The Divining Rod

: Curious Myths Of The Middle Ages

From the remotest period a rod has been regarded as the symbol of

power and authority, and Holy Scripture employs it in the popular

sense. Thus David speaks of "Thy rod and Thy staff comforting me;" and

Moses works his miracles before Pharaoh with the rod as emblem of

Divine commission. It was his rod which became a serpent, which turned

the water of Egypt into blood, which opened the waves of the Red Sea

and restored hem to their former level, which "smote the rock of

stone so that the water gushed out abundantly." The rod of Aaron acted

an oracular part in the contest with the princes; laid up before the

ark, it budded and brought forth almonds. In this instance we have it

no longer as a symbol of authority, but as a means of divining the

will of God. And as such it became liable to abuse; thus Hosea rebukes

the chosen people for practising similar divinations. "My people ask

counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them."[23]



Long before this, Jacob had made a different use of rods, employing

them as a charm to make his father-in-law's sheep bear pied and

spotted lambs.



We find rhabdomancy a popular form of divination among the Greeks, and

also among the Romans. Cicero in his "De Officiis" alludes to it. "If

all that is needful for our nourishment and support arrives to us by

means of some divine rod, as people say, then each of us, free from

all care and trouble, may give himself up to the exclusive pursuit of

study and science."



Probably it is to this rod that the allusion of Ennius, as the agent

in discovering hidden treasures, quoted in the first book of his "De

Divinatione," refers.



According to Vetranius Maurus, Varro left a satire on the "Virgula

divina," which has not been preserved. Tacitus tells us that the

Germans practised some sort of divination by means of rods. "For the

purpose their method is simple. They cut a rod off some fruit-tree

into bits, and after having distinguished them by various marks, they

cast them into a white cloth.... Then the priest thrice draws each

piece, and explains the oracle according to the marks." Ammianus

Marcellinus says that the Alains employed an osier rod.



The fourteenth law of the Frisons ordered that the discovery of

murders should be made by means of divining rods used in Church. These

rods should be laid before the altar, and on the sacred relics, after

which God was to be supplicated to indicate the culprit. This was

called the Lot of Rods, or Tan-teen, the Rod of Rods.



But the middle ages was the date of the full development of the

superstition, and the divining rod was believed to have efficacy in

discovering hidden treasures, veins of precious metal, springs of

water, thefts, and murders. The first notice of its general use among

late writers is in the "Testamentum Novum," lib. i. cap. 25, of Basil

Valentine, a Benedictine monk of the fifteenth century. Basil speaks

of the general faith in and adoption of this valuable instrument for

the discovery of metals, which is carried by workmen in mines, either

in their belts or in their caps. He says that there are seven names by

which this rod is known, and to its excellences under each title he

devotes a chapter of his book. The names are: Divine Rod, Shining Rod,

Leaping Rod, Transcendent Rod, Trembling Rod, Dipping Rod, Superior

Rod. In his admirable treatise on metals, Agricola speaks of the rod

in terms of disparagement; he considers its use as a relic of ancient

magical forms, and he says that it is only irreligious workmen who

employ it in their search after metals. Goclenius, however, in his

treatise on the virtue of plants, stoutly does battle for the

properties of the hazel rod. Whereupon Roberti, a Flemish Jesuit,

falls upon him tooth and nail, disputes his facts, overwhelms him with

abuse, and gibbets him for popular ridicule. Andreas Libavius, a

writer I have already quoted in my article on the Wandering Jew,

undertook a series of experiments upon the hazel divining rod, and

concluded that there was truth in the popular belief. The Jesuit

Kircher also "experimentalized several times on wooden rods which were

declared to be sympathetic with regard to certain metals, by placing

them on delicate pivots in equilibrium; but they never turned on the

approach of metal." (De Arte Magnetica.) However, a similar course of

experiments over water led him to attribute to the rod the power of

indicating subterranean springs and water-courses; "I would not affirm

it," he says, "unless I had established the fact by my own

experience."



Dechales, another Jesuit, author of a treatise on natural springs, and

of a huge tome entitled "Mundus Mathematicus," declared in the latter

work, that no means of discovering sources is equal to the divining

rod; and he quotes a friend of his who, with a hazel rod in his hand,

could discover springs with the utmost precision and facility, and

could trace on the surface of the ground the course of a subterranean

conduit. Another writer, Saint-Romain, in his "Science dA(C)gagA(C)e des

ChimA"res de l'A%cole," exclaims, "Is it not astonishing to see a rod,

which is held firmly in the hands, bow itself and turn visibly in the

direction of water or metal, with more or less promptitude, according

as the metal or the water are near or remote from the surface!"



