Tarot History Forum

Thanks to Ross, who gave the information, that the long searched Ugo-Trotti-text is now online

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/106 ... jp2Res=.25

With very limited Latin abilities I attempted to answer the question, what this text (which has a considerable length) might be about (my first impression was, that it is mainly a "juristic text" ... cause the author, Ugo Trotti, was a jurist). This was somehow confirmed ... (meanwhile I've reached folio 10, but naturally I can only translate short passages or words occasionally).

The text passage relating to Trionfi card is rather short (Folio 14)



This is the author identification mark



This passage creates an important dating problem (so my humble opinion) - folio 11



It's recognizable, that there is a year number, MCCCCLXIII (=1463 ... lower left corner on the picture), and the text speaks of a peste. The general spread dating of Trotti's text (also spread by us at Trionfi.com) speaks of "1456", but why (if I'm not in a stupid error cause my bad Latin) speaks the text of the year 1463 in a context, which seems not to report about the future?

The library itself dates the text to 1475-1500, whereby it is not clear, if they want to speak of the moment of this specific manuscript or of the date, when the author wrote the text (I'm not sure, but Trotti might have been dead in 1500 ?).

Naturally this edition might be an "expanded edition", which forged the original. But for the moment this raises doubt about the real date of the text.

The "dating of 1456" might have developed from (possibly) Trotti reaching a juristic rank (I darkly remember to have read this somewhere), so the original dating of the text might have been "since 1456", which was then lost by citing authors.

Trotti's text is one of the few arguments for an "early large distribution" of the Trionfi game, so a clear perception of this dating problem is of high interest.

*******
From my very limited understanding it seems, that the text contains a lot of abbreviations, which might be part of "juristic slang". For instance one meets words like "pmissus" and "phibitu" which should refer to permissions and prohibitions.
Generally the text has 34 Folio /68 pages and the single pages contain a greater number of words (are at least not very short). Surely a translation of the text would give (probably) a very good view on the prohibition situation and would improve the research situation, but for this it would be really worthful, if the dating problem is solved.

Hello Huck,
the text is interesting, but very hard to read. My Latin is not great, but here I am in trouble also for the extensive use of abbreviations, and for the calligraphy of this manuscript. For instance, the dot on the "i"s is often missing. The result is that I am not sure on what most words are.

At the end of the last image I read something like "& ipsem (?) ego vidi in comitate ... ... pestis magne MCCCCLXIII". He seems to be speaking of something he saw during a great pestilence. I agree that the occurrence of number 1463 is suspect.

Marco

hi Marco,

yes, it is really "difficult stuff" and it's exhausting to read even small parts and deciphering only occasionally "words".

For the moment I'm a little astonished to have identified "predictis" - "d'natios (? = divinatios ?) ul (?) aliud numerabile" - "divinat" - "divinare", at the same folio 14, just below the short chapter about playing and Triomphi cards. It seems to relate to lot books (?) or lot oracles. (?)

Hello Huck.
Here is a tentative transcription: X=a word I cannot read, (?) a word on which I have strong doubts.
The part in bold is based on http://trionfi.com/0/e/14/


Ex hiis infertur quid de ludo cartarum qui hodie multum
frequentatur, qui tamen multiplex est
et quandoque plus habet industrie quam fortune. Veluti si quat-
tuor bipertiti ludunt ad triumphos. Interdum eorum plus habet
fortune quam industrie, ut si in 3a vel in 4a vel falcinel-
lis ludatur. X indubitatus teneas idem esse iudican-
dum de hoc ludo quod de alea quem in eo fortuna X
& hoc X in pecunia ludatur hoc conprobat
de X senatus & de X aleat (?) usus ut ceteri (?) X ludus
approbantur inter quos non est iste. & X firmare mo-
dernos in X X alia (?). An X iste ludus & precedentes ali-
quo X possint esse liciti dicetur X cur de repetitione agetur.


This is a VERY UNRELIABLE translation. I am sure it must contain some big errors...be careful

"From those [other games?] the game of cards, that today has many followers, stands out, because it is varied and it depends more on skill than on luck, in the case in which four people divided in two couples play a game of triumphs. If the third, the fourth, or falcinello are played, it must be judged in the same way as a dice game, because it depends more on fortune than on skill. This is supported by the fact that such games are played for money. Such games are not included in those approved by the Senate. Some of the moderns affirm that these games might be considered as licit because they are based on repetition."

I think that the third ("terza"), the fourth ("quarta") and Falcinello are different card games.

About the text in the lower part of the same page, I can make out the sentence "divinat par vel impar" i.e. "he guesses even or odd".

Marco

PS: I made out something more: Ludi conditio est ut unus in cumulo vel pugno geluso reponat denarios
vel aliud numerabile & alter X divinat par vel impar

"The nature of the game is that one hides in a pile (?) or in his closed (?) fist some coins or other numerable objects and the another [player] guesses if they are even or odd."

marco wrote: PS: I made out something more: Ludi conditio est ut unus in cumulo vel pugno geluso reponat denarios
vel aliud numerabile & alter X divinat par vel impar

"The nature of the game is that one hides in a pile (?) or in his closed (?) fist some coins or other numerable objects and the another [player] guesses if they are even or odd."

This sounds like gambling, not like divination or lot book. Nice ...

I've found another passage of interest: fol. 20 bottom



It seems to contain the date 1st of January (so I assume) - which at another place (Lubkin about Galeazzo) was a day for heavy gambling. This might be worthful further confirmation for this behaviour.

btw. what do you think of the word "falcinelli" ... do you think, that a relation to the word "falconer" is possible? The falconer motif appeared on playing and Tarot cards.

Hello Huck.

Huck wrote: It seems to contain the date 1st of January (so I assume) - which at another place (Lubkin about Galeazzo) was a day for heavy gambling. This might be worthful further confirmation for this behaviour

From what I undestand of that page, in particular the last two words "appellatur strena", Trotti seems to be speaking of presents (in this case money) that were given on the kalendae of January: a tradition originating in ancient Rome. "Strenna" is still used in modern Italian for Christmas presents.
Some more info here: http://www.abcog.org/xmas4.htm

Huck wrote: btw. what do you think of the word "falcinelli" ... do you think, that a relation to the word "falconer" is possible? The falconer motif appeared on playing and Tarot cards.

The Falcinellus actually is a bird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossy_Ibis
It seems likely that the word is related to "falcon", as you suggest.

Marco

Fascinating. Thank you gentlemen.

marco wrote:Hello Huck.

...
From what I undestand of that page, in particular the last two words "appellatur strena", Trotti seems to be speaking of presents (in this case money) that were given on the kalendae of January: a tradition originating in ancient Rome. "Strenna" is still used in modern Italian for Christmas presents.
Some more info here: http://www.abcog.org/xmas4.htm

Indeed the 1st of January ... likely the end of the Christmas holidays ... seems to be the day to give presents and "gambling" might have been a form to spread the money. So the rich (or the duke) lost money with intention (? probably). Lubkin describes a scene, in which Galeazzo .. somehow with force .. tried to urge the guests at a1st of January to gamble for huge sums, and the guests (which seem not to know this custom) were terrified, even after Galeazzo promised to give them the money before gambling.

Lubkin himself seems to misinterprete the situation, he didn't see the christmas gift dimension in the action (as far I got it).

In a scene of Ludovico's time Ludovico seems worried, that his young inexperienced wife Beatrice did win much money in gambling (a few thousands ducats, really enormous, probably some wished to bribe her for other favours) and ordered her to inform him about great wins. He didn't wish to be informed in cases, when she lost money, that seems to have been quite okay and should have been "her normal behaviour", that, what a great duchessa should do.

Similar impressions appear in some Ferrarese informations (in Ercole's time) , for which I forgot the context (possibly Ortalli) .

The Falcinellus actually is a bird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossy_Ibis
It seems likely that the word is related to "falcon", as you suggest.

Marco

The scientific Falcinellus (Northern bird) seems not to be an Italian bird and it's not a hawk, but "falco" (= hawk, = German "Falke") should be old Latin.

I'm not sure, if "Terza, Quarta and Falcinello" are really other card games (although something similar exists at least for Terza). You can double the worth in many card games by contra and recontra (short form = contra and re), so that the base worth of gambled money would be with ...

contra = x 2
re = x 4
and if you interprete now the "third" and the "fourth" you have
terza = x 8
quarta = x 16
and Falcinello would be the highest worth
Falcinello = x 32

In modern German card playing rounds I have met precisely the expressions "der dritte (= the third)" and "der vierte (= the fourth)" and also the use of a fantasy name, for instance "Zackenbarsch", for a final bidding stage.

There are other doubling names, between them contra-re-bock is most common. When Trotta speaks against terza and quarta, he wishes probably to disallow "high gambling" and excessive bidding in a relative harmless game.

Huck wrote:
I'm not sure, if "Trenta, Quarto and Falcinello" are really other card games (although something similar exists at least for Trenta).

As Marco has pointed out in another thread Falcinelle is listed as a card game in the Steele Sermon:

Milaneso; vel al 50, (ad quem numerum qui citius pervenerint cum cartulis lucrantur), ludus cartularum novus. Falcinelle (sive, A la terza a la quarta) ludus cartularum.

SteveM wrote:
As Marco has pointed out in another thread Falcinelle is listed as a card game in the Steele Sermon:

Milaneso; vel al 50, (ad quem numerum qui citius pervenerint cum cartulis lucrantur), ludus cartularum novus. Falcinelle (sive, A la terza a la quarta) ludus cartularum.

Hi Steve,

it's a general problem, that the card expressions especially in 15th century are not stable. One problem were the prohibitions ... if a game with a specific form was forbidden, it was slightly changed and reappeared with another name. Other name changes were caused by structural changes in production. So we have with Rabelais Trionfi and Taraux as different games. Games with the same name and specific features could stay at one location stable, but became mutated at another, so actually the result were different games with the name. A name of a game feature (part of the doubling process) could develop to become a real own game somewhere else and in a different time.

It's really troublesome to draw conclusions.
If we want a better overview: The best is to organize the process of documentation. And best it's organized in a system of location and time. For the Trotti text it's troublesome, that the time possibly has become insecure.