Huck wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 10:08 Generally it is doubtful, if the Würzburger note refers to the same type of game as the Ferrarese records.

I don't know how you can say it's doubtful.

The name is the same. The time is contemporary. It is a card game. Since it is associated with blasphemy, it is probably Kaisersspiel.

The only difference is that Würzburg is in Bavaria, and Ferrara is in Italy. If Paul Wann's statement had been in Naples instead of Würzburg, would you have any doubt?

You have long been a proponent of the familiarity of Italians with German card games, especially after the Council of Constance.

I think Imperatori was Imperatoris was Kaisersspiel was (essentially) Karnöffel. This is why Piero Andrea's specialisation was different from Sagramoro's, and from the Don Messore workshop which made Trionfi cards. That is, my interpretation of the Florence-Ferrara Imperatori deck is that it was a deck with German characteristics, whatever those were. Perhaps it had 48 cards, like the Hofämterspiel, or 56, like the Hofjagdspiel, with entirely different suit-symbols from the Italian standard decks.

What does the hapax "VIII" in "VIII Imperadori" mean? In line with the above, I might interpret it as a variant of Karnöffel with eight "trumps" instead of seven. They weren't all emperors, just as the seven "kings" in Siebenkönigsspiel are not all kings: three of them are the counting trumps. Although Siebenkönigsspiel is a late name for Tarock - attested beginning in 1800 with new rules for Tapp Tarock, it shows that names can be misleading if taken as literally descriptive.

An alternative theory, weaker because it doesn't account for the "VIII," might be that Imperatori were like the Liechtenstein deck, with five suits, one of which was imperial. I could imagine that this imperial suit functioned as a trump suit.

I don't know how you can say it's doubtful.

I remember, that occasionally Karnöffel is not the same as Karnöffel. I remember, that Kaisern ist not always like Karnöffel. I remember, that in Lombardy was a sort of Backgammon game called Imperatori. I remember, that there (occasionally ?) is an additional Karnöffel trump called Fauler Fritz.

I didn't realize before, that the Würzburg Imperatori game was connected to a death punishment.

Ebenfalls um 1450 wurde ein Mann in Würzburg von Bischof
Gotfrid zum Tode verurteilt, weil er beim Kaiserspiel — ludens
ad cartas ludum vocatur imperatoris — Gott gelästert habe.'

Gottfried IV., Würzburg, Bischof
Geboren: 11. Februar 1404
Gestorben: 1. April 1455, Würzburg

(bishop 1443-1455)

I get the suspicion, that one should be careful about this Würzburg note.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried ... on_Limpurg

Als Bischof fand Gottfried IV. ein verarmtes und verschuldetes Bistum vor, wofür besonders seine beiden Vorgänger, Johann II. von Brunn und Sigismund von Sachsen, verantwortlich waren. Nachdem Sigismund von Sachsen sein Amt ruhen ließ, wurde Gottfried mit Unterstützung von Friedrich III. zunächst als Pfleger eingesetzt. Als dann Papst Felix V. abdankte und Eugen IV. neuer Papst wurde, entzog auch die Kirche Sigismund ihre Unterstützung; er musste das Amt des Bischofs aufgeben und ging bis zu seinem Lebensende in die Verbannung auf Schloss Rochlitz.

Im Laufe seiner Regentschaft gelang es Gottfried IV., den Haushalt des Bistums zu konsolidieren und auch den Frieden in der Region wiederherzustellen, indem er gegen räuberische Adelige vorging, aber auch Juden enteignete und vertrieb, bei denen er verschuldet war.[

There's somehow involved council of Basel and council of Florence and and somehow also actions against the Feast of the Fools, which was attacked at the council of Basel already.

Possibly this is a case, which has the background of the Capistranus visit in Germany, which also was connected to actions against Jews.

... about Capistranus ...

Das Jahr 1453 beschäftigt ihn mit der Initiierung von Judenpogromen, Verbrennungen und Vertreibungen in Polen, insbesondere in Breslau. Es bringt ihm den Beinamen „Geißel der Hebräer“ ein. 1452 unternimmt er jene Reise zur Reformierung des Ordens durch die Franziskanerprovinz Saxonia. Auf dem Weg durch Franken ist er erfolgreich in Nürnberg und Coburg. Danach in Eisenach und Arnstadt, bald auch in den Konventen der nördlicheren Städte, bewirkt er die Reformierung der Konvente, ausgenommen Rostock. Das eigentliche Ziel der Thüringen-Reise bildet Erfurt, die weitaus größte Stadt im mitteldeutschen Raum mit der derzeit angesehensten Universität Deutschlands, in der die Franziskaner lehrend fest verankert waren und dem Generalstudium für die Saxonia. Erfurt war somit eines der wichtigsten franziskanischen Zentren Deutschlands.

http://barfuesserkirche.de/index.php/ki ... apistranus

.... about Gottfried IV ...

1449 war der Würzburger Bischof Gottfried von Limburg bei drei Juden in Haßfurt mit 80 Gulden verschuldet. 1450 wurden die Juden aus dem Hochstift Würzburg und damit auch aus Haßfurt vertrieben (erneute Vertreibung der in der Folgezeit wieder zugezogenen oder gebliebenen Juden 1560). Die Schulden bei den Juden wurden 1453 durch eine Verordnung Bischof Gottfrieds von Limburg annulliert.

http://www.alemannia-judaica.de/hassfurt_synagoge.htm

Huck wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 03:56 I get the suspicion, that one should be careful about this Würzburg note.

Yes, it is right to be careful, of course. The evidence is thin, but from my perspective two features make it more likely than not, which I why I questioned your leaning to the side of doubt instead.

The two facts that persuade me to the side of identifying the game as the same in both places are that it is a card game, and it has the same name. If the Wann text had read "ludens ad cartas ludum vocatur triumphi," we'd assume, at this date, that he was talking about the carte da trionfi that we know from Italy. If he had omitted the word "cards" and just said the man had blasphemed while playing the game Imperatoris, it might have been a board game. But here we have explicitly a card game, with the same name, at the same time, in Würzburg and Ferrara.

