Meaning and Implications of Prohibitions

There is a strange note at trionfi.com regarding one of Filippo Visconti's card prohibition:

"1420: Filippo Maria forbids anyone to play cards, if not according to the correct and ancient system [Nel 1420 vietò qualsiasi giuoco delle carte, quando non fosse secondo il retto e antico sistema](F. Malaguzzi Valeri, "La corte di Ludovico il Moro" (Milano, Hoepli, 1913-1917) vol. I, p. 268)."

What exactly does this mean: "...if not according to the correct and ancient system"?

Yatima

There s another famous prohibition/protection-law from Venice 1441 that has a curious implication. As stated by trionfi.com, this is the paradox:

"So we get from 1450 in Florence the information, that Trionfi are allowed, but card playing stayed prohibited (although with a Trionfi deck you could play any card game, that you desired, and from 1456 by the Ferarese jurist Ugo Trotti we know, that various plays were done with the Trionfi deck), and from other cities we do know, that they followed in their laws this specification: Trionfi were allowed, but card playing was prohibited (Brescia, Salo and Bergamo)."

How is it possible to allow a game that allows many games played by parts or sub-sets of the game while prohibiting the sub-sets?

Either they were stupid, because such a protection would have no consequence, or "trionfi" (as the exception of prohibition) did not imply the sub-sets...

Yatima

Yatima said:

There is a strange note at trionfi.com regarding one of Filippo Visconti's card prohibition:

"1420: Filippo Maria forbids anyone to play cards, if not according to the correct and ancient system [Nel 1420 vietò qualsiasi giuoco delle carte, quando non fosse secondo il retto e antico sistema](F. Malaguzzi Valeri, "La corte di Ludovico il Moro" (Milano, Hoepli, 1913-1917) vol. I, p. 268)."

What exactly does this mean: "...if not according to the correct and ancient system"?

Yatima

Click to expand...

We would love to know that too in detail. In the prohibitions from Florence often appear words like "diritta" or "dritta" and "vinciperdi", something, which is allowed in contrast to something, which is forbidden in context to cardplays. "Vinciperdi" means "winning-losing" - autorbis spontaneous suggestion was it, that this might refer to a sort of gambling, in which the worth of a game couldn't be escalated during the game, so, that each participant could know, what he might lose at begin of the game. Nowadays we would say, there was a limitation. Franco Pratesi, who made the research in Florence, didn't feel secure about this interpretation. "Diritti" might be interpreted as "right" and perhaps it was identical to "il retto e antico sistema". Probably a playing codex created spontaneously 40 - 50 years before (that made it "antico"), when playing card were invented.
In this context: One should see, that the time of 1370/1420 seems to have a break and changes in the "rules of the knights" - especially in Italy. For instance: 1404 we have a famous fighting school in Ferrara, mostly swordfighting, in the 30ies Ferrara becomes famous for music, culture and book collecting - things, which didn't exist 1404 or at least to a much smaller degree. There is a change in culture.
Rene d'Anjou in 1448 in France is still full on the knight-trip and loved tournaments. Italy in contrast to that developed "Trionfi" around that time, later 1457 we hear from tennis.

We hear from renaissance "in Italy and not elsewhere" and we should ask, what this means. It also means, that specific forms of culture got lost once - and specifically first in Italy. We've more and greater cities in Italy, that's the reason. The lower nobility didn't have such a strong hold there as in Germany or in France, where they ruled "somewhere on the country" - they became condottieri. They managed "mercenaries" and were payed by the great cities. Additionally developed the meaning of new weapons, which attacked the earlier domination with sword and lance - gunpowder-culture.
The knights had "rules" and a codex. The "right" way in various parts of their activities - and chess (that means, playing) was an integrated part in their life. But already in 14th century the knights had to learn, that also the citizens started to know this game. Interesting: Rainer Müller, german article:

http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/p/cma/5-02/mueller.pdf

This "right" way to play - whatever this was - should stand behind this "retto e antico" from Filippo.

