translating John of Rheinfelden

#1
Franco Pratesi recently wrote a new "note" on John of Rheinfelden's Tractatus de moribus et disciplina humane conversationis, id est ludus cartularum moralisatus (http://www.naibi.net/A/508-JORHEIN-Z.pdf). I have translated most of it, but I am trying to work also on the Latin quotes that Franco gives, which he does not translate, even into Italian. I have been able to look up most of the words on Wiktionary, but unfortunately I don't know Latin grammar.

A. E. Bond's 1887 translation of the important bits of the Tractatus, Betts' translation by based on Bond, along with the Latin for a few sentences (part of the description of the work by the British Museum), are posted by Michael J. Hurst at http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... ribus.html. But now we have the Latin for all the passages there plus some more.

First there is the title. I get "Treatise of morals and instruction of human conduct, that is, the game of cards moralized". Betts, for "De Moribus et Disciplina Humane Conversationis," had "Treatise Of Morals and Everyday Ethical Instruction". That is basically the same but not quite so literal.

The first passage that Franco quotes is the postscript:
Anno domini m°cccc°29° finitus est liber iste per manus Petri Johannis Hüller alias de Wiscellach civis et scolaris Basiliensis. Sabbato post festum Assumptionis beatissime et gloriosissime virginis marie hora vesperarum. Deo gracias. Dentur pro penna scriptori celica regna.
My guess at a literal translation would be:
The year of our lord 1429 is this book finished, by the hand of Petrus Johannis Hüller, otherwise citizen of Wischellach and scholar of Basel. Saturday after the feast of the Assumption of the blessed and most glorious Virgin Mary, hour of vespers. Thanks be to God. Let the scribe’s pen be given for the heavenly realms.
This is of course the date of the copy, not of the original. Let me know what I have misunderstood.

