the world by their so called manifestations
of spiritualism during the sixxies, and were alternately lauded and
reviled for their performances. Both were below medium height and
rather handsome man and will be seen from the accompanying
engraving looked much alike. Their career, which started in America,
(29:13):
ran from eighteen fifty three to the early seventies. They
made a trip to Europe in eighteen sixty four, remaining
until August eighteen sixty nine. Both married abroad Ira, a
daughter of France Mademoiselle Louise Toulat, and William Henry a
Polish girl, Miss Matilda mag On. The whole their foreign
tour was most profitable, though in some cities they paid
(29:35):
a high price for their notoriety. England, they waged bitter
warfare with John Henry Anderson while Mark and Professor Redmond
on the occasion of their Paris opening the Sally Hertz.
They claimed that the hoodlum element mobbed the theater and
broke up their performance at the instigation of anree Robin,
who was playing in opposition Hamilton, who had just succeeded
to the management of Robert Dawn's theater in a letter
(29:58):
published after witnessing their initial performances, and now that he
shared this belief. But as Robert Houddain and Henry Robin
were bitter rivals, I believe Hamilton's letter was the result
of two things. First the intense ill will he harbored
against Robert, and second, as he had Robert hou Dan
as his mentor, he was really ignorant of the Damnport
methods and therefore not in a position to defend them.
(30:20):
The letter, which is given in full, appeared in Gazette
de Tranjais, Paris, September twenty seventh, eighteen sixty five. Bessus Davenport, Yesterday,
I had the pleasure of being present at the seance
you gave, and came away from it convinced that the
jealousy alone was the cause of the outcry raised against you.
(30:41):
The phenomena produced surpassed my expectations, and your experiments were
full of interest to me, and consider it my duty
to add that these phenomena are inexplicable, and the more
so by such persons as have thought themselves able to
guess your supposed secret, and who are in fact far
indeed from having discovered the truth Hamilton. After their return
(31:03):
to America, the Davenport brothers retired from public life, purchased
a farm, and rested on their laurels and a corpulent
bank account. One of them is said to have admitted
that all their work was skillful manipulation and not spiritualistic manifestations. Nevertheless,
their names will live so long as spiritualism is talked
of or cabinet effects tolerated by the public. The trick,
(31:24):
as offered by the Davenbot brothers, consisted of their being
tied hand and foot at opposite ends of the cabinet,
which was hung with musical instruments, bells, et cetera. The
two men slipped in and out of the rope that
delay or apparent damage to the ropes, and musical instruments
were played with arms, presumably in bondage. Rovert dan, In
attempting to expose the trick, made two flagrant errors. First,
(31:46):
he claims that, by dint of special practice on the
part of our mediums, the thumb is made to lie
flat in the hand, when the whole assumes a cylindrical
form of scarcely greater diameter than the wrist, and second
that the Davenport brothers had trained themselves to see the dark.
As Releasing myself from fastenings of all sorts, from ropes
to straitjackets, has been my profession for twenty years. I
(32:08):
am in a position to contradict Robert Houdin's first claim positively.
I have met thousands of persons who claimed the rope
as well as the handcuff trick was accomplished by folding
the hand together or making the wrist larger than the hand.
But never have I met a man or woman who
could make their hands smaller than their wrists. I have
even gone so far as to have iron bands made
(32:29):
and press my hands together, hoping eventually to make my
hand smaller than my wrists, but this has failed too.
Even if the entire thumb were cut away, I believe
it would still be impossible to slip a rope that
was properly bound around the wrist. You may take any
cuff of the adjustable make or the ratchet cuff, placed
it in a small woman's wrist, and you will find
that even she will be unable to slip her wrists.
(32:50):
I do not mean by this any handcuff that will
not come to any size, or the common cuffs, which,
when locked, will lock only to a certain size. But
I mean that a cuff that can be and adjusted
to any size of a wrist. In rope tying, the
principal trick is to allow yourself to be tied according
to certain methods of crossing your hands or wrists, so
that you, by eventually straightening your hands you have enough
(33:12):
room to allow them to slip out very easily. Is
not always the size of the wrist that counts. It
is the matter of holding your hands when the knots
are being tied. The gift of seeing in the dark
with which Robert Houdin endowed the Damaports is equally preposterous.
Professor Hofmann defends Robert hu Dan by citing instances of
prisoners who had been confined in cells from an indefinite
(33:33):
period who had learned to see in the dark. This
is quite true, but they did not alternate daylight and darkness.
Eminent opticians and oculists to form me that the faculty
of seeing in the dark cannot be acquired by parties
like the Davenports who spend most of their time in
the light, while the Davenports were pioneers in rope tying
(33:53):
and cabinet sounces. Had Robert Hudan been the clever slight
of hand performer or inventory claims to have been, these
tricks would have been clear and solvable to him. But
as he obviously joined the ranks of the amazed and
bewildered masses, making only a futile attempt to explain the performances,
he convicts himself of ignorance regarding his own art. A
man who has made a fortune in the world of
(34:14):
magic and desires to hand down to posterity a clean
record of his attainments will be clever enough and manly
enough to avoid any attempt to explain that which he
does not understand. By his flagrant misstatements regarding the tricks
of his predecessors and contemporaries. Robert Houdin, however, convicts himself
if ignorance regarding the fundamental principles of magic, and arouses
(34:35):
in the minds of broad intelligent readers doubts regarding his
claims to the invention of the various tricks and automata
which he declares to have been the output of his brain,
the production of his own deft hands. End of Section eleven.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.