Under this title I comprehend not only those properly called jugglers,
who, for the sake of money, by quick and artful motions of their hands,
bodies, and limbs, and by various preparations, delude the senses in an
agreeable manner, or practise an innocent deception on the spectators,
so that they think they hear and see what they do not really hear and
see, but also rope-dancers; people who place their bodies in positions
according to all appearance dangerous; and those who for pay exhibit
animals taught to perform uncommon tricks, as well as automata, which
by their concealed construction seem to produce wonderful effects.
But is it worth while to inquire into the antiquity of all these arts,
unprofitable to the public, which form the favourite amusements of
the populace? The selfish question _cui bono_, which is often thrown
out by way of reproach to men of letters, but oftener to naturalists,
and even to jurists, when, in their researches, they advance beyond
the beaten track, I might easily get rid of by civilly telling the
querists to pass over this article if they think they are not likely to
derive benefit from it. I might also apologise for employing my time
and labour on this subject, by using the words of a certain historian:
“Frivola hæc fortassis cuipiam et nimis levia esse videantur, sed
curiositas nihil recusat.” I shall however adopt neither of these
methods; as I flatter myself that this essay may afford as much
amusement as many that are read daily; and that therefore it may not
only be excused, but even justified.
Those arts and employments which are most necessary in life were
undoubtedly the earliest, and they have still continued to be the most
important; but when these were sufficiently occupied, or carried on
by as many persons as could live by them, the rest, who were excluded
from them, conceived the idea of amusing the former when tired with
their labour, that by these means they might obtain from them a part of
the fruits of their industry. I request my readers to reflect how many
occupations have been devised for no other purpose. They will find that
several of these have acquired a pre-eminence over the necessary or
useful arts; and to the same class belong jugglers.
All political writers tell us, as a fundamental principle of
government, that population ought to be increased. This maxim however
is just only under certain circumstances; that is, when employment can
be procured to a greater number of inhabitants than a country already
possesses. Of beggars we have to maintain too many. All our trades and
occupations are not only filled up with workmen, but overflow. Our
farmers can employ no more labourers, and our manufacturers no more
hands than they have at present; our regiments are full; and in every
employment there are more candidates and more supernumeraries than is
consistent with the good of the public. Must it not therefore give us
pleasure, when necessity invents new means of acquiring a livelihood,
although they could be dispensed with? It is much better that those who
have learned no useful art; who have lost their youth in the service
of others; or who are destitute, through any other cause, should gain
their bread by amusing their fellow-citizens, than that they should
either beg or steal.
These arts are indeed not unprofitable, for they afford a comfortable
subsistence to those who practise them; but their gain is acquired
by too little labour to be hoarded up; and, in general, these roving
people spend on the spot the fruits of their ingenuity; which is an
additional reason why their stay in a place should be encouraged. I
have however known some who saved so much from their earnings, that,
in their old age, they were enabled to enter into some business more
certain as well as more profitable.
People of this description will never want encouragement and support
while they exhibit with confidence anything uncommon, and know how to
suit the nature of their amusements to the taste of the spectators.
The greater part of mankind love deception so much, that they reward
liberally those who impose on their senses, as is proved by the ready
sale of gilt articles, artificial gems, and a thousand other things
which are not in reality what they appear to be. I do not know whether
Montagne is right in considering it as a sign of the weakness of our
judgement, that we take a pleasure in beholding objects on account of
their rarity, novelty, or the difficulty that attends them, though they
may be subservient to no useful purpose[281]. This appears to me to
proceed from that innate curiosity which serves as a spur to incite us
to enlarge our knowledge, and to engage in researches and undertakings
that often lead to discoveries of greater importance.
Jugglers indeed seldom exhibit anything that can appear wonderful to
those acquainted with natural philosophy and mathematics; but these
even often find satisfaction in seeing truths already known to them
applied in a new manner; and they readily embrace every opportunity
of having them further illustrated by experiments. Many however are
too precipitate, and attempt to explain before they have sufficiently
examined, of which the golden tooth at the end of the sixteenth
century, the conjuring-rod at the end of the seventeenth, and the
chess-player and speaking-machine at the end of the eighteenth, may
serve as instances. But it often happens, that what ignorant persons
first employ, merely as a show, for amusement or deception, is
afterwards ennobled by being applied to a more important purpose. The
machine with which a Savoyard, by means of shadows, amused children
and the populace, was by Lieberkühn converted into a solar microscope;
and to give one example more, which may convince female readers, if
I can hope for such, the art of making ice in summer, or in a heated
oven, enables guests, much to the credit of their hostess, to cool the
most expensive dishes. The Indian discovers precious stones, and the
European, by polishing, gives them a lustre.
But if the arts of juggling served no other end than to amuse the most
ignorant of our citizens, it is proper that they should be encouraged
for the sake of those who cannot enjoy the more expensive deceptions
of an opera. They answer other purposes however than that of merely
amusing; they convey instruction in the most acceptable manner, and
serve as a most agreeable antidote to superstition, and to that popular
belief in miracles, exorcism, conjuration, sorcery, and witchcraft,
from which our ancestors suffered so severely. Wherever the vulgar were
astonished at the effects of shadows, electricity, mirrors, and the
magnet, interested persons endeavoured by these to frighten them; and
thus misapplied the powers of nature to promote their own advantage.