Franco's longest quote is from P. Bidev, Die Schachallegorie von Jacobus de Cessolis und die Spielkartenallegorie von Johannes von Rheinfelden, Igalo 1982, to which he says he has made minor corrections based on the online reproduction of the manuscript, the one Huck called attention to last year. Here is the quotation, which I will examine in more detail afterwards. In Bidev's rendition it is a kind of table of contents:
C. 3r: (Prima pars huius tractatus erit de materia ludi in se.) Et in capitulo primo erit mencio de materia ludi et de diversitate instrumentorum.
C. 7v: In secundo capitulo declarabitur quod in ludo isto connotantur actus morum virtutum et viciorum.
C. l0r: In tertio capitulo declarabitur quod ludus iste valeat pro allevacione et requie laboratorum.
C. 12r: In quarto capitulo demonstrabitur quod ludus iste hominibus ociosis est utilis et quod valeat pro solacio eorum.
C. 16r: In quinto capitulo ludus iste comparabitur statui mundi currentis quo ad actus nature simul et morum.
C. 25v: In sexto capitulo manifestabitur quelibet pars aliquota numeri sexagesirni et proprietates ipsorum numerorum.
C. 38r: (In ista secunda parte huius presentis tractatus que est de principibus seu nobilibus qui sunt in curia regis erunt quinque capitula.) Primum capitulum erit de rege et eius bonis condicionibus.
C. 65r: Secundum capitulum erit de regina et eius honestis moribus.
C. 81v: Tertium capitulum est de principali principe et eius diligenti providencia.
C. 100r: Quartum capitulum est de regimine principali et eius decenti prudencia.
C. 104v: Quintum capitulum est de principe milicie et eius excellenti experiencia,
C. 117r e 117v: (In tertia parte huius presentis tractatus erunt 12 capitula.)
Primum capitulum est de vulgaribus puta de mechanicis in generali et in confuso.
C. 120r: Secundum capitulum est de hoc quod artes mechanice non fuissent in paradiiso.
C. 134r: Tercium capitulum est quod ut rex in mensa panem habeat indiget pistore molitore et agricolis,
C. 139r: Quartum capitulum quod ut rex vinum habeat indget cupario et vindemiatore cellerario seu pincernis.
C. 145r: Quintum capitulum quod ut rex cibum regium habeat indiget mercatore carnifice piscatore venatore et cocis.
C. 149v: Sextum capitulum quod ut rex vestes decentes habeat indiget sartore textore tinctore et qui lanam et fila tribuat.
C. 153r: Septimum capitulum est quod ut rex calceos habeat decentes indiget cerdone carnifice pastore et qui calceos suat.
C. 157v: Octavum capitulum est quod ut rex pellicia et varium habeat indiget venatore carnifice pastore et qui indumenta ex pellibus faciat.
C. 160v: Nonum capitulum est de fabris eorumque materiis et instrumentis,
C. 167r: Decimum capitulum est de medicis eorumque regimine et medicinis.
C. 171r: Undecimum capitulum est de aliis operariis puta de carpentariis cementariis pictoribus et lapicidis.
C. 176r: Duodecimum capitulum est de sellatoribus equorumque pastoribus navibus et nautis.
In the above, I do not know where Bidev got the words in parentheses, which introduce the three parts. All I can find that corresponds to these parenthetical remarks is what the British Museum quoted in its summary of their copy:
In quo quidem tractatu intendo facere tria: primo, ludum cartularum in se describere, quo ad materiam et modum ludendi; secundo, ipsum ludum ad mores trahere seu nobilibus dare nomina viuendi; et tercio, ipsos populares instruere seu eos informare de modo virtuose operandi.
Or, in Betts' translation (actually Bond's, since Betts has made no changes):
And in this treatise I propose to do three things: first, to describe the game of cards in itself, as to the matter and mode of playing it; second, to moralize the game, or teach noblemen the rule of life; and third, to instruct the people themselves, or inform them of the way of labouring virtuously....
This corresponds closely to the Latin, although a more literal translation of the second part would be " to draw morals for the game itself or give to nobles the names to be lived".
In contrast, Bidev has:
Prima pars huius tractatus erit de materia ludi in se... In ista secunda parte huius presentis tractatus que est de principibus seu nobilibus qui sunt in curia regis erunt quinque capitula... In tertia parte huius presentis tractatus erunt 12 capitula.
My translation:
The first part of this treatise will be of the subject of games in itself... In this second part of this present treatise, which is of princes or nobles who are in the royal court, will be five chapters... In the third part of this present treatise will be twelve chapters.
The first corresponds well to the first part of the British Museum's first sentence. The second corresponds in part to the second part of the BM's first sentence. The third is quite different from the third part of BM's first sentence. I would guess that these sentences preface John's summaries of each part.

For the six chapters of the first part, we have:
Et in capitulo primo erit mencio de materia ludi et de diversitate instrumentorum.
C. 7v: In secundo capitulo declarabitur quod in ludo isto connotantur actus morum virtutum et viciorum.
C. l0r: In tertio capitulo declarabitur quod ludus iste valeat pro allevacione et requie laboratorum.
C. 12r: In quarto capitulo demonstrabitur quod ludus iste hominibus ociosis est utilis et quod valeat pro solacio eorum.
C. 16r: In quinto capitulo ludus iste comparabitur statui mundi currentis quo ad actus nature simul et morum.
C. 25v: In sexto capitulo manifestabitur quelibet pars aliquota numeri sexagesirni et proprietates ipsorum numerorum.
And Betts' translation:
In the first will be stated the subject of the game and the diversity of instruments. In the second will be set forth that in this game there is a moral action of virtues and vices. In the third it will be suggested that it is of service for mental relief and rest to the tired. In the fourth it will be shown that it is useful for idle persons, and may be a comfort to them. In the fifth will be treated the state of the world, as it is, in respect to morals. In the sixth will be demonstrated the aliquot parts of the number sixty, and the properties of numbers.
Except for the first sentence, this corresponds closely to the Latin. The only thing I notice is the absence of anything corresponding to "mental" before "alleviation".

