Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

31
Thanks Huck for giving the history of the old dominican church of Strasburg -- history hurts, sometimes.

Thanks also for providing Decker’s article in the post above. Most interesting for me in this article is:

Manuscripts, especially copies of copies, are always troublesome because scribes can impose errors and can incorporate information from a date much later than the basic text […].
The testimony is open to doubt. If playing-cards had only just arrived in the neighborhood of Basel in 1377, we would expect one form, not the range of mutations cited.
Some commentators, justifying a manuscript of 1377, assume that playing cards had already been in Europe for a generation […]. This assumption can hardly be disproved, but supporting evidence is lacking. The great flurry of notices comes after 1375. […] But a new game can travel quickly whereas new forms of a game evolve slowly (an observation that I owe to Michael Dummet). Furthermore brother Johannes is not likely to have collected all his evidence at once. Years would pass […] If so, Johannes cannot have completed his survey in the very year that cards first came to him.
Other commentators on Johannes trust only particular passages, dismissing the rest as scribal tampering. This explanation is unsatisfying. It defies the unity of thought and style, seemingly from a single author. […]
We need not need require that Johannes wrote in 1377 [the full version as e.g. of 1429; vh0610]. This date is his own historical note […]
This period I would take to be subsequent to 1400, late enough to provide for the impressive diversity of cards, but before the first scribe intervened in the account, necessarily prior to our manuscript of 1429.
All of these points Decker raises --and together with my prior reflections in this thread-- lead me to the hypothesis, that Johannes himself wrote a first –perhaps even unpublished-- version in 1377 containing the first 5 chapters of what is now Part 1

(“in 1377. This date is his own historical note”)

probably based on sermons he held in church. Then,

(“new forms of a game evolve slowly (an observation that I owe to Michael Dummet). Furthermore brother Johannes is not likely to have collected all his evidence at once. Years would pass […] If so, Johannes cannot have completed his survey in the very year that cards first came to him”),

based on his first (perhaps: unpublished) version of 1377 and induced by some event, he himself

(“unity of thought and style, seemingly from a single author”)

wrote the full version considering heavily de Cessolis, sometimes after 1400 and before 1429

(“take to be subsequent to 1400”, “prior to our manuscript of 1429”).

Collected as a hypothesis:
Johannes himself wrote a first –perhaps even unpublished-- version in 1377 containing the first 5 chapters of what is now Part 1, probably based on sermons he held in church. Then, based on his first (perhaps: unpublished) version of 1377 and induced by some event, he himself wrote the full version considering heavily de Cessolis, sometimes after 1400 and before 1429.
This version is then the archetype Jönsson (1998) speaks of. Note that for this hypothesis part 1 does not contain chapter 6 dealing with the numerology of the number 60 – if you compare with the titles of the first five chapters, the sixth chapter stands out contentwise and seems to be written in the second version in order to prepare part 2 and part 3.

Furthermore, I propose to rediscuss or consider Decker’s
Some commentators, justifying a manuscript of 1377, assume that playing cards had already been in Europe for a generation […]. This assumption can hardly be disproved, but supporting evidence is lacking. The great flurry of notices comes after 1375.
since it is a very relevant remark from a statistical point of view – is it thinkable that we have very rare evidence before 1375 and then a flurry - note that he writes “flurry”. The question is: why a “flurry” after 1375 and not before? In other words: the new game induces due to its gameplay a flurry – why does the same gameplay does not induce a “flurry” in a massive sense before 1375, if the cards were already there? What is the difference?

In this context, I also propose to rediscuss Dummet‘s remark reported in this very forum
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1094&p=22249&hilit ... +15#p16817
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.
In this light, we can draw information from
Huck wrote: 29 Aug 2021, 10:23
Codices manuscripti theologici bibliothecae palatinae Vindobonensis Latini aliarumque occidentis linguarum, Bände 1-2 Denis Joan. Thomas nob. de Trattnern, 1794
https://books.google.de/books?id=erGmjT ... f=false
Image

See on the right bottom corner the citation of Master Ingold
Als ich gelesen han, so ist es kumen in teutsch land des ersten in dem iar da man zalt von crist geburt, tausend, drühundert iar.

[As I did read, it [the game of playing cards; vh0610] first came to Germany in the year which is counted from Christ’s birth as thousand, [plus] threehundred.]
Note, the “As I did read” from Ingold – he has to have read it in a handwritten manuscript. If we combine this with the information of Decker that
manuscripts, especially copies of copies, are always troublesome because scribes can impose errors, then this information on 1300 is certainly not waterproof.

Consider the information on number shapes of this time from a numismatic source http://www.helmutcaspar.de/aktuelles16/ ... hlen.html
Während im Mittelalter ausschließlich römische Zahlenbuchstaben zur Datierung verwendet wurden, kamen im Verlaufe des 15. Jahrhunderts von den Arabern übernommenen Ziffern in Mode. So gibt es Münzen, auf denen die 7 wie ein Haken nach unten zeigt, die 4 als halbe 8 geschrieben wird und die 5 wie eine nach unten schauende 2 erscheint.

[While only Roman numerals [on coins; vh0610] were used for dating in the Middle Ages, numerals adopted by the Arabs came into fashion in the course of the 15th century. There are coins on which the 7 is pointing down like a hook, the 4 is written as a half 8 and the 5 appears like a 2 looking down.]
[This information was quick access for me in the internet – the content on the form of the numbers is confirmed by simple inspection on the JvR-manuscripts. If necessary, I will look for a source in palaeography.]

Note furthermore that the zero “0” arrived in Europe only in the 13th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0) and all writers, including the monks, had to learn this number representation in the next centuries:
The most popular [manual on calculation] was written by Johannes de Sacrobosco, about 1235 and was one of the earliest scientific books to be printed in 1488.
Note furthermore that “the 4 is written as a half 8” and “the 7 is pointing down like a hook”, both of them an easy source of error for a copist and a reader to transform the number into a 0, especially the “half 8”.

In the JvR tractatus we find this to be relevant:
“1377”, top of page 182, left column in https://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/vie ... L_2751364
which is in the introduction – see Bond’s passage on the introduction: “he asserts that the game of cards was introduced into the country where he is writing in the then year 1377”

“1344” together with “1377”, bottom of page 197, left column in https://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/vie ... TL_2751364
referring to Bond’s passage: The evidence that the work was composed in the year 1377 [...] is repeated in the fifth chapter […]: […], transiuerunt interim 1344, quia si ab annis domini 1377 sicut modo est demantur 33 anni quibus uixit remanebunt ad hue 1344.
Note that in https://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/vie ... TL_2751364 how easy one can read the “1344” as “1300”on page 197 – the same can happen on first glance with the introductory “1377”. Hence we have the hypothesis:

Master Ingold read the tractatus of JvR (“As I did read”), very possibly in Straßburg or in Basel, and was inspired for the respective part of his own work by JvR. Thereby he himself made the error with 1300, or already a copist had made the error. This would explain the proximity of JvR and Ingold, as already indicated in the cited work by Denis of 1794.

It seems that Ingold read JvR somewhere before 1432 and only copied the idea of describing an ordered world out of it – something has to have happened in between. Note furthermore that the Bohemian Hofämterspiel stemming from around the same time also depicts an ordered world as in JvR – perhaps it is also based on JvR over the Habsburg connection to the Freiburg Region. (And at least JvR was as important in 1429 that someone copied him in Basel that year.)