Yatima said:

There s another famous prohibition/protection-law from Venice 1441 that has a curious implication. As stated by trionfi.com, this is the paradox:

"So we get from 1450 in Florence the information, that Trionfi are allowed, but card playing stayed prohibited (although with a Trionfi deck you could play any card game, that you desired, and from 1456 by the Ferarese jurist Ugo Trotti we know, that various plays were done with the Trionfi deck), and from other cities we do know, that they followed in their laws this specification: Trionfi were allowed, but card playing was prohibited (Brescia, Salo and Bergamo)."

How is it possible to allow a game that allows many games played by parts or sub-sets of the game while prohibiting the sub-sets?

Either they were stupid, because such a protection would have no consequence, or "trionfi" (as the exception of prohibition) did not imply the sub-sets...

Yatima

Click to expand...

The article is old and should be reconsidered and replaced according to the changes in our work.

Now we feel much more secure as earlier, that there were not much Trionfi decks before 1450 and that that Trionfi decks, which existed 1450 should "all" be connected to an "event" with triumphal festivities.

For the Trionfi-note from Florence in December 1450 is the following relevant:

Pope Eugen spend a longer time in Florence - cause he was a persecuted man in Rome . In his politic he was strongly related to the clique around San Bernardino and John Capestran, persons, which really didn't like cardplaying.

This presence must have caused, that card playing prohibition was a little stronger in and around Florence than it had been before (which one might - with unsecurities - conclude from the prohibition collections of Franco Pratesi). 1447 Eugen died and just a total different and much more openminded pope got the power. A lot of things changed already then, but a new war around Milan determined the next 3 years. Sforza became winner and conquered Milan in February, 25th, 1450

This must have caused Leonello d'Este to commission 3 very quick and cheap produced Trionfi decks, which were payed 16th of March. This 3 decks Leonello took (probably) with him, when he visited the triumphal procession in Milan at March 25th (probably these decks were cheap, as they were produced in great haste, as the news needed some time to reach Ferrara from Milan and the whole action from victory to triumphal procession took only a month).

We must see: there was a Trionfi production pause of about 8 years in Ferrara - just in the right moment Leonello "acts again". In 1442 Leonello also had a Trionfo-reason.

The observations of these activities seem to lead to the insight, that Trionfi decks were only produced, when a related event was near. This should be true for the Michelino deck (1425 Trionfo of Filippo), for the Cary-Yale (marriage Bianca 1441) and for the Leonello decks of 1442 (he is new signore in Ferrara). That means all decks are reflected, from which we know of beside the Brera-Brambilla - which is an unclear deck, as it might have been an Imperatori deck.

The "Trionfi are allowed"-edict from December 1450 must refer to a later Florence action celebrating the same event probably - Sforza's victory in Milan and the peace between Florence and Milan, cause Florence was in the victorious phase on the side of Sforza.
Why did they react so late (December, 9 monthes later)? Ah, these decks were probably rather unknown, it's likely, that they were a speciality in Ferrara and at the court of Milan. The Florentians, although normally the most creative people in all Italy, did need cause its specific pope-Eugen-phase and their republican desinterests in the triumphal procession of high nobility a little time to realize, that even republican people could have reasons for such sort of festivity. So naturally - of course - this Trionfi deck was allowed, this was a war-is-at-end-opportunity.

Btw.: We've no real sign, that this specific Trionfi deck from Florence 1450 became immediately a success - in the sense, that many, many people played it.

Well, that's the momentary state of our considerations. Perhaps the picture will change once.
But in all these many prohibtions before 1450, that Franco Pratesi found, the word "Trionfi" was not present. This - for instance - should have a reason. The most humble would be - they didn't know it - or a second one - they didn't like it, cause they didn't like Filippo Maria Visconti, whose name was connected to this "new game".

Yatima said:

There is a strange note at trionfi.com regarding one of Filippo Visconti's card prohibition:

"1420: Filippo Maria forbids anyone to play cards, if not according to the correct and ancient system [Nel 1420 vietò qualsiasi giuoco delle carte, quando non fosse secondo il retto e antico sistema](F. Malaguzzi Valeri, "La corte di Ludovico il Moro" (Milano, Hoepli, 1913-1917) vol. I, p. 268)."

What exactly does this mean: "...if not according to the correct and ancient system"?

Yatima

Click to expand...

Nobody knows for sure, since "the correct and ancient system" has not been found recorded anywhere. We are left to infer what we can from these prohibitions.

We can infer there were standard card games.

We can infer that recently (~1420), new games had appeared.

From Filippo's later prohibitions, we can infer that both types of games were popular in open gambling houses, "biscatia" and "baratteria".

We can infer that the main problem must have been gambling, and surely drinking, which lead to disorder. This is Filippo Maria's main concern - to preserve order.

So what was/were the new games? Since we have inferred they were games in the baratteria, and were gambling games which lead to disorder, I believe they can be linked with printed card production which seems to appear suddenly in the 1420s all over (1422 Sicily, 1423 Bologna), with the concomitant reaction by Bernardino of Siena. It is in this context of sudden change in playing habits that Filippo's law must be seen.

I once suggested that the Game of the Emperors (Imperatori, Kaiserspiel, Karnöffel) might be identified as this new game, since the rules seem both sacreligious and against the order of the state. So if this is the game, the "correct and ancient system" might be a reference to both the rules *and* the suit system, which might have already departed from the traditional Latin suits. But this is speculation - German card-makers could just as easily make Latin suits for export as German ones.

The only thing we can be sure of is that around 1420, card playing became a very big issue in the city states of northern Italy, and new games appeared.

Yatima said:

There s another famous prohibition/protection-law from Venice 1441 that has a curious implication. As stated by trionfi.com, this is the paradox:

"So we get from 1450 in Florence the information, that Trionfi are allowed, but card playing stayed prohibited (although with a Trionfi deck you could play any card game, that you desired, and from 1456 by the Ferarese jurist Ugo Trotti we know, that various plays were done with the Trionfi deck), and from other cities we do know, that they followed in their laws this specification: Trionfi were allowed, but card playing was prohibited (Brescia, Salo and Bergamo)."

How is it possible to allow a game that allows many games played by parts or sub-sets of the game while prohibiting the sub-sets?

Either they were stupid, because such a protection would have no consequence, or "trionfi" (as the exception of prohibition) did not imply the sub-sets...

Yatima

Click to expand...

I believe there are other answers. Note first that cards are not banned - it seems to be the multiplication of games that is prohibited. Older permitted games of the 1450 Florentine edict - diritta, vinciperdi - are rather like Filippo's "retto e antico sistema". Note the date, 11 December, which might be taken as indicative of the upcoming "gaming season" - winter, and Christmas-Epiphany.

These laws all apply to public gaming - they cannot be enforced in private. It is important to remember the times. People lived much more in public, outdoors - the men at least. In the courts, it was an elegant microcosm. And it's hard to play cards in the dark - and since most people couldn't afford candles to burn for endless hours (unlike Filippo Maria, for instance, who was afraid of the dark and used to burn candles all night), they played outside while there was light. In places protected from the wind, of course - under terraces, in archways.

It is these sorts of things that the law applies to.

Triumpho is mentioned for the first time, and as a permitted game. Nobody would buy a set of relatively expensive triumph cards (we know of no other kind by this date), just to play regular games in private. The wealthy classes, the only ones we know of who had the cards at this time, didn't play in the baratterie. They had elegant private playing habits - look at the Palazzo Borromeo painting. Women played with men, it was courtly society. The quality of the cards matched the wealth of the players. And the "laws" meant for the public didn't really matter much.

The game was permitted after all. We may assume it was partly because of its high class character. It's like saying "polo, golf and tennis are permitted, but other ball games aren't". This restricts it to certain classes of people, if you know the games. Perhaps a better analogy is "bridge is permitted, but poker and blackjack aren't."

So I think that Triumpho being permitted, means that it had finally moved out of a very exclusive circle of wealthy players, where laws one way or another wouldn't apply, into perhaps a middle class level in Florence. I don't know if the permission implies that the game was played in public, or if the city fathers were trying to extend their reach into private playing spaces.