Bidev, as we have seen, goes on to give John's detailed descriptions of the second and third parts. I have not found translations of these summaries. I go line by line. Please tell me where I have gone wrong.
C. 38r: (In ista secunda parte huius presentis tractatus que est de principibus seu nobilibus qui sunt in curia regis erunt quinque capitula.)
from which I get:
In this second part of this present treatise, which is of princes or nobles who are in the king's court, there will be five chapters.
The second sentence:
Primum capitulum erit de rege et eius bonis condicionibus.
In other words:
The first chapter will be of the king and his good circumstances.
Third sentence:
C. 65r: Secundum capitulum erit de regina et eius honestis moribus.
or
The Second Chapter will be of the queen, and her honorable conduct.
4th sentence:
C. 81v: Tertium capitulum est de principali principe et eius diligenti providencia.
(The third chapter is of the chief prince and his diligent providence.
Then:
C. 100r: Quartum capitulum est de regimine principali et eius decenti prudencia.
(The fourth chapter is of the principal regimen (?) and its fitting prudence.)
Then:
C. 104v: Quintum capitulum est de principe milicie et eius excellenti experiencia.
(The Fifth Chapter is of the Knights to the sovereign, and of excellent experience.)
So how many cards is this per suit? Is it just King, Queen, Knight? Or is there a prince? A princess or queen's attendant? That would make five, if "regimine" could possibly be such. However the word appears again, in part 3, where it clearly means "regimen". Also, the fourth chapter, about the "regimine" is significantly shorter than the others. So I would guess 4 courts.

Then comes part three, the rest of the suit cards. There are 12 chapters. You will notice that except for the second chapter, each is fairly short compared to those for the nobles. I give the Latin again, with my guesses as to the translations:
C. 117v-117r. Primum capitulum est de vulgaribus puta de mechanicis in generali et in confuso.
(The first chapter is of the purely ordinary, of the mechanical in general and in confusion.)

C. 120r. Secundum capitulum est de hoc quod artes mechanice non fuissent in paradiiso.
(The second chapter is of the fact that the mechanical arts were not in paradise.)

C. 134r. Tercium capitulum est quod ut rex in mensa panem habeat indiget pistore molitore et agricolis.
(The third chapter is that so that the king have bread at table, he needs bakers millers and farmers.)

C. 139r: Quartum capitulum quod ut rex vinum habeat indget cupario et vindemiatore cellerario seu pincernis.
(The fourth chapter, so that the king have wine, he needs vat-maker and grape-gatherer, wine-maker or cup-bearers.)

C. 145r: Quintum capitulum quod ut rex cibum regium habeat indiget mercatore carnifice piscatore venatore et cocis.
(The fifth chapter, so that the king have royal food, he needs merchant, butcher, fisherman and cooks.)

C. 149v: Sextum capitulum quod ut rex vestes decentes habeat indiget sartore textore tinctore et qui lanam et fila tribuat.
(The sixth chapter. so that the king have suitable clothes, he needs tailor, weaver, dyer, and those who bestow wool and thread.)

C. 153r: Septimum capitulum est quod ut rex calceos habeat decentes indiget cerdone carnifice pastore et qui calceos suat.
(The seventh chapter is, so that the king have suitable shoes, he needs cerdone (?), butcher, shepherd, and those who sew (?) shoes.)

C. 157v: Octavum capitulum est quod ut rex pellicia et varium habeat indiget venatore carnifice pastore et qui indumenta ex pellibus faciat.
(The eighth chapter is that, so that the king have various furs [fur coats], needs hunter, butcher, shepherd and those who make clothing from skins.)

C. 160v: Nonum capitulum est de fabris eorumque materiis et instrumentis,
(The ninth chapter is of craftsmen of things (?) and instruments.)

C. 167r: Decimum capitulum est de medicis eorumque regimine et medicinis.
(The tenth chapter is of the governance of physicians, their regimens and medicines.)

