The Genii Forum

Hi!

I can read what Luca Paccioli write one book about puzzles and another magic number trick, in the years 1450-1490. And what the new year, somebody translate you book "De Viribus Quantitatis" from italian to english in print.
Luca Paccioli was the acountement of Leonardo Da Vinci and you friend.

Somebody ear something about it??
Pardon my english.

Ricardo Difeo

Check out the article about it here: http://www.conjuringarts.org/about/pressroom.shtml

-Jim

Very interesting, but how can something that was never published and only seen by a handful of scholars be the "...the foundation not only of modern magic but of numerical puzzles, too"?

I'm glad it's been translated and will be published, but I think a foundational book would have to have some circulation. According to the article, this one didn't.

In fact the book has been available in a modern Italian edition since 1997. Here's a slightly different slant on the story:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/04 ... hed_a.html

What's new is the fact that it has been translated into English.

You will find it in the original language,as also Carroll,Ozanam and many others at:
http://utenti.quipo.it/base5/personal/biblioteca.htm
Alessandro.

May I catch the occasion,as I'm quite sure that he will read this thread,to send a hello to a magician-mathematitian that I met in London at Ron's day?It was great fun,also with the bar peoples.He talked about his works in Pisa,etc.Unfortunally,I did not quite catch his name,maybe due to my grey cells turning white!
Alessandro.

Hi!

Thank you for answer.

And the new questions is: "Is now the book Discovery of Wichtcraft" the very old book on magic?

Thanks for that excellent link, Alessandro. It's incredible what you can find on the Internet.

Ricardo, it sounds like you are asking whether "Discoverie of Witchcraft" is still the oldest magic book (el libro mas antiguo). From what I can see and understand of it, "De viribus quantitatis" seems to describe more stunts and "physical amusements" than actual magic tricks, but maybe I just haven't found the relevant parts of the book. The reference to card tricks in the Guardian article does sound interesting.

David Alexander wrote:

Very interesting, but how can something that was never published and only seen by a handful of scholars be the "...the foundation not only of modern magic but of numerical puzzles, too"?

It's possible that something unpublished could be a foundational work. In fact, that's the tradition of medieval "books of secrets," which were originally manuscripts shared exclusively by the learned, only later to be printed and shared with the general public as part of the printing revolution. So something could be source material without having seen the light of day for all but a very few.

Yet, David Singmaster's words seem to be a bit of hyperbole. Given Singmaster's credentials, I'm in no position to debate his claim vis-a-vis numerical puzzles, but I do find it odd that he would annoint Paccioli's book as he has, since for him to say that, he must be certain that no books and/or unpublished manuscripts of similar content pre-date Paccioli's (and therefore that Paccioli is the original source).

How can he have any semblence of certainty on that point?

Ricardo, Scot's book is certainly one of the most famous of early English-language works, but his book is not the first to explain magic tricks, even if we only consider books in the English language. When we look at "magic" books from the 16th century (or earlier), invariably one of the debates that surfaces is "what is a magic trick?" In many ways, the application of scientific principles was magical to the vast majority of the public, and oftentimes what we call "tricks" were not presented as such in those early texts.

Clay

In fact the book has been available in a modern Italian edition since 1997. Here's a slightly different slant on the story:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/04 ... hed_a.html

What's new is the fact that it has been translated into Englis

It is worth noting that the word "discovery" does not appear in the original guardian article. The opening sentence of the piece that Martin Kemp critiques reads "After lying almost untouched in the vaults of an Italian university for 500 years, a book on the magic arts written by Leonardo da Vinci's best friend and teacher has been translated into English for the first time." (Emphasis mine)

There is no claim made in the piece that is in any way refuted by Mr. Kemp's having a copy of the text in his office. The word "rediscovered" is used in a way that I think is imprecise and may be misleading...but, apart from that, I see nothing in the article itself to support Mr. Kemp's charges.

It is clear from the article that the news is that this is the first english translation of a text that has not seen wide circulation, no where does McDonald make the explicit claim that the text has been discovered; and she very clearly states that this is the first english edition.

(incidentally, thanks to Edwin Corrie for passing this along...I enjoyed it)

N.

Hi!

Ok Edwin. My english is very very rare (bad). :p But you can interpetate these, Ok, you are magician. ;)

Thank.-