March, 1844.

My dear Friend,

You may have heard of a famous magician in this famous city of Cairo, who, though not supposed to be possessed of art equal to that of Pharaoh’s wise men and sorcerers, has perplexed and confounded several of the most intelligent travellers, by feats very nearly resembling that performed by the Witch of Endor at the request of Saul. Having inscribed a magic square upon the palm of the right hand of any young boy or girl, and poured into the centre of it a little pool of ink, he pretends by means of the repetition of certain invocations to two spirits, and by burning some small strips of paper inscribed with similar invocations, in a chafing-dish containing live coals sprinkled with frankincense and coriander-seed, or other perfume, to make the boy see in this pool of ink the image of any person, living or dead, called for by his employer. My brother has fully described his performances as witnessed by himself and several other travellers more than ten years ago; the performances of which he was himself witness were not altogether inexplicable, for some of the persons called for were not unknown to fame, and the correct description of others might have been the result of mere guessing; but the facts which he has related on the testimony of others have induced several persons whom I could name to believe them the effects of supernatural agency. The supposed mystery, however, my brother thinks he can now explain, at least so far as to satisfy any reasonable person respecting most, if not all, of the most surprising of the feats to which I have alluded. (See Appendix.)

A few weeks ago, he was requested by two English travellers, Lord N. and Major G., to witness the performances of this magician, and to act as interpreter on the occasion, in order that they might feel themselves secure from any collusion. But I must give you his own account of the exposure which this request occasioned.

“I was unwilling,” he said, “to accede to the proposal made to me, and expressed a reluctance to do so; but I am glad that I at last consented. The magician tried with two boys, and with both of them he utterly failed in every case. His excuse was, that the boys were liars, and described the objects which they saw otherwise than as they appeared to them; that the feats were performed not by his own means alone, and that he was not secure from being imposed upon by others. Now if we admit that there is still such a thing as real magic, and we know from the Bible such was once the case, we must allow that by occasional failures this man does not show that he is not a true magician, as long as he employs an agent, upon whose veracity and particular qualifications he asserts the success of his performances to depend. Partly, perhaps, from feelings of mortification, and partly with the view of upholding his reputation by urging what he had done on former occasions, he remarked to me that he was successful in the days of ’OsmÁn Efendee, and that since the death of that person he had been unfortunate.

“This was indeed, for him, a most unfortunate remark. The inference to be drawn from it, that the person whom he named was the main spring of his machinery, was inevitable, more especially when I considered, that in all the instances of his surprising success of which I had heard, this person served as the interpreter; and when I further reflected, that since his death, which took place nearly nine years ago, hundreds of persons had witnessed the performances of this magician, and I had been assured that his successes had been such as could not be said to be even the results of lucky guesses or mere accident, for he had almost always failed. I was at first unwilling to believe that a person whom I always regarded as an honest man, and whom I knew to have been possessed of many excellent qualities, had consented to be a means of imposition; and I remembered that, in the performances which I had myself witnessed, I ascertained that he gave no direction either by word or sign; that he was generally unacquainted in these instances with the personal appearance of the individual called for; that I took care that he should have no previous communication with the boys; and that I had seen the experiment fail when he could have given directions to them or to the magician. But the inferences to be derived from these circumstances, in favour of the magician, are surely outweighed by the facts which I have mentioned, resting not only upon the assertions of others, but also upon his own confession. ’OsmÁn perhaps considered it a light matter to practise such an artifice as that which is thus imputed to him, and perhaps was unwilling to practise it upon me, or feared my detecting him if he attempted to do so. Besides, if many of the performances of the magician had not been far more surprising than those which I witnessed, he would have gained but little notoriety. I satisfied myself that the boy employed in a case which I have mentioned in my work on the ‘Modern Egyptians,’ was not prompted for the part he played, by my having chosen him from a number of others passing by in the street; and I also felt satisfied that the images which he and another boy professed to have seen, were by some means produced in the ink by the magician, in consequence of their refusal to accept presents which I offered them, with the view of inducing them to confess that they did not really see what they proposed to have seen. As to the former point, I was doubtless right; but as to the latter, I now feel that I was deceived. I believe that the boys saw nothing, and that, having deceived me, they feared to confess the truth. Another difficulty, however, lies in the way of the explanation which I have proposed; two travellers (one of them M. Leon Delaborde, the other an Englishman), both instructed by the magician of whom I am speaking, are stated to have succeeded in performing similar feats. But is it not almost certain, after what I have said, that those feats were accomplished by means of the suggestions of the interpreter or interpreters? Perhaps the same person who interpreted in other cases which excited so much surprise did so in those also.