The pontiffs and their clergy ought, undoubtedly, to be detested for
discouraging experimental philosophy. That science they considered as a
formidable enemy; and they thought they gained no small advantage when
they induced the house of Medici, by granting it the cardinalship, to
suppress the Academy del Cimento. When Gasner exhibited his deceptions,
some one proposed to him to try his art at Berlin or Göttingen, and to
drive out there if it were only the smallest of all the devils; but
these cities were not theatres where he was likely to succeed, and he
never ventured to appear in them[282]. It is however better that the
populace, if they will absolutely pay for being deceived, should be
exposed to a momentary deception from jugglers than to a continual
deception from priests. As the former are not covered with the sacred
cloak of religion, their deceptions are more easily seen through and
detected; and they consequently soon cease to be hurtful. So late as
the year 1601, a horse, which had been taught to perform a number of
tricks, was tried, as possessed by the devil, and condemned to be
burnt[283]. At present horses of this kind are so often exhibited
publicly in the heretical countries of Europe, that the Spanish
Inquisition, perhaps, will soon be ashamed of considering such proofs
of the docility of these animals, and of the patient dexterity of their
teachers, as the work of the devil, as they did at the above period.
Those who view the art of the juggler in the same light as I do, will,
I hope, forgive me for introducing these observations, and allow me to
continue them while I inquire into the antiquity of this employment;
especially as I shall endeavour by these means to illustrate more fully
my subject.
Had that book which Celsus wrote against the Magi been preserved, we
should have been much better acquainted with the art of the ancient
conjurors or jugglers. This Celsus, without doubt, is the same author
whose virulent attack against the Christians was refuted by Origen; and
we have, therefore, greater cause to regret that a work on the above
subject, by so learned and acute a philosopher, should have been lost.
He is mentioned with respect by Lucian, and even by Origen; and the
former derived from him the account which he gives of Alexander the
impostor[284]. More ancient authors also wrote upon the same subject.
Some of them are mentioned by Diogenes Laërtius in his preface; and
Suidas quotes the Magicon of Antisthenes, though neither of these
speaks of Celsus; but of all those writings none are now extant.
The deception of breathing out flames, which at present excites in a
particular manner the astonishment of the ignorant, is very ancient.
When the slaves in Sicily, about a century and a half before our æra,
made a formidable insurrection, and avenged themselves in a cruel
manner for the severities which they had suffered, there was amongst
them a Syrian named Eunus[285], a man of great craft and courage, who,
having passed through many scenes of life, had become acquainted with
a variety of arts. He pretended to have immediate communication with
the gods; was the oracle and leader of his fellow-slaves; and, as is
usual on such occasions, confirmed his divine mission by miracles.
When, heated by enthusiasm and desirous of inspiring his followers
with courage, he breathed flames or sparks among them from his mouth
while he was addressing them. We are told by historians, that for
this purpose he pierced a nut-shell at both ends, and, having filled
it with some burning substance, put it into his mouth and breathed
through it. This deception, at present, is performed much better. The
juggler rolls together some flax or hemp, so as to form a ball about
the size of a walnut; sets it on fire; and suffers it to burn till it
is nearly consumed; he then rolls round it, while burning, some more
flax; and by these means the fire may be retained in it for a long
time. When he wishes to exhibit, he slips the ball unperceived into his
mouth and breathes through it; which again revives the fire, so that
a number of weak sparks proceed from it; and the performer sustains
no hurt, provided he inspire the air not through the mouth, but the
nostrils[286].
By this art the rabbi Bar-Cocheba, in the reign of the emperor Hadrian,
made the credulous Jews believe that he was the hoped-for Messias[287];
and two centuries after, the emperor Constantius was thrown into great
terror, when Valentinian informed him that he had seen one of the
body-guards breathing out fire and flames in the evening[288].
For deceptions with fire the ancients employed also naphtha, a liquid
mineral oil, which kindles when it only approaches a flame. Galen
informs us, that a person excited great astonishment by extinguishing
a candle and again lighting it, without any other process than holding
it immediately against a wall or a stone. The whole secret of this
consisted in having previously rubbed over the wall or stone with
sulphur. But as the author, a few lines before, speaks of a mixture of
sulphur and naphtha, there is reason to think that he alludes to the
same here. Plutarch[289] relates how Alexander the Great was astonished
and delighted with the secret effects of naphtha, which were exhibited
to him at Ecbatana. The same author, as well as Pliny, Galen, and
others, has already remarked, that the substance with which Medea
destroyed Creusa, the daughter of Creon, was nothing else than this
fine oil[290]. She sent to the unfortunate princess a dress besmeared
with it, which burst into flames as soon as she approached the fire of
the altar. The blood of Nessus, wherein the dress of Hercules, which
took fire likewise, had been dipped, was undoubtedly naphtha also[291];
and this oil must have been always employed when offerings caught fire
in an imperceptible manner[292]. In all periods of the world priests
have acted as jugglers to simple and ignorant people.
