on Montone: yes, good; sorry, I had read your posts and then forgotten the name "Broccio."

And yes, Adam + Eve would be another Gemini. I think I follow you. Eden is close to heaven, I think, perhaps the gateway, at least so it seems in the geography of H. Bosch.

And one interpretation of the Sun card, when it has a man and a woman, is that they are Adam + Eve. But I don't know how far back that iconography goes. Noblet (c. 1650) and the Sfoza Castle (1700?) aren't very old; the Florentine iconography is different, of course.

I have the Classical Quarterly article in front of me, on manuscripts of the Theogeny. In Italy, we have the following, out of 69 ms. total (interesting dates in red):

(2) Ravennas 120 = K. Th. is f. 168-200.
(4) Ambrosianus 999D =U. apographa of U. Th. is f. 1-15
(6) Mutinensis aN5, in part written by George Valla, apographa of U. (Vallla was c. 1460-1480 Pavia/Milan, then Venice, if I recall.)

(11) Marcianus ix. 6, parchment, s., xiv. Similar to (12) Salmanticensis 243, x. xv. Th. is f. 1-34r.

(13) Laurentianus conventi soppressi 15, s. xiv = V. Th. is f. 31-66.
Both copied from same source manuscript.

(18) Lauren. 87. 10m s. xiii ex. Only a few lines of the Th.

(20) Lauren. conv. soppr. 158, bombyc. s. xiv = L. Th. is 27-49.
(25) Lauren. 31.20, s.. xv. Apographa of L.
(26) Vaticanus gr. 1469, A.D. 1495. Apographa of L.

(27) Lauren. 32. 16, bombyc. A.D. 1280 = S. "...celebrated manuscript..." "..regarded by Rasz as the best manuscript..."

(28) Vaticanus gr. 915, bombyc., c. A.D. 1300 = Q. "A note at the end dates it before 1311."
(31) Lauren. 31. 32, s. xv. Follows Q.
(34) Vatic. gr. 1948, s. xv-svi. Follows Q.
(35). Vatic. Barberini gr. 43, s. xv.
(36) Senensis I. ix. 3. Has Th. 1-1004. Close to 35.

(38) Mutinensis aT9. 14, c. A.D. 1460-1470 = Z Owned by Geroge Valla.
(40) Vatic. Palat. gr. 142, s. xv-svi. After Z.
(41) Vatic. gr. 2237, s. XV. After Z.

r group
(43) Romanus Casanatensis 356, c. A.D. 1300.
(44) Vatic. gr. 1332, s. xiv. Misprinted 1392 by Rzach.
(45) Laurent. 91 sup. 10, s. xv. Has Th. 1-706.
(47) Taurinensis ap. Gottling. Destroyed in fire of 1904. Copied from 45.
(48) Vatic. Palat. gr. 385, s. xv-xvi. (49) now in British Museum, dated 1420.

(51) Marcianus 474, A.D. 1316-19 = Tr. (Triclinius). Written and signed by Demetrius Triclinius.
(52) Marc. 480, s. xv. From Tr.
(54) Lauren. 32.24 s. xvi. From Tr.

(55) Aldine edition, 1495, "A new mixture of readings from the known sources." 2nd owner in Padua.
(57) Neopolitanus ap. van Lennep. Not there now. From Aldine.
(58) Romanus Vallicellianus F 16 (72). From Aldine.
(59) Vat. Palat. gr. 425. From Aldine.

(61) Ambrosianus 218D 15 sup., c. A.D. 1481.
(62) Ambrosianus 283E 39 sup., s. XV ex.

Thanks ...

... I'd the suspicion, that the Hesiodus text wasn't well known. But this seems to have been a wrong idea.

Huck wrote: For your question to the Minchiate row, we had a sort of system deciphered, perhaps Ross remembers better than me.

It was from TarotL in 2004, I was talking with Paul Huson. I still like it, I haven't seen any others -

"Here's the order I've come up with - it is based on a symmetrical
arrangement of the Planetary rulers, centered on the Moon=Cancer (so
a series of concentric pairs around Cancer=Moon).

But since there are 12 signs, there would be 2 halves of six each,
and no center. In this scheme then, the signs that Mars rules, Aries
and Scorpio, are treated as one (they are next to each other) and are
paired with the Sun=Leo, on the other side of the Moon.