In 1659 the Jesuit Gaspard Schott writes that the rod is used in every

town of Germany, and that he had frequent opportunity of seeing it

used in the discovery of hidden treasures. "I searched with the

greatest care," he adds, "into the question whether the hazel rod had

any sympathy with gold and silver, and whether any natural property

set it in motion. In like manner I tried whether a ring of metal, held

suspended by a thread in the midst of a tumbler, and which strikes the

hours, is moved by any similar force. I ascertained that these effects

could only have rise from the deception of those holding the rod or

the pendulum, or, may be, from some diabolic impulsion, or, more

likely still, because imagination sets the hand in motion."



The Sieur le Royer, a lawyer of Rouen, in 1674, published his "TraitA(C)

du BActon universel," in which he gives an account of a trial made with

the rod in the presence of Father Jean FranASec.ois, who had ridiculed the

operation in his treatise on the science of waters, published at

Rennes in 1655, and which succeeded in convincing the blasphemer of

the divine Rod. Le Royer denies to it the power of picking out

criminals, which had been popularly attributed to it, and as had been

unhesitatingly claimed for it by Debrio in his "Disquisitio Magica."



And now I am brought to the extraordinary story of Jacques Aymar,

which attracted the attention of Europe to the marvellous properties

of the divining rod. I shall give the history of this man in full, as

such an account is rendered necessary by the mutilated versions I have

seen current in English magazine articles, which follow the lead of

Mrs. Crowe, who narrates the earlier portion of this impostor's

career, but says nothing of his exposA(C) and downfall.



On the 5th July, 1692, at about ten o'clock in the evening, a

wine-seller of Lyons and his wife were assassinated in their cellar,

and their money carried off. On the morrow, the officers of justice

arrived, and examined the premises. Beside the corpses, lay a large

bottle wrapped in straw, and a bloody hedging bill, which undoubtedly

had been the instrument used to accomplish the murder. Not a trace of

those who had committed the horrible deed was to be found, and the

magistrates were quite at fault as to the direction in which they

should turn for a clew to the murderer or murderers.



At this juncture a neighbor reminded the magistrates of an incident

which had taken place four years previous. It was this. In 1688 a

theft of clothes had been made in Grenoble. In the parish of CrA'le

lived a man named Jacques Aymar, supposed to be endowed with the

faculty of using the divining rod. This man was sent for. On reaching

the spot where the theft had been committed, his rod moved in his

hand. He followed the track indicated by the rod, and it continued to

rotate between his fingers as long as he followed a certain direction,

but ceased to turn if he diverged from it in the smallest degree.

Guided by his rod, Aymar went from street to street, till he was

brought to a standstill before the prison gates. These could not be

opened without leave of the magistrate, who hastened to witness the

experiment. The gates were unlocked, and Aymar, under the same

guidance, directed his steps towards four prisoners lately

incarcerated. He ordered the four to be stood in a line, and then he

placed his foot on that of the first. The rod remained immovable. He

passed to the second, and the rod turned at once. Before the third

prisoner there were no signs; the fourth trembled, and begged to be

heard. He owned himself the thief, along with the second, who also

acknowledged the theft, and mentioned the name of the receiver of the

stolen goods. This was a farmer in the neighborhood of Grenoble. The

magistrate and officers visited him and demanded the articles he had

obtained. The farmer denied all knowledge of the theft and all

participation in the booty. Aymar, however, by means of his rod,

discovered the secreted property, and restored it to the persons from

whom it had been stolen.



On another occasion Aymar had been in quest of a spring of water, when

he felt his rod turn sharply in his hand. On digging at the spot,

expecting to discover an abundant source, the body of a murdered woman

was found in a barrel, with a rope twisted round her neck. The poor

creature was recognized as a woman of the neighborhood who had

vanished four months before. Aymar went to the house which the victim

had inhabited, and presented his rod to each member of the household.

It turned upon the husband of the deceased, who at once took to

flight.