In modern times, persons who could walk over burning coals or red-hot
iron, or who could hold them in their hands and their teeth, have often
excited wonder. In the end of the seventeenth century, an Englishman,
named Richardson, who, as we are assured, could chew burning coals,
pour melted lead upon his tongue, swallow melted glass, &c., rendered
himself very famous by these extraordinary feats[293]. Laying aside the
deception[294] practised on the spectators, the whole of this secret
consists in rendering the skin of the soles of the feet and hands so
callous and insensible, that the nerves under them are secured from all
hurt, in the same manner as by shoes and gloves. Such callosity will
be produced if the skin is continually compressed, singed, pricked, or
injured in any other manner. Thus do the fingers of the industrious
sempstress become horny by being frequently pricked; and the case is
the same with the hands of fire-workers, and the feet of those who walk
bare-footed over scorching sand[295].
In the month of September, 1765, when I visited the copper-works at
Awestad, one of the workmen, for a little drink-money, took some of
the melted copper in his hand, and after showing it to us, threw it
against a wall[296]. He then squeezed the fingers of his horny hand
close to each other; put it a few minutes under his armpit, to make
it sweat, as he said; and, taking it again out, drew it over a ladle
filled with melted copper, some of which he skimmed off, and moved his
hand backwards and forwards, very quickly, by way of ostentation. While
I was viewing this performance, I remarked a smell like that of singed
horn or leather, though his hand was not burnt. The workmen at the
Swedish melting-houses showed the same thing to some travellers in the
seventeenth century; for Regnard saw it in 1681, at the copper-works
in Lapland. It is highly probable that the people who hold in their
hands red-hot iron, or who walk upon it, as I saw done at Amsterdam,
but at a distance, make their skin callous before, in the like manner.
This may be accomplished by frequently moistening it with oil of
vitriol; according to some the juice of certain plants will produce the
same effect; and we are assured by others that the skin must be very
frequently rubbed, for a long time, with oil, by which means, indeed,
leather also will become horny.
Of this art, traces may be found also in the works of the ancients.
A festival was held annually on Mount Soracte, in Etruria, at which
the Hirpi, who lived not far from Rome, jumped through burning coals;
and on this account they were indulged with peculiar privileges by
the Roman senate[297]. Women also, we are told, were accustomed to
walk over burning coals at Castabala in Cappadocia, near the temple
dedicated to Diana[298]. Servius remarks, from a work of Varro now
lost, that the Hirpi trusted not so much to their own sanctity as to
the care which they had taken to prepare their feet for that operation.
I am not acquainted with everything that concerns the trial by ordeal,
when persons accused were obliged to prove their innocence by holding
in their hands red-hot iron; but I am almost convinced that this also
was a juggling trick of the priests, which they employed as might
best suit their views. It is well known that this mode of exculpation
was allowed only to weak persons, who were unfit to wield arms, and
particularly to monks and ecclesiastics, to whom, for the sake of
their security, that by single combat was forbidden. The trial itself
took place in the church entirely under the inspection of the clergy;
mass was celebrated at the same time; the defendant and the iron were
consecrated by being sprinkled with holy water; the clergy made the
iron hot themselves; and they used all these preparatives, as jugglers
do many motions, only to divert the attention of the spectators. It
was necessary that the accused persons should remain at least three
days and three nights under their immediate care, and continue as long
after. They covered their hands both before and after the proof; sealed
and unsealed the covering: the former, as they pretended, to prevent
the hands from being prepared any how by art; and the latter to see if
they were burnt.
Some artificial preparation was therefore known, else no precautions
would have been necessary. It is highly probable that during the first
three days the preventive was applied to those persons whom they
wished to appear innocent; and that the three days after the trial
were requisite to let the hands resume their natural state. The sacred
sealing secured them from the examination of presumptuous unbelievers;
for to determine whether the hands were burnt, the last three days
were certainly not wanted. When the ordeal was abolished, and this
art rendered useless, the clergy no longer kept it a secret. In the
thirteenth century an account of it was published by Albertus Magnus,
a Dominican monk[299]. If his receipt be genuine, it seems to have
consisted rather in covering the hands with a kind of paste than in
hardening them. The sap of the _Althæa_ (marsh-mallow), the slimy seeds
of the flea-bane, which is still used for stiffening by the hat-makers
and silk-weavers, together with the white of an egg, were employed to
make the paste adhere; and by these means the hands were as safe as
if they had been secured by gloves. The use of this juggling trick is
very old, and may be traced back to a pagan origin. In the Antigone of
Sophocles, the guards placed over the body of Polynices, which had been
carried away and buried contrary to the orders of Creon, offered, in
order to prove their innocence, to submit to any trial: “We will,” said
they, “take up red-hot iron in our hands, or walk through fire[300].”
The exhibition of balls and cups, which is often mentioned in the
works of the ancients as the most common art of jugglers, is also of
great antiquity. It consists in conveying speedily and with great
dexterity, while the performer endeavours by various motions and cant
phrases to divert the attention of the simple spectators from observing
his movements too narrowly, several light balls, according to the
pleasure of any person in company, under one or more cups; removing
them sometimes from the whole; and conveying them again back in an
imperceptible manner. In general, three leaden cups are used, and as
many balls of cork; and to prevent all discovery by their slipping from
the thumbs of the juggler, or making a noise, as he must lay hold of
them with much quickness, the table before which he sits is covered
with a cloth.
