Alea Evangelii 19x19

Tafl rules
Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Alea Evangelii

Post by Hagbard » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:59 pm

Marco wrote:

Michael Lapidge has identified the author of the Alea Evangelii text and diagram with “Israel the Grammarian”. Only a few fragments are known about the figure of Israel. From them, Lapidge has assembled this tentative biography in his 1992 paper Israel the Grammarian in Anglo-Saxon England.
Israel was born in Britanny, perhaps ca. 900. Where he received his earliest training is unknown; at some point he studied in Rome, perhaps with an Italian scholar named Ambrose. During the course of his studies he acquired an impressive knowledge of Greek. During the reign of King Athelstan, when because of political turmoil in their homeland many Bretons were welcomed to the English royal household, Israel too came to England under Athelstan's patronage. With him he brought copies of the “Rubisca” and the “Saint-Omer Hymn”, both perhaps composed by him and provided by him with glosses in Breton. While a member of Athelstan's household, Israel and a Frankish colleague devised the Alea Evangelii or “Gospel Dice”, a copy of which was subsequently taken back to Bangor by an Irish visitor at Athelstan's court, Dub Innse. At that time, too, Israel began collecting a dossier of Greek materials, including the Greek litany and “Sanctus” found in Athelstan's Psalter. With Athelstan's death in 939, Israel was forced to seek a new patron. He composed his poem “De arte metrica” while still in England (this would account for its preservation in English manuscripts, a fact otherwise difficult to explain) and dedicated it to Rotbert, archbishop of Trier, intending it as a plea for patronage. His plea was successful; Israel left England for Trier, but not without leaving behind him copies of his poetry and his dossier of Greek materials. Through his contact with Rotbert, Israel became tutor to Bruno, later archbishop of Cologne, and he was present with Rotbert at the synod of Verdun in 947. During this period his expertise in Greek attracted him to the writings of John Scottus Eriugena, and he began assembling another dossier of scholarly materials, including some items from the earlier, English dossier but reflecting more his growing interest in Greek philosophical and theological terminology; it is this dossier which is preserved in the Leningrad manuscript and which Edouard Jeauneau has analysed so comprehensively. Toward the end of his life Israel withdrew from the world and became a monk at Saint-Maximin in Trier, perhaps in order to devote himself to study. It was there that he died, perhaps ca. 970, secure in his reputation as one of the most learned scholars in Europe.
Lapidge's presentation of the initial lines of MS 122:
Incipt alea euangelii quam Dubinsi episcopus Bennchorensis detulit a rege Anglorum id est a domu Adalstani regis Anglorum depicta a quodam Francone et a Romano sapiente id est Israel.

Here begins the Gospel Dice which Dub Innse, bishop of Bangor, brought from the English king, that is from the household of Athelstan, king of England, drawn by a certain Franco (or: by a certain Frank) and by a Roman scholar, that is Israel.
… Israel was described by Dub Innse as a “Roman scholar” (Romanus sapiens). This observation squares with what we know of Israel from other sources. In one of his brief tractates on the soul (preserved in the Leningrad manuscript and edited by Jeauneau), Israel refers to his recollections of “the sojourn which he spent at Rome in a bygone year” (conuersationis meae quam transacto anno habui Romae nunc reminiscor). Israel had apparently spent some time at Rome, therefore, and it may have been during this Roman sojourn that his tutelage at the hands of Ambrose took place, for such evidence as we have suggests that Ambrose was Italian. In any event, if Israel had spent time studying at Rome (whether with Ambrose or not) before he arrived at Athelstan's court, he may well have seemed to his colleagues there as much “Romanus” as “Britto”.

In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England Lepidge gives this shorter biography:
Israel the Grammarian, a scholar of Breton origin who spent some time at the court of King Æthelstan (924–39), probably as a refugee from political turmoil in Brittany; he subsequently returned to the Continent where he served (from c .940 onwards) as tutor to Bruno, later archbishop of Cologne (953–65), and ended his life as a monk in the monastery of St Maximin in Trier. Israel was an accomplished grammarian and poet, and one of the few scholars of this time to have first-hand knowledge of Greek. His presence in England is recorded in a brief text known as the Alea euangelii (‘Gospel Dice’), and is reflected in various texts which passed through his hands (such as the Greek prayers copied in the last folios of the Æthelstan Psalter) or which were composed by him (such as, probably, the immensely difficult poems Rubisca and Adelphus adelphe ) and transmitted in English manuscripts (such as the poem De arte metrica , which was dedicated to Archbishop Robert of Trier).
NB: I am indebted to Michael J. Hurst (a researcher in ancient art and allegorical games) for bringing to my attention Israel the Grammarian through a quote from “AEthelstan: The First King of England” (2011), by Sarah Foot, pp. 104-5.
Last edited by Hagbard on Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Modern Alea Evangelii