The magistrates of Lyons, at their wits' ends how to discover the

perpetrators of the double murder in the wine shop, urged the

Procureur du Roi to make experiment of the powers of Jacques Aymar.

The fellow was sent for, and he boldly asserted his capacity for

detecting criminals, if he were first brought to the spot of the

murder, so as to be put en rapport with the murderers.



He was at once conducted to the scene of the outrage, with the rod in

his hand. This remained stationary as he traversed the cellar, till he

reached the spot where the body of the wine seller had lain; then the

stick became violently agitated, and the man's pulse rose as though he

were in an access of fever. The same motions and symptoms manifested

themselves when he reached the place where the second victim had lain.



Having thus received his impression, Aymar left the cellar, and,

guided by his rod, or rather by an internal instinct, he ascended into

the shop, and then stepping into the street, he followed from one to

another, like a hound upon the scent, the track of the murderers. It

conducted him into the court of the archiepiscopal palace, across it,

and down to the gate of the Rhone. It was now evening, and the city

gates being all closed, the quest of blood was relinquished for the

night.



Next morning Aymar returned to the scent. Accompanied by three

officers, he left the gate, and descended the right bank of the Rhone.

The rod gave indications of there having been three involved in the

murder, and he pursued the traces till two of them led to a gardener's

cottage. Into this he entered, and there he asserted with warmth,

against the asseverations of the proprietor to the contrary, that the

fugitives had entered his room, had seated themselves at his table,

and had drunk wine out of one of the bottles which he indicated. Aymar

tested each of the household with his rod, to see if they had been in

contact with the murderers. The rod moved over the two children only,

aged respectively ten and nine years. These little things, on being

questioned, answered, with reluctance, that during their father's

absence on Sunday morning, against his express commands, they had left

the door open, and that two men, whom they described, had come in

suddenly upon them, and had seated themselves and made free with the

wine in the bottle pointed out by the man with the rod. This first

verification of the talents of Jacques Aymar convinced some of the

sceptical, but the Procurateur GA(C)nA(C)ral forbade the prosecution of the

experiment till the man had been further tested.



As already stated, a hedging bill had been discovered, on the scene of

the murder, smeared with blood, and unquestionably the weapon with

which the crime had been committed. Three bills from the same maker,

and of precisely the same description, were obtained, and the four

were taken into a garden, and secretly buried at intervals. Aymar was

then brought, staff in hand, into the garden, and conducted over the

spots where lay the bills. The rod began to vibrate as his feet stood

upon the place where was concealed the bill which had been used by the

assassins, but was motionless elsewhere. Still unsatisfied, the four

bills were exhumed and concealed anew. The comptroller of the province

himself bandaged the sorcerer's eyes, and led him by the hand from

place to place. The divining rod showed no signs of movement till it

approached the blood-stained weapon, when it began to oscillate.



The magistrates were now so far satisfied as to agree that Jacques

Aymar should be authorized to follow the trail of the murderers, and

have a company of archers to follow him.



Guided by his rod, Aymar now recommenced his pursuit. He continued

tracing down the right bank of the Rhone till he came to half a league

from the bridge of Lyons. Here the footprints of three men were

observed in the sand, as though engaged in entering a boat. A rowing

boat was obtained, and Aymar, with his escort, descended the river; he

found some difficulty in following the trail upon water; still he was

able, with a little care, to detect it. It brought him under an arch

of the bridge of Vienne, which boats rarely passed beneath. This

proved that the fugitives were without a guide. The way in which this

curious journey was made was singular. At intervals Aymar was put

ashore to test the banks with his rod, and ascertain whether the

murderers had landed. He discovered the places where they had slept,

and indicated the chairs or benches on which they had sat. In this

manner, by slow degrees, he arrived at the military camp of Sablon,

between Vienne and Saint-Valier. There Aymar felt violent agitation,

his cheeks flushed, and his pulse beat with rapidity. He penetrated

the crowds of soldiers, but did not venture to use his rod, lest the

men should take it ill, and fall upon him. He could not do more

without special authority, and was constrained to return to Lyons. The

magistrates then provided him with the requisite powers, and he went

back to the camp. Now he declared that the murderers were not there.

He recommenced his pursuit, and descended the Rhone again as far as

Beaucaire.



