There's a counting problem.

A lot of dates and one has to get the "RIGHT" numbers ... to get a useful statistic.

Here's the provisional article:

http://trionfi.com/es43
... ignore the right side bar

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

This has to be evaluated:

1. Uscita A



2. Antonio di Dino










3. Nicolo di Calvello




4. Antonio di Simone




5. Matteo Ballerini







6. Antonio Trichaglia (?)


7. Meo di Ghero


8. Giovanni di Domenico


9. Manetto d’Agnolo merciai


10. Various Suppliers



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

This has to be analyzed to create a better overview. It's all from the business of the Florentine silk dealers, who have recorded, which playing cards they got and for which price.

I've already calculated the "number of the deals" in each year from 10 different suppliers and added these single calculations to a total calculation, which shows the activity in c. 30 years (as far it is recorded). Naturally I had a specific eye on Trionfi records.

But I might have made errors - that's very probable. So somebody might repeat my calculation. If he get's he numbers, wonderful.

Step 1. First counting the deals at the lists.

Step 2. Compare with my list below

1. Uscita A:
1431: 1
1432: 12
...
1437: 1

2. Antonio di Dino:
1441: 2
1442: 8
1443: 23
1444: 30
1445: 14
1446: 7
1447: 4
1448: 8
1449: 8
1450: 10
1451: 5 (1x Trionfi - 2 decks)
1452: 17 (4x Trionfi - 30 decks)
1453: 6

3. Nicolo di Calvello
1442: 3
1443: 10
...
1445: 7
...
1447: 4
1448: 8
1449: 7
1450: 9
1451: 6
1452: 9
1453: 6 + 2
1454: 0 + 5
1455: 2 + 9
1456: 4 + 4

4. Antonio di Simone
1442: 6
...
1447: 6
1448: 7
1449: 10
1450: 18
...
1452: 24
1453: 8
...
1455: 1

5. Matteo Ballerini
1450: 1
1451: 4
1452: 25
1453: 27 (3x Trionfi, 9 decks) + 14 (2x Trionfi, 13 + x decks)
1454: 5 (1x Trionfi, 2 decks) + 20 (1x Trionfi, 1 deck)
1455: 6 (2x Trionfi, 6 + x decks) + 22 (3x Trionfi, 6 decks)
1456: 4 (1x Trionfi, 2 decks) + 4 (1x Trionfi, 2 decks)
1457: 2 + 2
1458: 3 + 4 (1x Trionfi, 4 decks)
1459: 1 + 1
1460: 4 (1x Trionfi, 4 decks) + 3

6. Antonio Trichaglia (?)
1442: 5
...
1453: 1

7. Meo di Ghero
1442: 7

8. Giovanni di Domenico
1449: 3 (1x Trionfi, 6 decks)
1450: 1 (1x Trionfi, 3 decks)
..
1452: 1 (1x Trionfi, 6 decks)
1453: 1 (1x Trionfi, 12 decks)

9. Manetto d’Agnolo merciai
1453: 1 (1x Trionfi, 4 decks)
1454: 4 (4x Trionfi, 14 decks)
1455: 1 (1 Trionfi, 4 decks)

10. Various Suppliers
1442: 1
1443: 4
1444: 1
1445: 1
...
1449: 1
1452: 3 (3x Trionfi, 25 decks)
1453: 4 (2x Trionfi, 24 decks)
1455: 1 (1x Trionfi, 12 decks)


Step 3: adding the values

1431: 1
1432: 12
1437: 1
1441: 2
1442: 8+3+6+5+7+1
1443: 23+15+4
1444: 30+1
1445: 14+2+1
1446: 7
1447: 4+4+6
1448: 8+8+7
1449: 8+7+10+3+1 (1x Trionfi, 6 decks)
1450: 10+9+18+1 (1x Trionfi, 3 decks)
1451: 5+6+1 (1x Trionfi - 2 decks)
1452: 17+9+24+25+1+3 (4x Trionfi - 30 decks) + (1x Trionfi, 6 decks) + (3x Trionfi, 25 decks)
1453: 6+6+2+8+27+14+1+1+1+4 (3x Trionfi, 9 decks) + (2x Trionfi, 13 + x decks) + (1x Trionfi, 12 decks) + (1x Trionfi, 4 decks) (2x Trionfi, 24 decks)
1454: 5+5+20+4 (1x Trionfi, 2 decks) + 20 (1x Trionfi, 1 deck) + (4x Trionfi, 14 decks)
1455: 2+9+1+6+22+1 (2x Trionfi, 6 + x decks) + (3x Trionfi, 6 decks) + (1 Trionfi, 4 decks) + 1 (1x Trionfi, 12 decks)
1456: 4+4+4+4 (1x Trionfi, 2 decks) + (1x Trionfi, 2 decks)
1457: 2+2
1458: 3+4 (1x Trionfi, 4 decks)
1459: 1+1
1460: 4+3 (1x Trionfi, 4 decks)


