Trumping

[Huck]

Huck wrote:
Well, some standard was there, and it's called best "Matrix-decks". This is a repeating feature between more or less all 15th century decks (of course with a lot of variation) , with only one great exeption and that's the Tarot-form.

Ross wrote:
I will take it that by "matrix" you mean a form where all the suits have the same number. Thus tarot is an exception (you think that Michelino had 80 cards then? 5x16)



Yes, all suits have the same number of cards in a "matrix-deck" ... which as a term is a good short description. 4x13, 5x14 ... all these expressions have in common, that they form a mathematical matrix.

Tarot with its 4x14 + 22 (or 21+1) belongs not to this category.

The Michelino deck, in my opinion, also fulfills the condition of the Matrix-Formula, but naturally not with 80 cards, but with those 60 cards, which are really presented in the document, so as a 4x15-deck

The 16 trumps have court-card positions and belong to the 4 suits:

Indeed the first order, of virtues, is certain: Jupiter, Apollo, Mercury and Hercules. The second of riches, Juno, Neptune, Mars and Aeolus. The third of virginity or continence: from Pallas, Diana, Vesta and Daphne. The fourth however is of pleasure: Venus, Bacchus, Ceres and Cupid. And subordinated to these are four kinds of birds, being suited by similarity. Thus to the rank of virtues, the Eagle; of riches, the Phoenix; of continence, the Turtledove; of pleasure, the Dove. And each one obeys its own king.

http://trionfi.com/0/b/11/
... translated by Ross Caldwell ... :-)

4 suits: Virtues, Riches, Virginity and Pleasure

and each has a King and a series of birds

Virtues - Eagle
Riches - Phoenix
Virginity - Turtledove
Pleasure - Dove

***
That's a Matrix, very easy.

And the Kings are given in the final sentence "And each one obeys its own king."
Well, that's a little problem. "Each one" might refer to the 4 suits (Virtues, Riches, Virginity, Pleasure) or the 4 birds.

But by the following text the rules are clear:


However, the order of these Birds is, although none of their type has right over another, yet this arrangement they have alternately – Eagles and Turtledoves lead from many to few: that is to say it goes better for us when many cultivate virtue and continence; but for Phoenices and Doves, the few rule over the many, which is to say that, the more the followers of riches and pleasure are visible, the more they lead to the deterioration of our station. Every one of the gods, however, is above all the orders of birds and the ranks of kings. But the gods are held to this law among themselves: that who will be first designated below, he should lead all the others following in sequence.

"Every one of the gods, however, is above all the orders of birds and the ranks of kings. "
So a king only rules only about the birds in its own suit (but not about the trumps in the suit).

Eagles and Turtledoves run from many to few (likely from "10 to 1"), and Phoenix and dove from few to many (likely from "1 to 10") - as known from other early Tarot descriptions,

############

In this context it's of interest to know the card game family "Schafkopf" or in English "Sheepshead".

http://www.pagat.com/schafk/schafkopf.html

especially the variation "Bavarian Sheepshead". In this form it's interpreted, that "Ober" and "Unter" are trump, and then follow the other cards, which are given to the suits (the Kings are not high).

Forerunner versions for the Bavarian Schafkopf had been Altdeutscher Schafkopf and Wendischer Schafkopf.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schafkopf#Geschichte

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendischer_Schafkopf
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutscher_Schafkopf

whereby the Bavarian Schafkopf is a descendant from Wendischer Schafkopf and it is said, that this game was played in Thüringen and Erzgebirge (only in the Wendischen Schafkopf the Ober and Unter were trumps, in the Altdeutscher Schafkopf only the Unter were trump).

Thüringen, Erzgebirge and Bavaria have one thing in common: these regions surround the German frontier to the old CSSR, in other words, they are near to Bohemia. Bohemians were regarded from German perspective as "Wenden", although they're only a part of the much greater group of the Wenden (also = "slaves"), so actually the name translate somehow as Bohemian Schafkopf.

The name "Schafkopf" appears around 1700, but the essentials of the rules are much older. Generally the game is considered to have taken influences of many directions (also from Karnöffel, also from Tarock - which naturally also might be interpreted alternatively: perhaps this basic game influenced many others).

In the time, when Playing Cards became farspread, the German Empire was reigned from Bohemia: Emperor Charles IV, King Wenzel (1346 - 1400). This Bohemian dominance in Europe went down with the abdiction of King Wenzel and had serious critique with the burning of Jan Hus at the council of Coinstance, after which followed a lot of wars between German Empire (also the pope) and Bohemia. The conflict is still very vivid in the time of Podiebrand and Pope Pius II and the following Pope Paul (in the 60's of 15th century). Fighting the Bohemians was regarded as "crusade" by Pius - so deep were still the religious conflicts then.

###

The basic rule of the Michelino deck is: "the courts without kings" are the trumps.
The same can be said in the Wendischen Schafkopf.

