Re: New Pratesi note on the Cary-Yale
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 01:45
Phaeded wrote,
Also, Franco doesn't mean by "normal packs" just the one made for Malatesta. He means decks before then, too. "Carte a trionfi" is a phrase already in use, not one invented on this occasion. In 1443 a couple of people are arrested for playing triumphs, in a poor part of town. 1440 isn't that far removed. In his essay on the 1506 document (see
he says, relative to 1440 and the Giusti diary (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1074#p16459):
As far as the 1:1 rule between the triumphal cards and the number of cards in a suit, it is not a rule. It is merely a practice for which there is some evidence at various times and places. My guess would be that the PMB "first artist" packs departs from it; but perhaps not, as there are only 14 surviving cards. Pratesi has found evidence for 14 special card decks in Ferrara even in the late 15th century. The PMB "second artist" cards seem to abandon the practice, yes, at least in Milan. According to Tanzi in 2013--an art historian with more than one book on the Bembo-- art historians concur in dating the second artist cards to the 1480s, by their stylistic affinity to the work of Cicognara; I think I have already given the reference. That is surely enough not to warrant dismissing the hypothesis that they were, in fact, done then.
As for minchiate being a precursor of tarot, you are grossly distorting Pratesi's suggestion. He is only suggesting that the minchiate order, for the 16 subjects already given, be considered as one possibly used at the time of the Cary-Yale and possibly governing its order. He is suggesting that minchiate, as a later game, might be preserving an archaic order of triumphal subjects. Minchiate, it appears from the references to it starting in 1466, was a game already many decades old when the first lists of its cards appeared, and so likely to have had an evolution.
Your next quote, beginning "it makes some logic", allegedly from me, is actually from Huck. However you do question the plausibility of something I hypothesize, namely, three sources for 16 triumphs: the virtues, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. The seven virtues were a popular cassone theme in Florence of the 1420s and 1430s. In Milan, it was popular among illuminators of manuscripts in the preceding century. Petrarch and Boccaccio were combined in the illuminations and cassone in Florence of the 1440s. On the "Fame" pictures, for example, they sometimes used Boccaccio's description of the background, hills and villas (not that dissimilar from what is on the Charles VI "World" card). For "Eternity" they also used Boccaccio, for the Cupid in the lady's hand. They also used other sources, or traditions, for the various animals pulling the carts. These are not in either poet. If they engaged in combining sources there, why not in cards? The same artists put out both products. They also put out cassoni, which would combine themes: in one case I know of, it has been reputably hypothesized that one side had the 7 virtues, the other side the 7 liberal arts, and the ends Petrarch and Dante ("Dante and Petrarch in a Painting by Giovanni Dal Ponte," Edward Kennard Rand, Notes (Fogg Art Museum) Vol. 1, No. 3 (Jan., 1923), pp. 25-33, in JSTOR; compare also the two Birmingham cassone panels at http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/wi ... riage.html). The combining is done by the designer, from elements already popular and familiar as themes for that type of artist and that type of consumers. And they take the name of one of the sources for the associated game.
Anyway, virtues and triumphs were already connected: in Petrarch, in Boccaccio, in Dante, in sermons about the saints, wherever. It wasn't a big innovation.
Actually, I postulate four sources; for I have yet to account for the Emperor and the Empress. They may come from the game of "VIII Emperors", or perhaps they are just what is above the Kings and Queens, if the existence of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire before that counts as a source. Not all sources are texts or paintings.
At the end of your post you say:
Pratesi is thinking in terms of different possible scenarios: if p, then q. If not p, then maybe something else. You quoted one of the "if" clauses. It's just an "if". by "normal pack" he means the one with 22 triumphal cards, for ordinary use--if it existed in 1440, then the Cary-Yale is of secondary importance. But if it didn't yet exist, then it may not be of secondary importance. Here is the whole passageMike’s translation of Pratesi, who states the following after recognizing Depaulis’ bringing attention to Giusti’s 1440 first-ever mentioning of tarot:
The fundamental sea-change in tarot research is precisely that: everything now points to tarot’s roots as Florentine - not Milanese [and thus so much for Marziano] - and yet became something else in the city of its origins: minchiate. There is no reason to do the reverse and look for tarot’s origins in minchiate when there is no historical evidence that places it before tarot.But if in 1440 "normal" triumph packs already exist, it must be deduced that the CY pack, precisely because of its exceptionality, coexisting among objects of more common use, is of secondary historical significance.
This question does not get resolved by the end of the article. His last sentence makes this clear:Se però nel 1440 esistevano già mazzi “normali” di trionfi, se ne dovrebbe dedurre che il mazzo CY, precisamente a causa della sua eccezionalità fra oggetti coesistenti di uso più comune, risulta di importanza storica secondaria. Se invece si pensa a un prototipo destinato a ottenere poco dopo un notevole successo in una forma normalizzata, bisognerebbe risalire a date precedenti, come quell’anno 1428 sostenuto da altri. In definitiva, la discussione sul tema non si presenta chiusa, tanto che se ne trovano tracce ricorrenti fino agli ultimi giorni.
(But if in 1440 "normal" triumph packs already exist, it must be deduced that the CY pack, precisely because of its exceptionality, coexisting among objects of more common use, is of secondary historical significance. If we think instead of a prototype destined to obtain shortly afterwards considerable success in a normalized form, it is necessary to go back to earlier dates, like the year 1428 supported by others. Ultimately, the discussion on the subject is not closed, if we find traces recurring until the last days.)
There are other ways of exploring alternatives besides resolving them. I have no resolution either, just considerations for and against. The Marziano is relevant because it is before 1440. Things before 1440 in Florence are relevant, too. For example, Marziano studied in Florence before going to Milan. Franco tells me.Diversi degli aspetti discussi sembrano favorire l’interpretazione del mazzo CY come precursore di mazzi di trionfi standard piuttosto che come una variante di mazzi del genere già di uso comune, ma su questo punto, storicamente di grandissimo rilievo, non sono stati fatti purtroppo progressi significativi.
(Several of the aspects discussed seem to favor the interpretation of the CY deck as a precursor of packs of standard triumphs rather than a variant of a type of pack already in common use; but on this point, of great importance historically, significant progress unfortunately has not been made.)
Also, Franco doesn't mean by "normal packs" just the one made for Malatesta. He means decks before then, too. "Carte a trionfi" is a phrase already in use, not one invented on this occasion. In 1443 a couple of people are arrested for playing triumphs, in a poor part of town. 1440 isn't that far removed. In his essay on the 1506 document (see
he says, relative to 1440 and the Giusti diary (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1074#p16459):
What does "many years" mean? I asked him, but his reply was not memorable (to me) and I cannot now find the email. He would not commit himself to a number. I remember that in an essay about advances in tarot history since he started writing about it, he began by saying "thirty years are not many". "Many" is a suitably vague term. I also asked him whether he meant by "introduction", introduction into Florence, or introduction into the world. He replied in the same email that I cannot now find. As I recall, he said the question was covered by the "and possibly from other cities"; I take that as a suggestion that there might be more evidence forthcoming elsewhere. It seems to me that if he'd wanted to say "invention" instead of "introduction", he would have said so.Possiamo allora parlare dei trionfi nella Firenze dell'epoca come di un gioco noto e praticato localmente, tanto che nel 1450 rientrò nel piccolo numero di giochi di carte permessi dalle leggi comunali, il che dimostra che gia possedeva quel carattere tradizionale richiesto per ogni autorizzazione del genere.
In future sarà possibile anticipare ancora le testimonianze fiorentine (ed eventualmente da altre citta), ma non è plausibile che l'introduzione dei trionfi sia avvenuta molti anni prima; ...
(We can then speak of triumphs in Florence of that time as a game known and practiced locally, so much so that in 1450 passed into the small number of card games allowed by municipal laws, which shows that it already possessed the traditional character required for every such authorization.
In the future it is possible also to anticipate Florentine testimonies (and possibly from other cities), but it is implausible that the introduction of triumphs occurred many years before;...)
