Tarot History Forum

in work ... don't reply

I prepare to give the related articles some order.

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

Older Trionfi.com articles (2003-2007)

Introduction and list of Links
http://trionfi.com/0/p/90/

Stuart Kaplan's list
http://trionfi.com/0/p/91/

Huck Meyer's opinion
http://trionfi.com/0/p/92/

Marseille 1337
http://trionfi.com/0/p/93/

Playing Cards in Bohemia 1340 (?)
http://trionfi.com/0/p/95/

Old German/Swiss notes
http://trionfi.com/0/p/94/

Early Paper Mills in Europe
http://trionfi.com/0/p/21/

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

Connected threads at tarotforum.net

1340, playing cards in Bohemia (01-10-2007)
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=86010

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

Connected threads at forum.tarothistory.com

Werner von Orseln 1324-30 ; theme 1377 (14 May 2010)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=514

A sort of Victory - Brieg playing cards 1303 ; theme -1377 (05 Jun 2010)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=528

Bohemia ... early playing card notes ; theme -1377 (18 Apr 2015)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1064

Jan van Blois 1362 (incl. Pratesi article) ; theme -1377 (24 Jun 2016)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1103

Hellmut Rosenfeld ; theme -1377 (05 Jul 2016)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1106

Bidev 1979 typescript on playing cards' origin (06 Aug 2016)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1111

Cesare Cantu / military cards 1559 for strategy ; th. -1377 (30 Sep 2016)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1118

Tuchim or Tuchin in 1361 in Provence ; theme -1377 (28 Jan 2017)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1156&p=18715#p18715

William de Guilleville c. 1330 ; theme -1377 (28 Jan 2017)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1157

Chronic of cloister Hirsau, 1367; theme -1377 (17-jun-2020)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=345&p=22250#p22250

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

Franco Pratesi articles, translated by Michael S. Howard (2016-17)

2016-02-08 (5/05)
Commenti sulle carte islamiche
http://www.naibi.net/A/505-ISLAMCARD-Z.pdf
On Islamic Cards
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1096

2016-05-05 (5/10)
Carte da gioco in Europa prima del 1377 ? – Italia
http://www.naibi.net/A/510-PRE1377ITA-Z.pdf
Playing cards in Europe before 1377? - Italy
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1097#p16866

2016-06-02 (5/12)
Carte da gioco in Europa prima del 1377 ? Polonia
http://www.naibi.net/A/512-POLSK1377-Z.pdf
Playing cards in Europe before 1377? - Poland
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1097#p16881

2016-06-07 (5/13)
Carte da gioco in Europa prima del 1377? Boemia
http://www.naibi.net/A/513-BOHEMIA-Z.pdf
Playing cards in Europe before 1377? Bohemia
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1097&p=16908#p16908

2016-06-15 (5-14)
Carte da gioco in Europa prima del 1377 ? – Buja
http://www.naibi.net/A/514-1371BUJA-Z.pdf
Playing cards in Europe before 1377? - Buja
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1097&start=40

2016-06-21 (5-15)
Carte da gioco in Europa prima del 1377? Aragona
http://www.naibi.net/A/515-ARAG1377-Z.pdf
Playing cards in Europe before 1377? Aragon.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1097&p=16939#p16939

2016-09-24 (5-19)
Carte da gioco in Europa prima del 1377 ? Berna
http://www.naibi.net/A/519-BERNA-Z.pdf
Playing cards in Europe before 1377? Berne.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1097&start=70#p17596

2017-01-18 (6/02)
Carte da gioco in Europa prima del 1377 ? Olanda
http://www.naibi.net/A/602-JANVBLOIS-Z.pdf
Playing cards in Europe before 1377? Holland
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1103&start=10#p18654

**********

Arguments in discussion:

Argument: Overview, context to other researches (30-06-2010)
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p= ... ost2370514

Argument: Many young rulers in the decades 1370s/1380s (27 Oct 2010)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=620&p=9100&hilit=h%C3%BCbsch#p9100

Argument: insecure Meliadus picture of 1352
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=345&p=9587#p9587

**********

List of considered documents

c. 1250: Iglau

1277: England

1288: Leiningen

1299: Pipozzo di Sandro

1300: Master Ingold

1303: Brieg

1308: German knights statutes

1309: Prague

1313: Soldiers from Italy

1324-30: German knights statutes

1329: New fashions in Prague

1329: Würzburger Synode

William de Guilleville c. 1330 ; theme -1377 (28 Jan 2017)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1157

