Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#11
In summary, it appears that the notary who commissioned the pack in 1440, Giulio Giusti, worked for the Taglia, a condottiere who serving Sigismondo Malatesta precisely in 1440. Thats mean, my be this deck was a gift from Taglia to Malatesta, perhaps in gratitude for the contract, perhaps for other reasons, such as marking the success of the Battle of Anghiaria.

In spanish:

En resumen, parece ser que el notario que encargó la baraja en 1440, Giulio Giusti, trabajaba para el Taglia, un condottiero que por entonces estaba al servicio de Sigismondo Malatesta, precisamente, la persona para quien estaba destinado este «juego de triunfos». Todo lo cual nos permite sospechar que aquella baraja fue un regalo del Taglia para Malatesta, quizás como agradecimiento por el contrato, quizás por cualquier otra razón, como conmemorar el éxito de la batalla de Anghiari.
When a man has a theory // Can’t keep his mind on nothing else (By Ross)

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#12
mmfilesi wrote:In summary, it appears that the notary who commissioned the pack in 1440, Giulio Giusti, worked for the Taglia, a condottiere who serving Sigismondo Malatesta precisely in 1440. Thats mean, my be this deck was a gift from Taglia to Malatesta, perhaps in gratitude for the contract, perhaps for other reasons, such as marking the success of the Battle of Anghiaria.
I looked up Taglia at condottierodiventura ...
http://www.condottieridiventura.it/cond ... LO%20D.htm

He's called there ANGELO D'ANGHIARI (Angelo Pieri), Fratello di Gregorio, + 1444 (marzo)
His brother Gregorio has a longer life:
GREGORIO D'ANGHIARI (Gottifredo da Brigniano, Gregorio Mazzoni, Gregorio di Vanni). Fratello di Angelo. + 1458 ca.
http://www.condottieridiventura.it/cond ... IO%20D.htm

There are various different names, "il Taglia" isn't mentioned. In September 1440 both have no activities recorded.
From Angelo for June 1440 (time of the battle of Anghiari): "Contrasta le milizie di Niccolò Piccinino. Ottiene a patti Bibbiena; occupa con Niccolò da Pisa anche Rassina e Poppi."


But one can see, that Angelo's activities took place in Toscana from 1430 till 1440, and then after it he was more or less located in the Marche. Perhaps the battle of Anghiari and the September month 1440 indicates the change in his life. The both condottieridiventura biographies indicate relations to Malatesta after September 1440, but not before. In September 1441 (so short before the peacemaking marriage Sforza/Bianca in October) both defend together the location Montelocco for Sigismondo against Montefeltro. I can't identify for the moment, where this Montelocco shall be.

But here ... :
L'inizio della lunga guerra tra Montefeltro e Malatesta

La lunga guerra tra Malatesta e Montefeltro (che, tranne brevi periodi, si sarebbe protratta fino al 1463) iniziò nel 1439[3].

Anticipata da alcune conquiste del signore di Rimini (che nella primavera 1439 occupava il Vicariato di Mondavio, S. Lorenzo - che restituiva ai Montevecchio - e Pergola)[4] e preannunciata dall'occupazione malatestiana, nell'ottobre di quell'anno, dei tre castelli di Casteldelci, Senatello e Faggiola, da poco entrati tra i domini dei Montefeltro[5], la guerra fu dichiarata il 21 di novembre[6].

Tre giorni dopo i Feltreschi inviavano milizie contro Tavoleto, che fu messo al sacco[7]; Sigismondo Pandolfo rispose occupando nel novembre vari castelli fedeli al conte di Urbino[8] e, a dicembre, Montegelli[9]. La guerra, non interrotta neanche nei mesi più freddi[10], sebbene Federico da Montefeltro avesse riportato una grave ferita duranti i combattimenti intorno al castello di Campo[11], riprese più accanita nel marzo, quando i Feltreschi misero a sacco i castelli di Rupoli (nel contado fanese) e di Fossa (nel Montefeltro); furono inoltre ripresi parte dei castelli conquistati, nel novembre precedente, dai Malatestiani[12].

La pace fu finalmente firmata il 26 marzo 1440[13], ma fu di breve durata: infatti il 29 giugno dello stesso anno le genti del duca di Milano erano clamorosamente sbaragliate ad Anghiari. Ne approfittò Sigismondo Pandolfo per cambiare bandiera, sposare la figlia di Francesco Sforza e firmare con il suocero una condotta, nel febbraio 1441[14]: Montefeltro e Malatesta si trovavano così ancora in campi opposti.

Un tentativo di Sigismondo Pandolfo di impadronirsi di Pesaro (nella quale era morto il 21 aprile 1441 Pandolfo Malatesta-Pesaro ed era unico signore Galeazzo, marito di Battista da Montefeltro) non ottenne risultati: occorse alla difesa della città Federico con 200 cavalli e 300 fanti[15].

La guerra si riaccese alla fine di agosto 1441 quando si ribellano Montelocco e S. Croce, due dei castelli da cui i Brancaleoni erano stati cacciati, pochi anni prima, da Guidantonio da Montefeltro: era responsabile della sollevazione Alberico Brancaleoni, dietro al quale stava Sigismondo Pandolfo[16]. Non appena Federico ebbe notizia della ribellione si precipitò sui luoghi: conquistò Santa Croce (21 settembre) e strinse d'assedio Montelocco, dove si erano rifugiate le milizie di Gianfrancesco Oliva (signore di Piandimeleto), capitanate da Gregorio di Anghiari e da Angelo, genero di Alberico. Un primo scontro si ebbe il 1 ottobre, con esito incerto, ma dopo il quale Federico levò il campo: Montelocco sarebbe tornata possesso feltresco solo nel dicembre 1441; nell'agosto dell'anno successivo fu demolito[17].

La guerra nel frattempo proseguiva con alterne vicende: Tavoleto era ripreso dai Malatestiani mentre Federico effettuava una scorreria nel territorio di Rimini e riusciva, qualche giorno dopo, ad espugnare la Rocca di S. Leo, caposaldo malatestiano nel Montefeltro considerato imprendibile[18].

Finalmente si giunse ad una pace, firmata il 22 novembre 1441 con la mediazione di Alessandro Sforza (fratello di Francesco) e preceduta da una tregua bandita alla fine di ottobre (negli stessi giorni veniva firmata la pace tra Milano e Venezia)[19].

Nel corso del 1442 tuttavia si formò una potente coalizione contro lo Sforza comprendente il duca di Milano, il re di Napoli e papa Eugenio IV; insieme a costoro anche una costellazione di signorie minori. Si giunse ben presto alla tregua (dal settembre 1442 all'aprile 1443), ma la resa dei conti era solo rinviata.
So the conflict Sigismondo - Montefeltro was in this time NOT mainly against Sigismondo's later arch enemy Federico da Montefeltro. But the biography of Federico Montefeltro gives data, that Federico played a major role.
http://www.condottieridiventura.it/cond ... Gubbio.htm

Well, this deserves some more careful study. I wouldn't wonder, if Giusto Giusti more than once wrote about Trionfi decks. The family seems to have themselves some money ... and later he works for Malatesta himself for some time, then also for Sforza. It not naturally should have been the smaller condottiero, who paid for the deck, might be general political considerations on Florentine side, who brought Tuscan officials in the service of foreign rulers.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#13
I think Bertrand's point, about the "a" meaning "with," is not minor but quite significant. If Giusto commissioned a deck of naibi with triumphs, he commissioned a deck made up of the common regular cards plus the perhaps uncommon triumphs. From Giusto's use of the word "naibi" for the regular cards, which were used in the inns, it then doesn't follow, nor is it even suggested, that the deck that is a combination of the two, were used in the inns. The combination of common naibi and (i.e. with) possibly uncommon triumphs may well have been uncommon.

And in fact, it would be strange for Giusto to be giving Malatesta merely an expensive version of something common, as I think Girolamo suggested. That would be like giving Malatesta a set of ivory dominoes with his coat of arms on them, or a pair of gold-plated dice: something which Malatesta would rightfully take offense at, as though saying, "you're rich and powerful, and deserve rich gifts, but you're really just an uncultured commoner."

No, it is more likely that the combination common cards plus triumphs was fairly rare, a new fashion that had recently taken hold, probably, and one that connotes high society. That might have meant a game up to then based in the nobility, and thereby a status-symbol among those who weren't "old blood" like the Visconti and the Estensi. It is possible that Malatesta would have considered the Signori of Florence high enough society; I don't know. But I'd guess that something the Visconti had would have been even more desirable (and even more if Visconti's condottiere had it, too,).

