A D V E N T U R E S in C Y B E R S O U N DJohn Nevil Maskelyne : 1839 - 1917
Maskelyne, Cooke and Devant John Nevil Maskelyne (1839-1917) was one of the greatest British magicians, particularly in the field of stage illusions created through sleight of hand. He trained as a watchmaker, which presumably gave him a thorough grounding in the art of precision, and first came to public attention in 1865 when he and his partner George A.Cooke exposed "American spiritualist mediums" the Davenport Brothers as frauds. Maskelyne and Cooke established their own theatre in 1873, and became famous for their shows which blended comedy, illusion and conjuring tricks (they billed themselves as 'Royal Illusionists and Anti-Spiritualists', making it clear that they were in the business of illusion rather than pseudo-religious fakery). They subsequently influenced countless magicians, including the young Georges Méliès, who would adapt many of Maskelyne and Cooke's techniques in his own stage productions, and then further into the cinema. Cooke died in 1904, after which Maskelyne teamed up with the legendary magician David Devant, though the two had performed together a decade earlier. Devant (1868-1941) was by common consent the greatest stage illusionist of the era (in 1905 he was the obvious choice for the first president of the Magic Circle), and the team of Maskelyne and Devant became even more successful than Maskelyne and Cooke, until the partnership was ended in 1915, just before Maskelyne's death. Devant retired in 1920 due to ill health, but would live until 1941. Maskelyne and Devant published Our Magic in 1911, one of the definitive works about the theory of magic.
The first typewriter to be manufactured in Britain was designed by the celebrated magician John Nevil Maskelyne and produced by the Maskelyne British Typewriter & Manufacturing Co Ltd of London in 1889. This model had two unusual features. One, a shift key that could be operated either by hand OR foot according to the customer's preference! ( Just think, no accidental caps locking. ) The other was differential spacing which allowed each character to occupy a space appropriate to its width, as in printing. This feature was only introduced by IBM in 1941.
 Maskelyne Typewriter, 1893
Our Magic by Nevil Maskelyne and David Devant and reviewed in 1997 by Steve Bryant Preface In the July 1996 issue of The Little Egypt Gazette, which I naively thought would be the final issue of this journal, I included an article entitled "Mr. Parrish and Company." The piece was an appreciation of four books that significantly influenced me as a child and which, for better or worse, led me down this magical path so many of you have also chosen. The books were New Ways to Mystify and For Magicians Only, by Robert Parrish; Magic Made Easy, a soft-covered pulp how-to book by Carl March (a pseudonym for Sid Fleischman); and Magic for All, by magician/cartoonist Bob Dunn. For the sake of brevity, I omitted two other influential books from that article -- Our Magic, by Maskelyne and Devant (which I assumed all magicians to be familiar with), and an introductory tome, Everybody's Book of Magic, by Will Dexter. As both these books are of British origin, and because they gave me, at a young age, a particularly British view of the overall world of magic, now is a fitting time in which to consider their merits, and especially to bring them to the attention of any reader who has yet to encounter them. File Note: Our Magic selected only for this biography on John Nevil Maskelyne Article My home town library's edition of Our Magic looked (still looks, actually, as I now own it) more like a magic book than any other book I've ever seen. Its cover is a rich brown cloth, and, although the binding has been replaced with a stock library binding, replete with the Dewey decimal 793.8, the cover still clearly conveys the image of a Merlinesque figure holding a steaming bowl of something, with bats fluttering about his head. The three principal sections of the book, "The Art in Magic," "The Theory of Magic," and "The Practice of Magic," are prominently displayed along with the authors' names, Nevil Maskelyne and David Devant. (Maskelyne wrote the first two sections, Devant the last.) It's a surprisingly heavy book for its size, no doubt because of the weight of the 505 glossy pages within. Although magic knew only one David Devant, it knew three Maskelynes, so perhaps we should clear up which one wrote this book. The eldest was J. N. Maskelyne (the J.N. stands for John Nevil, but he went by his initials in magic circles). Originally a watchmaker, he and his friend George Cooke attained a certain fame by debunking the fraudulent spiritualist Davenport Brothers. This led to a few years as traveling magicians, until J. N. M. and Cooke purchased Egyptian Hall in London, which became England's Home of Mystery for 30 years. J. N. bought St. George's Hall in 1904, at which time Cooke dropped out in favor of Devant. When Devant eventually retired in 1914, J.N.'s son Nevil joined the partnership. By this time a third Maskelyne, J.N.'s grandson Jasper, had already appeared on stage with Devant (he was nine when Devant used him as a prearranged "boy from the audience" for his famous egg trick). It was the middle one, Nevil, who wrote Our Magic along with Devant in 1911. Nevil's sections grew from articles he had contributed to The Magic Circular, house organ of The Magic Circle, while Devant's section describes in great detail the routines from an act that made him one of the most popular magicians of his time. I should elaborate that the volume described so far was one of the earliest editions, published in London by George Routledge & Sons, Limited, and in New York by E. P. Dutton & Company. The book eventually went out of print and, after lying fallow for several decades, resurfaced in 1946 as part of The Fleming Magic Classic Series. The Fleming edition dropped the Merlin figure from the cover and inserted line drawings for what had previously been photographic plates.