After having inspected the shape of numbers
the 7 is pointing down like a hook, the 4 is written as a half 8 and the 5 appears like a 2 looking down
.
and having made the experience that one can easily misread them in manuscripts I have a general proposition: we should be very careful with all dating numbers given in manuscripts before the great “flurry” of 1375 (and before the "flurry" all texts were manuscripts)– the datings could either by misreadings of numbers (The statement “the 5 appears like a 2 looking down.” yields that the “5” in old manuscripts can be read as a “2” or even a “3”), or errors from copists, as Decker told us. Hence I propose to be as careful as we can in this respect.

JvR ... Rosenfeld ideas

32
vh0610 ...
Master Ingold read the tractatus of JvR (“As I did read”), very possibly in Straßburg or in Basel, and was inspired for the respective part of his own work by JvR. Thereby he himself made the error with 1300, or already a copist had made the error.
You're in the domain "Rosenfeld wrote this".
This would explain the proximity of JvR and Ingold, as already indicated in the cited work by Denis of 1794.
My Latin isn't good enough to recognize "the proximity of JvR and Ingold, as already indicated in the cited work by Denis of 1794.". I recognize, that Denis wrote about JvR, Cessolis, Ingold, Breitkopf ...
Image



I know Ingold and JvR as far it is possible by translations. Ingold wrote about 7 games-groups. JvR wrote about playing cards and some similarity to chess. That is not the same theme. JvR was PRO and Ingold was CONTRA, that is an opposition between the 2 writers.
It seems that Ingold read JvR somewhere before 1432 and only copied the idea of describing an ordered world out of it – something has to have happened in between. Note furthermore that the Bohemian Hofämterspiel stemming from around the same time also depicts an ordered world as in JvR – perhaps it is also based on JvR over the Habsburg connection to the Freiburg Region. (And at least JvR was as important in 1429 that someone copied him in Basel that year.)
Well, Rosenfeld assumed, that Ingold had read JvR and Rosenfeld had no evidence for this. Rosenfeld wrote, that Ingold mistook a 1377 of JvR for a 1300 and again he had no evidence for it. Rosenfeld claimed also, that the description of the 6 deck types of JvR were added to the JvR-text long time after 1377. He had arguments for this position and there are counter arguments. His position was a hypothesis and not a fact. He presented the hypothesis as if it would be a fact.

Ingold gave a critic on contemporary playing card decks and JvR described an ordered world out of world of playing cards ... :-) ... Ingold did NOT copy "the idea of describing an ordered world out of it". This statement looks like your fault. JvR claimed in 1377 that he doesn't know where and when the game was invented, and Ingold claimed to have read a book, which had the info, that playing cards arrived in the year 1300.
So once more: Rosenfeld claimed, that the book, which Ingold had read, was the JvR-text ... which indirectly claims, that Rosenfeld had read every book from the period 1300-1432. Hard to believe. From this ivory tower perspective Rosenfeld realized, that Master Ingold transformed the year 1377 into a year 1300.

Footnote 32 in "Zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte und Morphogenese von Kartenspiel und Tarock" by Hellmut Rosenfeld (1970), page 75.
Image


Rosenfeld had found the 1429 text of Basel (good work) and suggested to make dissertation of a translation (a plan, which didn't work till now). The sentence with the blue line will become theme in a later post (about the 6 deck types). The final sentence with red line is the scandalous suggestion.

Goldenes Spiel von 1432, Straßburg 1888, with the year 1300
Image


I wrote in private communication, that Rosenfeld's 2 sentences (blue and red) to this theme were "foul play". He makes hypotheses and presents them, as if they are facts. Ingold described 2 decks, which he accused as a bad influence. Both had 52 cards. One has King-Queen-Junckfraw as court cards and Ingold's phantasy likely thought with the terminus Junckfraw of a maitresse, and Ingold found this dangerous. The other is more complicated:
"Nun sind auf dem kartenspil fier küng mit iren wauppen, und hat ieglicher under im XIII karten, das macht an ainer sum LII, und hat ieglichü das zaychen irs küngs. Etlich kartenspil hat dar zu fier küngin und fier junkfrawen, etlich haben den ackerman, den edelman, den wuchrer, den pfaffen, die toypel, den riffian, den wirt; und gewint ie ains dem andern ab: dem edelman der wuchrer, dem wuchrer der pfaff, dem pfaffen das täppelweib, dem täppelweib der riffian, dem riffian der wirt, dem wirt der weinman, dem weinman wider umb der pauman der den wein pauwen sol, der nimpt das gelt wider von dem wirt."
8 professions, Toypel and Täppelweib is a prostitute and Riffian is the pimp or "der Zuhälter". With professions Ingold is close to Johannes, but it seems plausible from the text, that the described deck construction were part of the reality of Ingold's time. He got this from outside, not from Johannes and his book. And it looks, tas if these 8 professions were 8 court cards below the king and not number cards as in the Johannes deck.

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

Rosenfeld wrote much, and I haven't seen all texts of him, actually only few. He was a honorary fellow in the IPCS. He surely has merits in the research of playing cards and he had many publications ... somebody wrote once he made 4 books and about 50 articles to the theme playing cards.

https://portal.dnb.de/opac/simpleSearch ... hitnumber=
also here ..
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1106&p=17010&hilit ... eld#p17010

In 1986 Rosenfeld wrote the following article, in which he speculated, that the Orient was full of playing cards long before 1346 ... .-) ... I wonder how this was in harmony with all his theories, that there was nothing with playing cards in Europe before 1377. Long before 1377 might be 40-50 years, and in all this time no single playing card , which entered the border of the Christian Europe? Well, there were 16 years between 1970 and 1986 and perhaps Rosenfeld had a radical change in his opinions.
Hellmut Rosenfeld: Das Kartenspiel in Europa im 14. bis 16. Jahrhundert und der Orient (1986).
In / Der Schlern - Monatszeitschrift für Südtiroler Landeskunde 60/12
www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a138540.pdf

Image
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Collection JvR .... Rosenfeld ideas

33
(IN WORK)

Rosenfeld ideas in 1970

The earliest manuscript comes from 1429 und has the meanwhile developed (in Rosenfeld's understanding) game variants placed in the text (3 games with 52 cards with variations in the court cards, 1 deck with 5 suits and 65 cards, 1 deck with 6 suits and 78 cards and 1 deck with 60 cards, as we know it in the JvR text, which is interpreted by Rosenfeld as "from 1429").
Let's see, what deck types Rosenfeld could know about in the year 1970. He likely couldn't know the Ferrarese documents, the Imperatori cards and its 8 cards, likely he didn't know the Michelino deck, likely he didn't know this rarely mentioned 44-cards Spanish deck (I don't remember any other card deck structures before 1427, if somebody can note one, please do). Otherwise Rosenfeld only knows that, what JvR did tell him and the ideas of his time, which suggested that all male court figures and 52 cards were the most common deck in the early time (as a suspicion based on later decks).