Post by Hagbard » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:02 pm

plantagenêt wrote:

I offer creating a new Alea Evangelii variant with the following rules: King has to reach one of the four corner squares to win, all pieces have the same positionning as Alea Evangelii Tablut (and Sea Battle), the king has at his disposal 20 common warriors and 4 guards who're placed arround him, a Guard have the same possibility as the King, that's to say, he's captured only if he's surrounded by 4 black warriors, 3 black warriors on the edge of the board or of the throne when it's empty (the throne is always hostile for black but hostile for white when it's empty) and 2 black warriors next to a corner square except that the king can't be captured on the edge of the board and next to a corner square. In my varriant, there is the shieldwall rule. On the other hand, I don't know if it would be good to accept the edge fort as a White win.

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Alea Evangelii

Post by Hagbard » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:01 pm

Marco wrote:

I just received from the library a copy of L’enluminure et le sacré by Dominique Barbet-Massin: a scholarly book (in French) which includes an extensive discussion of Alea Evangelii and MS 122.
I also found an online source (The Irish Invented Chess! By Brian Nugent) which provides a complete translation of the labels on the diagram. Barbet-Massin's work seems much more detailed and reliable, but here are a few preliminary information (and a diagram) derived from Nugent's book.

Image

The “primary man” inside the board is labeled “fer gabala”, which in ancient Irish means “the taking man” (“homme de l'invasion”, “the man of the invasion”, according to Barbet-Massin).

I can also correct and complete my previous notes:

Image

Top left corner:
MAT – P[rorsum] et r[etro]
"Matthew – Straight forwards or backwards" (according to Nugent, these words are Gilbert's interpretation of what looks like a modern style “p t r”, the source is John Thomas Gilbert “Facsimiles of National Manuscripts of Ireland”)


1A – id est resurrectionem vel [?] regnum . Quis [?] adfiadar matha
“Resurrection or kingdom - as Matthew relates” (the last words are ancient Irish)

1B – Tres t[er] bis cum bina adiectione hic intelliguntur id est in Mattheo
“Here one understands twice three three times with two addictions (3*3*2+2=20) in Matthew”


2A – Nativitas in luca – N id est noi – L id est Lauta
“The Nativity in Luke”

2B – Tres t[er] bis cum singulam detractions hic intelliguntur id est in Luca
“Here one understands twice three three times with a single subtraction (3*3*2-1=17) in Luke”.

3A – iohannes id est gene[a]logia in iohan[n]e
“John i.e. the genealogy in John”

3B – Tres quinquies sine utroque contemplatur id est in iohan[n]e
3C – Adiectio et detractio
“We see a three five times without either one (addiction and subtraction) i.e. in John”

Bottom left corner:
M A P[rorsum] et R[etro]
“Mark - Straight forwards or backwards”

4A – Profetia in Marco
“The prophecy in Mark”

4C - Tres quinquies sine utroque id est in Marco
“A three five times without any of the two, i.e. in Mark.”

5 – Signifi[c]at haec figura in alea passionem xpi [christi]
“This symbol represents on the board the passion of Christ”
Last edited by Hagbard on Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Alea Evangelii

Post by Hagbard » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:35 pm

17x17 Alea Evangelii? Marco wrote:

In her book L’enluminure et le sacré, Dominique Barbet-Massin presents the following argument (p.360):
Le dessin du damier tel qu'il est représenté, montrant des pions disposés autour d'un pion “unitaire” au centre, ou défendant les quatre cases d'angles, est en effet celui d'un jeu de damier celtique ou scandinave, dont on peut rectifier facilement les erreurs de placement des pions. Il s'agit en fait d'un damier à nombre de lignes impaires , 17x17 lignes en tout [footnote:210], les pions étant disposés sur les lignes. Si on reprend la méthode de calcul indiquée précédemment: 1 + (4xn) pions contre 2 x (4xn) pions adverses, où n est proportionnel à la taille du damier (n=1 pour le damier a 7 lignes, le plus petit), n aura comme valeur 6 pour le damier à 17 lignes, on aboutit à un damier de 73 pions (72 pions plus le roi au centre). On retrouve donc exactement le nombre de pions indiqueés dans l'Alea Evangelii, en tenant compte du fait que ce jeu n'inclut pas le I central comme soixante-treizième pion.