Another thing we can say about it is that it was not a well-known game. Franco could not find any records of production and sale in Florence, and it is never listed among the scores of prohibited or permitted games in Rizzi's compilation.

Ross Caldwell wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 15:47 What does the hapax "VIII" in "VIII Imperadori" mean? In line with the above, I might interpret it as a variant of Karnöffel with eight "trumps" instead of seven. They weren't all emperors, just as the seven "kings" in Siebenkönigsspiel are not all kings: three of them are the counting trumps. Although Siebenkönigsspiel is a late name for Tarock - attested beginning in 1800 with new rules for Tapp Tarock, it shows that names can be misleading if taken as literally descriptive.

An alternative theory, weaker because it doesn't account for the "VIII," might be that Imperatori were like the Liechtenstein deck, with five suits, one of which was imperial. I could imagine that this imperial suit functioned as a trump suit.

We are stuck in quandary in that there couldn't be a reference to 8 Emperors and the problem that the Mamluk cards, the prototype for all European innovations, had 12 court cards. Essentially this could be interpreted by Europeans as a king, with an over and under knave, per each 13 card suit. In the Mamluk is it malik (king), nā'ib malik (viceroy or deputy king), and thānī nā'ib (second or under-deputy). The thānī nā'ib is a non-existent title - one reason for the creativity and variations in Europe of this format as even a Arab speaker couldn't explain what the Under Knave was. And since John of "Rheinfelden" (hereafter JvR) is key here, the relevant section from his tractate:

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. For the common form and as it first came to us is thus, viz. 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, but others signify evil. Under which 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 downwards in his hand. [as the "common" and "first" this format of a king and knaves/marshali per suit must have been the original card deck format and arguably the 'ur-Imperatori'] After this are other ten cards, outwardly of the same size and shape, on the first of which the aforesaid king's sign is placed once; on the second twice; and so on with the others up to the tenth card inclusive. And so each king becomes the thirteenth, and there will be altogether fifty-two cards. Then there are others who in the same manner play, or make the game, of queens, and with as many cards as has been already said of the kings. There are also others who so dispose the cards or the game that there are two kings, with their ' marschalli' and other cards, and two queens with theirs in the same manner. Again, some take five, others six kings, each with his 'marschalli' and his other cards, according as it pleases them, and thus the game is varied in form by many. Also, there are some who make the game with four kings and eight ' marschalli' and the other common cards, and add besides four queens with four attendants, so that each of those four kings, with all the family of the whole kingdom, speaking of the chief persons, is there, and the number of the cards will then be sixty. And this manner of making the cards and in this number the most pleases me, and for three reasons: first, because of its greater authority; second, because of its royal fitness; third, because of its more becoming courteousness. First, I say, because of its greater authority, for we have its express figure in Holy Scripture, Daniel iii.; and again in that statue which King Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, saw in his dream, and which Daniel interpreted to him, the which statue had a golden head, a silver breast, a brazen belly, and legs of iron. [Bonds translation found in Hurst: http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... ribus.html ]

What clearly and uniquely happens in Europe is women are added, but eventually for many decks, suits become the King, queen, knight and page (JvR's preferreed court of King-Queen-Ober-Knave-Unter-Knave and Lady-in-waiting only becomes somewhat recognizable in the CY court variant). However, in terms of the all important issue for any royal house is succession, with the emphasis on the king and queen and their respective houses they hail from. If the emphasis shifts to those two at the top - king and queen - you get to the magic number 8.

In what sense could 4 sets of kings and queens be termed as 'Imperatori'? I think your use of the term "Papi" (simply the plural of Pope) to indicate a similar-looking group of trumps in trionfi, is applicable to suggest that a group of vested people vying for the title of Emperor could be called "Imperatori" - more of in the sense of "imperial" (or yet another hapax, the imperialati.

Now for the big picture question: Trionfi/Papal and Imperatori/Imperial?
Trionfi was made not just in a Guelf city but one with the pope resident in it - in some small measure is Trionfi thus a response to Imperatori? There is zero suggestion that the number 8 holds any significance in Trionfi and the emperor has no especially elevated place nor role (and given Florence's tormentor at the time was an Imperial duchy, this makes sense). It is significant that you note Pratesi can find no records of Imperatori production in Florence, supporting the papal/trionfi argument instead, and perhaps Ser Ristori got the deck for Ferrara from Naples. At all events, the name Imperatori to any contemporary would point to something that is of the Holy Roman Emperor (hereafter HRE), and thus perhaps it is not surprising that Ferrara is also an Imperial fief. Even the Milanese Marziano's deck is a multiple of 8, and says of the highest card Jupiter, "happily defeated the blaspheming Giants by war!" Although the trumps are tied to virtuous themes, with opposed Daphne and Cupid pulling up the rear in the woman-injected "courtly love" theme of the European West, the challenge to rulership represented by the Giants might go back to the original way in which Mamluk cards were received - three leaders per suit and their respective houses against each other for the top spot, the Emperor.

The fly in the ointment for this theory is the word "Imperatori" could refer not to four contemporary Empires (as we encounter in the Hofämterspiel as four kingdoms, and which I regard as a late variant of Imperatori) but successive empires and their rulers, as JvR insinuates these empires might be associated with the suits: Babylonia - human head (Huck reasonably suggests suit of coin), Persia - missing image (the manuscript's inserted image is missing - perhaps the polo stick which would have been associated with the Mamluks, kindred Muslim rulers as Persia was to become, and of course Babylonia was under Persian suzerainty at this point), Greece-Macedonia is Bells, and Rome is Eagle (= Shields? And note the Muslim double shield might have eventually become the suit of hearts as their outlines are similar). The initial impulse here would be to ape the format of a world chronicle from a successive empires perspective, but anachronistically warring against one another within the card game. The suits have features of German decks, so I would suggest German decks in general are variants of a proto-game of Imperatori - especially apropos since they are imperial, not papal, fiefs.

