Conan Doyle on Houdini
Conan Doyle on Houdini is an article written by Henry Sara published in The Freethinker on 23 october 1927.
Conan Doyle on Houdini
The articles in the Strand Magazine upon Houdini, written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, throw a flood of light upon the methods adopted to keep the Religion of Spiritualism before the public. When a religion has to find its support in the mysteries of a Music Hall illusionist, it must be a very entertaining creed, to say the least. As is well known, the name of Houdini came before the public in connexion with what was called a Handcuff King show, in which he permitted himself to be fastened in handcuffs or manacles, then he retired behind some curtains, and within a few moments he appeared before the audience freed from his fetters. He was in the habit of concluding his act by using a box, into which he was placed, the box was fastened with locks, and roped, his wife drew the curtains, covering the box from view, and within a few seconds the curtains were drawn back by Houdini, and when the box was opened his wife was found inside. In order to obtain publicity he sometimes performed stunts outside the theatre, such as diving into a river heavily fettered, or, fastened in a strait jacket and suspended upside down, he would succeed in releasing himself in full view of the assembled crowd.
In the later years of his life Houdini utilized the stage for the usual type of conjuring performance, and then in a second part gave an exposure of fake or fraudulent mediumship, bringing down upon his head the most virulent abuse from people associated with the Spiritualistic fraternity.
Sir Conan Doyle knew Houdini, and on the basis of that knowledge, seeks now to prove that Houdini was really a medium himself, and that his stage performances were in reality exhibitions of genuine mediumship, and not, as Houdini stated, tricks and illusions obtained by perfectly simple and natural subterfuges. Conan Doyle opens his effort by saying: "Who was the greatest medium-baiter of modern times? Undoubtedly Houdini. Who was the greatest physical medium of modern times? There are some of us who are inclined to give the same answer." Then follows an amazing string of stories in an endeavour to prove this ridiculous opinion, and at times Sir Arthur drops to a very low level of discussion in order to make his case against the dead magician. If the relatives of Houdini have among them anyone capable of using the pen, no doubt more will be heard about these attacks of Conan Doyle. It would be interesting to hear what Houdini's widow has to say, because she more than any one else knew the way in which the escapes were made, having assisted Houdini in his most critical moments. She could tell the story, for example, of that great scene at the London Hippodrome, knowing full well that no spirit hand helped in that desperate instance.
We are often told about the honesty of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in his pen service to the cause of spiritualism, but the word honesty has a very clastic meaning in those circles, seemingly.
One instance of this is shown in Sir Arthur's account of the "Margery" case, he says:—
He (Houdini) had brought with him an absurd box, which was secured in front by no fewer than eight padlocks . . . The forces behind Margery showed what they thought of his contraption by bursting the whole front open the moment Margery was fastened into it.
The readers of the Strand Magazine have been imposed upon, as they can easily see by turning to Malcolm Bird's book on this case, page 429: "the entire top of Margery's cage was found open, the diagonal doors having been thrown back. Houdini at once stated that anybody sitting in it could thus throw it open with the shoulders." Then on page 431, Mr. Bird says: "Following this seance, the committee for once insisted on a course of action, demanding that the top of the medium's cage be properly secured. Next morning Houdini and Collins added padlocks and staples to the cage doors . . ." There is no report of the cage doors bursting open after this! Why has Sir Conan Doyle given such an obviously incorrect report? It is doubtful whether the box ever did have more than six padlocks on at the finish. Why should Sir Arthur start it off with eight? This kind of writing does not make Houdini look absurd in his beliefs as to the fraud of Spiritualism.
In a previous issue of the Freethinker, Conan Doyle made a reply to the present writer on the case of Julius Zanzig. In that reply the point was avoided and false issues raised. The point that mattered was that Sir Arthur claimed Zanzig as a genuine Psychic, but that Zanzig himself denied such a claim, and that so far from his show being possible only to his wife and himself, he was selling his method of Mind Reading, his "Original System which has baffled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir Oliver Lodge, the Society of Psychical Research, and others all over the world." Sir Arthur's reply to this was to say, that conjurors do not print books to teach the public the true secrets of their own mysteries, and that he possessed the codes himself. But that Mrs. Zanzig once told him that, above the codes, they used telepathy. Julius Zanzig has always denied that they accomplished their effects of so-called mind reading by any other than perfectly simple and natural methods. Whether conjurers tell the public about their illusions in books has nothing to do with the point at issue. He says that since the Daven ports were driven from the stage on account of their admission that their results were truly mediumistic, no member of the conjuring fraternity will make such a claim, whether he be psychic or not.
So we are to believe that Spirits are prepared to work wonders obligingly for the music hall performer twice nightly, and perhaps on matinees! Could anything be more absurd?
And we are to believe that they are afraid to let the public into their secret, otherwise the audiences would break up the show!
Houdini, who has gone to his grave, need never have gone behind curtains when he had his wrists fastened, he need never have had his box hidden from view, but he could have let the audience see the Spirits at work releasing him according to Sir Arthur. And this is 1927!
HENRY SARA.