C. 171r: Undecimum capitulum est de aliis operariis puta de carpentariis cementariis pictoribus et lapicidis.
(The eleventh chapter is of other workers, such as carpenters, masons, painters and stone-cutters.)

C. 176r: Duodecimum capitulum est de sellatoribus equorumque pastoribus navibus et nautis.
(The twelfth chapter is of saddles, horses, shepherds, ships and sailors.)
The 12th doesn't look right. Maybe it should be saddle-makers, horse-trainers, shepherds, ship-builders and sailors. This is the 3rd time for shepherds, who don't really fit the rest; maybe they don't go there at all. So is this 12 cards in 4 suits? The 2nd chapter of part 3, by far the longest, doesn't seem to be about a different profession than the 1st chapter, but rather a theological exposition. So maybe 11. With 4 courts and 11 ordinary cards per suit, that would make 15x4=60 altogether.

This result doesn't fit the description of 60 card decks that John gives later, which have 5 courts and 10 number cards. Here is Betts' translation of that part; I do not have the Latin.
Also there are some who make the game with four kings, eight marschalli and the other common cards, and add besides four queens with four attendants; so that... the number of cards will then be sixty. This manner of distributing the cards and this number pleases me most, for three reasons: first, because of its greater authority; second, because of its royal fitness; and third, because of its more becoming courteousness.
I am left wondering, what deck is John moralizing? I sorely would like the Latin, if only to see what corresponds to the "attendants" of the queens.

Franco has one more quotation, translated fairly well by Betts and Bond, except for omitting the first two sentences. The passage is the one immediately before what I just quoted. It famously lists a variety of types of deck:
C. 3r. Incipit tractatus de moribus et disciplina humane conversationis. Et in capitulo primo erit mencio de materia ludi et de diversitate instrumentorum. Circa ludum qui ab hominibus ludus cartularum appellatur diversi diversimode ipsas cartulas depingunt et alio et alio modo ludunt in ipsis. 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 auten 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. Postea sunt alie decem cartule eiusdem quantitatis et forme ab extra. In quarum prima predictum signum regis ponitur semel, infra bis et sic consequenter de aliis usque ad decimam cartulam inclusive, in qua decies predicta signa regum ponuntur. Et sic quilibet rex est met(?) tertiusdecimus. Et erunt in simul cartule omnes quiquaginta due. Postea sunt alii qui eodem modo ludum faciunt de reginis et cum tottidem cartulis ut de regibus iam dictum est. Similiter sunt alii qui cartulas seu ludum sic ordinant quod sunt duo reges cum marschalchis aliisque cartulis suis <sequentibus prelato. Et sic variatur ludus iste in forma et materia a multis>. Et due regine eodem modo cum suis. Item aliqui recipiunt V reges, alii sex quilibet cum marschalchis, aliisque cartulis suis secundum quod cuilibet prelato. Et sic variatur ludus iste in forma et materia a multis.

(c. 3r. ...Begins the treatise of morals and instruction in human conduct. And in the first chapter will be stated the matter of games and its various instruments. 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. 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 [and matter] by many.
I have translated the first two sentences and the words "and matter" in the last sentence. I am not sure what difference this addition makes, but it is there in the text. Unfortunately there is nothing about queens' "attendants", only "with theirs in the same manner" (eodem modo cum suis), which I take to mean that she has two 'marschalli'. Again, none of these decks corresponds to the deck John is moralizing, now not even to the number of cards.

