I don't see a Magician/Fool. All I see is a Magician dressed like the Rosenwald Magician.
... :-) ... well, I see a Magician with a Fool's cap at all 3 pictures. And I see, that the theory about 96 cards in the hypothetical Rosenwald
Minchiate has some relevance with the condition, that the Fool or the Magician is missing or both are merged to one figure.
has clear signs of the Minchiate, with human/animal figures at the knight cards, also different gender (2 women/ 2 men) for the Fante, one shouldn't overlook this argument.
Also we see the first zero at a card deck in the Sola-Busca Tarocchi, much later than c. 1465. We've the example of the Hofämterspiel, at which the 4 Fools are connected to the number 1. For the reconstruction of the row of the 14 Bembo trumps there is the argument, that the Fool should have been associated to the No. 11. The general use of zero in the mid of 15th century might have been not very common.
By "engraver error", I assume you mean on the Gobbio, which clearly has the number 11. If Fortune is 14, that numbe on the Gobbio has to be wrong, and number 12 instead. Yes, it is possible. But probable? There are the other type A orders to consider. The Rosenwald doesn't exist in isolation.
Although I myself might have noted occasionally, that Fortune is at the 14th place on the sheet trump row (I had this error once), I learned at these days, that it is at position 13. Father Time is at position 11 as usual (but has the number 12), the Hanged Man has the position 12 (as usual).
We don't have much orders from Florence. The Strambotto (also only 21 trumps) is believed to be from Florence:
Strambotti de Triumphi
Mi racomando a quel angelo pio,
al mondo, al sole, alla luna & lo stello,
alla saetta & a quel diavol rio,
la morte, el traditore, el vechierello.
la rota, el caro & giusticia di Dio,
forteza & temperanza & amor bello,
al papa, imperatore, imperatrice,
al bagatello, al matto più felice.
... from 2010, we discussed it then with some detail, you yourself brought then the passage:
So it’s first the Rosenwald and Strambotto, then the Charles VI etc. numbering. But if Huck (following Steve) is right, in his most recent posts, the Strambotto might be before the Rosenwald. If so, we seem to have first no Popess, then Popess, then no Popess.
In November 2011 Franco's older Rosenwald
article appeared, and changed the time sequence, Rosenwald
should be older than the strambotto.
Interestingly the Chariot in the Strambotto (position 9 in the strambotto, 10 in Rosenwald
, 10 in Minchiate) is lower than Fortune (position 10 in strambotto, 13 in Rosenwald
, 9 in Minchiate), Justice (8 in strambotto, 8 in Rosenwald
, 8 in Minchiate) is higher than Fortitude (7 in strambotto, 9 in Rosenwald
, 7 in Minchiate), all in contrast to the later Minchiate.
Looking at this: "Justice = 8" seems to have been a fixed idea (well, we have suspicions, why), Fortitudo is given to places (7, 9), which are possible according "with Papessa" or "without Papessa".
Fortune, if really at 13th position in the game, likely was moved with a replacement of II Papessa with 0 Fool, which caused various effects on the row.
I search for the numbers of Charles VI (also from Florence) according the interpretation of Ross, but experience big difficulties. In the "order of trumps" thread it seems, that they are not given there there. Justice seems to be 8, Fortitudo 7, Chariot 10, so Fortune likely was 9.
Well, I note an interesting feature at the Hanging Man (Charles VI) ... the number is at the bottom of the card, not at the top (as usual). Which likely means, that the writer of the numbers didn't know the correct upside/downside of the card and had been for this reason somebody, who wasn't used to the general motif, likely not an Italian and not in Italy. Possibly he compared it with a Minchiate deck, and noted the numbers from this deck on the Charles VI cards.
The Charles VI Fool has a sort of Fool's cap. And the Magician is missing here, too.
There is absolutely no order of trumps--not only in type A but in any type--where Fortune is after the Hanged Man. In the Charles VI numbers (probably written in around the time of the Rosenwald) ...
