“Sphinx Legacy” 編纂記 第34回
加藤英夫
Cardiniがシガレットとカードのアクトについて、天海にやめるように警告した話は有名ですが、Leipzigも同じようなことをやっていました。
出典：”Sphinx”, 1921年1月号 執筆者：A.M. Wilson
John Olms showed me a letter from Nate Leipzig in which Leipzig claims to be the originator of the Thimble Trick and warns Olms to quit presenting the trick. Tricks, or rather manipulations, with a thimble were known in Germany years before Leipzig took up magic or appeared on the stage as a magician.
Why did not Albini stop, or try to stop, all others from using the Egg Bag? Why? Because the trick was in use before Albini was born. Why did not Imro Fox stop Jarrow from doing the Bill and Lemon trick? Why? Because the trick was older than Fox. I might go on indefinitely with such statements but what’s the use? Every performer has his own individual methods of working and it is that individuality that makes for originality.
The manner in which John Olms presents his Thimble Act bears no resemblance to the way in which Liepzig shows it. With Olms it is an act in itself and he could get by with it even if he performed no other trick at all, with him it is not an interlude or a stall or filler in with which to eke out the allotted time of 12 to 18 minutes. It is high time that these petty little jealousies ceased, there is room for all who have the talent to do something really worth while and no one encroach, on the field of another for there is no such thing as a separate and distinct field into which others cannot enter and work.
Allan Shaw did not dim the glory of T. Nelson Downs and yet each worked only with coins. Thurston’s reputation with cards has never been clouded by any other card manipulator. As long as cards, thimbles, billiard balls, coins and similar pure sleight-of-hand properties are in use so long will there be room for any and all magicians who are expert enough and personal enough to present an act that expresses that personality and sets him or her apart as having taken an old trick and placed a new meaning or dress thereon.
Leipzigのアクトの中でシンブルの演技はたいへん重要な演目でしたが､同時期に活躍していたJohn Olmsもシンブルを演じていました。LeipzigがOlmsにシンブルをやめるように警告したと書かれています。Wilsonの説明では、LepzigとOlmsのシンブルのアクトはそれぞれ独特のものであり、シンブルはヨーロッパのマジシャンによって、Leipzigよりずっと昔から演じられてきたものであるので、Leipzigの言い分はおかしいと指摘されています。
Olmsがどのようなことをやっていたか、”Sphinx”の他の号を調べると、1920年7月号に、Clarence T. Hubbardによる以下の紹介がありました。
Long will the act of John and Nellie Olms linger in my memory. I seldom go to Hartford vaudeville (if you lived here you would understand), but when a nice, clean, original act like the Olms comes along I can stand eight or ten performances.
Their settings were very pleasing in their difference to the usual draperies; their slight-of-hand perfect; the appearance clean cut and their entire act very entertaining. No cheap patter was used. The skill of the tricks and the personality of both put the act over 100 per cent strong.
Mr. Olms opened with a one handed handkerchief production that was splendid — neat, nifty and mystifying. Following he added some thimble manipulations which were as laughable as they were amazing. The watch manipulations were equally as clever, also the alarm clock vanish. Mrs. Olms contributed an exhibition of her skill with a version of the paper tearing and also added an original item which might be entitled—”The Traveling Handkerchiefs.”
They closed in one with Kellars’ Milk and Coffee Trick which further characterized their work in the little individual touches of originality added. Whenever the Olms come your way give them a boost.
この説明からは、OlmsがLeipzigのスタイルを真似しているとは感じられません。たんにOlmsがシンブルを演じていたことをLeizigが気に入らなかったのではないでしょうか。Leipzigがそのように思ったのは、きっとOlmsのシンブルアクトが素晴らしいものだからだと思われます。素晴らしいものでないとしたら、そのままやらせていた方が、自分の方がうまいことがわかるので都合がいいはずです。
そのようなことから、Olmsのシンブルの演技がどのようなものだったのか、詳しく知りたくなりました。前後のすべての号で、彼の名前で検索すると、1921年5月号に、つぎの一文がありました。
John and Nellie Olms at the Orpheum house are doing an act of real magic. Their work with watches and thimbles is without an equal anywhere. Mrs. Olms’ version of the torn and restored paper is a masterpiece. If you want to see a real act of clean-cut magic, do not fail to catch the “Olms”.
Olmsの時計とシンブルのアクトは比類のないものだ、というように書かれています。やはりシンブルが素晴らしいものだというのです。ますます内容が知りたくなりました。さらに調べると、1921年9月号に、Clinton Burgessによる、Olmsのショーの詳しい紹介が見つかりました。1921年8月7日、New YorkのRegent Theaterで見たときの感想記です。
Burgessの解説は10種の演目をすべて詳しく説明したもので、一流マジシャンのアクト記録としてたいへん貴重なものです。”Sphinx Legacy”にはすべて収録いたしましたが、ここではシンブルについてのみ書きます。
2. One to ten thimble production, preceded by numerous sleights. While Mme. Olms holds a high hat into which Olms may drop the several thimbles, Olms, to demonstrate their genuineness, causes a loud cracking sound to emit from the thimbles by inserting, then quickly withdrawing his finger. An argument ensues over the number of thimbles Olms dropped into the hat, Mme. Olms claiming she only received nine; Olms finds the last under the crown of the hat and, as soon as this is dropped by him into the hat he asks Mme. Olms how many she should have now. “Ten,’ she says. “Look and make sure,” Olms replies, whereupon Mine. Olms finds the hat empty, while the ten thimbles are again seen covering the tips of Olms’ fingers.
やはりシンブルのアクトは、Leipzigのやり方の真似ではありませんでした。シンブルという小さな物を使うマニピュレーションで、これだけショーアップさたれ手順を読んだことも見たこともありません。読んでいて光景が頭の中に浮かびました。Leipzigが嫉妬するだけのアクトであったのかもしれません。
この問題はアクトのコピー問題ではありませんが、“Sphinx Legacy”には、マジシャンのアクトのコピー問題が何例も取り上げられています。
（つづく）