But still we have the problem of the transition of a ruler with two lieutenants/knaves, the last two of which that JvR seems to visually put at odds, to an expanded court with woman in it - JvR preferring a version with a queen and lady in waiting for 5 total court cards. I'll share in a subsequent post that there is a significant reason that the original Over and Under Knave shared a adversarial dynamic that allowed the governor-cum-king to be paired with the European insertion of the queen. So the knaves, in short, are not properly part of the "game of throne(s)" - but the queen whose issue will propagate the royal line, naturally is. Thus four king and queens - even the match-making between them before marriage - constitute the Imperatori.

As Imperatori takes hold primarily in German fiefs in the Holy Roman Empire the real game of the election of of the Holy Roman Emperor can now allow an interpretation of the cards as reflecting the situation of 7 Imperial Electors + Emperor, who is in fact selected out of the major fiefs represented by the 7 Electors. The seven Prince-electors were designated by the Golden Bull of 1356, the Electoral College (Kurfürstenrat), led by the Prince-Archbishop of Mainz in his capacity as Archchancellor of Germany, organized as such:

IMPERIAL ELECTORS
Three ecclesiastical Prince-Bishops:
the Prince-Archbishop of Mainz as Archchancellor of Germany
the Prince-Archbishop of Cologne as Archchancellor of Italy
the Prince-Archbishop of Trier as Archchancellor of Burgundy
Four secular Princes:
the King of Bohemiaas Archcupbearer
the Elector of the Palatinate as Archsteward (Erztruchsess)
the Elector of Saxony as Archmarshal
the Margrave of Brandenburg as Archchamberlain

One will note the Hofämterspiel's suits fairly closely match those four kingdoms associated with the Electors named above, as one can regard Burgundy as replaced by the encompassing entity of France and replacing Italy with Hungary, as the Neapolitan Anjou had already made marriage claims on Hungary (even adopting their patron saints), so swapping Italy for Hungary was not an odd development (Italy simply remaining the place where the HRE received the Lombard Iron Crown in Monza/Milan and the Papal crowning in Rome).

Also note that the likely patron of the Hofämterspiel, Ladislas Posthumous, son of Emperor Sigismund (originally of Luxembourg, king of Hungary in 1387, king of Germany in in 1410, king of Bohemia in 1419 and finally Emperor in 1433 ) and Marie of Hungary, was desperately trying to succeed his father. Ladislas is recognized as Duke of Austria, King of Bohemia and Hungary, becomes engaged to Madeleine of France (daughter of Charles VII) but lacks Germany....instead his brother is king of Germany, Frederick III, who gets elected emperor in 1452 (Ladislas dies in 1457). One will also note the Kingdom of Germany suit in the Hofämterspiel features the curly blonde locks (FIII has straight hair) of Ladislas, in the King, Marshall and Steward cards of the German suit: https://cards.old.no/1455-hofamterspiel/ . Ladislas seems to be placing himself in the national suit he did not possess: Germany. If this is all correct then that deck must date from before 1452. Again, a game of thrones is being played here. And Ladislas lost the game due to the seven imperial electors.

A lot of talk about a game seven electors but what of the number eight? There are always 7 Electors and an Emperor to give you the number 8; if an elector became Emperor, the Elector position was backfilled. This emphasis on 8 can be shown in contemporary art where the Emperor is often shown with the Electors to form a series of 8 subjects; almost too perfectly arranged here as if 8 cards:

Still looking for the date of the first one; this one is 1493, from Schedel's Liber Chronicarum, AKA Nuremberg Chronicle (top row):
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Social_or ... eiches.jpg

In fact the Imperial Golden Bull of 1356 call for these 8 to be seated together and even gives an ordinal ranking in times of an interregnum:

4. Concerning the prince electors in common.
We decree, moreover, that, as often as an imperial court shall henceforth chance to be held, in every assembly,-in council, namely, at table or in any place whatsoever where the emperor or king of the Romans shall happen to sit with the prince electors, on the right side of the emperor or king of the Romans there shall sit immediately after the archbishop of Mainz or the archbishop of Cologne-whichever, namely, shall happen at that time, according to the place or province, following the tenor of his privilege, to sit at the right hand of the emperor-first, the king of Bohemia, as he is a crowned and anointed prince, and secondly, the count palatine of the Rhine. But on the left side, immediately after whichever of the aforesaid archbishops shall happen to sit on the left, the duke of Saxony shall have the first, and, after him, the margrave of Brandenburg the second place.

But so often and whenever the holy empire shall hereafter happen to be vacant, the archbishop of Mainz shall Men have the right, which he is known from of old to have had, of convoking the other princes, his aforesaid companions in the said election. And when all of them, or those who can and will be present, are assembled together at the term of the election, it shall pertain to the said archbishop of Mainz and to no other to call for the votes of these his co-electors, one by one in the following order. First, indeed, he shall interrogate the archbishop of Treves, to whom we declare that the first vote belongs, and to whom, as we find, it hitherto has belonged. Secondly, the archbishop of Cologne, to whom belongs the dignity and also the duty of first imposing the royal diadem on the king of the Romans. Thirdly, the king of Bohemia, who, rightly and duly, on account of the prestige of his royal dignity, has the first place among the lay electors. Fourthly, the count palatine of the Rhine. Fifthly, the duke of Saxony. Sixthly, the margrave of Brandenburg. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/golden.asp

As for the suits, there are four Elector positions whose associated kingdoms - Germany, Italy-cum-Hungary, Burgundy/France, and Bohemia - clearly had the best path to being Emperor for the title holder; again:
the Prince-Archbishop of Mainz as Archchancellor of Germany
the Prince-Archbishop of Cologne as Archchancellor of Italy
the Prince-Archbishop of Trier as Archchancellor of Burgundy
the King of Bohemia as Archcupbearer

But under my reconstruction the Emperor would have to be one of the top four as a king, indeed, the highest "king", so the king of Bohemia Elecrtor along with his fellow three civil electors would make up the four 'Ober-Knaves', or Marshali in JvR's parlance. Again, the four Unter-Knave - not represented by either the Emperor of 7 imperial Electors (and derived from a made-up Mamluk word they couldn't even explain) - would be someone at odds with the Ober-Knave (to be expanded upon in a different post). In this "Marshali" game described by JvR, which again he calls the most "common" and "first" I believe we have the earliest European format, closely matching the original structure of the Mamluk decks. With the insertion of a royal woman, a queen, the Marshali, particularly in JvR's ideal format of 60 cards, the Marshali would get pushed down the totem pole, as it were, and the Queen placed among the top 8 spots. The queen would of course hail from one of the HRE dominions and thus properly hailing from a house that was a major player in the Imperatori game of thrones.

