The Boy's Own Book of Indoor Games and Recreations

Chapter LVII: Second Sight

Text size

Second sight, as it is called, is of a very puzzling character indeed. To such an extent is this the case that some clever people have been led to believe that a special gift--some abnormal power--must be brought into play to bring about its apparently marvellous results. The writer hopes, before the boys who read this have got to the end, that they may have a much clearer idea of the ingenious and, if rightly applied, innocent trickery than such persons seem to possess.

The word ‘abnormal’ has been mentioned, and it is almost applicable to the title of this chapter, as the memory must be developed beyond its ordinary tension by constant practice to give that ease and quickness without which second sight, or ‘clairvoyance,’ is but a sorry exhibition. It is wonderful, however (as all matters relating to our organisation are), what little spur memory needs to meet any strain put upon it. Generally, ‘Where there’s a will there’s a way.’

This exceedingly clever and subtle mode of conveying by words or letters what is in the mind of one person to the comprehension of another is not an invention of yesterday, though it has now attained to great perfection. It was introduced into England by the Italian conjurer Pinetti at the Haymarket Theatre in the year 1784. He announced that Signora Pinetti, seated in one of the front boxes with a handkerchief over her eyes, would ‘guess’ at everything imagined or proposed to her by the audience. The clever French magician, Robert Houdin, took up the trick, and ‘worked’ it with his son; and our own Scotch ‘professor,’ Anderson, followed in his wake, the ‘Wizard of the North’s’ daughter being the clairvoyante in this case. Robert Heller was also a capital exponent of second sight, with the assistance of his sister; and the Taylors, father and son, a few years ago astonished the lieges with their most befogging entertainment at the Polytechnic. Then M. Heriott and ‘Little Louie’ were perhaps the most noted in this peculiar line of business, the latter phenomenon startling even those who understood the system by her marvellous aptitude, and the precocity that could cram such a mass of intricate knowledge into so small a head.

We have stated that clairvoyance lies between two persons. These are, first, the interlocutor, _who sees the articles_ hereafter to be described by the person in collusion with him; and, secondly, the latter gifted being, who, with eyes bandaged, can yet grasp mentally, through the medium of the questions put, the nature of the answers to be given. Of course, all eyes are attracted to the clairvoyante, and all attention deliberately turned thereto, though the most difficult position is really occupied by the one asking the questions, he having to decide instantly as to his choice of words, and put them in such a natural, unstudied, and off-hand style--and so quickly withal--as to effectually _nonplus_ those unlearned in the art and mystery.

Most public performers work with a code of their own, merely taking the idea, or ground-work, which past professors have laid down; and they elaborate and add to their word signals from day to day as the necessities of their position are thrust upon them. The best way, also, for any ‘going in’ for this fascinating bit of innocent deception is to adopt the same course, and when their code is, as nearly as they can imagine, perfect, to study and practise diligently, and make sure they are sufficiently ‘well-up’ and _glib_ in their respective parts, so as to guard against being made a laughing-stock, and exposing the method at the same time. The interlocutor should be able to put the questions without hesitation or mistake (as, in the latter case, he runs the clairvoyante off the rails also), and with such _nonchalance_ as to put the spectators off their guard.

Memory, of course, plays an important part in the matter, but not quite to the extent one might at first imagine. One hundred signals would exhaust the list of ordinary articles carried about the person; and a system of _grouping_--to be explained hereafter--will simplify the code, and yet more effectually mystify an audience, as presenting less variety in the questions put. After you have a large collection of miscellaneous articles coded (and you can never have _too_ many, if well chosen), numbers--signalled by means of letters, not words--and an _alphabet_ for the spelling of surnames, etc., will require great attention; but patience and perseverance will surmount all obstacles, and without these you had better not attempt second-sight at all.

As we have said, most persons who ‘go in’ for public clairvoyance compile a code of their own, and hence, after giving what we consider the best under the circumstances, we shall mention those of two public performers, who have given to the world their systems, one through the pages of a leading American magazine (_Scribner’s_), the other written by Mr. Washington Irving Bishop, who published a book on Second Sight, containing a _résumé_ of his own professional signals; and as both of these differ from the following, and from each other in most important respects, they will be treated separately, so that the reader may elect which system to pursue before entering upon the (at first toilsome, but afterwards pleasant) path of laws.