“I have stated all that I can for and against the magician, and leave it for others to decide upon the case. For myself, I am satisfied that his successes are to be attributed chiefly to the interpreter, but partly also to leading questions, and partly to mere guessing. Let us consider these three means as employed in one of the most remarkable cases. A number of individuals being called for, most of them (perhaps all), are correctly described. With the personal appearance of many of these individuals the interpreter is acquainted, and he is therefore able to suggest to the boy what he should say. When he has had no previous knowledge of the peculiarities of the appearance of a person called for, it has often happened that he has acquired such knowledge during the performance. One of the company, for instance, saying that he will call for such a person, adding that he is remarkable in such and such respects. When the first means cannot be employed, much may be done by the second, that is, by leading questions. When a person having but one leg, or one leg shorter than another, is called for, he is perhaps vaguely described, and the boy is in consequence asked if there is any thing peculiar in his legs: this question suggests to him that there is some peculiarity in his legs, and he probably ventures to say that he can only see one leg, then if this be unsatisfactory, he may add the person has turned round, and that he sees him to be lame. The third means (guessing) without the others is not likely to be of much service; but with them it may help to supply trifling deficiencies, and when the guessing is wrong respecting a trifling matter, his error is considered trifling; but when he is right, his description is often considered striking for its minute accuracy.

“The last performances of this magician in my presence were ridiculous for their complete want of success. A woman was described as a man, a tall person as short or middle-sized, the very old as of a middle age, and so on. Two boys were employed; one was very stupid and appeared much frightened, the other seemed accustomed to the performance.”

A friend has just described to me the latest performance of the magician, and you can hardly conceive any thing more unfortunate and absurd. He had been sent for to gratify the curiosity of a party of English travellers at the French Hotel, a frequent scene of his impositions, where he often finds a boy ready to be employed by him, familiar with his tricks, and an interpreter disposed to aid his deceptions. A donkey-boy was sent for; and after the usual preparations, Lord Auckland was named as the first person whose image was to be presented to the boy, in the mirror of ink. He was merely described as short and thin. O’Connell was next represented as short and thin, dressed in white, young, without a beard wearing a white hat with a handkerchief tied round it (like a Frank endeavouring to preserve his head from the heat of an Egyptian summer sun), and having only one hand. Several other persons were called for, relations of individuals present, with various success; and much laughter was occasioned, which made the magician accuse the boy of not telling what he saw. Another boy was sent for; and he seemed to have been employed previously: sometimes he got on before the magician. After many ridiculous failures, the Prince of Wales was described with white hair, yellow beard, black coat, and white trousers. (Beards, I should tell you are worn here by many European travellers.) The party agreed not to laugh; and the names of persons present were given as those of individuals whose images were required to appear. Sometimes the image described was right in being tall, but wrong in being fat: right as to coat, but wrong as to trousers: just as you would expect in cases of guessing. Five dollars were put upon a chair before the magician; but he had the presence of mind to wait for more, which, I believe, he received. I assure you he reaps a fine harvest from the pockets of travellers.

If you wish to know what the performances of this man were in earlier times, in the most remarkable instances, read an account of them in No. 117 of the “Quarterly Review;” and especially a note there, following the remarks of the reviewer. You will see, from what is there stated, that the subject was deemed worthy of serious consideration, and that a discovery of the means employed by the magician, which were thought to be of a very ingenious kind, was regarded as an interesting desideratum. That these means were not merely leading questions, and the like, as a late writer has suggested, is evident when we reflect that the magician is not known to have been even generally successful on any single occasion since the death of the interpreter ’OsmÁn, and it is not likely that intelligent travellers (of whom many might be named) would have been at a loss for the explanation, if such means would have sufficed.

One further remark I must make on this subject. If we give to some persons that credit which they are believed to deserve, we must admit that excited imagination, in the child employed as an agent in the deception, has sometimes produced images in the mirror of ink; but these images have been always such as the child expected to see. The successful performances have been supposed, by some, to have been effected by means of mesmerism; and some have attributed them to diabolical agency. As the grandest discoveries in science are often the most simple, so what appears to us at first most unaccountable is often capable of the most simple solution.