Re: translating John of Rheinfelden

#2
MikeH wrote:
Then comes part three, the rest of the suit cards. There are 12 chapters. You will notice that except for the second chapter, each is fairly short compared to those for the nobles. I give the Latin again, with my guesses as to the translations:
C. 117v-117r. Primum capitulum est de vulgaribus puta de mechanicis in generali et in confuso.
(The first chapter is of the purely ordinary, of the mechanical in general and in confusion.)
C. 120r. Secundum capitulum est de hoc quod artes mechanice non fuissent in paradiiso.
(The second chapter is of the fact that the mechanical arts were not in paradise.)
C. 134r. Tercium capitulum est quod ut rex in mensa panem habeat indiget pistore molitore et agricolis.
(The third chapter is that so that the king have bread at table, he needs bakers millers and farmers.)
C. 139r: Quartum capitulum quod ut rex vinum habeat indget cupario et vindemiatore cellerario seu pincernis.
(The fourth chapter, so that the king have wine, he needs vat-maker and grape-gatherer, wine-maker or cup-bearers.
C. 145r: Quintum capitulum quod ut rex cibum regium habeat indiget mercatore carnifice piscatore venatore et cocis.
(The fifth chapter, so that the king have royal food, he needs merchant, butcher, fisherman and cooks.
C. 149v: Sextum capitulum quod ut rex vestes decentes habeat indiget sartore textore tinctore et qui lanam et fila tribuat.
(The sixth chapter. so that the king have suitable clothes, he needs tailor, weaver, dyer, and those who bestow wool and thread.
C. 153r: Septimum capitulum est quod ut rex calceos habeat decentes indiget cerdone carnifice pastore et qui calceos suat.
(The seventh chapter is, so that the king have suitable shoes, he needs cerdone (?), butcher, shepherd, and those who sew (?) shoes.
C. 157v: Octavum capitulum est quod ut rex pellicia et varium habeat indiget venatore carnifice pastore et qui indumenta ex pellibus faciat.
(The eighth chapter is that, so that the king have various furs [fur coats], needs hunter, butcher, shepherd and those who make clothing from skins.
C. 160v: Nonum capitulum est de fabris eorumque materiis et instrumentis,
(The ninth chapter is of craftsmen of things (?) and instruments.)
C. 167r: Decimum capitulum est de medicis eorumque regimine et medicinis.
(The tenth chapter is of the governance of physicians, their regimens and medicines.)
C. 171r: Undecimum capitulum est de aliis operariis puta de carpentariis cementariis pictoribus et lapicidis.
(The eleventh chapter is of other workers, such as carpenters, masons, painters and stone-cutters.)
C. 176r: Duodecimum capitulum est de sellatoribus equorumque pastoribus navibus et nautis.
(The twelfth chapter is of saddles, horses, shepherds, ships and sailors.)
Thanks for this.
Arne Jönssen in his short description of the content of the JvR-text mentioned "nearly 40 professions" in the discueed deck.

Well, it should be "40 professions", cause there are 4x10 number cards for 4 suits and the professions are on the number cards. Likely Jönssen was stumbled about small contradictions in the text, perhaps caused by copy errors (or errors of JvR himself), at least the descriptions gives reason for confusion.
C. 134r. till C. 176r and till end likely presents these "nearly 40 professions", likely in the manner, that the text at 134r. presents four Aces and that of 176r. presents the four 10s and the text between 3rd and 12th chapter presents the number cards 2-9.
Anyway, this seems to be only the announcing text for the later "real text", so it might be not necessary to have 4 profession expressions in each announcement.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: translating John of Rheinfelden

#3
So far. ot goes like this:
1st chapter: ordinary mechanics. So, 1 profession.
2nd chapter: the same as in 1, except that in paradise they have no jobs.
3rd chapter: 3 professions.
4th chapter: 4 professions.
5th chapter: 4 professions.
6th chapter: 4 professions, 5 if wool-producers and thread-producers count separately.
7th chapter: 4 professions.
8th chapter: 3 new professions. 4 professions if "pastore" counts a 2nd time
9th chapter: 2 professions (assuming two kinds of craftsmen).
10th chapter: 1 profession, but 2 other things (regimens and medicines).
11th chapter: 4 professions.
12th chapter: 4 professions, but 5 if "pastore" counts a 3rd time..