1337: Marseille

Before 1340: Polish nobility plays cards (Hübsch)

1340: cards in Prague (Hübsch)

1353: Prague

1354: first playing card producer in Prague; he comes from Nuremberg (Hübsch)

1361: Tuchim or Tuchin in Provence
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1156&p=18715#p18715

1362 and earlier: Jan van Blois

1367: Bern
1367: cloister Hirsau

Hello

After posting this, I saw that Huck is asking no one to post in this thread. I think my post is more conected to this thread than to other threads. I mean, I don't know where to take this post. In fact, I initially posted it by mistake in a thread about Dummett, where I believe it was not correct to post it. It's been eight years, and he's still "in work". So, I think maybe the intention has changed, so maybe this post isn't bothersome.

**********

- About Pipozzo 1299 ...

Ross wrote:
"It turns out to be a case of bad editing or bad memory on van Rijnberk's part - the Tiraboschi reference does contain something of interest for playing card history, namely the story of Pipozzo di Sandro which appears to mention cards in 1299. This is now known to be a case of interpolation (see e.g. Kaplan I, p. 31). But the explanation for van Rijnberk's mistake must be that he remembered or had a note of Ginguené's "Histoire littéraire d'Italie", which is the translation of the title of Tiraboschi's work. So in fact, Ginguené must be van Rijnberk's source".

It is here:
viewtopic.php?p=4076#p4076

I would like to have arguments to dispel this rumor, which is very common in superficial articles that people tend to read. I have searched for the text, but I can't find any evidence that Pipozzo wrote a book titled "Trattato del governo della familia" (1299).

Any of you know what Kaplan says on page 31 when he denies Pipozzo's document on "carte" (not naibi)? Or do you have an opinion on the confusion in Pipozzo's text? Dummett didn't even mention it because he wouldn't accept it. Ross mentions Rijnberk, Ginguené, Tiraboschi, and Reiffenberg but it seems that this matter doesn't much affect Pipozzo's document or invention from 1299.

*****

- About 1377 book ...

Rheinfelden's book is said to have been written in either 1429 or 1377. Huck says the manuscript actually existed in 1377. The oldest surviving manuscript is from 1429. I checked and the text mentions 1377 a couple of times, but it's hard to understand the original text. I don't know of any evidence that the text says 1377 was the book's writing. The text says the cards arrived in that city in 1377, and that seems pretty recent. So I'm thinking maybe the book was written a few years after 1377. I mean, could it be written after 1377 and before 1429? I think there's a margin of several years in which the first manuscript could have been written, but I see some saying 1377 and others saying 1429. I don't see anyone admitting the possibility that the year is between those two dates. Am I wrong? Is there any argument?

******

- About 1310 Spain ...

Regarding Barcelona 1310, I visited the archive and found that the gambling prohibitions mention "tahurerias" (gambling venues) but don't mention naibi, card games, or anything similar. Then I corrected wikipedia-spanish and wikipedia-catalan. I saw a thread about this issue on this forum. There was another argument for 1310 related to Jews, but I didn't quite understand it.

About 1310 Germany I dont know who invemted that.

Magic Moon wrote:

Any of you know what Kaplan says on page 31 when he denies Pipozzo's document on "carte" (not naibi)? Or do you have an opinion on the confusion in Pipozzo's text?

It is online. See https://archive.org/details/encyclopedi ... 0/mode/2up

Magic Moon wrote,

The text says the cards arrived in that city in 1377, and that seems pretty recent. So I'm thinking maybe the book was written a few years after 1377.

The text says (http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... ribus.html)

Hinc est quod quidam ludus, qui ludus cartarum appellatur, hoc anno ad nos peruenit, scilicet anno domini m.ccc.lxxvii.

Translated as

Hence it is that a certain game, called the game of cards, has come to us in this year, viz the year of our Lord 1377.

In this passage, I think it is the word "hoc" that leads people to think that he was writing in 1377. On the side of accepting that date (he also cites arguments against such acceptance), Hurst writes (see link above):

According to trionfi.com, Arne Jönssen, (Latinist, author of St. Bridget’s Revelations To The Pope), is preparing a critical edition of the Tractatus. Jönssen affirms the date of 1377, noting three elements of the text support the early dating. First, obviously, the text gives the date as 1377. Second, “Ludevicus” is mentioned as the King of Hungary, indicating Ludvig the Great, who reigned until 1382. Third, Brother John writes of another event (something to do with the 100 Year War) which happened around that date.