John Nevil Maskelyne, a notorious escape artist, began his career a short time after Robert Houdin's death in 1871. Together with his spectacular escape act, he perfected apparent levitation. In 1893 he joined David Devant. In 1911 they published Our Magic, a treatise on the theory of magic. Maskelyne died in 1917, but Devant continued acting until a short time after his death in 1941 at 73.
David Devant was born David Wighton in Holloway London on the 22nd February 1868. By general consent he was the greatest magician of his time. He first came to prominance in 1893 when he joined John Nevil Maskelyne at the Egyptian Hall in Picadilly. The team of Maskalyne and Devant moved to St Georges Hall (it was chilly apparently) in 1905. David then became a partner in 'Maskelyne and Devant' and the team became a household name.More famous than the previous team of 'Maskelyne and Cooke'. The partnership was dissolved in 1915 and Devant turned his attention to the big variety theatres in England. Sadly within a few years he was stricken with an inccurable paralysing illness and spent the rest of his life at a nursing home in Putney. He wrote several books including My Magic Life (1931) and Secrets of My Magic Life (1935)
Inventors in the World of Magic by Peter D Blanchard John Nevil Maskelyne was also a general inventor. He came up with a cash register in 1869 which won him a top award in Paris. He had forty or more patents covering numerous inventions including the coin-operated lock for toilets, wireless telegraphy and railway signalling. His typewritercan be seen at the Science Museum in South Kensington, London. On a final note, in 1867 he invented a 'Levitation of a woman' illusion. Later his son, Nevil*, improved on it by devising a method of placing a hoop around the suspended body, which really astounded the audience. Invention continued in the family, Jasper, John Nevil's grandson, was famous for inventing methods of camouflage during World War II when he was Major Maskelyne. Ed. This is obviously another Nevil? as John Nevil M's FATHER was Nevil Story M. - The genealogy would then seem to be thus: Nevil (Story) -> John (Nevil) -> Nevil#2 -> Jasper
Maskelyne, J. Magic: Top Secret (London: Stanley Paul, c.1948). An amusing if not revealing report on a magician's contributions to British camouflage during World War.
The following book review is for all interested. It may be reprinted by anyone who cares to. I thought it might be topical in reference to the current gulf situation. Though these events occurred many years ago the locale is close enough to give a feel for what our troops are experiencing now. For those with access this book is in the Castle library. I don't know if it is still in print.
by David Fisher published by Coward-McCann, Inc. Feb 1983 200 Madison Ave. NY,NY 10016 reprinted in paperback by Berkley publishing Group Nov. 1983 200 Madison Ave. NY,NY 10016 380 pages
This well written book reads like a novel and there are several photographs of Jaspers work. After enlistment the British didn't know what to do with him so they assigned Jasper to the Royal Engineers Camouflage Corps. While still training in Britain, he used mirrors to sucessfully hide a machine gun nest and ambush Lord Gort, the Inspector General of the British army who was inspecting the camouflage training center. He then created the illusion of a German warship floating on the Thames. Realizing Jasper's ability to produce armaments from thin air, Lord Gort had Jasper transferred to the mid-east where there was a terrible shortage of men and material. Upon arriving in Cairo, Jasper was immediately sent to Damascus, Syria to have a "magic duel" with the Iman of the Whirling Dervish tribe who was threatening a jihad or holy war if the British used an evacuation route that ran through Dervish territory in what was then Palestine, Transjordan, Syria and Turkey. This "duel" was similar to ones his father Nevil Maskelyne had performed on behalf of Lawrence of Arabia years before. After Jasper's sucess against the Iman, Jasper was assigned as the head of the Camouflage Experimental Section and given near complete autonomy. Jasper's unit was vital to winning the war in the mid-east. He created armies, tanks and battleships where there weren't any. This caused the enemy to waste valuable resources attacking useless targets and prevented attacks on units that otherwise were not strong enough to resist. He transformed tanks into harmless looking supply trucks so enemy planes would pass them by. He designed spy equipment for the OSS and escape tools that could be hidden in the uniforms of pilots in case they were captured. Perhaps the biggest illusions were the ones Jasper had to perform nightly throughout the balance of the war. These illusions were bigger than anything performed before or since. Jasper Maskelyne vasnished the Suez Canal and Alexandria Harbor nightly so that enemy bombers could not find them and would bomb useless sand dunes instead. Here for the first time his methods for these feats are revealed. The War Magician gives you a real feel for what it is like to fight with limited resources in the mid-east, and shows how magic principles can be used to save lives by creative thinkers. Though Jasper Maskelyne never fired a shot, without him the war in the desert would have been lost. From making battleships and submarines appear, to tricking Rommel's Afrika Corps into retreat this is the untold story of Jasper Maskelyne, one of the greatest illusionists of all time.
