Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

61
Thanks Phaeded, I respond point by point wherever I can:

Phaeded wrote: 25 May 2022, 17:18 I agree with this general sentiment - the opposed marschalli, both holding an upward or downward/"evil" sign –

I stumble already at this point – who says that the downward sign of the inferior marshall is “evil”?

JvR’s text is:
Sub quibus duo marschalchi sunt quorum primus sursum signum tenet in manu eodem modo ut rex, alius autem idem signum tenet pendenter in manu.

[Under whom are two marshals, whose first holds the sign up with his hand in the same way as the king, but the other holds the same sign hanging in his hand.]
Perhaps I have overseen something or misinterpreted something, but when JvR is speaking of good and bad signs, he is speaking of two suits being good and two suits being bad (which is well known in card play as a moral interpretation of the four elements). From my point of view, JvR does not say that the lower marshal is bad, he belongs as well to a higher military class than normal soldiers.

We do agree upon the fact that later on in Kaiserspiel/Carnöffel the Unter is seen as a commoner, but that is later when Kaiserspiel is invented. We also agree on the fact that for Kaiserspiel, the Unter is interpreted as the leader of the common people – my interpretation is that this is also true because the leader carries the banner /the flag of these common people, as well in the Evil Carnival as well in the Ciompi movement. [Banners were very important for this, as the literature tells us]. And the banner is on the pip card 10.

When the cards came to him, JvR saw the Mamluk structure first in 1377 as a war game –this is what he also speaks about in his treatise—but following the structure he presents later on for the 60 cards deck, it becomes immediately clear that the lower marshall is part of nobility since he is treated in the second part as a noble, not in the third part as a commoner.

Hence the line between nobles and commoners in military, or
Phaeded wrote: 25 May 2022, 17:18 St. Bernardino calls them milites superiores et inferiores (soldiers upper and lower)
is between the lower marshal and the banner (the latter being carried by a special commoner) in 1377. This is supported by the fact that JvR clearly gets his structure from chess – I read Kopp (1973) again, and there it is clearly said on pages 131 and 132 that JvR says that he gets his ideas from chess (implicitely: de Cessolis) and that even chess is the model for him. And in chess you differentiate between nobles and commoners drawing the same line.

In other words: the reason for the lower marshal holding the sign low has just the significance that he is lower than the upper marshal.

Phaeded wrote: 25 May 2022, 17:18 are fundamental to the adaptation in Europe, and likely took on a nobility vs commoner connotation

There we agree, this is JvR’s main subject: to teach both classes moral, discipline and peace, such that they keep the world order.

Phaeded wrote: 25 May 2022, 17:18 But where you go with all these specifics of JvR is almost to suggest this opposition of 'marshalli' was created in the Basel/Freiburg region (and I lived in the latter for six months, so know the lay of the land). Instead, all you've done is to explain JvR's propensities - not the origin of the marshalli, just his interpretation or rather local social context, of local elites vs local commoners. I posted a list of peasant (often wool worker) uprisings surrounding JvR's publication - his situation is just one among many. But where are opposed marshalli part of the narrative in JvR or local lore?
[…]
not elite and rebel leaders, although interpreted that way by JvR and others.
I don’t suggest “this opposition of 'marshalli' was created in the Basel/Freiburg region”, hopefully this became clear now, and hence I cannot answer “But where are opposed marshalli part of the narrative in JvR or local lore?”, since JvR did not interpret the upper and lower military by drawing the line between elite and rebel leaders. Again, this is later, in Kaiserspiel. And there it is only true for the suite in which the under becomes the Carnöffel (Carneval in my eyes).

And yes, JvR is also about “local elites vs local commoners” – but in general it is about elites vs commoners, about nobility vs commoners and that this should not be for not endangering the world order, this is the title of his treatise. He writes in the large context of Habsburgian politics and the Evil Carnival of Basel, the 100 year war of England and France, the European situation (JvR writes about it).

Your personal remark “Freiburg region (and I lived in the latter for six months, so know the lay of the land).” is great – did you ever go on foot or by bike alongside the Rhine to Basel and did you see the mountain barrier just before Basel? I do think that it is striking.

Phaeded wrote: 25 May 2022, 17:18 An organization that featured marshalli - say, a military order that took part in capturing a rich mamluk city […]
Following the line of thought posted some days ago, I have found another explanation than the sack of Alexandria 1365. I will display the material in the next days. [To be honest: I never understood why a very fast sack of a city with a fast flight back to the ships should really give enough time to import cards into Europe and understand the game. This is strange to my eyes]
Phaeded wrote: 25 May 2022, 17:18 As an aside from the primary point above, Imperatori is clearly popular in German-speaking lands, exists by 1423 (and obviously sometime earlier than that date), but why isn't that mentioned in the Basel version from 1429 of JvR’s tractatus?
Answer is simple: because the authority of the JvR version serving as an “archetype” (Jönsson) is so high, that this novelty is not included in the text in 1429. From this we can deduce, that Imperatori is invented certainly later than the archetype of JvR’s text is written, i.e. certainly later than 1377 -- in my eyes even later than that because the text was written in two steps.

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

62
vh0610 wrote: 26 May 2022, 17:06 Thanks Phaeded, I respond point by point wherever I can:

Phaeded wrote: 25 May 2022, 17:18 I agree with this general sentiment - the opposed marschalli, both holding an upward or downward/"evil" sign –

I stumble already at this point – who says that the downward sign of the inferior marshall is “evil”?

JvR’s text is:
Sub quibus duo marschalchi sunt quorum primus sursum signum tenet in manu eodem modo ut rex, alius autem idem signum tenet pendenter in manu.

[Under whom are two marshals, whose first holds the sign up with his hand in the same way as the king, but the other holds the same sign hanging in his hand.]

Not sure how loose the translation is here and there is no MS folio reference/pagination, but I extrapolated that the same sign held by the king and marschalli would have the same good/evil significance, evil being the downward one (the confusing point here is none of the surviving decks show the king holding a sign downward, which would imply "evil" suits, but perhaps JvR was simply unclear here and the "evil" reference was meant to apply only to the 2nd marshal):

In the game which men call the game of cards, they paint the cards in different manners, and they play with them in one way and another. The common form, as it first came to us, is thus: Four kings are depicted on four cards, each of whom sits on a royal throne. And each one holds a certain sign in his hand, of which signs some are reputed good and others signify evil. ...Under the kings are two marschalli, the first of whom holds the sign upwards in his hand, in the same manner as the king; but the other holds the same sign downward in his hand. (excerpts were translated by Timothy Betts, Tarot and the Millennium, 1998, pp.87-89; you can find it in the late M. Hurst's page, linked on the 1st page of this thread).

No one disputes that much booty was taken from Alexandria - they were there for a week - but rather that was the contemporary criticism of the "crusade": Lusignan and crew were just out for wealth and not creating a new beachhead from which they could expand into the Levant proper. Despite the heroization of Lusignan in poetical works, plenty of barbed criticisms slung his way as well. Not sure what you are looking for here....

As for that hike to Basel, no, but did ride my bike along another river to the Rhine and up to Strasbourg (arriving there in rush hour was unpleasant).

Phaeded

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

63
Phaeded wrote: 26 May 2022, 19:55
Not sure how loose the translation is here and there is no MS folio reference/pagination, but I extrapolated that the same sign held by the king and marschalli would have the same good/evil significance, evil being the downward one (the confusing point here is none of the surviving decks show the king holding a sign downward, which would imply "evil" suits, but perhaps JvR was simply unclear here and the "evil" reference was meant to apply only to the 2nd marshal):

In the game which men call the game of cards, they paint the cards in different manners, and they play with them in one way and another. The common form, as it first came to us, is thus: Four kings are depicted on four cards, each of whom sits on a royal throne. And each one holds a certain sign in his hand, of which signs some are reputed good and others signify evil. ...Under the kings are two marschalli, the first of whom holds the sign upwards in his hand, in the same manner as the king; but the other holds the same sign downward in his hand. (excerpts were translated by Timothy Betts, Tarot and the Millennium, 1998, pp.87-89; you can find it in the late M. Hurst's page, linked on the 1st page of this thread).
The translation is not at all loose, it is at least my direct translation from the Latin text given to us by Kopp (1973) with all his variants. Ok, we have to look at the whole thing, I follow again Kopp, p.131:
Circa ludum qui ab hominibus ludus cartularum appellator, diuersi diuersimodo ipsas cartulas depingunt et alio et alio modo ludunt in ipsis. Nam communis forma et sicut primo peruenit ad nos est talis quod quatuor reges depinguntur in quatuor cartulis quorum quilibet sedet in regali solio. Et aliquod certum signum quilibet habet in manu. Ex quibus signis aliqua reputantur signa bona alia autem malum significant. Sub quibus duo marschalchi sunt quorum primus sursum signum tenet in manu eodem modo ut rex, alius autem idem signum tenet pendenter in manu.


