Tweet
Originally posted by GUT
View Post
Jeff
-
Remember everything is relative GUT. To the Luddites, all machines were "Infernal Machines"!!
Jeff -
So very trueOriginally posted by Mayerling View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
The mention of an infernal machine built using a cooking utensil in the Wolff/Bondurand case reminded me of the 1885 Admiralty office bombing.
New York Times, April 24, 1885, link (look for the " download a high-resolution PDF" link at the bottom)
LONDON AGAIN ALARMED
A DYNAMITE EXPLOSION IN THE ADMIRALTY OFFICE.
New York Times, April 25, 1885, link (look for the " download a high-resolution PDF" link at the bottom)
THE ADMIRALTY OFFICE EXPLOSION
Providence Journal, April 27, 1885, Page 2
Dynamite Explosion
Daring Operations in the British Admiralty Office
Explosives Act, 1875 Tenth Annual Report of His Majesty's Explosives Inspectors (1885), Page 59
A more important and determined outrage, which there are grounds for believing was the outcome of private spite, was perpetrated at the Admiralty, on the 23rd April, in the office of Mr. Swainson, one of the Secretaries of the Department. The explosion was effected by means of a quantity of gunpowder contained in an iron stockpot, or “Papin’s Digester,” placed on a cupboard near Mr. Swainson’s desk, and that gentleman sustained a severe shock and some injury from the debris. He fortunately escaped being struck by any of the pieces of the shell (which the stockpot in fact became) of which large numbers, some of a very formidable character, were recovered by us from the walls, ceiling, &c. Considerable injury was done to the room.
---end
Internal Revenue Record, June 1, 1885, Page 171
THE ADMIRALTY EXPLOSION
The explosion which recently took place in Mr. Swainson’s room at the Admiralty does not appear to have been due to Fenian or political causes. As originally stated, it took place on the top of the book-case, and the fragments of iron found in the wall have conclusively proved that an ordinary service cook’s digester or stock-pot was used to enclose the gunpowder by means of which it has now been determined the outrage was perpetrated. This digester also contained solid drawn cased cartridges. These, strange to say, are similar to those used in the Russian Service, being in make like the Martini-Henry, but in size fitting only the Berdan rifle. Smaller cartridges, for use in revolvers, were also found amongst the debris, and these, too, are of foreign make, probably Belgian. It is, therefore, evident that the perpetrator of this diabolical outrage first procured a digester, and that, having filled it with gunpowder and Russian rifle and pistol cartridges to form a kind of shrapnel shell, the top of the digester was firmly screwed down, the hole in the top presumably being used as a vent-hole. But how the charge was ignited has not yet been discovered. Might it have been by means of a friction tube and line attached, the line being carried through the top of the window, thence falling over into the garden, whence the two men were afterwards seen running away?-—Admiralty Gazette.
---endComment
-
There's been mention of Dr. Kahn's Anatomical Museum here at Casebook in the thread "Anatomical venus, Florentine venus, slashed beauty." Whatever the museum's original intentions,it ultimately gained a reputation as a front for the practice of "venereal quackery."
Here's a paper summarizing the history of the museum:
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Dec 2006; 99(12): 618–624, link.
doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.12.618
PMCID: PMC1676337
Dr Kahn's Museum: obscene anatomy in Victorian London
A W Bates
Google books has some relevant items:
A Dutch language catalog of Kahn's exhibit before it moved to London:
Dr. Kahn's Anatomisch Museum (The Hague: 1859), link
A London catalog:
Catalogue of Dr. Kahn's Celebrated Anatomical Museum (London: 1853), link
by Joseph Kahn (M.D.)
A later London catalog:
Handbook of Dr. Kahn's Museum (London: 1867), link
A pamphlet reprinting pro-tobacco lectures given at Kahn's Museum by George Sexton:
The Great Tobacco Controversy a Bottle of Smoke (London: James Gilbert, 1857), link
by George Sexton
[From the preface:]
The lectures have been delivered upwards of 50 times, and have therefore been heard by some thousands of persons, all of whom, with one exception—-the Secretary of the Anti-Tobacco Society—-appeared to be well-pleased. The phraseology of the following pages differs slightly from that of the oral discourses, as my lectures are all delivered extempore, and when published, have to be written out expressly for that purpose. More care in preparing these for the press might have been desirable, but my time is too much occupied to allow me to bestow it. I have within the last five years addressed upwards of 4,800 different public audiences, on a variety of topics, scientific, literary, and pdlitical; attended to the onerous duties of an arduous profession; and written some score or two of literary productions. I have not, therefore, had much spare time, especially when it is taken into consideration that I am a smoker, and as such, according to modern Anti-tobacco doctrines, more sleepy, dull, inactive, and with a less ability and inclination to work
--end
Sexton's connection with Kahn's became a point of contention when his appointment as a member of the general council of the First Communist International was debated in 1872. In the end, he was elected to the council. Marx and Engels took part in the proceedings.
Documents of the First International, Volume 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers), Pages 163-167
Minutes of Meeting
April 23rd, 1872
Citizen Roach in the chair.
Members present: Citizens Bradnick, Barry, Eccarius, Engels, Frankel, Hales, Jung, Keen, Lessner, Le Moussu, Lochner, Marx, Martin, Margueritte, Mayo, McDonnell, Milner, Murray, Roach, Ruhl, Serraillier, Taylor, Townshend, Vailant and Yarrow.
The Minutes of the previous meeting having been read and confirmed, the Chairman said the election of Citizen Sexton stood first on the order of the day. He had known him for many years and could vouch that if elected, he would make a very useful member of the Council; he had always entertained opinions similar to those advocated by the Association, and he was a most able lecturer; he would be able to go into the provinces and do much good for the Association if elected.
As Citizen Mayo was not present, Citizen Taylor seconded; he had always found Citizen Sexton a consistent and valuable advocate of democratic ideas.
