Re: Collection ... Karnöffel

#11
mikeh wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 10:29
Thanks. So in other words, nobody knows what it would have been like in 1425 or so.
As a principle, card game rules have generally some flexibility. One cannot rely on the idea "Same name - same game". At an unknown time after 1517 (day of reformation) Karnöffel got a sort of Protestant identity (possibly this was only according the 1537 action at the council ?). A part of the 1446 document is, that emperor Charles the V. is given as the card Emperor with the number 5 (which is the 4th and lowest emperor). The date is inside the 1st Schmalkaldic war (1546-1547), when Charles had send his army against German protestants (so possibly this was done just in 1546, and the 4 emperors on cards 2-3-4-5 possibly depended on this ideological change). In contrast the Swiss "Kaisern" has 4 emperors connected to the Banners (flags = 10s), but only 1 flag iseems to be indicated as trump as Kaiser and the cards 2-3-4 have the trump function, which the Kaisers had in the rules of 1546 (some details in the interpretation of 19th century seem to indicate, that 3 banners were then involved, I'm still not sure about the Kaisern rules).
Kaisern nowadays is played in small circles of persons in Nidwalden, Uri and Luzern, 2 of them part of the 3 Urkantone of Switzerland and today all with a catholic dominance in the population (80%, 63%, 64%). The Swiss soldiers which served in the Vatican mostly came from this region. It seems, that the game Kaisern had an revival in the first half of 19th century (which means, that it was rather lost) and lives as a "tradition", not really as a card game, which is played just for fun. As I understood it, the Parlett version of Karnöffel was actually Kaisern.
But I'm still not finished with my studies to this point ...
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection ... Karnöffel

#12
Huck wrote
A part of the 1446 document is, that emperor Charles the V. is given as the card Emperor with the number 5 (which is the 4th and lowest emperor). The date is inside the 1st Schmalkaldic war (1446-1447), when Charles had send his army against German protestants (so possibly this was done just in 1446, and the 4 emperors on cards 2-3-4-5 possibly depended on this ideological change). In contrast the Swiss "Kaisern" has 4 emperors connected to the Banners (flags = 10s), but only 1 flag iseems to be indicated as trump as Kaiser and the cards 2-3-4 have the trump function, which the Kaisers had in the rules of 1446 (some details in the interpretation of 19th century seem to indicate, that 3 banners were then involved, I'm still not sure about the Kaisern rules).
I assume you meant 1546-1547. Otherwise I am very lost. What I want to know is how many of these Kaisern, whatever regular cards they attached to, had a trump function against the Kings.

Re: Collection ... Karnöffel

#13
... .-) ... yes of course, 1546 etc ...

The document of 1546 is in my opinion not a complete description of the rules. As far I remember, it's not clear, what the second (the 3 of trumps) and third (4 of trumps) emperor could beat. This is Karnöffel of 1546. For Kaisern, there are descriptions, that the four 10s are Kaiser, but only one is the real Kaiser. Or, other description, that possibly 3 can become active as Kaiser.
It's generally difficult. There are notes, that there had been "cheating rules" ... use of secret signs between partners, loud talking about the content of the own cards, that is not necessary to serve suit, that it is not necessary to play a card to a trick. Well, with security not in all versions.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection ... Karnöffel