These small balls were by the ancients called _calculi_; and the cups
_acetabula_, or _paropsides_. Casaubon[301] has already quoted most of
those passages in ancient authors which relate to this subject; and
they have been repeated by Bulenger[302]; but neither of these writers
makes mention of the fullest and clearest description given in the
letters of Alciphron[303]. We have there an account of a countryman who
came to town, and was conducted by a merchant to the theatre, where he
saw with great astonishment the exhibition of cups and balls. “Such an
animal,” says he, “as the performer I would not wish to have near me
in the country; for in his hands my property would soon disappear.”
The art of oratory, because it deceives the auditors, is frequently
compared to that of balls and cups. From the Latin word _gabata_,
mentioned by Martial, together with _paropsides_, the French have made
_gobelets_ and hence their common expressions _jouer des gobelets_, and
_joueur des gobelets_, which they use when speaking of jugglers.
In all ages of the world there have been men who excited great wonder
by extraordinary strength. Instances of this have been already
collected; but they do not belong to my present subject[304]. I can,
however, prove that above fifteen hundred years ago there were people
who, by applying a knowledge of the mechanical powers to their bodies,
performed feats which astonished every ignorant spectator; though it
is certain that any sound man of common strength could perform the
same by employing the like means. Of these one may say with Celsus,
“Neque hercule scientiam præcipuam habent hi, sed audaciam usu ipso
confirmatam.”
About the beginning of the last century, such a strong man, or Samson,
as he called himself, a native of Germany, travelled over almost all
Europe; and his pretended art has been mentioned by so many writers,
that we may conclude it had not been often exhibited before; and that
it was then considered as new. His name was John Charles von Eckeberg;
he was born at Harzgerode in Anhalt; and at that time was thirty-three
years of age. When he fixed himself between a couple of posts, on any
level place, two or more horses were not able to draw him from his
position; he could break ropes asunder, and lift a man up on his knee
while he lay extended on the ground. But what excited the greatest
astonishment was, that he suffered large stones to be broke on his
breast with a hammer, or a smith to forge iron on an anvil placed above
it.
This last feat was exhibited even in the third century, by Firmus or
Firmius, who, in the time of Aurelian, endeavoured to make himself
emperor in Egypt. He was a native of Seleucia in Syria; espoused the
cause of Zenobia, the celebrated queen of Palmyra; and was at length
executed publicly by order of the emperor Aurelian. It is of this
Firmus, and not of another, who a century after was overcome in Africa
by the father of the emperor Theodosius, that Vopiscus speaks where he
relates that he could suffer iron to be forged on an anvil placed on
his breast. For this purpose he lay on his back; but he put himself in
such a position, by resting with his feet and shoulders against some
support, that his whole body formed an arch; so that he seemed rather
to be suspended than to lie at full length[305]. This art, which is
explained and illustrated by Desaguliers[306] and Professor Kuhn[307]
of Dantzic, has now become so common that it is often exhibited without
occasioning much surprise.
In the works of the ancients, rope-dancers are frequently mentioned.
The passages where they occur have been collected by various authors,
though never completely; and I am inclined to think that those who have
seen many performers of this kind would be able to clear up some that
are obscure. I have seen many myself; but I have forgot the greater
part of what I observed; and there are other reasons also which prevent
me from undertaking that task: I dread the reproach of “multum agendo
nihil agis.” That I may not, however, pass over this subject entirely,
I shall present the reader with what follows[308]. We meet with
various appellations given to rope-dancers, which do not, as some have
imagined, point out different kinds, but allude only to new-invented
arts, leaps, or dexterities, which, while recommended by novelty, were
much wondered at, though they were afterwards imitated by all. To
these belong the _schœnobatæ_, _oribatæ_, _neurobatæ_, _petaminarii_,
_funambuli_, &c. Some of the ancient rope-dancers seem to have used
a balancing-pole, or at least to have had weights in their hands to
preserve an equipoise[309]. It is certain also that rope-dancers were
not wanting in the middle ages. In the year 1237 they were very common
in Italy[310]; and in 1393 there were some of them at Augsburg, who
exhibited their dexterity on the rope, and received from each spectator
three German halfpence[311].
To place men upon the shoulders of each other in such a manner that
every row consists of a man fewer, till they form a pyramid ending
in a single person, upon whose head a boy often stands with his feet
upwards, is likewise an ancient piece of dexterity. This exhibition
is varied many ways; and on that account it is difficult to form even
conjectures respecting it, especially as the description given of it by
a Roman poet is very unintelligible[312].
I am however still less acquainted with an art in which hoops
and wheels were employed by the _petauristæ_, who excited great
astonishment among the populace. The first part of the art may have
consisted in nothing more than the varied contortions and tumbling
which we still see practised by children trained for that purpose.
Cilano explains a well-known passage of Manilius, as if the performers
had darted through suspended iron hoops, made often red-hot. Of this
I entertain less doubt than how we ought to understand the _corpora
jactata petauro_ of Juvenal[313]; and the _corpora valido excussa
petauro_ of Manilius[314], which many have attempted to explain
already. At any rate this wheel was different from that upon which a
female dancer, as mentioned by Xenophon, wrote and read while it turned
round with great velocity[315].