We will now proceed to give examples of an easy code for miscellaneous articles: following which we will have a system of grouping, a code for numbers, and an alphabet; and we shall conclude with the application of all these.

In the miscellaneous articles let us understand that ‘Tell’ indicates articles of attire; ‘What,’ those taken from the pockets; ‘Do,’ those carried in the hands; ‘Can’ and ‘Will,’ jewellery, and other articles of adornment; and ‘Anything,’ various articles not enumerated in the foregoing.

‘TELL.’--ARTICLES OF ATTIRE.

Tell me what this is.--A coat.
Tell me what this is, please.--A lady’s jacket.
Tell me this now.--An overcoat.
Tell me this now, please.--A shawl.
Tell me now.--A mackintosh.
Tell me now, please.--A waterproof cloak.
Tell this.--A hat.
Tell this, please.--A bonnet.
Tell me this.--A glove.
Tell me this, please.--A cuff.

Etc., etc., etc.

‘WHAT.’--ARTICLES FROM THE POCKETS.

What is this?--A pocket-book.
What is this, please?--A needle-case.
And what is this?--A letter-case.
And what is this, please?--A card-case.
What now?--An almanack.
What now, please?--A diary.
Now what?--A gentleman’s address card.
Now what, please?--A lady’s ditto.
Now what is this?--A railway ticket.
Now what is this, please?--A return ditto.
What is this now?--A season ditto.
What is this now, please-?--A tramcar ditto.
What have I now?--A co-operative store ditto.
What have I now, please?--Court plaister.
And now what?--A railway key.
And now what, please?--A Chubb.
What have I here?--A key.
What have I here, please?--A bunch of keys.
What name has this?--A cigarette.
What name has this, please?--A cigarette-case.
What name has it?--Cigarette paper.
What name has it, please?--Cigarette-holder.
What is this for?--A cigar.
What is this for, please?--A cigar-case.
What is this for, now?--Tobacco.
What is this for now, please?--Tobacco-pouch.
What here?--Bryant and May’s matches.
What here, please?--Wax-vestas.
What is here?--A pen-knife.
What is here, please?--A clasp-knife.

Etc., etc., etc.

‘DO.’--ARTICLES CARRIED.

Do you know this?--Umbrella.
Do you know this, please?--Parasol.
Do you see this?--Opera-glass.
Do you see this, please?--A scent-bottle.
Do you know what this is?--A travelling-bag.
Do you know what this is, please?--A reticule.
Do you notice this?--A walking-stick.
Do you notice this, please?--A fan.
Do you know what this is for?--A cane.
Do you know what this is for, please?--A vinaigrette.

Etc., etc., etc.

‘CAN’ AND ‘WILL.’--JEWELLERY, FLOWERS, ETC.

Can you tell this?--A watch.
Can you tell this, please?--A medal.
Can you name this?--A coin.
Can you name this, please?--A token.
Can you tell now?--A locket
Can you tell now, please?--A necklet
Now can you tell?--Bangles.
Now can you tell, please?--A bracelet
Can you see this?--An Albert chain.
Can you see this, please?--A lady’s chain.
Can you find this out?--A sleeve-link.
Can you find this out, please?--A stud.
Will you tell this?--A seal or charm.
Will you tell this, please?--A brooch.
Will you name this?--A ring.
Will you name this, please?--A keeper.
Will you tell now?--Ear-rings.
Will you tell now, please?--Sleepers.
Now will you tell?--A breast-pin.
Now will you tell, please?--A scarf-pin.
Will you look here?--A pencil-case.
Will you look here, please?--A flower.
Will you look now?--A bouquet.
Will you look now, please?--A bouquet-holder.
Will you find this out?--A fern.
Will you find this out, please?--Maiden-hair fern.

Etc., etc., etc.

‘ANYTHING.’

Anything in it?--A portrait
Anything in it, please?--A child’s portrait.
Anything in it now?--Hair.
Anything in it now, please?--Papers.
Anything in this?--Money.
Anything in this, please?--A bank-note.
Anything on it?--A crest.
Anything on it, please?--Initials.
Anything here?--A bill.
Anything here, please?--A letter.

