Andrea Vitali recently published "San Bernardino e le Carte da Gioco - Carte regolari e trionfi nelle cronache sulla vita del Santo".
http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=227
Now there's also the translation:
http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=227&lng=ENG
*****************
Inside the text (which has a complex theme, which I don't touch here) Andrea Vitali notes:
Let’s see in detail what is quoted in the Vita of the anonymous from L’Aquila. After an examination about the general condemn of the dresses, the hair styles and of what women showed to appear beautiful and charming, Bernardine went for gambling: “Indumenta peregrina et lineamenta pulchritudinem vultus conferentia adulterinaeque capillaturae ac pretiosi ornatus, larvales praeterea facies, aleae, taxilli, triumphales carticellae in forum deferebantur, omnia igni tradenda atque comburenda” (3). It deals with dice and cards of triumphs that were burnt in the squares after his sermons against gambling. Proceeding in the examination of the Vita by Anonymous, it is necessary to underline that in 1472 the game of triumphs was not condemned by the Church and the Governs of the cities yet.
If the author would have talked about just because they were commonly known in the period in which he wrote his chronicle, as Dummet affirms, he should have considered that the contemporary readers would not have understood the reason of this insert, since the game of triumphs was still considered legal until 1472 (4). In our opinion it results more plausible that the anonymous from L’Aquila has deduced this information by ancient sources. In the meanwhile it is possible that Bernardine, the Saint included in the History of the Church as the most cutthroat against the game of cards, had really quoted them since in the time in which he threw his anathema triumphs did not reflect yet those dictates of the Mystical Staircase that then protected them from the action of the Church, whose power in Bologna was extremely oppressive (See about this the Addenda in the article The Order of Triumphs).
Footnote 4:
4 - Generally the game of triumphs was tolerated for all the XV century. In
1483 Statutes of Crema we find (63): “Nullus ludat ad bisclaciam taxillos vel ad cartas in nundinis et si qui contrafecerit quod poena duplicetur. Ibidem. (64): Ed intelligatur bislacia ominis ludus taxillorum et cartarum: et exceptis ludis triumphorum et schachorum" and always from the Statutes of 1534 (89) of the same city we know that the game of triumphs and the one of tarots * and chess as well were still legal: "Quilibet possit ludere ad tabula set schacos et triumphos et tarochum de die et de nocte". So instead in 1391 Statutes of Bergamo: § 171 "Si quis in domo, curia, horto, brolo vel aliqua alia tenuerit ludum alea, Biselantiae, vel reginetae, sozi, santii, oche vel alterius cuiusvis generis ludi alearum vel Cartarum ad tertam et quartam, fluxi, Ronfae vel Criche, vel generis Cartarum, exeptis Triumphis, scachis et tabulerio, cadat in poenam libr. 50. - § 172: Nullus audeat vel presumat ludere ad azzarum, nec ad aliquem ludorum predictum sub poena libr. 12 ... et intelligatur ludere si reperti fuerint habere ante veliuxta se discum, taxillos, vel cartas vel aliud praeparamentum ad ludendum. Salve quod non comprehendantur in presenti capitulo ludentes ad Triumphos, ad tabuleriam et schachos ad libr. 5". Thanks to the researches on the Statutes of different Italian cities made by historians such as Pietro Sella, Ludovico Zdekauer and Gherardo Ortalli, we know that the legal games were so called: bàzega, gilenum, primera, tarochum, triumphos. The forbidden ones were called: abbales, banco fallito, bassetta, cricca, erbette, fluxum, lanzichinech, reginetta, ronfa, taglio, tertia et quarta, trenta e quaranta, the “bislacia cartarum”, and the “carte del suit”» (page 425).
We find isolated cases of condemnation of the game of Triumphs in Assisi with a public announcement dated to 1470 and in Padua with a sermon that the preacher Roberto Caracciolo from Lecce gave in 1455. For an almost complete information about the documents of the XV century concerning the game of Triumphs, visit the link
http://trionfi.com/0/e/36/ of the site
http://www.trionfi.com.
* The game of Triumphs and that of Tarots, were two different games. Actually in the sixteenth century Ludus Tarochorum meant the game composed by 22 triumphs and 56 regular cards (ie the numeral cards and the cards of court) while in the one of Triumphs were used just the regular cards. In this game, with the word triumph, was called the trump suite. A variant that probably had been imported by Spain. About this argument read our discussion in the essay Triumphs, Trionfini and Trionfetti, soon to be published (Now in Italian version).
Point 1: Crema 1483 is a "new allowance in the city statutes" of the Trionfi game found by Andrea Vital recently. The statutes of Crema are dated not precisely 1483, but the state of Crema in the year 1483 is insecure. It is the time of the Ferrarese war (1482-1484) with Milan (alliance with Ferrara) and Venice (attacker of Ferrara) at different sides. Crema, a city rather near to Milan (46 km) and somehow between Milan and Cremona (distance Crema and Cremona: 43 km; Cremona belonged then to Milanese territory) had a risky frontier position and was attacked in this year and partly in the hands of Milan.
So it's - without further research - difficult to decide, if the statutes were made under Milanese control or Venetian control.
If Crema had been under Venetian control the permission of the Trionfi game would stand together with other known allowances in the years 1488-1491 in cities on Venetian territory (Brescia, Salo, Bergamo).
But if the statutes of Crema were changed under Milanese control, it would stand for an extension of Milanese rules (where it likely had been very common, that Trionfi was an allowed game).
Without considering the Crema document the allowances of Brescia, Salo and Bergamo give the (insecure) impression, that the Trionfi game was prohibited generally in all Venetian cities, perhaps not directly with a prohibition of the games, but with a general prohibition for the import of foreign playing cards.
Venice had been in a state of war from 1463-1479 (war with the Ottomans). Later followed the Ferrarese war (1482-84). Generally it's stated, that Venice came late with an own "Trionfi culture". From all this it might be (with insecurities) concluded, that Venetian card makers didn't produce Trionfi cards (till a specific later time) and that possibly playing card imports were forbidden.
(I wrote about Crema in December 2010;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=345&start=80 )
Point 2: The Trionfi game prohibition in Assissi 1470 (which is - as far I got it - only a "probable date", not totally sure, at least for the moment) was also found recently by Andrea Vitali (I heard of it this month).
This document - my own judgment - might have a tremendous effect on our research.
2 a. It is a Trionfi game prohibition, and we don't know of earlier Trionfi card prohibition. And as a prohibition it is exception of the general rule, that "the game of Trionfi wasn't prohibited in contrast to many other games".
2 b. The prohibition occurs in Assissi, a location, which is rather isolated near a not inhabited mountain region.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rl ... CE4Q8gEwAg
It is well connected by religious history to Francesco of Assissi, who started here the order of the Franciscans. By this Assissi became a place of pilgrimage ad veneration ... However ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisi
The city, which had remained within the confines of the Roman walls, began to expand outside these walls in the 13th century. In this period the city was under papal jurisdiction. The Rocca Maggiore, the imperial fortress on top of the hill above the city, which had been plundered by the people in 1189, was rebuilt in 1367 on orders of the papal legate, cardinal Gil de Albornoz.
In the beginning Assisi fell under the rule of Perugia and later under several despots, such as the soldier of fortune Biordo Michelotti, Gian Galeazzo Visconti and his successor Francesco I Sforza, dukes of Milan, Jacopo Piccinino and Federico II da Montefeltro, lord of Urbino. The city went into a deep decline through the plague of the Black Death in 1348.
The city came again under papal jurisdiction under the rule of Pope Pius II (1458–1464).
... this information lets one assume, that during a specific time before Pope Pius II the region was left without much public control and for this reason had been a pleasant object for bandits and robbery activities. This seems to have changed around c. 1460, when Pius II took possession of Rome ( and had some military trouble to do so).
In 1462 the first "monte di pietà" ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_of_piety
... was founded in Perugia (much greater than Assissi, in 25 km distance to Assissi), a new banking system for poor people, established by the Franciscan order. This new system was quickly imitated by 40 other houses till 1470.
In 1466/67 a bloody process took place against Fraticelli, which were not accepted and prohibited (by the church) "other Franciscan sects", whose members also felt attracted to the region of Assissi (the case is described here ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=2QZuXB ... &q&f=false )
In 1471 we have the great Franciscan success, that an earlier Franciscan minister general, Francesco della Rovere, became Pope Sixtus IV. He had been the first Franciscan pope since "Nicholas V", the not counted anti-Pope 1328-30, who was connected to the time, when the different Fraticelli sects took their beginning. From this earlier time till the great successes of San Bernardino and then San Bernardino becoming a saint very quick (1450) after his death (1444), the Franciscans had a difficult stand.
For the time short before and a little later than 1471 I found, that Assissi got buildings and art commissions. It seems clear, that Assissi found some development likely with the intention to improve its condition as a place of pilgrimage, in other words "for tourism".
