“‘But you can’t possibly know yet; the trump card has not been turned up.’
“‘You will see,’ he replies. ‘Go on.’
“As a matter of fact I turn up the eight of Diamonds, and his was the King of Diamonds. The game was continued in an odd enough manner, for he told me the cards I had to play, though my cards were hidden under the table and held close together in my hands. To each lead of mine he played one of his own cards without turning it up, and it was always the right card to have played against mine. I left this seance then in the greatest possible state of amazement, and convinced of the utter impossibility of chance or conjuring having been responsible for such marvellous results.—Yours, etc.,
(Signed) “Robert Houdin,
“16th May, 1847.”
I here embrace the opportunity to make a correction of a statement in “The Unmasking of Robert Houdin” (page 287). The record and source of information at that time was published in Berlin, Germany. It gave the impression that the “letters” cited above referred to Spiritualistic phenomena, but now, having come into possession of a true translation of these documents complete, as published by the Society for Psychical Research,[128] I am of the opinion that Houdin did treat the subject of Spiritualism with conservative prudence and impartiality, as recorded by Professor Hoffmann.
But I wish to say that in my estimation of Robert Houdin, despite his wonderful reputation and record as mentioned in Larousse’s Encyclopedia, I cannot agree with his statements, because he misrepresented so much in his “Memoirs of a Magician.” In “The Unmasking of Robert Houdin” I devoted a whole chapter to his ignorance of magic and by investigating I have found that he was not competent as an investigator of the claims of Spiritualists.
It came quite as a shocking surprise to me to find that the letters which were supposed to refer to Spiritualistic seances, and which have been quoted so often as being such, refer only to his experience with Alexis the clairvoyant. It must be apparent, even to the casual observer, that they have no bearings whatsoever on Spiritualism, but refer only to sittings with a clairvoyant in a game of sharp card practice. Knowing, as I do now, what it all meant, the fact that he wrote the letters does not surprise me in the least. I believe a lot of things transpired in that room which he could not see, or know whether there was confederacy, for clairvoyants as well as mediums often get information from the most unexpected sources. Clairvoyance, like Spiritualism, was not in the direct line of professional observation to Robert Houdin. What would he or any of his confreres, who were supposed to be adepts at that time, say if they could visit a seance of some of our present day clairvoyants who are appearing before the public and making use of radio, wireless, induction coils, etc.? What a wonderful bunch of letters they might write because of the simple fact that they could not tell how the effects were produced. It is ridiculous for any magician to say that the work he witnesses is not accomplished by conjuring or legerdemain simply because he cannot solve the problem.
As to his qualifications for adjudging the work of a clairvoyant, we have but to revert to his own narration of the origin and development of second-sight as used by himself. This account can be found in the English edition of his Memoirs:
“My two children were playing one day in the drawing-room at a game they had invented for their own amusement; the younger had bandaged his elder brother’s eyes and made him guess the objects that he touched, and when later he guessed right they changed places. This simple game suggested to me the most complicated idea that ever crossed my mind. Pursued by the notion, I ran and shut myself in my workshop, and was fortunately in that happy state when the mind follows easily the combinations traced by fancy. I rested my head in my hands, and in my excitement laid down the first principles of second sight.”
It is hard to reconcile this statement with truth in view of the fact that memory training, as he describes it, was in vogue and practised long before[129] his time and is not the way second sight is learned. It could not have been discovered or invented by him except coincidentally by his utter lack of knowledge bearing on the methods of seership and clairvoyance as practised either in his time or antiquity. Let me explain clearly, and I hope once for all, the valuelessness of his letters as far as they relate to Spiritualism and clairvoyance.