I am not aware of such a critical edition being published. It would be good to have. There are also other things in the text not mentioned by Hurst, as well as arguments on the other side he doesn't mention, e.g. the "hoc" would be a copyist's error. The question was discussed in The Playing-Card 1989-1990 by Decker and Parlett. Decker mentions the possibility that the treatise was written sometime after 1377 but before 1429. I have quoted extensively from this discussion and others at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1094#p16827, which is part of a whole thread dealing with John of Rheinfelden. Also, there is an article by Franco, viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1095#p16830.

Hi Mikeh. Thanks for the comments, quotes, and links. I didn't know Kaplan's book was online. I'm delighted to finally read something about Pipozzo. Perhaps Kaplan thought the word "carte" was added to the original text, because he says the surviving copy appears to be a 15th-century transcription.

Huck, do you know if Arne Jönssen ever published the text or abandoned the project?

It's interesting to see that Decker mentioned the possibility of a dating between the two dates, what I thought some time. It's also interesting to confirm that the dating issue is difficult and unresolved, but rather that there are arguments for and against both dates.

I don't know if the text mentioned the year 1377 before saying "this year" but in that case, perhaps "hoc" is because that year had been mentioned previously in the text. In old documents in Spanish, it was common to use the expression "in this present year" to reinforce that it refers to the present moment (not future, not past). I don't know what the custom was previously in Latin. We'll have to wait to read the full text to see these details and also the verb tenses, for example when the King of Hungary is mentioned. We supose that it is mentioned in present but we have not detaills. By the way, it seems that Johannes was very old in 1429, if he was still alive, since it is estimated that he was born around the year 1340.

I see that the fragment transcribed in that Hurst link writes the year with Roman numerals. When I consulted the original 1429 document online, I found Arabic numerals (see photograph below) on folio 19. I can recognize some words. It seems that the following sentence does indeed mention the world, as in the quote you published, where it indicates that the cards reflect the world. I find it difficult to read the original text in the photograph, but I see that the year numbers are not Roman numerals. Hurst uses Roman numerals for the year, and that strikes me as odd. Perhaps that text comes from another copy.

The date is a great mystery. Perhaps the text wasn't written in 1377, but there surely existed an early edition that has been lost. Perhaps the original was written in 1377 or a few years later. Or perhaps he started writing it in 1377 and took a while to finish it, or perhaps the author himself added texts later, as you say. I hope to review all the studies Mikeh has published because there may be something I haven't read yet. Thanks!

The mistery year is important and it is also of interest to find out in what context Johannes' text describes different types of playing cards. I thought or had read that perhaps the variety of decks mentioned by Johannes could have been imagined by him, but in the excerpt of the end of the Hurst link published by Mikeh, it is understood that these were authentic decks that existed in the author's time. However, it seems they could be printed decks, or perhaps artisanal decks by artists or homemade decks. If artisanal decks existed, then we can easily understand why there was early variety. Dummett is surprised that there was early variety, and that opinion seems logical if we consider woodcut decks.

Magic Moon wrote: 05 Jul 2025, 20:08 do you know if Arne Jönssen ever published the text or abandoned the project?

He hasn't abandoned it.

I wrote him in early 2023 to ask about it, and I explained the interest playing card historians have in it. He wrote back saying he was surprised to hear of the interest, and that he and his colleague might have it ready by ... 2024.

It is a long text, albeit only four manuscripts. So, in any case, we wait.

Three of the manuscripts are fully digitized and online, so anyone can have a go. For me, they are too difficult. If it were ten pages, I'd try. But a hundred, no.

Thanks, Ross, for updating the status of that work. I've marked two dates in blue that look the same. I thought it referred to 1377. I can accept another hypothesis: 1344, perhaps 1399. I've marked a year in red that seems different. Perhaps it's 1311. Well, Arne's translation will clear up any doubts.

Jönssen did write something later than the 1998 piece that trionfi.com and Hurst refer to, in the book Chess and Allegory, 2005, "Card Playing as a Mirror of Society," on pp. 359-372. Here the section where he replies to his critics about the 1377 date of composition.
Then at the end he discusses his favorite deck, of 60 cards, in each of four suits a King, Queen, two marshalls, and a maidservant plus ten number cards representing various professions (as he says on the previous page). Here is the continuation of that discussion plus his remarks on the early history of playing cards. Note that the maidservant gets more points than the inferior marshall. It may be of interest that he accepts Berne 1467 as valid, contra Pratesi later. If so, it would have taken 10 years for playing cards to cross the border (since 1353) and get to him, a very short distance away. That seems dubious.