Magic Show - Magic Works So long as magicians insist upon miscalling their feats by the name of "tricks," so long will the public insist upon regarding magic as being primarily intended to invite speculation upon "how it is done." Terminology by Nevil Maskelyne and David Devant To say that modern magic is dominated by confusion of ideas would scarcely be an overstatement of the case. As a natural consequence the study of magic is too often conducted upon lines that demand a maximum expenditure of energy in obtaining a minimum of resultant benefit. The student is improperly occupied in a protracted attempt to evolve order out of chaos; endeavouring to straighten out for himself a path which should already have been made straight for him. Instead of being devoted to a definite and straightforward course of study his mind is condemned to wander aimlessly among a multitude of apparently disconnected details, which are subject to no general laws, and are devoid of everything in the nature of system or order. Indeed, the chaotic state into which the technical side of magic has been allowed to drift leaves the student in much the same plight as that of an untrained boxer who is told to "go in and win." To many people, indeed, it may come as a surprise to learn that any such thing as a theory of magic can possibly exist. The idea that magic is, necessarily, an exact science, capable of systematic treatment, seems lost to view, as a rule. The commonly accepted notion is that the technical side of magic consists in a heterogeneous conglomeration of odds and ends; of isolated facts and dodges which are beyond correlation. This unsatisfactory state affairs, of course, is but an obvious consequence the disorder in which magical science has become involved, throughout its entire constitution. There is, as we propose to show, no reason why magic should be subjected to this exceptional disadvantage. Its technicalities are no more heterogeneous than are those of physical sciences in general. The facts and principles it embodies are no less amenable to order than are analogous details included in other subjects. In short, the technical side of magic is readily capable of being systematised and co-ordinated upon a scientific basis and, accordingly, reduced to the form of a complete and harmonious system, governed by rational theory. The false conceptions that prevail in reference to magic are, we believe, largely due to the looseness of phraseology which, among other slipshod characteristics, has been fostered by performers and public, alike. In other subjects, no doubt, there often exist matters which are doomed to popular misconception. But, probably, magic stands pre-eminent among subjects which are generally misunderstood. In most subjects, however, the theory has been amply investigated, the essential facts and principles have been clearly demonstrated, and the meanings of technical terms definitely prescribed. In magic, on the contrary, such matters have received but scant attention, with the result that chance and not system has governed its development and progress. Thus, we find the subject interwoven with ill-arranged ideas which, in turn, have given rise to a vagueness of definition, making confusion worse confounded. Take, for example, the word "trick." Apart from magic, everybody knows its meaning. But, when used in connexion with things magical, the word "trick" becomes not only vague as to its definition, but also a most fertile source of misunderstanding and false judgment. Worst of all, the term is so dear to magical performers that they cherish it, in all its vagueness, as something even more precious and more deeply significant than "that blessed word Mesopotamia." It is made applicable to almost anything and everything relating to magic, apart from either rhyme or reason. The result naturally produced by such folly might readily be foreseen. The public has become educated in the belief that magic consists in the doing of "tricks," and in nothing beyond that (presumably) trivial end. At the same time, as we have already noted on page 6o, there has arisen the habit of associating magical presentations with the appliances or accessories used therein, and of regarding as practically identical all experiments in which a certain accessory or form of procedure is adopted. Now, it cannot be too clearly understood that magic does NOT solely consist in the doing of tricks; nor can it be too often impressed upon the public that the object of a magical performance is not the offering of puzzles for solution. But, so long as magicians insist upon miscalling their feats by the name of "tricks," so long will the public insist upon regarding magic as being primarily intended to invite speculation upon "how it is done." Professor Hoffmann, the doyen of magical writers, has expressed himself in no uncertain tone concerning the persistent misuse of this unfortunate word "trick." To him, the description of a magical feat or experiment as a "trick" is utterly abhorrent. He objects, as we do, to that misuse of the word. He prefers, as we do, the word "experiment." Clearly, in any magical presentation, the "trick" must be the means whereby a certain end is attained or promoted. It is the cause which produces a certain result, and cannot possibly be both means and end together. Therefore, to describe a magical experiment, feat, or presentation as a "trick," is a "terminological inexactitude" of the first order. It is an offense against good sense and artistic propriety, deserving the fullest condemnation. We ourselves