We've in fact the note of Hübsch, that playing cards in Bohemia were very early, since the start of the regency of the Empire from Bohemia (1346; cards are mentioned already for 1340

http://trionfi.com/0/p/95

When we turn now to the most important informant about early playing cards, Johannes of Rheinfelden ...

http://trionfi.com/0/p/10/

... then we see, that the most spread deck type in the time of Johannes seems to have been a matrix-deck with 4x13-structure, mostly filled with 3 MALE figures, a king and two marshalls.
But Johannes also knows a deck (which is his favoured object) with 4x15-structure. The courts are a King, two marshalls and 2 female figures, the queen and a maiden.
It's easy to see, that this very early deck had a structural similarity to the Michelino-deck: it has also a 4x15-matrix.

In later deck forms we find two other exponents with many court cards:

(? 1441) - Cary Yale Trionfi deck (3 MALE - 3 FEMALE structure)

(? 1455) - Hofämterspiel with 2 open, unnumbered court cards (King - Queen) and 4 "hidden", numbered court cards (Hofmeister, Marshall, Jungfrau, Fool at 10, 9, 6 and 1).

http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/Hofaemterspiel/index.html

http://www.rusjoker.ru/WWPCM/decks02/d00360/d00360sK.jpg
http://www.rusjoker.ru/WWPCM/decks02/d00360/d00360hQ.jpg
http://www.rusjoker.ru/WWPCM/decks02/d00360/d00360d10.jpg
http://www.rusjoker.ru/WWPCM/decks02/d00360/d00360c9.jpg
http://www.rusjoker.ru/WWPCM/decks02/d00360/d00360s6.jpg
http://www.rusjoker.ru/WWPCM/decks02/d00360/d00360sA.jpg

The latter is said to have been made for King Ladislaus posthumus, the young king of BOHEMIA (again).

So this remarkable "many courts" constructions appear in Bohemia (once) and in Milan (twice) and in Freiburg 1377 (Johannes) just at the time, when the BOHEMIAN Emperor had visited this border of his country.

In the concrete communication of Milan and Bohemia in the relevant time we've as the most important act, that Giangaleazzo (father of Filippo Maria Visconti) got the title "duke" in 1395 from King Wenzel.

Historians have analyzed, that Wenzel was mainly abdicted, cause he gave this title to Giangaleazzo - which should be evidence enough, that this was a rather important event, likely connected to "intensive communication".

A political relationship Milan-Bohemia is given for the relevant time - so with some right we may assume, that the structural relationship between Michelino deck and Johannes-deck and Hofämterspiel is not "accidently"

Now are in the Hofämterspiel the King and the queen presented "ON THRONE" and the Hofmeister and the Marshall "ON HORSE".

A similar feature we meet in the chess iconography of the relevant time, the representatives of King, Queen and bishop (4 figures) are shown ON THRONE or sitting) and the representatives for knight and rook are ON HORSE. This feature was mirrored in the early chess rules: King, queen and bishop were slow moving figures, knight and rook were quick moving figures.

http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.history.data.jpg/008559.jpg
http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.history.data.jpg/008560.jpg
http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.history.data.jpg/008561.jpg
http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.history.data.jpg/008575.jpg
http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.history.data.jpg/008563.jpg

(these representations are from Konstanz 1479 - but they appear similar already in 14th century and in many sources)

Now we have for the early time of playing cards the natural condition, that woodcut likely didn't exist. And cards were expensive, but the "boys played on the streets" in Freiburg (Johannes). This is only explainable, when we assume, that more or less everybody everybody painted his cards himself.

Naturally not everybody is an artist, so these cards must have been very rudimentary. The figures must have been easily recognizable in the game. A figure ON HORSE could easily be distinguished from a sitting king.

For the Michelino deck (ca. 1425) we've the confirmation by the description, that the 16 special cards worked as "trumps" in the game.

But what was the state of things in 1377? By normal analogy we may assume, that in a normal 4x13-deck things were similar operated.

The Kings ruled in their suits, and the Marshalls (Ober and Unter) were the trumps - as in the Michelino deck the "other courts" = 16 gods works as trumps. The kings has a special role.

In the militarical behaviour of the time "military forces" could be "hired" for money (as "condottieri") - so it was not really a big mind-jump to understand, that this were independent forces, somehow belonging to a suit, but acting according the necessity of a given situation.

"Trumping" was identified as "militarical activity" ... not difficult to understand. So these courts were painted in this way - likely often "ON HORSE", that made these important cards easily recognizable during these games.

And with identification steps we're inside the game structure of Schafkopf, known as a game since ca. 1700, then still called "Wendischer Schafkopf".

Naturally this is not all.

