Fighting Ghosts, Playing Whist, and Fencing with Fire: Three Technologies of Illusion in Performance in Nineteenth-Century London by Sarah Rachel Kriger A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto © Copyright by Sarah Rachel Kriger 2012 Fighting Ghosts, Playing Whist, and Fencing with Fire: Three Technologies of Illusion in Performance in Nineteenth-Century London Sarah Rachel Kriger Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto 2012 Abstract Technologies of illusion are technologies used to evoke an emotional response in an audience by producing an effect that seems to violate the laws of physics; for example, conjuring apparatuses and special effects are technologies of illusion. Traditional histories suggest that audience members value technologies of illusion for their mystery: when they understand the mechanism responsible for an effect, they lose interest in that technology. This view is empirically unsupported. Instead, technologies of illusion should be considered not as apparent violations of nature but as representations of violations of nature. Like all representations, their effectiveness hinges not on the deception of the audience by the performer but on collaboration between both parties to establish the illusion within the socio-cultural contexts that give it meaning. The analysis of three case studies, each of which embodies one of the main fields in which technologies of illusion were used in performance in nineteenth-century London, supports this understanding. The ghost illusion jointly developed by Henry Dircks and John Henry Pepper in 1862 and presented by the latter at the Royal Polytechnic Institution is representative of technologies of illusion used in popular-science demonstrations. Likewise, the card-playing ii pseudo-automaton Psycho developed by conjuror J. N. Maskelyne in 1875 is representative of technologies of illusion used in performances of secular magic, and the electric sword duel in Sir Henry Irving’s 1885 production of Faust is representative of technologies of illusion used to produce theatrical spectacle. Microhistories of each technology based on primary sources and informed by tacit knowledge gained through performance experiments demonstrate that secrecy of mechanism alone did not guarantee popular acclaim. Despite widespread knowledge of the mechanisms responsible for each illusion, these performers worked with their audiences within the conventions of their respective fields to construct meaning for their effects and achieve success for each technology. iii Acknowledgments To write this dissertation, I was dependent first and foremost on the excellent guidance and suggestions of my supervisor Dr. Janis Langins, and the helpful advice and criticisms of my thesis committee, Dr. Bert Hall, Dr. Brian Baigrie, and Prof. Stephen Johnson. I also owe thanks to my defense committee member Dr. Lucia Dacome and my external examiner, Dr. Tim Fort, for their feedback and suggestions. All them have been very patient with this interdisciplinary project and its author, who came to history of technology from an unusual background, and they and my defense committee chair, Dr. Andrew Baines, have also spared no exertion to help me complete my work within my projected timeline. At the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Institute, especially Denise Horsley, Muna Salloum, and IHPST director Dr. Craig Fraser, for their support and help. Thanks also to Dr. Mark Solovey, for his interest in conjuring, and to my fellow graduate students for illuminating collaboration, reassuring commiseration, shared triumphs, and many happy games of softball and volleyball. At the Centre for the Drama, Theatre and Performance Studies, I would like to thank Dr. Paul Stoesser in particular for his generosity with his time, knowledge, and resources during the project to reanimate Pepper’s Ghost. I would also like to thank those without whom the project would not have been possible, including Teo Balcu, Justin Blum, Becky Bridger, Dr. T. Nikki Cesare, Gabrielle Houle, Matt Jones, Laura Ann Lucci, Luella Massey, Alex McLean, and Kelsy Vivash, as well as those of all affiliations who worked on or who attended the Pepper’s Ghost demonstration of January 2012, and all those with whom I was privileged to work on the Halloween Vaudevilles of fall 2009. I could not have completed my research without the funding I received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Program, and the University of Toronto. I am also grateful to the staff of the many archives and museums whose collections I visited, who were munificent with their time and knowledge: Alexis Lynne Pavenick of the Conjuring Arts Research Centre, New York; the staff of the New York Public Library; Julia Hoffbrand and the staff of the Museum of London; Peter Lane, David Hibberd, Lionel Russell, Scott Penrose, and iv the rest of the magicians and scholars of magic who welcomed me at the Magic Circle, London; Elaine Penn and the staff of the Royal Polytechnic Institution archives at the University of Westminster; the staff at the Theatre and Performance Collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum; and, last but not least and certainly closest to home, the staff of the Toronto Reference Library and the Osborne Collection of Early Children’s Books at the Toronto Public Library. I could not have learned from an adapted reconstruction of the Maskelyne cabinet without the hard work and resources of the members of the Socratic Theatre Collective, especially its artistic director Elizabeth Bragg, who supported the project despite the havoc it wrought on the production schedule. Thanks also to those who helped to build the cabinet, including Reid Brennan, Dave Heppenstall, Amanda O’Halloran, and Laura Vincent, and to those who incorporated it into their performances, including Mercy Cherian, Erin Hamilton, Lucas James, Melody Schaal, and Anne Wagner. I also owe tremendous thanks to Dr. Judith Fisher, for introducing me to theatre history, directing me to many invaluable sources, sharing her personal photographs, and giving liberally of her time to provide feedback; to Joe Culpepper and Prof. John Mayberry, for their helpful magic- related discussions, for allowing me to observe the production of their performance project “The Sphinx,” and for introducing me to useful sources; to Dr. Alan Ackerman, for familiarizing me with many helpful concepts in the course of my research-assistantship; to Dr. Bernard Lightman, for pointing me toward some useful Victorian databases; to Brendan Cohen, for allowing me to read his Master’s thesis; to Allan Olley and Davina Desroches, who both brought contemporary popular sources to my attention; to Ari Gross, Erich Weidehhammer, Dr. David Pantalony, and the rest of the UTSIC team for helping me learn how to incorporate material history into my research; to Juliana Brown for giving me the opportunity to experience popular science firsthand as an elementary-school science-fair judge; to Diana Royce for introducing me to the conjuring work of Derren Brown; and to Ryan Marotta, for pointing out the similarities between modern fencing scoring systems and Irving’s electric duel apparatus. Finally, thanks to all my numerous family and friends, in Toronto and abroad, for their continued support. Thanks in particular to my late aunt, Dr. Diane Kriger, whose journey through academia inspired my own; to my late grandfather, Akiva Kriger, for the value he placed on continuing v education; and to my parents, David and Susan Kriger, and my sister, Debra Kriger, for their encouragement and love. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... vii List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Terminology ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 5 1.2.1 Historians of science and technology ..................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Historians of theatre ................................................................................................ 8 1.2.3 Historians of magic ............................................................................................... 10 1.3 The importance of technologies of illusion ...................................................................... 14 1.4 Methodological challenges ............................................................................................... 16 1.5 The case studies ................................................................................................................ 23 1.5.1 John Henry Pepper and the