March 16, 2024: Florence 1478 and 1479: Petrarch's triumphs in private homes (with May 3 addendum)

The original, "Firenze 1478 e 1479: Trionfi del Petrarca in case private," is at https://naibi.net/A/TRIOPETR.pdf.  This note reports his find of a 1479 inventory item of a "paio di trionfi In charta pechora di messer franc° petrarcha" - a pack of trionfi in parchment of Messer Franco Petrarch." The parchment suggests that the "pack" (paio) is old. In a second part of the note, he revisits the inventory of the workshop of Alessandro Rosselli, son of the famous engraver Francesco Rosselli, in which the "game of the Triumphs of Petrarch" is one item.

I have added a few comments in brackets for clarification when there was no simple translation that captured the idea, checking with Franco to be sure. He went over it and as usual was indispensable, but any errors are mine. There were a few words in the inventory that we could not translate; they are indicated in quotation marks.

The numbers on the left margin by themselves correspond to the page numbers of the page that follows in Franco's pdf original. The notes are in red and appear at the bottom of each page. 

After the translation of the March 16 original there is an addendum Franco added on May 3, 2024. In addition, I have a few comments following related to that addendum.

Florence 1478 and 1479: Petrarch's Triumphs in private homes

Franco Pratesi

1. Introduction

That the Petrarchan poem I Trionfi [The Triumphs] has something to do with the origin of the tarot is assumed by the majority of historians. The problem is that the characters of the Triumphs are six and the "triumphal" cards added to the tarot deck are twenty-two, and how to go from the first number to the second finds no concordant reconstructions among scholars. I have in mind an entire book in which the suggested connection is direct and immediate: the tarot was apparently invented by Petrarch himself! [note 1] But this, too, is only one of the many proposals for which it is very difficult or even impossible to find any confirmation. However, two fixed points remain: the six subjects of the poem are found in the tarot and, perhaps even more importantly, in the tarot we find the fact that the subjects are inserted in a series, such that the subsequent one prevails over the previous one, just as in the poem.

Alongside the literary theme, the artistic-figurative one has developed to the point of becoming prevalent. Research on the illuminated manuscripts of the Triumphs has been of particular interest. These manuscripts, however, spread with a certain delay compared to the first copies, which lacked figures.

As often happens, there is a subdivision of experts: on the one hand, academics, writers, and art historians who study the Triumphs in depth in their literary and artistic context without a particular interest in the tarot; on the other, experts on tarot who, independently, put forward their hypotheses on possible connections.

My impression, however, is that in no similar situation has there been a rapprochement between the two camps as in this particular case. I imagine that a notable part of the credit is due to the academic level of Michael Dummett, who took a deep interest in the question from the height of his chair as an esteemed professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford, laying with his fundamental book [note 2] the foundations for a kind of revolution in the sector. Today it so happens that cartophile experts who discuss the topic are also following the results of academic research step by step, so that the distinction between the two fields has become much narrower. An example can be found in discussion that has been ongoing for years on Tarot History Forum.[note 3] In the opposite direction, it is possible to read works by art history professionals who renounce the usual verbosity and, starting from The Triumphs, [note 4] arrive at the tarot.[note 5]

I am unable to participate constructively in person in the details of the discussion. However, I would have liked to take advantage of my greater proximity to possible Florentine sources to make new contributions, in particular, in this case, on the presence in the homes of fifteenth-century Florentines of both the manuscripts of the Trionfi and the card game of trionfi [triumphs]. Up to now my search had yielded no results; I can now report one, which unfortunately isn't early enough to be as useful as I would have liked.

2. Documents studied and information of interest

I recently communicated the first results of the search for naibi and triumphs in the inventories of household goods preserved in the registers of the collection Magistracy of Minors before the Principality of the State Archives of Florence (ASFi).[note 6] Of this large format series, I have already provided the principal
__________________________
1. R. Fusi, R. Pio, Tarocchi: un giallo storico. Firenze 2001.
2. M. Dummett, The Game of Tarot. London 1980.
3. viewtopic.php?p=13174#p13174
4. A. Labriola, “Da Padova a Firenze: l’illustrazione dei Trionfi,” in: F. Petrarca, i Trionfi (ed. I. G. Rao). Castelvetro di Modena 2012.
5. A. Labriola, "Les tarots peints à Florence au XVe siècle." In Th. Depaulis, Tarots enluminés. Paris 2020.
6. https://www.naibi.net/A/CURRADO.pdf; https://www.naibi.net/A/VECCHIETTI.pdf; https://www.naibi.net/A/NAIBTRIO.pdf

2
indications. I have now extended the study, in this case to a single register: N. 174 Sample of inventories and revised regulations for the neighborhoods of Santo Spirito and Santa Croce from 1475 to 1479.

I spotted two interesting objects. The first is certainly a manuscript of the Triumphs, the first that I was able to find in these inventories - while, for example, dozens of Dante manuscripts could be listed. I copy and transcribe the relevant part of the inventory below; between quotation marks are uncertain words, but the reading of the others can also be improved. 

1 Booklet covered in black with goatskin parchment of “chonsumi tudina”
1 Booklet of Messer Lionardo d'Umiltà in papyrus covered in red
1 Book of the triumphs of Petrarch [trionffi del petrarcha] covered in red
1 Book in French covered in red
1 Booklet of rhetoric by Tulio [Cicero] in vernacular (i.e. Italian] in goatskin parchment covered in purple
1 Booklet, little, with fixtures [locks?] [/i] covered in red
1 Book of "Dante and of. . .," very old in goatskin
1 Book of the Council of Basel, covered
1 Book, old, of French verses
1 Book without boards [/i][in the bindings] of historiated French verses
1 Book without boards covered as above

This is a group of books that is part of a library much richer than average. The deceased owner was Francesco di Antonio di Tomaso Nori. The date on which guardianship was taken of Francesco's son Francesco di Francesco, approximately 11 years old, is May 23, 1478.

The second can be read on f. 309v among other various objects, and I again reproduce and transcribe the relevant part. 

2 new towels
1 worn table knife
1 purple belt packaged equipped in white silver “per asse” and weight 8 oz. 12 denari [1/24th of an oz.]
1 pair [paio] of triumphs [trionfi] in parchment of messer Francesco Petrarca
2 purple articles of clothing worn-out and torn
1 good small white upper garment of Soventona

The starting date of the registration is August 5, 1479. The deceased is Zanobi di Francesco di Nutto, goldsmith. Among the real estate, several houses are listed in Tignano, in Val d'Elsa near Barberino, but it is not clear from here whether the family lived permanently in that village.