Citizen Serraillier said he had seen a book in which Citizen Sexton was charged with having been connected with a museum of anatomy at which the practice was somewhat questionable and he was further charged with having threatened to expose the malpractices but suppressed the information in consideration of a certain sum annually. He thought that was a matter which required clearing up; until that was done he could not vote for Citizen Sexton.
Citizen Engels thought the matter alluded to by Citizen Serraillier ought to be disproved.
Citizen Jung said he could [see] no reason to object to Citizen Sexton because he had lectured at Kahn's; as he believed, the lectures given were upon scientific subjects—-more valuable than otherwise, but he agreed with Serraillier and Engels that the charge of suppressing information for money ought to be met and disproved.
Citizen Marx said: in view of the resolution of the Conference* he should not have voted for the addition of any more Englishman being made to the Council,105 but as Harris had resigned, his place could be filled up. Nevertheless, he thought, as the character of Sexton had been challenged, the same course should be pursued as was followed in the case of McDonnell.166
Citizen Barry said the fact that Dr. Sexton had been a lecturer [at] a place like Kahn's, which it was known was used as a cloak for the worst practices, was quite a sufficient reason why he should not be accepted. The fact that he had used the degree of M.D. without stating that it was not obtained in England showed an amount of moral delinquency, which rendered him unfitted to sit on the Council.
Citizen Hales said he was authorised by Citizen Sexton to assure the Council that the statement referred to by Citizen Serraillier was absolutely untrue; so far from Citizen Sexton being ashamed of his connection with the museum alluded to, he advertised the fact himself in the medical directory. The lectures he there gave were of a scientific and educational character, and he challenged anyone to say to the contrary who had ever attended them. Citizen Sexton had always been consistent in his political and social professions and had been a friend of Ernest Jones and Robert Owen; he called the first meeting which was held against the Conspiracy to Murder Bill of Lord Palmerston, when he and Ernest Jones spoke on the same platform. The man who attacked him was a quack and he was persecuted by certain sections of the Medical Profession because he was considered an interloper; he was a M. D. of Gottingen University, a member of the Royal Geographical Society, a member of the Royal Zoological Society, a member of the Anthropological Society and a member of the Society of Arts—to the last he had been admitted since the date of the alleged suppression. All these societies required guarantees of the honour and honesty of their members and he thought the fact that he had been admitted a member of the societies mentioned ought to be sufficient for the Council.
Citizen Barry said Citizen Hales had pleaded the cause of Dr. Sexton as well as if he had been paid to do it, but he must inform him that the man who wrote the book in question was not a quack—he was on the register while Sexton was not.
Citizen Jung asked if all men who were not on the medical register were quacks.
Citizen Barry said he did not mean to say they were.
Citizen Jung asked if all the men on the register were free from quackery.
Citizen Barry said, Oh, no!
Citizen Hales said Citizen Sexton was registered, Vie had seen the proofs himself; with respect to his advocacy, he might say that he was not paid; he only hoped that Citizen Barry was not paid for services which he rendered and information which he supplied.
Citizen Yarrow said he did not know anything about Dr. Sexton except that he was not a legitimate practitioner.
Citizen Bradnick didn't object to an investigation of Citizen Sexton's character; he only regretted that the same policy had not been pursued with others on previous occasions.
Citizen Martin thought the Council should be careful in making additions to its numbers when the candidates did not belong to the working class.
Citizen Margueritte proposed [that] the question be adjourned, so as to allow the fullest investigation into the matter.
Citizen Milner seconded, so as to allow full time for consideration; the only point with him was whether it was desirable to add professional men to the Council; as far as Dr. Sexton was concerned, he knew he would be a valuable ally, he had done good work in the past.
Citizen Murray said he hoped the matter would be disposed of at once—he knew Dr. Sexton had been a consistent advocate of advanced principles, he was one of the first men in England who had the courage to stand forward and denounce the coup d'etat, and that at a time when it was dangerous for men to express their opinions; he had not only the courage to lecture, but to publish with his name attached; he knew also that he was not a mercenary man, for many a time he had assisted him by lecturing for him. With respect to his being a professional man, he thought that should be no bar, seeing that he had to work hard for his living the same as a workman.
Citizen Marx did not think there was anything to fear from the admission of professional men while the great majority of the Council was composed of workers, but he thought the question ought to be adjourned so [as] to afford the fullest opportunities for inquiries—then whatever the result might be the Council would stand clear.
[...]
Pages 169-172
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held April 30th, l872
Citizen Jung in the chair.
Members present: Citizens Applegarth, Boon, Barry, Arnaud, Cournet, Delahaye, Eccarius, Engels, Frankel, Hales, Jung, Lessner, Le Moussu, Lochner, Marx, Martin, Mayo, McDonnell, Murray, Roach, Rozwadowski, Ruhl, Serraillier, Taylor, Townshend, Vaillant and Farrow.
The Minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed, after which Citizen Engels rose to make a motion of order. He said that there was such a pressure of business that it was impossible to get through it unless there were
extraordinary sittings. There was first Sexton's election. Second, the American business. Third, the action of Eccarius; fourth, the report of the 18th of March Committee*, fifth, the report of the deputation to the CabinetMakers. Then sixth, there was the conduct of Citizen Weston to be considered; seventh, the action to be taken with the socalled Federalist Council.172 and eighth, the motion of Citizen Hales with regard to the formation of Irish Nationalist Sections in England. He therefore proposed that extraordinary sittings be held on Saturday evenings until further notice.
Citizen Lessner seconded and the proposition was carried unanimously.
The Secretary then read a letter from Citizen Sexton in which he denied the truth of the charges which had been brought against him.
Citizen Yarrow said he would move the rejection of Citizen Sexton as he thought gross misrepresentations had been made.
Citizen Hales pointed out that Citizen Yarrow was mistaken. No misrepresentations had taken place.
Citizen Serraillier thought the Council had only to consider whether the letter from Citizen Sexton disproved the charges which had been made against him; he thought it did not fully do so, though it did partly.
Citizen Yarrow said the fact that Citizen Sexton belonged to a number of Royal Societies was no proof of respectability; anybody could belong to them who would subscribe.
