I see your point. Although the part you quote was for a different deck, in the flow of the narrative, since he doesn't say otherwise, it would seem that there are indeed two marschalli for each king. When he says "two kings, with their ' marschalli'", unless he explains otherwise, he means the same number of marschalli for each king as he said before. It is a little odd that he doesn't use the same type of phrase later ("four kings, with their marschalli", instead of "four kings, and eight marschalli"); but perhaps by then, since there are other court cards in that deck, he feels the need to be more specific.
It still may be that Joenssen reads the "two kings, with their 'marschalli" in the way I was interpreting it, since the numbers then come out in Joenssen's way. That's all I know, that the numbers work. Perhaps Joenssen has more of an explanation somewhere, in relation to that text. After all, we are dealing with a copy, not the original. A "critical edition" might have revealed something about redactions in this specific part, (about the "two kings and their marschalli", not anything else). Also, I haven't seen the Latin (not that I know that language!). Or indeed, as you say, he is referring to another passage, later, that we don't know about. It would be good to know what Joenssen's reference is to, and what his "critical edition" says about the passage in question. Quite bit hinges on interpolations, in these 15th century copies of earlier accounts.
Bond's whole article is worth reading in its entirety (as you no doubt have). It is in the Jan. 19, 1878, issue of the Athenaeum
, pp. 87-88, at
https://books.google.com/books?id=DWJIA ... us&f=false
I give that link because Hurst's doesn't get you to the page. You have to think of a good search word, such as "moribus", that doesn't bring up mostly irrelevancies, or else have Game of Tarot
at hand to look in. In the article, Bond has a good defense of why even though what we have is a 15th century copy, the 1377 date is accurate. Dummett doesn't mention this defense, essentially the same as Joenssen's.
I still think that one thing in particular that Dummett says is worth thinking about. that if the date 1377 is correct--as it certainly seems to be--hen these multitudinous variations suggest that playing cards weren't introduced just a little before that. but a decade or so before. In the next paragraph, admittedly, he argues against that suggestion, noting that John says,
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 "as it first came to us" implies that the variations didn't come to John's region until after the "common form" came, and earlier he says that cards came to his region only within the same year. So this seems to imply, for Dummett, that the variations were in fact all developed in the space of one year, as dubious as this might seem. However it seems to me that this implication is not necessarily there. John might be meaning that the "common form" came first, and then, after the game proved popular, the variations, all from some other region. Dummett also objects that it is strange that we wouldn't hear anything of these missing two decades, when the documents are plentiful enough afterwards. If the documents are from a different region, however, it is not so strange. Other regions suffered more greatly from the ravages of war over the next few centuries than those from which we have reports. and perhaps were less concerned about recording the presence of playing cards.. Anyway, now we have Hubsch, and the other references you found. It is understandable that these can't be confirmed by accounts at the time. We don't even have the original of John.
It seems to me worth copying the entire passage on John from Dummett, since its arguments are all probably affected by Joenssen's recent work and your own. You probably have it already, but this is so our readers, if there are any, will be privy to the same information. Here it is (Game of Tarot
pp. 11-12). It is rather long. If you would prefer it in the "Bohemia" thread, let me know and I will move it.
Most of these early references tell us no more than that card playing occurred in the given area at the time in question; some record the purchase of a pack or the playing of a game, and many are city ordinances banning the playing of various games, particularly dice and cards. One of the earliest, however, the celebrated treatise Tractatus de moribus el disciplina humanae conversationis, written in Basle in 1377 by a Dominican friar by the name of John (usually known, probably wrongly, as John of Rheinfelden), gives an actual description of the pack as known to its author, though not of any of the games played with it. From this we learn that the structure of the pack was essentially what it is now. There were four suits, each with its own suit-sign; each suit consisted of 13 cards, divided into ten numeral cards and three court cards. The numeral cards were distinguished, just as now, by the number of repetitions of the suit-sign. The court cards consisted of a seated King and a higher and lower ‘Marshal’, each holding his suit-sign in his hand. (This last detail tallies with the practice in many of the earliest surviving packs, and in some of the later ones). The two Marshals were distinguished by the fact that the "higher one held his suit-sign aloft, w'hile the lower one held it hanging down from his hand: these were, evidently, then, the Swiss or German Ober and Unter. Brother John unfortunately does not indicate what suit-signs were used. These cards would, of course, have been single-headed: double-headed ones did not come in until the eighteenth century, and were adopted, for various standard patterns, only very slowly (for the Anglo-American one, only after 1850); indeed, some standard patterns use single-headed cards to this day. They would also have lacked indices: these appeared haphazardly as early as the fifteenth century, but were never placed in the corners, and were seldom used systematically, until the modern practice was [start of right column] introduced by American card manufacturers in the 1870s; it, too, has yet to spread to all standard patterns. But, in essentials, save for the use of Ober and Unter instead of Queen and Jack, and, wc can be sure, save also for the suitsigns, the pack described by John of Rheinfelden in the earliest year from which wc have any mention of playing cards in Europe was exactly the same as our modern English pack. (2)
The evidence thus strongly suggests that there was no long period of evolution at the end of which the playing-card pack as wc know it emerged, but, on the contrary, that, a matter of at most a very few years before 1377, the pack was either invented or introduced from elsewhere, in a fully developed form, and immediately spread over a wide area of Europe. This impression is reinforced by the fact that two of the very early sources - John of Rheinfelden writing in 1377 and the Chronicles of Viterbo referring to the year 1379 - explicitly state that playing cards had been introduced into their areas in the very year in question, while the Valencia edict of 1384 refers to them as ‘a new game’, and the earliest reference of all, the Florentine edict of 1377, speaks of them as ‘newly introduced in these parts’.(3) There are also well-known arguments from silence. Petrarch’s De remediis utriusque fortunae (1366) discusses a number of games but says nothing about playing cards; a Paris ordinance of 1369 forbids numerous games, but does not mention card games, although one of 1377 was to forbid cards to be played on work days; similarly, a St Gallen ordinance of 1364 forbade dice games, and allowed board games, but left cards unmentioned, although an ordinance of 1379 prohibited them as well.
This is not to say that no problems arise. Dr Peter Kopp had claimed the discovery of a yet earlier reference to card playing, from an ordinance of the city of Berne in 1367. (4) (Mr Lex Rijnen has reported an earlier one still, from the neighbourhood of Amsterdam in about 1365, but
2. See E.A. Bond, ‘The history of playing-cards’, Athenaeum, no. 262l, l9 Jan. 1878, p. 7, col.3-p. 88, coL2.
3. Mr George Beal, in Discovering Playing-Cards and Tarots, Aylesbury, 1972. p. 4, states that a manuscript of 1384 from Nuremberg speaks of the ‘widespread adoption of the new game throughout Europe’, but I have been unable to find any confirmation of this.
4. ‘Die fruhesten Spielkarten in der Schweiz’, Zeitschrift fur Schweizerische Archaeologie und Kunstgeschichte, vol. 30, 1973, pp. 130-45.
this as yet remains unconfirmed.(5). A shift of ten years in the chronology is in itself of minor importance; but if a decade elapsed between the first known reference and the second, then perhaps playing cards had been in use in some localities for ten or even twenty years before the first reference occurred, and the many references from 1377 onwards are evidence only of their wider diffusion rather than of their invention or
Dr Hellmut Rosenfeld has controverted Dr Kopp’s claim:(6) we have only a copy of the 1367 ordinance from a compilation made in 1398, and Dr Rosenfeld gives detailed grounds for thinking the mention of card playing to be an insertion at a later date. On this he seems to have the better of the argument; but there is a point about the Tractatus de moribus itself which is more uncertain. After giving the description cited above of the playing-card pack in what it calls its ‘common form, and that in which it first reached us’, the text goes on to list a number of variants; one in which all the Kings are replaced by Queens; one in which two of the suits have Kings and the other two Queens; one with five suits; another with six; and, finally, one with four suits, but with five court cards in each suit (King, Queen, the two Marshals and a Maid), making 60 cards in all. Now we have no cards surviving from the fourteenth century', but we do have a considerable number from the fifteenth century, and among them are German packs showing variations of this kind, including ones with five suits, one in which the court figures are all male in two of the suits and all female in the other two, ones with female Unters and ones with four court cards per suit, so, although we do not have representatives of all the variants mentioned in the Tractatus, it is very plausible that there should have been such variants. What is not credible, however, is that such a range of variations on the original form should have developed within a year or two of the introduction or invention of the playing-card pack.
For this, two rival explanations have been [beginning of right column]
5. ‘Makers of playing-cards in the Netherlands’, Journal of the Playing-Card Society, vol. IV, no. 2, 1975, pp.34-7.
6. In ‘Zu den fruhesten Spielkarten in der Schweiz: eine Entgegnung', Zeitschrift fur Schweizerische Archaeologie und Kunstgeschichte, vol. 32, 1975, pp. 179-80, and, in a more general context, in ‘Zur Datierbarkeit fruher Spielkarten in Europe und im nahen Orient’. Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, 1975, pp. 353-71.
offered. Dr Kopp believes that, by the time John of Rheinfelden became acquainted with them, playing cards had already been known for long enough (presumably about two decades or more) for variants to have been invented. Against this it must be said that it would be strange for Brother John to have written, ‘the form in which they first reached us’, if, in the course of that same year, he had encountered five other forms. It would also be puzzling that, from a period of twenty years or so, only one or two references to playing cards should have come down to us, given that they cluster so thickly thereafter. Dr Rosenfeld’s explanation is that the account of the variant forms is an addition by a later copyist. This is, perhaps, more plausible, but has its own difficulties. We do not have the original manuscript of the Tractatus (which, as Dr Kopp has observed, may have been destroyed in the Franco-Prussian War); we have one MS. of 1429 and three, made by different copyists, all from 1472, all four of which agree very closely, as Dr Kopp has shown. Dr Rosenfeld’s suggestion is therefore that the interpolation was due to the 1429 copyist, whom the later ones followed. The hypothesis cannot, however, be that we can get back to Brother John’s original text simply by excising the passage dealing with the variant forms, together with the phrase ‘the common form, and that in which it first reached us’ previously quoted. The Tractatus, as we now have it, goes on to express, and give grounds for, a preference for the 60-card form, and, later, to include a whole short section on the excellence of the number 60, as well as another on the Queen (the treatise as a whole being an essay in moralising based on the playing-card pack). Hence, if interpolations occurred, they were carried out on an extensive scale. The problem has thus not yet been completely resolved. My personal inclination is to think that Dr Rosenfeld has more of the truth of the matter. But, even if Dr Kopp is right, the consequences are comparatively minor; the picture is altered, significantly perhaps, but not very substantially.