[210] Et non 19 comme indiqué généralement. Voir E. Mac White, “Early Irish Board Games”, C. Sterckx “Les Jeux de damiers celtiques”. Il y a confusion de lecture, en effet, entre les bords du damier, où les pions peuvent avoir l'air d'etre disposés, et les lignes horizontales ou verticales où ils sont réellement disposés. Les pions ne sont jamais sur les lignes extérieures (les bords) du damier.
My attempt at a translation:

The layout of the board, as it is represented, showing some pieces placed around a central “unary” piece, or defending the four corner cells, actually corresponds to the layout of a Celtic or Scandinavian board-game, in which it is easily possible to correct the errors in the placement of the pieces. Actually, this is a board with an odd number of lines, totally 17x17 lines [footnote:210], the pieces are placed on the lines. If one considers the method of computation previously presented: 1+(4xn) pieces against 2x(4xn) adversary pieces, where “n” is proportional to the size of the board (n=1 for the 7 lines board, the smallest), “n” will have value 6 for the 17 lines board, one gets a board for 73 pieces (72 pieces plus the central king). So one finds exactly the number of pieces specified in the Alea Evangelii, considering that the game does not include the central I as the 73rd piece.

[footnote 210] And not 19 as generally stated. See E. Mac White, “Early Irish Board Games”, C. Sterckx “Les Jeux de damiers celtiques”. Actually, there is a confusion between the borders of the board, where the pieces may seem to be placed, and the horizontal and vertical lines, where they are really placed. The pieces never are on the external lines (the borders) of the board.


The author also presents an illustration from an VIII Century Irish manuscript of the Gospels (Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. I.2.4° 2, folio 2r). The illustration is based on the two words “Evangelia Veritatis” (Gospels of Truth). The starting “E” is at the center of the diagram, while the final “S” is presented in the four corners.
evangelia_veritatis.jpg
Her opinion is that the illustration presents interesting (but possibly coincidental) similarities with Alea Evangelii (p.377):
On a donc ainsi un point central, nettement souligné, entouré d'un petit losange, puis d'un deuxième plus grand et mis en valeur. Les angles du carré sont aussi clairement identifiés. Si on compte les lettres par ligne, on s'apercoit également qu'elles sont au nombre de 17. Le verso du folio 2 montre d'ailleurs que le dessin a été construit selon un quadrillage de 18 carrés qui a servi à placer les lettres de facon régulière. L'ensemble du diagramme présente donc de fortes ressemblances avec le damier du jeu de l'Alea Evangelii. Le dessin lui-meme se présente en regard d'un poème sur les tables des canons.
One thus has a central point, clearly marked, surrounded by a small diamond, and then a second one, larger and highlighted. The corners of the square are also clearly marked. If one counts the number of letters per line, one can see that they are 17. The back of sheet 2 also shows that the design has been built on a grid of 18 squares that was used to place the letters in a regular way. So the whole diagram shows strong similarities with the board of the Alea Evangelii game. The drawing itself is presented in the context of a poem about the tables of the canons.

The following is my interpretation of Barbet-Massin's arguments for considering the Alea Evangelii board as 17 x 17.

1) By comparison with other known games, a game with 73 pieces should be played on a 17x17 board. This is more clearly expressed by Damian Walker's formula (“Reconstructing Hnefatafl”, p.32).

p=6w-29 (where p is the number of pieces and w is the width of the board)
w=(p+29)/6 for p=73 we get width=(102/6)=17