As far as the 1:1 rule between the triumphal cards and the number of cards in a suit, it is not a rule. It is merely a practice for which there is some evidence at various times and places. My guess would be that the PMB "first artist" packs departs from it; but perhaps not, as there are only 14 surviving cards. Pratesi has found evidence for 14 special card decks in Ferrara even in the late 15th century. The PMB "second artist" cards seem to abandon the practice, yes, at least in Milan. According to Tanzi in 2013--an art historian with more than one book on the Bembo-- art historians concur in dating the second artist cards to the 1480s, by their stylistic affinity to the work of Cicognara; I think I have already given the reference. That is surely enough not to warrant dismissing the hypothesis that they were, in fact, done then.
As for minchiate being a precursor of tarot, you are grossly distorting Pratesi's suggestion. He is only suggesting that the minchiate order, for the 16 subjects already given, be considered as one possibly used at the time of the Cary-Yale and possibly governing its order. He is suggesting that minchiate, as a later game, might be preserving an archaic order of triumphal subjects. Minchiate, it appears from the references to it starting in 1466, was a game already many decades old when the first lists of its cards appeared, and so likely to have had an evolution.
Your next quote, beginning "it makes some logic", allegedly from me, is actually from Huck. However you do question the plausibility of something I hypothesize, namely, three sources for 16 triumphs: the virtues, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. The seven virtues were a popular cassone theme in Florence of the 1420s and 1430s. In Milan, it was popular among illuminators of manuscripts in the preceding century. Petrarch and Boccaccio were combined in the illuminations and cassone in Florence of the 1440s. On the "Fame" pictures, for example, they sometimes used Boccaccio's description of the background, hills and villas (not that dissimilar from what is on the Charles VI "World" card). For "Eternity" they also used Boccaccio, for the Cupid in the lady's hand. They also used other sources, or traditions, for the various animals pulling the carts. These are not in either poet. If they engaged in combining sources there, why not in cards? The same artists put out both products. They also put out cassoni, which would combine themes: in one case I know of, it has been reputably hypothesized that one side had the 7 virtues, the other side the 7 liberal arts, and the ends Petrarch and Dante ("Dante and Petrarch in a Painting by Giovanni Dal Ponte," Edward Kennard Rand, Notes (Fogg Art Museum) Vol. 1, No. 3 (Jan., 1923), pp. 25-33, in JSTOR; compare also the two Birmingham cassone panels at http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/wi ... riage.html). The combining is done by the designer, from elements already popular and familiar as themes for that type of artist and that type of consumers. And they take the name of one of the sources for the associated game.
Anyway, virtues and triumphs were already connected: in Petrarch, in Boccaccio, in Dante, in sermons about the saints, wherever. It wasn't a big innovation.
Actually, I postulate four sources; for I have yet to account for the Emperor and the Empress. They may come from the game of "VIII Emperors", or perhaps they are just what is above the Kings and Queens, if the existence of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire before that counts as a source. Not all sources are texts or paintings.
At the end of your post you say:
In reference to a deck in c. 1428, I said:As for 1428 – unless one undertakes to prove how the Sforza pomegranates and fountains were a later addition, this early date is an impossibility…like chess, currently in checkmate by the bishop (or was it an elephant?).
As far as adding Sforza stemmi, I don't see how hard it would be for Filippo to say to the Bembo workshop, "This deck commemorates the courtship and marriage of my daughter and Sforza. So put Sforza stemmi in the batons and swords, and on the man's chest in the Love card. Put Visconti stemmi in the coins and cups. And leave the banners on the Love card the way they have been." I cannot prove that the pomegranates and fountains are a later addition. All I can do is give reasons for supposing a practice: different decks had their particular stemmi on particular cards, for a particular family, absent on other versions of the same card: the d'Este, the Charles VI, the Brera-Brambilla, etc. It was a practice borrowed from illuminated manuscripts, which put the stemma at the bottom of the page. That should be enough not to dismiss the hypothesis out of hand. I do not dismiss your Paradiso hypothesis out of hand either. You handled my initial objections well. But at the moment another hypothesis, at least about the CY, seems to me worth pursuing.It would not have had Sforza heraldics on it, but then neither does the Brera-Brambilla.