Unlike Marcello quickly producing a deck based on Marziano's instructions in his manuscript - presumably the West received the Mamluks with a bare minimum of knowledge about them; just a ruler with two underlings. Variations are only natural under those circumstances. A theoretical reconstruction of how there was a multi-branched evolution of decks (most being dead ends) proceeded from the Mamluks:
* Prime event: 1365 Alexandria, capital city of the Mamluks, looted by the King of Cyprus and allies and shortly thereafter notes of cards proliferate; link to the original discussion here: http://forum.tarothistory.com/download/file.php?id=2340 That had to be the origin of the explosion of card playing in the West that begins being documented within a decade. Knights Hospitaller, who had taken over many of the defunct Knights Templar properties at this point, played a key rule in that "crusade" and their numerous "commanderies" would explain the cards quick diffusion, from Catalan to Germany (more on the Hospitallers and their Grand Master's potential role with Imperatori in another post).

* Ur-Imperatori "Marshali": 4 kings/emperors perhaps identified with world empires (Babylon/Persia/Greece/Rome), with Ober and Unter Knaves
-> the notion of world empires is dropped but the suit signs associated with them become the basis of German suits. The persistence of the original Mamluk arrangement can be found even in the 1540 Playing Cards of Peter Flötner where the court cards are a king, a well-dressed Over Knave opposed to a disreputable Unter Knave, with the Queen relegated to the pips, holding a standard for the number 10. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/704742 In the Hofämterspiel we have an echo of these four empires but now four kingdoms vying for the Emperor post. Other decks retain the King and Over/Under knaves as in this 1530 Swiss deck: https://www.wopc.co.uk/images/countries ... cards1.jpg or the Toledo deck of 1584 https://www.wopc.co.uk/images/countries ... 1584-1.jpg . The original format clearly had a long life.

* Ur-Imperatori "Queens": Besides an apparently all queen deck, King and Queens of each suit form the 8 Imperatori as were reatiend up through common playing cards; the other court cards (knaves and lady in waiting) would have no role in succession.
-> pared down to just the King, Queen, Knight/Ober-Knave, and Page/Unter-Knave, we have genesis of Italian decks court cards in Trionfi. Besides the court cards, there is no influence of Imperatori on Trionfi (the king and queen of each suit - the "Imperatori" - are literally trumped by a new suit, Trionfi, in which Emperor and Empress are simply themes among others and not the titular subject of the game).

* Ur-Imperatori "Hof" - the entirety of a fief's household fleshed out as the court and pip cards as in the Hofämterspiel (but that deck may be a combination of two trends - imperial/national themed suits and then the pips represented by household functions, from Hofmeister to cook).

* Ur-Imperatori "5(+) suits" - more than four suits would simply be a means of adding more players/gamblers. Unless there is some specific detail that suggests a new suit, any more speculation here seems unwarranted. For instance the Liechtenstein deck simply adds another suit - polo stick, swords, cups, coins, shields - nothing about an entirely novel suit other than another object for a suit ("shields").

So the primary theme here is Imperatori is warring houses within the Imperial realm vying for the top spot of Emperor. The Emperor with seven Imperial Electors puts an emphasis on the number 8 for "the game of Emperor", but with the insertion of royal women into European decks the elevation of the queen alongside the king means those 8 highest figures of each suit - 4 queens and 4 kings - are in fact the 8 Imperatori.

Finally, the theory that a game would be centered around the question as to who would succeed to Emperor from among the various Imperial fiefs would really only be viable if the position was in that time period a revolving door of sorts or even in an interregnum state; in fact, that last status is precisely the case for almost the entire period of the earliest reference of playing cards (1377), as well as the oldest mentioning of Imperatori (1423): Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, dies 29 November 1378 - INTERREGNUM - then Sigismund of Luxembourg, crowned HRE in Rome on 31 May 1433. No emperor from 1378 through 1433. Thus the interest in a game of Imperatori.

Phaeded

Phaeded,
Reading your arguments ....
... especially were you attempt to define "Trionfi cards" as having some relation to the pope, and "Imperatori cards" as having some relation to the emperor ...

Now for the big picture question: Trionfi/Papal and Imperatori/Imperial?
Trionfi was made not just in a Guelf city but one with the pope resident in it - in some small measure is Trionfi thus a response to Imperatori?

.... and reflecting myself the condition, that the phenomenon "card game Imperatori" is beside in the doubted Würzburg document limited to the rule of the d'Este (then my attention turns to this condition)
.... and the d'Este ruled in the region of Modena and Reggio by a contract made with the Roman king/Emperor (duchy in 1452) and in Ferrara with a contract made with the pope (duchy since 1471). Really a good observation and idea ...

Then I read from your side ...

At all events, the name Imperatori to any contemporary would point to something that is of the Holy Roman Emperor (hereafter HRE), and thus perhaps it is not surprising that Ferrara is also an Imperial fief.

Ahem ... the duchy of Ferrara is NOT an Imperial fief. It's from the pope. Modena/Reggio is from the emperor....

Looking through the Imperatori deck reports from Ferrara, we have, that the last document is from ... February 1452.

