fact, however, confirmatory of the correctness of this account has been discovered; and the omission of all notice of cards by European authors of the earlier half of the fourteenth century, even when expressly treating of the games in vogue at the period, may be received as good negative evidence of their not being then known as a popular game in Europe: "_De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio_." Admitting cards to be of Eastern invention--a fact which appears to be sufficiently established by the evidence adduced in the first chapter,--it would seem that they first became known in Europe as a popular game between 1360 and 1390. Covelluzzo, an Italian chronicler of the fifteenth century, says, that the game was first brought into Viterbo in 1379; in 1393, three packs of cards were painted by Jacquemin Gringonneur for the amusement of Charles VI of France;[355] in 1397, the working people of Paris were forbid to play at cards on working days; and in the same year card-playing was prohibited by the magistrates of Ulm. Such are the principal facts relative to the introduction of cards into Europe. The game appears to have rapidly spread amongst all classes of people. The manufacture of cards was a regular business in Germany and Italy prior to 1425; the importation of foreign cards into England was prohibited by act of parliament in 1463; and about 1484, cards, as at present, was a common Christmas game. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the more prominent incidents which mark the progress of card-playing; it may be sufficient to observe, that no other game was ever so generally played, with people of both sexes,--young and old, rich and poor. Even the "red man" of America, the "Stoic of the Woods," has acquired a knowledge of cards, from his neighbours of European descent, and ceases to be apathetic when engaged in the game. It is, perhaps, as extensively diffused as the use of tobacco; and is certainly indulged in by a greater variety of persons. [Illustration p. 330.] FOOTNOTES: [314] The author does not seem to have been successful in his ministry at Newcastle. Colonel Fenwick says that the town was famous for mocking and misusing Christ's ministers; and after naming Knox and Udal, he thus reproaches the town for its treatment of Balmford: "Witness reverend Balmford, whom in a like manner thou expulsed; though thou couldst not touch his life, thou pricked his sides (as well as Christ's) in his hearers, with the reproach of Balmfordian faction and schism."--Christ in the midst of his Enemies, by Lieut.-Col. John Fenwick, 1643. Reprinted by M. A. Richardson, Newcastle, 1846. [315] The opinions of Luther, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Lambert Daneau, and others upon this question are to be found in the 'Collectanea variorum authorum de Sortibus et Ludo Aleæ,' appended to the Alea of Pascasius Justus, by Joannes a Munster, 4to, 1617.