Etc., etc., etc.

Having treated of such miscellaneous articles as will generally be found in any assemblage of persons, we may now proceed to the system of _grouping_, which will greatly facilitate the working of the process. We give below examples, capable, of course, of great extension.

MONEY.

1. Can you tell the coin?--A sovereign.
2. Do you know the coin?--Half-a-sovereign.
3. Name the coin.--A five-shilling piece.
4. Name the coin, please.--Half-a-crown.
5. Please name the coin.--A florin.
6. Tell me the coin.--A shilling.
7. What coin?--A sixpence.
8. What coin, please?--A fourpenny-piece.
9. What coin is it?--A threepenny-piece.
10. What coin is it, please?--A penny.
11. What is the coin?--A halfpenny.
12. What is the coin, please?--A farthing.

The same questions may be put as to

Christian names, towns, animals, fishes, shape, etc., can also be arranged in the same manner.

The next process, after committing such grouped subjects to memory, is to study a code for numbers, which you will easily acquire in one lesson, the only difficulty you will find being in the rapid application of it. The numbers will be represented by letters thus:--

1. t. d.
2. n.
3. m.
4. r.
5. l.
6. h.
7. k; hard c; hard g.
8. f. w. v.
9. b. p.
0. s. z.

If one figure only is required the interlocutor will ask for the _figure_; if two figures he will ask for the _number_; if three he will precede his question with ‘good,’ and the clairvoyant will know that he has entered into hundreds. If there are four figures he will say, ‘Very good,’ and that will indicate thousands; if five, ‘Very good, sir,’ or ‘madam,’ equivalent to tens of thousands. For six figures ‘good again,’ hundreds of thousands; and ‘If you please’ will act as a full stop. Example: ‘Tell me now, if you please, what figures there are here?’--_t m n_ (132) precede the full stop of ‘If you please,’ and the interlocutor has dropped the ‘good,’ which would have warned the clairvoyant that three figures had to be deciphered. Again, ‘There are figures here. Very good. Find the numbers, can you?’ ‘Yes,’ says the clairvoyant, taking the first four initial letters after ‘Very good;’ ‘eight thousand one hundred and twenty-seven;’ and great is the marvel of the audience thereat.

The last and most difficult problem of all appertaining to our subject--though, luckily, the most easily dispensed with for private performance--is the abstruse _Alphabet_, by which the clairvoyant may learn the name of a person or gain other particulars in a way quite unsuspected by the spectators. This is managed by taking B to represent A, C to stand for B, and so on, always being one letter in advance of the ordinary alphabet, save in the variations noted below. Thus--

A in the code will be B
B in the code will be C
C in the code will be D
D in the code will be E
E in the code will be F
F in the code will be G
G in the code will be H
H in the code will be I
I & J in the code will be K
K in the code will be L
L in the code will be M
M in the code will be N
N in the code will be O
O in the code will be P
P in the code will be Q
Q in the code will be R
R in the code will be S
S in the code will be T
T in the code will be U
U in the code will be V
V in the code will be W
W in the code will be A
X in the code will be Easy.
Y in the code will be Very easy.
Z in the code will be Plain.

To illustrate this, say the interlocutor has an address card with ‘William Brown’ printed upon it; he would first ask the Christian name by the grouping process, and then, to get at the surname might say, ‘Come, speak plainly at once, if you please, the gentleman’s name?’ C S P A O is translated into BROWN by the above system, and the answer is correct. This transposition of letters, as we have said, is very difficult, but if once acquired, brings the reward of being eminently puzzling with it.

In addition to all here set forth, the ‘cue’ is frequently given to the clairvoyant in a very simple manner as, ‘Is it large or small?’ ‘It is small.’ ‘Plain, or with stones?’ ‘There are stones in it.’ ‘Is it gold?’ ‘No; only gilt.’ ‘Does this belong to a gentleman or a lady?’ ‘To a lady.’ Besides this, intonations, dwellings upon certain words, a hesitating cough, or an apparently chance remark let fall to one of the audience, conveys much to the initiated, and allows of that variation which is so necessary in public exhibitions to prevent persons getting at the secret. One very old and extremely useful form of question--generally used at the close of an entertainment--is the _Sequence_, the interlocutor touching various articles worn or held in his immediate neighbourhood, and rapidly receiving replies from the clairvoyant, though his questions are of the simplest. This is done by numbering a set of such general articles as are sure to be met with. Thus, if it is wet weather, overcoats and umbrellas will be plentiful; if fine, sticks, parasols, and fans will be in the ascendant. Let three or four codes be arranged for these, so as to vary the sequence and avoid detection, thus:--

At a drawing-room entertainment such articles as we have here provided for would be quite out of place, as your visitors are not likely to carry their cloaks, hats, canes, or even opera-glasses with them. In such cases you can arrange with your clairvoyant five minutes before performance in what sequence you will take the more prominent articles on or about those ‘in front.’

A ‘head’ is chosen as the _finale_, so as to bring the curtain down with _éclat_, as the interlocutor can ask, ‘How many hairs are there on it?’ and the ready answer of, say, ‘Three thousand five hundred and sixty-five,’ will cause a hearty laugh. Besides this, all through the ‘business’ the person who interrogates will endeavour to amuse as well as to mystify his audience, to which end what is professionally known as his ‘patter’ (talk) is interlarded with ‘wheezes’ (jokes), and seemingly impromptu wit often of the most studied and built-up character. Some public performers also employ confederates, who lend an added wonder by producing very curious and out-of-the-way documents or other things, all of which, having been carefully studied beforehand, the clairvoyant can give full particulars of. The practice is, however, reprehensible; the art is sufficiently puzzling without such adventitious aids, and the secret is sure to leak out, when those who have been unable to fathom the business will jump to the conclusion that much more is due to confederacy than has really been the case.

Having gone through the drudgery, the hard study necessary to the full comprehension of the art, we now reach a stage when it may be put into practice, and can do nothing better than give an imaginary performance to show the application of the principles previously laid down.

A nice little speech will introduce yourself and confederate, the usual way being to modestly disclaim the supernatural for the wonders you are about to work. Suppose your assistant to be a young lady, she is blindfolded, and you proceed to business by requesting assistance from the spectators by the loan of any article they would wish to be described by your clairvoyante.

Then you go to work at once:--

Will you name this?--It is a ring.

Name the kind of ring?--It is a mourning ring.

Anything on it, please?--Yes, initials.

Be sure, if you please, and say what they are?--A. R.

Quite right. Can you tell this?--It is a watch.

Silver or gold?--Gold.

Anything on it?--Yes, there is a crest.

Quite correct. Now, the time, if you please, by it?--Twenty-one minutes to one.

Very good. Can you name this?--Yes, it is a coin.

What coin?--A sixpence.

The date, if you please? (The clairvoyante knows it is of this century, as only two letters are given.)--Eighteen hundred and eleven.

Can you tell this, please?--It is a medal.

Please name the metal?--Bronze.

Does she know? If you please to ask the young lady I have no doubt she will tell you the campaign it is for, sir. (Here the interlocutor, in speaking to the owner of medal, has given the cue to the clairvoyante by _d s k_, which stand for CRI.) When the question is put, she says, ‘It is a Crimean medal.’

Now, there is an initial here; tell me that.--M.

Look now, if you please, at the number of the regiment.--The fifty-second.

Will you look here, please?--You now have a flower.

What flower?--Lily of the valley.

What name has this?--It is a cigarette.

What is here?--A pen-knife.

Now, how many blades are there?--Two.

Very easy. Pray view only here, if you please, and tell me the name engraved upon the handle?--The name is _Young_.

What material is the handle made of?--Pearl.

What is this?--A pocket-book.

Anything here, please?--There is a letter inside.

Quite correct. If you please, tell me the initials of the person to whom it is addressed?--P. B.

What is this, now?--A railway season ticket.

Can you tell the month it expires in?--Here the clairvoyante takes _c_ for the seventh month and answers ‘July.’

Very good. Be so kind, now, if you please, as to give us the number of it?--Nine thousand and seventy-two.

Will you tell this, please?-It is a brooch.

Anything in it, please?--A child’s portrait.

Anything in it, now, at the back?--Yes, hair.

What colour is it?--Brown.

What is this for?--To smoke. It is a cigar; you can have it.