To be sure, Florence was likely in the forefront of producing triumph decks in the 1440s and certainly the 1450s, a prominence that may have been taken over by Bologna later. But the fact of production does not mean origination. Florence was a town of wealthy bankers and merchants who were also art patrons. There was a base of skilled painters there that made it at a natural base for card production for the affluent but untitled. Someone could bring a design in from elsewhere, even borrow a deck from someone, and have a deck done with those concepts.

Before Sept. 1440, we have no idea. The new fashion may have come out of the Conclave of 1438-1439, where people might have been exposed, from members of the Ferrara court or from Lombard or Ferrarese-based attendees of the Conclave, to a game that up to then had been mainly an educational one in the principles of Christian life for women and children of the nobility and little regarded otherwise, and one which boys were expected to forget about in favor of chess by adolescence.. But as such it might have been a game supported by the clergy in the lands from Milan to Ferrara, And perhaps some recent rule changes made the game more complex and of more interest to educated adults.

For Ferrara before 1440, we have the evidence (http://trionfi.com/playing-cards-ferrara-1422) of the 1422 document of 13 "newly made" cards along with the repainting of four "para", which I take probably to mean combinations of number and figure cards, i.e. suits ("para" meaning here originally, "combination of two"; see Florio's entry at http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/florio/search/370r.html), The 13 cards are probably not tarots, because they are described as 5 "figures" plus 8 other cards. If they were tarots, they would presumably all be called figures. (However I am not sure about what exactly "figures" means.). In any case, they are likely a fifth suit, which is what triumphs became, and the painter "Iacomo" is likely the Iacomo Sagramoro who painted the "triumphs" of Feb 1442 and the "14 cards" of Jan. 1441. So this is some weak evidence of tarot or proto-tarot activity in Ferrara.

For Milan, there is the evidence of the Michelino, a proto-tarot in that it had what appeared to be 16 special cards that would have trumped the regular cards. There are also the devices on the canopy of the Cary-Yale Love card, which look like they might have originated in a somewhat similar card in a deck done for the 1428 marriage of Filippo Visconti and his new Savoy duchess. (The Cary-Yale Love card itself of course has other details that suggest a different marriage.) Moreover, the clothing of the Cary-Yale and Brera-Brambilla are similar to that in sketches done c. 1430 by Pisanello. None of these suggestions is at all conclusive, to be sure; all could have other explanations. But they are suggestive.

Bologna has the 17th century painting with the sentence written underneath, containing several verifiably false statements, but declaring that the "tarochino" was invented by Francesco Fibbia, who died in 1410. This Fibbia actually existed, as Vitali's research indicates. This writing is to be sure also is merely suggestive.

Concerning Florence, there is the Ferrarese document that the Parasina d'Este arranged to have "brought from Florence" a pack ("paro") of "VIII Imperadori" (http://trionfi.com/imperatori-cards-ferrara-1423), a possible ancestor of the tarot. It also suggests that Florence was even then a producer of hand-painted specialty cards. Likewise, the fact that Florence produced a deck with triumphs in Sept. 1440 does give some credit to the suggestion that they originated there, since it is the earliest dated document known. However the circumstances of the gift also point in the other direction, that the deck of common cards plus triumphs originated in the courts of the Emperor-sanctioned hereditary nobility.

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#14
Well ... in the interpretation of the conditions in the relation of Giusto Giusti and Sigismondo .... (btw ... Ross, there's an error in your link in the first post; strange enough, one HAS TO embed the link in an url - command, which isn't necessary in other cases)

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giu ... ografico)/
Il G. fu al campo fiorentino presso Lucca con Angelo e Gregorio tra il 1437 e il 1438, e poi in Mugello e in Casentino tra la primavera e l'estate 1440. Fu in Romagna e nelle Marche tra il 1440 e il 1442 con Agnolo Taglia, passato al servizio di Sigismondo Malatesta e poi del conte Francesco Sforza; a Pisa e nel contado bolognese con Gregorio di Vanni tra la fine del 1445 e il luglio 1446, e poi in Romagna sul finire dello stesso anno; ancora con Gregorio a Bologna nell'agosto 1447 e, sempre con lui, nei vari spostamenti compiuti dal campo fiorentino nella Toscana occidentale tra il novembre 1447 e l'autunno 1448.