On entering the town he ascertained by means of his rod that those

whom he was pursuing had parted company. He traversed several streets,

then crowded on account of the annual fair, and was brought to a

standstill before the prison doors. One of the murderers was within,

he declared; he would track the others afterwards. Having obtained

permission to enter, he was brought into the presence of fourteen or

fifteen prisoners. Amongst these was a hunchback, who had only an hour

previously been incarcerated on account of a theft he had committed at

the fair. Aymar applied his rod to each of the prisoners in

succession: it turned upon the hunchback. The sorcerer ascertained

that the other two had left the town by a little path leading into the

Nismes road. Instead of following this track, he returned to Lyons

with the hunchback and the guard. At Lyons a triumph awaited him. The

hunchback had hitherto protested his innocence, and declared that he

had never set foot in Lyons. But as he was brought to that town by the

way along which Aymar had ascertained that he had left it, the fellow

was recognized at the different houses where he had lodged the night,

or stopped for food. At the little town of Bagnols, he was confronted

with the host and hostess of a tavern where he and his comrades had

slept, and they swore to his identity, and accurately described his

companions: their description tallied with that given by the children

of the gardener. The wretched man was so confounded by this

recognition, that he avowed having staid there, a few days before,

along with two ProvenASec.als. These men, he said, were the criminals; he

had been their servant, and had only kept guard in the upper room

whilst they committed the murders in the cellar.



On his arrival in Lyons he was committed to prison, and his trial was

decided on. At his first interrogation he told his tale precisely as

he had related it before, with these additions: the murderers spoke

patois, and had purchased two bills. At ten o'clock in the evening all

three had entered the wine shop. The ProvenASec.als had a large bottle

wrapped in straw, and they persuaded the publican and his wife to

descend with them into the cellar to fill it, whilst he, the

hunchback, acted as watch in the shop. The two men murdered the

wine-seller and his wife with their bills, and then mounted to the

shop, where they opened the coffer, and stole from it one hundred and

thirty crowns, eight louis-d'ors, and a silver belt. The crime

accomplished, they took refuge in the court of a large house,--this

was the archbishop's palace, indicated by Aymar,--and passed the night



in it. Next day, early, they left Lyons, and only stopped for a moment

at a gardener's cottage. Some way down the river, they found a boat

moored to the bank. This they loosed from its mooring and entered.

They came ashore at the spot pointed out by the man with the stick.

They staid some days in the camp at Sablon, and then went on to

Beaucaire.



Aymar was now sent in quest of the other murderers. He resumed their

trail at the gate of Beaucaire, and that of one of them, after

considerable dA(C)tours, led him to the prison doors of Beaucaire, and

he asked to be allowed to search among the prisoners for his man. This

time he was mistaken. The second fugitive was not within; but the

jailer affirmed that a man whom he described--and his description

tallied with the known appearance of one of the ProvenASec.als--had called

at the gate shortly after the removal of the hunchback to inquire

after him, and on learning of his removal to Lyons, had hurried off

precipitately. Aymar now followed his track from the prison, and this

brought him to that of the third criminal. He pursued the double scent

for some days. But it became evident that the two culprits had been

alarmed at what had transpired in Beaucaire, and were flying from

France. Aymar traced them to the frontier, and then returned to Lyons.



On the 30th of August, 1692, the poor hunchback was, according to

sentence, broken on the wheel, in the Place des Terreaux. On his way

to execution he had to pass the wine shop. There the recorder publicly

read his sentence, which had been delivered by thirty judges. The

criminal knelt and asked pardon of the poor wretches in whose murder

he was involved, after which he continued his course to the place

fixed for his execution.



It may be well here to give an account of the authorities for this

extraordinary story. There are three circumstantial accounts, and

numerous letters written by the magistrate who sat during the trial,

and by an eye-witness of the whole transaction, men honorable and

disinterested, upon whose veracity not a shadow of doubt was supposed

to rest by their contemporaries.



M. Chauvin, Doctor of Medicine, published a "Lettre A Mme. la

Marquise de Senozan, sur les moyens dont on s'est servi pour dA(C)couvrir

les complices d'un assassinat commis A Lyon, le 5 Juillet, 1692."

Lyons, 1692. The procA"s-verbal of the Procureur du Roi, M. de

Vanini, is also extant, and published in the Physique occulte of the

AbbA(C) de Vallemont.