Is that right, sir? Thank you! What kind of cigar is it?--A Manilla.

Do you know what this is for?--That would also suit you; it is a cane!

Thank you, miss, you are very kind! Tell this.--That is a hat.

Can you tell the colour?--White.

And this?--A parasol.

Name the colour.--Blue.

Name the material of the handle, please.--Ivory.

And this?--That is a programme.

And this?--An opera-glass.

This?--A stick.

This?--A flower.

Do you know what flower?--Yes; a camellia.

This?--An eye-glass.

This?--A breast-pin.

This?--A fan.

This?--A chain.

Find the carat?--The clairvoyante knows that _f_ stands for 8, and answers ‘Eighteen.’

This?--That is a glove.

Do you know the colour?--Black.

And this?--A head.

Anything in it?--No.

And so the curtain comes down with a hearty laugh at the unfortunate wight whose cranium is thus stigmatised as empty!

TWO OTHER SYSTEMS.

An ‘Ex-conjurer,’ who has treated of The Secret of Second Sight in _Scribner’s_, says he was inducted into its mysteries twenty years since by a Polish Jew who claimed to have invented the system; or, at least, he had ‘treamed it’ (dreamed it), and that it was he who gave the code to Robert Heller. As to the first of these statements, the inventing, or ‘treaming’ it, we know that the Polish Jew perverted the truth, ‘Clairvoyance’ having been practised with success before he was born: for the second, we shall find from a portion that has gone before and some to follow that Heller’s code differed widely from ‘Ex-conjurer’s,’ whose system may be described as the triplet and spelling code. For the triplets he gives a long list of numbered articles, arranged alphabetically, such as follow:--

1. Accordion, Album, Almanack.
2. Anchor, Apple, Apron.
3. Awl, Bag, Badge.
4. Ball, Bandana, Beads.
5. Bill of Exchange, Bodkin, Bonnet.
Etc., etc.

For the first article in the triplet the performer merely gives the cue to the number; to the second he adds _here_, and to the third _that_.

To work in with these he has also a numbered alphabet, both letters and figures being represented by certain words as below:--

Come represents A and 1
Look „ B „ 2
Hurry up, or Tell me „ C „ 3
Make haste, or Tell us „ D „ 4
Well „ E „ 5
Please „ F „ 6
Say „ G „ 7
Answer, Call, or Called „ H „ 8
Now „ I „ 9
Let me know „ J „ 10
Can you see „ K „ 11
Try „ L „ 12
Right away „ M „ 13
Do you know „ N „ 14
Go on „ O „ 15
Let us hear „ P „ 16
At once „ Q „ 17
See „ R „ 18
Look sharp „ S „ 19
Let us know „ T „ 20
Quick „ U „ 21
Will you look „ V „ 22
Do you see „ W „ 23
Be smart „ X „ 24
I’d like to know „ Y „ 25
What is it „ Z „ 26
There „ 0
I want to know „ 100

This code ‘Ex-conjurer’ illustrates. ‘_Do you see_ (W) what is this? _Come_ (A), _Let us know_? (T), _Hurry up_ (C), _Answer_ (H).’ Surely this seems much too roundabout a way of getting at such an ordinary article as a _watch_! Nor does that of triplets offer great advantages, besides which the words or phrases chosen to represent letters and numbers come in awkwardly--and even offensively to an English ear--as will be apparent in the following extracts:--

‘Suppose a glove is offered. This is the first article of the fortieth triplet. The question would be “_Tell us_ (4) what this is, _there_ (0).”

‘Should the second article in the fifteenth triplet be offered, the question would be either, “_Here_, what’s this? _Go on_ (15);” or, “_Come_ (1), what’s this _here_? Well (5)?” and the answer in either case a _button-hook_.’

The best thing about ‘Ex-conjurer’s’ paper is the suggestive ‘tag,’ or speech at the end of the performance. Our aspirants for ‘clairvoyant’ fame may be able to take a hint from it:--

‘Now, how is this done? Well, I don’t mind telling you, with the express understanding that it goes no farther. It is neither mesmerism, spiritism, ventriloquism, rheumatism nor any other ism. It is brought about by the action of arcane-dynamics, subjectively submitted to the action of the passive agent, and the result, as you have seen, is a stentonophonic reproduction of the original idea. I’m afraid it’s not yet quite clear to some of you. Well, then, in other words, it’s a system of mental telephony. When an article is offered to me, I seize it; and then my assistant, he sees it. Ah! you smile--you understand it; but, remember, not a word outside as to how it is done!’