#14
mikeh wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 10:29

What about this for as much as can be said, for trumps above the king: some high figures, Emperors, one up to four, and a Pope, plus some low figures, in the sense of disreputible the Karnoffel, one or more? Anything else, like second in commands? Is the Pope secure?
(From memory only)
In the 1546 document the Karnöffel beats all, possibly even a 7 (devil) according some conditions (? possibly even when the 7 is first card in a trick ?). The devil cannot capture the pope, and the pope cannot capture the devil. Beside that the pope captures all other cards.
That might be a protestantic rule only. It's not clear, what the pope-related rules had been in regions with more catholic dominions (central Switzerland, "Kaisern"). The 1546 text is an attack against the pope. And the text is probably not a complete description of the used rules.
(... perhaps it becomes clear, if I have time to study the Karnöffel documents and rules with more patience, for the moment there is too much confusion cause of too much contradicting inputs)
In your response of 12 Feb in the thread Marziano to the Ludus Triumphorum, to my invocation of Karnoffel as a possible predecessor to the Ludus Triumphorum, another thing I get of relefance is that in the later reference, 1540s, the four Emperors included representatives of the four ancient empires, as in John of Rheinfelden. Is that secure, our your theory?
I've quoted the passage, the four empires are mentioned and it looks as if there are 4 emperors (trump 2-5). With some contrast to the identification of the 4 Kaisers to the 4 banners or 10s, as it appears in Kaisern-descriptions (which occasionally also have some relation to the lower trumps 3-5 or so ... that's all a little bit confusing without further studies).
I still don't know how you get from four emperors to eight emperors, other than that "VIII Imperadori" was the name of a game. Would the other four come from the same empires as the first four? Are they low characters, in the sense of ruffians or deceivers or devils? Or could they be low in the sense of second in command, i.e. second highest? Any females?
The most common deck in the JvR description is 4x13, 3 court cards and 10 numbers. Most common court cards are King, Ober and Unter, Ober and Unter being commonly soldiers. JvR knows also as most spectacular deck a 4x15 deck, in which all number cards present professions, Court cards are Kings, Queens, Ober, Jungfrau, Unter.
Filippo Maria Visconti gets a deck (Michelino-deck), which probably has also 4x15 structure. It has 4 Kings and (probably 4x10=40) number cards and 16 trumps, which are given as 4 groups of 4 cards to the 4 suits. Beside Kings there are no other court cards noted. So there it is necessary to make the conclusion, that the Michelino deck is a 4x15-deck and NOT a deck with 4x11+16 structure, although the trumps.
This deck contains ...
1. Kings, which reign in their domain (their suit), but cannot trump in other suits.
2. Other court cards, which are mutated to trumps
3. Number cards with only small chances to win a trick.
4. This deck (1418-1425) is in time close to the Imperatori note with 8 cards (1423).

Meister Ingold describes two unusual decks in 1432. Both have 52 cards with 3 court cards in each suit, but 8 of the 12 court cards motifs are changed against the usual Ober and Unter cards. One has 4 Kings, 4 Queens and 4 Jungfrauen instead, the second has 4 Kings and 8 professions, The professions are arranged in a row and the decscription of the row gives the suspicion, that the row contains a trump hierarchy. This deck contains ...
points 1.-3. as above
4. The deck (1432) is in time close to the Imperatori note with 8 cards (1423)

Back to JvR and the most common deck with the court cards King, Ober and Unter. We have no examples of these decks, but enough of later times. Ober and Unter have usually a military outfit, occasionally clearly shown as foot- (Unter) and horse-soldier (Ober). "Ober" means "up" or "top" and Unter means "down"or "bottom". The Unter had the suit sign at bottom, the Ober at top and occasionally with a horse to present the idea "high, up, top". So there are optical signs on the cards, which describe the function of them. One of the optical signs is the condition, that the both lower courts are soldiers, which can in trick-taking games be interpreted with "aggressive" cards, in other words, "they can trump". With that we have ...
points 1.-3. as above
4. The deck type (in 1377 mentioned by JvR) is in time not so close to the Imperatori note with 8 cards (1423), but it somehow is part of the base of all trumping systems.