Pierre Gamier, Doctor of Medicine of the University of Montpellier,

wrote a Dissertation physique en forme de lettre, A M. de SA"ve,

seigneur de FlA(C)chA"res, on Jacques Aymar, printed the same year at

Lyons, and republished in the Histoire critique des pratiques

superstitieuses du PA"re Lebrun.



Doctor Chauvin was witness of nearly all the circumstances related, as

was also the AbbA(C) Lagarde, who has written a careful account of the

whole transaction as far as to the execution of the hunchback.



Another eye-witness writes to the AbbA(C) Bignon a letter printed by

Lebrun in his Histoire critique cited above. "The following

circumstance happened to me yesterday evening," he says: "M. le

Procureur du Roi here, who, by the way, is one of the wisest and

cleverest men in the country, sent for me at six o'clock, and had me

conducted to the scene of the murder. We found there M. Grimaut,

director of the customs, whom I knew to be a very upright man, and a

young attorney named Besson, with whom I am not acquainted, but who M.

le Procureur du Roi told me had the power of using the rod as well as

M. Grimaut. We descended into the cellar where the murder had been

committed, and where there were still traces of blood. Each time that

M. Grimaut and the attorney passed the spot where the murder had been

perpetrated, the rods they held in their hands began to turn, but

ceased when they stepped beyond the spot. We tried experiments for

more than an hour, as also with the bill, which M. le Procureur had

brought along with him, and they were satisfactory. I observed several

curious facts in the attorney. The rod in his hands was more violently

moved than in those of M. Grimaut, and when I placed one of my fingers

in each of his hands, whilst the rod turned, I felt the most

extraordinary throbbings of the arteries in his palms. His pulse was

at fever heat. He sweated profusely, and at intervals he was compelled

to go into the court to obtain fresh air."



The Sieur Pauthot, Dean of the College of Medicine at Lyons, gave his

observations to the public as well. Some of them are as follows: "We

began at the cellar in which the murder had been committed; into this

the man with the rod (Aymar) shrank from entering, because he felt

violent agitations which overcame him when he used the stick over the

place where the corpses of those who had been assassinated had lain.

On entering the cellar, the rod was put in my hands, and arranged by

the master as most suitable for operation; I passed and repassed over

the spot where the bodies had been found, but it remained immovable,

and I felt no agitation. A lady of rank and merit, who was with us,

took the rod after me; she felt it begin to move, and was internally

agitated. Then the owner of the rod resumed it, and, passing over the

same places, the stick rotated with such violence that it seemed

easier to break than to stop it. The peasant then quitted our company

to faint away, as was his wont after similar experiments. I followed

him. He turned very pale and broke into a profuse perspiration, whilst

for a quarter of an hour his pulse was violently troubled; indeed, the

faintness was so considerable, that they were obliged to dash water in

his face and give him water to drink in order to bring him round." He

then describes experiments made over the bloody bill and others

similar, which succeeded in the hands of Aymar and the lady, but

failed when he attempted them himself. Pierre Garnier, physician of

the medical college of Montpellier, appointed to that of Lyons, has

also written an account of what he saw, as mentioned above. He gives a

curious proof of Aymar's powers.



"M. le Lieutenant-GA(C)nA(C)ral having been robbed by one of his lackeys,

seven or eight months ago, and having lost by him twenty-five crowns

which had been taken out of one of the cabinets behind his library,

sent for Aymar, and asked him to discover the circumstances. Aymar

went several times round the chamber, rod in hand, placing one foot on

the chairs, on the various articles of furniture, and on two bureaux

which are in the apartment, each of which contains several drawers. He

fixed on the very bureau and the identical drawer out of which the

money had been stolen. M. le Lieutenant-GA(C)nA(C)ral bade him follow the

track of the robber. He did so. With his rod he went out on a new

terrace, upon which the cabinet opens, thence back into the cabinet

and up to the fire, then into the library, and from thence he went

direct up stairs to the lackeys' sleeping apartment, when the rod

guided him to one of the beds, and turned over one side of the bed,

remaining motionless over the other. The lackeys then present cried

out that the thief had slept on the side indicated by the rod, the bed

having been shared with another footman, who occupied the further

side." Garnier gives a lengthy account of various experiments he made

along with the Lieutenant-GA(C)nA(C)ral, the uncle of the same, the AbbA(C) de

St. Remain, and M. de Puget, to detect whether there was imposture in

the man. But all their attempts failed to discover a trace of

deception. He gives a report of a verbal examination of Aymar which is

interesting. The man always replied with candor.