The Guardaroba 33 of Credits and Debits (N), for 1452, records on 11 February (Franceschini 1993, 688a)

Maistro Piero Andrea de Bonsignore de avere sino adi XI de febraro per sua merzede de avere fato una pignata de negro, havuta la roba da la spenderia, zoè libre doe de vernixe liquida et quatro de raxa, fatone la dita pignata de negro per mandare al Mantoano a Sauolo per stanpire charte da Inperaduri da zugare, per uxo delo Illustro nostro Signore; chome apare mandato signato no._____; lire una, soldi diexe de marchesane
................. L. I. X. Maistro Piero Andrea de Bonsignore having on the XI day of February for his expenses in having made a black pot, having a dispensing thing, that is to say two libre of varnish liquid and four of [raxa], making the said black pot to give to the Mantovano at Sassuolo for printing Emperor playing-cards, for the use of Our Illustrious Lord; as appears mandate signed no. _____; one lira, ten soldi marchesane
…………….. L. I. X.

This is likely for printing color.

And the duchy of Modena and Reggio was made a duchy at ...

On May 18, 1452 he (Borso d'Este) received confirmation over his fiefs, as Duke, by Emperor Frederick III.[1] On April 12, 1471, in St. Peter's Basilica, he was also appointed as Duke of Ferrara by Pope Paul II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borso_d%2 ... of_Ferrara

After that I've only a note once collected by Michael J. Hurst.:

Michael J. Hurst in his Collected Fragments of Tarot History gives the following information:
c.1454 Ferrara, Italy. "... records state that Borso d'Este played at cards: 'of the Emperor' (dell'imperatore) in Ferrara around 1454." (Betts 321; GT 191.)

For Betts I found (Michael's old arrangement at https://web.archive.org/web/20060113051 ... -1479.html ):

Betts, Timothy. Tarot and the Millennium. New Perspective Media, 1998. (Betts)
Michael's comment:
Betts presents a theory of early Tarot’s meaning, but also includes a great deal of interesting historical information. He also offers a plausible alternative to the courtly origin usually assumed, in terms of a printer’s guild or confraternity, and includes significant quotes (poorly referenced) from a variety of early sources. I have used some of these, despite their lack of documentation.

GT is Game of Tarot by Michael Dummett ... I think, I've no access of page 191.

All, what we know, is, that the destiny of the imperatori decks is gone with 1452/54. We have, that the Ferrara girls (daughters of Ercole d'Este played Imperiale around 1493. If this Imperiale had something to do with the earlier Imperatori cards is not clear.

search.php?keywords=imperiale

***********************

If one leaves all insecure statements aside (relation to the Würzburg Imperatori, relation to the game Imperiale, relation to the game Karnöffel), one gets the simple story, that Ferrara wished to have a Duchy in Modena/Reggio and invented the Imperatori game to please the relevant emperors, and the plan worked well, but in the moment, when they got the duchy title, the card deck Imperatori wasn't of interest anymore.

Huck wrote: 01 May 2022, 18:00 Then I read from your side ...

At all events, the name Imperatori to any contemporary would point to something that is of the Holy Roman Emperor (hereafter HRE), and thus perhaps it is not surprising that Ferrara is also an Imperial fief.

Ahem ... the duchy of Ferrara is NOT an Imperial fief. It's from the pope. Modena/Reggio is from the emperor....

***********************

If one leaves all insecure statements aside (relation to the Würzburg Imperatori, relation to the game Imperiale, relation to the game Karnöffel), one gets the simple story, that Ferrara wished to have a Duchy in Modena/Reggio and invented the Imperatori game to please the relevant emperors, and the plan worked well, but in the moment, when they got the duchy title, the card deck Imperatori wasn't of interest anymore.

Huck,
Re. Imperial/Papal
I'll not insist on the papal/imperial bifurcation for trionfi/imperatori, but Ferrara's own identification as papal or imperial is much more muddled than you suggested as their territories included both papal and imperial fiefs (yes, Ferrara proper had nominally become papal during their earliest fighting against Visconti; but imperial Modena goes back to 1288): Niccolo III d'Este, who was ruling Ferrara when we get the first import of Imperatori there in 1423, was Marquess - from whom did that title originally come from? The very origins of the house are Frankish and imperial-related: The first known member of the house was Margrave Adalbert of Mainz (seat of an Imperial Elector). The Este family were identified as lords of Modena from 1288 (Obizzo d'Este). Aldobrandino III d'Este (d. 1361) was the Lord of Ferrara and Modena from 1352 until his death, and accompanied Charles IV in his march to Rome to receive the imperial coronation. Of course the d'Este also acquired trionfi, so the point is ultimately moot and I'm sorry I've detracted from my main thesis in that way...

As for your second point: You are claiming Ferrara invented Imperatori? And how does that explain why there are VIII Imperatori, which is the penultimate goal of my post?

My main argument, abridged:
The King, Ober Knave and Unter Knave match both Mamluk cards and what JvR calls the most common deck; there are ample German examples of these. Everything else diverges from this original deck. This original format could not be called Imperatori (12 court cards), given the premise that Imperatori evolved out of Mamluks into something different....that being the insertion of a queen. The queen is inserted above the two knaves and has everything to do with royal and imperial succession and the courtly world of love one finds in the chivalrous romances of the age (even Dante). The King and queen of each suit form the 8 Imperatori in a Holy Roman Empire context, representing competing houses for an Imperial throne that was vacant since the death of Charles IV in 1378 (and would remain vacant until the crowning of Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1433). Again, no emperor from 1378 through 1433. The Emperor plus seven Imperial Electors, are not the 8 Imperatori per se - the suits' king and queens are - but provide a supporting cognate for eight rulers and represent the imperial fiefs from which an emperor would be elected (albeit, often the future emperor would have consolidated more than one of these major imperial fiefs, paralleling trump-taking).

But please explain, Huck, which Emperor were the d'Este trying to please in 1423 when supposedly "Ferrara wished to have a Duchy in Modena/Reggio and invented the Imperatori game to please the relevant emperors"?