Total 35 different professions (counting wool and thread as 2), maybe 36 (counting apothecaries. dispensers of medicine). and 2 more if "pastore" counts each time. So yes, nearly 40. It's just that they don't correspond to chapters, i.e. 4 professions per chapter. But it might be 36, i.e. 9 number cards per suit.

In the second part, he doesn't mention queens' attendants. There seem to be only 4 ranks, for around 56 cards total. or even 52 (9 number cards plus 4 court per suit). It should be 60, since that is his favored number (part 1, chapter 6). Perhaps there will be more in the chapters themselves.

Re: translating John of Rheinfelden

#4
We've the situation, that JvR only knows the deck, not the producer of the deck. So JvR only describes, what he either understands or interprets, just by looking at the relevant pictures.

The pictures might have been ambiguous, so perhaps we would also have difficulties to identify 40 professions, if we would have opportunity to see them.
Further the possibility exists, that there is an error in the used copy of the text. Perhaps some errors are cleared, when Jönsson compares all 4 existent copies.
Further JvR might be "not logical" in his description of the announcement of the chapters.
3. C. 134r. = 8 pages
4. C. 139r: = 12 pages
5. C. 145r: = 8 pages
6. C. 149v: = 8 pages
7. C. 153r: = 7 pages
8. C. 157v: = 6 pages
9. C. 160v: = 13 pages
10. C. 167r: = 8 pages
11. C. 171r: = 10 pages
12. C. 176r: = unknown length

If we would know the text of the chapters, things might get clearer. The chapters 1 and 2 I count not as number cards, but as an introduction.
If we compare the Hofämterspiel with its 4x12 structure and 48 cards, we see, that 4 Kings and 4 Queens are not numbered, but the rest of the cards is: 10 professions for each, but some professions are repeated: 4 Hofmeister for number 10, 4 Marschalls for number 9, 4 Junckfrawe for number 6 and 4 Fools for number 1. Further the function "Renner" appears twice. So actually only 23 professions for 40 number cards.
This "confusion" was likely done with the intention to embed in the game 6 court cards: Kings, Queens, Hofmeister, Marschalls, Jungfrauen, Fools (JvR had 5 nearly identical courts, King, Queen, 2 Marschalls, Maid = Junckfrawe) ... only the Fools were missing). The double "Renner" has no obvious function, but possibly there was a special rule about these both cards in the game ... which we naturally don't know.
And John of Rheinfelden also didn't know the intentions and reasons of the maker.

Well, it's not necessary to speculate too much, if we expect better information in the future. Arne Jönsson expects to offer his translation in 2017.

Somehow I think, that the relation between JvR-deck and Hofämterspiel gets a little bit clearer with this new knowledge about the number cards.

Chapter 1 ...
C. 117v-117r. Primum capitulum est de vulgaribus puta de mechanicis in generali et in confuso.
(The first chapter is of the purely ordinary, of the mechanical in general and in confusion.)
... might present the not numbered kings in the Hofämterspiel.
Chapter 2 ...
C. 120r. Secundum capitulum est de hoc quod artes mechanice non fuissent in paradiiso.
(The second chapter is of the fact that the mechanical arts were not in paradise.)
... might present the not numbered queens in the Hofämterspiel.

***********

The second part of the book ...
C. 38r: (In ista secunda parte huius presentis tractatus que est de principibus
seu nobilibus qui sunt in curia regis erunt quinque capitula.). Primum capitulum
erit de rege et eius bonis condicionibus.
... should be for the KINGS, which have the number 15

C. 65r: Secundum capitulum erit de regina et eius honestis moribus.
... should be for the QUEENS, which have the number 14

C. 81v: Tertium capitulum est de principali principe et eius diligenti providencia.
... should be for the BETTER MARSCHALLS (= Hofmeister later in the Hofämterspiel), which have the number 13

C. 100r: Quartum capitulum est de regimine principali et eius decenti prudencia.
... should be for the MAIDS (Junckfrawe), which have the number 12

C. 104v: Quintum capitulum est de principe milicie et eius excellenti experiencia,
... should be for the LOWER MARSCHALLS (Marschals in the later Hofämterspiel), which have the number 11
Jönsson mentions, that the 5 court cards are connected to the numbers 11-15, which gives a clear hierarchical row between them.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: translating John of Rheinfelden

#5
Huck: Your assignments of ranks to chapters is possible, but also seems to me based on a preconceived idea of how the deck should be constituted, based on what John says later, rather than on the text itself as we have it, which is what I have been trying to use. Also, it is not clear to me that in these chapter summaries he is describing a deck that actually exists in front of him, as opposed to one he has in his mind. It is probably just a feat of imagination, like Boiardo's poem, which only later resulted in a deck. The account of professions probably is something that occurred to him while looking at a deck of cards, one with just the usual suit signs on them and no people engaged in professions.

Re: translating John of Rheinfelden

#6
I guess, that these summaries are not part of a content page, but just the first sentences of the relevant chapters collected and composed by the modern interpreter. So the value of these texts as a "correct description" is doubtful anyway.
Naturally I don't know, if John of Rheinfelden invented this deck, but all, what I've read, gave me the impression, that John received the deck from the outside.

The professions were already in chess pawn interpretation since Cessolis, it was not a new idea.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: translating John of Rheinfelden

#7
Themes of the professions

3. = 1 .... (idea of) bread --------------
4. = 2 .... vine --------------------------- } eating / drinking
5. = 3 .... fish and meat ---------------

6. = 4 .... clothes (wool)---------------
7. = 5 .... shoes (leather)-------------- } clothes
8. = 6 ... clothes (skin)-----------------

9. = 7 ... working tools-----------------
10. = 8 ... physician -------------------- } living place, health
11. = 9 ... buildings --------------------

12. = 10 ... journeys
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: translating John of Rheinfelden

#8
Nice. But I am still not sure we can omit the mechanics of chapters 1 and 2. That was my original problem. Given "confusa" and the exclusion of the mechanical arts from heaven, could these be the fools? I am not sure why John would class mechanics as fools. Did he have something against them, seeing their potential and not liking it?

There are two other Latin passages in John's treatise of some importance, namely, the ones mentioning the year 1377.

First we have--here Franco is repeating Ron Decker, who does not say where he got it, but presumably it is correct:
Hinc est quod quidam ludus qui ludus cartarum appellatur hoc anno ad nos pervenit viz. Anno domini m.ccc.lxxvij”
which Decker translates, following Bond (although changing the word-order so as to correspond to the Latin), as
Hence it is that that game which is called the game of cards this year to us came, viz. Year of the lord m.ccc.lxxvij].
The other is not quoted by Franco, but is given by Bond in defense of 1377 as the date of composition and repeated by Parlett (although The Playing Card seems to have mistyped "igitur" as "iqitur):
Cum iqitur [igitur in Bond] ab hoc ultimo dicto computetur quod dictum fuit tempore domini Jesu Christi et dum predicauit in terra, transiuerunt interim 1344, quia si ab annis domini 1377 sicut modo est demantur 33 anni quibus uixit remanebunt ad huc 1344.
Neither Bond nor Parlett deigns to translate this passage, which remains rather hard for me. The best I can come up with is:
Since therefore from this last statement, that statement being calculated from the time the lord Jesus Christ preached on earth, 1344, which if from the year of the lord 1377 in like fashion is subtracted the 33 years which he lived, remains thus 1344.
I have no idea what the "last statement" [ultimo dicto] is, or where the date 1344 came from. So I have no idea whether it actually defends 1377 as the date of composition or not.

Added later: I see that Decker offers a hypothesis about what the "last statement" might be. He says, in reply to Parlett:
My Latin, admittedly, is in a sad decline, but the quote surely has been lifted out of its context. Johannes is apparently calculating the date of fulfilment for some prophecy. (I know not what.) At this point, I find no force in Bond's assumption that 1377, the year prophesied, was the very year in which Johannes was writing. I would guess — not having seen the manuscript — that Johannes regarded 1377 as the commencement of great tribulation, probably the actual Apocalypse, which he presumed was already well advanced. Perhaps Johannes' copyist misunderstood this passage as did Mr Bond. Thus arose the scribal error in the passage about playing-cards, and thus arose Bond's defence of the error as fact. But other possibilities could allow for widely separated events recounted in the manuscript. Johannes could have accumulated notes over many years, or he could have synthesized records from earlier authors. Or some other treatise may have been appended to Johannes'. Obviously, someone should now re-examine the manuscript.
Well, the document is now available to all. Re-examining the manuscript for the context of this occurrence of "1377", to see what it is about, is long overdue. It is not something I can hope to do, however, unskilled as I am in reading such things. I will have to wait for the critical edition.

Re: translating John of Rheinfelden

#9
mikeh wrote:Nice. But I am still not sure we can omit the mechanics of chapters 1 and 2. That was my original problem.
My study from the Joennsen text contradicted to that, what I knew from other sources.

Image


Joenssen talked suddenly and without explanation of a deck with 72 cards, although this is not explained by him or the translation of Bond of the first part part of the text.

Bond translation
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.de/2009/01/ ... death.html
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. 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.
In the red part there are explained variants of the 4x13-deck. In the blue part variants with 5 and 6 suits are mentioned, 5x13 (= 65 cards) and 6x13 (= 78 cards). In the green part the deck with 60 cards is mentioned.

None of these has 72 cards. Joenssen must have gotten it from another text passage, one, which we don't know. Perhaps this 3rd part of the book with its 12 chapters is the reason for the "72 cards" ????

The description (as we know it) gives reason to assume "48 cards" (4x12) for the 3rd book. If I add 6 court cards (as they appear in the Hofämter-Spiel, with "Fools") I would get (6x4 =) 24 other cards.
48 cards + 24 cards = 72 cards.

Another possibility it might be, that the 72 cards had 6x12 structure.

We don't know precisely, what the 3rd book is good for (just, as we don't know the text). Maybe indeed, that Johannes expanded the 60 cards deck on own initiative, well, perhaps to 72 cards.
There are two other Latin passages in John's treatise of some importance, namely, the ones mentioning the year 1377.

First we have--here Franco is repeating Ron Decker, who does not say where he got it, but presumably it is correct:
Hinc est quod quidam ludus qui ludus cartarum appellatur hoc anno ad nos pervenit viz. Anno domini m.ccc.lxxvij”
which Decker translates, following Bond (although changing the word-order so as to correspond to the Latin), as
Hence it is that that game which is called the game of cards this year to us came, viz. Year of the lord m.ccc.lxxvij].
The other is not quoted by Franco, but is given by Bond in defense of 1377 as the date of composition and repeated by Parlett (although The Playing Card seems to have mistyped "igitur" as "iqitur):
Cum iqitur [igitur in Bond] ab hoc ultimo dicto computetur quod dictum fuit tempore domini Jesu Christi et dum predicauit in terra, transiuerunt interim 1344, quia si ab annis domini 1377 sicut modo est demantur 33 anni quibus uixit remanebunt ad huc 1344.
Neither Bond nor Parlett deigns to translate this passage, which remains rather hard for me. The best I can come up with is:
Since therefore from this last statement, that statement being calculated from the time the lord Jesus Christ preached on earth, 1344, which if from the year of the lord 1377 in like fashion is subtracted the 33 years which he lived, remains thus 1344.
I have no idea what the "last statement" [ultimo dicto] is, or where the date 1344 came from. So I have no idea whether it actually defends 1377 as the date of composition or not. That no one has thought otherwise does not comfort me.
I don't know about this statement ... but I remember in very dark manner, that John interpreted the intensive playing in 1377 as an announcement of the coming of the Messias (who according the 33 years then must have been born in 1344).
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron