It is fairly simple to state which are the intentions and the objectives: this research seems to me worth of a continuation. Of course, it would be better if a professional historian reached the conclusion that this subject is worth of some academic research, involving dissertations and scholarly contributions.
The situation seems to me better in Italy than in other countries, both for the richness of our archives and the quality of local experts. Reasons for optimism subsist. For the 18th century in Tuscany, a few chapters of a scholarly book look as a suitable and promising instance.(8) Hopefully, in a few years scholars and students will dig more and better of such material from the archival sections, generally investigated by them with superior aims up to now.
On my part, I hope to continue for some time, but with a few exceptions - of the 18th and 19th centuries - I have some ideas about what to research, but unfortunately not yet any about what I will be able to retrieve; and I know very well from my own experience the big difference between these two verbs.
CONCLUSION
The main results of my research of the last two years in the field of the history of playing cards and card games have been first published in the web pages of Trionfi.com, as welcomed by Lothar Teikemeier.
As a whole, the new information has been published in sixty-three notes. In this 64th instance, I have tried to briefly review their global contents, to begin with suitably grouping the notes into coherent sections. Two main parts are separated by their date, earlier or later than 1600.
With very few exceptions, all the new information derives from Tuscany, and especially – as easily understandable – from Florence. Now, several experts are ready to acknowledge the relevance of Florence for the history of playing cards. I remember however that when I supported something of that kind many years ago, most experts concluded at once that my hypotheses were just based on parochialism.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are a couple of persons, who have assisted my work and thus deserve part of its merits – and faults. First here is Lothar Teikemeier. He stimulated the compilation of notes in this form, to be inserted in these web pages. Moreover, he has been the sole expert - to my knowledge - who has processed my data, and presented new tables and plots, which may let it become easier for readers to grasp the quantitative aspects implied. In a few cases, he amended mistakes in my texts.
Less frequent has been here the “usual” assistance by Thierry Depaulis, whose origin can be dated back to the 1980s. He suggested and edited the re-publication of selected notes from the first year in the mentioned booklet.(1) He moreover gave some hints, here and there, which helped me in updating my knowledge of the literature, and in a few cases could even represent a true guideline for research.
Footnotes:
(1) Franco Pratesi, IPCS Papers No. 7. North Walsham 2012.
(2) The Playing-Card, Vol. 40, No. 3 (2012) 179-197.
(3) The Playing-Card, Vol. 41, No. 2 (2012) 95-114.
(4) Arnold Esch, Economia, cultura materiale ed arte nella Roma del Rinascimento. Roma 2007
(5) Arnold und Doris Esch, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, 88 (2013) 41-53.
(6) Nerida Newbigin, Letteratura Italiana Antica, III (2002) 41-246.
(7) Lucia Ricciardi, Feste e giochi cavallereschi nella Firenze laurenziana attraverso le memorie di Ser Giusto Giovanni Giusti d’Anghiari, Facoltà di Magistero, Università di Firenze, 1991.
(8) Andrea Addobbati, La festa e il gioco nella Toscana del Settecento. Pisa 2002.
|
|