autorbis: 6 entries (1449 - 1452)
autorbis gave me the allowance to transfer a recent post from him. I've added some links for better understanding.
Autorbis:
"Hi,
here are some remarks:
a. We've 2 documents of Trionfi in 1442 (Ferrara)
b. We've 0 documents of Trionfi in 1443 - 1448
c. We've 6 documents of Trionfi in 1449 - 1452
(from 5 different places)
d. We've 20 documents of Trionfi in 1453 - 1463
(1 entry from Bologna, 19 from Ferrara)
(compare:
http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri01)
I evaluate these data in the following way: A thing has a good chance to be mentioned somewhere, when it is new. So the later missing of Trionfi-notes outside of Ferrara is "naturally", Trionfi was then "not new".
The entries from Ferrara one should exclude for this moment from this consideration, because there was a steady production of Trionfi-notes - cause the account books in Ferrara.
Then there are:
1449 Marcello
1450 Milano (Sforza)
1450 Florence
1452 Malatesta (Rimini - Sforza (Milano)
1459 Bologna
compare:
http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri03
compare:
http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri05
compare:
http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri06
compare:
http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri08
compare:
http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri20
There is a clear peak of events in the years 1449 - 1452.
From this I take the hypothesis, that Trionfi is new to most people in Italy in this time. On the basis of this hypothesis I take a near look at the documents, if I can find something inside, which contradicts, or something, which supports:
1449: Scipio Caraffa (appears in Marcellos letter) doesn't know the game (this suggests, that the deck-type is new). Marcello already knows it. Marcello is from Venetia/Padua, if one assumes, that the game spread from Ferrara (near Venetia), his acquaintaince with the new sort of deck is explainable.
He's looking for manufacturers, who could produce a deck (it seems, he knows more than one, but it is unclear, if this are just manufacturers for normal playing cards, who could also do Tarot cards, if necessary).
New or not new? This entry suggests, that there is already some acquaintance with the deck, but it might be a "local condition".
compare:
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/Marcello12.html
1450 (Sforza): In Sforzas letters it seems, that the great duke with all his possibilities has obviously problems to get a simple trionfi deck. He's in Lodi (somewhere on the country), not in Milano. It seems, there is no deck on the country, but possibly in Milano.
New or not new? It seems clear: In Milano are not many Trionfi decks.
1450 (Florence): A statute allows Trionfi and some other games, after the late 40ies seemed to have been a time of stronger card prohibition than before.
A man from Florence said to me: "In Florence all things were earlier than everywhere else, there was more creativity". A statute signals a broad stream of Trionfi cards - in Florence.
But let's look precisely at the situation of 1449 - 1450:
compare:
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/Florenzcards2.html
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/prohibitiontheory.html
Nov. 1449: Marcello writes his letter.
The political situation is very critical - all eyes watch Milano. Sforza tries to capture the city. There is famine in the city. Some thousand people will die soon, before Sforza is successfull (Feb./March). Venetia tries to intervene, but it doesn't work. Florence is happy after Sforza's victory (Cosimo had helped Sforza, now there is a new alliance possible, where 25 years had been only war).
Before Milano had a political experiment: trying to become a republic 3 long years, getting rid of a reigning duke. If the experiment would have had been successful, then Milano would have been the 3rd great republic of Italy beside Florence and Venetia. Under this condition other smaller cities would have thrown away their reigning nobility soon and the whole course of renaissance might have become rather revolutionary. This didn't happen.
The anarchical state, that accompanies political changes, gave Sforza the opportunity to seize the power.
In the year 1450 soon a plague reached Milano. 30 000 - 60 000 people (!) died in Milano. Probably that's the reason, why Sforza is not in Milano, but in Lodi. And the relatively chaotic conditions in the city:
death of Fillipo, the funeral ended in an upraising
3 years Ambrosian repulic
with a 1/2 year siege + famine + victory of Sforza
+ plague later
result in the condition: difficulties to get a Trionfi deck in Milano. The city is still a little chaotic in this year.
The plague was not only regional, but I've no data, if Florence was involved. In times of the plague games had a great chance - see Decamerone.
In Florence is in the late 40ies strong "playing card prohibition". Perhaps with the success of Sforza in Milano the general context demands "more liberal laws", so we have a release for players. Perhaps the plague and the play during the plague took an influence.
And Florence is a place, where people reacted quickly: In 1377 Florence was the first city, that prohibited cards.
Trionfi might be new in Florence, although the statute signals: it is well known.
1452: Malatesta writes to the Sforzas, if he could have a connection to the trionfi producers in Cremona.
This means: Malatesta - probably at that time in Rimini, far away (that's not sure)- invests considerable engagement to get such a deck. This he probably wouldn't do, if the Trionfi were reachable all and everywhere.
Local condition in Rimini: no trionfi reachable or at least no quality trionfi deck reachable. Or Malatesta is a card gatherer, another possibility.
Local condition in Milano: The Sforzas seem to have solved their card problem.
New oder not new? This story tells, that Trionfi are relatively new, still.
And now to Ferrara: although in the years 1450 - 1463 there is constantly something about Trionfi noted in Ferrara (21 notes in 14 years), there is NOTHING between 1442 - 1449.
Looking precisely at the first 2 entries from Ferrara 1442: Dokument 2 speaks of a deck for two boys, 9 and 11 years old.
Conclusion out of these contexts: The very early Trionfi isn't taken serious by adult players and stayed as toys for younger humans. The court of Leonello (1442 - 1450) didn't show great interest.
A subground stream leads from the Ferrarese situation in 1442 to a situation in 1449/1450, where some trionfi decks exist, but this kind of play is not known everywhere and not existent in great number.
I guess, my hypothesis at the beginning got more support than contradiction.
Ferrara 1442 is worth another evaluation, but not now."
Letter of autorbis ends.
To Ferrara 1442 compare:
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/ferrara.html
(in preparation)