The report of the extraordinary discovery of murder made by the

divining rod at Lyons attracted the attention of Paris, and Aymar was

ordered up to the capital. There, however, his powers left him. The

Prince de CondA(C) submitted him to various tests, and he broke down

under every one. Five holes were dug in the garden. In one was

secreted gold, in another silver, in a third silver and gold, in the

fourth copper, and in the fifth stones. The rod made no signs in

presence of the metals, and at last actually began to move over the

buried pebbles. He was sent to Chantilly to discover the perpetrators

of a theft of trout made in the ponds of the park. He went round the

water, rod in hand, and it turned at spots where he said the fish had

been drawn out. Then, following the track of the thief, it led him to

the cottage of one of the keepers, but did not move over any of the

individuals then in the house. The keeper himself was absent, but

arrived late at night, and, on hearing what was said, he roused Aymar

from his bed, insisting on having his innocence vindicated. The

divining rod, however, pronounced him guilty, and the poor fellow took

to his heels, much upon the principle recommended by Montesquieu a

while after. Said he, "If you are accused of having stolen the towers

of Notre-Dame, bolt at once."



A peasant, taken at haphazard from the street, was brought to the

sorcerer as one suspected. The rod turned slightly, and Aymar declared

that the man did not steal the fish, but ate of them. A boy was then

introduced, who was said to be the keeper's son. The rod rotated

violently at once. This was the finishing stroke, and Aymar was sent

away by the Prince in disgrace. It now transpired that the theft of

fish had taken place seven years before, and the lad was no relation

of the keeper, but a country boy who had only been in Chantilly eight

or ten months. M. Goyonnot, Recorder of the King's Council, broke a

window in his house, and sent for the diviner, to whom he related a

story of his having been robbed of valuables during the night. Aymar

indicated the broken window as the means whereby the thief had entered

the house, and pointed out the window by which he had left it with the

booty. As no such robbery had been committed, Aymar was turned out of

the house as an impostor. A few similar cases brought him into such

disrepute that he was obliged to leave Paris, and return to Grenoble.



Some years after, he was made use of by the MarA(C)chal Montrevel, in his

cruel pursuit of the Camisards.



Was Aymar an impostor from first to last, or did his powers fail him

in Paris? and was it only then that he had recourse to fraud?



Much may be said in favor of either supposition. His exposA(C) at Paris

tells heavily against him, but need not be regarded as conclusive

evidence of imposture throughout his career. If he really did possess

the powers he claimed, it is not to be supposed that these existed in

full vigor under all conditions; and Paris is a place most unsuitable

for testing them, built on artificial soil, and full of disturbing

influences of every description. It has been remarked with others who

used the rod, that their powers languished under excitement, and that

the faculties had to be in repose, the attention to be concentrated on

the subject of inquiry, or the action--nervous, magnetic, or

electrical, or what you will--was impeded.



Now, Paris, visited for the first time by a poor peasant, its

salons open to him, dazzling him with their splendor, and the

novelty of finding himself in the midst of princes, dukes, marquises,

and their families, not only may have agitated the countryman to such

an extent as to deprive him of his peculiar faculty, but may have led

him into simulating what he felt had departed from him, at the moment

when he was under the eyes of the grandees of the Court. We have

analogous cases in Bleton and Angelique Cottin. The former was a

hydroscope, who fell into convulsions whenever he passed over running

water. This peculiarity was noticed in him when a child of seven years

old. When brought to Paris, he failed signally to detect the presence

of water conveyed underground by pipes and conduits, but he pretended

to feel the influence of water where there certainly was none.

Angelique Cottin was a poor girl, highly charged with electricity. Any

one touching her received a violent shock; one medical gentleman,

having seated her on his knee, was knocked clean out of his chair by

the electric fluid, which thus exhibited its sense of propriety. But

the electric condition of Angelique became feebler as she approached

Paris, and failed her altogether in the capital.



I believe that the imagination is the principal motive force in those

who use the divining rod; but whether it is so solely, I am unable to

decide. The powers of nature are so mysterious and inscrutable that we

must be cautious in limiting them, under abnormal conditions, to the

ordinary laws of experience.