2) The 19x19 grid of the manuscript includes the borders, which should not be counted as playing spaces. In the diagram, the pieces are never placed exactly on the outer lines: they are always shifted towards the center of the board. But pieces that are not near the boarders are placed exactly at the intersection of two lines. The diagram includes two rows and two columns that contain no pieces. Those lines are redundant.
border.png
The author also presents an illustration from an VIII Century Irish manuscript of the Gospels (Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. I.2.4° 2, folio 2r). The illustration is based on the two words “Evangelia Veritatis” (Gospels of Truth). The starting “E” is at the center of the diagram, while the final “S” is presented in the four corners.
evangelia_veritatis.jpg
Her opinion is that the illustration presents interesting (but possibly coincidental) similarities with Alea Evangelii (p.377):
On a donc ainsi un point central, nettement souligné, entouré d'un petit losange, puis d'un deuxième plus grand et mis en valeur. Les angles du carré sont aussi clairement identifiés. Si on compte les lettres par ligne, on s'apercoit également qu'elles sont au nombre de 17. Le verso du folio 2 montre d'ailleurs que le dessin a été construit selon un quadrillage de 18 carrés qui a servi à placer les lettres de facon régulière. L'ensemble du diagramme présente donc de fortes ressemblances avec le damier du jeu de l'Alea Evangelii. Le dessin lui-meme se présente en regard d'un poème sur les tables des canons.
One thus has a central point, clearly marked, surrounded by a small diamond, and then a second one, larger and highlighted. The corners of the square are also clearly marked. If one counts the number of letters per line, one can see that they are 17. The back of sheet 2 also shows that the design has been built on a grid of 18 squares that was used to place the letters in a regular way. So the whole diagram shows strong similarities with the board of the Alea Evangelii game. The drawing itself is presented in the context of a poem about the tables of the canons.

The following is my interpretation of Barbet-Massin's arguments for considering the Alea Evangelii board as 17 x 17.

1) By comparison with other known games, a game with 73 pieces should be played on a 17x17 board. This is more clearly expressed by Damian Walker's formula (“Reconstructing Hnefatafl”, p.32).

p=6w-29 (where p is the number of pieces and w is the width of the board)
w=(p+29)/6 for p=73 we get width=(102/6)=17


2) The 19x19 grid of the manuscript includes the borders, which should not be counted as playing spaces. In the diagram, the pieces are never placed exactly on the outer lines: they are always shifted towards the center of the board. But pieces that are not near the boarders are placed exactly at the intersection of two lines. The diagram includes two rows and two columns that contain no pieces. Those lines are redundant.
border.png
3) If we interpret Alea Evangelii as a 17x17 game, we obtain a diagram that is similar to another ancient Irish illustration related to the Canonical tables of the Gospels (Evangelia Veritatis).

From what I understand, Barbet-Massin's hypothesis is that the original Alea Evangelii layout was something like this, where the dark blue border is not included in the playing area:
alea_evangelii_17x717.png
Unless I missed something, the author does not explain how the expression “nine steps twice over” (IX. gradus bis) in the description of the game could be interpreted in the context of a 17x17 board. MS 122 also states that “324 squares are contained in the table; for 18x18=324".
Last edited by Hagbard on Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Modern Alea Evangelii

Post by Hagbard » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:43 pm

plantagenêt wrote:

About the Alea Evangelii Tablut, I offer this variant that it seems to me to be an amelioration:
_ _ A _ _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A _ _ A _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A _ _ _ _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A _ _ _ _ A
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ A _ A _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ A _ N _ N _ A _ _ _ _ _ _
A _ A _ _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A _ _ A _ A
_ _ _ _ A _ _ _ _ O _ _ _ _ A _ _ _ _
_ _ _ A _ _ _ _ D _ D _ _ _ _ A _ _ _
_ _ _ _ N _ _ D _ D _ D _ _ N _ _ _ _
_ _ _ A _ _ O _ D K D _ O _ _ A _ _ _
_ _ _ _ N _ _ D _ D _ D _ _ N _ _ _ _
_ _ _ A _ _ _ _ D _ D _ _ _ _ A _ _ _
_ _ _ _ A _ _ _ _ O _ _ _ _ A _ _ _ _
A _ A _ _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A _ _ A _ A
_ _ _ _ _ _ A _ N _ N _ A _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ A _ A _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A _ _ _ _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A _ _ _ _ A
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ A _ _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A _ _ A _ _

A=attackers, D=simple defenders, K=the king, N=knight and O=ogre
The goal of the both players is the same like in Alea Evangelii Tablut except that the king has at his disposal 8 knights (like in Berserk Hnefatafl but there aren't the berserk rules) and 4 ogres. The ogres move like all others pieces and can be captured by two men like knights, simple defenders and the king, they may participate to ordinary captures like all other pieces, that's to say, by sandwiching an opponent's man but, in more than that, they may capture (or you can say "eat" as it's an ogre) a piece by making a short move into the piece's square as long as the ogre is on an adjacent square of the piece. A knight may participate to a sandwich capture at the end of a jump capturing and an ogre can participate to a sandwich capture at the end of its move capturing.