In my view the game Imperatori is older, perhaps not called as such, and goes back to the earliest times when a queen was first inserted, creating eight royals, any of which might become the Imperial couple (and forcing the knaves or 'marshali' down into more subordinate roles). I'll further argue (something I'm still writing) that the decks were diffused via Hospitaller knights returning from the looting of Alexandria in 1365, where Mamluk decks were obtained, to their numerous commandries (chapter houses). These commanderies were especially concentrated throughout the Upper Rhein, Switzerland, etc., - imperial dominions - where we find some of the earliest cards being made. The name Imperatori obviously attaches itself to the game sometime after JvR wrote (1377), when the HRE interregnum period began the year after (1378-1433) (and here the Grand Master of the Hospitallers may have provided the very name 'Imperatori', but that's for a subsequent post).

Phaeded

Phaeded wrote: 01 May 2022, 19:53
But please explain, Huck, which Emperor were the d'Este trying to please in 1423 when supposedly "Ferrara wished to have a Duchy in Modena/Reggio and invented the Imperatori game to please the relevant emperors"?

Not to answer for Huck, nor to support his theory, but I'd just point out that the King of the Romans could be colloquially referred to as "emperor," regardless of actual crowning in Milan and Rome. The emperor-elect had all the powers of the emperor.

So, for instance, the Bolognese chronicles call Sigmund “lo imperadore,” “l'imperadore” e.g. on page 547, lines 35-36, for 1413, meeting at Lodi of Pope John XXIII with “lo re d'Ungaria, ch'era imperadore” (Cronaca A) and simply “con l'imperadore” (Cronaca B);
on pages 549-550, lines 33-34 (A), 28 (B), for 1414 at the Council of Constance.
(Albano Sorbelli, ed., Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XVIII, part 1, volume III, Corpus Chronicorum Bononiensium)
https://archive.org/details/p1frerumita ... 6/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/p1frerumita ... 8/mode/2up

Giuseppe Odoardo Corazzini, Diario fiorentino di Bartolomeo di Michele del Corazza. Anni 1405-1438, from the Archivio Storico Italiano, series 5a, XIV (1894), p. 298: “Vi erano quattro sedie, quella del Papa, dell’Imperadore d’Alamagna a lato e più bassa, quella dell’Imperadore de’greci dirimpetto al Papa e più bassa, quella del Patriarca de’greci a lato alla sua e del pari.” See also Ghirardacci, Della historia di Bologna, p. 60; Gill, Council of Florence, p. 107, p. 143; Laurent, ed., Syropoulos IV, 39-40 (pp. 241-245); and Andreas de Santacroce (Georg Hofmann, ed.), Acta Latina Concilii Florentini VI (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1955), pp. 28-29.

Donato Bosso's Milanese chronicle mentions Filippo Maria's 6 December 1412 appeal to the Emperor to have his ducal title recognized officially (formal investiture):
(Margin note)”Legati ad Imperatorem”
(Text) “... legati papiensis episcopus & Bartolomeus falchonus a Philippo Maria ad serenissimum imperatorem pro ducatus titulo destinantur.”
Chronica Bossiana, Milan, 1492; not paginated, but folio q3 verso at the bottom of the page and continuing on to folio q4.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=75fCZN ... 22&f=false
The primary documents of this process refer to Sigismund strictly and legally correctly as “Romanorum Rex,” e.g. “Serenissimus princeps et dominus Romanorum Rex”
Giulio Romano, “Contributi alla storia della riconstituzione del ducato milanese,” Archivio Storico Lombardo 23 (1896), pp. 259-260

“his imperial majesty” in 1415, in Gabrino Fondulo's investiture of Cremona from Filippo Maria: “de eius absoluta ducali potestate, et etiam ex auctoritate eidem ab imperiali maiestate concessa” (from his ducal absolute power and also from the authority granted to him by his imperial majesty). Luigi Osio, Documenti diplomatici tratti dagli archivj milanesi, volume II/1, document XXVII, pages 41-49.

Cherubino Ghirardacci's Della historia di Bologna (mid-16th century) refers casually to Albert (King of the Romans, hence emperor-elect, 1437-1439) as “imperatore:”
"Di questo mese d'ottobre muore l'imperatore Alberto, non havendo due anni interi l'imperlo havuto; lasciò gravida la imperatrice sua moglie di cui poi Ladislao ne nacque."
"In this, the month of October, the emperor Albert died, not having had the emperorship for two complete years; he left the empress his wife pregnant, the birth of which would be Ladislas."
(Albano Sorbelli's edition in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Raccolta degli storici italiani, page 60:
https://archive.org/details/p1rerumital ... 0/mode/2up )

Ross Caldwell wrote: 02 May 2022, 10:55 Not to answer for Huck, nor to support his theory, but I'd just point out that the King of the Romans could be colloquially referred to as "emperor," regardless of actual crowning in Milan and Rome.

Thank you very much for that Ross! I had been wanting an answer to that very question for a while now, but hadn't got around to doing the research myself, so I'm grateful that you have.

I think it's reasonably clear that the Charles VI Emperor card was intended as a portrait of Sigismund, and the Visconti di Modrone Emperor probably also, but I had wondered whether the Rothschild Emperor could possibly be. The Rothschild Emperor certainly doesn't seem to resemble Sigismund as much as the other two do, but it could conceivably have been an attempt at a portrait of him nevertheless. However, the Rothschild deck is very likely to date to the years from 1425 to the first half of the 1430s, so I was wondering if the card could still have been intended as a portrait of Sigismund if it was made before his imperial coronation in 1433. The answer to that question now seems to be yes. So the exact date of the Rothschild deck is not crucially relevant to whether that card was a portrait of Sigismund, nor vice versa.

Nathaniel wrote: 02 May 2022, 11:44 I think it's reasonably clear that the Charles VI Emperor card was intended as a portrait of Sigismund, and the Visconti di Modrone Emperor probably also, but I had wondered whether the Rothschild Emperor could possibly be. The Rothschild Emperor certainly doesn't seem to resemble Sigismund as much as the other two do, but it could conceivably have been an attempt at a portrait of him nevertheless. However, the Rothschild deck is very likely to date to the years from 1425 to the first half of the 1430s, so I was wondering if the card could still have been intended as a portrait of Sigismund if it was made before his imperial coronation in 1433. The answer to that question now seems to be yes. So the exact date of the Rothschild deck is not crucially relevant to whether that card was a portrait of Sigismund, nor vice versa.

I don't think it's relevant to particular datings, either. I'm not even sure if I'd consider any of them as portraits of Sigismund, or the empress Barbara of Cilli (or Celji). But he did have a distinctive beard, which his successor Frederick III did not have, so maybe the Tarot Emperors are idealisations of how an emperor looks, based to some extent on Sigismund, especially Visconti di Modrone, even though he was dead possibly five years already.

On the popular usage and de facto power of the imperial title, a similar issue exists for the ducal title of the Visconti and Sforza. Only Gian Galeazzo, Filippo Maria, and Ludovico Sforza had explicit and official recognition - in the form of a diploma - from the emperor as dukes.

See Jane Black, “The Fragility of the Ducal Diplomas,” Absolutism in Renaissance Milan, pp. 75-78.

Summary on page 76 note 32: “Giovanni Maria did not secure a renewal of his title; Filippo Maria had to wait almost fifteen years for his; Francesco Sforza, Galeazzo Maria, and Giangaleazzo Sforza had to make do with a de facto title; Ludovico il Moro eventually received a diploma in 1494.”

Filippo Maria's official recognition from Sigismund was itself fraught and never quite satisfactory. But, as with the emperors, everybody called the Visconti and Sforza rulers "duke." De facto, and by popular acclaim.

Black explains the complications of Filippo Maria's: "Filippo Maria undertook a long-drawn-out series of negotiations with Sigismund; after the collapse of the regime under Giovanni Maria, imperial recognition was vital to restoring Visconti authority. Filippo Maria's requests were initially denied, Sigismund continuing to refer to Milan as a civitas, and to Filippo Maria himself simply as illustris, or as Count of Pavia. In the discussions a distinction was made between the lands and the title: in 1413 Sigismund promised to confirm that Filippo Maria 'could and should hold [these lands] and govern them as he has hitherto', but he would not agree to recognize him as duke without the consent of the electors.

The presence of both sides at the opening of the Council of Constance in 1415 provided an opportunity for Filippo Maria to give an oath of fealty in exchange for the recognition of territories without a renewal of the title [14 May 1415]. By 1418 Filippo Maria had so far strengthened his own position that Sigismund gave a promise, subject to the approval of the electors, that he would at some future point confirm the title. Confirmation was finally granted in 1426. There are two versions of the crucial document. The first, dated 1 July, was a fake. With its emphasis on Filippo Maria's hereditary rights and its confirmation of Wenceslas's original investitures, the instrument represented what Filippo Maria would have liked to have had from Sigismund. The genuine act, dated 6 July 1426, was a paltry affair by comparison: not a confirmation of Filippo Maria's title as such, it merely endorsed the agreement of 1418 by which Sigismund had promised Filippo Maria the privileges and territories which had been granted to his father, provided the electors consented. There was no specific reference to the rights contained in the earlier diplomas. Moreover, the instrument was to be kept secret during the period of Sigismund's life. Nevertheless, this document was far better than nothing." (Absolutism, pp. 76-77)

The two 1426 documents are published in Giorgio Giulini, Memorie spettanti alla storia, al governo ed alla descrizione (Black cites the edition of 1857, pp. 291-296). Sigismund's real diploma addresses Filippo Maria as "duke of Milan," explicitly recognizing the title:

Sigismundus Dei gratia Romanorum Rex semper Augustus, ac Ungarie Boemie, Dalmatie, Croacieque Rex. Illustri Philippo Marie Anglo Duci Mediolani, Papie, Anglerisque Comiti Principi, et filio Nostro carissimo gratiam Regiam...

On page 293 here -
https://books.google.fr/books?id=AXEPAA ... &q&f=false

Ross Caldwell wrote: 02 May 2022, 14:27 On the popular usage and de facto power of the imperial title, a similar issue exists for the ducal title of the Visconti and Sforza. Only Gian Galeazzo, Filippo Maria, and Ludovico Sforza had explicit and official recognition - in the form of a diploma - from the emperor as dukes.

See Jane Black, “The Fragility of the Ducal Diplomas,” Absolutism in Renaissance Milan, pp. 75-78.

Summary on page 76 note 32: “Giovanni Maria did not secure a renewal of his title; Filippo Maria had to wait almost fifteen years for his; Francesco Sforza, Galeazzo Maria, and Giangaleazzo Sforza had to make do with a de facto title; Ludovico il Moro eventually received a diploma in 1494.”

Quickly regarding the last point, the often "defective" imperial title in Milan, Black's book is wide-ranging that has much material on periods outside of our primary interest here, while Ianzitti is focused on Filippo and Sforza, obviously with an emphasis on the latter; can't recommend this work enough: Gary Ianziti, Humanistic Historiography Under the Sforzas, Politics and Propaganda in Fifteenth-century Milan, 1988

Regarding the German Kingdom conflation with Empire (surprisingly detailed Wiki entry here):

German writers after the Staufen period used variants of the term "Regnum Alemanniae" to indicate the weakened reach of the emperors who now confined themselves mainly to German matters. Anti-king Henry Raspe also described himself as "king of Germany and prince of the Romans". There were also scattered references to a political community of "Germans" excluding the rest of the empire. For instance, in 1349, Charles IV met the nobles and burghers of "regnum Alamannie", in 1355 he summoned the electors and burghers "in regno Alemannie". However, this tendency to refer to a "German" polity after the collapse of the Staufen empire did not develop further in the following period.[8][31]

The term "regnum" was sometimes used to refer a distinct political entity within the "imperium", but sometimes they were used interchangeably, and sometimes they were combined in phrases like "Regnum Romanorum". In the German language it was most common to simply use the term "German lands" rather than "kingdom".[33] In 1349 Charles IV (King of the Romans) appointed the Duke of Brabant's son to govern on his behalf "in our kingdom of the Romans throughout Germania or Theutonia".[32]

There were persistent proposals, including one that Ptolemy of Lucca claimed was discussed between Pope Nicholas III and Rudolf I, to create a hereditary German kingdom independent from the Holy Empire. This idea was met with horror in Germany.[31] When Rudolf I was elected, the emotional attachment the German people had with the superior dignity of the universalistic Roman title had become so firmly established that it was unacceptable to separate the German kingship from it.[34] There was a strong reluctance by the Emperors to use "German" titles due to strong attachment to Roman symbolism, and it seemed to be actively avoided. References to "German" titles were less rare but still uncommon among vassals and chroniclers.[35]

From 1250 onward, the association between "Germans" and the whole Empire became stronger. As post-Staufer German monarchs were too weak to secure coronation as emperor, German writers became concerned that Germany was losing the prestige of Imperial status. The lack of concentration of power in one ruler or region also made the monarchy more attractive to all Germans. These led to more interest in connecting German identity to being heirs of Imperial Rome (Translatio Imperii), by right of their military strength as defenders of Christendom. At the same time, the replacement of Latin with German in official documents entrenched the German character of the empire at large.

