Gibecière
MSS. III, 18—The Asti manuscript
G ere ··· i b e c i` > Journal of The Conjuring Arts Research Center ?
VTCVMQVE NEW YORK MMXIII
The Conjuring Arts Research Center Board of Directors William Kalush Dr. David Singmaster Steve Cuiffo Philip Varricchio David Blaine
This issue sponsored by Bella Mondo Gourmet Food available from Whole Foods Market and fine grocers nation-wide. www.bellamondo.biz
Š 2013 Printed in China. ISSN 1558-8149 Gibecière is published semi-annually by The Conjuring Arts Research Center 11 West 30th, 5th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10001 212-594-1033 www.conjuringarts.org
Contents Pocket Notes—Stephen Minch 7 A Curious Manuscript— Donatella Gnetti 15 From Florence to Asti— Stephen Minch with the help of Thierry Depaulis 23 MSS. III, 18: The Asti Manuscript— Anonymous 29 Furthermore... 235 Contributors 237
Q
Volume 8 ‹› Number 1 2 5
POCKET NOTES In the past (a suitable opening for this journal), Gibecière has been the vehicle for publishing some groundbreaking historical documents. Among the most significant are Horatio Galasso’s Giochi bellissimi di regola e di memoria of 1593 and the anonymously written “Sloan 424” manuscript, believed to date from the 1600s. Both of these documents have enlarged our understanding of the magical repertoire of the period, and have taken known tricks and principles back decades, when not centuries, earlier than previously thought. Both documents were also written in Italian. In this first issue of our eighth year, we have the privilege of publishing another manuscript of major importance, also Italian. In the spring of 2010, Marco Aimone learned of an interesting handwritten and illustrated manuscript on conjuring in the Biblioteca Comunale di Asti. For many years—no one is certain how many—this manuscript languished on a shelf in a cramped catch-all storage room, along with the library’s detritus. Only recently was it inventoried and cataloged as MSS. III, 18, without it being viewed as having any great importance. Aimone contacted Italian professional magician and magic historian Aurelio Paviato, and the two men traveled to the library in Northwestern Italy to examine the manuscript. Its binding showed centuries of wear. Its corners were chipped away, its surface heavily chafed. Inside were 326 pages, which a previous early owner had valued highly enough to have professionally bound. On reading just the first two tricks described in the manuscript, Paviato realized the importance of the document. The first item was a sleight-of-hand color change, the second was the force of a card done from the bottom of a spread or fanned deck. The earliest published sleight-of-hand color changes done on the face of the deck didn’t start to appear until the late 1800s. The Under-the-Spread Force was commonly thought to date Q
Volume 8 ‹› Number 1 2 7
Gibecière from the middle years of the same century and is often attributed to the renowned Austrian conjurer, Johann Nepomuk Hofzinser. But, from the look of the manuscript, Aimone and Paviato had a strong feeling it predated these sources by many years. When they impressed on the staff of the Asti library the importance of the manuscript, for the first time serious interest was aroused in it, and it was placed in a more secure environment. Although it bore no author’s name or date, a serious attempt was made to ascertain its age. Clues obtained from the style of handwriting, details in the drawings and the mentions of various card games led to an estimated date of composition falling in the range of 1670 to 1730. Hofzinser and the nineteenth century had just had ideas removed from their provenance and shuttled considerably further back in time. This, though, was only the beginning. On reading the entire manuscript, Paviato soon found other tricks and techniques recorded that were unexpected in writing this early. Also found were tricks that seemed unique. Among these is a translocation of a marked coin from one hand to the other, done under test conditions, with the magician’s arms held straight out to either side. His hands were bound with small bags to prevent the marked coin from escaping the hand clearly holding it or from reaching the opposite empty hand. While fascinating, the trick has several drawbacks that probably account for its not surviving—but it may have been the inspiration for Pinetti’s “Flying Ring,” which in turn grew to become Al Koran’s “Ring Flite.” Another unfamiliar effect is the production of a small box from beneath one of three empty cups. The cup under which it appears is freely chosen by a member of the audience, and the box turns out to be a nest of boxes, inside of which is found, folded up, a previously selected playing card. There are also details given in passing that indicate that the author either had some performing experience or was privy to someone who did. He explains, for example, that when switching an item, the conjurer 8 2 Gibecière ‹› Winter 2013 Q
Gibecière should put both hands into his pockets in search of some prop or magical powder, thereby splitting focus and allowing the overt motivation to obscure the covert one, just as we do to this day. When describing a trick using gaffed cards, he tells his readers that it is better to do a previous card effect that does not use the gaffs, to establish the ordinary nature of the deck. During this preceding trick, the gaffs are kept hidden in the deck or may be secretly added to it afterward. These are just a couple of the tips, given in passing, that suggest how early some basic ideas of psychology were understood, ideas still in common use. What we know of the author of this remarkable manuscript can only be deduced from clues in his text. First, he was not a common or garden collator of magic tricks in conjuring’s early recorded history. The extensiveness of his text—approaching three hundred items—shows a passion for his subject that is deeper than that of even a motivated dilettante. It appears he did perform to some extent, as he proclaimed on his title page: “All Tested by Me,” although this claim seems meant to apply only to the third section of the manuscript, which consists mostly of private pastimes and pranks. Even so, if true, it amounts to a considerable accomplishment. From his writing we can see he was an educated man, and he showed a good sense for logical organization. The manuscript is carefully divided into three parts. The first is devoted to tricks with playing cards, the second to sleight-of-hand with other objects, and tricks with apparatus. The third part concerns tricks, stunts and experiments the author reckoned less professional in nature and more suited to private entertainments. It contains a scant few small conjuring tricks and arithmetical divinations mixed with an impressive catalog of the usual puzzles, pranks and scientific amusements of the time. This being the section of material the author claims to have personally tested (which in some cases seems lamentable), it appears he is drawing a considered Q