.... will proceed
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection ... Karnöffel

#15
Huck wrote,
The most common deck in the JvR description is 4x13, 3 court cards and 10 numbers. Most common court cards are King, Ober and Unter, Ober and Unter being commonly soldiers. JvR knows also as most spectacular deck a 4x15 deck, in which all number cards present professions, Court cards are Kings, Queens, Ober, Jungfrau, Unter.
Filippo Maria Visconti gets a deck (Michelino-deck), which probably has also 4x15 structure. It has 4 Kings and (probably 4x10=40) number cards and 16 trumps, which are given as 4 groups of 4 cards to the 4 suits. Beside Kings there are no other court cards noted. So there it is necessary to make the conclusion, that the Michelino deck is a 4x15-deck and NOT a deck with 4x11+16 structure, although the trumps.
This deck contains ...
1. Kings, which reign in their domain (their suit), but cannot trump in other suits.
2. Other court cards, which are mutated to trumps
3. Number cards with only small chances to win a trick.
4. This deck (1418-1425) is in time close to the Imperatori note with 8 cards (1423).
I was happy to see that you support the idea that the Michelino/Marziano had the structure 4x15 and some relation to the "8 Imperatori" decks. Up to now, I thought I was the only one who thought that (along with, although not in print, Pratesi). It would be great if JvR (Johannes von Rheinfelden) could be used in support of that. But he has decks with all sorts of suit-sizes. 4x15 is one of them, and not 4x11. But it wouldn't take much ingenuity to figure that 4x11 was also workable, plus a suit of 16. And his 4x15 has a different structure than the Michelino: 4 cards below King rather than 4 cards above King.

Re: Collection ... Karnöffel

#16
In the "library east wing" I have posted chapters 7 and 8 of Dummett's Game of Tarot, of which pp. 184-191 is on Karnöffel (end of chapter 7).

viewtopic.php?p=22205#p22205

It seems to me still the best thing there is on the subject in English. I'd be interested to know where he has been superseded since 1980. All I can think of is the part on the Italian game of Imperatori. He didn't seem to know about 1423.

Re: Collection ... Karnöffel

#18
mikeh wrote:
08 Mar 2020, 04:12
Huck wrote,
The most common deck in the JvR description is 4x13, 3 court cards and 10 numbers. Most common court cards are King, Ober and Unter, Ober and Unter being commonly soldiers. JvR knows also as most spectacular deck a 4x15 deck, in which all number cards present professions, Court cards are Kings, Queens, Ober, Jungfrau, Unter.
Filippo Maria Visconti gets a deck (Michelino-deck), which probably has also 4x15 structure. It has 4 Kings and (probably 4x10=40) number cards and 16 trumps, which are given as 4 groups of 4 cards to the 4 suits. Beside Kings there are no other court cards noted. So there it is necessary to make the conclusion, that the Michelino deck is a 4x15-deck and NOT a deck with 4x11+16 structure, although the trumps.
This deck contains ...
1. Kings, which reign in their domain (their suit), but cannot trump in other suits.
2. Other court cards, which are mutated to trumps
3. Number cards with only small chances to win a trick.
4. This deck (1418-1425) is in time close to the Imperatori note with 8 cards (1423).
I was happy to see that you support the idea that the Michelino/Marziano had the structure 4x15 and some relation to the "8 Imperatori" decks. Up to now, I thought I was the only one who thought that (along with, although not in print, Pratesi). It would be great if JvR (Johannes von Rheinfelden) could be used in support of that. But he has decks with all sorts of suit-sizes. 4x15 is one of them, and not 4x11. But it wouldn't take much ingenuity to figure that 4x11 was also workable, plus a suit of 16. And his 4x15 has a different structure than the Michelino: 4 cards below King rather than 4 cards above King.

If the premise is German decks influenced Marziano, wouldn't actual decks be of more explanatory value than the speculations of JvR? At least one scholar questions whether JvR invented some of his variants to serve his allegory (see Detlef Hoffman,“Frühe Holzschnitt-Spielkarten: Von den Anfängen bis ins 16. Jahrhundert,” in Altdeutsche Spielkarten, 1500–1650, 1993: 14). Isn't it more likely, after all, that Visconti had an actual German deck(s) and not JvR's treatise, which is not accounted for in his library inventory?

The first problem we encounter is that no surviving German luxury deck predates Marziano but there is no reason that one that Visconti might have owned matched the format of one of those dating up through the mid-century. So let's look at our hand-painted options up through 1450:

Stuttgart, c. 1430, "Upper Rhine"
52 cards, 13 card suits
Suits: Falcons, Ducks, Hounds, Stags
Court cards: King. Upper Knave, Lower Knave
Pips: Banner (10), 9-1.