The art of exhibiting various feats of horsemanship, which has been
practised so much in modern times, seems to have come first from the
East. At any rate, those performers in that way who, in the thirteenth
century, were at the Byzantine court, and who travelled all over
Europe, came from Egypt. They could stand on the horses when at a
gallop; mount and dismount while on full speed at the chase; tumble
on horseback, and do many other things equally extraordinary[316]. At
the end of the sixteenth century, an Italian, who had learned this art
while a slave in Turkey, went about exhibiting his dexterity in various
parts of Europe. Montagne saw him at Rome in 1581[317]; and the year
following he was at Paris[318]. Some of these feats were performed by
the ancient _desultores_.
Whether the ancients taught horses, dogs, birds, and other animals,
to perform various tricks which are frequently exhibited at present
for money, I do not know; but it is certain that what they made the
elephant, which undoubtedly is the most sagacious and tractable of all
animals, perform, exceeds everything yet known of the kind. Without
repeating what has been so often related, I shall only mention the
elephant which walked upon a rope backwards and forwards, as well as
up and down; and which Galba first caused to be shown to the Roman
people. After this, so much confidence was placed in the dexterity of
the animal, that a person sat on an elephant’s back while he walked
across the theatre upon a rope extended from the one side to the other.
Lipsius, who has collected the testimonies, thinks they are so strong
that they cannot be doubted[319].
The training of horses to obey a private signal, imperceptible to the
most attentive spectator, and to perform actions which appear, to
those unacquainted with the art, to display rational faculties, I have
never found mentioned in the works of the ancients. That the Sybarites
however taught their horses to dance to the sound of music, is asserted
by a variety of authors[320]. In the sixteenth century, dogs trained in
the like manner excited great wonder[321].
In the year 1766, an Englishman, named Wildman, made himself much
known by taming or training bees, in such a manner that they not only
followed him wherever he went, but settled even on his face and hands
without stinging him, and seemed as if obedient to his orders[322].
Some years after, a person who practised the like art, travelled about
through Germany, and gave himself out to be Wildman; but M. Riem
proved that he was not Wildman, and published the secret by which he
acquired so much power over these insects[323]. I cannot say whether
the ancients were acquainted with this art; but I shall here remark,
that it was known in the kingdom of Galam, at Senegal, a hundred years
before Wildman; for when Brue, a Frenchman, was there in 1698, he was
visited by a man who called himself the king of the bees[324]. “Let
his secret,” says that traveller, “consist in what it may, this much
is certain; that they followed him wherever he went, as sheep do their
shepherd. His whole body, and particularly his cap, was so covered with
them that they appeared like a swarm just settled. When he departed
they went along with him; for besides those on his body, he was
surrounded by thousands which always attended him[325].”
In modern times, persons destitute of arms and hands, or who have these
limbs formed very imperfectly, but who possess the art of supplying
that want by the use of their feet and toes, show themselves sometimes
for money; and as they entertain the spectators by exciting their
wonder, they deserve from them that support which they are not able to
obtain in any other manner. Instances of such people who had acquired
this art, have been very common within the last two centuries[326]; but
in the works of the ancients I have found only one. An Indian king,
named Porus, sent to the emperor Augustus an embassy with presents,
among which were some rare animals, and a man without arms, who with
his feet, however, could bend a bow; discharge arrows; and put a
trumpet to his mouth and blow it. Dio Cassius confesses that he did
not know how this was possible; but Strabo refers for his authority to
Nicolaus of Damascus, who saw all the presents as they passed through
Antioch[327]. Had this deformed person, whom Strabo compares to a
Hermes, travelled about, according to the modern practice, as a show,
he would have been better known, and in all probability his example
would have induced others to imitate his art[328]. Manilius says,
however, that there were people, who, in playing at ball, could use
their feet with as much dexterity as their hands, who could catch the
ball with them, and again throw it back; but the poet, perhaps, did not
allude to the small hand-ball, but to the large one which is struck
with the fist, and which may be stopped also by the foot. Besides, the
passage is read and explained different ways[329].
Figures or puppets, which appear to move of themselves, were employed
formerly to work miracles; but they could hardly be used for that
purpose at present in any catholic country of Europe, though they still
serve to amuse the vulgar. Among these are the _marionettes_[330],
as they are called, the different parts of which are put in motion
imperceptibly by a thread. Of a still more ingenious construction are
those which are moved by the turning of a cylinder, as is the case
in the machines with which some of the old miners in Germany earn a
livelihood; but the most ingenious of all are those which are kept
in continual movement for a certain time, by the help of wheels with
a weight or spring. The latter are called _automata_; and, when they
represent human figures, _androides_. Under the former general name are
comprehended our watches, the most useful of all, and also jacks[331],
with many others. The latter appellation is given to small puppets,
which, when their inner works have been wound up, run upon the table or
pavement, and as they advance move their head, eyes, and hands. They
have been exhibited sometimes under the name of _courrante Margarethe_,
which gave rise perhaps to the word _marionette_.