Citizen Barry thought that Citizen Sexton's friends would do well to withdraw his nomination. It was an undoubted fact that he propped up Kahn's Museum with his intelligence and skill, though he believed he only took it when he was hard up.
Citizen Martin thought the opposition raised against Citizen Sexton was a bad omen. The French members did not understand the question and he thought his election might be productive of bitterness.
Citizen Hales said he and his friends would be content to let the matter be decided by the English members, though they did not wish it, but he would ask the French members to consider where the opposition came from, he would ask them to remember the past policy of those who opposed, and compare it with that of those who supported. Sexton would be very useful if elected.
Citizen Eccarius said his opposition arose from altogether different cause to that of others—he was opposed because of his quarrel with Bradlaugh. He did not wish the Association used in the quarrel; Sexton could do as much for the Association outside the Council, as he could, if he was in.
Citizen Vaillant said the real thing to be considered was: would the election of Citizen Sexton bring any influence to the Council? Of course, if the antecedents of the respective parties were only considered, the French members would know how to vote.
The proposition was then put to the vote and was carried by eleven to eight, the Chairman voting.
Citizen Boon protested against the Chairman voting and upon being called to order protested.
Citizen Engels proposed and Citizen Serraillier seconded a vote of censure upon Citizen Boon for constant interruption of the Chairman.
Citizen Murray hoped the motion would not be pressed.
Citizen Barry should feel it his duty to move a vote of censure upon everyone who interrupted the Chairman if the proposition was carried.
Citizen Frankel proposed and Citizen Lessner seconded that the Council should proceed to the order of the day. at the same time condemning the conduct of Citizen Boon.
Citizen Mottershead thought it would be unwise to put the proposition. Citizen Boon most likely acted in ignorance. Not usual for the Chairman to vote.
Citizen Boon apologised for his conduct to the Chairman, but he would say the Chairman voting was not in accordance with English habits. Though he did not care whether it was voted or not.
Citizen Barry moved the order of the day pure and simple.
Citizen Murray seconded and on being put [to the vote it] was carried.
[...]
---endComment
-
I take it that, as the minutes are of the 1872 meeting of the First International, the "Citizen Marx" and "Citizen Engels" listed as contributing comments are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?Comment
-
Jeff, Page 150 of the book lists among the signers of a declaration on Ireland "Karl Marx" and "F. Engels."
Here are excerpts an 1887 article about a London-based maker of models for anatomical museums and traveling showmen:
The Pall Mall Budget, March 31, 1887, Page 11
Monsters and their Makers
Art, not nature, is responsible for most of the monstrosities exhibited by the travelling showmen who are attracted to London by the boatrace. It was a travelling showman whom I met when on a walking tour in Devonshire who first opened my eyes to the prosaic truth, telling me that the manufacture of these objects constituted a lucrative industry, of which the secret was held by a man in London well known in the show world.
Professor Sheard, “manufacturer of artificial monstrosities and curiosities of every description in flesh and skeleton,” as he describes himself on his printed prospectus, exercises his unique industry in Hoxton, and although his name is not much in the mouths of the general public, and his atelier presents little to arrest the attention of the casual passer-by, yet those who have need of him know very well where to find him. The “Professor” is a man of some forty summers, with a somewhat long face, impassive, high, narrow forehead, and small, slowly moving, introspective eyes, that seemed always to be on the search for new variations of living nature. One could not help feeling that the only interest those eyes took in you was to mentally dissect you, and note in you any peculiarities which might be successfully reproduced.
Mr. Sheard informed me thathe made four different species of artificial monstrosities—-namely, fossilized specimens, either to represent peat-preserved remains, or skeletons, and embalmed objects, either mummified or to present the appearance of beings recently dead. Many of the curiosities, he said, were copies of subjects actually existing in museums, and the value of the originals being, as unique objects, so high, a well-executed replica always fetched a good price.
[...]
The Professor was unable to say whether he had ever made anything for Barnum, as nearly all the American orders are received from and forwarded by agents; but he had made quite a number of monstrosities for American anatomical museums, where they would be exhibited side by side with genuine specimens, which would, as it were, lead up to the artificial monstrosity, and induce the public to accept it more readily. What is needed nowadays, Mr. Sheard finds, is something of a quasi-scientific character, accompanied by a moderate amount of superficial scientific information and puffing, and he is strongly of opinion that a carefully constructed Missing Link, turned out in best style, would be a great success, especially if exhibited in the West-end, and the public well worked up previously by a series of scientific paragraphs and quotations from Darwin’s works.
It was from the idea of the Missing Link that Mr. Sheard came to make a Burmese hairy family. Whose portait he handed to us for our inspection, and who he assured us were being exhibited in the provinces as living creatures. From the photograph they appeared extremely life-like and natural, the poses being so easy and unrestrained; and it was not difficult to believe that with a judicious arrangement of the light they could very readily pass for living beings. The present possessor of these curious creatures had at first the idea of exhibiting a species of hirsute monstrosity which should pass as an animal or being forming the connecting link between man and the monkeys, and ordered in consequence a figure of that description to be made; but between the time of ordering the article and receiving it, having seen the Burmese hairy family (the real one), he conceived the luminous idea of having an actualite du jour, so had two other hairy monstrosities made to bear the first company, and exhibits them together as a living group. Mr. Sheard very often receives offers from various parts of England of eccentrically-deformed animals, and very frequently, if the description induces him to believe that they would repay stuffing or preserving to serve as models for imitation, undertakes long journeys to see them; although malformed animals, whose hair or wool is sufficiently long to hide any join or seam, are looked upon with suspicion by the public even if genuine.