Ambras Courtly Hunt, c. 1440-45, Basel (where JvR was published, although he hailed from just north of there in Freiburg im Breisgau)
56 cards: 14 card suits
Suits: Falcons, Herons, Hounds, Lures
Court cards: King, Queen, Upper Knave, Lower Knave
Pips: Banner (10), 9-1.

Courtly Household, c. 1450 "Upper Rhine"
48: 12 card suits
Suits: Arms of Germany, Bohemia, Hungary and France
Court cards: King and Queen
Pips: Master of Household (10), 9-1 are court functionaries down through "fool".

We have 12 to 14 card suits - none are 15.

The Courtly Household deck is an outlier due to its idiosyncrasies of nationalities for the suits and different functionaries for the pips instead of varying numbers of the same animal/lure, so can likely be ruled out as an influence. If Marziano had contemplated something non-standard why then does he merely mention the "orders"? He seems to imply something commonly known for court suit orders. If by commonly known that would have been the Italian standard of 14 card suits as we find in the Ambras Courtly Hunt deck - while atypical for German 13 suits, matched the Italian; the Italian 14 card suits was likely reason enough. Therefore it is unwarranted to suspect Marziano was up to something unusual for the number of cards per suit.

And what of the King and pips - does Marziano necessarily imply 1 + 10? In fact both the Stuttgart and Ambras feature a banner as the 10th card versus showing 10 of the themed animal/lures. In fact the Stuttgart shows the King holding a banner, demonstrating an iconographic connection between the "10" pip and the King....so its not much a stretch to see the 10th pip as a singular image - the king himself - especially if Marziano's model was a Stuttgart-type deck. Thus King-10th pip + nine pips of birds. Below, the 10-pip/banner and king, both for the suit of ducks (the king's duck is in the stream below):
Stuttgart 10-banner and King.JPG
Stuttgart 10-banner and King.JPG (57.04 KiB) Viewed 1447 times

One further suspicion that the deck in Visconti's possession was a Stuttgart-type deck is not only that it is the closest in time to Marziano's deck, but it pairs female court cards for two of the suits with male suits for the other two suits, perhaps the impetus for the later CY which has both genders among the courts - 3 males and 3 females. Furthermore, all of the CY queens - although the queen of cups is missing - have a lady-in-waiting crowding up to their laps just as the animals rear up the the laps of the queens in the Stuttgart. This unique feature of the Stuttgart may have lent the idea of matching men for women in the CY courts, as well as the odd lady-in-waiting pressed to the queen laps positioning:

Image

In summary, there is a German precedent for four court cards, although entirely unnecessary to explain Marziano's choice, since there is no reason for that specific influence as proposes a fourfold arrangement; four court cards (of gods) in each suit just follows the emphasis on four (and Italian decks had four court cards). Marziano does not suggest he is doing anything unusual in the number of suits either, especially if the template card deck featured a banner as the 10th pip and then 9-1 animals, then there would have been a temptation to replicate that. The king with banner of the Stuttgart deck taking the place of the 10th pip-banner spot would be iconographically unsurprising, and thus the king in lieu of the 10th pip in Marziano's deck (each king undoubtedly featured his bird somewhere, so a clear option would have been the king holding a banner with a eagle, turtledove, dove or, phoenix). At all events, Marziano cleared out the normal court persons for his sexdecim heroum split up among the four suits - so to have a king in an intermediary realm outside the normal court made no sense; it had to be moved to the pips. All of this points towards 14 card suits - not 15, with the king bounced from the court cards as the highest one. The hypothetical Stuttgart influence on the CY - three female court cards in each suit - is neither here nor there in regard to Marziano, but points to such a deck in possession of Visconti. The Stuttgart use of birds for two of the suits also would have suggested that motif for Marziano, which he uses for all four suits.

Phaeded.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron