Recently I announced ...

August 27 in 2015
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=345&start=250#p16435

Franco Pratesi has found 3 new appearances of the word "naibi" in cases of the justice ... all in the year 1398.

1398: Firenze – Primi naibi nei Libri del Giglio
http://naibi.net/A/416-GIGLIO300-Z.pdf

9 gennaio 1398 (Libro N. 3 c. 41r – fra le condanne del Capitano):
Meo di Nanni da Siena fu trovato giuchare anaibj. pagho adj 18 di
giennaio L.10.

21 settembre 1398 (Libro N. 3 c. 84v fra le condanne
dell’Esecutore): Per Giuliano di Checho popolo S.ta Lucia dognissanti
preso per giuocho anaibj. pagho adj 19 dottobre L.10.

11 novembre 1398 (Libro N. 3 c. 86r fra le condanne
dell’Esecutore): Antonio di Francecoleso(?) popolo San Friano preso
a giucho di naibj. pagho L.10 questo(?) di 29 di marzo 1399

... followed by ...
31 Aug 2015
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=345&start=250#p16436

Further findings of Franco Pratesi in Florence from similar sources as before.

1388-1396: Firenze − Condanne per naibi da parte dell’Esecutore
http://naibi.net/A/417-ESECUTORE-Z.pdf

"19.12.1388. (N. 1050, c. 107r): Cherricus Michaelis de Salseburge de
Alamania inventus fuit per militem et familiam praesentis domini Executoris
ludere ad ludum naiborum contra formam statutorun communis Florentiae."
Franco's comment:
"Questa cattura indicata espressamente per il gioco di naibi presenta più punti
degni di nota. La data appare assai precoce e ci dimostra che allora le leggi
che vietavano i naibi erano già fatte rispettare. Su quanto lo fossero ci
rimangono dei dubbi. Il punto notevole qui è che viene catturato un
“alemanno” di Salisburgo, e che questo rappresenta il solo giocatore
catturato. Non si può certo pensare che fosse stato preso mentre con le carte
da gioco faceva un solitario! Allora forse, coi giocatori fiorentini la famiglia
dell’esecutore era pronta a chiudere un occhio."

...

"22.11.1394 (N. 1242, c. 29v) : Nicholaus Ser Anthonij populi S.ti
Johannis de Florentia repertus fuit per militem et familiam predicti(?)
domini executoris ludere ad ludum nayborum seu cartarum contra formam
(…) statutorum… "

...

"20.01.1395 (N. 1242, c. 31v): Grassus Grassi ferrator populi S.te Lucie
de Magnolis de Florentia repertus fuit per me notarium( ?) et familiam
predictam ludere ad ludum cartarum seu nayborum contra formam
statutorum et ordinament(orum) dictis communis… "

...

"25.12.1395 (N. 1276, c. 44v): Bertus(?) Zenobij de populi S.te Marie
Maioris de Florentia - Andreas (+++) - repert(i?) per familiam domini
executoris ludere ad ludum naiborum contra formam statutorum communis
Florentiae…"

...

"18.11.1396 (N. 1309, c. 24r): Johannes a Ture(?) stipendiarius inventus
fuit per familiam domini executoris ludere ad carticulas contra formam
statutorum communis Florentiae et captus fuit familiam dicti domini
Executoris. − Nannes Becholj(?) stipendiarius de civitate Castelli inventus
fuit per familiam domini Executoris ludere as carticulas contra formam
statutorum communis Florentiae et captus fuit per Anthonium de
perusio(?)."

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

Now Franco Pratesi has published 4 (or 3?) further articles to the same source "Libri del Giglio"

1.

4/20. 1401-1425: Firenze – Condanne per i naibi nei Libri del Giglio. (24.09.2015)
http://www.naibi.net/A/420-GIGLIO400-Z.pdf

This relates to the years 1401-1425. It contains 60 findings about playing card use, which was punished and had to be paid as a fine, mostly 10 Lira.

1401: 1
1407: 4
1410: 1
1411: 7
1415: 25
1416: 2
1417: 6
1418: 2
1419: 2
1420: 2
1421: 4
1422: 1
1424: 1
1425: 2

Curiously the year 1415 has very much punishments. It's the year, when the council of Constance started. From earlier researches we had indications of a curious situation at the data of the Lapini family also in the year 1415.
http://trionfi.com/lapini-playing-cards
The Lapini family sold very high numbers of playing card decks in this year.

2.

4/22. 1426-1499: Firenze – Condanne per giochi di carte nei Libri del Giglio. (01.10.2015)
http://www.naibi.net/A/422-GIGLIO450-Z.pdf

In this research Franco persecuted only each 5th or 10th year probably due to the condition, that he didn't found much with the exception for the year 1445:

1426: 0
1430: 0
1435: 0
1440: 0
1445: 9
1450: 0
1455: 0
1460: 1
1465: 1
1469: 0
1475: 0
1480: 0
1489: 0
1499: 0

Cause of this result he researched the years 1440-1450 more carefully in the last article (Nr. 4).

3.

4/23. 1377: Firenze – Condanne ai giocatori di naibi. (09.10.2015)
http://www.naibi.net/A/423-1377-Z.pdf

This is for the moment a bad link, and I don't know, if this finding really belongs to the "Libri di Giglio" series (it's not announced in the title). Anyway, if the title is right, this should be the second oldest playing card note in Florence.
Franco gave the comment: "The note about 1377, I have not yet decided to insert in the web page."

4.

4/24. 1440-1450: Firenze – Condanne per giochi di carte nei Libri del Giglio. (12.10.2015)
http://www.naibi.net/A/424-GIGLIO444-Z.pdf

This is Franco's more detailed research to the years 1440-1450. The results were ...

1440: 0
1441: 0
1442: 13
1443: 7
1444: 2
1445: 9
1446: 0
1447: 0
1448: 1
1449: 0
1450: 0

So some more intensity of persecution in the years 1442-1445.

Franco gave the comment:

The note about 1377, I have not yet decided to insert in the web page.

In 1444 there were two players captured (together supposedly) while playing “alle carte a trionfi” and the corresponding (part of the) fine of 10 Lire is recorded in Libri del giglio. I have commented not only on the date but also on the context. I have not controlled whether your numbers are right – I suppose that they are. Nevertheless, I would insist on one point. Whenever you find some record, you can discuss it in any way you like, but whenever there are no records, this does not at all mean that there was no activity. There are several possible, and different, reasons that can justify the missing data.

So a "0" must not always mean indeed a zero and likely the number of the findings of each year might be open to higher numbers. The number of the Giglio-book for 1499 is "70" ... this alone gives an idea, how much work and time Franco had spend on this research.

This article contained 2 new Trionfi notes, which very likely relate to the same event.




The related texts are ...

Giovanni di Ser Piero popolo San Simone fu preso adi 3 di genaio per giuchare
alle charte a trionfi per presente chapitano. Pagho adi 24 di fìebraio a Batista
Guicciardini cassiere di camera.
Vieri di Nanni popolo San Simone fu preso adi detto per giuchare alle charte a
trionfi per detto rettore. Pagho adi 3 di febraio a Batista Guicciardini cassiere di
camera.

Likely the prohibited action took place at 3rd of January, Vieri di Nanni payed his fine at February 3 and Giovanni di Ser Piero payed at February 24. The cassiere di camera was in both cases Batista Guicciardini and he got the money.

Franco gives 2 pages as comment for the event. He concentrates the fact, that the region, where both players lived, San Simone, is considered as a poor region of the city Florence in 15th century.

An indication of a higher playing card persecution than usual was already given by the analyses of the lists of the silk dealers ...
http://trionfi.com/naibi-silk-dealers
http://trionfi.com/naibi-aquired



... which indicated bad-business-years in the mid 1440s and by the card prohibition activities of Giannozzo Manetti in Pistoia (1446/47 as reported by Bisticci).
One of our earlier discussions to this point ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=815&p=11638&hilit=bisticci#p11638

***********

Anyway, may the prohibition discussion go its own way, these 2 notes of 1444 (which possibly are related only to one event) are the 4th and 5th oldest, that we have now:

1. September 1440: Giusto Giusto document, a deck for Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta
2. Febrary 1442, Sagramoro makes 4 decks for Leonello d'Este
3. July 1442, a deck bought from Marchione Burdochio for the two d'Este boys
4.1444 February 3, Vieri di Nanni payed fine for "giuchare
alle charte a trionfi"
5.1444 February 24, Giovanni di Ser Piero payed fine for "giuchare alle charte a trionfi"
...

... :-) ... the article might have been overlooked. So I attempt a new title. Perhaps I should take "Trionfi cards prohibited"? Or "Tarot cards prohibited"?

I guess, this new detection deserves a welcome.

The new finding of 1444 (punishments for playing Trionfi) likely caused, that Franco Pratesi took another view on the city laws of Siena (1451) and Florence (1450, 1473 and 1477).

1451: Siena – Nuova legge sui giochi 31.10.2015
this gives a new Trionfi note in 1451 in Siena directly

1450, 1473, 1477: Firenze – Leggi sui giochi 07.11.2015
Minchiate not noted for the year 1473, but noted in 1477

both at http://www.naibi.net/

So does this result about minchiate make the recent Playing Card article out of date already?

I don't know the recent IPCS article, it's not the Germini article with the year 1506. Perhaps it's the same.

I see. The 1506 document has the word "germini", whereas the 1477 document has "minchiate". So 1506 is still the earliest occurrence for "germini".

The 1477 document, incidentally, is not a new finding of Franco's. He reported it already in The Playing Card Vol. 19, number 1 (1990), pp. 7-17 (online at http://www.naibi.net/A/30-PRISECO-Z.pdf), with the additional information that in the previous law, for which he then gave a date of 1463, the word "minchiate" did not appear. His July 2015 article (http://www.naibi.net/A/426-FI1473-Z.pdf) does not report anything newly discovered, but does give more details and corrects the 1463 date he gave previously.

The correct date for the law that doesn't mention minchiate is not 1463 but 1473, which is only four years earlier than the law that does. The authority whom Franco was relying on, L. Contini, had correctly reported it himself in Vol. V of his 1803 work Legislazione toscana (p. 240-242), and Franco has verified it directly in the Florence archives.

That is interesting in itself, because new games are always, without exception (including trionfi), first prohibited, and only if they survive despite prohibition are they permitted, with many limitations on the permitted amounts of money to be gambled. Four years is a rather short time for a game to go from "under the radar" (i.e. so little known as not to be mentioned) to "permitted".

There is actually documentation in two places of "minchiate" before 1477. One is the Pulci letter to Lorenzo, of which the original has not been found; another is an actual document of the time that Franco reported in the French journal L’As de Trèfle, in its Number 52 (1993), pp. 9-10 (http://www.naibi.net/A/51-JURON-Z.pdf). In the July 2015 article Franco describes this document, after which he refers to his 1993 article:

Il gioco nel 1466 non era evidentemente diventato ancora così popolare da potersi considerare tradizionale e permesso dalla legge. In effetti, le testimonianze note prima della sua comparsa nella provvisione del 1477 sono molto scarse e una di queste è stata trovata solo perché un giocatore abituale di minchiate fu condannato nel 1471, non per la pratica di quel gioco - alla quale si era dedicato a Cortona per tre mesi del 1470 insieme ad altri stipendiati dal comune di Firenze - ma per le bestemmie collegate.

(The game in 1466 evidently had not yet become so popular as to be considered traditional and permitted by law. Indeed, the testimony notes before its appearance in the provision of 1477 are very scarce; one of these was found only because a regular minchiate player was sentenced in 1471, not for playing the game – to which he was dedicated in Cortona for three months in 1470 along with other persons salaried by the city of Florence - but for associated blasphemy.)

In his July 2015 article, Franco gives the text of the 1477 provision and also discusses what can and cannot be concluded from this and the other occurrences of "minchiate" and "germini" in this era, including a few things about the rules of play. I suppose at some point I can post a translation of it, along with relevant passages of the other articles he refers to, but I'm not sure in what thread to put it.

Yes, it seems that the Trionfi note of "Law in Florence 1463" must be exchanged to "Law in Florence 1473".

Franco has added a further article to the theme "Laws in Forence" for 1514:
4/27. 1514: Firenze – Legge sui giochi. (21.11.2015)
... at naibi.net, number 4/27
The earlier law (1473 + 1477) is more or less repeated. In 1512/13 the Medici had returned to Florence. It stays, that we have no knowledge about the period, when Savonarola reigned in Florence and later - till 1513 (as I interpret it).

Further:

Franco had announced an article about the year 1377.This is now available at http://naibi.net as number 4/23:

1377: Firenze – Condanne ai giocatori di naibi
Franco Pratesi

English abstract
Two books of the Podestà of Florence, with records from July to October 1377, have been examined for this study. In addition to the expected captures of gamblers playing the dice game of Zara − about one hundred − a dozen captures can be read there for players of Naibi, at such an early stage. All these players were Florence dwellers, living in six different parishes all around the town. The spread of the game in Florence is commented on, as well as the implicit confirmation that a remarkable production of playing cards was already established there.

So 12 playing card cases in a period of 3 months.

Huck wrote

Franco has added a further article to the theme "Laws in Forence" for 1514:
4/27. 1514: Firenze – Legge sui giochi. (21.11.2015)
... at naibi.net, number 4/27
The earlier law (1473 + 1477) is more or less repeated. In 1512/13 the Medici had returned to Florence. It stays, that we have no knowledge about the period, when Savonarola reigned in Florence and later - till 1513 (as I interpret it).

Franco in the article examining the 1514 law says that the new law says that the old law had fallen into disuse in recent times--which I take to mean the time after Savonarola but before the establishment of the Duchy under the Medici descendants.

There are five parts to the 1514 law. The first is about the use of ornamentation in dress--fancy necklaces, etc. The third concerns blasphemy and provides stiffer penalties than earlier, as much as 100 lire, an average person's income for a year. But the judge had considerable latitude in sentencing. The fourth and fifth have to do with magistrates and enforcement. It is the second that has to do with prohibited and allowed games. Franco quotes this provision in full:

Et perché esintende che, indifferentemente, in molti luoghi et per molte persone publicamente et etiam in luoghi segreti si guocha a ogni et qualunque guocho etiam proibito non solamente con charico della Città ma anchora con rovina di molti giovani donde ne segue grandissimi danni a padri et maestri equali commettono el governo delle substantie et exercitii loro per necessità a efigluoli et altri giovani. Et desiderando a tale inconveniente rimediare et veduto questo procedere perché le leggi che sopra tale materia disponghono sono ite in desuetudine et emagistrati per ciò deputati non le fanno observare per tanto et per ricordo et consiglio di molti savi cittadini providono et ordinorono:
Che la leggie fatta sopra el guocho l’anno 1473 del mese daprile per la sua finale conclusione per ladivenire sobservi in tutto et per tutto et in ogni parte et effetto con quello che ne fu dipoi aggiunto. per la leggie sotto di 20. del mese di marzo 1376 per la sua finale conclusione.

Since this is in the Tuscan of 1514, it is not that easy to translate, but I will try a rough one:

And because it is understood that. indifferently. in many places by many people publicly and also in secret places play each and every game, also prohibited ones, not only with the burdening of the City but also with ruin of many young people, from which follows very great damage to fathers and masters, also requiring government substance being exercised, by necessity, to children and other young people. And desiring to remedy this shortcoming and seeing this proceeding because the laws ordered on this matter are in disuse and the appointed magistrates do not do much to observe and remember the advice of many wise citizens, be it provided and ordered:
That the laws made about games in the year 1473 in the month of April for its final conclusion become observed in all and in every part and effected with what was afterwards added, to the laws adopted of the 20th of the month of March 1376 for its final conclusion.

Franco then comments:

Allora, dopo la legge molto dettagliata del 1473, seguita dalle leggere modifiche introdotte nel 1477, e dopo una quarantina d’anni in cui i consigli non avevano ridiscusso la materia (anche perché per qualche anno furono addirittura soppressi), cosa avranno avuto da cambiare i legislatori nel 1514? Praticamente nulla. In effetti le vecchie leggi vengono riproposte, come se nel frattempo gli esecutori e i cittadini se ne fossero dimenticati; anzi, viene scritto esplicitamente che quelle leggi erano proprio cadute in disuso.

(Thus, after very detailed law of 1473, followed by slight changes introduced in 1477, and after forty years in which the councils had not reconsidered the matter (because for some years they were even suppressed), what will have to be changed by the legislators in 1514? Practically nothing. In effect the old laws are reaffirmed, as if in the meantime their executors and the public had forgotten them; indeed, it is explicitly written that those laws had in fact fallen into disuse.)

In addition, here is Franco's final conclusion, in the last paragraph of his article:

Conclusione

È stata presentata e discussa, con cenni al contesto storico, una legge fiorentina sui giochi che sembra essere sfuggita all’attenzione degli storici; la legge in questione fu emanata nel gennaio 1514, insieme a disposizioni contro l’eccesso di ornamenti femminili e le bestemmie, il tutto con l’intento di riportare la vita sociale della cittadinanza entro limiti più decenti; altre disposizioni intendevano migliorare il funzionamento degli uffici dei magistrati. Per quanto riguarda i giochi, non si propone niente di nuovo rispetto alla legge approvata nel 1473 e leggermente modificata con quella del 1477; si dichiara che tali leggi ormai cadute in disuso devono essere invece tenute presenti e fatte rispettare. Nonostante il lungo tempo trascorso dalle leggi precedenti, niente di nuovo viene aggiunto relativamente ai giochi di carte esclusi dalle proibizioni.

(Conclusion

A Florentine law on games has been presented and discussed, with nods to the historical context, that seems to have escaped the attention of historians; the law in question was enacted in January 1514, along with provisions against the excess of female ornaments and curses, all with the intent to bring the social life of citizens within decent limits; other provisions were meant to improve the functioning of the offices of the magistrates. As for games, it does not propose anything new with respect to the law passed in 1473 and is slightly modified in relation to that of 1477; It states that these laws now fallen into disuse should instead be taken into account and enforced. Despite the long time passed since the previous laws, nothing new is added in relation to excluded card game prohibitions.)

Franco has more to say, of course, leading up to this conclusion. In particular, this law supports what he had already concluded in another study:

Tuttavia, anche in un recente studio sui Libri del Giglio, è stato verificato che le condanne per il gioco (come del resto quelle per uscite di notte e porto di armi proibite) diminuirono fortemente nella seconda metà del Quattrocento con una deriva continua dei controlli e delle catture, fino a sparire praticamente del tutto.7

(However, in a recent study of the books of Giglio, it was verified that the sentences for the game (as well as those for being out at night and bearing prohibited weapons) declined strongly in the second half of the fifteenth century with a continuous drift of controls, to end by sparing practically all. 7)
_______________________
7. http://www.naibi.net/A/422-GIGLIO450-Z.pdf

There may well be new games since 1477 that now are traditional, changes to old ones, and old games no longer played. Indeed, Lorenzo himself plays germini, as Huck discovered and Franco reitered. "Germini" was not a word used in the old laws; whether it now counts as an allowed game is not totally clear, but probably it is similar enough to minchiate, perhaps even identical, so as to fall under minchiate's 1477 status as a permitted game. Franco argues:

D’altra parte non si deve dimenticare che lo stesso Lorenzo dei Medici era un giocatore abituale di germini e come minimo avrebbe dovuto indicare questo gioco come permesso, se non fosse stato sufficiente il fatto che il gioco delle minchiate era già permesso dalla legge. Anche al termine della sua vita, alcuni degli amici con cui stava governando la città, come ricordato sopra, e in particolare Jacopo Salviati e soprattutto il cognato Filippo Strozzi, condividevano e assecondavano la sua passione per il gioco dei germini. 8

On the other hand we must not forget that Lorenzo de Medici himself was a regular player of germini and at least they should have indicated this game as permittede, had not it been sufficient that the game of minchiate was already allowed by law. Even at the end of his life, some of the friends with whom he was ruling the city, as mentioned above, and particularly Jacopo Salviati and especially his brother-in-law Filippo Strozzi, shared and indulged his passion for the game of germini. 8
________________
8 http://trionfi.com/es19

These details are left to the magistrates, who are not likely to go after Lorenzo in any case. But the main thing now is to re-establish law and order, especially to put a stop to games whose sole purpose is gambling, and re-establish the limits on the amounts to be gambled also in the permitted ones, as in former times when the Medici had played a leading role in the life of the city.