The Gaming Table: Its Votaries and Victims Volume 2 Part 29

Tell me and try to say what I hold? A needle.

Tell me quickly what I hold? A cane.

I request you to say what I hold? A portfolio.

I request you to say now what I hold? Paper.

I request you to say, reply, what I hold? A book.

I request you to say quickly what I hold? A coin.

Will you say, reply, what I hold?--A cigar.

Will you say, name what I hold?--A cane.

Will you say, again, what I hold?--A newspaper.

Now, what I hold?--A bottle.

Reply, what I hold?--A jug.

Name what I hold?--A gla.s.s.

Again, what contains this vessel?--Wine.

Instantly, what this vessel contains?--Beer.

Now the form?--Triangular.

Reply, the form?--Round.

Name the form?--Square.

The form?--Oval.

Try to indicate the form?--Pointed.

Again, indicate the form?--Flat.

Now, the colour?--White.

Reply, the colour?--Blue.

Name the colour?--Red.

The colour of this object?--Black.

Try to tell the colour?--Green.

Again, the colour?--Yellow.

Now, the metal?--Gold.

Reply, the metal?--Silver.

The metal of the thing?--Copper.

Again, the metal?--Iron.

Instantly, the metal?--Lead.

Ah! the figure or hour?--1.

Well?--2. 'Tis good?--3.

'Tis well?--4.

Good?--5.

But?--6.

Let's see?--7.

That's it?--8.

&c.

Now name the suit of this card?--Clubs.

Reply, the suit of this card?--Hearts.

Name the suit of this card?--Spades.

The suit of this card?--Diamonds.

It is obvious, from the preceding specimen, that a conventional catechism involving every object can be contrived by two persons, and adapted to every circ.u.mstance. The striking performances of the most notorious mesmeric 'patients' in this line prove the possibility of the achievement. The 'agent' who receives the questions in writing or in a whisper thus communicates the answer to the patient, who is laboriously trained in the entire encyclopaedia of 'common things' and things generally known; but it MAY happen that the question proposed by the spectator has been omitted in the scheme.

On one occasion, when the famous Prudence was the 'patient,' and was telling the taste of all manner of liquids from a gla.s.s of water, I proposed 'Blood' to the 'agent.' He shook his head, said he would try; but it was useless. She said she 'couldn't do it,' and the agent frankly admitted that it was a failure.

Now, if the mesmeric consciousness were really, as pretended, the result of mental intercommunication between the agent and patient, it is obvious that the well-known taste of blood could be communicated as well as any other taste. This experiment suffices to prove that the revelations are communicated in the matter-of-fact way which I have sufficiently described.

Should it happen that a spectator has discovered the method, the performers easily turn the tables against him. They have always ready a conventional list of common things; and the agent undertakes that his mesmeric patient will indicate them without hearing a word from him, even in another apartment. The agent then merely touches the object, and the patient begins with the first name in his list. The patient takes care to give the agent sufficient time, lest he should name the object next to be touched before the agent applies his finger, and thus, as it were, call for it rather than name it when touched, as required by the case.

1. Guessing.

Five persons having each thought of a different card, to guess five cards.

Take twenty-five cards, show five of them to a party, requesting him to think of one, then place them one upon the other. Proceed in like manner with five more to a second party, and so on, five parties in all, placing the fives on the top of each other. Then, beginning with the top cards, make five lots, placing one card successively in each lot; and ask the five parties, one after the other, in which lot their card is.

As the first five cards are the first of each lot, it is evident that the card thought of by the first party is the first of the lot he points to; that of the second, is the second of the lot he points to; that of the third, the third of the third lot; that of the fourth, the fourth of the fourth lot; that of the fifth, the fifth of the fifth lot.

Of course five persons are not necessary. If there be but one person, the card must be the first of the lot he points to.

It would be more artistic, perhaps, if you dispense with seeing the cards, making the lots up with your eyes turned away from the table.

Then request the parties to observe in which lot their respective card is, and, taking the lots successively in hand, present to each the card thought of without looking at it yourself.

17. The Arithmetical Puzzle.

This card trick, to which I have alluded in a previous page, cannot fail to produce astonishment; and it is one of the most difficult to unravel.

Hand a pack of cards to a party, requesting him to make up parcels of cards, in the following manner. He is to count the number of pips on the first card that turns up, say a five, and then add as many cards as are required to make up the number 12; in the case here supposed, having a five before him, he will place seven cards upon it, turning down the parcel. All the court cards count as 10 pips; consequently, only two cards will be placed on such to make up 12. The ace counts as only one pip.

He will then turn up another, count the pips upon it, adding cards as before to make up the number 12; and so on, until no more such parcels can be made, the remainder, if any, to be set aside, all being turned down.

During this operation, the performer of the trick may be out of the room, at any rate, at such a distance that it will be impossible for him to see the first cards of the parcels which have been turned down; and yet he is able to announce the number of pips made up by all the first cards laid down, provided he is only informed of the number of parcels made up and the number of the remainder, if any.

The secret is very simple. It consists merely in multiplying the number of parcels over four by 13 (or rather vice versa), and adding the remaining cards, if any, to the product.

Thus, there have just been made up seven packets, with five cards over.

Deducting 4 from 7, 3 remain; and I say to myself 13 times 3 (or rather 3 times 13) are 39, and adding to this the five cards over, I at once declare the number of pips made up by the first cards turned down to be 44.

There is another way of performing this striking trick. Direct six parcels of cards to be made up in the manner aforesaid, and then, on being informed of the number of cards remaining over, add that number to 26, and the sum will be the number of pips made up by the first cards of the six parcels.

Such are the methods prescribed for performing this trick; but I have discovered another, which although, perhaps, a little more complicated, has the desirable advantage of explaining the seeming mystery.

Find the number of cards in the parcels, by subtracting the remainder, if any, from 52. Subtract the number of pip cards therefrom, deduct this last from the number made up of the number of parcels multiplied by 12, and the remainder will be the number of pips on the first cards.

To demonstrate this take the case just given. There are seven parcels and five cards over. First, this proves that there are 47 cards in the seven parcels made up of pips and cards. Secondly, subtract the number of pip cards--seven from the number of cards in the parcels; then, 7 from 47, 40 remain (cards). Thirdly, now, as the seven parcels are made up both of the pip cards and cards, it is evident that we have only to find the number of cards got at as above, to get the number of pips required. Thus, there being seven packets, 7 times 12 make 84; take 40, as above found (the number of cards), and the remainder is 44, the number of pips as found by the first method explained,--the process being as follows:--

52 - 5 = 47 - 7 = 40.

Then, 7 X 12 = 84 - 40 = 44.