The manner in which the rod was used by certain persons renders

self-deception possible. The rod is generally of hazel, and is forked

like a Y; the forefingers are placed against the diverging arms of the

rod, and the elbows are brought back against the side; thus the

implement is held in front of the operator, delicately balanced before

the pit of the stomach at a distance of about eight inches. Now, if

the pressure of the balls of the digits be in the least relaxed, the

stalk of the rod will naturally fall. It has been assumed by some,

that a restoration of the pressure will bring the stem up again,

pointing towards the operator, and a little further pressure will

elevate it into a perpendicular position. A relaxation of force will

again lower it, and thus the rotation observed in the rod be

maintained. I confess myself unable to accomplish this. The lowering

of the leg of the rod is easy enough, but no efforts of mine to

produce a revolution on its axis have as yet succeeded. The muscles

which would contract the fingers upon the arms of the stick, pass the

shoulder; and it is worthy of remark that one of the medical men who

witnessed the experiments made on Bleton the hydroscope, expressly

alludes to a slight rising of the shoulders during the rotation of the

divining rod.



But the manner of using the rod was by no means identical in all

cases. If, in all cases, it had simply been balanced between the

fingers, some probability might be given to the suggestion above made,

that the rotation was always effected by the involuntary action of the

muscles.



The usual manner of holding the rod, however, precluded such a

possibility. The most ordinary use consisted in taking a forked stick

in such a manner that the palms were turned upwards, and the fingers

closed upon the branching arms of the rod. Some required the normal

position of the rod to be horizontal, others elevated the point,

others again depressed it.



If the implement were straight, it was held in a similar manner, but

the hands were brought somewhat together, so as to produce a slight

arc in the rod. Some who practised rhabdomancy sustained this species

of rod between their thumbs and forefingers; or else the thumb and

forefingers were closed, and the rod rested on their points; or again

it reposed on the flat of the hand, or on the back, the hand being

held vertically and the rod held in equilibrium.



A third species of divining rod consisted in a straight staff cut in

two: one extremity of the one half was hollowed out, the other half

was sharpened at the end, and this end was inserted in the hollow, and

the pointed stick rotated in the cavity.




From "Lettres qui dA(C)couvrent l'Illusion des Philosophes sur la

Baguette." Paris, 1693.]



The way in which Bleton used his rod is thus minutely described: "He

does not grasp it, nor warm it in his hands, and he does not regard

with preference a hazel branch lately cut and full of sap. He

places horizontally between his forefingers a rod of any kind given to

him, or picked up in the road, of any sort of wood except elder, fresh

or dry, not always forked, but sometimes merely bent. If it is

straight, it rises slightly at the extremities by little jerks, but

does not turn. If bent, it revolves on its axis with more or less

rapidity, in more or less time, according to the quantity and current

of the water. I counted from thirty to thirty-five revolutions in a

minute, and afterwards as many as eighty. A curious phenomenon is,

that Bleton is able to make the rod turn between another person's

fingers, even without seeing it or touching it, by approaching his

body towards it when his feet stand over a subterranean watercourse.

It is true, however, that the motion is much less strong and less

durable in other fingers than his own. If Bleton stood on his head,

and placed the rod between his feet, though he felt strongly the

peculiar sensations produced in him by flowing water, yet the rod

remained stationary. If he were insulated on glass, silk, or wax, the

sensations were less vivid, and the rotation of the stick ceased."



But this experiment failed in Paris, under circumstances which either

proved that Bleton's imagination produced the movement, or that his

integrity was questionable. It is quite possible that in many

instances the action of the muscles is purely involuntary, and is

attributable to the imagination, so that the operator deceives himself

as well as others.



This is probably the explanation of the story of Mdlle. Olivet, a

young lady of tender conscience, who was a skilful performer with the

divining rod, but shrank from putting her powers in operation, lest

she should be indulging in unlawful acts. She consulted the PA"re

Lebrun, author of a work already referred to in this paper, and he

advised her to ask God to withdraw the power from her, if the exercise

of it was harmful to her spiritual condition. She entered into retreat

for two days, and prayed with fervor. Then she made her communion,

asking God what had been recommended to her at the moment when she

received the Host. In the afternoon of the same day she made

experiment with her rod, and found that it would no longer operate.

The girl had strong faith in it before--a faith coupled with fear; and

as long as that faith was strong in her, the rod moved; now she

believed that the faculty was taken from her; and the power ceased

with the loss of her faith.