The scheme looks like this (arranged hierarchically for clarity, but
all in the right order):

-------------------------------Cancer
-------------------------Pisces------Sagitta.
-------------------Aquarius--------------Capricorn
---------------Leo---------------------------Aries, Scorpio
----------Taurus--------------------------------------Virgo
-----Gemini-----------------------------------------------Libra

-------35--34--33---32----31-----30----29----28--27,26--25--24

Substituting Ruling Planet for Sign, we get the following -

-------------------------------Moon
-------------------------Jupiter---Jupiter
--------------------Saturn---------------Saturn
---------------Sun------------------------------Mars
-----------Venus------------------------------------Mercury
------Mercury---------------------------------------------Venus

The series begins and ends on an Air sign -(Libra-Gemini), the
symmetry of which may explain the switch between the Mercury and
Venus ruled signs in this place.

This explanation doesn't satisfy everyone, but the series of ruling
planets (as well as the pairing of Aries-Scorpio - only Mars can
explain that, which I take a counterbalance to the Sun (Mars
is "little Sun", so two of them can balance Leo)) seems too
systematic to be coincidence or accident to me."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LTarot/message/1467

With Paul's questions, there were a couple of other posts -

"It just occurred to me that in Minchiate the number for Cancer is 30,
which is number of days in an ideal "month", i.e. a Moon. So this
might be a clue that the arranged was deliberate."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LTarot/message/1468

"Hi Paul,

--- In LTarot@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Huson" <readermail@p...> wrote:
> > >
> > > -------------------------------Cancer
> > > -------------------------Pisces------Sagitta.
> > > -------------------Aquarius--------------Capricorn
> > > ---------------Leo---------------------------Aries, Scorpio
> > > ----------Taurus--------------------------------------Virgo
> > > -----Gemini-----------------------------------------------Libra
> > >
> > > -------35--34--33---32----31-----30----29----28--27,26--25--24
> > >
> > > Substituting Ruling Planet for Sign, we get the following -
> > >
> > > -------------------------------Moon
> > > -------------------------Jupiter---Jupiter
> > > --------------------Saturn---------------Saturn
> > > ---------------Sun------------------------------Mars
> > > -----------Venus------------------------------------Mercury
> > > ------Mercury---------------------------------------------Venus
> > >
>
> Ross, re the "coincidence or accident" of your scheme: I'm troubled
> too.
>
> Bearing in mind what you subsequently write, very cogently, in your
> posts 1468 through 1471, I also find the "noise" of the scheme you
> propose above outweighs any "message."

I agree there's "noise", but I really think it doesn't outweigh the
message. I'll try to explain better, but I should say that even if my
explanations for the noise aren't exactly correct, I think that the
symmetries at least strongly suggest there is design to the entire
order.

Given the Moon at the top,
> Jupiter and Saturn do balance, but then the scheme comes unstuck.
> Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that Mars (Aries and Scorpio)
> counterbalances with the Sun (Leo)?

First, a "perfect mirror" isn't possible, since even if you use,
let's say, an "ideal" simple scheme of paired rulerships (using the
planetary numbers) -

3 4 5 7 8 9 6 8 7 5 4 3

the Sun and Moon rule only one sign each, so the "mirror" would break
down in the middle (or wherever you wanted to pair the Sun and Moon,
if that was you aim).

Nice, but too easy obviously (for the Minchiate designer), and that's
not what happened.

But first notice the symmetry of the signs globally - the first six
have FOUR "fall and winter" signs from the series Libra to Pisces
(signs 7 - 12) and TWO "spring and summer" signs from the series
Aries to Virgo (signs 1 - 6). The second six necessarily then has
FOUR from the spring and summer, and TWO from fall and winter. In a
random sampling (demonstrating the other symmetries as well), we
wouldn't expect this - why not three of each, or 5 fall and winter
signs on one half, etc. Many possibilities, but this one got chosen.

I also assume the designer did not want to make it to simple, a
simple hierarchy starting in Aries and going to Pisces for example,
which might imply an "ascent" through the signs.

So I suggest that the designer chose, for symbolic reasons, to put
the Moon's sign in the center (Moon is symbol for chance and fortune,
and as I understand the rules the Moon and the five sign-cards
following (30-35) actually count for points in the game - then the
number 30 adds a symbolic dimension as well). This left the Sun-Leo
dangling.

My explanation is that since the Sun and Mars are both firey planets,
the designer paired them. But Mars is less strong than the Sun, and
the Sun only has one sign anyway, so the designer gave both Mars'
signs to be opposite Leo. Certainly, Aries and Scorpio are the only
adjacent signs in the order that have a common ruler (which may not
be statistically significant given the smallness of the sample, or it
may be, I don't know - I'm not good at probabilities), and it is
interesting that given the scheme as I have it, pairing ruling
planets, both the Sun and Mars are fire planets.

So look at it - the Sun is paired (in the pairing way of looking at
it) with the only other fire planet in the series, and also with
*both* of Mars' signs! I find the explanation satisfying.

>And why line up Venus (Taurus)
> with Mercury (Virgo), then Mercury (Gemini) with Venus (Libra)? Why
> the switcheroo? As the signs have been shuffled anyway, why not
align
> them and number them correctly?

Notice the order of the four elements that precede the Zodiac. The
highest element is Air. What follows is an Air Sign. The Zodiac
series then ends with an Air Sign, and the five cards that follow (36-
40) are called collectively "aire" in the Minchiate terminology.

I therefore suppose that the Minchiate designer wanted to play on the
concept "Air"; and therefore twisted the scheme at the end to make it
fit, like the pairing of *two* signs against Leo was a twist.

So overall, I see the "noise" as falling into two distinct parts (the
Sun-Mars, and Mercury-Venus parts), each of which required a
different solution, based on a plan which had several objectives:

1) the signs had to be mixed up;
2) the Moon-Cancer had to be in the center;
3) the series had to begin and end with an Air Sign.

So the order that resulted is this, using the planetary numbers (and
reading left to right) -

7 8 5 5 3 4 9 4 3 6 7 8

Interesting too that "78" figures prominently - maybe the designer
tipped the hat to the standard tarocchi pack number of cards when
adding the new cards?

Given the relative simplicity of the explanation, all based on the
planetary rulerships, as well as the subtlety of the resulting order
and its relation to the rest of the pack in this section (following
Air and preceding the "Airs"), I think it is plausible and clear.

>
> It seems to me that if ever images were arbitrarily chosen simply
to
> add extra cards with no rhyme nor reason behind them, I would point
> to the Minchiate as a good example. The four elements and the
missing
> four virtues have also been shoved in for good measure.

But given that a person designed it, I think that the notion of
deliberate design should be favored over randomness, at the outset.
There may have been a plan to it.

Furthermore
> the tarocchi trumps used by the Minchiate have been purged and
> diddled with (viz. the Grand Duke) making a terrible jumble in all.

This is another question (the Grand Duke and the other four "papi"),
of course.

> Which is not to say they couldn't have been employed for divination
> or esoteric purposes subsequently, but after the fact, by
projecting
> meaning on them. Yes? No?

I don't think you'd have to "project" too much meaning onto Zodiacal
signs, the four elements, and the Virtues! There is more than enough
meaning in them to keep "extracting" for a lifetime. Of course one
*could* project, but that's not the same as learning the mountain of
classical and medieval associations, enough to keep you busy for just
about forever."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LTarot/message/1477

"Hi Paul,

--- In LTarot@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Huson" <readermail@p...> wrote:
>
> Problem. Dummett p.340 and Kaplan I, p.49 give the word as "arie"
> not "aire." I looked this up in my small Italian dictionary and the
> translation would seem to be the plural of "aria," meaning "an
> aspect, expression, or air (as in a tune.) Nothing to do with the
> element air.
>

"aria" is just the Italian word for "air" - with exactly the same
semantic range as English, including the element; "arie" is the
plural.

i.e. look at Garzanti's definitions 1 (air, breeze) and 4 (tune,
melody)

"aria
Traduzione s.f.
1 air; (vento) air, breeze: - viziata, stale air; - secca, dry air; -
mefitica, foul air; non c'era un filo d'-, there wasn't a breath of
air; dare - a una stanza, to air (o to ventilate) a room; prendere
una boccata d'-, to get a breath of air / all'- aperta, in the open
air; giochi all'- aperta, outdoor games / colpo d'-, corrente d'-,
draught / massa d'-, air mass / vortice d'-, whirlwind (o vortex) /
spostamento d'-, displacement of air; (da bomba) blast / in linea d'-
, as the crow flies / per via d'-, by air /- condizionata, air
conditioning; - compressa, compressed air / (fis.) - liquida, liquid
air / (aer.) vuoto d'-, air pocket /camera d'-, inner tube / (aut.):
filtro dell'-, air filter; presa d'-, air intake (o air
inlet) /sentirsi mancare l'-, to feel suffocated /c'è qlco. in -,
there is sthg. in the air /andare all'-, (fig.) to fail (o to fall
through); mandare all'-, to upset / buttare tutto all'-, to turn
everything upside down, (fig.) to throw up everything / mandare qlcu.
a gambe all'-, to trip s.o. up / -!, get out of the way! / campar d'-
, to live on air (o on nothing) /dire qlco. a mezz'-, to hint at
sthg. /fare castelli in -, (fig.) to build castles in Spain (o in the
air) / tira una brutta -, there is a bad atmosphere / mettere tutto
in -, to throw everything into confusion / è solo - fritta, it's just
host air
2 (clima) air, climate: cambiamento d'-, change of air; l'- è molto
buona da queste parti, the air is good here; il medico gli ha
consigliato l'- di mare, the doctor advised sea-air / mutare,
cambiare -, (fig.) to move (o to change) one's residence
3 (aspetto) appearance, look; (atteggiamento) air, demeanour; (del
volto) look, expression: - di famiglia, family likeness; la città
prese un'- di festa, the town took on a holiday atmosphere; ha l'- di
un galantuomo, he looks like an honest man; ha un'- molto dolce, she
looks very gentle; mi venne incontro con - triste, he came towards me
looking sad (o with a sad expression on his face) /darsi delle arie,
to give oneself airs
4 (mus.) tune, air, melody; (di opera) aria: vecchia canzone su un'-
nuova, old song to a new tune."

http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/interna_eng.html?
dizionario=1&lemma=4322

(you might have to sign in to get this page, but it's the best
Italian (-English) dictionary on the web)

Sorry I misspelled it, but "arie" just means "airs" in Italian."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LTarot/message/1480

"Hi Paul,

--- In LTarot@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Huson" <readermail@p...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the detailed and most interesting elucidation, Ross. You
> may well be right in your analysis of the Minchiate creator's
> intentions, but (hopefully) not to belabor the point I still have
> reservations...

Please belabor it! How else can we all come to some kind of
consensus, except through the tiresome process of debate?

>
> Your scheme:
> > > > > -------------------------------Cancer
> > > > > -------------------------Pisces------Sagitta.
> > > > > -------------------Aquarius--------------Capricorn
> > > > > ---------------Leo---------------------------Aries, Scorpio
> > > > > ----------Taurus--------------------------------------Virgo
> > > > > -----Gemini-----------------------------------------------
> Libra
> > > > >
> > > > > -------35--34--33---32----31-----30----29----28--27,26--25--
24
> > > > >
> > > > > Substituting Ruling Planet for Sign, we get the following -
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------Moon
> > > > > -------------------------Jupiter---Jupiter
> > > > > --------------------Saturn---------------Saturn
> > > > > ---------------Sun------------------------------Mars
> > > > > -----------Venus------------------------------------Mercury
> > > > > ------Mercury---------------------------------------------
> Venus
>
>
> Well, forgetting about putting the Moon at the top for the moment,
> wouldn't a more "perfect mirror" have been available in the
> traditional circular, planetary domiciles diagram (with all its
> associated neoplatonic notions about souls entering and leaving
> embodiment through the spheres, etc):
>
> Leo (Sun) - Cancer (Moon)
> Virgo (Mercury) - Gemini (Mercury)
> Libra (Venus) - Taurus (Venus)
> Scorpio (Mars) - Aries (Mars)
> Sagittarius (Jupiter) - Pisces (Jupiter)
> Capricorn (Saturn) - Aquarius (Saturn)

Yes, that's what I said - but it's not that, for whatever reasons.
The symmetry that does exist, suggests to me that the designer wanted
to play around with the order.

>
> > But first notice the symmetry of the signs globally - the first
six
> > have FOUR "fall and winter" signs from the series Libra to Pisces
> > (signs 7 - 12) and TWO "spring and summer" signs from the series
> > Aries to Virgo (signs 1 - 6). The second six necessarily then has
> > FOUR from the spring and summer, and TWO from fall and winter. In
a
> > random sampling (demonstrating the other symmetries as well), we
> > wouldn't expect this - why not three of each, or 5 fall and
winter
> > signs on one half, etc. Many possibilities, but this one got
chosen.
>
> Chosen, or just bundled in?

Chosen by a human agent, one way or another. What are the
probabilities of arranging such a sequence according to planetary
rulers with even a 50% *exact* pairing? I suspect the chances are
slim, and given the fact that the irregularities that remain fall
into two easily distinguished groups (Sun-Mars, Venus-Mercury), I
think an explanation is to be preferred to a theory of utter
randomness.

> >
> > I also assume the designer did not want to make it to simple,
>
> Why do we have to assume that?

Only because it is not simple. Even if it is random, it is not a
simple arrangement (how easy is it to memorize the order as it is,
unless you impose a theory?). Thus, because *someone* designed it,
and because it is not simple, it is logical to assume that the
designer did not want to make it simple.

Another way to put it is that since there was a designer, and if the
designer wanted to make it simple, it could have been done simply,
but it was not. Therefore the designer chose - whether with a method
or randomly - to make it complex (even chaos is complex etc.)


>
> > So I suggest that the designer chose, for symbolic reasons, to
put
> > the Moon's sign in the center (Moon is symbol for chance and
> fortune,
>
> Okay, I'll buy that, Carmina Burana does compare Fortuna to the
Moon
> ever waxing and waning after all. But quite obiously by putting the
> Moon at the center, our cartier isn't dividing the cards evenly,
with
> only five on one side, six on the other.

That's right, which is why I propose the designer grouped Mars' signs
together to make the *equivalent* of the Sun's single sign.

> > So look at it - the Sun is paired (in the pairing way of looking
at
> > it) with the only other fire planet in the series, and also with
> > *both* of Mars' signs! I find the explanation satisfying.
>
> Yes, it is interesting I agree. But:
>
> > > why line up Venus (Taurus) with Mercury (Virgo), then Mercury
> (Gemini) with Venus (Libra)? Why
> > > the switcheroo? As the signs have been shuffled anyway, why not
> > align
> > > them and number them correctly?
> >
> > Notice the order of the four elements that precede the Zodiac.
The
> > highest element is Air. What follows is an Air Sign. The Zodiac
> > series then ends with an Air Sign, and the five cards that follow
> (36-
> > 40) are called collectively "aire" in the Minchiate terminology.
> >
> > I therefore suppose that the Minchiate designer wanted to play on
> the
> > concept "Air";
>
> Problem. Dummett p.340 and Kaplan I, p.49 give the word as "arie"
> not "aire." I looked this up in my small Italian dictionary and the
> translation would seem to be the plural of "aria," meaning "an
> aspect, expression, or air (as in a tune.) Nothing to do with the
> element air.

Sorry I misspelled it - see my other post. "Aria" (plural "arie")
is "air" (if your dictionary is bilingual, English "air" should be
translated "aria").

>
> > So overall, I see the "noise" as falling into two distinct parts
> (the
> > Sun-Mars, and Mercury-Venus parts), each of which required a
> > different solution, based on a plan which had several objectives:
> >
> > 1) the signs had to be mixed up;
>
> Why was that?

I don't know, but it is obvious that they *are* mixed up, so it is
logical to assume that the designer *wanted* it that way. I do not
think that the design went against the designer's wishes

>
> > 2) the Moon-Cancer had to be in the center;
>
> Only if you buy the Fortuna/Luna conceit.

Yes, it's a theory, not a fact. These three rules are deductions.

>
> > 3) the series had to begin and end with an Air Sign.
>
> Not if "arie" doesn't mean "airs."

But it does.

> >
> > So the order that resulted is this, using the planetary numbers
> (and
> > reading left to right) -
> >
> > 7 8 5 5 3 4 9 4 3 6 7 8
> >
> > Interesting too that "78" figures prominently - maybe the
designer
> > tipped the hat to the standard tarocchi pack number of cards when
> > adding the new cards?
>
> Interesting, agreed.

I didn't notice that either (like the Moon with 30), until I began
making the argument.


Even if we don't agree on the solution, at least it might become
easier to memorize the Minchiate arrangement, which once settled in
the mind, may lead to a solution one day (if mine is not good
enough), if this arrangement is discovered in another place. But
without knowing it in the first place, the discovery might never be
made.

> >
> > Given the relative simplicity of the explanation, all based on
the
> > planetary rulerships,
>
> I'm not sure it is that simple. The planetary domiciles would have
> been far simpler.

But this is beside the point. I did not say that it was the *simplest
possible* arrangement, only a relatively simple arrangement.

>
> >as well as the subtlety of the resulting order
> > and its relation to the rest of the pack in this section
(following
> > Air and preceding the "Airs")
>
> Already addressed.

And answered

> > There may have been a plan to it.
>
> Agreed, but I'm not sure this is it (if there is one.)

That's alright. But if you do come up with another one, I would be
more than happy to discuss it.

> >
> > I don't think you'd have to "project" too much meaning onto
> Zodiacal
> > signs, the four elements, and the Virtues!
>
> By "projecting" I simply meant "reading" the mountain of classical
> and medieval associations you refer to depicted in the card's
imagery.

Noted. I misunderstood "projection" as "reading into" (eisegesis as
opposed to exegesis). If an association existed and was potentially
available to the designer of the Minchiate, I would consider it fair
game in an interpretation.

>
> Maybe you're right about your symmetries. Lothar (I think) says he
> came to the same conclusions as you independently. But I still hae
me
> douts.

Lothar has never explained his solution completely, but at least he
is no doubt right that the designer wanted to provide some fun for
puzzle-solvers later."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LTarot/message/1481

Ross

... nice ..

-------------------------------Cancer
-------------------------Pisces------Sagitta.
-------------------Aquarius--------------Capricorn
---------------Leo---------------------------Aries, Scorpio
----------Taurus--------------------------------------Virgo
-----Gemini-----------------------------------------------Libra

-------35--34--33---32----31-----30----29----28--27,26--25--24

Substituting Ruling Planet for Sign, we get the following -

-------------------------------Moon
-------------------------Jupiter---Jupiter
--------------------Saturn---------------Saturn
---------------Sun------------------------------Mars
-----------Venus------------------------------------Mercury
------Mercury---------------------------------------------Venus

In contrast to the earlier situation of the debate we have now a reason, why Libra became the first, as other systems also have Libra at the start or the end (lot book system described under Pope/donkey) ..

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=663
... begin of a row with 22 elements with inside a moon-calendar-zodiac from 1-13

... and Lorenzo Spirito ...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=442
... end of the 3rd row with 20 elements (total system 20-20-20-20)

Further I've developed a series of reasons why Libra with its correspondence to Hephaistos / Vulcanus in the Manilius astrology was chosen as the first sign, I think mainly here ...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=663&p=10010&hilit= ... och#p10010

The jungle of this older lot book system is very complex, and I had been in the process to detect it, so it maybe not easy to study these passages. Anyway, I consider it rather sure (after I made all this research), that Libra is "NOT without reason" at the begin of the row. Either the Minchiate constructor had a simple reason (most plausible and simple: He just observed that old lot books had this custom and imitated it') or the more complex reason, that he knew these older systems, had a theory about the content and imitated something of them, but other parts not.

All three systems have a confusing astrological construction (alternated row of the zodiac-system), and the reason for the change and its system isn't detected with one view ... which usually could mean:

a. there is no system, just chaos
b. the system has errors
c. the system is just, what was intended once by the constructor ... in such a case there is an intended riddle, an invitation to puzzle

My idea of all three systems is, that they belong to category c. ... they are puzzles, in one case it seems, that it is already a very old puzzle. From the Minchiate and Lorenzo Spirito systems one might suspect, that the major theme might be "love" ... lot books were made for "requesting the future" and the "love topic" is a loved topic.

Going back to the suggestion of Ross: the problem has become easier, as we've deciphered the start (Nr. 24 = 1 = Libra) as an idea, taken from an earlier model.

Libra is a "twin"-zodiac sign ... two scales. Pisces is a "twin" zodiac-sign ... two fishes. And Gemini is a "twin" zodiac sign ... two humans. The other zodiac-signs are single objects.

In the case, that the Minchiate-creator desired to develop the twin-idea and the zodiac already existed (he couldn't invent it), then somehow he had the choice to take either Pisces or Gemini - as last and reigning sign. The choice was Gemini.

Thinking about it: Also the creator of the German lot book gave Gemini a high position ... Nr. 10. After it, at 11,12 and 13 follow only winter signs, reigned by the dark Mars, Scorpio till Capricorn, death and rebirth of the summer light. So somehow 10 is the height of the development.

