Yatima said:
Ross wrote:
"But if you think trionfi is different, can you show me where somebody uses it for both "repentance and gaming"?"
Well, yes, I can: It is before our nose, the Tarot itself! Look at the Bembo-14. I have developed arguments for the apocalyptic and repentance background here and in the Star, Moon, Sun-thread. We see the “end” of the 14 trumps in Death and Resurrection. Both related to Black Death, repentance, apocalyptic issues. And finally the World as New Jerusalem (I have given extensive evidence of the iconographical, literal and liturgical background “present” at the time of the invention of the Tarot in the XXI- Le Monde-thread). So, yes, the Tarot is such a combination.
This argument is a perfect example of begging the question, or circular reasoning. I asked for *historical* evidence of somebody actually, really using it for repentance and gaming. You appealed instead to your own arguments - not evidence, but interpretation. It is circular reasoning. You are essentially saying "Tarot itself is evidence of my interpretion of the meaning of the Tarot".
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
I know of games being used to illustrate moral principles, leading one to consider the exercise of virtue, etc., but not "repentance." Very different things.
Your other arguments appeal strongly to ignorance. This also is considered a logical fallacy -
http://www.uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson8a.htm
"10. Appeal to Ignorance - One of the premises admits that nothing is known about a subject and then the conclusion purports to assert definitely something one way or the other about the subject, on the basis of this ignorance."
I don't need you to remind me of the fragmentary, accidental, and biased nature of the historical record. But instead of jumping to the conclusion that this somehow positively *favours* another theory, the evidence as it actually stands has to be weighed and considered.
There is simply no *reason* to think the trionfi cards were printed first, then adapted. Only the firm *belief* - the hope and wish - that it was so, can make you go for this option. Then you "support" this wish with the note that since nothing is known of these cards, it must be because of the bias of the sources. You then attempt a circumstantial argument, based on the fact that printed cards - regular decks - were known, then the same people must have *first* invented trionfi cards. Each unknown leads to a new unknown, until you have an argument based on three or four levels of appealing to ignorance.
You absolutely must first master the evidence as it is, rather than sweeping it away as irrelevant because rich people are an anomaly. Evidence is evidence - you can't take it or leave it. You have to take it. For all its worth - which can be considerable, even from biased sources.
What does the evidence say? You often forget the force of the statutes of permitted and prohibited games, which are some of the only indications we get of what "common" people were doing. The prohibitions are directed at current and popular games, to regulate them.
The fact is, Triumphs is not mentioned, either to prohibit or permit, until 1450 - *while a lot of other games are mentioned well before this time.* When Triumphs appears finally, as a *permitted* game, it is mentioned *alongside* these other games.
So what are your options with this data? Poor common folk couldn't write about what games they were playing, but these lawmakers did do us a favour by noting some of the games they played.
Either Triumphs existed popularly enough to be noted, or it did not, before 1450.
The simplest explanation is that it did not. It was limited to the households of some wealthy people, where lawmakers didn't take any notice of it. This is my opinion. This opinion is strengthened by the absence of any printed trionfi cards, or any evidence of their use outside of this circle, during or before the 1440s. A strong case, I would say.
I could add that it is not only the simplest argument, it is also not contradicted by anything. It makes sense of all the data, and all their implications. It is, in other words, a *sound* theory.
On the other hand, you can play with the idea that Triumphs did exist in a sort of popular form before 1450.
It was not noted by anybody who took interest in popular games. Note that we are trying to find evidence of popular habits, from the statutes, so that we are avoiding the argument that we can't know anything about the poor people's playing habits. This is one way we can actually try to *learn* something about common people, rather than claim bias all the time, and then go about guessing.
What are your options with this thought-experiment? If it existed as "triumphs", it slipped through the radar one way or another.
However, we know that everybody who saw it - rich people, who were used to luxury - were astonished by their beauty - even an apparently regular pack. How can we explain such a game escaping notice by common people, who are much more likely to be impressed by beauty? If this is only because rich people made luxury editions, how is it that the rich chose to take a crude prototype that nobody in the street cared about, and turn it into such an object of wonder? So it seems unlikely that a crude, unnotable prototype of "triumphs" was circulating. I could add that the name "triumphs" would be innappropriate to a crude deck, since a triumph is a glorious thing. The crude decks we know are all tarocchis and tarots, and come from a later period than our triumphs.
If triumphs existed popularly before 1450, they were unregulated, while other games were regulated. This seems hard to believe, given the novelty of the pack, and the fact that it is named as permitted the first time it appears in a statute. The game was never banned, so it also seems hard to believe that before 1450 it was banned in Milan or Florence, and hence was not mentioned by name, merely falling under the rubric for "cards."
So from one of the few places that might actually shed some light on popular practices, it appears that trionfi cards did not exist. The game continued to be associated with the wealthy classes until popular printed versions appear, later in the century.
This is the consensus, and it happens to be my opinion as well.
))