The Professor recollected going to Devonshire on one occasion to see a sheep which had a perfectly formed human arm growing from its shoulder, which abnormal development he considered was caused by fright to the mother. He did not seem to be familiar with the Biblical incident of Jacob’s artifice with the peeled rods to modify the colour of Laban’s lambs, but thought that It was quite possible, and indeed was of opinion that the physical formation of young animals, and even of human beings, might, by similarly conveyed impressions, be to a great extent modified. He was, however, little inclined to give credence to the statement made by Victor Hugo relative to the alleged practices of the Chinese, who, if we are to believe the French novelist, imprison very young children in earthenware vases so as to deform them. My mention of the Chinese led Mr. Sheard to remark that a quantity of his productions were bought by a dealer in Indian and Chinese goods living in the East-end, who sent them to China, and.from thence despatched them to various purchasers, who were under the impression that they were acquiring genuine Oriental monstrosities. Monstrosities are frequently made and enclosed in a sealed glass jar containing some liquid to imitate alcohol, but these are less liked by showmen, as being heavier and more liable to break—-two very serious objections when the curiosity has to encounter the perils of existence in a show van.
I then asked Mr. Sheard to tell me, unless it would be violating a trade secret, of what substance his productions are composed. The “Professor" half-closed his eyes, uncovered his teeth, and, slowly shaking his head said, “Ah! now you want to know too much, but I will tell you this, that they are all carved, out separately. Of course we could make them from a mould, but then, while you are making a mould you might just as we. make the thing itself, especially as no two showmen want exactly the same style of thing: they all have their own particular ideas as to what will take with the public, which they want carried out, and they like to have something different from anything else, and to suit the times. Yes, you are quite right about the eyes; they would be very difficult to imitate; but, as nearly all our monstrosities are prepared to represent an embalmed or a dried body, the eyes are supposed to be taken cut, the sunken sockets being covered by the eyelids." In answer to our inquiry as to whether there were any other persons in London engaged in the same trade, the Professor assured us that he was, as far as he knew, the only monstrosity manufacturer in Europe.
---endComment
-
Just a thought, but perhaps H. G. Wells heard of Mr. Sheard, and had him in mind (so to speak) when he created the villain in "The Island of Dr. Moreau" in 1899.Comment
-
Perhaps both Wells and Sheard were influenced by Victor Hugo?
At the end of Moreau Wells mentions that some of the dialogue in the chapter "Moreau Explains" originally appeared in a piece Wells wrote for a January 1895 number of the Saturday Review.
The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art, Volume 79, January 19, 1895, Pages 89-90
The Limits of Individual Plasticity
[by H. G. Wells]
Less familiar and probably far more extensive were the operations of those abominable mediaeval practitioners who made dwarfs and show monsters, and some vestiges of whose art still remain in the preliminary manipulation of the young mountebank or contortionist. Victor Hugo gives us an account of them, dark and stormy, after his wont, in "L'Homme qui Rit." ["The Man Who Laughs"]
---end
Hugo devotes a chapter to discussing "those abominable mediaeval practitioners" that he refers to as "Comprachicos." In an aside, he mentions the story that in China some childern were raised in jars to mold them to the shape of the jar. The article about Sheard mentions that he created models based on this idea.
By Order of the King: The Authorised English Translation of Victor Hugo's L'Homme qui Rit, Volume 1 (London: Bradbury, Evans, 1870), link
by Victor Hugo
Pages 30-31
Who now knows the word Comprachicos, and who knows its meaning?
The Comprachicos, or Comprapequenos, were a hideous and nondescript association of wanderers, famous in the 17th century, forgotten in the 18th, unheard of in the 19th. The Comprachicos are like the "succession powder," an ancient social characteristic detail. They are part of old human ugliness. To the great eye of history, which sees everything collectively, the Comprachicos belong to the colossal fact of slavery. Joseph sold by his brethren is a chapter in their story. The Comprachicos have left their traces in the penal laws of Spain and England. You find here and there in the dark confusion of English laws the impress of this horrible truth, like the footprint of a savage in a forest.
Comprachicos, the same as Comprapequenos, is a compound Spanish word signifying Child-buyers.
The Comprachicos traded in children. They bought and sold them. They did not steal them. The kidnapping of children is another branch of industry. And what did they make of these children?
Monsters.
Why monsters?
To laugh at.
The populace must needs laugh; and kings too. The mountebank is wanted in the streets; the jester at the Louvre. The one is called a Clown, the other a Fool.
Page 32
In order that a human toy should succeed, he must be taken early. The dwarf must be fashioned when young. We play with childhood. But a well-formed child is not very amusing; a hunchback is better fun.
Hence grew an art. There were trainers who took a man and made him an abortion; they took a face and made a muzzle; they stunted growth; they kneaded the features. The artificial production of teratological cases had its rules. It was quite a science; what one can imagine as the antithesis of orthopedy. Where God had put a look, their art put a squint; where God had made harmony, they made discord; where God had made the perfect picture, they re-established the sketch; and, in the eyes of connoisseurs, it was the sketch which was perfect. They debased animals as well: they invented piebald horses. Turenne rode a piebald horse. In our own days do they not dye dogs blue and green? Nature is our canvas. Man has always wished to add something to God's work. Man retouches creation, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. The Court buifoon was nothing but an attempt to lead back man to the monkey. It was a progress the wrong way. A master-piece in retrogression. At the same time they tried to make a man of the monkey.
Page 40
Since we are in China, let us remain there a moment to note a peculiarity. In China, from time immemorial, they have possessed a certain refinement of industry and art. It is the art of moulding a living man. They take a child, two or three years old, put him in a porcelain vase, more or less grotesque, which is made without top or bottom, to allow egress for the head and feet. During the day the vase is set upright, and at night is laid down to allow the child to sleep. Thus the child thickens without growing taller, filling up with his compressed flesh and distorted bones the reliefs in the vase. This development in a bottle continues many years. After a certain time it becomes irreparable. When they consider that this is accomplished, and the monster made, they break the vase. The child comes out—and, behold, there is a man in the shape of a mug!
---end
By Order of the King: The Authorised English Translation of Victor Hugo's L'Homme qui Rit, Volume 2 (London: Bradbury, Evans, 1870), link
By Victor Hugo
By Order of the King: The Authorised English Translation of Victor Hugo's L'Homme qui Rit, Volume 3 (London: Bradbury, Evans, 1870), link
By Victor HugoComment
-
Similar to the Comprachicos?
Years ago I was told about another Asian habit of "foot binding" so that the feet of Chinese or Japanese women were small because they'd look delicate and more beautiful as a result. I am not sure how true this custom was.Comment
-
It is true that the feet of certain Chinese girls of higher rank would be bound, resulting in a crooked, but very small, foot when womanhood was reached.Originally posted by Mayerling View Post
I believe the custom didn't survive the advent of Communism.Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------Comment
-
I haven't found any mention of children grown in vases that predates the Victor Hugo book. The closest is the mention of an "artificial dwarf" shown in London in 1866.
Giants and Dwarfs (London: Richard Bentley, 1868), Page 441
by Edward J. Wood
In 1866 was exhibited in London "The Greatest Living Wonder of the Age, Che Mah Che Sang, the most diminutive man in Europe, 32 inches high, 25 years old, and weighing 40 lbs. The most interesting artificial Dwarf in existence."
---end
Later, when he was with Buffalo Bill's show, Che Mah was described as the "only Chinese dwarf."
Buffalo Bill Center of the West, link
Che-Mah
"Che-Mah! the only Chinese Dwarf, was born in Ningpo in the island of Choo-Sang ..."
---end
Che Mah spent his later years in Indiana.
Starke County Historical Society, Inc., link
Preserving The Past For Future Generations
Che-Mah
1838-1926
Smallest Man in the World
---end
There's a claim that Che Mah was born in London of Jewish stock.
American Sideshow (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 2006), Page ???
by Marc Hartzman
The Chinese Dwarf died on March 21, 1926. Ten Years later, the book, This Way to the Big Show: The Life of Dexter Fellow, claimed that Che-mah was actually Jewish and from London.Comment
-
The custom of binding the feet into an aesthetic lotus shape was supposedly banned in Chinal in 1911.
Comment
-
A bit from an unsigned 1858 essay likens an author's selling out artistically to parents selling their child to a circus as a "Chinese dwarf." I don't know if the writer of this essay knew anything specific.
Saturday Review, Volume 6, July 17, 1858, Page 56
Gentleman Authors
It would, however, be very unfair if we did not acknowledge that it is extremely hard to sacrifice a large sum of money for a mere punctilio--that most men, and most critics, if tried, would prefer the money to so shadowy a thing as self-approbation--and that there are always a hundred good reasons why money should be made. Few men love themselves, or think more anxiously and wisely for themselves, than parents do for their children, while yet their hopes for their issue are high, and they have not been disheartened by bitter experience. Now, let us suppose that the darling of a family is a mischievous, olive-coloured, hump-backed little pickle. The parents promise themselves that they will keep and cherish this strange nursling for ever. But Barnum comes that way, and settles that this is exactly the child for an “Original Chinese Dwarf." He proposes a moderate sum to the parents, and is repulsed with scorn. He is not to be beaten back, and bids higher and higher. At last the point is reached when the parents begin to hesitate. The picture all that they could do with the money, and are secretly a little flattered by the urgency of the speculator. Finally they are overcome by what they consider a sense of duty. It will be so obviously for the advantage of their little boy that he should be the Well-known Chinese Dwarf, and common prudence enjoins that they should look to the future, and provide a comfortable maintenance for the poor lad. And so the affair is arranged, and Jemmy goes away in a caravan.
---endComment
-
Some excerpts from the book exposing quackery that was referenced during the First Internationale debates on the suitability of George Sexton to serve as a member of the general council.
Revelations of Quacks and Quackery: A Series of Letters, by “Detector" (London: 1865), link
by Francis Burdett COURTENAY
Pages 56-58
But to my weary task of wading through this dark morass of deception and fraud.
DR. KAHN,
OF KAHN's MUSEUM,
3 Tichborne-street.
Here is a specimen of the advertisements, for the most part inserted in country newspapers, in reference to this man and his museum:--
R. KAHN'S PHILOSOPHY OF MARRIAGE, GRATIS.-–Every
visitor to Dr. Kahn's original and magnificent museum, 3 Tichborne street,
top of the Haymarket, London (admission 1s.), will be presented with his new
Handbook, to which is appended numerous and copious extracts from ‘THE
PHILOSOPHYOF MARRIAGE, a treatise on the obstacles to a happy union,
and the means by which they may be effectually removed, together with an
unfailing method by which the debilitated may recover health and vigour, by JosEPH
KAHN, M.D., &c. The complete work post free for 12 stamps, direct from the
Author.
This place was opened by a German adventurer (and a most fortunate one), who styled himself Dr. Kahn, but who, some say, was nothing more originally than a German barber. However, whether this be so or not is now perfectly immaterial, seeing that he has passed away from the scene of his successful professional practice and returned to the country which gave him birth, with, it is said, an ample fortune derived from the suffering and credulous whom, during his residence here, he duped.
This is the individual who, himself or by his assistants—-for such he had, as I shall by-and-by explain—-obtained $220 from a patient and a bill for £280, as mentioned in my sixth letter. During his residence here he was sued in the courts of law for restitution of money he had improperly obtained from patients; and he was unwise enough, unlike the generality of quacks, to contest the question in open court, and, of course, not only lost his cause, but was well exposed for his pains. For many years he pursued a most successful career with his museum and other dodges, giving sometimes lectures himself to the gaping fools who visited the museum, and at others deputing this duty to his assistant, a gentleman called Dr. Sexton.
s to the exact period when Dr. Kahn, or rather the so-called Dr. Kahn, left this country, I know not; but this so-called Dr. Sexton remains, and on him appears to rest the conducting of this flourishing establishment under its original name of Kahn's Museum. But it is said that the real proprietor of the place is a gentleman who is known in the quack world as Dr. Marston, the owner of a similar museum in Oxford-street, and whose private residence, according to the handbills delivered to passers-by in Oxford-street, is 47 Berners-street, Oxford-street. As to Dr. Sexton, I have failed in finding his name in the records I have referred to.
Probably there is no instance which so aptly illustrates the success attendant on the quack museum dodge as the career of Kahn and his assistant. Kahn himself was in extreme poverty when he first visited this country, and opened a very poor place in Oxford-street. In a short time he removed to Tichborne-street, expended a large sum of money thereon, and afterwards in addition took a large house in Harley-street, which he furnished in a most splendid manner; had his carriage and pair of horses, his riding horses, and, in short, surrounded himself with every possible luxury. Now the whilom humble assistant-lecturer of former days drives up to his daily professional avocations in his carriage and pair or his dog-cart, to this temple of fortune, otherwise Kahn's Museum.
---end
Pages 73-78
In the first place, I have had several letters enclosing me hand-bills and books, purporting to be issued by Dr. Kahn, of Kahn's Museum, 3 Tichborne street, Haymarket, and, at the same time, calling my attention to the numerous extracts contained therein of favourable notices of the museum from the ‘Lancet’ and other medical journals; besides certificates in praise of it from eminent medical men. And I have been asked if such extracts are barefaced forgeries or not. If not, it has been further asked, how it has been possible for such a man as Dr. Kahn to have obtained such high testimonials from medical journals and medical men. Seeing to what vile purposes this establishment has been, and is applied, I am not surprised at the astonishment expressed by my correspondents at this apparently unprecedented conduct on the part of medical journals and medical men. And yet the matter is capable of a very simple explanation. On referring in the preceding Letters to Dr. Kahn, and his first appearance in this metropolis, I should have stated that originally his establishment was confined to a mere exhibition of wax models of different organs and parts of the human body, and of some of the diseases incidental thereto, which he had collected and then exhibited. At that time he managed to get some gentlemen connected with the profession and with the medical journals to inspect his models, and to give him the certificates and notices which are now so successfully used to decoy dupes to this Priapeian Establishment. I visited the exhibition myself at that time, and I must say that, in my opinion, it never merited the high encomiums bestowed upon it in these certificates and notices. However, be that as it may, I am sure the authors of them must now deeply regret that they ever put their hands to pen and paper in favour of Dr. Kahn's museum.
But, to resume my explanations. At a period subsequent to this, as I have mentioned in the Letters, a scion of the illustrious house of Jordan, alias Perry and Co., Cooper and Co., Mons. Mallan, Lucas and Co., Bright and Co., Harvey and Co., became associated with the so-called Dr. Kahn, and I fancy it was then that the idea was first instilled into Kahn's head of converting the museum into a trap for, as Punch has it, “green young men.” But be this so or not, it is certain Kahn could not have formed the acquaintance of any one so competent to instruct him in those quack dodges which he subsequently and so successfully adopted, as this scion of the house of Jordan-–a house the different members of which have figured before the world under the various aliases I have just enumerated. Let the reader, therefore, distinctly understand that the notices and certificates referred to were given under a very different order and state of things to that which now prevails; and I know that it is a source of deep regret to the authors of those notices and certificates that they were ever given. I explain this matter thus fully, because many unfortunate persons have assured me, that it was in consequence of these notices and certificates that they were induced to consult the sham medical men now connected with this den.
At the very time the foregoing remarks were passing through the press, I received a communication, and had an interview with a gentleman who seems well posted up in regard to the earlier career in this country of the man Kahn, and his assistant Sexton, now falsely styling himself Dr. Sexton. From the information afforded me by this gentleman, I learn that Kahn, at the instigation of Sexton, had, before he was joined by one of the Jordan family, commenced his career as a quack. At that time, Sexton (who, this gentleman tells me, first commenced his career in London as a missionary) used to lecture at the museum, and in the lectures attacked in a virulent manner the Perry and Co. gang as it then existed. The latter it is presumed, with a view to stop these attacks, gave Kahn large orders for models. These models Kahn got made by a third party, and then sold them to Perry and Co. at a large profit. At this time Kahn was in great poverty, and, it is said, had it not been for the money he got for these models, he would not have been able to keep the museum open. This continued for some time, the more models Perry and Co. bought, the more Sexton abused them in his lectures. But at last some arrangement was come to, by which this novel war was ended, and one of the Perry and Co. Jordans became associated with Kahn in the management of this great quack establishment. The money, and the knowledge of quack dodges thus imported into the concern, soon led to the realization of enormous sums of money, and henceforth, Kahn became, as it is termed, a made man. But now a disagreement with Sexton arose, and he was dismissed from his post of lecturer. However, it appears, he was not the man to submit to the pecuniary loss this dismissal involved; and, confident in his knowledge of the nefarious practices of his whilom associates, he wrote a work, the intended publication of which he announced in the following hand-bill:
“Time's glory is
To unmask falsehood, and bring truth to light.”
In a few days will be ready—Price One Shilling,
THE HISTORY AND MYSTERY
OF THE
GREAT KAHN - QUACKERY.
BY
CHRISTOPHER CRUSHGAMMON, ESQ., M.D.
(Professor of Anti-Humbug in the University of Shambruiser.)
"Ad populum phaleras ego te intuset in cute novi."--Persius
"Oh Kahn! oh Kahn! thou'll get thy fairin,
In type they'll roast thee like a herrin."--Byrn (Slightly altered).
By perusing this small work, any person having been victimized by the nefarious and disgusting quacks therein exposed, will see that not only can they, without the least inconvenience, compel the imposters to refund every farthing they have taken, but may also, in most cases, prosecute them for obtaining money under false pretences.
Published by WILLIAM FREEMAN,
3 Queen's Head Passage, Paternoster Row.
All Communications to be addressed to the Author, care of the Publisher.
“The divell was wont to carry away the evill,
But now the evill out carries the divell.”—Ben. Jonson.
C O N T E N T S
OF PROFESSOR CRUSHGAMMON'S “NEW WORK."
CHAP.
I. Introduction—-Alarm amongst the Quacks at the doings of the Medical Registration Society.
II. Origin of the great Kahn-Quackery.
III. First introduction of Kahn to the Curtis-La'mert-Perry Gang of Jew Quacks.
IV. “The Shoals and Quicksands of Youth,” the greatest shoal of all—-Kahn turns Author by proxy.
V. Curiosities of case making—-History of each of the cases in Kahn's Book, from which the public infer “his great experience.”—-Starts with case 5,560 before he has ever seen a patient.
VI. The case of Captain B. and the 40 leeches, and other cases never before made public.
VII. The Austrian remedy dodge and the Universal Pharmacopoea humbug—-Obtaining money under false pretences.
VIII. Partnership with Triesmar Perry, alias Captain Henry Jordan, of the Victoria Rifles.
IX. Kahn sets up as a Lecturer on Syphilis and Spermatorrhoea—-Origin of his (query) Lectures, and rehearsal for their delivery.
X. History of the Models in the quackshop called “Dr. Kahn's Museum,” labelled “Operations successfully performed by Dr. Kahn, and “Cases treated with great success by Dr. Kahn.”
XI. The Bloomsbury County Court case, with comments—-The reason it was allowed to be made public.
XII. The Spermatorrhoea dodge, why it succeeds.
XIII. The Microscope humbug—-How Spermatozoa are manufactured so as to be seen by the patient in the urine.
XIV. The dodge of “My brother saw you,” why adopted.
XV. The “28 week confinement” remedy—-why resorted to.
XVI. An exposure of the infamous means employed by quacks of the Kahn stamp to obtain such enormous sums of money from patients.
XVII. Consolation for the Kahn victims.
XVIII. Advice to the public.
Unfortunately, for the interest of the suffering public and society at large, the promised exposure was never made, if indeed it ever was really intended to be made. The circulation of these bills created the greatest dismay amongst his ci-devant comrades; and the upshot of the affair was, the MSS. was given up, and Sexton found himself the fortunate owner of an annuity of seventy pounds, or thereabouts, per annum for a certain term of years.
Before concluding my remarks on “The Great Kahn Quackery.”—-now, mark reader, conducted by the sham Dr. Sexton, otherwise Christopher Crushgammon, Esq., M.D.,-I would especially direct the reader's attention to the promised contents of the “New Work.” What an insight into the system of chicanery and fraud which was carried on in this den does the table of contents afford! How suggestive and instructive it is l! And, in this light, I am greatly pleased at having it in my power to place it before the public as a beacon to warn them of the “Shoals and Quicksands” pertaining to the “Great Kahn Quackery!”
---end
Links to the original "Detector" letters as published in the Medical Circular:
The Medical Circular: A Journal of Practical Medicine and Surgery, January 4, 1865, Pages 11-12
General Correspondence
Revelations of Quackery
Letter I
by Detector
January 11, 1865, Page 21
Letter II
January 18, 1865, Pages 35-36
Letter III
January 25, 1865, Pages 51-53
Letter IV
February 1, 1865, Pages 67-68
Letter V
February 8, 1865, Pages 82-84
Letter VI
February 15, 1865, Pages 101-103
Letter VII
February 22, 1865, Pages 118-119
Letter VIII
March 1, 1865, Pages 132-134
Letter IX
March 8, 1865, Pages 150-153
Letter X [Kahn, Sexton]Comment
-
Journalist Thomas Frost recalled that a skeleton displayed at Kahn's museum was said by Dr. Sexton to be that of a notorious murderer.
The Doctor in History, Literature, Folk-lore, Etc (Hull: William Andrews, 1896), Pages 167-180
by William Andrews
Burkers and Body-Snatchers
by Thomas Frost
How recollections will crowd upon the mind when a train of thought is set in motion by the association of ideas! When, many years ago, I visited Dr. Kahn's anatomical museum, then located in Tichborne Street, I there saw a human skeleton which was affirmed by the lecturer, Dr. Sexton, to be that of John Bishop, who was hanged in 1831, for the murder of an Italian boy named Carlo Ferrari, at a house in Nova Scotia Gardens, one of the slums then existing in the north-eastern quarter of London. Though nearly forty years had elapsed since the commission of the crime, and I was only ten years of age when I heard the horrible story which the sight of that ghastly relic of mortality recalled to my mind, all the incidents connected with it immediately passed before my mental vision like a hideous phantasmagoria. The vividness with which they came back to me may be accounted for by the deep impression which they made upon my mind at the time of their occurrence. Those whose memories will carry them back sixty years will readily understand this.
[...]
As an illustration of the times in which such horrors were possible, the story of the murder of Carlo Ferrari may, at this distance of time from the event, be worth telling. In the autumn of 1831, there lived in one of a row of small houses, known as Nova Scotia Gardens, in the poverty-stricken district of Bethnal Green, a man named John Bishop, with his wife and three children. He had formerly been a carrier at Highgate, but had long been suspected of "body-snatching," as the practice of robbing graves was termed, and had no visible means of honest living. He had the look of a man whose original rustic stolidity had been supercharged with cockney cunning. The house adjoining Bishop's was occupied by a man named Woodcock, who had succeeded in the tenancy a glass-blower named Thomas Williams, described as a little, simple-looking man, of mild and inoffensive demeanour. About two o'clock on the morning of the 4th of November, Woodcock was awakened by a noise, as of a scuffle, in Bishop's house, and afterwards heard two men leave it and return in a few minutes, when he recognised the voices as those of Bishop and Williams. At noon the same day these two men were in a neighbouring public-house, accompanied by two other men, one of whom was known as James May, who had formerly been a butcher, but for the last few years had been suspected of following the same ghastly and revolting occupation as Bishop. In the afternoon three men alighted from a cab at Nova Scotia Gardens, two of them being recognised as Bishop and Williams, and afterwards returned to the vehicle, when the former and the third man were carrying something in a sack, which they placed in the cab. The three men then entered, and it was driven off.
About seven o'clock the same evening, Bishop and May presented themselves at Guy's Hospital, carrying something in a sack, and asked the porter if a "subject" was wanted. Receiving a negative reply, they asked him to allow "it" to remain there until the next morning, to which he consented. Half-an-hour later, the two traffickers in human flesh called at Grainger's anatomical theatre, in Webb Street, Southwark, and told the curator they had "a very fresh male subject, about fourteen years of age." The offer being declined, they went away, and later on they were, accompanied by Williams, in a public-house, where May was seen by a waiter to pour water on a handkerchief containing human teeth, and then rub the teeth together, remarking that they were worth two pounds to him.
Next morning, May called upon a dentist named Mills, on Newington Causeway, and sold a dozen teeth to him for a guinea, observing that they were the teeth of a boy fourteen years of age. On examining them, Mills found that morsels of the gums and splinters of the jaw were adhering to them, as if much force had been used to wrench them out. Two hours later, Bishop and May called again at the anatomical theatre in Southwark, and repeated their offer of the preceding evening, which was again declined. Shortly afterwards, they went to Guy's Hospital, accompanied by Williams and a man named Shields, to remove the "subject" left there the evening before, and it was given to them in the sack, as they had left it, and placed in a large hamper, which Shields had brought for the purpose. There was a hole in the sack, through which the porter saw a small foot protruding, apparently that of a boy or a woman.
About midnight, the bell of King's College was rung, and the porter, on going to the gate, found there Bishop and May, whom he had seen there before, it seems, and on similar business. May asked him if anything was wanted, and receiving an indifferent answer, added that they had a male "subject," a boy about fourteen years of age. The porter inquired the price, and was told they wanted twelve guineas for it. He then said he would ask Mr. Partridge, the demonstrator in anatomy, and they followed him to a room adjoining the dissecting room. Nine guineas were offered, which May, with an oath, refused, and went outside. Bishop then said to the porter, "Never mind May, he is drunk; it shall come in for nine in half-an-hour." They then went away, returning at the stipulated time, accompanied by Williams and Shields, the latter carrying on his head the hamper containing the corpse brought from Guy's Hospital. It was taken into a room, where it was opened, and the corpse turned out of the sack by May. The porter, observing a cut on the left temple, and that the left arm was bent and the fingers clenched, conceived suspicions of foul play, and communicated them at once to Mr. Partridge. That gentleman thereupon examined the corpse, and mentioned its condition to the secretary, who immediately gave information to the police.
In order to detain the men until the arrival of the police, the demonstrator showed them a £50 note, observing that he must get it changed for gold before he could pay them. Several constables were soon on the spot, and the four men were arrested, and taken to the station-house in Vine Street, Covent Garden. On being charged on suspicion with having unlawful possession of a corpse, May said he had nothing to do with it, and had merely accompanied Bishop. A similar statement was made by Williams, and Bishop said he was only removing the corpse from St. Thomas's Hospital to King's College. Shields, who was known as a porter, said he was employed to carry the hamper, which he did in the exercise of his vocation. They were all then removed to the cells.
The evidence given at the coroner's inquest by Partridge and two other surgeons left no doubt that the unfortunate lad, respecting whose identity there was no evidence, had been killed by a violent blow on the back of the neck, which had affected the spinal cord. The four accused men were present in custody during the inquiry, and Bishop, after reading a bill relating to the murder, which was displayed on the wall of the room, was heard by a constable to say, in a subdued tone, to May, "It was the blood that sold us." Volunteering to give evidence, he said he got the corpse from a grave, but declined to name the place whence he had got it, alleging that the information would get into trouble two watchmen, who had large families. May also made a voluntary statement, to the effect that he got two "subjects" from the country, which he took first to Grainger's theatre of anatomy, and afterwards to Guy's Hospital, subsequently meeting Bishop, who promised him all he could get for a "subject" above nine guineas if he would sell it for him. The inquest was adjourned, and the police proceeded with their investigation.
The houses of Bishop and May had been promptly visited and searched by the police, who found at the former's a sack, a large hamper, and a brad-awl, the last showing recent bloodstains. At May's house in Dorset Street, New Kent Road, they found a pair of breeches, stained with blood at the back. On a second visit to Bishop's house the garden was dug over, and a jacket, trousers, and a shirt found in one spot, and in another a coat, trousers, a vest with blood on the collar and one shoulder, and a shirt with the front torn. When the brad-awl was produced at Bow Street police-court, May said, "That is the instrument I punched the teeth out with." Shields was eventually discharged from custody, but the other three prisoners were committed for trial on the capital charge.
The identity of the victim remained a mystery until the 19th of November, a fortnight after the murder, when the corpse was recognised by a foreigner named Brun as that of a boy named Carlo Ferrari, whom he had brought from Italy two years before, but had not seen since July, 1830. The boy picked up the means of living by exhibiting a tortoise and a pair of white mice in the streets. He had been seen by several persons in or near Nova Scotia Gardens on the 3rd of November, but he had not been seen since, nor had he returned on that day to his miserable lodgings in Charles Street, Drury Lane. The clothes found in Bishop's garden corresponded with the description given of those worn by him when he was last seen, and a little boy who played with Bishop's children stated that they had, on the following day, shown him two white mice in a cage similar to the one carried by Ferrari.
The incidents of the crime, as revealed from day to day, and the mystery in which the identity of the victim was for some time veiled, created so much excitement in the public mind, that when the prisoners were placed in the dock at the Old Bailey, early in December, the court was crowded, and a guinea each was paid for seats in the gallery, the occupants of which, all fashionably dressed, as might be expected of those who could afford to pay that price for the gratification of their love of the sensational, had taken their seats the day before. Though the evidence was but a recapitulation of the story told before in the police-court and the inquest-room, it was listened to with the utmost avidity. The witnesses for the defence were few, and their evidence valueless, except in the case of May, for whom an alibi was established in respect of the time between the afternoon of the day preceding the murder and noon on the following day. The prisoners were sentenced to death, but in May's case the sentence was commuted into transportation for life. A sea-faring relative of mine, who was second officer of the vessel in which May was sent out to Sydney, described him as an athletic, wiry-looking man, with features expressive of sternness, and a determined will, quite a different-looking man, therefore, to his two companions in crime, who were duly hanged at Newgate.
[...]
---endComment
Comment