Spesso la sua partecipazione agli eventi militari si spinse ben oltre la semplice presenza come "cancelliere del soldo". Il 28 maggio 1440, con alcuni degli uomini della compagnia di Agnolo Taglia, il G. cavalcava verso Montagutello e i territori di madonna Anfrosina da Montedoglio, vedova di Carlo Tarlati da Pietramala e alleata dei Milanesi contro Firenze, facendo razzia di bestiame. Tra la fine d'agosto e l'ottobre 1441 prendeva parte alla spedizione organizzata da Agnolo Taglia e dal cognato di questo Alberigo Brancaleoni per strappare a Guidantonio da Montefeltro alcuni castelletti del Montefeltro un tempo appartenuti ai Brancaleoni e che, a seguito dell'accordo di pace tra Sigismondo Malatesta e Guidantonio, il Taglia fu costretto a restituire, cedendo al contempo anche la piccolissima signoria che aveva iniziato a costituire con l'appoggio del Malatesta tra Romagna e Toscana acquistando nel novembre 1439 da Laudadeo da Sarsina, al costo di 4000 ducati veneziani, Castel d'Elci, Senatello e la Faggiola, per intermediazione e per atto rogato dallo stesso Giusti.

I frequenti rapporti intrattenuti come procuratore di conestabili con i principali cittadini fiorentini, e specialmente con Cosimo de' Medici, avevano permesso al G. di costruire un legame di familiarità e fiducia con gli uomini del regime mediceo, che gli valse importanti incarichi, sia informali sia ufficiali. Il 19 ag. 1442, alla notizia del passaggio da Città di Castello di Francesco Piccinino, il vicario di Anghiari lo inviò con 20 fanti anghiaresi alla guardia di Monterchi, che insieme con Valialle e Montagutello era stata sottratta dai Fiorentini a madonna Anfrosina da Montedoglio all'indomani della battaglia di Anghiari (29 giugno 1440). Di lì a poco, il 21 febbr. 1443, la Signoria lo elesse primo vicario fiorentino di Monterchi. Il 16 luglio 1445 venne nominato dagli Otto di guardia ambasciatore del Comune di Firenze a Francesco Piccinino al campo in Lunigiana. Il 28 agosto dello stesso anno venne incaricato da Cosimo de' Medici, appena eletto gonfaloniere, da Neri di Gino Capponi e da Alamanno Salviati, di una non meglio precisata missione segreta a Siena. E ancora, nominato commissario il 5 ott. 1446, ricevette mandato dagli Otto di guardia di Firenze di recarsi ad Anghiari e a Sansepolcro per impedire il passo verso la Lombardia al conte Carlo da Montone, che stava recandosi in aiuto al duca di Milano.
For understanding the role of Giusto Guisti one likely has to read the recent work (2002), which was detected by Depaulis. The diary of Guisti seems to have gotten not much attention earlier and maybe also the connected persons.
http://sydney.edu.au/arts/italian/staff ... igin.shtml
“I Giornali di Ser Giusto Giusti d’Anghiari (1437–1482).” Letteratura italiana antica 3 (2002): 40–249. (Introduction, edition, glossary and index)
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#15
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:I translated it as if both terms (naibi a trionfi and carte da trionfi) mean the same thing - i.e., they refer to the exact same object, a pack of triumph cards - so that any distinction in literal sense would convey no information.
that is a very likely so.
Do you think there might be a difference between a pack of naibi a trionfi and a pack of carte da trionfi?
If my understanding of it by comparison to the french language is accurate, there might be - although ly language skills are far from those of an expert. In my understanding "naibi a trionfi" translated to "cartes à triomphes" may be understood as "cards with triumphs" - but also as "cards to play triumphs" as in "triumphs cards" - while "carte da trionfi" translated to "cartes de triomphes" would be closer to "triumphs cards" as in "cards of the game of triumphs".
Since I posted this I discussed about it with a serious historian working on 14th century italian history, who told me that there was probably not much difference, but he's not particularly aware of the context of tarot history.

I wasn't aware of Dummett translation, which sounds as you note unjustified. This is peculiar as I'd naturally emphasize the difference for "naibi a trionfi", not to bring back the idea of a separate "triumphs game", but it might correlate the idea of the trionfi pack seen as an enhanced deck... which is not a big deal.