Let's compare Minchiate (A - 12 elements) and lot book (B - 13 elements):

A1 Libra
B1 Libra

A2 Virgo
B2 Aries

A3 Scorpio
B3 Taurus

A4 Aries
B4 Cancer

A5 Capricorn
B5 Leo

A6 Sagittarius
B6 CROW or RAVEN addition (13-moon-zodiac

A7 Cancer
B7 Virgo

A8 Pisces
B8 Pisces

A9 Aquarius
B9 Aquarius

A10 Leo
B10 Gemini

A11 Taurus
B11 Sagittarius

A12 Gemini
B12 Scorpio

B13 Capricorn

The usual result of a comparison between a row with 12 elements and another with 13 elements should be, that one has 1 double appearance at the 12 possible positions (actually a little less as 1 as an average). In this case we have 3 double pairs, Libra-Libra, Pisces-Pisces and Aquarius-Aquarius.

This is not enough to be sure about it (only a small point), but it gives the suspicion, that the constructor of the Minchiate possibly knew the lot book.

From the mythological analyzes, which I attempted, just the position 1 and 8-9 were the interesting positions, Nr. 1 connected to Hephaistos-Hestia and the fall of the Uranus-genital, and 8-9, cause these were connected to Mars and Venus and created the love-story in the lot book. Beside that only Apollo's crow-story was of greater relevance, but this couldn't appear in the 12-elements-zodiac, cause it's the myth of the 13th moon ... and this naturally is missing in the Minchiate and it's 12-signs zodiac. This increases the suspicion.

Then we have the double-Mars appearance, which disturbed Ross during his analyze of the Minchiate:

-------------------------------Cancer (Moon)
-------------------------Pisces (Jupiter)------Sagitta (Jupiter)
-------------------Aquarius (Saturn)--------------Capricorn (Saturn)
---------------Leo (Sun)---------------------------Aries, Scorpio (both Mars)
----------Taurus (Venus)--------------------------------------Virgo (Mercury)
-----Gemini (Mercury)-----------------------------------------------Libra (Venus)

Also Ross has in this model problems with sun and moon (Leo and Cancer), which don't display really harmony.

In my analyses I'd also a "double Mars" and a somehow "wrong" position of sun and moon:

Huck during research wrote:Saturn = 21 ... Saturday
Sun = 15 ... (exchanged with Moon) ... Sunday
Moon = 18 ... (exchanged with Sun) ... Monday
Mars = 12 + 9 ... Tuesday
Mercury = 6 ... Wednesday
Jupiter = 3 ... Thursday
.... ... Venus outside of the row ... Friday ... perhaps Venus was considered as "nothing" (= 0) ?

The both problems seem to have no logical connection, but somehow the meet at the same content points.
Warlord "Mars fights with itself" at 9 and 12 (a double appearance) and sun and moon exchange positions at 15 and 18 and create day and night with it.

The suspicion, that the designer of the Minchiate knew the lot book is further increased.

Very elegant, guys. Now permit me to ask the obvious. If the Minchiate designer was influenced by the lot book, what are the chances that the Minchiate was intended for something else besides playing a game, namely, fortune-telling? I mean, why else would he care about reconstructing, more or less, a lot-book pattern?

mikeh wrote:Very elegant, guys. Now permit me to ask the obvious. If the Minchiate designer was influenced by the lot book, what are the chances that the Minchiate was intended for something else besides playing a game, namely, fortune-telling? I mean, why else would he care about reconstructing, more or less, a lot-book pattern?

Lorenzo Spirito used a 20-20-20-20-structure, I think, somehow in context with 7 planets ... Minchiate used a ...

20 = trumps 1-15 and 36-40
20 = trumps 16-35
20 = 2 suits running from 1-10
20 = 2 suits running from 10-1

+ 16 = 4x4 courts
+ 1 = 1 Fool

By this a similarity between Minchiate and one of the lot books was given anyway.

Between Minchiate and Lorenzo Spirito it isn't given, which of both was first ... Lorenzo Spirito was given possibly with 1473, Minchiate is noted in 1466 (we don't know, which structure Minchiate had in the beginning).

We don't know of a card divination use - we don't have evidence. Some plausibility "for divination with cards" already in this early time exists anyway.
Solzmann, who had an intensive library research in c. 1850 about lot books expressed no doubts about it: card divination existed, accompanying lot book systems. And Solzbach expressed his confidence, that lot books were not rare - but he also expressed his impression, that lot books had no good chances to survive, cause the librarians didn't love them. Mostly too cheap in production and not interesting.

And there's evidence, that the Martin Flach production (printed lot book with mainly birds) of c. 1485 influenced strongly the printed version of a divination-with-cards (now without birds, but with cards) c. 1505 in Strassburg (and with this the also similar Mainzer Losbuch around the same time - all have nearly the same text). The Strassburg producer was a relative to Martin Flach - that's not a very difficult way between the two productions.

I thought one version of the lot book was 1450, considerably before Minchiate.

mikeh wrote:I thought one version of the lot book was 1450, considerably before Minchiate.

Of course, the Bollstatter and the Fränkische Losbuch is before Minchiate, but it's not clear, which came first, Lorenzo Spirito lot book or the Minchiate-Version with 40 trumps + Fool.
The bpth latter use 20-20-20-20-structure, Bollstatter and the other versions used 22-22-22-22. Definitely Minchiate has more generally similarity to Lorenzo Spirito's work than it has to Bollstatter's work - with the exception of the zodiac-row, which looks more like a varied Bollstatter imitation.

I thought that it was the zodiacal row that we were mainly talking about, at least recently, in the two threads (this one and the one about the donkey). Let me rephrase: might not the Minchiate designer's concern to preserve aspects of the zodiacal row from the Bollstater-type lot-book indicate an interest in the fortune-telling aspect of the lot-book's structure?

mikeh wrote:I thought that it was the zodiacal row that we were mainly talking about, at least recently, in the two threads (this one and the one about the donkey). Let me rephrase: might not the Minchiate designer's concern to preserve aspects of the zodiacal row from the Bollstater-type lot-book indicate an interest in the fortune-telling aspect of the lot-book's structure?

hm ...
we have (my opinions)

5x14 decks (possibly since 1441, possibly earlier)
decks with 16 trumps (known since Michelino deck, c. 1425)

We have lot books in Germany, which use 22-22-22-22 (at least since 1450, but likely much older; and other lot books)
We have less lot books in Italy (? ... as far I know them; Andrea Vitali talked of 3 earlier lot books, but hasn't seen them)

We have 1465 as a plausible date, when the PMB got 6 new trumps and raised the number to 20, possibly by influence of Florence.
We have 1466 Luigi Pulci noting Minchiate in a letter, further Minchiate noted in 1471 and 1477 ... it isn't said, how much trumps these decks had. It is not impossible, that this had ALSO 20, or that it had already 40. Also we've no guarantee, that it already had the same trumps as later.

1473 or 1482 Lorenzo Spirito makes his lot book; in the case, that a version of 1473 exists, it isn't clear, if this was the version of of 1482. The 1482 version has 20-20-20-20-structure, perhaps an indication, that Minchiate already had ALSO 20-20-20-20-structure, perhaps an indication, that Lorenzo Spirito knew the German 22-22-22-22-version and imitated it - or another unknown version, which was similar in structure.

1475 Mantegna Tarocchi is made ... 50 motifs. Perhaps this new high number is an indication, that Minchiate already had 40 trumps.

1475-1476 Montefeltro in Urbino experiments with the number 28, possibly in relation to chess considerations, based on knowledge of the Tamerlane chess version (10x11 board + 4 special fields; with 2x28 figures). This gives the indication, that the reason for the interest in the structure-number "20" is based on an enlarged chess version with 10x10-board and 2x20-figures, which might have had a short-living interest.

1487 Boiardo makes his Tarocchi poem with 4x14+22 structure, but the trumps have ...
1-20-1
or
1 (Fool, World) - (10 pairs = 20) - 1 (Fortitudo - Lucretia
... as structure

1491 the Sola Busca with 4x14+22 structure, but the trumps ALSO seem to have 1-20-1 and ALSO using 10 pairs structure (so somehow 20).

From the usual Tarot we have till the Sola Busca production no confirmation, that it already had 22 special cards.

******************

This I summarized already some time ago. Generally we have, that lot books and chess are older than "playing cards", so it would be normal, that chess and lot books took influence on the new media "playing cards". But this can be said for the moment only in general terms, not specifically.