are at times compelled to use the word in this illegitimate sense, because it has been incorporated in the titles of certain well known experiments. We do so, however, with extreme reluctance, and only under protest. It is obvious that, before one can attempt a rational statement of any kind, all parties concerned must definitely understand the meaning attached to the terms in which that statement is to be made. Otherwise, it is impossible to convey accurate information. Then, at the outset, our treatment of magical theory must embody a few remarks, by way of clearing up some of the misconceptions and slipshod vagaries associated with the terms employed. There is no need to deal categorically with the errors prevalent in this connexion; nor, indeed, to do so much as to enumerate them. It will be sufficient for us to set down the meanings which ought to be attached to the terms we use, and which are accordingly intended 'to be understood herein. The first and most important definition, of course, is that of the term "Magic" itself. In ancient times, the word implied the setting aside of natural laws, in some manner or other. But, since the ancients had a very limited knowledge of the laws of nature -- or, practically, no accurate knowledge whatever, concerning the forces by which the laws of nature are made manifest -- "magic" was once a term used to denote the cause of any event or achievement beyond the explanation of popular intelligence. In much the same way, modern investigators of so called "psychical" phenomena describe as supernormal any event for the occurrence of which physical science is not yet able to account. Nevertheless, we who live in the Twentieth Century are, or should aware that the laws of nature cannot possibly ~ be contravened. They may be set in mutual opposition, but they cannot otherwise be overcome or defied. The forces of nature, humanly speaking, are incapable of either destruction or suspension. Therefore, at the present day, the term "magic" must have a meaning very different from that assigned to it in bygone centuries. The only meaning it can now possess must relate to the apparent, not actual defiance of natural laws. Modern magic, therefore, deals exclusively with the creation of mental impressions. We cannot perform real miracles, as everybody is well aware. We can only perform feats which look like miracles, because the means whereby they are performed have been skillfully screened from observation. Then, in order to define the nature of modern magic, we must find some formula that will represent the common foundation of all the apparently miraculous effects we produce. Since those effects are not really, but only apparently, due to miraculous processes, there is no difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory definition of the meaning now applicable to the word "magic." Here it is -- Magic consists in creating, by misdirection of the senses, the mental impression of supernatural agency at work. That, and that only, is what modern magic really is, and that meaning alone is now assignable to the term. The modern magician does not deceive his spectators -- that is to say, the legitimate magician. The modern charlatan, of course, has no more conscience than his predecessors. He will deceive anybody who will give him the chance, and he will try to deceive even those who don't; just to make sure of missing no possible opening for chicanery. He and the legitimate magician, however, are wide as the poles asunder, in aim and procedure. A legitimate magician never deludes his audiences as to the character of his performance. He makes no claim to the possession of powers beyond the scope of physical science. Neither does he, while rejecting the suggestio falsi, substitute in its place the suppressio veri. That method is one frequently adopted by charlatans in magic. The latter gentry often refrain from committing themselves to any definite statement on the subject of their powers. In effect, they say to their spectators. "We leave you to decide upon the nature of our feats. If you can explain the methods we employ, you will know that what we do is not miraculous. If, on the other hand, you cannot explain our methods you will, of course, know that we have the power to work miracles." Since the majority of people attending public performances cannot explain the simplest devices used in magic, it is scarcely likely that persons of such limited capability will arrive at any satisfactory explanation of processes involving even a moderate degree of complexity. Consequently, the mere reticence of the charlatan suffices to convince many people that "there is something in it." So there is, no doubt; but, usually, not much. Certainly, nothing such as the innocent dupe conceives. The distinguishing characteristic of a legitimate magician is his straightforwardness. He makes no false pretences, either by suggestion, implication, or reticence. This present treatise of course, relates only to legitimate magic; and, therefore, our definition of the term is limited to misdirection of the senses, exclusively. We have nothing to do with fraudulent, or semi-fraudulent deceptions of intelligence, as practised by unscrupulous adventurers. The misdirections of sense which constitute magic as a whole, may be divided into three groups, according to the nature of the processes upon which they are respectively based. Thus, magical processes are, in character, either Manipulative, Mental, or Physical. These groups represent the three technical orders of magic. Each of these