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Alea Evangelii 19x19

Post by Hagbard » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:40 pm

Interesting discussion!

The Alea Evangelii set up can be tried in the online games with weak (tablut) king and unarmed king, and in both cases the defending side seems hopeless.

Strong king might have a chance to get through to the edge. But the Alea Evangelii board has marked corner squares, so the strong king should be expected to win in corner. This would be impossible as the attackers on a3, a6, c1 and f1 blocks the corner a1 in four easy moves, forming the blocking line a4, b3, c2, d1. Likewise in the other corners.

So something must be missing to get the Alea Evangelii set up to work.

Plantagenet put forward interesting ideas for special pieces in this thread:
http://aagenielsen.dk/hnefataflforum/vi ... =227&p=937
Plantagenet wrote:The ogres move like all others pieces and canbe captured by two men like ... simple defenders and the king, they may participate to ordinary captures like all other pieces, that's to say, by sandwiching an opponent's man but, in more than that, they may capture (or you can say "eat" as it's an ogre) a piece by making a short move into the piece's square as long as the ogre is on an adjacent square of the piece.
This ogre character is interesting, although I see not an ogre, but instead what's in Danish called a kæmpe; the English translation "giant" is not accurate. The king's kæmper were extraordinary fighters, whose names are often remembered to this day, fx. one of king Rolf Krake's outstanding men Bjarke, who killed a bear.

The idea of the usual custodian capture is that men are equals, so that it takes two to kill one.
But an outstanding fighter, a kæmpe, would kill a lesser man alone.
It would be natural for such a piece to move like Plantagenet proposes: when next to an enemy (ordinary men), he can kill the enemy and take his place.
I suppose that if there are such fighters in the game, the king will have to be one such also, if the balance allows it.

The diagrams uploaded by marc0 show four attackers' front lines, where the center piece of each line is special, an evangelist (f6 etc., "variegated men").
Also the four top points in the king's inner diamond are specially marked with Roman numbers (j7 etc.).
I'd say that those four attackers and four defenders could be such outstanding fighting men.
marc0 wrote:The "primary man" inside the board is labeled "fer gabala", which in ancient Irish means "the taking man" ("homme de l'invasion", "the man of the invasion", according to Barbet-Massin).
It seems to me that the label refers to the evangelist Marcus which is next to the label.
The evangelists are missionaries, outstanding fighters, they capture souls for Christianity. And in the very center perhaps God himself?

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Alea Evangelii 19x19

Post by Hagbard » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:29 am

marc0 wrote:
Hagbard wrote:Interesting discussion!

The Alea Evangelii set up can be tried in the online games with weak (tablut) king and unarmed king, and in both cases the defending side seems hopeless.

Strong king might have a chance to get through to the edge. But the Alea Evangelii board has marked corner squares, so the strong king should be expected to win in corner. This would be impossible as the attackers on a3, a6, c1 and f1 blocks the corner a1 in four easy moves, forming the blocking line a4, b3, c2, d1. Likewise in the other corners.

So something must be missing to get the Alea Evangelii set up to work.
Hello Hagbard,
thank you very much for this nice summary of the current situation!
Could you please post the links to the two online versions you mentioned?
Hagbard wrote:Plantagenet put forward interesting ideas for special pieces in this thread:
http://aagenielsen.dk/hnefataflforum/vi ... =227&p=937
Plantagenet wrote:The ogres move like all others pieces and canbe captured by two men like ... simple defenders and the king, they may participate to ordinary captures like all other pieces, that's to say, by sandwiching an opponent's man but, in more than that, they may capture (or you can say "eat" as it's an ogre) a piece by making a short move into the piece's square as long as the ogre is on an adjacent square of the piece.
This ogre character is interesting, although I see not an ogre, but instead what's in Danish called a kæmpe; the English translation "giant" is not accurate. The king's kæmper were extraordinary fighters, whose names are often remembered to this day, fx. one of king Rolf Krake's outstanding men Bjarke, who killed a bear.