Point 3: There are Franciscans in Assissi, and Franciscans have been most often involved in playing card prohibitions ... at least in the documents, that we know of. If Andrea's dating "1470" is correct, than we have there
Point 3a: a preparing climax in the success story of the Franciscans: Sixtus IV becomes pope
Point 3b: a stressed relationship between Venice-Ferrara (with Ferrara claiming a "sort of neutrality') against Milan-Florence-Naples
The stressed relationship is especially expressed in the complicated relation Galeazzo Maria Sforza and the Venetian general Colleoni. Galeazzo Maria attempts to murder Colleoni.
Point 3c: Francesco della Rovere (later Sixtus IV) becomes Minister general [that's an important position for the order, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mi ... iars_Minor ] of the Franciscans in 1464, then he is raised to a cardinal in 1467 and in 1469 Zanetto of Udine takes the position of Minister general. Minister generals, so I've read, were always Conventuals in the Franciscan order, not Observants.
This is a complicated difference:
In the playing card prohibitions we see the Observants working against playing cards, not the Conventuals. The difference goes already back to 13th century, then the Conventuals were those Franciscans, who organized themselves in the cities in convents (they often had higher education), and the others (then often called Sprituals) were fond of living on the country in eremitages and wilderness. In the development it was the Spiritual movement, who caused the Franciscan trouble in the time of John XXII.
In 15th century the strongest Franciscan movement were the activities of San Bernardino, somehow addressable as "street preaching". The whole caused also trouble inside the Franciscan order, the complicated development went through all the 15th century and was finally finished in a decree of Pope Leo in 1517, when Observants and Conventuals were officially splitted.
This very complex development, which I give only in very rough detail, is described here:
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/fra/FRAht01.html
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/fra/FRAht02.html
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/fra/FRAht03.html
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/fra/FRAht04.html
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/fra/FRAht05.html
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/fra/FRAht06.html ... with the most interesting information (15th century)
Inside these stressed relationships of Milan/Venice during Galeazzo Maria's time it's interesting to observe ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Mendes_de_Silva
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amedeo_da_Silva
... that Bianca Maria Visconti, "somehow the great lady of the Trionfi cards", sponsored a Milanese Franciscan Amadeo da Silva from Spain, which resulted in a new branch of the Franciscan order, which was called by pope Leo in 1517 between totally 6 branches (Conventuals, Observants,
Amadeiti [name after the founder], Colettans, Clareni, Fratres de Capucio) to negotiate the future of the order.
Bianca Maria sponsored in 1464 ... the final acceptance came 1475 from Sixtus IV (who was interested in good Milanese relations).
Earlier another new branch of Franciscans were founded around 1470, which had been in not clear manner in the Venetian-Milanese war (which actually was more or less a "cold war"). I read about it and its founder, who died soon, and so caused this new branch quickly to disappear. Unluckily I forgot to note the link, but my impression was, that this order worked for Venice. Franciscans Observants had occasionally trouble with the Milanese regime under Filipo Maria Visconti, under Francesco Sforza and under Galeazzo Maria Sforza. But my impression was, that this branch worked more or less Pro-Venice.
I hope I find some more info to this group. But for the moment I even don't remember the name.
Cardinal Francesco Rovere lost his post as Franciscan minister general in 1469, likely cause he had new responsibilities as a cardinal (since 1467). The new man was Zanetto of Udine (Udine is on Venetian territory), likely a man of the Pro-Venice part. An understandable choice, as Venice was involved in the Ottoman war since 1463 and the Franciscan had proven already earlier a strong interest in "crusades" (St. Capistran). The current Pope Paul II was also a man from Venice, during his election a clear orientation was signed by nearly all voting cardinals, that a crusade had to be organized by the new pope. Paul II had the intention to give a cardinal's title to the Franciscan friar Marco Fantuzzi da Bologna, who had much preaching experience in Eastern countries (so prepared as a cardinal "for the crusades"), but Marco fled this promotion. In this situation cardinal Bessarion (another promoter of the crusade cause of personal - Greek - interests) suggested Rovere (another Franciscan) as new cardinal ... which was done, with the final result, that Rovere later became Sixtus IV.
For Paul II it was (politically) necessary to do something for the Franciscans after the successes of Bernardino and Capistran. And it was necessary to move somehow in direction of the crusade - so he had to act "with Venice".
So I wonder, if this Trionfi prohibition of Assissi 1470 has something to do with the condition, that we have so late Trionfi allowances on Venetian territory between 1488-91, which indicate, that there were some prohibitions before.
**********************
Added later: I've to correct
Peter of Candia, later anti-pope Alexander V. in 1409-10 had entered the Franciscan order and so he was also a Franciscan pope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Alexander_V
He had some friendship with Uberto Decembrio (Pier Candid Decembrio's father and worked for Giangaleazzo Visconti some time.
See
http://trionfi.com/decembrio-vita-filip ... a-visconti