The real second-sight, as practised by such eminent professors of the art as Houdin and Heller, is greatly superior to ‘Ex-conjurer’s’ code, and is contained partly in our instructions, and more exhaustively in a work recently published. In this the code for figures is arranged exactly in the same way as that given by us; with the addition that the word ‘Quick’ is used to give notice of fractions. Then if the interlocutor says, ‘Tell, now!’ the blindfolded wonder-worker knows the initials indicate 1 and 2; therefore, by aid of the preliminary warning, he (or she) ascertains that 1/2 is meant. Thus, if one-seventh had to be signalled, after ‘Quick!’ the cue might be given by saying, ‘Tell correctly, if you please, what other numbers are there.’

The work now under consideration, in addition to a code for spelling words the same as we have given, has also codes for money, coins, cards, colour, dates, etc., quite different from those in the preceding pages, and well worth perusal before any particular system is fixed upon.

The book concludes with an observation that an exhibitor of second sight will as likely as not tell you that this or that system is not the one by which his ‘clairvoyant’ reads mentally; and here the professor may speak quite truly. Nevertheless--and this point cannot be too frequently insisted upon, because abnormal, and even supernatural, power is frequently spoken of in connection with second sight--there is nothing in the mystery that cannot be solved with a little patience and perseverance; and you may feel satisfied that by a code and by that alone--word-signals carefully studied and rehearsed between the clairvoyant and the interlocutor--do all the seeming wonders come to pass.

‘UNCONSCIOUS COUNTING.’

We cannot more suitably conclude this chapter than by referring to an ingenious article some time ago on ‘unconscious counting’ in the _Gartenlaube_, in which the writer, Herr W. Preyer, points out that the ability possessed by any one of ordinary intelligence to distinguish three, four, or even five objects at a glance, and without being conscious of counting them, may by practice be perfected to such a degree that it becomes quite as easy to count ten objects as it is to count three, and that it is possible to give the exact number up to thirty objects at a single glance. As an example of the latter attainment, the writer points to the well-known arithmetician Dase, who died in 1861, and who declared that he could count thirty objects of the same kind as quickly and easily as other people could count three or four. The truth of the assertion was often proved when Dase, with lightning rapidity, gave the correct number of a herd of sheep, of the books in a library, or the window-panes in a large house. The test of how far any one can count at a glance is easily made by putting several small objects, such as coins, pins, or matches, under a sheet of paper, then lifting the paper for a second and looking at the objects, and, after covering them again, give an estimate as to the number. At first it will be found difficult to fix the number if there are more than from three to five objects, but the eye becomes very soon accustomed to distinguish between larger numbers, so that after a short time eight or nine objects will be counted by the eye with the same facility. Care should, however, be taken that the counting is not done consciously, for that would take far too much time; the number of objects should only be valued.

The mistakes which are at first frequently made in this guessing game will become rarer and rarer, and almost anybody can become an expert in rapid counting up to ten objects; after that it becomes more difficult. The sensation, says Herr Preyer, of a person practised in unconscious counting, when looking attentively at larger numbers of objects, is that their number shoots rapidly through the head. To acquire this method of counting black spots should be made on white square pieces of cardboard, first symmetrically and in small numbers, as, for instance, the following:--

Afterwards their number may be increased and their position altered. It will also be good practice to open a book, cover part of the page, rapidly look at the lines left uncovered, and to guess at their number. It is astonishing how soon the eye gets accustomed to the numbers. The more advanced ‘unconscious counter’ should practise on spots not regularly arranged, which is much more difficult at first. Herr Preyer concludes his interesting article with the remark that unconscious counting, like all other oft-repeated processes, such as lifting the hat as a token of salutation, becomes at last an entirely mechanical process.

Previous Next

Comments

The Boy's Own Book of Indoor Games and RecreationsChapter LVII: Second Sight

0%20 min left in chapter