[About the game, which is called the game of cards by people, they paint the cards in different ways and play in them in one way or another. For the common form, and as it first came to us, is such that four kings are depicted in four cards, each of which sits on the royal throne. And every one has a certain [individual] sign in his hand. By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil. Under whom are two marshals, whose first holds the sign up with his hand in the same way as the king, but the other holds the same sign hanging in his hand.]
Now I understand what I understand as a misunderstanding from you (but perhaps I am wrong): "By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil." does not at all imply, that the following description of the marshals holding one sign up and another sign down leads to the conclusion that holding up a sign is good, and holding down a sign is evil.

I propose to read ""By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil."" together with Kopp (1973) referring to JvR
Eine weitere Frage, die offen bleibt, ist die nach den Farbzeichen. Johannes schreibt nur, daß die einen Zeichen Gutes, die andern Schlechtes bedeuten,

[Another question that remains open is the one about the suit signs. John writes only that the one signs mean good, the others evil,
]
so that the signs the kings hold are already differentiated as later described [if you whish, I can look up the original Latin text].

I hope that this clarifies the issue: holding down a sign does not signify that the marshal is evil, at least to my understanding.

[by the way: it is really cool that we deal about Latin texts as monks did in their time. Words count and have a meaning to deal with.]

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

65
vh0610 wrote: 26 May 2022, 21:57
Phaeded wrote: 26 May 2022, 19:55
The translation is not at all loose, it is at least my direct translation from the Latin text given to us by Kopp (1973) with all his variants. Ok, we have to look at the whole thing, I follow again Kopp, p.131:
Circa ludum qui ab hominibus ludus cartularum appellator, diuersi diuersimodo ipsas cartulas depingunt et alio et alio modo ludunt in ipsis. Nam communis forma et sicut primo peruenit ad nos est talis quod quatuor reges depinguntur in quatuor cartulis quorum quilibet sedet in regali solio. Et aliquod certum signum quilibet habet in manu. Ex quibus signis aliqua reputantur signa bona alia autem malum significant. Sub quibus duo marschalchi sunt quorum primus sursum signum tenet in manu eodem modo ut rex, alius autem idem signum tenet pendenter in manu.


[About the game, which is called the game of cards by people, they paint the cards in different ways and play in them in one way or another. For the common form, and as it first came to us, is such that four kings are depicted in four cards, each of which sits on the royal throne. And every one has a certain [individual] sign in his hand. By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil. Under whom are two marshals, whose first holds the sign up with his hand in the same way as the king, but the other holds the same sign hanging in his hand.]
Now I understand what I understand as a misunderstanding from you (but perhaps I am wrong): "By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil." does not at all imply, that the following description of the marshals holding one sign up and another sign down leads to the conclusion that holding up a sign is good, and holding down a sign is evil.

I propose to read ""By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil."" together with Kopp (1973) referring to JvR
But you have not clarified which card, exactly, is holding an evil sign.

JvR seems to have confused matters by naturally starting off with the highest kings, all of which hold signs, and then before going on to describe the kings' court mates - the marschalli - he interjects that some of the signs within each suit are evil. Although the good/evil remark immediately follows the mentioning of the kings holding signs, he does not explicitly say the kings hold good and evil signs and indeed our oldest example, a c. 1390-1410 Swiss deck made for Spanish consumption - the "Baraja Morisca" - does not show a king with a lowered "sign": https://www.wopc.co.uk/spain/morsica
Best link to all the surviving cards from this deck: http://www.mydearplayingcards.com/2006_ ... orisca.php
Messy printing/coloring, but note the oak leaves attached to the acorn in each case and that the Unter of the downward acorn one is a Saracen (at least holds a Saracen's shield)! While a nod to the origins of the cards, couldn't be more negative, especially when meant for a Spanish market:
ober and unter knaves of acorns.jpg ober and unter knaves of acorns.jpg Viewed 2988 times 25.96 KiB

Does anyone have a link to a study of this deck? The court cards seem to hold traditional German suits different than the pips and what has been identified as "kings" by some is seriously questionable:

Image


And another Swiss deck confirms that format was retained - just the Unter Knave has a lowered sign: https://www.wopc.co.uk/switzerland/oldcards

If not the marshal with downward sign as the "evil" one, which one was it? Your translation: "And every one has a certain [individual] sign in his hand. By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil." Someone in the courts holds an evil sign. Or put another way, if all of the suit signs are the same, then the knave holding the downward sign is "evil", not the sign itself (which is of course non-sensical, unless of course it shows an inverted cross or something "unholy.")