Your point is taken ("emperor" was certainly used in the interregnum), but if the Italians called the German King "Emperor" it is because the German King and his court insisted on that nomenclature, per above, but that did not alter the reality. The Italians remained diplomatically nuanced, especially the Visconti who had intermarried with Imperial royalty in the late 14th century. From an old post of mine:

Bernabo Visconti’s grand strategy for alliances with the Holy Roman Empire (and France as well), partially in order to be invested with the imperial ducal title of Milan (which Giangaleazzo was able to do), succeeded with the following four daughters (listed below in the order of their births):

Taddea Visconti (1351 - 1381) married Stephen III, Duke of Bavaria (1337 – 1413), of the dominant House of Wittelsbach, and was mother of Isabeau of Bavaria, wife of Charles VI of France. He opposed the Luxembourg and Tyrol branches of the family but that doesn’t seem to concern us here.

Antonia Visconti (c. 1364 Milan – 26 March 1405, Stuttgart) married Eberhard III of Württemberg (‘the Clement’) (1364 –1417, ruled 1392-1417), in 1380, ruling as Countess and Count of Württemberg, then a part of the Holy Roman Empire (became a Duchy in 1495). They had had 3 sons, the surviving one succeeding the father as Eberhard IV (1388-1419). The son Eberhard IV became engaged to Henriette of Mömpelgard in 1397 and married in 1407 at which time the county of Mömpelgard – although located somewhat remotely from Swabia just west of Basle, become part of Württemberg. After Antonia died, Eberhard III remarried (Elisabeth of Nuremberg) in 1412. At that time, it is likely that Eberhard III wanted to assure Visconti of continuing good relations, that his own half-Visconti son was still heir apparent, and also to congratulate Filippo of becoming duke in 1412, the same year as the second marriage.

Maddalena Visconti (1366 –1404) Duchess of Bavaria-Landshut by her marriage to Frederick, Duke of Bavaria-Landshut divided in 1392, when Bavaria-Landshut was reduced since Bavaria-Ingolstadt and Bavaria-Munich were created for his brothers.

Elisabetta Visconti (1374 –1432), Ernest of Bavaria-Munich (German: Ernst, Herzog von Bayern-München), (1373 –1438), from 1397 Duke of Bavaria-Munich.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1422&start=310

I am of the opinion, especially after rereading Dummett's article on the Mamluk decks (his most important piece of card research to my mind), that the Germans retained the "ur-court cards" of King, Ober and Unter Knave, but also recognized what became the primary variant - the insertion of a queen - as a deck called Imperatori. The primary question we're trying to address here - why EIGHT, What does the hapax "VIII" in "VIII Imperadori" mean? - does not get explained by a 'colloquial' (I would prefer 'diplomatic') convention of calling the German king "emperor". And the conditions for which Huck is proposing Ferrara were preceded by and found even more pronounced in Visconti Milan.

But from whence did the queen first get inserted? From near the very beginning, at least all female suits, per JvR; despite his preference for 5 court cards (3 male 2 female), obviously the mere insertion of the queen took root as an equally popular format as the the king/2 knaves one. But did the Germans create that queen insertion or the Italians, perhaps even the Visconti in connection with one of their numerous marriages? The first marriage is 1367, Taddea becoming the first wife of Stephen III Wittelsbach of Bavaria-Ingolstadt, who, on 13 May 1375, became Duke of Bavaria (Bavaria gained new heights of power with Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor, who became the first Wittelsbach emperor in 1328; closer in time to your references of the Italian uses of "Emperor" for the German king note that Rupert of the Palatinate (1352 – 1410), member of the House of Wittelsbach, was Elector Palatine from 1398 (as Rupert III) and King of Germany from 1400 until his death...and this during the interregnum). The 1367 marriage seems too early but would be right after the 1365 raid on Alexandria from which I see Mamluk decks entering Europe en masse. Visconti-Imperial marriages would be an occasion to interject a female into the original all male deck and why it would be found in German-speaking dominions, thus an Italian->German influence noted by Dummett (not that there weren't subsequent German->Visconti influences that I note in my linked post above, especially concerning the Marziano, Stuttgart [and presumed earlier/lost "hunting" decks] and CY decks).

What I did not note in that earlier post is an oddity of the Stuttgart of c. 1430; most of the deck here, but most importantly, both queens: https://www.wopc.co.uk/germany/stuttgart

The cards are made on paper stock with a watermark discontinued in 1431 by a papermill in Ravensburg, a city in Upper Swabia in Southern Germany, capital of the district of Ravensburg, Baden-Württemberg. The "oddity" is that both queens (again two all female suits and two all male ones), and only the queens, are visually singled out with a silver border, as to highlight something unique with them (which I would say goes back to the original insertion of a queen into earlier decks that followed the original order king and 2 knaves, with the visual handling of the novel queen retained in the later Stuttgart format).

To reiterate my thesis: bumping the knaves down by inserting a queen over them, who would literally be joined to the king for succession purposes, creates the grounds for 8 imperatori (=imperial in this sense, as in your use of papi which also has females) - a king and queen per each of the four suits, any union (trick-taking) of which could conceivably vie for emperor in the card game.

Phaeded