Step 4: Getting a short list

1431: 1
1432: 12
1437: 1
1441: 2
1442: 30
1443: 37
1444: 31
1445: 22
1448: 23
1449: 29 Trionfi: 1 Deal / 6 Decks
1450: 38 Trionfi: 1 Deal / 3 Decks
1451: 12 Trionfi: 1 Deal / 2 Decks
1452: 79 Trionfi: 8 Deals / 61 Decks
1453: 76 Trionfi: 9 Deals / 62+ Decks
1454: 34 Trionfi: 6 Deals / 17 Decks
1455: 41 Trionfi: 7 Deals / 28 Decks
1456: 16 Trionfi: 2 Deals / 4 Decks
1457: 4
1458: 7 Trionfi: 1 Deal / 4 Decks
1459: 2
1460: 7 Trionfi: 1 Deal / 6 Decks

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

Further Project: getting prices and numbers of decks.

The price of a deal has to be calculated by multiplication of Column Soldi and Column Packs.

Decks should be counted and average between price and category has to be found.

Comparison should be done between the work of the sales of the silk dealers.

Etc.

For the moment I haven't a concept , what actually would be useful. Perhaps together we have better ideas than me alone.

These lists contain 38 NEW TRIONFI NOTES .... :-)...
... if I haven't miscounted.
That's probably the most exciting work about Trionfi cards ever in Tarot History research. .

Well, thank you, and especially thank Franco for mining this data. I really appreciate the statistical graphs you provide. There is a definite peak of Trionfi cards in 1452-1453. The earliest is 1449.

Marchione Burdochio was also a silk mercer.

Like Franco, I'm surprised that there is nothing more for the 1440s (I don't expect anything Trionfi for the 1430s, at least before 1437). I'll have to consider the prices more - there is a lot here, it is a big meal to digest.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Well, thank you, and especially thank Franco for mining this data. I really appreciate the statistical graphs you provide. There is a definite peak of Trionfi cards in 1452-1453. The earliest is 1449.

Marchione Burdochio was also a silk mercer.

Like Franco, I'm surprised that there is nothing more for the 1440s (I don't expect anything Trionfi for the 1430s, at least before 1437). I'll have to consider the prices more - there is a lot here, it is a big meal to digest.

As far the silk-dealers are concerned, the market jumped high 1450-55 , not only for Trionfi cards, but also playing cards.

The silk dealers made export business.
I think, that the 1550 Jubilee year made this and the peace in Milan till mid of 1452. In early 1452 the emperor came and married, so further celebrations. With the emperor likely many Germans used to some playing card anarchy invaded Italy (and a lot of them likely came for the Jubilee year).
And it followed reactions. The playing card market exploded, and Capistran was send to Germany to preach against playing cards - so there were counter reactions, and likely also some in Italy. But the playing card business for the silk dealers goes deeper down than expected ... possibly personal reasons of the slk dealer or an disinterest in the market, perhaps there was also too much competition from other sides. Somehow it seems, that he was more or less only interested in the Trionfi market in the end.
In 1446-47, there is the valley, that I expected, but it's shorter than expected. Somehow it drops in the phase, when Bernardino had died, and strong advertisement was done to make him holy (with Pope Eugen still living).

Very interesting indeed!

Huck, I'm having problems loading the last graphic for the second merchant, should be http://trionfi.com/0/es/p/t-silk03f.jpg according to the code.

Am I correct for thinking that it is also important to keep in mind that we don't have records for the early years of some of these merchants?