Phaeded

A c. 1530 Swiss deck - note the negative depiction of the Unter Knave in every case:
Shields - urinating on his shield?
Flowers - dropping his flower to the ground (Ober firmly holds his upright)
Bells - a Jester(!) apparently holding a sceptre-like stick and running away with his bell like a thief (again see my comments on Mercury)
Acorns - dropping his acorn to the ground (Ober firmly holds his upright), just as in the case of the suit of Flowers
[also note that the streamers attached to each banner are all oddly angled at their ends like hockey sticks, which is of course yet one more nod to the Mamluk origins - those are fashioned after the polo sticks, but no longer forming a suit].
Image

Same thing even in the more luxury-like Ferrarese deck of Flötner from c. 1541 - suit sign is upwards for King and Ober and down for the Unter (who is a jester as in the cheap deck above in the same suit of bells)

Image

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

66
JvR writes probably 1377 ... and naturally the situation is so, that later iconographical interpretations didn't exist.
If JvR takes up the categories good-evil for upper and lower suit sign, then it doesn't mean, that later card painters followed his ideas.
Generally there was a trend to paint the Unter as a Fool, and the Ober as a regular officer. Or the Unter as a Foot soldier and the Ober on horse. But we simply have not enough examples for a theory which ideas came earlier and which came later.

In the PMB we have the Pagat shown with 4 suit signs at the table, somehow Fool and Pagat in the Trionfi game seem to be an extension of Unter and Ober.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

67
Following Huck, it seems to me that I interpret
For the common form, and as it first came to us, is such that four kings are depicted in four cards, each of which sits on the royal throne. And every one has a certain [individual] sign in his hand. By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil. Under whom are two marshals, whose first holds the sign up with his hand in the same way as the king, but the other holds the same sign hanging in his hand.
differently than you, Phaeded.

I do interpret that JvR describes the kings and each of them has an individual sign in his hand. They reign different kingdoms, this is said by that. And I do interpret that "By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil." is a statement for the full suit, that is for the full kingdom. As far as I remember this is exactly the reason why for some suits Ace is highest and for other ones 10 is highest in the pip cards - for good signs it is good to have a lot of them (10 is highest), for evil signs it is good to have the least possible (Ace is highest).

I do interpret JvR that this has nothing to do with the marshals, the holding up and holding down is just for making the difference between the marshals. That later on the lower marshal does not get the same nobility as the upper marshal, is an interpretation of it of later than 1377 - especially when Carnöffel comes into play (1414-1418 at the Council of Constance, in my eyes).

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

68
vh0610 wrote: 27 May 2022, 08:47 Following Huck, it seems to me that I interpret
For the common form, and as it first came to us, is such that four kings are depicted in four cards, each of which sits on the royal throne. And every one has a certain [individual] sign in his hand. By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil. Under whom are two marshals, whose first holds the sign up with his hand in the same way as the king, but the other holds the same sign hanging in his hand.
differently than you, Phaeded.

I do interpret that JvR describes the kings and each of them has an individual sign in his hand. They reign different kingdoms, this is said by that. And I do interpret that "By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil." is a statement for the full suit, that is for the full kingdom. As far as I remember this is exactly the reason why for some suits Ace is highest and for other ones 10 is highest in the pip cards - for good signs it is good to have a lot of them (10 is highest), for evil signs it is good to have the least possible (Ace is highest).

I do interpret JvR that this has nothing to do with the marshals, the holding up and holding down is just for making the difference between the marshals. That later on the lower marshal does not get the same nobility as the upper marshal, is an interpretation of it of later than 1377 - especially when Carnöffel comes into play (1414-1418 at the Council of Constance, in my eyes).
That is how I would interpret the passage, too. The "good" and "evil" signs are the suit signs in general, not whether one of them is being held high or low in the hand of the marshal.

Interesting you point out, vh0610,
for good signs it is good to have a lot of them (10 is highest), for evil signs it is good to have the least possible (Ace is highest).
because this is exactly the interpretation Marziano gives for ordering two suits with Ace high Ten (presumably) low:
(In the suit of) Eagles and Turtledoves, the many command the few: that is to say, it goes better for us when many cultivate virtue and continence; but for Phoenixes and Doves, the few rule over the many, which is to say that, the more there are followers of riches and pleasure, the more they lead to the deterioration of our station.

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

69
Ross Caldwell wrote: 27 May 2022, 08:58
vh0610 wrote: 27 May 2022, 08:47 Following Huck, it seems to me that I interpret
For the common form, and as it first came to us, is such that four kings are depicted in four cards, each of which sits on the royal throne. And every one has a certain [individual] sign in his hand. By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil. Under whom are two marshals, whose first holds the sign up with his hand in the same way as the king, but the other holds the same sign hanging in his hand.
differently than you, Phaeded.

I do interpret that JvR describes the kings and each of them has an individual sign in his hand. They reign different kingdoms, this is said by that. And I do interpret that "By these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil." is a statement for the full suit, that is for the full kingdom. As far as I remember this is exactly the reason why for some suits Ace is highest and for other ones 10 is highest in the pip cards - for good signs it is good to have a lot of them (10 is highest), for evil signs it is good to have the least possible (Ace is highest).

I do interpret JvR that this has nothing to do with the marshals, the holding up and holding down is just for making the difference between the marshals. That later on the lower marshal does not get the same nobility as the upper marshal, is an interpretation of it of later than 1377 - especially when Carnöffel comes into play (1414-1418 at the Council of Constance, in my eyes).
That is how I would interpret the passage, too. The "good" and "evil" signs are the suit signs in general, not whether one of them is being held high or low in the hand of the marshal.

Interesting you point out, vh0610,
for good signs it is good to have a lot of them (10 is highest), for evil signs it is good to have the least possible (Ace is highest).
because this is exactly the interpretation Marziano gives for ordering two suits with Ace high Ten (presumably) low:
(In the suit of) Eagles and Turtledoves, the many command the few: that is to say, it goes better for us when many cultivate virtue and continence; but for Phoenixes and Doves, the few rule over the many, which is to say that, the more there are followers of riches and pleasure, the more they lead to the deterioration of our station.
JvR doesn't talk about "kingdoms" and he doesn't talk about the pip orderings as evil (10-1 or 1-10); "evil" is mentioned in regard to signs associated with the court cards of kings and/or marschalli. And if you want to insist on kings, which of these kings is "evil"? From a deck from JvR's region and maintaining the common deck format of a king and two knaves:

1530 Swiss deck kings.jpg 1530 Swiss deck kings.jpg Viewed 2920 times 44.22 KiB


Marziano is an especially poor comparable in that he uniquely uses pagan gods and their well known vices or virtues (e.g., pleasure vs. virtue) as his subjects, not made-up suits. Marziano does have kings - where the "sign" in question should be - which are simply tied to the suits, neither positive nor negative.

The "signs" in all surviving playing cards, such as those held by the kings above, are simply heraldic (even if made up, which they are in the example above). What makes acorns, bells, hearts, etc. evil? That is pure nonsense. Can any of you find a single sign that is explicitly "evil"? And do we really need to debate upwards towards heaven is good and downwards towards hell is bad?

"We miss the point of the painting if we mistake the gesture." (Michael Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style, 1988: 70).

Again, the Unter Knaves here are "evil" (certainly not noble) because of their downward gestures (the signs themselves are exactly the same as the upwards ones - the person is potentially evil, not a mere sign); none of you have addressed these explicit gestures made with the signs:
A c. 1530 Swiss deck - note the negative depiction of the Unter Knave in every case:
Shields - urinating on his shield?
Flowers - dropping his flower to the ground (Ober firmly holds his upright)
Bells - a Jester(!) apparently holding a sceptre-like stick and running away with his bell like a thief
Acorns - dropping his acorn to the ground (Ober firmly holds his upright), just as in the case of the suit of Flowers


Image

Signs aren't evil, people are - by way of their actions (gestures).

Phaeded

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

70
Phaeded wrote: 31 May 2022, 02:06
Signs aren't evil, people are - by way of their actions (gestures).
Your argument is compelling, and well-illustrated, but JvR says explicitly that it is the signs themselves that are considered good or evil, not the way they are held.
Nam communis forma et sicut primo pervenit ad nos est talis quod quatuor reges depinguntur in quatuor cartulis quorum quilibet sedet in regali solio. Et aliquod certum signum quilibet habet in manu. Ex quibus signis aliqua reputantur signa bona alia autem malum significant.
For the common form, and how it first came to us, is thus: four kings are depicted on four cards, each of whom sits on the royal throne. And each one has a certain sign in his hand. Of these signs some are considered to be good signs, while others signify evil.


I suppose "malum" could be translated "bad," if softening the force of the morality makes any difference. But I don't know JvR's usage enough to say.

See Peter Kopp's 1973 transcription here. He compared all four manuscripts.
viewtopic.php?p=16904#p16904

The simplest or most conservative interpretation I can make is that these are the Latin suits, and that Swords and Batons are considered to be signs of war and strife, while Cups and Coins are the good things in life. This is a basic moralization of the cards that has persisted for centuries, and came into the French suits as Piques/Spades being bad. I'm not familiar enough with cartomancy to know if the other black suit, Clubs/Trèfles, has also been considered bad.

It occurs to me that this might be a reason why Germans started experimenting with bells, acorns, and leaves, more neutral and less sectarian symbols.