orders may be sub-divided into various classes or Types, according to the general nature of the principles they include. Each Class or Type may, again, be sub-divided into minor groups, according to the particular Principles or Methods respectively involved. Each of these latter groups may be further subdivided into specific categories, in accordance with the particular tricks or devices in which the various principles or methods are utilised. Lastly, we have the sub-division of classes into specific groups, determined by the nature of the results attained. It would, of course, be possible to still further classify magical processes, in accordance with the objects used in connexion with them, and other details of staging and procedure, but no useful purpose could be served by so doing. From the foregoing dissection of magic we arrive at a number of definitions, as follows: -- A magical Process is essentially a means for misdirection of the spectator's senses. It belongs to one of the three Orders of magic -- Manipulative Mental or Physical. The Type of a magical process implies the general character of the principles it embodies. A magical Principle or Method is a basis up which a number of tricks or devices may be founded. A magical Trick or Device is an invention, by means of which a certain principle is utilised for the production of a given result. A magical Effect is the final result due to the use of a certain trick, or tricks in combination. A Feat of magic consists in the successful performance of a magical experiment -- the accomplishment of a magician's intended purpose. A magical Experiment consists in attempting the production of a magical effect -- or, in other words, the attempted accomplishment of a feat of magic. In accordance with these definitions any magical experiment may be traced to its origin or, at any rate, assigned to its proper place in the general scheme. It must not, however, be imagined that a magical experiment is necessarily confined within the limits of one group, class or order. On the contrary, it may embody a number of individual tricks or devices, each of which is referable to its own particular line of origin. This point will become increasingly evident as we proceed. Incidentally, it will serve to demonstrate the utter absurdity of describing a magical experiment as a "trick." Such experiments not only may, but usually do, include quite a number of tricks, entirely diverse in character. The combination of those tricks for the purpose of producing a certain effect constitutes an invention, which could be protected by law. The production of that particular result by means of that combination of tricks constitutes a magical feat. The presentation of that feat, with a view to producing an intended effect, constitutes a magical experiment. It is, beyond question, an experiment; because its success must depend upon the performer's ability, coupled with a fortuitous absence of adverse circumstances. With this preamble, we may now proceed to the systematic dissection of magical theory, upon comonsense lines. We may hope to show, presently, the foundations upon which modern magic is based, the manner in which the entire superstructure of magical achievement has been raised, the possibilities awaiting development at the hands of magicians, and also the directions in which future developments may be most readily brought about. We do not aim at the description of any and every magical feat ever performed. The existing literature of magic amply provides for the needs of those who seek to know "how it is done." Rather, we wish to aid originality by giving original explanations and suggesting original ideas. "Our Magic; The Art In Magic; The Theory Of Magic; The Practice Of Magic" by Nevil Maskelyne and David Devant. London and New York, 1911. The above excerpt is from Part II, The Theory Of Magic; Chapter I, Terminology. The most popular and famous magician of his day in his native England, David Devant was expelled from the leading magician's club for explaining "tricks" in a book for the general public.
Maskelyne, John Nevil (b. Dec. 22, 1839, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, Eng. d. May 18, 1917, London), British magician whose inventions and patronage of new performers greatly influenced the development of the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand. Trained as a watchmaker, Maskelyne became famous in 1865 when he exposed the Davenport Brothers as fraudulent spiritualists. For eight years he and George A. Cooke toured with a show featuring Maskelyne's box trick, juggling, and automata. After Cooke died in 1904, Maskelyne took as a partner David Devant, the most famous magician in England. He and Devant collaborated on Our Magic (1911), an important source book on the theory of magic.
Now a mystery to be sorted out: Above we have references to John Nevil Maskelyne 1839 - 1917 as the son of Nevil Story Maskelyne 1823 - 1911 somewhere the dates are possibly amiss? as Nevil Story would have only been 16 or 17 when John Nevil was born. Maskelyne, Morton, Vanda. Oxford Rebels: The Life and Friends of Nevil Story Maskelyne, 1823-1911, Pioneer Oxford Scientist, photographer and Politician. Wolfeboro, New Hampshire: Alan Sutton, (1989). First ed. 8vo., ix, 182 pp., photo and text illustrations. Fine, as new in illustrated dw. Maskelyne recorded his friends, a group of young university men; a revealing look at early Victorian academic Oxford. $35.00 (10548)
Back to the Top | Scientists and Engineers G - M | Quit | eMail: Dr Russell Naughton |