To me, the records read like this...

1. Uscita A = 1431-1437, No Records for the 40s, and 50s, Doesn't sell Triumphs
2. UAntonio di Dino = 1441-1453 (plus missing graphic), Triumphs start in 1451
3. Nicolo di Calvello = 1442-1456, Doesn't sell Triumphs
4. Antonio di Simone = 1442-1452, Doesn't sell Triumphs
5. Matteo Ballerini = 1450-1460, No records for the 30s and 40s, Triumphs start in 1453
6. Antonio Trichaglia = 1442, 53, No records except for two years, 1442 and 1453, Doesn't sell Triumphs
7. Meo di Ghero = 1442-1442, Records only for 1442, Doesn't sell Triumphs
8. Giovanni di Domenico = 1449-1453, Records only after 1449, Triumphs start in 1449
9. Manetto d’Agnolo merciai = 1453-1455, Records only after 1453, Triumphs start in 1453
10. Various Suppliers = 1449-1453, Records for 1442-1445 and 1449-1455, Triumphs start in 1452

I'll put it in a table... be back soon.

Hi, Huck, Ross,

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Well, thank you, and especially thank Franco for mining this data. I really appreciate the statistical graphs you provide. There is a definite peak of Trionfi cards in 1452-1453. The earliest is 1449.

With these researches in the last year or so, Pratesi has found a wonderful little gold strike and is mining it very productively. Thank you for presenting it.The graphs, in particular, are quite helpful in visualizing the references and their dates.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Marchione Burdochio was also a silk mercer.

I think that the most striking conclusion from this type of evidence is to reinforce what playing-card historians have been saying since 1980: Tarot cards were playing-cards, used for playing cards. Evidence about commerce in Tarot cards from the 1440s or 1450s, especially alongside regular playing cards, is valuable and should be persuasive even to the die-hard Tarot enthusiasts. That is one reason why the Burdochio find was important, and Pratesi's finds are additional confirmation of what has been long known to historians: Tarot was a commodity from the late 1440s. This has been evident for decades now, as indicated in the 1450 letter from Francesco Sforza, wanting decks of playing-cards so they could play cards during the Christmas holidays.

Playing-cards... to play cards... bought, sold, and traded as a commodity.

Tarot enthusiasts in popular books and online fora -- including this one -- still argue that Tarot was an esoteric code-book for some tiny, invisible, secret society of intellectual elitists. Anything but a card game. The trumps were developed for non-gaming purposes; there are significant historical reservations about "Tarot was invented to play a game"; Tarot cards were no more invented to play a card game than were a handful of rocks that a child picks up to play with; etc. The notorious "Building Blocks" thread couldn't even get past this most basic fact. The first item listed in the first post was, "Tarot was invented in the 15th century for game-playing". The Kumbayah ethos, "we want everyone to agree", including those who abhor facts, makes such a project impossible.

Dummett wrote:The gap between the occultist and the serious historian is unbridgeable, because occultist theories rest upon a whole spurious pseudo-history of the Tarot pack. To give its true history is, necessarily, to puncture those theories; any attempt to avoid puncturing them obliges one, at best, to fudge the fact.

We have facts, things like the Sforza letter, the Burdocio reference, and these new finds about Antonio di Dino, Matteo Ballerini, et al. These are about as direct as any evidence that might turn up in establishing conclusively that these playing-cards were intended for playing cards. The obvious is also well-documented.

It is also worth noting that this sort of evidence of trade establishes a cutoff sometime before 1450. By that time, Tarot had become a relatively fixed commodity, just as stated by Decker, Depaulis, and Dummett almost two decades ago.

DD&D wrote:The Tarot pack had certainly been standardised, as regards the number and identity of the cards, by 1450; the archetypal form was that which resulted from that standarisation.

There was no long period of evolution.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Like Franco, I'm surprised that there is nothing more for the 1440s (I don't expect anything Trionfi for the 1430s, at least before 1437).

Yeah... the dearth of trionfi entries prior to 1450 is discussed by Pratesi and emphasized in those graphs. Then there is his analysis of the Giusto Giusti item:

Pratesi wrote:When Ser Giusto Giusti had his trionfi pack made in Florence in 1440,(18) he did introduce in his "new" pack nothing else than the coat of arms of its beneficiary. This pack was extraordinary for that reason, and possibly for a greater care in producing and painting. However, makers of trionfi were already active in Florence and nobody knows how long.

The fact that Tarot cards were not quite a novelty in 1440, suggested by the Giusto Giusti item, but may not have been a common commodity until the late 1440s, as shown in those graphs, lends additional support to the idea that Tarot was initially a game of the upper crust. As DD&D put it, "Tarot cards originated in an aristocratic milieu...". It may have taken 6-8 years, perhaps a decade, for it to become established as a popular game among the hoi polloi.

As you suggest, there are many details to sort out, and then figure out, in terms of prices and the like. However, in general terms this is a wonderful confirmation of things that playing-card historians have been saying for decades. Great finds!

Best regards,
Michael

robert wrote:Very interesting indeed!

Huck, I'm having problems loading the last graphic for the second merchant, should be http://trionfi.com/0/es/p/t-silk03f.jpg according to the code.

It's not there, it doesn't exist. I only thought, there was one.

Am I correct for thinking that it is also important to keep in mind that we don't have records for the early years of some of these merchants?

Yes, that's right.
This is the input-list (that where the silk dealer got their cards from), and there's another article with output-lists, and that's about sales, but far less complete than this one.
On the sales list it appears, as if 1439/40 were very successful card dealing years, and all others not.
According the input list the traders wouldn't have had the deck, which they sold 1439/40.
But Franco thinks, that the input list might be rather complete, although the only early sold Trionfi deck of 1445 is missing on the input list.
http://trionfi.com/naibi-silk-dealers
Well, it is, as it is ... we doesn't know all. Perhaps we even have to calculate a black market. Nonetheless it makes sense to analyze these lists as good as possible.

Franco has hope or even some security, that he can go for the account books of some cardmakers. Well, this would be a further step back ... the producer, not the dealer.

mjhurst wrote:I think that the most striking conclusion from this type of evidence is to reinforce what playing-card historians have been saying since 1980: Tarot cards were playing-cards, used for playing cards.

I don't believe anybody argue anymore about that point (I wish nobody would might be more accurate). That doesn't mean there's nothing more to it at some point anyway.
Being at first a playing card deck doesn't mean it is empty otherwise from any other point of view, the opposite seems plausible after reading Frances Yates' "Ideas and Ideals in the North European Renaissance"

To speak about something quite unrelated as a comparison : the dreidel is a) a spinning top b) a game to bet on c) a cultural and religious artifact. Basically it was a spinning top game, much like Tarots were basically playing cards. Turned into a dreidel it is still a game just like tarots are playing cards - this actually leaves room for fancy interpretations or even more or less serious researches or speculations to which Moakley brilliant work didn't put an ending point. Knowing that they changed in form, the fact that Tarots were basically a game doesn't imply at all that there's nothing more to it - with the material in our possessions, supposing there's an esoteric meaning to Tarot or supposing there's none are equally unjustified, both assumptions are beliefs based on faith, not historical researches.

By the way big thank to Huck for the raw data !

Bertrand

Here we go...


So, if I'm correct, this is what I see, based on the information that we have:

• We don't have much information for Uscita A
• Nicolo di Calello and Antonio de Simone didn't sell Triumph cards.
• Antonio Trichaglia and Meo di Ghero didn't sell Triumph cards, but we have very few years of records to Judge it by.
• Giovanni di Domenico and Manetto d'Agnlolo merciai sold Triumph cards! But we have no information for them leading up to the years when they did sell them. It would be very interesting to find earlier records for these two.
• The two most interesting are Matteo Ballerini and Antonio Di Dino. Antonio had been selling cards for years, then in 1452 he sells Triumphs, but that is the only year, none in 1453. Matteo Ballerini is extremely interesting. He sells cards for three years, then adds Triumphs for 53-56, then drops them in 57.

To summarise, half of them didn't sell Triumph cards. Of the ones that did, two of them we don't have records for earlier than the first year they were selling Triumph cards, so they could have been doing it earlier, we don't know. The Various Suppliers group is sort of weird and hard to judge, but as a group, none between 42 and 45, no records for 46 to 51, Triumphs for the two years 52 and 53. Finally, the remaining two sellers sold cards, then started selling Triumphs, then stopped. If it weren't for Giovanni di Domenico, we might be tempted to think that no one sold them before 1452, but his evidence pushes it back several years, and it is incomplete earlier, so he might have sold them earlier, but we don't know.

Am I evaluating this correctly?

Hi, Bertrand,

Bertrand wrote:

mjhurst wrote:I think that the most striking conclusion from this type of evidence is to reinforce what playing-card historians have been saying since 1980: Tarot cards were playing-cards, used for playing cards.

I don't believe anybody argue anymore about that point (I wish nobody would might be more accurate).

A lovely wish, attached to a wildly false claim.

My point remains the same: Most people who are interested in Tarot insist on believing it was an occult manifesto of some sort, disguised as a card game. Whether you honestly don't know that, or whether you simply hate having it pointed out, it is important for those who do care about the history of Tarot to state the facts. Long established facts and newly uncovered facts support the conclusion that Tarot was a game.

You seem disturbed by that... you want to say "of course, everybody knows that", while still denying it. So you change the subject and offer a strawman:

Bertrand wrote:That doesn't mean there's nothing more to it at some point anyway.

Who ever said such a thing? Who are you arguing against? You present this as a rejoinder to my post, which makes it seem as if I said that. If that was your intent, then you being dishonest, lying about me. Yes, I resent that. If your intent was that Dummett said such a thing, then again, you are being dishonest about someone not here to defend himself from your insinuations.

1. The Tarot trump cards, in my opinion, were originally and in their most common forms a perfectly intelligible and coherent cycle. That is the opposite of no meaning or "empty". Dummett also admitted they had meaning and suggested an outline of an overall cycle, as well as suggesting that someone might someday decode the meaning.

2. The fact that "at some point" there were other meanings attached to the trumps, by occultists, is also disputed by no one. Dummett is the one who did most of the original research on that question.

I don't know why you are attacking me and/or Dummett -- all I said was, Tarot was a card game and this new evidence supports that. It seems that your post exemplifies the fact-free approach to Tarot: just make stuff up to attack the historians and their defenders.

Bertrand wrote:Being at first a playing card deck doesn't mean it is empty otherwise from any other point of view, the opposite seems plausible after reading Frances Yates' "Ideas and Ideals in the North European Renaissance"

Cool -- what did she say about Tarot in that book? I haven't read it, although I have read Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (1964), The Art of Memory (1966), and The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (1972). Have you read her 1981 review of The Game of Tarot and Twelve Tarot Games in the New York Review of Books? You should. You would like it, given your views.

In short, she claimed, "it seems to be the basic aim behind Professor Dummett’s fanatical pursuit of the Tarot game, in all its forms, to prove that throughout its history it was only a game, and nothing else." This is an astonishingly stupid or disingenuous conclusion, given that Dummett chronicled various early extrapolations beyond the game (things like appropriati, the Straparola riddle, Teofilo Folengo, the many variations of the game including decks like Boiardo and Sola Busca, etc.) as well as researching and presenting the history of occult Tarot. That is, Dummett traced the origin and development of occult Tarot, in detail and for the first time. She claimed that he sought "to prove that throughout its history it was only a game, and nothing else."

That's just a lie, a strawman which cultists repeat to this day, April 23, 2012.

Dummett is the one who established that Tarot was far more than "just a game".

Yates ignored the second book completely, and dismissed the whole project of Tarot history as worthless. Except, of course, what the occultists had contributed! She had no interest in the main subject of Dummett's book, and she could not even grant that he was sincerely interested. Because of her own arrogance, ignorance, prejudices and preconcetions, Yates either lied extravagantly or was completely oblivious to reality when she claimed that Dummett argued, "throughout its history it was only a game, and nothing else". Finally, she also tried her hand, embarrassingly, at an iconographic analysis of two cards from the Tarot de Marseille style deck. Here is the first paragraph of Dummett's reply.