We have the Ingold text (1432) and by a very special passage in this text there it is indicated, that the lower courts (without kings) are the trumps.

http://trionfi.com/0/mi/00/

And we've the note from Ferrara in 1423, that "8 Imperatori cards" were imported. It's not to exspect, that 8 cards would make a new game - that looks not plausible.
So we have to assume, that these "8 cards" were (additional ?) trumps ... either they were thought to replace 8 other courts or they were "added".

http://trionfi.com/0/c/02/

A 4x13-deck added to 8 cards = a 4x15-deck.

#####

It's likely, that the 4x13-deck was the "mother-form" of other card decks

Similar it's likely, that the Schafkopf-trumping-rule was the "mother-form" for the trumping development.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Interesting essay Huck, I'll have to consider it a little more.

My own thoughts on trumping in card games, and its role as being one of the likely inspirations for Marziano's game and Tarot, are similar to yous.

Tarot and Marziano share the distinction that they have a set of permanent trumps in a fixed order, that is placed in a superior position in the static structure of the deck.

Thus they are distinguished from other games with fixed trumps (like Schafkopf), or ad hoc trumps (like Kaiserjass/Karnöffel), in that in both of those cases the trumping cards are preexisting cards assigned extraordinary roles, and that the cards fulfilling the trumping function are *lower* than the highest card in the structure of the static deck (the highest card, on the face of it, being the King).

Already many alterations of the archetypal structure of the card decks happened before tarot; the order of the pips was inverted in two suits, extra court cards were added (like the Queen and one or two extra Pages), and lower court cards (and others like in Karnöffel) were given "trumping" power, even over "naturally" higher-ranking cards. The card deck was also moralized, understood symbolically, and obviously different kinds of subjects than just pips and three or four standard court cards were depicted. But you "matrix" form seems standard - every part of the deck had the same number of elements (4xX, 5xX, 6xX, whetever).

Two preexisting conditions seem necessary to me for the invention of Tarot (and Marziano's game) - the notion of trumping, and the moralization of cards. Both had been around for quite awhile before Marziano invented his game (although trumping might not have been called "trumping").

We know of only two instances when a *superior*, fixed series was devised to fill the trumping function - Marziano and Tarot. All other decks with permanent trump series that we know of, outside of the suits, are derived from or modeled on Tarot. Given Tarot's early proximity to Marziano's creation, it makes me suppose that the Tarot inventor knew of Marziano's work or Michelino's deck. Marcello learned of Michelino's deck, so it had some fame. Marcello might have learned it from one of the artisans he talked to, and among artists (who were also miniaturists/illuminators) and their patrons Michelino was very famous. So the deck was probably much talked about in artistic circles of Lombardy. But how many had ever seen it, or knew how it was structured?

(Was it Marcello's informant who told him that the recently deceased Duke Filippo had devised "a new and exquisite sort of triumphs" (thus indicating knowledge of how it was structured and played), or is this him talking after the fact, when he knew for himself what it was? All we can say is that this phrase occurs in his tale chronologically *before* he manages to find the cards, so it could be taken that when he says "he knew that Filippo had designed a new sort of triumphs", he *already* knew they were triumphs, even before he had seen them or knew much about them, and that therefore the person who conveyed the knowledge of their existence to him was the one who conveyed also that they were a "new kind of triumphs.")

I don't know exactly where I want to go with this, except to say that I presume the preexistence of trumping games as one influence on the invention of tarot; but to go from those kinds of trumps to Tarot trumps is a big jump, and it was only done twice as far as we know, and those two times are suspiciously close together, temporally and physically.

As for Imperatori, I think it was a trumping game like you say, maybe a deck with German suit signs, used for Kaiserspiel or a similar game (tamer maybe, like Schafkopf). But I don't believe it likely that it had 8 extra cards that were used as trumps. The text "uno paro de carte da VIII imperadori" can be read "one pack of VIII Emperors cards" - as if VIII Emperors is the brand name or style of the cards, not their number.

Ross

[Huck]

Trumping should have most logical ... so one can look simply at a matrix and what seems logical.

Let's define the horizontal cells as "4 of a kind" or the suits, and the vertical cells as sequences (1-10 + courts). Only for the simple rules, you have no great exeptions.

1. one line horizontal (= 4 trumps in a 4x13 deck)

2. more than 1 line horzontal (8, 12, 16 ... trumps)

3. one line vertical (= 13 trumps)

4. more than 1 line vertical ( 26 ... trumps)

5. Combination of one line vertical and one line horizontal (= 16 trumps)

6. Combinations of various horizontal and vertical lines.


The Schafkopf-version belongs to category 2.

The use of the trumps in the proposed 5x14-deck belongs to category 3.

The German game Skat and the Altdeutsche Schafkopf used category 1.

4 is rather unlikely, but not impossible.

5 appears for instance also in Skat, when the player decides for a suit-game (in that case the 4 Jacks and one suit is trump), a rather common version

6 maybe a little less unlikely than 4, but is unlikely anyway.

It's obvious, that there are not much possibilities.
###

The deciding element for us in our state of limited information is to decide for the most probable version ... as our single additional information is the devision between "militaric figures" and civilians in the iconography and we can identify the two marshalls, the whole (all our other informations from Michelino, Ingold, Imperatori and Johannes) gets a logical face and we decide with some right, that the Schafkopf version must have been powerful in the beginning.
Naturally we cannot exclude, that also other ways of trumping were used somewhere in this time, perhaps even some with eccentic rules (which didn't belong to the above given system of categories, but we cannot talk too much about things, for which we have no historical examples or indication. We interprete facts ... what else?

For Tarot and it's dependancy on the earlier development of trumping we've a very unique document: the 14 Bembo cards inside the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck

Indirectly they tell us, that "the game of Tarot" was already played without "special cards".

Post #47168, newsgroup TarotL, 8th of August 2005
Author: autorbis
Title: The most rudimentary way to play Tarot



Hi,

the question about "invented in thin air" leads to a specific other
question: What is the most rudimentary way to play Tarot?

Given is a common 4x13-deck. Or, if you want to use the Italian
style, which has evidence to exist in 1423 by the preaching of San
Bernardino.
Now you want to play Tarot - not in the final form, with 4x14 + 22
trumps, but just with the most common rules of it, that is trumping
and a trump-row (the number of the trumps in the trump row is free)
and some special rules to Fool, Pagat and highest trump. We assume,
that you already have the rules in mind and doesn't need time to
invent them.

How long do you need to realize your aim? Do you need to produce
cards?

No.

Step 1: You just define one row of the 4 suits as trumps. Let's say,
you chose batons.

Step 2: You define the Pagat. The most near card to number 1, Pagat,
is the Ace of Batons, also Nr. 1 in its suit.

Step 3: You define the Fool. The most funniest card (this is the
normal condition in older German decks) is the Unter, which has as
equivalent in Italian suits the page.

Step 4: You define the highest trump. The highest card in the batons-
row is the batons-King.

You're ready to start, but you probably has to explain your playing
partners, how the game works.

Used time: no time, you just must have had the idea to it. Well,
let's call this short time "thin air".

What you probably are missing, are all the funny pictures. Alright -
this needs time to develop some culture to your idea.

Let's assume you decide to develop a 5th Trump suit. You've to
decide, how many trumps you wish to have in this suit.

Perhaps some impatient persons might try to request with
enthusiasm: "Yes! 22! 22!" - but this wouldn't be the first natural
idea of somebody, who lived in 1423 and not near the Newage-shop
nearby in 2005, where you can buy wonderful Tarots with wonderful
motifs and colours in various styles, which all show 22 trumps in
it - or better, 21 trumps + Fool.

You live in 1423, and you don't know the newage-shop. As you - if you
played the game already with a 4x13 or 4x14-deck, are already used to
a trump-suit with 13 or 14 cards, you naturally would develop a 5th
suit, which contains 13 or 14 cards and it would be naturally for you
to connect each card in the trump suit by a number or just an idea to
the cards already present in the other suits.

Trump-1 to the aces
Trump-2 to the 2's
etc.

From the document of Johannes of Rheinfelden in 1377

http://trionfi.com/0/c/01/

we know, that he in a 60 cards game, which existed in his time and
which had 5 court cards King - Queen - Ober - Unter - Maid, counted
the court cards 11-12-13-14-15 (15 = King), which means in sequence
together with the number cards (1-10). Considering this, it seems
likely, that in decks with 4x13 or 4x14-structure the courts were
counted 11-12-13 or 11-12-13-14.

Now we've observed, that - considerung the rules of Tarot about
Pagat, Fool and highest trump - it seems likely, that the trump-row-
Unter or Trump-row-Page was changed to the Fool and the King to the
highest trump (in the most rudimentary form of Tarot).

According to the rules of Johannes

1. Trump-Unter = Fool would have the worth 11
2. Trump-King (in the Italian 4x14-version and the developing 5x14-
version) would have the worth 14.

#####

Some of you might know it, but we're in the world of the 5x14-
theory ...
those, who don't know it, may read something about it:

http://trionfi.com/0/f

The basis of the 5x14-theory is the socalled Pierpont-Morgan-
Tarocchi, a playing card deck fragment of mid 15th century from the
Visconti court. The fragment consists of 74 of assumed 78 cards,
missing are the trumps devil+tower and two pip-cards.
This deck has the strange quality, that 14 trumps and the remaining
54 pip cards are all painted by the same painter (it is assumed, it
was Bonifacio Bembo), but 6 trumps by another unknown artist.

This feature is explained by some as "6 replacement cards", which
replaced lost cards. We (trionfi.com) heavily contradicted this
opinion, claiming that there were no cards, which were replaced, and
that the otiginal Pierpont-Morgan-deck only had 14 trumps and the
whole composition had have a 5x14-structure. The other 6 cards were
added at a later time - in our opinion.