3. Comments on the two objects reported

There isn't much to comment on about the book. The case would have been different if the book had been richly illuminated and provided with a detailed description of the images for us; on the other hand, even in an ideal case of this kind, the date, distant not only from the writing of the Triumphs but also from the appearance of the game of triumphs, would still weigh heavily [against providing documentation of a direct connection between Petrarch and the game].

A comment is perhaps necessary on the rarity of such recordings. As I wrote for the naibi in the studies cited, one should take into account the possibility that other recordings of this kind have escaped my observation, but the result is the same: the presence of other specimens cannot be ruled out at all, but not many can have escaped. Instead, there are two further possibilities for the absence of these objects. The first is that the book of the Trionfi was listed as a book of poems, or a book in Italian [as opposed to Latin] or similar, without specifying its title and author; the second is that the Trionfi was kept aside by the owners before the inventory was compiled. (The latter is not my hypothesis, but that of an expert scholar of the period who claims that a notable part of the books preserved in private homes was later found to be absent in these inventories.)

Instead, “a pair of triumphs in parchment of Messer Francesco Petrarca” is an inventory item that requires at least as many comments as there are written terms. We start immediately with the "pair." If this term had not been included, one would have thought of another book of the Trionfi, written, or at least bound, in parchment. Now, however, we know that writing “a pair” here was equivalent to “a pack,” and this is sufficient to exclude any book of the poem. In short, we are faced with a real deck of playing cards. We just need to continue the discussion on these cards, to better specify their type.

Thus we encounter parchment, which was not at all predictable for 1479, when in its place we would have expected to find rag paper by now. Why parchment that late?


4
All in all, the answer this time does not seem difficult. A new deck of cards is not being recorded here, bought a few days earlier; it could have been in the house for decades, because it was evidently an object worthy of attention, respect and . . . conservation. However, not enough to make it considered a precious object, because it is enough to observe the environment where it was found and the objects with which it was preserved to exclude any extraordinary value. In short, it seems quite clear that the alternative arose, as often happens with old objects, of whether to keep it or get rid of it.

We are left with "messer Francesco Petrarca," the well-known author of the Triumphs. Yes, precisely of the Triumphs, not the triumphs, unless you believe the reconstruction mentioned at the bottom of the page in the first note. I don't remember ever having read, except in that book, about a Petrarch who was also the author of the triumphs.

In the end, 1479 no longer seems to us so late: for such information, that date still maintains great validity, because it can be compared with the present day. In fact, here to associate, precisely directly, the triumphs to the Triumphs is not an exegete of our times, who is struggling to find plausible reconstructions, but Florentines who had seen the appearance of the first triumphs in the city only a generation earlier, or a little more.

Looking perhaps too closely, it remains for us to understand whether that clarification should be read in a general sense, to indicate precisely that the deck of triumphs dated back to Petrarch, or in a particular sense, i.e. added to specify the type in question, in so far as it could have been one of the various decks of triumphs then in circulation. For me the former applies, at least now, but the question will still require a brief discussion.

4. A confirmation after half a century

Several authors who have dealt with the history of playing cards, and triumphs in particular, have repeatedly cited another inventory in the same collection of the Magistracy of Minors before the Principality: that of the haberdashery-stationery shop of Alessandro di Francesco Rosselli. The document, from 1525, was identified in an enormous series of inventories by the historian and archivist Gaetano Milanesi (1813-1895),[note 7] who reported it to Iodoco Del Badia. Del Badia transcribed part of the inventory and published it in 1894 in the Miscellany he edited, together with another document relating to the same inheritance.[note 8]

Unfortunately, finding the original in the ASFi is not an easy task. From the title and the years indicated, the number of the series is immediately deduced as 190, but there is no indication of the folios, and it so happens that this enormous register has just over a thousand, that is, just over two thousand pages, almost all of the inventories. The fact that the dimensions are a little smaller than the royal sheets usually used has little impact for the Revised Samples and Accounts series. There would also be a repertoire at the beginning, on sheets of parchment, and one would even read the name of Alessandro di Francesco Rosselli, but the page indicated is number 52 and certainly does not correspond to the content; moreover, the numbers of folios indicated in the repertoire is just over one hundred and therefore it is clear that it cannot be useful here.

Making the most of my free time, I finally identified the inventory of interest on folios 395-399. With respect to the transcription of the Miscellany, I limit the inventory part to a few entries before and after the triumphs, which I reproduce and transcribe as usual.
_______________________
7. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ga ... ografico)/
8. Miscellanea fiorentina di erudizione e storia. Vol. II, N. 14, 1894, pp. 24-30 – reprinted Rome 1978.

5

Screenshot 2024-05-05 at 17-40-23 Triopetrtrans5-2.pdf-min.png

(252.43 KiB) Not downloaded yet

1 large navigation map in 4 pieces of eight royal sheets
1 Florence on six "folded" royal sheets
1 large world map in 3 pieces of 12 half-sheets
1 large world map in 9 pieces of 16 common sheets
1 crucifix of a common sheet
1 crucifix of half a common sheet
1 crucifix of half a common sheet.
1 Saint Christopher 1 Our Lady on half a common sheet
1 print of half a common sheet of more saints
17 pieces of the sibyls and prophets doubled
1 game of the triumph of Petrarch in 3 pieces
1 game of planets with their friezes in 4 pieces
1 Saint Mary Magdelene of 1/2 common sheet.
10 forms of rosaries double printed of 1/2 common sheet
2 little heads of God the Father on ottavo sheet
1 little Virgin Mary on ottavo sheet
1 crucifix of brass on ottavo sheets with another
1 angel Raphael of tin on quarter sheet

6
It should be noted that the two games in this final part of the inventory are among other objects of which the type of paper is indicated, and not that of the material of the blocks used for printing, which could be wood, except for the few cases indicated of different materials. Reading the text as a conservation of entire sheets, they would seem to be kept as models for future productions rather than to be cut to obtain a single deck of playing cards (in the case of the triumph) or small religious figures.

Rather, the other two "games" present in the inventory are in a previous part, which follows a list of books and contains objects indicated as wooden - also for these two games - which also makes their prolonged conservation in the shop more easily understandable.

1 game of apostles with Our Lord in seven pieces of wood
1 Saint Mary of Loreto in two pieces of wood
1 Virgin Mary and Saint Roch and Saint Sebastian in two pieces of wood
1 game of seven virtues in 5 pieces of wood

Among other things, the not-new fact of the three pieces for the triumphs remains to be discussed. Among the few known examples, a possible basis for such a discussion are the Rosenwald sheets; I have already had the opportunity to discuss these and similar cards in the past.[note 9] I imagine that experts have made significant progress in recent times, but I verified on Tarot History Forum that by inserting Rosenwald the answer is "468 matches,” and that number tired me before I started reading.

However, I must observe, with some regret, that if those pieces were of the Rosenwald block type, Petrarch's triumphs in the Inventories of the Magistracy of Minors were not a deck of minchiate, which would have required at least four. On the other hand, still in the hypothesis of blocks of that type, with three pieces a 70-card triumph deck would be formed more simply than with one of 78; but these are always deductions with weak underlying hypotheses.

In summary, forty-nine years later the triumphs - here triumph - of Petrarch are encountered again, but together with other "games" with saints or mythological characters. This news has created a lot of confusion over time, especially because some authors have interpreted these "games" as possible decks of different playing cards. It should also be considered that decks of cards that are both ancient and out of the ordinary are known, especially from Germany, if only for the symbols of the four suits.

In reality, in these inventories I have recently found the same term "giuoco" several times with an uncommon meaning, but one which is well suited to the case in question. For example, there are games of containers or measuring cups to determine the quantity of wine or other liquids, that is, not one but a series of measuring cups to be used depending on the specific case (and presumably the "game" of that series consisted in the possibility of placing them then one inside the other). Or games of tools, always meaning small series of objects of the same kind but of complementary size or type.

In conclusion, the information provided by Del Badia, instead of introducing decks of playing cards with different characters into the discussion, ends up being only a confirmation of what was discussed here, namely that only the triumphs were particular playing cards and, above all, always connected to the Triumphs, at least in the eyes of the Florentines, which is no small thing.


Florence, 03.16.2024
_______________________
9. https://www.naibi.net/A/103-ROSENW-Z.docx; https://naibi.net/a/516-rosen3-z.pdf; https://www.naibi.net/A/526-ASSISI-Z.pdf; https://www.naibi.net/A/601-UMBRIA-Z.pdf.

ADDENDUM: When I examined the original document from the Rosselli workshop, I had the Rosenwald sheets in mind for comparison. The fact that we were reading triumph instead of triumphs did not impress me, because even the card game was sometimes referred to in the singular. In short, I had no doubt that even in this case “Petrarch’s triumph” was related to the deck of cards, even if the term pair, which is really decisive, did not appear here. The only doubt was initially whether there could also be other decks of cards among the items indicated together.

During the English translation, Michael Howard pointed out to me the sheets present on the Internet of the triumphs of the Rosselli workshop, to which I had not paid attention earlier on. These are approximately 26x17 cm images, and thus, by far, too large with respect to any known playing-cards.

So, as in the other items present together in the Rosselli workshop, even for this only one – the triumph of Petrarch – for which I supposed to find playing cards, a different solution will have to be studied. It is with this aim that Michael Howard is continuing the research.


Florence, 03 May 2024

(The addendum is added in English. By "even for this only one" Franco intends that this comment is meant to apply to this one inventory and not to the previous one about the "paio di trionfi.")

 TRANSLATOR'S COMMENTS:

Art historians generally consider that the "game of the triumph of Petrarch" in the inventory refers to three metal plates from which a popular series of six engravings of Petrarch's six Trionfi were made by Francesco Rosselli in the 1480s. These plates were then inherited by his son. The basic argument was made by Arthur Hind in his 8 volume series Early Italian Engravings, in vol. 2 and 4. Here is how he puts it in the list of items. They are number 72.

B.II refers to the series on paper in the British Museum later attributed to Rosselli, as opposed to another, inferior set, the A series, done a decade or two earlier by someone else. That the six engravings were done on the opposite sides of three plates is indicated by the dimensions of the resulting engravings (p. 131):

The dimensions of Love are, he says on p. 133, 260x173 mm. Chastity is 257x164. Death is 262x172. Fame (p. 134) is 262x172. Time is 256x174. Eternity is 260x173. The dimensions correspond as he indicates.

That they are plates and not woodblocks is inferred from the total weight of the items:

Not all the items are metal plates, however. Hind recognizes many items as the molds from which woodcuts he identified elsewhere were derived and hypothesizes, based on these identifications, that the first 30 in the inventory were blocks and the remainder plates, as indicated below.

 

It may be of interest that only two other items in the inventory are called "games", namely items 1 and 4, which Hind describes as "note packs of cards." But given their subject matter - Christ and the Apostles, the Seven Virtues - these are still not "games" in the usual sense today, but rather series around a common theme, the same as the Trionfi of Petrarch. 

I have uploaded all the relevant pages of Hind's Appendix on the Inventory at https://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=26507#p26507.

We might wonder whether the same interpretation of "series" might also apply to the word "paio." In fact, the Grande Dizionario de la Lingua Italiana, in its list of meanings for the word "paio",, p. 381 at
https://www.gdli.it/pdf_viewer/Scripts/ ... arola=paio (the continuation of the definitions of "paio" that started on the previous page), gives as its fourth meaning.

4. Disus. Complesso di parti o oggetti o pezzi che concorrono a formare un tutto unitario e organico.
Vasari [D’Alberti]: Far che la pittura paia più presto un tappeto colorito o un paro di carte da giocare che carne unita e panni morbidi. Crusca, IV Impress. [s. v.]: Talora si dice 'paio' a un corpo solo d’una cosa, ancor­ché si divida in molte parti, come un paio di carte da giuocare, un paio di scacchi.

I translate this as :

4. Disus. Complex of parts or objects or pieces that combine to form a unitary and organic whole. Vasari [D'Alberti]: To make painting look more like a colorful carpet or a set of cards to play than solid flesh and soft cloths. Crusca, IV Impress. [s. v.]: Sometimes we say 'pair' to a single body of one thing, even if it is divided into many parts, like a pair of cards to play, a pair of chess.

"Paio di scacchi" seems to me fairly parallel. Discussing this with Franco, he had no serious objection, but wasn't ready to support it himself, because unlike "giuoco," he had never seen the word "paio" connected with "trionfi" except as a pack of triumph cards. 

March 14, 2024: Minchiate - A handwritten copy of Paolo Minucci's note

This is one of a series of new notes on booklets having to do with how to play minchiate. This first one is a translation of   "Minchiate – Una copia manoscritta della nota di Paolo Minucci," posted on March 14, 2024,at https://www.naibi.net/A/UGHI.pdf.

Notes in brackets are mine for explanatory purposes, added in consultation with Franco. The numbers by themselves in the left margin are page numbers in Franco's Italian pdf, and footnotes are at the bottom of the corresponding pages.

In Franco's original pdf, the transcription of the handwritten copy of Minucci's note is on one side of the page and the printed version on the other side. Google's blog software does not allow such a presentation to my knowledge, so instead I present the two paragraph by paragraph, with the manuscript in italics and the printed version underneath it in normal Roman type.

Minchiate – A handwritten copy of Paolo Minucci's note

Franco Pratesi

1. Introduction

We can start with a note by Paolo Minucci included in Lorenzo Lippi's Malmantile racquistato. [note 1] The poem, which had had an uncertain reception in the posthumous edition of 1676, had lasting success after the second edition appeared in 1688 with the notes that Minucci had inserted to make that text better understandable, so rich in Florentine idiomatic expressions. [note 2] If the book is known by all lovers of Italian literature, Minucci's Note, in which he explains - for non-Tuscans - how to play minchiate, is a milestone in the specific literature of this game.

Minucci's Note represents not only the oldest text detailing the rules of the game but also the main testimony to the particular way in which it was practiced in Florence, where two, three or four players could play. The four-person variant was the most frequent, but everyone played for themselves and it was possible for one of the four not to participate in the game, paying a penalty that varied with location [around the table]. In the eighteenth century, several printed books on minchiate appeared, but as a rule, only the subsequent editions were printed in Florence. The game they described was, exclusively or almost exclusively, one played by four players divided into two pairs.

The present study is based on an unknown manuscript text on the game of minchiate. The eighteenth-century document found was bound in a book from the Ughi collection of the State Archives of Florence (ASFi). The examination of the text has highlighted that it is a copy of Paolo Minucci's Note.

2. Notes on the Ughi archive

The ASFi Ughi collection is part of the family archives. The Ughi family was a notable family in Renaissance-era Florence and with some branches in subsequent centuries as well. As usually happened in important families, various documents and papers were preserved in a family archive that grew with the succession of generations. In the mid-eighteenth century the most important branch of the family became extinct and the Ughi archive began a series of transfers, with more passages than usual, especially due to the subsequent extinctions of the families in which it found itself.

The first transition was from the Ughi family to the Lorenzi family, when in 1750 Minerva Ughi, the last of the family, married Luigi Lorenzi. After the death of their son Francesco Orlando, the last of the
Lorenzi family, the two archives Ughi and Lorenzi merged through the nephews (children of his sister Luisa Lorenzi) into the archive of the Barbolani da Montauto family and from here - after the death in 1802 of the last descendant of that branch of the family - into the final family, that of the Velluti Zati, dukes of San Clemente.

Of all this set of family archives, the Ughi is the only one of interest here. After being moved to Anghiari from Palazzo San Clemente in Florence, it was again separated from the archives of the other families and purchased by the ASFi in 1985. For a description of the collection, you can read Daniela Sara's 2004 Preface to the Inventory N/431 of the ASFi.

A substantial part of the documentation refers to the patrimonial administration, which can be divided into domestic administration of the family [domestica], of the farms, and of the religious bodies under the family’s patronage. Two other substantial documentary nuclei concern procedural documents and contracts, wills, and legal writings. The rest of the documentation includes correspondence, scholarly and literary writings, memoirs and memories, plans, inventories, documents relating to different families. It also includes a group in parchment [contracts or similar texts, usually on one sheet, a few of two or more].

___________
1. Malmantile racquistato. Poema di Perlone Zipoli con le note di Puccio Lamoni. Florence1688, pp. 408-411.
2. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/lo ... %20Lorenzo

2
There are a total of 697 pieces including envelopes, registers and boxes and the documentation covers a very extended time span, from the thirteenth to the twentieth century. It may be surprising that the Ughi archive contains documents subsequent to the extinction of the main branch of the family, but there must have been valid reasons for the inclusion of subsequent documents from other families, or secondary branches of the same, during the separation between the various families of the composite archive.

3. Examination of the book

In the same Inventory indicated above, recently made accessible on the Internet, on the book in question we read, among other things, the following.

Definitive Number: 683 - Provisional Number: 451
Date: 18th century
Attributed title: History of the nobility of Florence, by Piero Monaldi, manuscript copy;
Report [Relazione] of the happy life and death of Lady Supplizia Horida Lazzari, a Florentine noblewoman from Città di Castello, occurred on 28 May 1717, manuscript copy;
Histories and origins from which some of our Tuscan proverbs originated, manuscript copy;
Dialogus Gnocchus, et Maccharo, manuscript copy;
Of the game of minchiate, and the way to play it, and what cards make it up, manuscript copy
Original title: “Piero Monaldi. History of the nobility of Florence (. . .)” Cover [i.e. title on cover]
Description: Cart. Reg. of cm. 32 × 22 bound in cardboard; 140 pp., coeval numbering, followed by many pp. written and some pp. blank, unnumbered.

 ASFi, Ughi, 683, Cover (Reproduction prohibited)

It is not clear from the description that Monaldi's History constitutes the essential part of the book; not only because it is indicated as the title on the cover, but also because it constitutes the main part of the volume with all 140 numbered pages dedicated exclusively to this work. The sequel to the book is made up of loose installments, bound together with the main work without page numbers. The reason for this association of documents remains unclear, but it would seem that the aim was to find a lasting preservation for these added documents, which otherwise would have soon been dispersed.

The Report [Relazione] occupies 24 unnumbered pages, the Proverbs 22 and 6 blank, the Dialogus 8, and the Game 8, with an unrelated poem at the last. The size of the paper used for Report and Game is smaller, with pages measuring 28x21cm.

 

3
The Report is the only document with two precise dates, May 28, 1717, the date of the protagonist's death, and a second in the year 1723, which can be read at the end. In fact, even these years only provide us with a starting date, because the text could have been written, or copied, after an unknown number of years. Furthermore, even if we set such a date for this document, little is defined for us about the others present together, which could be not only independent, but also compiled at different times, before and after.

The History deserves a more in-depth examination, precisely as the main work of the book. Searching for traces of the original, we are lucky to immediately find an example in the digitized catalogs. [note 3] Indeed, we are surprised by the very different dimensions of this copy, a volume of almost 400 pages measuring 42.5x27 cm. Only direct examination of this large and heavy manuscript allows us to understand that the copy from the Ughi archive is simply the first part of the original, which continues with a very long reasoned list of the main Florentine families and the description of events and particular details of history and city life. The date of the original is taken from the text in the interval 1589-1609, but several citations that can also be found online set the compilation to 1607 (although it is not of the original of this work that a precise definition would be useful here). I was also able to examine other copies in the Moreniana Library, where at least four thick manuscripts are preserved, more or less complete. [note 4]

The other texts linked together contain no clues to the dates of compilation. Perhaps an examination of the handwriting by an expert could distinguish only two hands in the writing of all these parts. Some uncertainty also derives from the location of the volume in the archive, one of the last, number 685 out of 697, with contents indicated as Miscellaneous. Specific studies by experts would be useful, but the contents of the book are not such as to lend themselves to in-depth academic research. Of the whole book, the part of specific interest to me is only the last seven pages, with the Game.

4. Game of Minchiate

I was able to verify that the text of the final part of the Ughi manuscript corresponds exactly, except for minimal differences, to that of Minucci's printed note on minchiate, and therefore, I report them both below, with the handwritten copy on the left and the corresponding text printed in 1688. [In this translation, the handwritten copy is in italics, followed by the printed text in normal Roman font.]

The handwriting of the manuscript can be read quite easily, but sometimes the clarity is disturbed by the ink on the back side, which in large part runs through the page. You encounter the usual uncertainties about the use of capitalization and punctuation; in short, I do not guarantee absolute fidelity in the transcription, which in any case does not appear indispensable here in general terms. To facilitate reading I have inserted more paragraphs than can be read in the two cases.

An unclear point concerns the first distribution of the cards. When playing with four players, twenty-one are usually distributed to each, and the remaining thirteen are usually examined by recovering the counting cards present. Here nothing is said about the fate of these thirteen cards, and it would seem that no one could look at them or take them (although the possible absence of some of the counting cards in the game would lose a considerable part of its interest). But one thing remains clear: in the case described, the distribution is typical of the game with three people instead of four, because twenty-five cards are distributed to each, with therefore twenty-two remaining out of play. This distribution is evident in the printed note: first twelve, and then thirteen are distributed, of which the last one is uncovered, and at the end of the text, 25 is found in parallel as the overall number. In the manuscript, it is also clear that the three-player game is implied, because two deals of twelve cards are indicated [in the earlier discussion of the deal], followed, one can imagine, by a third deal with an exposed card.
______________
3. Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Conv. Soppr. A.I.774
4. Biblioteca Moreniana, Mss. Mor. 201, 202, 203; Palagi 50.

 

4

The Game of Minchiate, and the way to play it, and what cards make it up.

The game of minchiate, very popular in our Tuscany, also called Tarocchi, Ganellini, or Germini, is made up of 97 cards, of which 56 are called cartacce [suit cards], and 40 are called Tarocchi, and one is the Fool.

MINCHIATE

It is a very well-known game, also called Tarocchi, Ganellini, or Germini. But because it is little used outside our Tuscany, or at least differently from what we use, for the sake of understanding the present Octaves I consider it necessary to know that the game of Minchiate is played in the manner shown below. This game is made up of ninety-seven cards, of which 56 are called Cartacce [suit cards, but also a term in other contexts meaning “waste paper”; so here, worthless cards, except the kings], and 40 are called Tarocchi and one that is called the fool.

The 56 cards are divided into four species, which are called suits, which in fourteen are depicted with coins (which Galeotto Marzio says <to be> ancient peasant loaves of bread), in 14 [with] Cups, in 14 [with] Swords, and in 14 [with] Batons, and in each card of these suits it begins from one, which is called the ace, up to ten, and in the eleventh there is a Jack, in the 12th a Knight, in the 13th a Queen, in the 14th a King, and all these suit cards outside the Kings are called cartacce.

The 56 Cards are divided into four species, which are called suits, which in fourteen are depicted with Coins, which Galeotto Marzio said were ancient peasant loaves of bread) in 14 [with] Cups, in 14 [with] Swords, and in 14 [with] Batons, and in each card of these suits it begins from one, which is called an ace, up to ten and in the eleventh a Jack is depicted, in the 12th a Knight, in the 13th a Queen, and in the 14th a King, and all these suit cards outside the Kings are called cartacce.

The 40 are called Germini, or Tarocchi, and this word Tarocchi, according to Morosino, comes from the Greek Etharocchi: which word, he says with Alciato, denotantur sodales illi, qui cibi causa ad lusum conveniunt. But I don't know what that word is; I know well, that hetheroi and hetharoi mean sodales; and from this word reduced to the Latin custom can be made hetaroculi, that is, companion the Germini, perhaps from Gemini the celestial Sign, which is the greatest with a number among the Tarocchi. In these cards of tarocchi various hieroglyphs and celestial Signs are depicted, and each one has its number, from one to 35, and the last five up to 40 have no number, but their superiority is distinguished from the figure imprinted on them, which is in this order Star, Moon, Sun, /p. 2/ World, and Trumpets, which is the highest and would be number 40.

The 40 are called Germini or Tarocchi, and this term Tarocchi, according to Monosino, comes from the Greek Etarochi: which word, he says with Alciato, denotantur sodale illi, qui cibi causa ad lusum conveniunt. But I don't know what that word is; I know well, that Heteroi and Hetaroi means sodales; and from this word diminished by the Latin custom, they can be called Hetaroculi, that is, Companions. Germini perhaps from Gemini, a celestial sign, which among the Tarocchi with num. is the highest. In these cards of Tarocchi are depicted various Hieroglyphs and celestial Signs: and each has its number, from one to 35, and the last five up to 40, have no number, but their superiority is distinguished by the figure impressed upon them, which is in this order Star, Moon, Sun, World, and Trumpets, which is the highest and would be number 40.

The allegory is that since the stars are overcome in light by the Moon, and the Moon by the Sun, so the World [Mondo also = Cosmos] is greater than the Sun and the Fame depicted with the Trumpets is worth more than the World; so much so that, even when man has left it, he lives in it by Fame when he has done glorious deeds. Petrarch similarly in the Triumphs makes of it [ne] like a

The allegory is that since the stars are overcome in light by the Moon, and the Moon by the Sun, so the World [Mondo, also = Cosmos] is greater than the Sun, and Fame, represented by the Trumpets, is worth more than the World; so much so that even when a man has left it, he lives in it by fame, when he has done glorious deeds. Petrarch similarly makes in [ne’] The Triumphs like a

 

5

game, because Love is surpassed by chastity, chastity by death; Death by Fame, and Fame by divinity, which eternally reigns.

game, because Love is surpassed by Chastity, Chastity by Death, Death by Fame, and Fame by Divinity, which eternally reigns.

Card 41 is not numbered, but the figure of a Fool is imprinted on it, and this fits with every card, with every number, and is surpassed by every card, but it never dies, that is, it never passes into the hands of the opponent, who in exchange for said Fool receives another cartaccia from the one who dealt the Fool, and if at the end of the game this one, who gave the Fool, has never taken cards from the opponent, it is appropriate that he give the Fool [to the opponent], having no card to give him in its place, and this is the case in which the Fool is lost.

Card 41 is not numbered, but the figure of a Fool is imprinted on it, and this fits with every card, and with every number, and it is passed, from each card, but it never dies, that is, it never passes into the opponent's pile [of cards won], who in exchange for said Fool receives another cartaccia from the one who gave the Fool, and, if at the end of the game this one who gave the Fool has never taken cards from his opponent, it is appropriate that he give [up] the Fool to him, having no other card to give in its place, and this is the case in which the Fool is lost.

Of the Tarocchi, others are called Noble, because they count (that is, whoever holds them wins those points that they are worth), others ignoble, because they do not count. One, two, three, four, and five are Nobles, [of] which card one counts five and the other cards count three each.
The numbers 10, 13, 20, and 28 up to and including 35 count five each, and the last five count 10 each and are called Arie [Airs]. The Fool counts five, and each King counts five, and they are also among the Noble cards.
/p. 3/ The number 29 does not count except when it is in the verzicola, [in] which [it] then counts five, and one time less than its companions respectively.

Of such Tarocchi, others are called noble because they count (that is, whoever holds them wins those points that they are worth), others ignoble, because they do not count. One, two, three, four, and five are Nobles, [of] which card One counts five, and the other four count three each.
The numbers 10, 13, 20, and 28 to 35 inclusive count five each, and the last five count ten each, and are called Arie [Airs]. The Fool counts five, and each King counts five, and they are also among the noble cards.
The number 29 does not count except when it is in the verzicola, [in] which [it] then counts five, and one time less than its companions respectively.

From said noble cards, the verzicole are formed, which are orders and sequences of at least three equal cards, such as three Kings, or four Kings, or three low-level [andante] cards, such as the one, two, three, four and five; or composed as one, 14, and 28; one, Fool and 40 which is the Trumpets; 10, 20, 30, or 20, 30 and 40. And these verzicole must be shown before the game begins, and placed on the table, which is called declaring the verzicola.

From said noble cards, the Verzicole are formed, which are orders and sequences of at least three equal cards, such as three Kings or four Kings; or of three low-level [andanti] cards, such as the One, two, and three, four, and five; or composed, such as one, 13, and 28; One, Fool and forty, which is the Trumpets; Ten, 20, and 30; or 20, 30, and 40. And these verzicole must be shown before the game begins, and placed on the table, which is called declaring the Verzicola.

The Fool fits with all the verzicole, and counts doubly or trebly, as do the others that are in a verzicole, which exists without the Fool, and never forms a verzicola, except in the one, Fool, and Trumpets..

The Fool fits into all the verzicole, and counts double or triple, as do the others that are in a verzicola, which exists without fool and never forms a verzicola, except in the one, fool, and trumpets.

Of these verzicola cards, the number that they are worth is counted three times, so when the opponent does not spoil it for you by killing one card or more with superior cards, which in this

Of these verzicola cards, the number that they are worth is counted three times, when, however, the opponent does not spoil it for you by killing one card or more with superior cards, which in this case,

 

6

case, those that remain count twice, if therefore they do not remain in sequence of 3. For example at the beginning of the game I show 32, 33, 34, 35; if the 33 or 34 dies to me, which breaks the sequence of three, the verzicola is damaged, and those that remain there only count twice for one, but if the 32 or 35 dies to me, the sequence of three remains for you and consequently it is a verzicola, and their value counts three times for each one.

those that remain count twice; if, however, they do not remain in a sequence of three, for example: At the beginning of the game, I show 32, 33, 34, and 35. If the 33 or 34 dies to me, that breaks the sequence of three, the verzicola is spoiled, and those that remain in it count only twice for one, but if the 32 or 35 dies, the sequence of three remains for you, and consequently, it is a verzicola, and their value counts three times for each one.

The Fool, as has been said, does not make a sequence, but always counts its value two or three times, depending on how the verzicola counts, whether the damaged or saved. And when there is more than one verzicola, the Fool goes with all of them, but only once counts three, and the rest count two; and this is meant of the verzicole augmented [aumentate] and shown before the game begins, because those made with the cards killed of the /p. 4/ opponents, which would be if, having the 32 and 33, I killed the opponent’s 31 or 34, and made the verzicola, and this counts twice.

The Fool, as has been said, does not make a sequence but its value always counts twice, or three times, depending on how the verzicola’s value counts, whether damaged or saved; and when there is more than one verzicola, the Fool goes with all of them, but only once counts three, and the rest counts two; and this means the verzicole declared [accusate] and shown before the game begins, because those made with the cards killed by the opponents, as would be, if, having the 32 and 33, I killed the opponent’s 31 or 34, and made the verzicola, and this counts twice.

When one of the noble cards is killed, each opponent marks [segna, i.e. scores] as many marks [segni] or points to the person to whom it died as the card was worth [on how this works, see my quotation from Dummett and McLeod at the end of this post], except therefore those which have been shown in verzicole, of which, being killed, nothing is scored (except by the one who by privilege does not play) because such marks are gained by the adversaries in the reduction of the value of that verzicola, which will have to be counted three times, and dying it counts two: and the 29, the verzicola dying where it entered, counts only five.

When one of the noble cards is killed, each opponent marks [segna, i.e. scores] as many marks [segni] or points to the person to whom it died as the card was worth [on how this works, see my quotation from Dummett and McLeod at the end of this post]; except, however, those which have been shown in verzicole, of which, being killed, nothing is scored (except by the one who by privilege does not play), because such marks come from the adversaries gained in the reduction in the value of that verzicola, which should count three times, and dying, counts two: and the 29, the verzicola dying where it entered, counts only five.

The other cards, which are called ignoble cards, and cartacce, do not count (although they sometimes kill the noble cards, which count as tarocchi; from the number six onwards they kill all the little ones [piccini], that is, the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; and those from 14 onwards also kill the 13, and from the 21 they also kill the 20, and every tarocco kills the Kings), but they serve to rigirare [move the cards in a way that controls] the game; which game is not used among us, except in four people at most, and then 21 cards are dealt to each; and when playing with two or three people, 25 are given. And when playing with four people, the first person who follows after the one who has shuffled the cards on the right hand (which is said to have the hand) has the right not to play, and pay thirty marks to the one who in the game takes

Then the other cards, which are called ignoble cards, and cartacce, do not count (although indeed they sometimes kill the noble ones, which count as tarocchi; from the number 6 onwards, they kill all the little ones, that is, the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; from the 14 onwards they also kill the 13, and from the 21 onwards they kill the 20, and every tarocco kills the Kings), but they serve to rigirare [move the cards in a way that controls] the game; which game is not used among us, except in four people at most, and then 21 cards are given to each: and when two or three people play, 25 are given. And playing in four people, the first who follows on the right hand after the one who has shuffled the cards (who is said to have the hand) has the right not to play, and pays thirty marks to the one who

 

7

the last card, and this one who takes the last card (who is said to make the last) earns from each of those who have played ten marks. The one who does not play still wins those of the dead, that is, he also marks the value of the card to the one to whom said card is /p. 5/ killed.

in the game takes the last card, and this one who takes the last card (who is said to make the last) earns from each of those who have played ten marks. The one who does not play still gains from those of the dead; that is, he also marks the value of the card to the one to whom said card is killed.

If this first player plays, the second has the right not to play by paying 40 marks, if the second plays, the third has said right by paying 50 marks; if the third plays, the option passes to the fourth, who pays 60 marks as above. But if there are only three people playing, there is no option not to play.

If this first player plays, the second has the right not to play, paying 40 marks; if the second plays, the third has the said option, paying 50 marks: if the third plays, he passes the option to the fourth, who pays 60 marks, as above. But if there are only three people playing, there is no option not to play.

Once the cards are shuffled, one of the players, who is on the left hand of the one who shuffled, cuts [alza, literally, “raises”] a part of it, and if, turning to the bottom of that part of the deck which remains in his hand, there is one of the noble cards at the bottom of that part of the deck, or a card from 21 to 27 inclusive, he takes it and continues to take them until he finds an ignoble card there. The one who has shuffled the cards after having given the first round to each person and himself 12, and 12 the second, and having revealed the last card to everyone, reveals it also to himself the same, and then looks at the one that follows, and he takes it if it is a noble card, or a tarocco from 21 to 27, and continues to take as above, and this is called robbing, and these cards which are robbed, and which are revealed, being noble, earn to him who robs them as many tokens as they are worth; and those who rob them must discard, i.e. take away from their hands, as many cards of their choice as they have robbed, and reduce their cards to the number adequate to that of their companions; and whoever does not discard, or due to another accident of badly counted cards, ultimately finds himself with more cards, or with fewer than his opponents, due to his mistake, does not count the points which his cards are worth, but goes out of play.

Once the cards are shuffled, one of the players, who is on the left hand of the one who shuffled cuts [alza, literally, “raises”] a part of them: and if, turning to the bottom of that part of the deck which remains in his hand, there is one of the noble cards, or a tarocco from 21 to the 27 inclusive, he takes it, and continues to take them until he finds an ignoble card there. The one who has shuffled the cards, after having given the first turn twelve to each person and to himself, and the second turn thirteen, and having revealed the last card to everyone, reveals it to himself the same, and then looks at that which follows, and takes it, if it is a noble card or a tarocco from 21 to 27, and continues to take as above, and this is called robbing, and these cards, which are robbed and revealed, being noble, earn the person to whom they are revealed, or who robs them, as many tokens as they are worth; and those who rob them must discard, that is, take away from their hands as many cards of their choice as they have robbed, so as to reduce their cards to the number adequate to that of the companions; and whoever does not discard, or due to another accident of badly counted cards, ultimately finds himself with more cards, or with fewer than his opponents, due to his mistake does not count the points they are worth, but goes out of play.

The one who deals more or less than the established number of cards pays 20 points to each of his opponents; to whoever if finding more, must discard those he has more; /p. 6/ but he cannot make a vacancy, that is, there must remain some of that suit left over which he discards; if he has less, he must take them out of the residual [dal monte, literally, from the mountain] at his choice, but without seeing inside, that is, asking for the fifth or sixth etc. of those that are in the residual [mountain], and the one who shuffled

The one who deals more or less than the established number of cards pays 20 points to each of his opponents, and whoever has more in his hand must discard the ones he has more; but he cannot make a vacancy, that is, some must remain of that suit which he discards; If he has less, he must take it from the residual [dal monte, literally, from the mountain] at his choice, but without seeing inside, that is, asking for the fifth or sixth, etc. of those that are in the residual [monte], and that one, who

 

8

the cards (which is called making the cards), gives him who made the cut that which he asked for.

The game begins by showing the verzicole that one has in one’s hand, and then the first person after the one who shuffled the cards, to his right hand, places a card on the table (which is called giving). Those others who follow must give of the same suit, if they have any, and if they do not have any, they must give a tarocco, and this is called not responding, and giving of the same suit is called responding.

shuffled the cards (which is called making the cards), gives him who made the cut that which he asked for.

The game begins by showing the verzicole that one has in his hand, then the first person after the one who has shuffled the cards to his right hand puts a card on the table (which is called giving), the others who follow must give of the same suit, if they have any; and if they do not have any, they have to give a tarocco, and this is called not responding, and giving of the same suit is called responding.

Whoever does not respond, and has in his hand the suit that was placed on the table, pays sixty points to each, and returns that noble card which he had killed. For example [Ex. gr.], the first gives the King of coins, and the second, although he has coins in his hand, gives a Tarocco, above the King, and kills him. Discovered having coins in his hand, he returns the King to whoever it was, and pays his opponents 60 points each, as has been said.

Whoever does not respond, and has in his hand the suit that was placed on the table, pays sixty points to each, and returns that noble card which he had killed; for example, the first gives the King of Coins and the second, although he has coins in his hand, gives a Tarocco, above the King, and kills him; discovered that he has coins in his hand, he returns the King to whoever it was, and pays his adversaries sixty points each, as has been said.

Every tarocco takes all the suits, and among them the larger number takes the smaller, and the fool never takes, and is not taken, except in the case mentioned above.

Every tarocco takes all the suits, and among them the larger number takes the smaller, and the fool never takes, and is not taken, except in the case mentioned above.

So it goes on, giving the cards, and the first to give is the one who takes the cards given, and everyone tries to take the cards that count from the opponent, and when they have finished giving all the cards they have in their hands, each one counts all the points, as many cards as he has more, then counts all his honors, that is, the gross count of the noble cards and verzicole that are found in his cards, and marks to the opponent as many points as his honors count /p. 7/ more than his, and every sixty points a token [or mark] is set aside [si mette da bando un segno], which is called a sixty, and these sixties are valued according to the agreement.

So it goes on, giving the cards, and the first to give is the one who takes the cards given, and everyone tries to take the cards that count from the opponent, and when they have finished giving all the cards they have in their hand, each one counts the cards they have taken: and having more than his 25, he marks as many points to the one who has less as many cards as he has more; then he counts his honors, that is, the value of the noble cards and verzicole found in his cards, and marks as many points to the opponent as he counts more with his honors, and every sixty points a token [or mark] is set aside [si mette da banda un segno], which is called a sixty, and these sixties are valued according to the agreement.

Apart from the technical details, in which it is rare if not impossible to find significant differences, it remains important to understand the meaning of this manuscript copy. Unfortunately we do not find any of the answers we would need, and therefore several questions remain open.

We have seen that the Florentine minchiate players, who played the oldest and most traditional game for them, did not soon produce printed books with the rules of the game. Why? Here the answer seems easy: because they didn't need it, since it was an experience consolidated over several centuries. It is therefore not surprising if the first instruction booklets for playing were written elsewhere and printed in Rome, Livorno, and then even in Dresden.

ASFi, Ughi, 683, First page on the Game of Minchiate (Reproduction prohibited)

Minucci's Note had as its main purpose that of making Lorenzo Lippi's poem better understandable to non-Tuscans. So why is it precisely in Florence (and there are no other probable locations involved, and certainly not outside Tuscany) that it is considered useful to copy Minucci's Note? For personal use, to clarify some doubts in the game, or even to learn it? At the request of someone curious for information on that strange local game? To support a traditional way of playing against different variants recently introduced? To teach the first elements to some of the many foreigners passing through?

I think it is impossible to resolve the various questions that remain open. Help that could limit the horizon of hypotheses would come from a precise dating of the manuscript. For the sake of thoroughness, in case it could be useful, I also transcribe the poem added separately on the last page of the Game. [The translation follows the Italian original.]

Ciascun gl’occhi del corpo, e della mente
Ponga a quello, che per noi se gli dimostra,
E vedrà spessamente,
E per vizio, che assai regna all’età nostra:
E quanto poca gente
La verità conosce in questa vita,
E del suo bel color vada vestita.
Color, che a lato della Calunnia vanno
Fede del falso con lor sottil’arte
Appresso il Rè le fanno,
La verità celando a parte, a parte
L’un da se è l’inganno,
L’altro è la fraude, e così tutt’e tre
Fanno al Signor parer quel che non è.

Everyone the eyes of the body and of the mind,
Should point to what is demonstrated to us,
And he will see often,
And by [due to?] vice, which reigns greatly in our age:
And how few people
The truth know in this life,
And she should be dressed in her beautiful color.
Those who go to the side of Calumny,
Faith of the false, with their subtle art,
They make her [faith of the false] near the King,
The truth hiding apart, apart [like “da parte a parte,” from one side to another, i.e. everywhere?]
The one from itself is deception,
The other is fraud, and so all three [including calumny]
Make the Lord appear to be what he is not.

In the absence of useful information, only one impression remains: that the game whose rules it is considered appropriate to copy had already changed substantially at the time the Note was transcribed. By now, for a more or less long time, that traditional Florentine variant had already been surpassed in use by a new way of playing, four in pairs and also with the use, in some way, of the thirteen cards advanced in the initial distribution. [note 5] As regards the game in pairs, rather than talking about a novelty for Florence we should talk about a return, as that way of playing had already been documented centuries before. [note 6] In fact, the game in pairs presents evidently advantageous characteristics such as simplification in scoring, which in the Note variant requires a continuous passing of marks [segni] among all players even during the game; above all, in particular, an easier welcome in a lounge or in a typical eighteenth-century "conversation" room with the presence of both gentlemen and ladies at the gaming table. Only in this way can we explain the subsequent fashion of minchiate, also among some European courts.

5. Appendix

I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to report new findings on minchiate by also indicating three editions on the game that had not been possible to identify in two recent studies.

The first study concerned Il Capitolo delle Minchiate [The Chapter of Minchiate], [note 7] and in this regard, I can point out another edition of 1777, preserved in the Biblioteca Universitaria di Genova [University Library of Genoa] and now traceable in the digitized historical catalogs of the ICCU. [note 8]

The second study was entitled Minchiate le Regole Generali di Roma e Macerata [Minchiate the General Rules of Roma and Macerata]. [note 9] In this case, an edition that was searched for in vain for a long time has been included in the OPAC. Very few copies of all or almost all the booklets of this kind are preserved, scattered in distant libraries; of this one, Roman of 1773, not even a single example had been identified. Now we see that the Biblioteca dell’Istituto Campana a Osimo [Library of the Campana Institute in Osimo] has one. I reported the rarity of the book to the librarian and she confirmed her intention to digitize it and put a copy online on the library website. If the operation is not yet completed, just wait a few weeks. Furthermore, again in OPAC, a second copy of the first Roman edition of 1728 appeared in the meantime, preserved in Italy precisely in the Biblioteca dell’Istituto Centrale per Il Patrimonio Immateriale - Ex Biblioteca dell’Istituto Centrale per la Demoetnoantropologia [Library of the Central Institute for Intangible Heritage - Former Library of the Central Institute for Demoethnoanthropology], in Rome. By continuing in this way with the digitization of catalogs, even of minor libraries, we can have confidence in other future discoveries.

Florence, 14.03.2024
_______________
5. M. Dummett, J. McLeod, A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack. Lewiston 2004, pp. 329-353.
6. The Playing-Card, 16 No. 3 (1988) 78-83; https://www.naibi.net/A/08-FLOLITE-Z.pdf
7. The Playing-Card, 47 No. 2 (2018) 103-113; https://www.naibi.net/A/80-CARDS.pdf
8. https://cataloghistorici.bdi.sbn.it/fil ... GRP=950221
9. The Playing-Card, 48, No. 3 (2020) 96-102; https://www.naibi.net/A/84.pdf


Additional note from the translator, on the scoring system that was customarily used during play, i.e. before the end of the hand (see above "points to the person to whom it died"). Dummett and McLeod, A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack, 2005, p. 338, offer a more detailed account than Minucci, which is at least consistent with what he says, if not of precisely the same game (partnership rather than everyone for oneself):

There are several possibilities of gaining points before the end of the hand: for a counting card exposed as the last card dealt to either of the partners, for counting cards robbed from the pack, for versicole declared during the first trick, or for causing the deaths of the opponents' counting cards (i.e. capturing them). The amounts scored in any of these ways during the hand are recorded as the amount by which one side is ahead of the other. So at any stage, one side has a positive score and the other a zero score, points gained by the side currently behind the other are subtracted from the score of the leading side. For example, the third player (left of the dealer) robs the III, so his side (side A) marks 3 points. The first player's exposed card in the deal is the XIII, so side A changes its running total to 8 points. Now the dealer robs the XX, so side A reduces its total to 3 points again. The third player declares a versicola of the I, II and III (11 points), and side A's score is raised to 14 points, but the dealer declares the XX, XXX, and Trombe (20 points), so side A's score is deleted and side B scores 6 points. In the play, side A captures the XXVIII, reducing side B's score to 1 point; later, side A captures the Luna, wiping out side B's score and marking 9 points.

In this example, there are only two sides to contend with. In the everyone-for-oneself game, there will be two, three, or four sides involved. But the principle is the same.