If the divining rod is put in motion by any other force except the

involuntary action of the muscles, we must confine its powers to the

property of indicating the presence of flowing water. There are

numerous instances of hydroscopes thus detecting the existence of a

spring, or of a subterranean watercourse; the most remarkably endowed

individuals of this description are Jean-Jacques Parangue, born near

Marseilles, in 1760, who experienced a horror when near water which no

one else perceived. He was endowed with the faculty of seeing water

through the ground, says l'AbbA(C) Sauri, who gives his history. Jenny

Leslie, a Scotch girl, about the same date claimed similar powers. In

1790, Pennet, a native of DauphinA(C), attracted attention in Italy, but

when carefully tested by scientific men in Padua, his attempts to

discover buried metals failed; at Florence he was detected in an

endeavor to find out by night what had been secreted to test his

powers on the morrow. Vincent Amoretti was an Italian, who underwent

peculiar sensations when brought in proximity to water, coal, and

salt; he was skilful in the use of the rod, but made no public

exhibition of his powers.



The rod is still employed, I have heard it asserted, by Cornish

miners; but I have never been able to ascertain that such is really

the case. The mining captains whom I have questioned invariably

repudiated all knowledge of its use.



In Wiltshire, however, it is still employed for the purpose of

detecting water; and the following extract from a letter I have just

received will show that it is still in vogue on the Continent:--



"I believe the use of the divining rod for discovering springs of

water has by no means been confined to mediAval times; for I was

personally acquainted with a lady, now deceased, who has successfully

practised with it in this way. She was a very clever and accomplished

woman; Scotch by birth and education; by no means credulous; possibly

a little imaginative, for she wrote not unsuccessfully; and of a

remarkably open and straightforward disposition. Captain C----, her

husband, had a large estate in Holstein, near Lubeck, supporting a

considerable population; and whether for the wants of the people or

for the improvement of the land, it now and then happened that an

additional well was needed.



"On one of these occasions a man was sent for who made a regular

profession of finding water by the divining rod; there happened to be

a large party staying at the house, and the whole company turned out

to see the fun. The rod gave indications in the usual way, and water

was ultimately found at the spot. Mrs. C----, utterly sceptical, took

the rod into her own hands to make experiment, believing that she

would prove the man an impostor; and she said afterwards she was never

more frightened in her life than when it began to move, on her walking

over the spring. Several other gentlemen and ladies tried it, but it

was quite inactive in their hands. 'Well,' said the host to his wife,

'we shall have no occasion to send for the man again, as you are such

an adept.'



"Some months after this, water was wanted in another part of the

estate, and it occurred to Mrs. C---- that she would use the rod

again. After some trials, it again gave decided indications, and a

well was begun and carried down a very considerable depth. At last she

began to shrink from incurring more expense, but the laborers had

implicit faith; and begged to be allowed to persevere. Very soon the

water burst up with such force that the men escaped with difficulty;

and this proved afterwards the most unfailing spring for miles round.



"You will take the above for what it is worth; the facts I have given

are undoubtedly true, whatever conclusions may be drawn from them. I

do not propose that you should print my narrative, but I think in

these cases personal testimony, even indirect, is more useful in

forming one's opinion than a hundred old volumes. I did not hear it

from Mrs. C----'s own lips, but I was sufficiently acquainted with her

to form a very tolerable estimate of her character; and my wife, who

has known her intimately from her own childhood, was in her younger

days often staying with her for months together."



I remember having been much perplexed by reading a series of

experiments made with a pendulous ring over metals, by a Mr. Mayo: he

ascertained that it oscillated in various directions under peculiar

circumstances, when suspended by a thread over the ball of the thumb.

I instituted a series of experiments, and was surprised to find the

ring vibrate in an unaccountable manner in opposite directions over

different metals. On consideration, I closed my eyes whilst the ring

was oscillating over gold, and on opening them I found that it had

become stationary. I got a friend to change the metals whilst I was

blindfolded--the ring no longer vibrated. I was thus enabled to judge

of the involuntary action of muscles, quite sufficient to have

deceived an eminent medical man like Mr. Mayo, and to have perplexed

me till I succeeded in solving the mystery.[24]



FOOTNOTES:



[23] Hos. iv. 12.



[24] A similar series of experiments was undertaken, as I learned

afterwards, by M. Chevreuil in Paris, with similar results.