Michael Dummett wrote:Dame Frances Yates, in her notice of my book, The Game of Tarot, reviews only four pages out of 600 [NYR, February 19]. In view of her interests, this may not be surprising; but she gives a false impression of the book’s purpose. If the many chapters tracing in detail the history of the different forms of the game had been included, as she says, simply “to prove that throughout its history [Tarot] was only a game,” I should have been indulging in an extravagant degree of over-kill. On the contrary, the chapter on the origin and development of Tarot occultism was a digression from the main concern of the book, namely to give a detailed history of the game in all its forms, as H. J. R. Murray did for chess. A further purpose was to reconstruct the history of the cards and of the different types of design used for them, something not previously attempted. Such a history forms an essential basis for any theory about their iconography; because Dame Frances ignores, not merely my answer to the question when and where the Tarot de Marseille designs originated, but the question itself, her observations on the subject lack the credibility they might otherwise have had. The Tarot de Marseille is descended from a particular type of design for popular Tarot cards used in Milan from the late fifteenth century, but acquired some of its features in France. The crayfish on the Moon card is found in the Milanese prototype, but the dogs are not; to my mind, the idea of dogs baying the moon is so commonplace that no resort to arcane pseudo-Egyptian symbolism, such as Dame Frances suggests, is needed to explain their presence.

This review was probably the worst thing that she ever wrote, and it is also, AFAIK, her only significant comment on Tarot. Her basic conclusion was that Dummett was a biased fool, lacking the good sense to worship Antoine Court de Gébelin as the bright light of Tarot history. [P.S. I'm not kidding. Yates talked about occultists and their views in every paragraph, first through last. She mentioned Antoine Court de Gébelin by name several dozen times, punctuating almost every thought with some reference to the old fraud.] That's your authority on the meaning of Tarot?

Bertrand wrote:To speak about something quite unrelated as a comparison : the dreidel is a) a spinning top b) a game to bet on c) a cultural and religious artifact. Basically it was a spinning top game, much like Tarots were basically playing cards. Turned into a dreidel it is still a game just like tarots are playing cards - this actually leaves room for fancy interpretations or even more or less serious researches or speculations to which Moakley brilliant work didn't put an ending point. Knowing that they changed in form, the fact that Tarots were basically a game doesn't imply at all that there's nothing more to it - with the material in our possessions, supposing there's an esoteric meaning to Tarot or supposing there's none are equally unjustified, both assumptions are beliefs based on faith, not historical researches.

I don't understand why are you so upset that someone would say "Tarot was a game"? Why do you feel compelled to make up such nonsense about me, or whomever you are insulting here with your strawman argument about Tarot having no meaning?

And what are you babbling about in terms of Moakley? Has anyone ever suggested that she had the last word on the subject? Can you name one person who suggested that? Go find a quote.

All I said was, Tarot was a card game and this new evidence supports that. Is that fact SO painful for you that you have to make up crap about me, and claim or insinuate that I said "Tarot has no meaning"? Perhaps you've never encountered any of my posts before, so let me point out that for the last 12 years I have written over and over and over about the fact that the earliest Tarot DID HAVE A COHERENT MEANING!

Why insinuate such crap about me? Or about Dummett? Or whomever you are insulting? I'm really curious.

And btw, if you would quote people, then it would not be necessary to guess whom you are insulting. For example, I didn't just make up that stuff about the Building Blocks thread. You can read it, and see for yourself what kind of anti-historical "enthusiasts" post on this forum. I didn't make up those three arguments I paraphrased, either -- they were from three different posts by one of the more pernicious of the diversionists.

Best regards,
Michael

robert wrote:Here we go...

Am I evaluating this correctly?

... :-) ... Not so bad. Indeed only a few of the names are the recognized Trionfi artists. Here the number of the produced decks plays a role and also the price.

Manetto d’Agnolo merciai is merchant, not a producer, he has especially worthwhile decks. Grande decks for 40 soldi. He sells 24 decks.

Matteo Ballerini: 49 Trionfi decks in many years, but possibly some more (it's not clear, how much he sold)

Antonio di Dino: 32 decks relative early, 1452 mainly.

Domenico di Giovanni, 27 Spiele, and he is the first in December 1449. That's the time, when Milan celebrates a Trionfo ... they don't calculate, that Sforza will attack them soon.

61 Trionfi decks from many artists.

The silk traders paid mostly with silk, btw. Maybe they used it for themselves, or they traded also with it, a little bit?