The proper _marionettes_ are very old. They were common among the
Greeks, and from them they were brought to the Romans. They were known
by the name of _neurospasta_, and were much used at their shows.
Aristotle speaks of some which moved their head, eyes, hands and limbs
in a very natural manner[332]. They are mentioned with equal precision
by Galen, Xenophon, Antoninus, Horace, Gellius, and others. To these
belong the _phalli_, which were carried round during the festivals of
Osiris and Bacchus, and of which one member only, that properly meant
by the name, and which was almost as large as the whole body, moved
upon certain threads being pulled[333]. Count Caylus has given an
engraving of the body of a small puppet, made of ivory or bone; but
he requires too much when he desires us to consider that fragment,
merely on his word, as a piece of Greek or Roman antiquity. He at least
ought to have informed us where it was found, and by what means he
procured it. In regard to such articles, it is as easy to deceive as
to be led into an error; and objects of bone are certainly of no great
duration[334].
The question concerning the antiquity of automata, properly so called,
which are moved by wheels, weights and springs, I shall leave to
those who have read the works of the ancient mathematicians, and who
may be desirous of writing on the history of mechanics. As far as I
know, the ancients were not acquainted with the art of making them,
unless some propositions of Ctesibius, mentioned by Vitruvius, allude
to that subject. When clocks were brought to perfection, some artists
added to them figures, which at the time of striking performed various
movements; and as they succeeded in these, some attempted to make,
detached from clocks, single figures, which either moved certain
limbs, or advanced forward and ran. In the middle of the sixteenth
century, when Hans Bullmann[335], a padlock-maker at Nuremberg,
constructed figures of men and women which moved backwards and forwards
by clock-work, beat a drum, and played on the lute according to musical
time, they excited universal astonishment as a new invention. It was
about the same period that watches came into use. The accounts however
which speak of much older automata deserve to be examined with more
attention.
The most ancient of all are undoubtedly the tripods constructed by
Vulcan[336], which being furnished with wheels, advanced forwards to be
used, and again returned to their places. But what was impossible to
the gods of Homer? An unbeliever might conjecture that these tripods,
which are mentioned also by Aristotle[337], and which perhaps were only
a kind of small tables or dumb-waiters, had wheels so contrived that
they could be put in motion and driven to a distance on the smallest
impulse, like the fire-pans in our country beer-houses, at which the
boors light their pipes.
That Dædalus made statues which could not only walk, but which it
was necessary to tie, in order that they might not move, is related
by Plato[338], Aristotle, and others. The latter speaks of a wooden
Venus, and remarks that the secret of its motion consisted in
quicksilver having been poured into it. What the author here means I
cannot comprehend; but I do not imagine that this Venus threw itself
topsy-turvy backwards, like the Chinese puppets. However this may
be, it is astonishing that the Chinese should have fallen upon the
invention of giving motion to puppets by means of quicksilver, and in
so ingenious a manner, that Muschenbroek[339] thought it worth his
while to describe their whole construction, and to illustrate it by
figures. But before this method was known in Europe, Kircher had an
idea of putting a small waggon in motion by adding to it a pipe filled
with quicksilver, and heating it with a candle placed below it[340].
The account of Aristotle is more mysterious, for he does not inform us
how the quicksilver acted.
Callistratus, another writer, who was the tutor of Demosthenes, gives
us to understand that the statues of Dædalus were made to move by the
mechanical powers[341]. But what has been asserted by Palæphatus, and
by Gedoyn[342], Banier, Goguet, and others among the moderns, is most
probable. The first statues of the Greeks were imitations of those
of the Egyptians, for the most part clumsy figures, with their eyes
shut, their arms hanging down close to the body on each side, and their
feet joined together. Those made by Dædalus had their eyes open, as
well as their feet and hands free; and the artist gave them such a
posture, that they seemed either reclining, or appeared as if ready
to walk or to run. As Anacreon[343], struck with wonder, exclaimed
when he saw a waxen image of his favourite object, “Begone, wax, thou
wilt soon speak!” the astonished Greeks in like manner cried out, when
they beheld the statues of Dædalus, “They will soon walk.” The next
generation affirmed that they really walked; and their posterity,
adding still to what was told them, asserted that they would have run
had they not been bound.
Equally imperfect is the account given of the wooden pigeon constructed
by Archytas of Tarentum. We are informed that it flew; but when it
had once settled, it could not again take flight. The latter is not
incredible; but even if we allow that aërostatic machines were then
known, it is impossible to believe the former. At present one cannot
determine with any probability, what piece of mechanism gave rise to
this relation[344]. The head of Albertus Magnus, which is said not only
to have moved, but to have spoken, is too little known for any opinion
to be formed concerning it. The construction of it must have been very
ingenious and complex, if it be true that he was employed upon it
thirty years[345].
In the fourteenth and following centuries, automata, as I have said,
were frequently made. Among these was the iron fly of John Müller or
Molitor, or, as he is sometimes called, Regiomontanus, which is said
to have flown about; and his artificial eagle, which flew to meet the
Emperor Maximilian on his arrival at Nuremberg, June the 7th, 1470.
None of the contemporary writers, however, though they often speak
of this very learned man, make the least mention of these pieces of
mechanism; and it is probable that the whole tale originated with
Peter Ramus[346], who never was at Nuremberg till the year 1571. J. W.
Baier[347] endeavours to prove that the above-mentioned fly, moved by
wheel-work, leaped about upon a table; and that the eagle perched upon
the town-gate, stretched out its wings on the emperor’s approach, and
saluted him by an inclination of its body. We know that Charles V.,
after his abdication, amused himself during the latter period of his
life with automata of various kinds[348].
The most ingenious, or at least the most celebrated automata, were
those made by Vaucanson, which he exhibited publicly at Paris, for the
first time, in 1738. One of them, which represented a flute-player
sitting, performed twelve tunes, and, as we are assured, by wind
issuing from its mouth into a German-flute, the holes of which it
opened and shut with its fingers. The second was a standing figure,
which in the like manner played on the Provençal shepherd’s pipe, held
in its left hand, and with the right beat upon a drum or _tambour de
Basque_. The third was a duck, of the natural size, which moved its
wings, exhibited all the gestures of that animal, quacked like a duck,
drank water, ate corn, and then after a little time let drop behind it
something that resembled the excrement of a duck[349]. These pieces
must have been often imitated. I saw some of the like kind in the year
1764, at the palace of Zarsko-Selo, near Petersburg, and was told that
they had been purchased from Vaucanson[350]. As far as I can remember,
the tambourin was damaged. I saw there also a regiment of soldiers,
which went through their exercise, moved by wheel-work[351].
In the year 1752, one Du Moulin, a silversmith, travelled about through
Germany with automata like those of Vaucanson. In 1754, he wished to
dispose of them to the margrave of Bayreuth; but he was obliged to
pawn them in Nuremberg, at the house of Pfluger, who offered to sell
them for 3000 florins, the sum lent upon them. They were afterwards
purchased by counsellor Beireis, at Helmstadt, who kindly showed them
to me. It is much to be regretted that the machinery of them is greatly
deranged; the flute-player emits only some very faint tones; but the
duck eats, drinks, and moves still. The ribs, which are of wire, had
been covered with duck’s feathers, so as to imitate nature; and as
these are now lost, one can see better the interior construction;
respecting which I shall only observe, that the motion is communicated
by means of a cylinder and fine chains, like that of a watch, all
proceeding through the feet of the duck, which are of the usual size.
Nicolai[352] says that Du Moulin came to Petersburg in 1755, and died
at Moscow in 1765. It is probable that he made the automata which I
saw in Russia. Those which he left behind him at Nuremberg seem either
not to have been completed, or to have been designedly spoiled by him;
for they appeared to have defects which could not be ascribed to any
accident. M. Beireis however has begun to cause them to be repaired.
Of all these automata, the duck I confess appeared to me the most
ingenious; but I can prove that like pieces of mechanism were made
before the time of Vaucanson. We are told by Labat[353], that the
French general De Gennes, who, about the year 1688, defended the
colony of St. Christopher against the English, constructed a peacock
which could walk about, pick up from the ground corn thrown before
it, digest it, according to appearance, and afterwards drop something
that resembled excrement. This man was of an ancient noble family in
Brittany, which had however been so reduced, that the father carried on
a handicraft. The son became acquainted with the marquis de Vivonne,
who, on account of his promising talents, bred him to the sea. He
rose to be commander of a vessel, conducted a squadron to the Straits
of Magellan, where it was intended to form a colony, and obtained in
Cayenne a tract of land, which he got erected into a county, under
the name of Oyac. He invented machines of various kinds useful in
navigation and gunnery, and, as we are told, constructed clocks that
moved without weights or springs.
The flute-player also of Vaucanson was not the first of its kind. In
the beginning of the sixteenth century, the anonymous author of that
well-known poem Zodiacus Vitæ, saw at Rome a figure made in the like
manner by a potter. It is much to be regretted that no account is given
of its construction.
Vidi ego dum Romæ, decimo regnante Leone,
Essem, opus a figulo factum, juvenisque figuram,
Efflantem angusto validum ventum oris hiatu[354].
I shall here beg leave to say a few words respecting an object of
juggling, which, however old it may be, still excites astonishment, and
has often imposed upon the credulity of men of learning[355]: I mean
those speaking machines, which, according to appearance, answer various
questions proposed to them, sometimes in different languages, sing,
and even blow a huntsman’s horn. The figure, or only a head, is often
placed upon a box, the forepart of which, for the better deception, is
filled with a pair of bellows, a sounding-board, cylinder, and pipes,
supposed to represent the organs of speech. At other times the machine
is only like a peruke-maker’s block, hung round with a Turkish dress,
furnished with a pair of arms, and placed before a table, and sometimes
the puppet stands upon the table, or against a wall. The sounds are
heard through a speaking-trumpet, which the figure holds in its mouth.