####

Now you may observe the numbers in the 14 cards of Bembo, as they're
known from later versions versions of Tarot (Bembo cards had no
numbers).

The numbers are

0 (= Fool, changed Unter = 11)
1 Magician, Pagat
2 Popess
3 Empress
4 Emperor
5 Pope
6 Love
7 Chariot
8 Justice
9 Hermit
10 Wheel of Fortune
(11) (missing, Unter was changed to Fool)
12 Hanging Man
13 Death
(14) (missing, highest trump got a special ranking)
...
20 Judgment (highest Trump, originally Nr. 14)

-----

From this you can see, that the real, by evidence given conditions of
the 14 Bembo cards fit perfectly with the assumed conditions of "the
most rudimentary way to play Tarot".

Thanks

(autorbis)

[mjhurst]

Hi, Ross,

Tarot and Marziano share the distinction that they have a set of permanent trumps in a fixed order, that is placed in a superior position in the static structure of the deck. Thus they are distinguished from other games with fixed trumps (like Schafkopf), or ad hoc trumps (like Kaiserjass/Karnöffel), in that in both of those cases the trumping cards are preexisting cards assigned extraordinary roles, and that the cards fulfilling the trumping function are *lower* than the highest card in the structure of the static deck (the highest card, on the face of it, being the King).

Let me try to put it in simple terms I can understand, and you can correct the more egregious errors. In the history of playing cards trick-taking games have always been the most popular, even from the earliest times. Some form of trick-taking game(s) probably came along with playing cards from the East.

The idea of trumping, however, was a European invention of the 15th century. Several different forms of trumping were invented.

1) a nominated suit(s) with some trumps, partial trumps, and non trumps (i.e., Karnoffel)

2) the use of the highest court cards as trumps (i.e., the game described by Marcello)

3) five-suited decks with a special 5th suit (i.e., Shields as trumps, probably)

4) five-"suited" decks with a non-suited group of cards for trumps (i.e., Tarot)

5) a complete nominated suit, as in modern games. Although listed last, this may have been the first type invented. As you pointed out to me in an earlier conversation, Marziano (according to Marcello) wrote that "no suit of birds has higher ranking than any other suit of birds." This would be a senseless caveat unless there were more well-known games in which such a trump suit did occur.

We can fantasize about the Emperor's Game, but unless it was a version of Kaiserspiel or Karnoffel, as suggested by the name, we really don't know anything about it. Is that right?

We know that trumps were an idea that caught on, and various different games were invented with different trumping functions. Karnoffel is very peculiar, (as are some later games), but the others seem pretty straightforward. Using the highest court cards as trumps, using a fifth suit or one of the standard four suits as trumps, or adding a special non-suited series of allegorical cards as trumps, are all simple answers to the desire for trumps. All five approaches occur pretty early. But it seems that it was perhaps the latest one, Tarot, from which the idea spread to other games.

Given some collection of varied games in which trumping was implemented, albeit in different fashion, it seems forced to order them as an evolution. Our evidence certainly has a chronological order, but our evidence is appallingly fragmentary. Is there any reason to think of one evolving from another, other than a desire for a satisfying story? This would seem to be little more than a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" assumption.

The earliest game for which we have evidence of trumps would appear to constitute their invention, and can be credited as such. However, the earliest one which caught on, became popular, and from which later games derived the idea appears to have been Tarot itself. As Dummett and McLeod put it, from Tarot "derives the very idea of trumps in a trick-taking game." Is that correct?

Best regards,
Michael

[Ross G Caldwell]

Hi Michael,


Let me try to put it in simple terms I can understand, and you can correct the more egregious errors.


LOL - there's nothing to "correct" in your analysis. Most of these seem to be matters of interpretation, not factual right and wrong. For an example of speculating on the relationship of Karnöffel to Tarot, see first of all Dummett GoT pp. 190-191; a briefer summary of this position is given in WPC, p. 42.

He does conclude that the two trump ideas were probably independent, but a close look at his speculations in 1980 gives room to revisit the idea with some of the new information that appeared only just before WPC, or only after.


The idea of trumping, however, was a European invention of the 15th century. Several different forms of trumping were invented.


I think as far as anyone knows, this is absolutely true. "Wild cards" are known in Chinese games, and presumably other national games as well... but trumps in any of the ways we know them, I don't think so.


2) the use of the highest court cards as trumps (i.e., the game described by Marcello)


Although it will be beside the point to bring it up, I disagree with that interpretation of the structure of the game (as you probably remember). I don't think that in any way the Gods were court cards.

We should get back to this question later; but if our previous conversations on the topic are any indication, we won't reach any agreement.