The only deck, that Rosenfeld indeed really knows before 1429, is the Stuttgart deck, which has 52 cards and curiously 2 Queens and 2 Kings, 2 male Obers and 2 female Obers and 2 male Unters and 2 female Unters. The suits dogs and stags have all female figures and the suits falcions and ducks all male characters. And this strange deck was dated by watersigns of the paper to 1427-1431 already in the days of Rosenfeld and so it did feel well with Rosenfelds ideas about 1429 and John of Rheinfelden and the rare playing cards deck versions. This deck type was - somehow - also part of the deck catalogue of Johannes.
Rosenfeld was indeed very poor with his knowledge of only one playing card deck type. So he must felt yealous about John, who knew so much of them ... .-)
Image
Jungfrau Ober, the stag stands


Image
Jungfrau Unter, the stag is on bottom


Image
The Queen sits

Full deck at http://cards.old.no/1430-stuttgart/

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

The following list served Rosenfeld in his argumentation. Actually it is his only major argument for his 1429-thesis (the later addition of a piece of text with 6 deck descriptions).

Image


Hellmut Rosenfeld wrote in "Zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte und Morphogenese von Kartenspiel and Tarock", page 75 of Archiv der Kulutrgeschichte 52/1: "Nachdem alle anderen scheinbar älteren Hinweise sich als falsch erwiesen haben, ist nicht daran zu zweifeln, daß das Kartenspiel erst 1377 nach Europa und sich in einem Siegeslauf ohnegleichen alsbald in Italien, Deutschland, Frankreich und ganz Europa verbreitete."
Automatic translation: ""After all the other apparently older references have been proven to be false, there is no doubt that the card game did not spread to Europe until 1377 and soon spread to Italy, Germany, France and all of Europe in an unparalleled victory run."
Ein "Siegeslauf ohnegleichen" is a superlativ similar to "triumphal march as it never had been seen" and my mental eye imagines soldier Karlchen Müller or merchant Carlo Molitor, who was so lucky to buy a full card deck of a Mongol trader on the island Krim and who reached Venice to make the European playing card revolution possible. Best at 1st of January 1377 to have a chance to make the Rosenfeld wonder in 1377 possible.
But my humble imagination doesn't reach a mental state, which understands this as a probable development. I prefer, that 100s or 1000s of such single playing cards contacts were necessary, before one of them became something, which was transformed to a playing card note in the list of Rosenfeld by a longer time of development.

A report to the German cities in the late middle-age
https://www.leben-im-mittelalter.net/ge ... aedte.html
Deutsches Reich
Gegen Ende des Spätmittelalters existierten in Deutschland etwa 3500 Städte, die im Vergleich mit antiken Städten relativ klein waren. 90 bis 95 Prozent der Städte zählten zu den Zwerg- (bis 500 Einwohner) und Kleinstädten (bis 2000 Einwohner). Der Rest verteilt sich auf kleine Mittelstädte mit 2000 bis 10.000 Einwohnern, große Mittelstädte mit bis zu 20.000 Einwohnern und die wenigen Städte, die mit mehr als 20.000 Einwohnern die Großstädte bildeten. Die Städte, die eine Einwohnerzahl jenseits der 50.000 erreichten und zu den Weltstädten des Mittelalters gezählt werden können, lagen alle in anderen europäischen Ländern.
Für das Gebiet des Deutschen Reiches wird die Zahl der Groß- und Mittelstädte, die um das Jahr 1500 eine Einwohnerzahl von mehr als 2000 aufwiesen, auf etwa 200 geschätzt. Die größte Stadt war Köln. Im 15. Jahrhundert beherbergte die Stadt bei einer Stadtfläche von etwa 400 Hektar etwas mehr als 40.000 Einwohner. Die wichtige süddeutsche Stadt Nürnberg, die um 1430 erst knapp 23.000 Einwohner zählte, überflügelte Köln Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts. Im Bereich des engeren Hanseraumes lagen die wichtigen Städte wie Lübeck (um 1400 circa 25.000 Einwohner), Danzig (30.000 Einwohner), Bremen (20.000 Einwohner), Hamburg (16.000 bis 18.000 Einwohner Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts) und Rostock (über 10.000 Einwohner). Weitere Großstädte oder bedeutende Mittelstädte an der Schwelle zur Großstadt waren Breslau (20.000 Einwohner) sowie Augsburg, Erfurt, Braunschweig, Lüneburg, Ulm, Würzburg und Straßburg, die alle etwa 18.000 Einwohner zählten.
The article expresses, that the German Empire had about 3500 cities in late middle age , whereby 90-95% of these had less than 2000 inhabitants. The number of cities above 2000 is estimated to be 200 from this time. From other sources I know, that Cologne is assumed to have had the most population in the modern Germany with about 35.000-40.000. And occasionally there were locations called cities, which counted only 100 inhabitants.

The list of Rosenfeld has in 13 years between 1377 -1389 then finally 13 cities with one or more playing card notes, from which 6 were from the region of the German Empire. 6+ notes in 13 years from 3.500 cities, from which 200 had more than 2000 inhabitants (as a rough estimation).
And in Rosenwald's list there are pauses: 1382 - 1389 = 6 empty years, 1392 - 1397 = 4 empty years, 1397 - 1404 = 6 empty years, 1404 - 1414 = 9 empty years
and 1414 - 1423 = 8 empty years.

In the case, that a long row of years is paired with specific events (in this case the appearances of historical records with termini like playing cards, naibi, quarten, etc.) and there is much appearance of rows with empty years (as above noted), one has to calculate before the starting year (in this case 1377) a longer period of years.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

34
Thanks Huck, for the ongoing discussion!

Reading your last post, I was not so sure about your hypothesis
Huck wrote: 25 Sep 2021, 14:07
In the case, that a long row of years is paired with specific events (in this case the appearances of historical records with termini like playing cards, naibi, quarten, etc.) and there is much appearance of rows with empty years (as above noted), one has to calculate before the starting year (in this case 1377) a longer period of years.
Can this hypothesis really hold? Why should “empty years” in a row of events logically lead to “one has to calculate before the starting year (in this case 1377) a longer period of years.”? How long should this period be? Could you please elaborate on this?

From my perspective, there are two notions of time, or models of time, if you wish: continuous time which flows as the water flows, and event-driven time, which is measured by events taking place (there are even two different kinds of mathematics for this kind of modelling, when staying in the physical realm: differential equations and event-driven timed automata with their respective statistics. I know this since this is my profession.) More or less it is the same discussion Goethe had in his time with his colleagues: is it oceanism (slow evolution) or volcanism (eruptive evolution) which changes the world [this is reflected by your argument about one deck reaching Venice (eruptive evolution) or 1000s of decks reaching Europe (slow evolution)]? Both models of time have their advantages and disadvantes and have to fit to the data we observe.

What we observe is a “flurry” from 1375 (Decker, 1989) onwards, composed out of events as time-sampled data. I do believe that we have to look at different time scales, following the idea of "longue durée" in historical studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longue_dur%C3%A9e: the small one in Rosenfeld’s list from 1377 onwards with sampled data (which contains some “empty years”), and the large one going over the centuries, which clearly shows from a bird’s eye perspective a statistical “flurry“ from c. 1375 onwards. The statistical “flurry” from the list points towards an event-model of time on the large time scale (you yourself write about “specific events”, sampled data, for the small time scale). This is certainly relevant, since it is also clear that there must have been some years before 1377, in which the cards were event-like introduced to Europe. But how many? What is plausible?

In this context, I propose again to rediscuss Dummet‘s remark reported in this very forum
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1094&p=22249&hilit ... +15#p16817
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.
At least I cannot ignore Dummet’s argument, we have to deal with this observation. My proposition is hence to logically intersect Dummet’s argument with Decker’s argument about the “flurry”: there was an event sometimes after 1369 which introduced the cards to Europe, which then consecutively led to Decker’s “flurry of notices” after 1375.

Based on this, perhaps a good idea as a first plausible estimation is the hypothesis to extrapolate backwards in time the first duration of the “empty years”, .i.e. 6 years, from 1377. This would lead as a first plausible rough estimation to 1377 – 6 years = c. 1371. This would logically fit to as well Dummet’s argument and to Decker’s argument.

And again, in this context, I want to bring up again my proposition of my last post:
having made the experience that one can easily misread them [numbers] in manuscripts I have a general proposition: we should be very careful with all dating numbers given in manuscripts before the great “flurry” of 1375 (and before the "flurry" all texts were manuscripts)– the datings could either by misreadings of numbers (The statement “the 5 appears like a 2 looking down.” yields that the “5” in old manuscripts can be read as a “2” or even a “3”), or errors from copists, as Decker told us. Hence I propose to be as careful as we can in this respect.
It's all about plausibility, in my eyes. And in light of the scientific rule “absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence”, the story might be totally different and the cards came not event-like but slow evolution-like over the east route from the Mongolian people, as you propose. Research will show, hopefully …

[I will give an answer on Ingold in the next days.]

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

35
(IN WORK)
Can this hypothesis [observation of numbers in correlation to years] really hold? Why should “empty years” in a row of events logically lead to “one has to calculate before the starting year (in this case 1377) a longer period of years.”? How long should this period be? Could you please elaborate on this?
There are experiences with that sort of numbers. Some of this sort of lists we have created ourselves, just by collecting documents.

We've collected about 210 Trionfi notes for the year for the years 1440-1465. 26 years.
The next 26 years would go till 1491. I estimate 40-50, I didn't count.
The next 26 years would go till 1517. I estimate far less than 40-50, I didn't count.

Mainly these results mirror our intensity of research, not the real Trionfi card numbers. 107 of the 210 come from the Arnold Esch report (1453-1465), which in the list of Rosenfeld would make only one entry. About 65 are from the intensive Pratesi research in 2010-2012 and various articles. About 35 were from "old times".

Similar the documents knot in the years 1377-1382 might have resulted from the condition, that for this time around 1377 playing card documents were searched with more intensity.

In Minchiate we have a light suspicion, that it appeared around 1440. Real dates we have in 1466, 1470/71 and 1478 (? or 1477). Then around 1510 as Sminchiate and in 1526 (Berni). Large distances between the most entries.
In Germini we had values in the 1530s, then 1529, then 1517 and 1519 and finally 1505. Again large distances.

For Tarot we had earlier a series of Tarochi notes in 1516 and then quickly 2 entries of Taraux and Taroch in 1505. Also a large gap.

For Trionfi we had earlier twice in 1442 and after a large gap in 1450. Nowadays we have 1440, an insecure entry in 1441, 1442 twice, 1444 twice, 1445 and insecure in 1447 and 1449 twice and in 1450 starting higher numbers.

Image


Large gaps in the beginning are not unusual. Rosenfeld discussed, that naibi 1370/71 in Spain was wrong and also Bern in 1367, but others had other opinions. Both have a similar empty distance as once Trionfi (1442/1450) and Tarot (1505/1516) had. The wild speculation of a very quick start in 1377 ("Siegeslauf ohnegleichen", as Rosenfeld suggested) is simply not trustworthy (in research it's generally not a good idea to suggest unusual developments as explanation). The story of the development of playing cards is still interesting enough, also when we suggest a more normal development.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

JvR ... Decker: Flurry

36
(In Work)

France 1330
Image


Animated map of Hundred Years War
Image



Map of Europe 1370
Image



Hundred Years War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1103&p=16930&hilit ... 337#p16930
Some material about a game prohibition in England in 1337, which was renewed in 1365. Likely this game prohibition caused, that playing card prohibition stayed more or less active in England till c1460. It became known to us, that there was one exception in 1413.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=532&hilit=1413+England
http://trionfi.com/0/p/45/
Les Eschéz d'Amours: A Critical Edition of the Poem and its Latin Glosses
Gregory Heyworth, Daniel E. O'sullivan, Frank Coulson
BRILL, 25 Jul 2013 - History - 696 pages
https://books.google.de/books?id=xfGZAA ... 37&f=false
Image
Image
Image
Image
WARNING ... Added later (16th of October, 2021)
There are reasons to assume, that the document connected to Edward III and the year 1337 actually belongs to the year 1363. The argumentation to this point is in the postings ...
viewtopic.php?p=24349#p24349
viewtopic.php?p=24350#p24350


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

Battle of La Rochelle 1372, 5 years before 1377
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_La_Rochelle
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeschlac ... a_Rochelle
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_ ... lle_(1372)

Big loss on the English side. England had a lot of victories before in the time after Crecy 1346, but in these later years things had turned. The Black Prince ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_the_Black_Prince
.... had become sick in 1367 ...
On 5 April 1367 the prince and Peter marched to Burgos, where they celebrated Easter. The prince, however, did not take up his quarters in the city, but camped outside the walls at the Monastery of Las Huelgas. Peter did not pay him any of the money he owed him, and the prince could get nothing from him except a solemn renewal of his bond of the previous 23 September, which he made on 2 May 1367 before the high altar of the Cathedral of Burgos. By this time the prince began to suspect his ally of treachery. Peter had no intention of paying his debts, and when the prince demanded possession of Biscay told him that the Biscayans would not consent to be handed over to him. To get rid of his creditor Peter told him that he could not get money at Burgos, and persuaded the prince to take up his quarters at Valladolid while he went to Seville, whence he declared he would send the money he owed.

Prince Edward remained at Valladolid during some very hot weather, waiting in vain for his money. His army suffered so terribly from dysentery and other diseases that it is said that scarcely one Englishman out of five ever saw England again.[76] He was himself seized with a sickness from which he never thoroughly recovered, and which some said was caused by poison. Food and drink were scarce, and the free companies in his pay did much mischief to the surrounding country.

Meanwhile, Henry of Trastámara made war upon Aquitaine, took Bagnères and wasted the country.
Then things turned bad ... 9 years later ...
The prince's illness soon returned in force, though when the "Good Parliament" met on 28 April 1376 he was looked upon as the chief support of the commons in their attack on the abuses of the administration, and evidently acted in concert with William of Wykeham in opposing the influence of Lancaster and the disreputable clique of courtiers who upheld it, and he had good cause to fear that his brother's power would prove dangerous to the prospects of his son Richard. Richard Lyons, the king's financial agent, who was impeached for gigantic frauds, sent him a bribe of £1,000. and other gifts, but he refused to receive it, though he afterwards said that it was a pity he had not kept it, and sent it to pay the soldiers who were fighting for the kingdom.[94]

Death
From the period of the Good Parliament, Edward knew that he was dying. His dysentery became violent, and he often fainted from weakness, so that his household believed that he had already died. He left gifts for his servants in his will and took leave of the King his father, asking him that he would confirm his gifts, pay his debts quickly out of his estate, and protect his son Richard. In his last moments, he was attended by the Bishop of Bangor, who urged him to ask forgiveness of God and of all those he had injured. He "made a very noble end, remembering God his Creator in his heart", and asked people to pray for him.

His death took place in the Palace of Westminster.
This was 1976, June 8.
2 days later, June 10, in Frankfurt, Germany, the young Wenzel, 15 years old, was chosen as a new King of the Romans. His father, Charles IV, was still living, and he had arranged the show.

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

Events around Charles IV, Emperor

1372
Bohemia in 14th century had a big problem with dice games long time, in 1372 an event is given for Mainz, when parts of the empire delegation got serious trouble about a gambling (dice) question (the Bohemians were accused to have cheated). A fight broke out, some victims.

https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bs ... &seite=480
Karl IV. - RI VIII n. 5076a
1372 iun. 00, ....

Tumult, veranlasst dadurch, dass die böhmischen begleiter des kaisers die Mainzer im würfelspiel betrogen hatten. Domino imperatore existente in Maguntia, quidam sui curienses lusores taxillorum in ludo huiusmodi fecerunt insolentiam contra aliquos de civitate, qui in iram provocati subito congregatis banderiis irruerunt in istos et fugientes ad hospitium imperatricis persecuti sunt hostiliter et unum ex nostris, qui ad lectum domine imperatricis confugerat, ibidem in lecto interfecerunt. Alios etiam plures vulneraverunt et pervenerunt usqne ante hospitinm d. imperatoris cum tumultu huiusmodi. Tandem venientes maiores civitatis compescuerunt cum difficultate plebeios et vindictam postmodum magnam in suos fecerunt. Et d. imperator similiter repulit lusores huiusmodi de curia sua. Et cives gratiam d. imperatoris et dominae imperatricis cum difficultate maxima vix impetraverunt. Beness 417. Vgl. aber auch Chronici Mogunt. fragmenta ap. Böhmer Fontes 4,372. ‒ [Die zeitbestimmung macht schwierigkeit. Nach der letzteren quelle hielt der erzbischof Johann von Mainz quadam feria quinta seinen einzug in die stadt und eodem die, quo fuit susceptus, de vespera ortus est magnus tumultus in civitate contra Bohemos, der im wesentlichen übereinstimmend mit Beness geschildert wird. Unde imperator et imperatrix multum indignati sunt; altera die summo mane recesserunt. Da nun die abreise des kaisers iedesfalls nicht schon am 4. iuni stattfand, so müsste man den tumult auf den nächsten donnerstag, den 10., die abreise auf den 11. iuni setzen, womit stimmt, dass noch eine urk. Karls aus Mainz fer. vi. post Bonifacii = iun. 11 datirt ist. Andererseits sprechen die urkk. vom 9., 10. und 11. iuni aus Eltvil im Rheingau, Coblenz und Wittlich zwischen Coblenz und Trier, die unter sich genau harmoniren, für eine frühere abreise Karls am 8. oder 9. iuni.]
1374

Modern German report to an appearance of Veitstanz in Aachen at June 24, 1374.
https://www.br.de/radio/bayern2/sendung ... s-100.html
What the article doesn't express: 24th of June was the Johannes festivity, a day used for dancing around a fire. Mittsommer-night, a solar festivity. Especially celebrated in Florence Italy. St. Vitus was also such a solar hero, the cult imitated earlier pagan rituals. St Vitus got special attention in Prague and from emperor Charles IV, who had started to built a St. Vitus church there since 1344.
Image


An interesting detail is, that St.Vitus day ....
According to his legend, he died during the Diocletianic Persecution in AD 303. In the Middle Ages, he was counted as one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers. In Germany, his feast was celebrated with dancing before his statue. This dancing became popular and the name "Saint Vitus Dance" was given to the neurological disorder Sydenham's chorea. It also led to Vitus being considered the patron saint of dancers and of entertainers in general. He is also said to protect against lightning strikes, animal attacks and oversleeping. His feast day is celebrated on 15 June.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitus
Der Veitstag am 15. Juni, galt als Gedenktag des hl. Veit im Mittelalter auch als Anfang des Mittsommers („Hier mag die Sunn nit höher!“, „Nach St. Veit wendet sich die Zeit.“).
.... says German wiki. It means, that St. Vitus day (15th of June) was the real midsommer day, which was in 14th century a correct astronomical statement.

I gathered a few things to St Vitus a longer time ago (2011) ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=705&p=10341&hilit=vitus#p10341

***************
Image
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: JvR ... Rosenfeld ideas

37
Thanks Huck for your constructive critique in the post on the relation of JvR and Ingold, that helps for clarity.

You wrote in the beginning of the respective post
Huck wrote: 24 Sep 2021, 11:00 vh0610 ...
Master Ingold read the tractatus of JvR (“As I did read”), very possibly in Straßburg or in Basel, and was inspired for the respective part of his own work by JvR. Thereby he himself made the error with 1300, or already a copist had made the error.
You're in the domain "Rosenfeld wrote this".
I did not know that I am in the domain “Rosenfeld wrote this”, I did not follow him. In any case, for me there is nothing like a domain “Rosenfeld wrote this” – except for citing someone respectfully for the work he has done in a scientific way.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, but it seems to me that I should interpret the “domain “Rosenfeld wrote this”” as a no-go-area from your point of view. For me, there are no no-go-areas, there are only good arguments and not-so-good arguments. Science should be about arguments, not about persons, in my eyes.

Rosenfeld admittedly has a lot of bad arguments (which are even no arguments, they are mere unmarked conjectures), and I –as you as you know from private communication—do not like at all his ivory tower attitude. Unfortunately he has --from time to time— good arguments and hence we have to check all of his arguments (which is hard labour) to be scientifically sound. And in case of good arguments we even have to cite him and give him credit for what he has done (I was not aware –I did forget it—that Rosenfeld raised a similar point, saying that Ingold JvR. I should have cited him. Sorry for this.). This is how science works, at least for me. And I admit humbly that I am also not producing all the time good arguments –who does??—and hence I am very grateful if someone is interested in mine, checks them, critiques them constructively, and either cherishes them or discards them.

Having said this, I want to clarify: in my post on the relation of JvR and Ingold, I did not follow Rosenfeld, I simply followed Denis by inspection of the Latin text [my latin is also not very good, perhaps someone can help?] starting at the bottom of left column of
Image
Ineditum censio et probe distinguendum ab aliis duobus Tractatibus, quos in simili materia alii duo e Praedicatorum familia Viri edidere. Primus est Jacobus de Cessolis, Cassolis, unde corruptum Tessalis, et plane Thessalonia, Gallus […]
Alter est M. quidam Ingoldus ejusd. Ordinis, qui lingua teutonica elaboravit Das guldin Spil nempe Lusum aureum, in quo, ut ait titulus, septem Peccata Capitalia totidem lusum generibus illustrantur. Impressit Lusum Güntheris Zeiner Augustae 1472. c. figg. f. videoque ex Praef. Ingoldum decerpsisse quaedam ex Scacchiludo ( schaffzagel spil) Jacobi de tessalis ut Socium fuum appelat; ignorasse vero [/i]Johannis nostri[/i], quamvis conterranei fui, Tractatum. Ex quo videri posset, illum ante Johannem scripsisse. Sed, praeterea, quod neque Johannes Ingoldi meminerit, locus ille, quo Ingoldus de foliorum lusu disserit, satis persuadet, illum posteriorem fuisse. Ait enim de eo: Als ich gelesen han, so ist es kumen in teutsch land des ersten in dem iar da man zalt von crist geburt, tausend, drühundert iar. Vides, ut se ad aliorum referat autoritatem velut testis aetate remotior cum Johannes noster, ut supra dictum est, diserte annum adventus 1377. eum ipsum, quo scribebat, adsignet. Atque annus hic exacte iis congruit, quae solertissimus inquisitor Breitkopfius hac de re p. 9 post Murrium adnotavit.

[An unedited assessment and a proper distinction from the other two treatises, which in similar material were published by two other men from the family of preachers [i.e. the dominicans; vh0610]. The first is Jacob of Cessolis, Cassolis, from where the corrupted Tessalus, and clearly Thessalonia, Gallus […]

The other is M. Ingoldus of the same Order, who developed in German language Das guldin Spil, the golden game, in which, as the title says, the seven capital sins of the game are illustrated in so many different types. The game was imprinted by Günther Zeiner of Augsburg in 1472. I compared the figures from the Preface and the following ones and I see that Ingold picked off some things from chess (schaffzagel spil) from Jacobus Tessalis, that he calls him his companion. But he ignored [to mention; vh0610] the treatise of our Johannes, even though they were from the same country. From which it might be deduced that he wrote before Johannes. But, besides, because Johannes did not remember Ingoldus, the place in which Ingoldus speaks of the game of leaves is sufficiently convincing, that he was the latter. He said of him: As I did read, it [the game of playing cards; vh0610] first came to Germany in the year which is counted from Christ’s birth as thousand, [plus] threehundred. You see, that he relates himself to the authority of others, as a more distant witness, whereas our Johannes, as was said above, expressly assigns the year of the arrival 1377 [of the cards; vh0610] to the year in which he was writing. And this year exactly agrees with them, which Breitkopfius, the most skilled investigator on this subject, remarked on p. 9 after Murrius.
The main points which interested me were
[…]from the other two treatises, which in similar material were published by […]The first is Jacob of Cessolis […]

The other is M. Ingoldus [..] I see that Ingold picked off some things from chess (schaffzagel spil) from Jacobus Tessalis, that he calls him his companion. But he ignored [to mention; vh0610] the treatise of our Johannes, even though they were from the same country. […] He said of him: As I did read, it [the game of playing cards; vh0610] first came to Germany in the year which is counted from Christ’s birth as thousand, [plus] threehundred. You see, that he relates himself to the authority of others, as a more distant witness, whereas our Johannes, as was said above, expressly assigns the year of the arrival 1377 [of the cards; vh0610] to the year in which he was writing. […]
Perhaps I misunderstood the “He said of him” as “Ingold said of JvR” and I should have read “Ingold said of himself:”, that may be - both readings are possible in my eyes.

Then: At least this possible misreading made me seeing that 1300 and 1377 are both denoted by 13XX, X being any number between 0 and 9. And since I tried to read the Viennese version of JvR, I remembered how hard it is and how strange the numbers were denoted there, see https://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/vie ... L_2751364 from p. 181 onwards:
the 7 is pointing down like a hook, the 4 is written as a half 8 and the 5 appears like a 2 looking down [this is also reported in the paleographic “bible”: Bernhard Bischoff, Paläographie des römischen Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters, 2009]
.

This led me to the hypothesis, that Ingold read JvR, since we have 1344 and 1377 in JvR’s text, fitting both to 13XX, as well as 1300 – and both numbers 4 and 7 can be easily misread, as one can see online in the Viennese MS https://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/vie ... L_2751364 -- the four is even a half 8 which is kind of a 0.


Then: Certainly, Huck, you are right that we cannot know and will never know which book was read by Ingold.

However, both (Ingold and JvR) are Dominicans from the Strassburg region, and Ingold had certainly access to the Strassburg library (which had a JvR copy, perhaps even the original, before its destruction in 1870/1871) and perhaps to the Basel library (with the version of 1429).

Note that Ingold lived his life in Strassburg until he was very old, see the preface of the critical edition of Ingold’s golden game from Edward Schröder of 1882 (Das goldene Spiel von Meister Ingold. Herausgegeben von Edward Schröder. Elsässische Litteraturdenkmäler aus dem XIV–XVII Jahrhundert. Herausgegeben von Ernst Martin und Erich Schmidt. III. Band. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1882. Title page of the series https://dfg-viewer.de/show/?tx_dlf[id]= ... -2515.xml ; title page of the edition on [p.9]
https://dfg-viewer.de/show?id=9&tx_dlf% ... page%5D=9 ) :

p. XIX [p. 29]

https://dfg-viewer.de/show?tx_dlf%5Bdou ... 5f5932af03


So dürfen wir uns das Leben desselben [von Ingold; vh0610] ungefähr so vorstellen: im letzten Viertel des 14. Jhs. Geboren […] trat er in das Dominikanerkloster ein und erwarb sich den gelehrten Meistertitel, war dann Beichtvater bei einer vornehmen elsässischen Adelsfamilie, schrieb 1432 sein Hauptwerk, predigte noch längere Zeit in Strassburg, und zog sich zuletzt als Kanonikus in das Stift an der Sauer zurück, wo er hochbetagt starb.

[So we are allowed to see the life of the same [from Ingold; vh0610] roughly like this: Born in the last quarter of the 14th century […] he entered the Dominican monastery and acquired the scholarly master's title, was then confessor to a noble Alsatian aristocratic family, wrote his main work in 1432, preached for a long time in Strasbourg, and finally retired as a canon in the monastery on the Sauer to where he died very old.]
Furthermore we do not know of any other book/treatise on the game of cards from that time.

Moreover: Denis also writes “from the other two treatises, which in similar material” (see citations above) -- this made me writing “ordered world”, referring both to JvR and to Ingold. But I did not write: "the same ordered world". I did read Ingold before and it was clear to me that the two Dominicans used different orders of the world, depending on their respective intentions. So Ingold is also ordered, but differently. This is what Denis said, from my point of view. And the order of Ingold is not far away from JvR – this is a forth structural element which, when intersected with the number proximity 13XX, and with both being from the Strassburg region having access to the same Dominican libraries, and with no other known book/treatise on cards of that time, results in a considerable high plausibility of Ingold having read JvR.


This hypothesis was not being formulated before like this, to the best of my knowledge, certainly not from Rosenfeld.

So no conscious “domain “Rosenfeld wrote this”” in the hypothesis from my side – I followed Denis’ path and his Latin text.


Note furthermore that Ingold writes “As I have read”, and that Ingold thereby “relates himself to the authority of others, as a more distant witness”, referring to a book/treatise he somehow read but he does not have at his hand when writing his own book. In this context, it is important to know that he had personally a quite important library (Schröder, 1882, p. XVIII [p.28]):
https://dfg-viewer.de/show?tx_dlf%5Bdou ... ceca51de2
Der Autor [Ingold] selbst thut sich viel auf seine Belesenheit zu Gute, er citiert viel gern und berichtet (24.8) mit Behagen […] den Nutzen seiner grossen Buchsammlung […]

[The author [Ingold] is proud of his literacy, he likes to quote and reports (24.8) with pleasure [...] the use of his large book collection [...] ]
He does not cite the author / the authority of the book he has read – if he would have it at hand, he would have cited the author as he cited de Cessolis.

The hypothesis is: he writes the year 1300 from memory, after having read/browsed the book of JvR some times before. And since the Dominican JvR is no famous Dominican author at all (otherwise he would have been in the Quietif right away), Ingold does not remember his name. This is how I see it.

Note furthermore, that it is clear that he has a model / an authority he follows structurewise (Schröder, 1882, p. XXVI [p.36]):
https://dfg-viewer.de/show?tx_dlf%5Bdou ... e4ca421236

Die Art der Moralisation in Ingolds Tractat über das Kartenspiel läßt ein fremdes Vorbild entschieden vermuthen, weil sie viel geschickter ist als z.B. in dem Abschnitt über das Brettspiel, und wir dürfen die Bekanntschaft mit dem Ludus cartularum [von JvR] um so eher voraussetzen, als er nachweislich ziemlich verbreitet war.

[The kind of moralization in Ingold's treatise on the card game clearly suggests a foreign [i.e.: non-Ingoldian; vh0610] model, because it is much more skilful than, for example, in the section on the board game, and we can assume the acquaintance with the Ludus cartularum [by JvR] all the more than it was demonstrably quite common.
Note that the statement that JvR’s tractatus is the model of Ingold is not Rosenfeldian in origin, it is from Schröder (1882) [if he has no predecessor, as perhaps Denis, see discussion on the Latin text above]. He even says that the reason is that it was “demonstrably quite common”; in the following he cites the version known in Strassburg, Vienna and Basel. He came to this conclusion of JvR's tractatus being “demonstrably quite common” as an expert of this field of science

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Schr%C3%B6der


https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Edward_Schr%C3%B6der


I do follow his expertise which is certainly far far larger than mine.

Before closing, I want to bring up again a discussion of my last posts:

Note that in the critical edition of Schröder (1882), we can find – along with a discussion on the many errors the copies of Ingold contain – a misreading of a year exactly as we discussed for Ingold’s 13XX:

On p. IV [p. 14] the Giessen MS version of Ingold ends with
https://dfg-viewer.de/show?tx_dlf%5Bdou ... d0d5d9dde2

aber ich jörg mulich han ditz buch geschribn und volbrach 1405
[but I, Jörg Mulich did write this book and finished it in 1405]
This 1405 is evidently wrong and must be a misread, in light of that the golden game is written by Ingold in 1432/33 is already discussed and documented in Schröder (1882):
p. XVII [p. 27]: manuscript version Z yields 1432

https://dfg-viewer.de/show?tx_dlf%5Bdou ... ea946e7072

and p. XVIII [p. 28]: Dating transition of the year from 1432/1433

https://dfg-viewer.de/show?id=9&tx_dlf% ... page%5D=28

Hence, --and this is not a hypothesis, this is a proof-- we have now evidence that in manuscripts from the same time some number –very probably a 4 or a 7-- can be easily misread as a 0.

Having shown this, this rationale can be transferred to the reading of Ingold (“As I read” and citing from memory) of the year 1300. Plausibility is high, that he misread a 13XX – year numbers exactly appearing in JvR tractatus as 1377 and as 1344. From this, plus Schröder's statement (1882) of JvR's tractatus being “demonstrably quite common”, and the arguments given above and cited again in the following:
And the order of Ingold is not far away from JvR – this is a forth structural element which, when intersected with the number proximity 13XX, and with both being from the Strassburg region having access to the same Dominican libraries, and with no other known book/treatise on cards of that time, results in a considerable high plausibility of Ingold having read JvR.
I strongly propose again that plausibility is very high that Ingold read JvR.

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

38
Denis
Ineditum censio et probe distinguendum ab aliis duobus Tractatibus, quos in simili materia alii duo e Praedicatorum familia Viri edidere. Primus est Jacobus de Cessolis, Cassolis, unde corruptum Tessalis, et plane Thessalonia, Gallus […]
Alter est M. quidam Ingoldus ejusd. Ordinis, qui lingua teutonica elaboravit Das guldin Spil nempe Lusum aureum, in quo, ut ait titulus, septem Peccata Capitalia totidem lusum generibus illustrantur. Impressit Lusum Güntheris Zeiner Augustae 1472. c. figg. f. videoque ex Praef. Ingoldum decerpsisse quaedam ex Scacchiludo ( schaffzagel spil) Jacobi de tessalis ut Socium fuum appelat; ignorasse vero [/i]Johannis nostri[/i], quamvis conterranei fui, Tractatum. Ex quo videri posset, illum ante Johannem scripsisse. Sed, praeterea, quod neque Johannes Ingoldi meminerit, locus ille, quo Ingoldus de foliorum lusu disserit, satis persuadet, illum posteriorem fuisse. Ait enim de eo: Als ich gelesen han, so ist es kumen in teutsch land des ersten in dem iar da man zalt von crist geburt, tausend, drühundert iar. Vides, ut se ad aliorum referat autoritatem velut testis aetate remotior cum Johannes noster, ut supra dictum est, diserte annum adventus 1377. eum ipsum, quo scribebat, adsignet. Atque annus hic exacte iis congruit, quae solertissimus inquisitor Breitkopfius hac de re p. 9 post Murrium adnotavit.
Translation by vh0610
[An unedited assessment and a proper distinction from the other two treatises, which in similar material were published by two other men from the family of preachers [i.e. the dominicans; vh0610]. The first is Jacob of Cessolis, Cassolis, from where the corrupted Tessalus, and clearly Thessalonia, Gallus […]

The other is M. Ingoldus of the same Order, who developed in German language Das guldin Spil, the golden game, in which, as the title says, the seven capital sins of the game are illustrated in so many different types. The game was imprinted by Günther Zeiner of Augsburg in 1472. I compared the figures from the Preface and the following ones and I see that Ingold picked off some things from chess (schaffzagel spil) from Jacobus Tessalis, that he calls him his companion. But he ignored [to mention; vh0610] the treatise of our Johannes, even though they were from the same country. From which it might be deduced that he wrote before Johannes. But, besides, because Johannes did not remember Ingoldus, the place in which Ingoldus speaks of the game of leaves is sufficiently convincing, that he was the latter. He said of him: As I did read, it [the game of playing cards; vh0610] first came to Germany in the year which is counted from Christ’s birth as thousand, [plus] threehundred. You see, that he relates himself to the authority of others, as a more distant witness, whereas our Johannes, as was said above, expressly assigns the year of the arrival 1377 [of the cards; vh0610] to the year in which he was writing. And this year exactly agrees with them, which Breitkopfius, the most skilled investigator on this subject, remarked on p. 9 after Murrius.
Thanks for the translation, I didn't understand, that Denis in late 18th century had the idea, that Ingold wrote before Johannes. Nowadays it's a common place, that Ingold wrote in 1432, but the text was printed in 1472 and the original Ingold text was lost [?] and various different manuscripts existed. I remember to have read a discussion to this point and I've read an argumentation and details out of the life of Ingold before. But this is long ago, more than 15 years. Hier is a note, which I found today.