Volume 8 ‹› Number 1 2 9
Gibecière line between these smaller, more intimate feats and the sleight-of-hand and apparatus tricks of the first two sections. The implication that arises from this is that his performing was limited to an amateur level. In his introduction he practically says as much when he explains that he came to write the manuscript to fill an idle period. Another clue to the breadth of his experience may be seen in a change in writing style, noted by Dr. Lori Pieper, in the second part of the manuscript, when he comes to the Cups and Balls. This change suggests he may have been copying from a document written by himself at an earlier time, or by someone else. If the latter is the case, he was not writing from personal experience. There is actually a fourth part to the manuscript, which is a continuation of the first. This section of added card tricks was written after the others, but the author’s “index” or table of contents shows clearly that he intended this addendum to follow the material in the first section. We have conformed to this wish. The categorization of tricks, their often logical progression and a number of careful cross-references that include page numbers all show that this manuscript was planned with some care, although a few items, particularly with cards and the Cups and Balls, are separated from the related material. The inclusion of additional conjuring tricks near the end of Part 3 is a further indication that information was discovered and added during the writing process, as these tricks are of a type and quality differing from the pastimes and puzzles that fill this section of the manuscript. In the introduction, the author admits these later additions. The new card tricks recorded after Part 3 are also of a notably advanced nature. This observation raises the possibility that the author had made the acquaintance of someone with a greater degree of knowledge in the field, someone who opened to him a storehouse of new secrets, many of which had not been recorded before, and would not be published for 10 2 Gibecière ‹› Winter 2013 Q
Gibecière many years. The author also slips back and forth between “you” and “I” when describing the actions performed in the added tricks in this late section. This strengthens the suspicion that he may have been copying from another source, written or verbal, based on the experience of a performer. The author, from the evidence alone of his opening comments to the reader, clearly planned for his manuscript to be published. It never was. His hand-drawn illustrations and decorative devices attest to his ability as a draftsman. His drawings are hugely informative; more so, it is sad to say, than is his text. While his introduction displays polish and eloquence, these qualities disappeared when he sat down to technical writing. This he acknowledges at length in the introduction: I have not observed good diction, since it is impossible to explain in words how to glide the cards and perform some feats of prestidigitation; nor [did I observe] good order, since when some necessary circumstance suggested itself to me when I was in the middle [of ] a sentence, I thought it more proper to add to it than to let the line of thought go where its course would have taken it. I know that you will easily complain about the one who has written, and he will grant to you that you are right...
He indeed had much for which to apologize. His writing shows the faults he acknowledges and others. Some are to be expected of what was probably in the main a first draft. There are spelling and grammatical errors, confusions and omissions of words, a sparsity of punctuation and a frequent lack of ability with technical description that goes beyond the want of an established conjuring jargon. To these drawbacks we must add that his script is often difficult to read, and in some places letters and words are illegible. In all, this manuscript proves a considerable challenge to the reader. Were it not for its striking importance, these deficiencies would recommend its return to a neglected shelf in the Biblioteca Comunale di Asti. Q
Volume 8 ‹› Number 1 2 11
Gibecière But that importance has inspired a huge effort by a collection of devoted parties to bring this manuscript to press in an annotated English translation. The first arduous task was undertaken by Aurelio Paviato, who accepted the challenge of deciphering and transcribing the entire notebook. He also agreed to return to the Biblioteca Comunale di Asti with Franco Giove to photograph every page, so that we could produce quality reproductions of the drawings. In addition, he has carefully proofread the translation and made numerous suggestions that have improved its clarity and accuracy. It is his recognition of the importance of the work and his dedication to making it known that deserve the first and greatest debt of gratitude. William Kalush and the Conjuring Arts Research Center then assumed the expense of hiring Dr. Lori Pieper to render Aurelio’s Italian transcription into an understandable English. Factoring in archaisms of the language, grammatical and syntactic faults, author’s errors and a sparse punctuation that fails to guide one in the navigation of long, jumbled sentences, Dr. Pieper’s task was a considerable one. When particularly difficult sections frustrated her understanding of the author, Aurelio Paviato, Mauro Massironi, Theirry Depaulis and I collaborated with her in solving many of the mysteries. Translating such a work raises difficult questions and challenges. Creating a silken text from a rough original would do an injustice to historical accuracy, and would distort the author’s voice. But without adding occasional clarification through punctuation and inserted notes to compensate for omissions and errors, the English text would be as difficult to understand as its parent. What we’ve tried to accomplish amounts to a balancing act between clarity and faithfulness. The result is not a smooth read, and occasional passages must remain clouded, as they are in the original. However, you 12 2 Gibecière ‹› Winter 2013 Q
Gibecière will be reading something that retains a sense of the source text, yet is more accessible. Along the way, annotations were added by Dr. Pieper, Aurelio Paviato, Thierry Depaulis, William Kalush and myself, to explain certain words and references, to acknowledge problems that could not be resolved and to give some historical background for certain sleights, tricks and ideas that were judged to be of particular interest or importance. Comments might be made on nearly every entry in the manuscript, but those could easily exceed the length of their source material. Despite its length, because this unpublished manuscript is felt to be of such importance to the history of conjuring, we wish to present all of its contents on conjuring. We have, though, eliminated a large portion of Part 3 that consists of puzzles, pranks, scientific novelties and divination stunts based on lengthy mathematical exercises, all common to the period. These items would have added another hundred pages or more to this issue, and so much material of a peripheral nature was felt a poor use of most readers’ time. For those who have an interest in these topics, a PDF file of the entire translation will be posted on the Ask Alexander Web site. Before getting to the text of the Asti manuscript, we are very pleased to present introductions to the work by Donatella Gnetti and Thierry Depaulis. Dr. Gnetti is the Director of the Biblioteca Civica of Asti, and was responsible for inventorying, cataloging and dating the manuscript. She explains how it was discovered, what is known of its history, how she made her estimation of its age, and from where the library likely acquired it. Thierry Depaulis is one of the world’s experts on antique card games, and his analysis of details in the manuscript has independently corroborated Dr. Gnetti’s dating from another angle, and has ascertained its place of composition. These two experts tell a fascinating story. Q
Volume 8 ‹› Number 1 2 13
Gibecière Late in the preparation of the translation of the Asti manuscript, MSS. III, 18, for its appearance here, Thierry Depaulis brought to our attention another manuscript he thought might have a relationship to it. This second anonymous work was brought to light by Franco Pratesi, in a short article on tricks with a Minchiate deck, published in the November 1987 issue of Playing-Card World, a newsletter for the International Playing-Card Society (no. 50, pp. 23–4). The manuscript is thought to date from the eighteenth century, and is lodged in the National Library of Florence under the title of “Targioni Tozzetti Nr. 8.” This manuscript is devoted entirely to conjuring tricks with cards and other objects, along with scientific amusements, puzzles and other entertainments typical of the period. On an initial comparison of this unusually long Italian work on conjuring (over five hundred pages), the relationship between it and MSS. III, 18 became immediately obvious. Most, if not all, of the content of MSS. III, 18 is contained in Targioni Tozzetti Nr. 8, generally sequenced identically, although with some reorganization and additions. The hand-done illustrations of both manuscripts, while in different styles, are unquestionably from the same source. There has not been time for a careful comparison of the two works, but it would appear that the anonymous author of Targioni Tozzetti Nr. 8 used MSS. III, 18 as its major source of information, or that both manuscripts drew from some undiscovered third source. Further research will provide more clues and information. So prepare to be among the few to enjoy the first publication of a rare document that holds important new insights and corrections to the history of conjuring. Stephen Minch editor
14 2 Gibecière ‹› Winter 2013 Q
adddddddddddddddddds c f c f c f c f c f c f c f zvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvx
A Curious Manuscript
Title page of MSS. III, 18. The three reddish-brown blemishes are of interest.
A CURIOUS MANUSCRIPT Donatella Gnetti
T
he manuscript preserved in the Biblioteca di Asti with shelfmark MSS. III, 18, was found completely by chance more than thirty years ago by an employee of the Biblioteca, who received the task of rearranging the storeroom for periodicals of the Biblioteca, and was then assigned to the rooms on the ground floor of the west wing of the Palazzo Alfieri. At the end of the corridor there was a narrow passageway, difficult to move about in, where for decades every type of material had accumulated. Amid piles of scrap paper, old chairs and broken bottles there emerged, in a fair condition for its age, a volume rebound in leather, which, once the dense layer of dust on the cover boards had been removed, turned out to contain an old manuscript. The title specifies its contents in detail: Il presente Libro è diviso in tre partj, la prima, che insegna a far Giuochj di mano, tutti con Carte. Il secondo far Giuochj di mano con Bussolottj, e simili. Il terzo, varij Giuocolini da passar l’ozzio, con alcune esperienze, e Segretj, tutti da mè prouati. (The present Book is divided into three parts, the first one, that teaches how to do Sleight-of-Hand Tricks, all with Cards. The second, how to do Sleight-of-Hand Tricks with Cups and similar things. The third, various little Tricks, to pass leisure [time], with some experiments and Secrets, all tested by me.)
There is no indication of the author’s name, the place the manuscript was composed or the date of composition. About ten years after it was found, it was the task of the present writer to catalog the manuscript, an operation that involved a detailed examination and description of the volume. It is a volume in 4o, c omposed of Q
Volume 8 ‹› Number 1 2 17