Many jugglers are so impudent as to assert that the voice does not
proceed from a man, but is produced by machinery, in the same manner
as the music of an organ. Some, like the last whom I saw, are more
modest or timorous, and give evasive answers to the questions asked
them respecting the cause of the voice, with as much art as those
who exhibit with balls and cups. Concerning these speaking machines,
however, different opinions are entertained. Some affirm that the
voice issues from the machine; others, that the juggler answers
himself, by speaking as ventriloquists do, or by having the power to
alter his voice; and some believe that the answers are given by a
man somewhere concealed. The violence with which these opinions are
maintained exposes the juggler often to the danger of losing his life;
for, when the illusion is detected, the populace, who in part suffer
themselves willingly to be deceived, and who even pay the juggler for
his deception, imagine that they have a right to avenge themselves for
being imposed on. The machines are sometimes broken; and the owners of
them are harshly treated as impostors. For my part, I do not see why a
juggler, with a speaking machine, is a more culpable impostor than he
who pretends to breathe out flames and to swallow boiling oil, or to
make puppets speak, as in the Chinese shadows. The spectators pay for
the pleasure which they receive from a well-concealed deception, and
with greater satisfaction the more difficult it is for them to discover
it. But the person who speaks or sings through a puppet, is so well
hid, that people of considerable penetration have imagined that such
concealment was impossible. At present this art is well known.
Either a child or a woman is concealed in the juggler’s box; or some
person, placed in a neighbouring apartment, speaks into the end of a
pipe which proceeds through the wall to the puppet, and which conveys
the answers to the spectators. The juggler gives every necessary
assistance to the person by signs previously agreed on. I was once
shown, in company with M. Stock, upon promising secrecy, the assistant
in another apartment, standing before the pipe, with a card in his hand
on which the signs were marked; and he had been brought into the house
so privately that the landlady was ignorant of the circumstance. The
juggler, however, acknowledged that he did not exhibit without fear;
and that he would not venture to stay long at a place like Göttingen,
or to return with his Turks, though the populace were so civil as to
permit him to depart peaceably with what he had gained.
The invention of causing statues to speak by this method seems so
simple, that one can scarcely help conjecturing that it was employed in
the earliest periods to support superstition; and many have imagined
that the greater part of the oracles spoke in the same manner[356].
This, however, is false, as has been proved by the Jesuit Baltus,
and the anonymous author of a Reply to Fontenelle’s History of
Oracles[357]. It appears that the pagan priests, like our jugglers,
were afraid that their deceptions, if long practised, might be
discovered. They considered it therefore as more secure to deliver the
answers themselves; or cause them to be delivered by women instructed
for that purpose, or by writing, or by any other means. We read,
nevertheless, that idols[358] and the images of saints once spoke; for
at present the latter will not venture to open their mouths. If their
votaries ever really heard a voice proceed from the statue, it may have
been produced in the before-mentioned manner.
Whether the head of Orpheus spoke in the island of Lesbos, or, what
is more probable, the answers were conveyed to it by the priests,
as was the case with the tripod at Delphi, cannot with certainty be
determined. That the impostor Alexander, however, caused his Æsculapius
to speak in this manner, is expressly related by Lucian[359]. He
took, says that author, instead of a pipe, the gullet of a crane, and
transmitted the voice through it to the mouth of the statue. In the
fourth century, when bishop Theophilus broke to pieces the statues
at Alexandria, he found some which were hollow, and placed in such a
manner against a wall that a priest could slip unperceived behind them,
and speak to the ignorant populace through their mouths[360]. I am
acquainted with a passage which seems to imply that Cassiodorus, who,
it is well known, constructed various pieces of mechanism, made also
speaking machines; but I must confess that I do not think I understand
the words perfectly[361].
That people ventured more than a hundred years ago to exhibit speaking
machines for money, has been proved by Reitz in his annotations
to Lucian, where he produces the instance of one Thomas Irson, an
Englishman, whom he himself knew, and whose art excited much wonder in
king Charles II. and his whole court. When the astonishment, however,
became general, one of the pages discovered, in the adjoining chamber,
a popish priest who answered in the same language, through a pipe, the
questions proposed to the wooden head by whispering into its ear. This
deception Irson often related himself[362].
I shall now add only a few observations respecting the Chinese shadows,
which I have occasionally mentioned before. This ingenious amusement
consists in moving, by pegs fastened to them, small figures cut out of
pasteboard, the joints of which are all pliable, behind a piece of fine
painted gauze placed before an opening in a curtain, in such a manner
as to exhibit various scenes, according to pleasure; while the opening
covered with gauze is illuminated, towards the apartment where the
spectators sit, by means of light reflected back from a mirror; so that
the shadows of the pegs are concealed. When it is requisite to cause
a figure to perform a variety of movements, it is necessary to have
several persons, who must be exceedingly expert. When a snake is to be
represented gliding, the figure, which consists of delicate rings, must
be directed at least by three assistants.
This amusement, which one can hardly see the first time without
pleasure, is really a Chinese invention. Many years ago, I have seen
Chinese boxes on which such moveable figures were apparent only when
the box was held against the light. In China, these shadows are used
at the well-known feast of lanterns; and a description of them may be
found in the works of some travellers. That they were common also in
Egypt, we are informed by Prosper Alpinus[363], who admired them much;
but he was not able to discover the method by which they were produced,
as it was kept a secret. I was told by an Italian, who exhibited them
at Göttingen some years ago, that they were first imitated, from the
Chinese, at Bologna.