The idea of the usual custodian capture is that men are equals, so that it takes two to kill one.
But an outstanding fighter, a kæmpe, would kill a lesser man alone.
It would be natural for such a piece to move like Plantagenet proposes: when next to an enemy (ordinary men), he can kill the enemy and take his place.
I suppose that if there are such fighters in the game, the king will have to be one such also, if the balance allows it.
The manuscript mentions two types of pieces: “duces” (“leaders” or “dukes”) and “comites” (“soldiers” or “counts”). I agree that the King could have the same characteristics as the Dukes. Plantagenet's ogre / kaempe pieces could make the corner squares accessible for the defenders. I wonder if Bell's rule for the homonym “ludus latrunculorum” “duces” could be an alternative. If those pieces are able to jump over enemy pieces, they should help in breaking the a4-d1 line of the attackers: “5. The dux can move like the rest of the pieces, or can jump over an enemy piece that is in an adjacent square. The jumped piece is not captured by the move. Of course, the move can have as consequence the capture of another piece”.
Hagbard wrote:The diagrams uploaded by marc0 show four attackers' front lines, where the center piece of each line is special, an evangelist (f6 etc., "variegated men").
Also the four top points in the king's inner diamond are specially marked with Roman numbers (j7 etc.).
I'd say that those four attackers and four defenders could be such outstanding fighting men.
The four “variegated (or different) men” do not correspond to the four evangelists: they belong only to Mark and John. Yet they are the most prominently “special” pieces in the diagram (but for the central Unary Man). I agree that (as already noted by Adam) identifying special pieces with some of the labeled “men” on the diagram makes sense: I find your proposal of considering as special the four points of the diamond (Canon I) and the “variegated men” consistent with the evidence we have.
Hagbard wrote:
marc0 wrote:The "primary man" inside the board is labeled "fer gabala", which in ancient Irish means "the taking man" ("homme de l'invasion", "the man of the invasion", according to Barbet-Massin).
It seems to me that the label refers to the evangelist Marcus which is next to the label.
The evangelists are missionaries, outstanding fighters, they capture souls for Christianity. And in the very center perhaps God himself?
As stated above, in my opinion, the “variegated man” cannot be identified with Marcus: 15 ordinary pieces and two of the variegated men (F14 an N6) are assigned to this evangelist. So there is no single pieces which “is” Marcus in the Christian allegory.
The fact that “fer gabala” refers to the “primary man” (E13) is rather clear, since the piece appears between the two words “fer” and “gabala”. Nugent and Barbet-Massin (the two sources discussing “fer gabala” I am aware of) agree on this point. I think that the image by Nugent makes a good job at making more readable the manuscript diagram while being faithful to the original.

I agree that the central piece (being associated with the Trinity) can be identified with God.

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Alea Evangelii 19x19

Post by Hagbard » Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:19 pm

marc0 wrote:
Hagbard wrote:
marc0 wrote:Could you please post the links to the two online versions you mentioned?
http://aagenielsen.dk/tafl_humans.php
Invite for a new game.
More variants.
Choose "Hnefatafl edge 19x19", "Sea battle tafl 19x19" or "Tablut 19x19".
Thank you Hagbard!
It occurred to me that (if I understand correctly) the Ogre/Kaempe rules applied to the king would make it impossible to capture him by sandwiching (since he can "eat" any adjacent piece). I think that it would be interesting to have four such pieces for both the attacking and the defending side, but I think that the King would still behave as an ordinary piece. Or have I got something wrong?

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Alea Evangelii 19x19

Post by Hagbard » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:27 pm

marc0 wrote:It occurred to me that (if I understand correctly) the Ogre/Kaempe rules applied to the king would make it impossible to capture him by sandwiching (since he can "eat" any adjacent piece).
Yes, of course you're right. It slipped my mind. The king has to be unchanged.

Hagbard
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Alea Evangelii 19x19

Post by Hagbard » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:52 pm

Yes. And another question is: which type of king would be the most likely to balance such a game? Armed and captured from 4 sides, armed and captured from 2 sides, or unarmed and captured from 4 sides? If the marked corners are used as escape points, the king should be armed and captured from 4 sides; anyway that's how it is in the other variants.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest