Huck wrote:h
22: Pope with donkey

Pope with donkey

And the association of donkey/ass with fools is one that goes back to classical times. Closer to our period is the tale of the donkey Burnel, in 'A Mirror for Fools' (actually written in the 12th century, but internationally popular for several centuries thereafter).

The tale of the Burnel, says the author, should be read as a Mirror for Fools, the reader invited to see in Burnel's follies their own.

Burnel wants a longer tail, to match his ears, and seeks out a pharmacist to help him, but ends up losing his drugs and his tail (which is bitten off by dogs). He then goes to Paris to take up an education, but after 10 years without even being able to learn the name of the City (still only able to say 'hee-haw'), he decides instead to go to Rome to see the Pope, in order to become a bishop. On the way he decides instead to enter a religious order, but after considering various orders decides instead it would be easier to found his own, taking the easiest rules from each of the others (such as not wearing breeches). Finally his master comes and takes him home, and clips his ears in punishment, which makes Burnel happy, for finally his tail matches his ears.

Speculum Stultorum (Mirror of Fools), or The Book of Burnel the Ass, by the twelfth-century satirical poet, Nigel Wirecker, otherwise known as Nigel de Longchamps.

In similar satirical vein was the Roman de Fauvel, Fauvel the Ass, whose name means nonsense, and is an acronym for seven sins, whom dame Fortune makes master of the house.



Illustration from the Roman de Fauvel.

Sometimes he is referred to as a horse rather than an ass, here he is on stage behind which turns the wheel of Dame Fortune (play the video) :

http://www.interlude.hk/front/roman-de- ... ses-mouth/

SteveM wrote

The other few (type A) examples there also have Matto below Bagatino.

I agree that all the type A lists have Matto below Bagatino, at least that I can find. Also all the type C lists have Matto below Bagatino.

But....

All the type A lists that I am aware of are from 16th century Bologna, after it returned to direct rule by the Papacy in 1507. That they are all the same seems a bit suspicious; it may be a reflection of a change in political atmosphere in these areas, as opposed to that of type B. Ferrara remained independent, until 1597. Venice was independent, too. Both would have had to make concessions to the combined power of Spain and the Papacy.

As for Florence, in 1494 the Medici were expelled--so a change in climate.Shortly after, the Popess was expelled from the tarot. When the Medici returned it was by grace of the Papacy and the Spanish, and minchiate took the place of the tarot.

Milan after 1535 was under the direct rule of the Spanish, with a period of instability 1525-1535 in the parts of Lombardy around the Po River--i.e. Pavia-- gradually extending to Milan itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Milan), i.e. under firm dictatorial conservative power, more or less allied with the papacy. The type C lists are most likely all from after that time—Alcioti’s in 1544 for sure, Susio’s in Pavia 1525-1570 probably.

By the same token, the interest in Pythagoreanism, which began as mathematical painting and architecture in Florence, reflected particularly in Alberti's writings, and which flowered in Ficino, shifts to the Veneto with the palaces and writings of Palladio (1508-1580) and others there before him. Nichomachus's Introduction to Arithmetic was much studied; after 1470 in Venice it likely would have been supplemented by the Theologumena Arithmeticae; Bessarion had willed his copy, the first in Italy, to that city, and it was generously (even carelessly) available to Venetian citizens of standing.

There is nothing in the figure of the Fool itself, or the rules governing its role in the game, to indicate its placement at the beginning or end of the sequence, or outside it. There is, however, in the tarocchi appropriati, a tendency to downplay the ambiguity of the terms (Matto, Folle), which in religion and literature embraced the holy as well as the unholy type. These were the post-Luther days, the thinking of which was reflected in the Council of Trent, with its emphasis on unambiguous clarity of expression and the Index of forbidden works.

For type A in the 15th century, we may to some degree be able to generalize how the Fool was considered from the ambiguous type B evidence, which for the Fool is all we have: the Sermones and Boiardo. The differences between A, B, and C do not affect, as far as known, the placement of the Fool.

Otherwise, our only clues are in the structure of the sequence. In the Bologna order there are, not counting the Fool, five trumps lacking a number on the card at the beginning of the sequence and four at the end. Why the Star would have a number (XVI), and the Moon not, is not easy to explain, as they are both celestial bodies. If the Fool is imagined at the end, that would be five and five, a balanced structure. However cards with numbers are only seen in the 19th century. It is an uncertain inference whether that reflects some tradition before then.

In minchiate, there are four unnumbered trumps at the beginning and five at the end. That the Star is unnumbered does not need explaining, as none of the celestials has a number on it. The imbalance between the two ends is easily explained as due to the removal of one of the Bolognese "papi": minchiate has only three. In minchiate, there is no compelling reason to put the Fool at one end rather than another. But our knowledge of the minchiate structure is from after the period of interest for us.

In the third Rothschild Sheet, from 1501-1515 and a region not in the forefront of innovation (Perugia), the numbering starts with the Bagat as I, so that Amore is VI, unlike the Bolognese and minchiate numbering, in which Amore is V. The numbering on the card appears to stop at XII the Old Man, leaving nine unnumbered not counting the Fool. If there is an unnumbered Fool on a lost 4th sheet, that would make ten unnumbered and twelve numbered. This is in conformity with Alain's division of twelve in the first three sections and ten in the last.

I have found only one tarocchi appropriati from the type A region that honors the ambiguity of the Fool's placement. It is a riddle, one of a series posed by Giulio Cesare Croce, a late 16th century(1550-1609) Bolognese writer and blacksmith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Cesare_Croce. Here is riddle number 56 (http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=224#):

Fra gli pianeti albergo, ed ho sollazzo
Mescolarmi col sole e con la luna,
E ben, che ciaschedun mi tenghi pazzo,
Ceder non voglio ad essi in parte alcuna.
Non son’ucciso, ed altri non ammazzo,
E me non può sforzar sorte o fortuna,
Anzi, con essa son spesso a le strette,
Né stimo morte, diavol, né saette.

(I live among the planets, and I enjoy
Mingling with the sun and the moon,
And even if everyone thinks I'm crazy,
I don’t want to surrender to them any part of me.
I am not killed, and I don’t kill others,
Fate or fortune can’t compel me,
Rather, I often quarrel with it,
I do not esteem death, devil, or lightning bolts.)

To which the answer, of course, is, in the "Declarations Table":

56 - Il matto de’ tarocchi (The fool of the tarot)

He is said to consider himself superior to Fortune, looks down on the devil and lightning, and mingles with the sun and moon. To that extent, he is in the higher end of the sequence. At the same time, this is all in his own eyes, a foolish illusion: he is really at the bottom.

However the poem takes the reader both places. Alain's Pythagorean way of dividing the sequence is not something that historically would have applied dogmatically, excluding other ways of seeing it, including its placement of the Fool. It is one way among several. The Renaissance, at least in the 15th and early 16th century, as has been said, reveled in ambiguity and hidden meanings.

There is also the Italian proverb: Like the fool of the tarot, here there and everywhere. Earliest reference to which I have found is 18th century, but that makes it at least as old as the Bolognese appropriati examples we have.

The orders of the appropriati we have; the two from Venice 1520's, 1534; those from Ferrara (? also early 16th century) and from Bologna (18th century) all have varations in order, from region to region, but all place Matto below Bagat.

(By appropriati, I mean specifically those poems/listings that list persons with trumps, not any and every type of poem in which a list of trumps may occur).

It seems to me that "Taroch è diventato lo mio core" counts as a tarocchi appropriati that places Matto with Mondo (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&start=40#p17022). It is type B, 16th century. Less assuredly the Pasquinade by Aretino, 1522, places Matto in the same general group as Mondo. The Boiardo poem, while not an appropriati in the sense of using all or most of the titles of the tarot subjects, also places the two together; likewise the Sermones does the same with similar language.

I did not realize that the Bologna appropriati were as late as the 18th century. That is when Bologna was not only under the thumb of the papacy, but in particular at least one prelate actually intervened in the tarocchi, enough so that the papi had to have black faces.

mikeh wrote:It seems to me that "Taroch è diventato lo mio core" counts as a tarocchi appropriati that places Matto with Mondo (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&start=40#p17022). It is type B, 16th century. Less assuredly the Pasquinade by Aretino, 1522, places Matto in the same general group as Mondo. The Boiardo poem, while not an appropriati in the sense of using all or most of the titles of the tarot subjects, also places the two together; likewise the Sermones does the same with similar language.

I tend to agree with Pratesi that in 'lo mio core' is a matter of literary exingency, and possibly as you say a play between 'taroch' and 'Matto' (as both meaning crazy, foolish). The Boiardo is a different sequence with a range of different names and concepts, the Sermones is clearly 21 trumps plus the fool, to make it 22 because it is placed last or in '22nd line/place', though it is separate, numbered 0 and called Nulla, could by similar reasoning make it 22 in all the appropriati poems (with the exception of the one that ends with the four papi), just because it is mentioned last or '22nd'.

The Fool of the Sermon is 'without value', no particular evidence of his being the holy fool type. That of Boiardo more of an everyman of the "Mirror of Fools" folly/vanity genre of literature so popular from the middle ages and revived by Brant and Erasmus.

Mondo, da pazzi vanamente amato,
Portarti un fol su l'asino presume,
Ché i stolti sol confidano in tuo stato.

World, you are vainly loved by the mad,
And a fool thinks he can bring you on his donkey,
Because the foolish only trust in your state.

The section with trumps is itself called 'CAPITULO DEL TRIOMPHO DEL VANO MONDO', The Triumph of the Vain World. (Vano - vain, empty, hollow, foolish, delighting in vanity and trifles).

Also, while there are 22, the introductions defines them as 21, and the fool at the most abject/vile place:

Quattro figure ha ogni color ancora,
che ai debiti suo' offici tutte loco,
con vinti et un trionfo; e al più vil loco
è un folle, poi che 'l folle el mondo adora.

Each suit also has four figures,
each of which I place in the due role,
with twenty-one triumphs; and at the most abject place
is a fool, because the fool the world adores.

Again, not so much the holy fool, as the vainglorious. Unless, perhaps, you take the fool on his donkey whom the world adores to be Christ?

Boiardo's World/Fool is not the ultimate or penulitimat triumph but occupies 'the most abject place'. It is not some Christ or Anima Mundi type figure in a divine chariot with the holy animal wheels of Ezekiel or evangelist spreading the good news over the world; nor even some holy City or ideal polity held aloft by cherubs; but a vain world delighting in trifles, full of fools whom the World adores and carried along by a Fool on a Donkey, a world in which the battle between vice and virtue takes place. I do not see any overtly or implicit narrative of salvation, there is no triumph of Eternity, we end with the Triumph of Fame (as if to say vainglory is the greatest triumph in this world of fools). So I do not see a good or convincing reason to take Boiardo's conflation of Fool and World 'in the most abject place' to justify the union of World and Fool in other tarot orders.

Our definition of 'appropriati' seems to be at variance, you seem to define it as any poems (or even listings?) that uses "all or most of the tarot subjects", I take it to mean a poem or listing that links a personage with a trump, more especially so where a description of the 'appropriateness' of the attribution is given (or as the game and records of the game as such).

mikeh wrote: I did not realize that the Bologna appropriati were as late as the 18th century. That is when Bologna was not only under the thumb of the papacy, but in particular at least one prelate actually intervened in the tarocchi, enough so that the papi had to have black faces.

The three in the Pratesi article all mention the 4 moors, so post 1725. But I believe there is another with Ladies of Bologna which has four papi so pre-1725 (which I think I saw in another Pratesi article somewhere).

However he also has the sonnet, but not much earlier (c. 1680-1700):

Li Trionfi de’ Tarochini sopra il Techeli
Ribelle dell’Imperatore.

Angel d’inferno sei Michel, che al Mondo
Tentasti d’Austria il Sol vendere nero,
Tu la Luna Ottomana, astro che immondo,
Suscitasti fellon contro l’Impero.

Stella d’onor della Saetta il pondo,
Qual Demonio infernal scoccasti invero,
Con influsso di Morte il brando a tondo
Girasti Traditor, Vecchio severo.

La Ruota alla Fortuna arpia superba
con la Forza inchiodar speravi affatto,
Di te Giusta vendetta il Dio ti serba.

Tempra l’ardir, trattien il Carro, e ratto
Lascia d’Amor d’Imper la voglia acerba,
Ne il Papa tien qual Bagattin, o Matto.

This sonnet could be considered a type of appropriati I suppose, excepting that a place rather than a person is attributed to the cards? (i.e., The Sun of Austria, The Ottoman Moon - Folengo also interprets the Moon card as a symbol for the Turks. There is also the person Michel with the Angel, albeit a hellish one, so yes an appropriati.)

I had thought that a tarocchi appropriati was anything that appropriated the tarot titles for another purpose--and so wouldn't include lists, but would include sonnets, pasquinades, villanelles, riddles, etc.. Checking Dummett in Game of Tarot and Tarotpedia (http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Tarot_Hi ... tine_Decks), I see I am wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

What meaning the lists, poems, and appropriations attribute to the subjects isn't important for the purposes of Alain's thesis, at least as I read it and tend to defend it. The people inventing "tarot appropriati" and commenting on the cards weren't doing Pythagorean numerology or arithmology. Their products' importance is only to give indications of how they ordered the cards, where in the card sequence they thought of putting the Fool, and how they "grouped" cards, for whatever reason. A Pythagorean interpretation is an overlay that gives a meaning related to the ordinal or cardinal numbers associated with the cards. Whether the designer, or one of the designers, had such a meaning in mind is another question. It is not excluded, but also not argued. At least that is as much as I would hope to defend. The historical legitimacy of such an interpretation is based on the fact that some people interested in pictorial symbolism in the time and place of the early tarot--i.e. parts of the 15th and 16th centuries, were conversant in Pythagoreanism and took it seriously. The result, using the sequence of pentagonal numbers and typical meanings given to the numbers involved, is something quite similar to Dummett's three groups (except that one member of one group forms a group of its own, and the Fool is added at the end), gives a meaningful interpretation of all four groups, showing what makes them a group, and, in the case of the type B order, has in its order some support in tarot-inspired documents in the type B region around Ferrara. I know that some people don't consider such an endeavor to be "tarot history", but I don't agree, given its grounding in the history and documents of a particular time and place.

BOUGEAREL Alain wrote:The arithmological sequence 1+4+7+10 = 22 in relation with the 3 blocs is under discussion and research.

At this point of the critical analysis "still at work" mainly conducted by Mikeh, it appears that :

Type A does not fit the division 1 + 4 + 7 + 10 = the Pentagonal number 22.
Type B does fit.
Type C could fit.

My request would be to create a special section regulay updated when necessary with all the Ordinal known listing of Trumps.

Maybe here, maybe on trionfi?

Thanks for the feedback

Something like :
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=552


PS It would be useful tu other resaerchers, I'm sure

I'm not sure, if I understand. Maybe you think of something like this ... see ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=552&p=17047#p17047
... the last part:

This thread begin was an excellent work of Marcos Mendez Filesi, who already is inactive for some longer time. Maybe somebody else could open a thread like "OVERVIEW: The order of the trumps (II)" and work on an update of this collection, keeping the first post as a place, that he occasionally updates, if a new document appears.

Huck wrote:

BOUGEAREL Alain wrote:The arithmological sequence 1+4+7+10 = 22 in relation with the 3 blocs is under discussion and research.

At this point of the critical analysis "still at work" mainly conducted by Mikeh, it appears that :

Type A does not fit the division 1 + 4 + 7 + 10 = the Pentagonal number 22.
Type B does fit.
Type C could fit.

My request would be to create a special section regulay updated when necessary with all the Ordinal known listing of Trumps.

Maybe here, maybe on trionfi?

Thanks for the feedback

Something like :
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=552


PS It would be useful tu other resaerchers, I'm sure

I'm not sure, if I understand. Maybe you think of something like this ... see ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=552&p=17047#p17047
... the last part:

This thread begin was an excellent work of Marcos Mendez Filesi, who already is inactive for some longer time. Maybe somebody else could open a thread like "OVERVIEW: The order of the trumps (II)" and work on an update of this collection, keeping the first post as a place, that he occasionally updates, if a new document appears.

Hi
Yes...

Mikeh wrote :

"A Pythagorean interpretation is an overlay that gives a meaning related to the ordinal or cardinal numbers associated with the cards. Whether the designer, or one of the designers, had such a meaning in mind is another question. It is not excluded, but also not argued. At least that is as much as I would hope to defend. The historical legitimacy of such an interpretation is based on the fact that some people interested in pictorial symbolism in the time and place of the early tarot--i.e. parts of the 15th and 16th centuries, were conversant in Pythagoreanism and took it seriously. The result, using the sequence of pentagonal numbers and typical meanings given to the numbers involved, is something quite similar to Dummett's three groups (except that one member of one group forms a group of its own, and the Fool is added at the end), gives a meaningful interpretation of all four groups, showing what makes them a group, and, in the case of the type B order, has in its order some support in tarot-inspired documents in the type B region around Ferrara. I know that some people don't consider such an endeavor to be "tarot history", but I don't agree, given its grounding in the history and documents of a particular time and place.[/quote]"


YES.

That is the specific object of the analysis of the thesis. The essay is restricted to a collection of 22 with the Fool at end.

Nevertheless, stricto sensu the Pentagonal generation of Number 22 also could be applied for any collection of 22 allegorical subjects - as long as they are listed from the First to the Twentysecond. but this is not the objet of the thesis actually in discussion.

BOUGEAREL Alain wrote:Mikeh wrote :

A Pythagorean interpretation is an overlay that gives a meaning related to the ordinal or cardinal numbers associated with the cards. Whether the designer, or one of the designers, had such a meaning in mind is another question. It is not excluded, but also not argued. At least that is as much as I would hope to defend. The historical legitimacy of such an interpretation is based on the fact that some people interested in pictorial symbolism in the time and place of the early tarot--i.e. parts of the 15th and 16th centuries, were conversant in Pythagoreanism and took it seriously. The result, using the sequence of pentagonal numbers and typical meanings given to the numbers involved, is something quite similar to Dummett's three groups (except that one member of one group forms a group of its own, and the Fool is added at the end), gives a meaningful interpretation of all four groups, showing what makes them a group, and, in the case of the type B order, has in its order some support in tarot-inspired documents in the type B region around Ferrara. I know that some people don't consider such an endeavor to be "tarot history", but I don't agree, given its grounding in the history and documents of a particular time and place.

"

YES

Of course, I understand it is not an argument of (historical) design. As has been mentioned, it may fit Dummet's order ( IF (or excepting, i.e., not fitting) one member of one group forms a group of its own, and the Fool is added at the end) or as MikeH says, may fit another IF the traitor is interpreted as taking on some salvatiion role; or even fits, according to Alain, with the Matto below the Bateleur, if read as according to the 18th century appropriati I mentioned which numbers the trumps in reverse order from highest to lowest.

Post-hoc exegesis, or 'pythagoran overlay' that may be applied to various orders apparently!?

If it is a post-hoc interpretive overlay - what does it matter what the place of the fool was historically? Isn't that search a search for historical intent and 'legitimacy'? It is disingenuous to say that such legitamacy is not being argued, in a historical research forum? That is what is being argued, and in a historical research forum needs to be defended or debunked. If it is being offered as an interpretive overlay, it should be presented elsewhere. Pratesi I would by and large count as research, but this, which you say yourself you wouldn't defend, appears to me as unicorn.