Lexikon des Mittelalters .... https://www.mittelalter-lexikon.de/wiki/Meister_Ingold
Meister Ingold (mayster Ingold; 1. Hälfte 15. Jh.). Der Name bezeichnet den Sohn einer Straßburger Patrizierfamilie, der als Professor der Theologie und Prediger dem dortigen Dominikanerorden angehörte. Von ihm stammt eine in deutscher Prosa geschriebene Anleitung zum Schachspiel (1432), die unter dem Titel „Das guldin spil“ in mehreren Handschriften (Augsburg, Zürich) und in einem Druck (Augsburg, 1472) erhalten ist. Darin werden die 32 Schachfiguren in moralisierender Weise als die hohen und niederen Chargen an einem fürstlichen Hof dargestellt. Als einziger der ma. Schachbuch-Autoren nennt Ingold auch Angehörige der niederen Geistlichkeit (Beichtvater, Kaplan, Almosenier) und rechnet sie den Venden (Bauern) zu. Das Schachspiel selbst entspricht in seiner Auflistung von sieben Gesellschaftsspielen dem Laster der Hoffart; das Damespiel entspricht der Völlerei (gula), Kartenspiel der Wollust (luxuria), Würfeln der Habgier (avaritia), Kegeln dem Zorn (ira), Tanzen der Trägheit des Herzens (acedia), Saitenspiel dem Neid (invidia).
„Das goldene Spiel“ ist seiner allegorisch-theologischen Anlage wohl als Predigtvorlage gedacht gewesen. Als Quellen nutzte Ingold den „Liber de moribus hominum et de officiis nobilium ac popularium super ludo scaccorum" des Jacobus de Cessolis und das auf diesem beruhende „Schachzabelbuch“ des ®Konrad von Ammenhausen sowie moralisierende Traktate wie „Liber de eruditione Christifidelium“ (Erziehung zum Christentum“), „Ludus cartularum moralisatus“ (Unmoral des Kartenspielens) oder „Was schaden tantzen bringet“.
It mentions the "Ludus cartularum moralisatus" of JvR, but translates it as "Unmoral des Kartenspiels", which in my opinion was not the intention of JvR. BUT ... INGOLD WROTE AFTER JOHANNES .... if Ingold really had read Johannes is an open point. Neither Rosenfeld nor Denis nor this dictionary gives here clear statements on what background this idea based.
That Ingold forged a 1377 to a 1300 is an absurd statement. If somebody suggests, that such an error might have possibly happened, would be okay, but presenting it as if it would be a solid fact is a sign of very bad research habits.

Here is another biography ... with insecurities, as there are 2 suggestions for the person of Ingold.
https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz36439.html

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

vh0610
This led me to the hypothesis, that Ingold read JvR, since we have 1344 and 1377 in JvR’s text, fitting both to 13XX, as well as 1300 – and both numbers 4 and 7 can be easily misread, as one can see online in the Viennese MS https://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/vie ... L_2751364 -- the four is even a half 8 which is kind of a 0.
The text is written in 1472 as a copy by a professional writer, not by JvR. JvR in 1377 should have written the year number in Roman numbers MCCCLXXVII.

The first written "0" as number on Trionfi cards appeared on the Matto card of the Sola-Busca (given to 1491). Around 1450 it was still quite common to write with Roman numbers. The Hofämterspiel (c. 1455) has Roman numbers.
Zahlenschreibweisen Mitte 15. bis Mitte 16. Jahrhundert
(Textauszug aus, Abbildung nach: Deutsche Gaue, Zeitschrift für Heimatforschung, Bd. IX 1908, S.310f.)
...Wir glauben, unsern Lesern einen Gefallen zu tun, wenn wir eine Reihe arabischer, richtiger indischer Ziffern (Wattenbach) zusammenstellen. Es kommt oft vor, daß man sie angeschrieben findet als Jahrzahlen auf Altertümern.
Ihre Entzifferung soll nun diese Zusammenstellung sowie die folgende Bemerkung erleichtern:
Man merke, es bedeuten die Ziffern fast nur Jahrzahlen von 1450 - 1550. Vor 1450 kommen außer in Handschriften bei uns Jahrzahlen in arabischen Ziffern seltenst vor. .....
Image
http://www.suehnekreuz.de/zahlen.html

Writing forms of numbers at mid 15th till mid 16th century.
I remember, that Franco informed me, that Ziffern were used earlier than 1450 in Florentine business calculations.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

39
Book printing started in Italy around 1470 in greater numbers. Likely this practice reduced the risk to misread numbers.

vh0610
The hypothesis is: he [Ingold] writes the year 1300 from memory, after having read/browsed the book of JvR some times before. And since the Dominican JvR is no famous Dominican author at all (otherwise he would have been in the Quietif right away), Ingold does not remember his name. This is how I see it.
He would have had problems to misread a "MCCC" for a "MCCCLXXVII". As already stated, book printing likely had helped to avoid number mistakes with Ziffern.

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

vh0610
https://dfg-viewer.de/show?tx_dlf%5Bdou ... d0d5d9dde2

aber ich jörg mulich han ditz buch geschribn und volbrach 1405
[but I, Jörg Mulich did write this book and finished it in 1405]
This 1405 is evidently wrong and must be a misread, in light of that the golden game is written by Ingold in 1432/33 is already discussed and documented in Schröder (1882)
If one reads the page, then one gets the info, that the writer Jörg Mulich lived in Augsburg at page 166a. This is the end of the first text. The second text is the Gulden Spil. At the end of this text the Jörg Mulich note above shall be given, as the page explains.
How could have happened this?
Possibly a later binding error, the Gulden Spil was added to the text which indeed was from 1405, but the page with this note appeared suddenly at the end of the Gulden Spil, which was not from Jörg Mulich, but from Ingold. Well, we don't see the book.

Ah .... .-) .... well, much more simple. It's a modern book typo, the original year number is 1450, not 1405.
Literatur des Schachspiels: Tschaturangavidjâ
Anton Schmid 1847
https://books.google.de/books?id=FqdAAA ... ch&f=false
Image


I strongly propose again that plausibility is very high that Ingold read JvR.
Really? Ingold's text has about 8 pages. The text of Johannes has more than 300. How do you think, that such texts can be similar?
We've no reliable translation of the JvR text ... :-)
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

40
Ingold wrote against games, also against Kartenspiel. JvR presents a positive view on playing cards.
Ingold wrote about 7 games, JvR wrote about playing cards with some chess associations.
Ingold (* 1380 ?) and JvR (* 1340 ?) lived in different generations. For Ingold it was a common features, that preachers fought against playing cards. For JvR playing cards were a new invention.
Ingold had about 8 pages for the theme playing cards, JvR had more than 300.
We know of a version of the JvR in Basel 1429. JvR likely wrote in Freiburg im Breisgau in 1377.

***********

Which sort of library would have been of use for Ingold?

Basel got an University in 1460, which was the oldest in Switzerland. The University got a library in 1473.
Straßburg got a Gymnasium in 1538. This was modified to an Academy in 1566. In 1621 it got the state of a full University.
Freiburg got an University in 1457.
Likely it was the library of a cloister. Or a private collection.

***********

Start of Universities in the Empire

Italian universities before 1348, for instance Bologna.

Prague 1348 by Emperor Charles IV
Pavia 1361 by Emperor Charles IV
[Krakau (Poland) 1364 with influence of Charles IV ???]
Orange 1365 by Emperor Charles IV
Vienna 1365 by duke Rudolf IV of Habsburg, son-in-law of Emperor Charles IV
[Fünfkirchen (Pécs, Hungary) 1367 with influence of Emperor Charles IV ???]
Lucca 1369 by Emperor Charles IV
Heidelberg 1386
Köln 1388
Ferrara 1391
Erfurt 1392
Würzburg 1402
Leipzig 1409
Rostock 1419
Greifswald 1456
Freiburg 1457
Ingolstadt 1459
Basel 1460

It's remarkable, that Charles IV was very active in the installation of universities. For the author Hübsch Charles IV was active also in the distribution of playing cards.
Huck
http://trionfi.com
cron