THE foregoing peeps into the past history, which I have had the privilege of culling from Mr. Sidney Clarke's investigations of the subject, seem to me to prove one thing very clearly: that magicians are not a very inventive race. It appears that they have used almost the same material since the beginning, and that conjurer after conjurer has rung the changes upon the basic tricks of his predecessors.

What, then, of the present position of conjuring? it seems to me to lack one thing that the forerunners had in abundance: the "atmosphere" of mystery, without which no conjuring is really convincing.

The old-time conjurers were all personalities--either personalities built up with sheer artistry, or personalities due to the character of the individual. Nowadays we have a great many more conjurers and few outstanding leaders. One advantage undoubtedly conjuring has gained is that it is now recognized as an intellectual amusement or recreation, and has made immense strides in social recognition.

This, no doubt, is due in great measure to the literature on the subject, which has increased enormously of late years. There are cheap textbooks which broadcast magical methods and secrets; there are regular monthly magazines, such as the Sphinx, the Magician, and quarterly magazines, such as the Magic Wand, which perform a similar service.

Also in most countries there are societies of conjurers, such as the Magic Circle and the Magicians' Club in England, the Society of American Magicians, with headquarters in New York and affiliated societies in many of the other States; and the Magic Circle also has numerous prominent societies affiliated with it.

The members of these societies all have some interest in conjuring--they help to elevate the art--but I am afraid they disseminate its secrets too quickly. They are so constantly showing them to each other and talking about them that the secret is apt to become valueless in too short a time.

The cumulative effect of this is to rob a trick or illusion of its mystery. Perhaps the modern performer is under the false impression that there is no time to create an "atmosphere" of mystery nowadays. At all events some of them present their tricks in such rapid succession as to simply bewilder the spectator; while others do very few tricks, being content to fill up with a lot of "patter".

In either case this is disappointing to the public. In the first place the spectator is disappointed because he cannot assimilate what is put before him, and therefore gets no magic, only a bewildered sense of having seen a lot of puzzles so quickly presented that he could not describe one of them. In the second instance he feels cheated because he expected to see "magic", and is obliged to witness a long performance by a comedian.

Again, it may be that the scientific achievements of the age have become superior to magic. I refer to such modern miracles as the wireless, X-rays, aviation, and the cinema. In my opinion, however, magic will hold its own with any scientific marvel if properly presented with the necessary atmosphere of mystery.

Even the greatest scientists have been puzzled by magic properly presented, because it is an entirely new field to them, and cannot be approached from the angle to which they are accustomed.

Only the other day I noticed an article in an evening paper describing a gathering of magicians, in which the critic described the performers as "leg-pullers" and deplored that the air of "mystery" was lacking. There seems to me to be too much of this sort of performance. Performances that only give that impression to the public are regrettable.

There appears, too, to be a tendency nowadays to commercialize tricks. Anyone can walk into a big store and see tricks and their secrets freely displayed by an assistant who may be demonstrating to a customer. He takes no care to conceal the secret from other onlookers, who are simply, perhaps, passing through the department without any intention of buying tricks, or any thought of them.

This inevitably tends to give the public the impression that conjuring tricks are like puzzles which can be bought at tea-time and presented with great success after dinner. They take them home, and, of course, make a hopeless mess of them. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the entertainment line that requires more careful rehearsal than a conjuring trick. Even the most self-contained mechanical tricks require well-planned presentation.

First it has to be rehearsed in detail to know how to handle the apparatus to the best advantage. Having done that, one has to sit down and write the words of the play as it were; even if it is to be performed in silence there is a certain amount of acting to be arranged for. Unless certain "business" is arranged a trick will always fall flat.

Having arranged or written the "business", or patter, the conjurer has to learn his part as an actor. The action must suit the words in every detail, and the whole thing has to be carefully rehearsed. Only by this means, in my opinion, can you give the perfect performance which appears both spontaneous and easy.

We can see by reading the past history of conjuring how rare a new trick is. In the old days when such a trick was discovered the secret was jealously guarded by a few; now it is seized upon by some dealer and advertised like somebody's pills, bought by amateur conjurers all the world over, and performed here, there, and everywhere in an incomplete way without any attempt at proper dramatic setting. Even if a professional conjurer does produce it and give it its due value, it is so hackneyed by the untrained performers that it too becomes stale and voted "old".

The amateur is too apt to think when he buys a trick that he can pull the string and the figure will work. This does not happen in the case of a book which instructs him how to do a trick. He has to practise more or less to understand the method, which is good discipline and saves him from being a mere exhibitor of tricks which appear to the audience like puzzles and make no lasting impression upon their minds.

Perhaps the most beautiful thing in the universe is harmony, or unity. A perfect work of art is one harmonious whole. This perfect result cannot be obtained in any haphazard method; it must all be arranged. Once complete, it cannot be broken in any part without destroying the whole structure; one part must support another and must dovetail in so perfectly that it is impossible to tell them apart. The plan must be perfectly conceived and carried out.

It is a popular mistake to think that the mere manipulation is conjuring; conjuring is a little play in itself, and the actor playing the part of the conjurer must be suited to the part exactly. It must not be presented too quickly, which is bewildering; or too slowly, which is boring. The performer must choose the middle course, and then both he and his audience will be in harmony.

I should like it to be clearly understood, however, that I welcome the amateur. Amateurs are a great blessing to any art, but the very nature of magic makes it an art to be practised in secret, not broadcast and discussed with all one's friends. The air of "mystery" must be maintained or surely magic will die.

I would plead with magical societies to pay more attention to producing the entertainments they allow their members to give, and especially to veto repetition of one trick by different performers on the same programme.

For much the same reason I do not think that conjuring can be reproduced by "Talkies" with any satisfactory effect. The public know too well that almost any effect can be produced by camera tricks.

Nor can conjuring, as an entertainment, be reproduced on the wireless with satisfactory results, unless television is called into play later on. Even then I doubt whether it will carry a sense of reality with it. Certainly conjuring cannot be produced by the gramophone. These means will give satisfactory reproductions of almost any other forms of entertainment, but conjuring can only be produced properly by living performers--and long may the performers live!

Looking forward, I have no fear for the future of conjuring, but, alas, I am a magician and not a prophet.