As a side note, since we're no longer talking about facts here, I don't agree about Mikeh proposition : "it is more likely that the combination common cards plus triumphs was fairly rare" ; on the contrary regarding what I wrote above, this would mean the "naibi a trionfi" might be taken for regular naibi, weren't if for the extra suit - so it could suggest that they would have been of a standard common quality.

Honestly, I believe this detail is much too vague and ambiguous to take any serious conclusion from it.

Bertrand

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#16
Dummett said : manufacturers love to repeat the same deck, players hate to change packs.
Gambling is serious. Fashionable courts and artists may change mood and icons, not a card manufacturer nor his customers. With sir Michael, I think that a deck is established when it is popular. Inns, that's the key word.

I am still convinced that Bologna is one of the right places to transform a bizarre deck into a serious established pack. For many reasons. Baldassarre Cossa's taxes on cards are dated 1405. Ross teases me. With good reasons. I am Bolognese... moreover I am bad when giving road indications. :D

You are after the place where tarots were first established. After the spot where the bizarre trump icons were chosen and put together. Giusto Giusti d'Anghiari tells us that tarots were well known and produced in Florence in 1440. Florence produced also the carte da Imperatori for Parisina Malatesta married to Niccolò III d'Este back in 1423. No doubt that Florentines produced playing cards since long, say from their arrival. What a kind of cards ? expensive and luxury card only ? Let's see.

In the first half of XV century, Florence was a town state, a republic. There was no lord with a court. Local aristocracy had been depleted of any power since decades. There were few families, wealthy, bourgeois families fighting against each other for supremacy. A kind of industrial revolution had occurred, with social unrest, strikes and capitalism. Bourgeoisie had taken over. In XIV century, the winners were mostly manufacturers and merchants. At the end of XIV century, the growing business stimulated a new venture : finance. Florentine XV century saw the supramacy of bankers and a stiff fight between bankers. (By the way, does Florence history ring a bell.... ? :) )

Very seldom something new is produced from scratch to be exported only. Almost always, something new is produced for the local demand. If successful, the product is manufactured relevantly, investments are poured on it, the output quality grows, and export begins. In general terms, Florentines produced cards for themselves. The overall social picture makes me guess that Florence was producing cards for her opulent bourgeoisie and for her pennyless populace.. In 1478 ca. Lorenzo il Magnifico sang lo fanno insino i contadini.... :D

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#17
GirolamoZorli wrote: Giusto Giusti d'Anghiari tells us that tarots were well known and produced in Florence in 1440.
... .-) ... I think, that he tells us, that Trionfi games were very expensive.

Florence and surrounding had a lot to do with playing card prohibitions. This hadn't been always so, but often enough. Occasionally they had the idea, that those, who accused others, got a part of the fine. That's a rather infamous ruling. That what is known from Germany and what is known from Milan, was much more tolerant. It depended on the condition, if the conservative circles had the power. When Savonarola got the power, they easily burnt playing cards.
This was likely not so intolerant in Lorenzo's time. But in Cosimo's time, when the weak pope Eugen became mighty, it likely caused, that in the mid 1440s playing card prohibitions became (likely) strong. Eugen loved the Franciscans and the Franciscans didn't love playing cards. Eugen been caused, that the feast of fools was prohibited in 1445 in Paris ... that's rather far away, not as near as Florence.

Cosimo loved Eugen, cause he was his banker.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#18
I don't think this new discovery contains enough evidence to change anyone's theories, neither to confirm nor deny it. The only actual confirmation is my prediction that any new evidence discovered of trionfi before 1442, will be within five years of it. So far so good!

That said, I agree with Girolamo. Gambling is serious business; if the new game is popular, good players will not mess about with the design, changing it all the time. It will stay fixed in its popular form. Players don't care what pictures the trumps have on them, they don't mean anything to the game, so they won't go adding new ones for obscure symbolic reasons.

I also tend to think that "naibi" is a common term, and that "carte" took time to establish itself in Italy. At least in Florence, it is the earliest name. The terms occur together in references to playing cards, with phrases like "carte o naibi", indicating that there were two names for the same thing.

Thus, the name Giusto uses is the one he knew to ask for when he commissioned the pack; that is, triumph cards were commonly known as "naibi a trionfi". This term is so far completely unique, a hapax.

Of course Giusto's commissioned pack was expensive - it was a gift for a prince, made especially with his arms, "belli". The expense of this pack says nothing about the generality of "naibi a trionfi".

The span 1440 to 1452 (when Sigismondo asked for another pack of triumph cards, made with his arms, from Lombardy (probably Cremona, Bembo workshop) instead of Florence) shows that he really liked the game, and it was not a passing fancy of youth (1440 he was 23, 1452 he was 35).
Image

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#19
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:I don't think this new discovery contains enough evidence to change anyone's theories, neither to confirm nor deny it. ...
Right. If the aim is to decide chronologically where was first produced the FINAL tarot pack, Giusti does not give us an answer. Florence produced also expensive carte da Imperatori delivered to Parisina d'Este Malatesta, but we have no documents attesting that the game itself was played in Tuscany. Am I wrong ? Giusti says that Florence could produce expensive trionfi back in 1440. Period. Nevertheless, we may conjecture that in Florence tarocchi were well known. (It is difficult to produce something you do not know. It is difficult to imagine 22 bizarre figures. Unless you do not have at least a copy of them. But if you have a copy, the deck is known.)
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Of course Giusto's commissioned pack was expensive - it was a gift for a prince, made especially with his arms, "belli". The expense of this pack says nothing about the generality of "naibi a trionfi".
Agree. The price gives anyway some hint to conjecture about. Obviously, tarot decks are bigger, therefore more expensive. 22 figures plus 4 Queens added, that is 26 figures. If handmade, consider three times the working time. If woodcarved, you need to carve three or more additional sheets. At the beginning, Trionfi was a spectacular pack for rich people. A fancy and expensive gadget for connoisseurs. Tarots arrived to the inns later than the standard deck. With a tarot deck you can play tarot only, with a conmmon deck you can play million different games. No wonder if the game of Trionfo, played with the flexible common cheap deck, was immediately popular. So popular that has stolen the name... I surmise a coffee that when tarots arrived to the inns, people played since long Trionfo and were forced to give the fancy deck another name. Tarocchi. E di quel nome fantastico e bizzarro, di tarocchi, senz'ethimologia....

Re: Florence 1440 - New Earliest Reference to Tarot

#20
We have 4 possible (from these 3 are sure) Trionfi notes in Florence/Ferrara 1440-1442, further Imperatori notes in 1443 and other playing card notes, and then 6-7 years nothing 1440-1450 (one single playing card production recorded), then regular production from 1450-1463 (Ferrara).
These 6-7 years pause must have an explanation, also the "allowance in Florence 1450".

From Florence we have a clear signal "against gambling" with Giannozzo Manetti in Pistoia, which was a "gambling-nest" and the conservative Manetti worked with strong actions against it. We have other signals of increased prohibition in Florence, we have Eugen gaining the height of his power.

In Ferrara we have Leonello marrying a daughter of Alfonso of Aragon in 1444 and we know, that Alfonso was against playing cards, so possibly also his daughter.
Playing cards were a medium for woman, noble man were advised to play chess as the more noble game. The reigning woman was a deciding factor, if card playing was "in" or "out" at courts. Additionally possibly also a general mood against playing cards, based on the increasing influence of Franciscans. 1450 San Bernardino was made a saint, and that was a breakthrough for the Franciscans. 21 years later a Franciscan became pope, and this hadn't happened long time before. And San Bernardin was engaged against playing cards and most of the anti-playing.card preachers were Franciscans.

Now Franco Prates has recently made a GREAT DETECTION. Playing card sales in Florence between 1447-1449, starting in September 1447.
http://trionfi.com/naibi-on-sale
The sales in the observable time start high (September 1447) and become lower in the observed period. The record is only from a single merchant family, so possibly has no "general meaning", but the behavior of the statistic is like "prohibited before September 1447" with a following good sale (all want to play) and decreasing sale numbers after some time has passed.

From this observation one has to look, if something dramatic happened before September 1447, which caused a sort of amnesty.
And this is the case: The Florentine archenemy Filippo Maria Visconti had died August 1447. Additionally Pope Eugen had died in spring 1447, and the following pope Nicolas had been much more tolerant. After there was war and suspicion between Milan and Florence since the time of Gingaleazzo, future looked promising in 1447. Milan a republic ,,,, that had some perspective from the perspective of a Florentine republic.

Franco doesn't take part in this idea. But all what I know, it makes logic. But we will likely get more new data, and so there's no haste to interpret too quick.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron