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:
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.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.]
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
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.Phaeded wrote: 25 May 2022, 17:18 St. Bernardino calls them milites superiores et inferiores (soldiers upper and lower)
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.
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).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.
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.
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 An organization that featured marshalli - say, a military order that took part in capturing a rich mamluk city […]
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.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?