3) five-suited decks with a special 5th suit (i.e., Shields as trumps, probably)


Could be, but we don't know how it was used. Is this the deck with the Shield suit having an Emperor instead of a King?


4) five-"suited" decks with a non-suited group of cards for trumps (i.e., Tarot)

5) a complete nominated suit, as in modern games. Although listed last, this may have been the first type invented. As you pointed out to me in an earlier conversation, Marziano (according to Marcello) wrote that "no suit of birds has higher ranking than any other suit of birds." This would be a senseless caveat unless there were more well-known games in which such a trump suit did occur.


I agree with that point, and find some confirmation of the existence of such a rule in Filippo's 1420 prohibition of games not according to the old and accepted order.


We can fantasize about the Emperor's Game, but unless it was a version of Kaiserspiel or Karnoffel, as suggested by the name, we really don't know anything about it. Is that right?


Right. But can't we speculate without fantasizing? In that case, it seems probable that Emperors in Ferrara, attested 1423-1452 (the earliest coming from Florence, the rest made in Ferrara), is the same as that mentioned in Würzburg, 1444-1453 (Dummett quoting Schreiber, GoT p. 191). The absence of physical evidence of German cards from early 15th century Italy seems like a weak argument, since 1) we can't expect much in the way of any kind of cards from that time, 2) we know that many German cardmakers were present then from documentary sources, and 3) there may have been a backlash against German cards, if the Venetian ban against imports in 1441 represents a general protectionist trend. Filippo's prohibition might show the same reaction, and the fact that the Este made their own Emperors cards in the 1440s and 1450s. Although the evidence is fragmentary, it might reveal a pattern.


We know that trumps were an idea that caught on, and various different games were invented with different trumping functions. Karnoffel is very peculiar, (as are some later games), but the others seem pretty straightforward. Using the highest court cards as trumps, using a fifth suit or one of the standard four suits as trumps, or adding a special non-suited series of allegorical cards as trumps, are all simple answers to the desire for trumps. All five approaches occur pretty early. But it seems that it was perhaps the latest one, Tarot, from which the idea spread to other games.


That Triumphs is the source of the trump concept in later games that use the word "trump" is a solid argument - they got the term from it.


Given some collection of varied games in which trumping was implemented, albeit in different fashion, it seems forced to order them as an evolution. Our evidence certainly has a chronological order, but our evidence is appallingly fragmentary. Is there any reason to think of one evolving from another, other than a desire for a satisfying story? This would seem to be little more than a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" assumption.


Well, there's nothing wrong with a satisfying story! But there's more to it... Dummett already speculated on a relationship between the two games, noting Imperatori's existence in Ferrara in the 1440s. He even speculated correctly that if it were known so soon after tarot's existence in the city, there's a good chance it was known *before*, and might have been the inspiration for the idea of trumps.

He couldn't know yet (because Franceschini hadn't edited the records yet) that Parisina actually bought a deck of Emperors cards in 1423; I'm sure this would have tilted the balance of his speculations a little.

In 1980, he also didn't know (I would imagine) that in 1420 Filippo had banned a kind of game, unnamed, that appears to have had the character of having some kind of disorder in ranking. Thus, if the interpretation of this game as Karnöffel or Imperatori is correct, this game was also known in Milan. Thus a second shift of balance towards a pre-tarot trumping game in northern Italy, and in two places where Tarot later appears.

Finally, he didn't yet know much about Marziano's game, since the only description he had then was Durrieu's flawed one. The trumping function of this game was unknown to him then. However, in 1993, "Il Mondo e l'Angelo", he had formulated a position in response to the new work of Franco Pratesi on the subject. He writes that "The deck designed by Marziano and painted by Michelino was not a tarot deck; but it constituted a first step in that direction... The Marziano/Michelino deck, even though it wasn't a tarot deck, was a composite deck: it included both court cards and pip cards of four suits, as well as figure cards with symbolic significance. Thus it stands against the thesis of Steele and Moakley that the triumphs of tarot existed initially as a self-contained deck - a thesis lacking any positive proof. The deck of Marziano and Michelino weighs also in favor of a Milanese origin for tarot.... (discussion of Bologna's claim - weak; Ferrara, perhaps)... However, the Marziano/Michelino deck furnishes a direct proof that Filippo Maria Visconti was interested from the beginning of his reign to experiment with new kinds of playing cards; it is probable that his experiments culminated in the tarot deck as we know it. We don't have a demonstration of the invention of tarot in the Milanese court of the Visconti, but in the absence of other evidence, this is the most probable hypothesis." (pp. 105-106).

So it seems to me that he considers there to be a direct link between Filippo's earlier game and tarot, and felt there to be a reasonable basis for speculating on Imperatori's role in inspiring the idea of trumps in the area. I don't see it as forced, but a natural question given the proximity of the items in question, in time and place.

So it is *possible* that the idea of trumps was only invented once, although it took diverse forms as people played with it.


The earliest game for which we have evidence of trumps would appear to constitute their invention, and can be credited as such. However, the earliest one which caught on, became popular, and from which later games derived the idea appears to have been Tarot itself. As Dummett and McLeod put it, from Tarot "derives the very idea of trumps in a trick-taking game." Is that correct?


Except for in Kaiserjass, the descendant of Karnöffel. But it appears to have had no other offspring, unless it were in tarot. However, your point above, about perhaps the "complete nominated suit" preexisting, has merit. What are the implications of that idea?

Best regards,

Ross

[mjhurst]

Hi, Ross,

Thanks very much for that analysis. It does help me clarify things to state them as simply as I can and then have someone who knows more (and better) add corrections, qualifications, exceptions, limitations, etc. The deeply detailed discussions often leave me lost, forgetting the larger context. (And I don't think I'm alone in that.)

He does conclude that the two trump ideas were probably independent, but a close look at his speculations in 1980 gives room to revisit the idea with some of the new information that appeared only just before WPC, or only after.

My point is that whether or not there was an influence, we don't know about it. It is inevitably tempting to invent such a line of influence, but little if anything seems to be gained by it. We can't explain anything interesting about one approach by appeal to an earlier one -- the basic idea was developed in a number of quite different and mostly straightforward ways.

Although it will be beside the point to bring it up, I disagree with that interpretation of the structure of the game (as you probably remember). I don't think that in any way the Gods were court cards.

I think the term "court cards" is misleading here. The real question is if they were "suited cards". Just as there is a distinction between pips and court cards, there is a distinction between court cards and the higher god cards. This is a unique deck with a unique structure, but isn't it still a four-suited deck?

Could be, but we don't know how it was used. Is this the deck with the Shield suit having an Emperor instead of a King?

Right, the Liechtenstein deck. Hoffmann describes them and reproduces the two sheets. I think that they are also posted on trionfi.com.

Two sheets, now in the Rothschild Collection in Paris, can be regarded as a link between Germany and Italy. At any event, on these sheets there are five instead of four suit-signs: coins, cups, batons, swords, and escutcheons. The coins and cups correspond precisely with the Italian suit-signs, the sword is a European swort-sword and not the curved sword usual in Italy, that baton is not turned as in Italy but recalls the polo stick of the pack from Istanbul since it is bent at the upper end. The escutcheons with the imperial eagle is a new suit-sign. Four of the enthroned kings hold their suit-signs in their hands and only the suit-sign of the king of escutcheons is arranged on the left and right of his head. Whereas these features are an indication of Italian influence, the other figures are only found on the northern edge of the Alps, since the kings are accompanied by five upper and under valets in a standing posture. In actual fact, two of the five under valets are ladies, one being nude and the other dressed in flowing robes. The under valet of cups is a urinating jester. With arguments based on the history of clothes, Schreiber puts the date of these sheets at around 1465. This can be accepted with the proviso that this may refer only to the prototype but that these sheets are not necessarily so old as this.

Hoffmann doesn't mention it, but from the image itself, as you've pointed out, the "king of escutcheons" is depicted differently than the other kings. He holds an orb indicating his global sovereignty, and wears the closed, imperial crown while the other kings wear open typical crowns.

But can't we speculate without fantasizing? In that case, it seems probable that Emperors in Ferrara, attested 1423-1452 (the earliest coming from Florence, the rest made in Ferrara), is the same as that mentioned in Würzburg, 1444-1453 (Dummett quoting Schreiber, GoT p. 191). The absence of physical evidence of German cards from early 15th century Italy seems like a weak argument...

It seems that your speculation is precisely the kind I suggested as an alternative to fantasy, connecting the Italian Emperors Game with the German Emperors Game. I like it.

Well, there's nothing wrong with a satisfying story!

LOL -- in Tarot discussions, such things are routinely taken as a factual basis for further invention, step by fictional step.

In 1980, he also didn't know (I would imagine) that in 1420 Filippo had banned a kind of game, unnamed, that appears to have had the character of having some kind of disorder in ranking. Thus, if the interpretation of this game as Karnöffel or Imperatori is correct, this game was also known in Milan.

I think that this "satisfying story" is an excellent way to connect and explain a number of disparate facts which otherwise languish as odd and obscure details.

"The deck designed by Marziano and painted by Michelino was not a tarot deck; but it constituted a first step in that direction... The deck of Marziano and Michelino weighs also in favor of a Milanese origin for tarot.... the Marziano/Michelino deck furnishes a direct proof that Filippo Maria Visconti was interested from the beginning of his reign to experiment with new kinds of playing cards; it is probable that his experiments culminated in the tarot deck as we know it. We don't have a demonstration of the invention of tarot in the Milanese court of the Visconti, but in the absence of other evidence, this is the most probable hypothesis." (pp. 105-106).

Ah, Mikey likes it... always a good sign. (Although Sir Michael probably wouldn't like being called "Mikey".)

So it seems to me that he considers there to be a direct link between Filippo's earlier game and tarot, and felt there to be a reasonable basis for speculating on Imperatori's role in inspiring the idea of trumps in the area. I don't see it as forced, but a natural question given the proximity of the items in question, in time and place.

There's a world of difference between the two hypotheses here. One says that Tarot is a development from Karnofflel. To me, that seems VERY forced. The other is that the idea of trumping was well know, and that a variety of different approaches were tried; some were tried before others, but the resulting decks/games do not form any sort of intelligible evolution of the idea. You seem to want to lump both hypotheses under the term "inspiration".

However, your point above, about perhaps the "complete nominated suit" preexisting, has merit. What are the implications of that idea?

LOL -- as I recall, that is your idea which you find has merit. However, I very much agree that it is a good idea. As in other cases in your post, you have put together some telling references, resulting in some insightful conclusions. As for further implications and speculation based on that conclusion, the first and most obvious ones would be 1) that using one of the regular suits as trumps was too common to merit comment, except in the case when the rule was violated, and 2) that this was not sufficiently appealing to the gamesters. A number of more interesting and challenging alternatives were devised. As an a priori hypothesis, this makes perfect sense. The simplest rule, using standard decks, might well have been devised first, with more complex rules and novel decks being created later.

Best regards,
Michael

[Huck]

Well, there is something, which should be understood, when judging specific questions.
It comes from practical playing and I doubt, that you, Michael and Ross, knows the type of play, to which I would count games like Tarot, Schafkopf, Skat, Doppelkopf.

The idea is "points connected to cards" inside trick-taking-games.

Let's have a look on Bridge. The win is decided by trick-counting (combined with a bidding system). The bidding complicates the game, so let's stay to something, which I call "Basic-Bridge" and that shall be only "trick-counting". Each trick = one point. Whoever wins 7 points in a 52 cards game wins the game.

The feature, what I'm going to point to, doesn't appear in this Basic-Bridge and also not in the real Bridge.

It only appears, when points (much or less) are given to specific cards.

Schafkopf, Doppelkopf and Skat all work on this other rule, but Tarot itself works on a mix between Bridge rule (tricks do count in a special way) and the pont-value-for-specific-cards-rule (specific cards count more than others).


***
We keep here to the easy versions of Tarot, the basic rules - special extra pints for specific combinations are not considered.

Tarot is counted:
4 for a King
3 for a Queen
2 for a Knight
1 for a Page

4 for trump 21
4 for trump 1
4 for the Fool
--------------
totally 52 points

additionally points for each trick: 78:3 (3 players) = 26 tricks = 26 points

52 + 26 = 78 (78 was desired)

78 is the number of cards and it was desired to have a number-balance between points and cards.

Alternatively there exist systems to variate the count system for 4 players, or to differentiate the counting (for instance with 5 points for Kings, 3 for queens etc.), but in most cases it's the basic condition, that the high points come from the courts (totally 40 points), which are not trump. Only two trumps give (high) points and the card of luck, the Fool (but together this are only 12 points). The tricks only get a third of the points (in this "basic counting") and in other counting forms less than a third.

So the courts (especially) have a deciding role, although they've the weakness in the game, that they're not trumps.

You have similar features in the games Skat, Doppelkopf, Schafkopf.

In these :

Ace - 11 points
10 - 10 points
Kings - 4 points
Queens - 3 points
Jacks 2 points

Queens and Jacks (the cards with the low points) are the high trumps. Ace and 10 rank above the Kings.

When you play these games a longer time, it's easy to learn, why this is are logical rules:

The game would be simply uninteresting, when high trumps have too high points - it doesn't really work well (exceptions are allowed as with trump 21 in Tarot, which has 4 or 5 points).

Well, why do I tell you that. It's the trivial reason, why the Kings are not trumps - for instance in the Michelino-deck. Or why the trumps have their merits in the game of Tarot, but have no points (more or less).

Let's assume there are 14 cards per suit and you've 4 players. Each King in a hand, especially when the player has not too much cards of the same suit, has a very good chance to come to the own results, as there are 13 other cards, which must "obey" him (when suit must be followed). 13/4 = each player should have ca. 3 cards of this suit. So a King on your hand gives a rough calculated 90-95 % chance to get 4 points. The Queen has less good chances, but also good chances, let's say 70-80 % (but it gets only 3 points). Much worse chances for the knight and the page is 98 % simply lost - or better said - has no chances to make a trick. That's a reality inside the game.

So the Kings have their chances in the game, although they are not trumps.

Sorry, that I explain that, it's trivial for people, who know these games ("basic knowledge"), but easy to overlook, when you only know games like Poker etc.


... :-) ... perhaps we should play something like that online, that you learn about that sort of game.