No, I don't think so (that the numbers were given in the time of the original Rosenwald
The Colonna fills in the gap, Chariot-Wheel. So Fortune/Wheel at 11 fits two existing decks, including the one probably originally closest in time and place to the Rosenwald original design, while at 14 it fits none, nowhere close. That is a fairly good argument, I think, but not conclusive.
I see only one deck, that has 11 Wheel (Colonna, late), the Rosenwald
has no 11, it's only on Dummett's list with a "?" cause of Dummett's conclusions.
is from 1465, then the Colonna fragment (from Rome, not Florence) is a little bit far off to be of relevance.
Your suggestion has going for it the arrangement on the sheet. But it is not a "mistake", as you put it, not to follow the ordinal order on the sheet. The Cary Sheet (no numbers) only partially follows an order The BAR/Rothschild sheets (no numbers), which appears to follow ancient designs, only partially follow an order. There is no particular reason why the sequence has to correspond to the arrangement on the page.
Yes, this behavior isn't naturally the normal case. But it says, that engraver of the original Rosenwald
was a careful man, cause if the producer found it meaningful to sell the cards in sequence (as it is quite common nowadays), the cards are much easier to sort. If you make the woodblock otherwise in a chaotic manner, you have always more work to do.
In this case, the Rosenwald, it does seem that the cutter tried to make the arrangement correspond to the numbers. But he got something wrong (besides the two VIIIs): either the number on the Gobbio is wrong, or he put Fortune in the wrong place. Comparison with the other type A orders suggests the latter alternative.
We must differ between the designer of the original Rosenwald
(likely without numbers) and the exotic chaos of the Rosenwald
sheet and the final state, when the printed sheet of Leinfelden had (possibly) correct numbers. I think, all 3 have different dates, from we may assume c. 1501 Perugia for the Leinfelden and the other two dates we don't know, as a hypothesis c. 1465 for the oldest without numbers.
One argument for the other alternative might be if it could be established that there was the practice of giving the designs to one person and the numbers to another. Then putting the cards in order on the page would facilitate putting the numbers on correctly. Again, either the engraver of the designs did it fully in accord with that procedure, or he made a mistake. Given that we know the numberer made at least one mistake, we might conclude that he was the less experienced or competent of the two, thus the one to be given the relatively simple job of numbering. If so, the more competent would have been given the designs, and presumably thereby less likely to make a mistake.
There is more than one number error in the Rosenwald
, and it seems plausible to think of an engraver, who just attempted to change something.
This argument has many "ifs". It might equally be said that because putting the numbers on is simpler, it would have been given to the master, as less likely to make a mistake of this kind, sometimes difficult to correct. Also, while he is numbering, he can review whether the designs are executed properly. If the designs are in the wrong order on the page, it doesn't matter, because the numbers can correct such a mistake. But even so, the master did make a mistake too, a real one (the two VIIIs). Why not? He has many cutters to supervise. And in this case it is easy to correct; you just add another I. The argument from a division of labor goes nowhere.
If the numbers were just written at a corrupted sheet (anyway damaged cause of the card Fortune), which the engraver noted to observe possible future working problems, then we have no problem. It's quite common for a printer to make notes on printed paper during his work, for corrections etc.. He makes a test printing, and notes the detected errors on this test paper. Naturally efore he starts to produce 100s or 1000s from the wrong woodcut.
I don't suppose you can tell what the number is on the Fortitude card of the Leinfelden, the card with the mistaken number VIII on the Washington sheet. It wouldn't prove anything one way or another, but it would be of interest.
I detected 5 numbers, all are shown already. I doubt, that I find more.
I start to wonder, if we should also consider the work on the Sola Busca Tarocchi in this question, as this might have had Florentine influences.
And again, it's very curious ...
I wrote at AT this thread, to takes it shorter ...
According my own analyses (as far I remember) there were 9 trump cards, which couldn't be associated to trumps in the usual Minchiate (as far these were also Tarot trumps).
I try to focus my complicated wanderings in this thread. Somehow I arrived from ...
... to this one, ...
... and those trumps, which belonged to the blue background fields belonged with one exception (Chariot) all to the 9, which I had identified as those, which didn't associate a normal Tarot trump.
So I recognized that the motif "Chariot" seems to have had a special importance. The Sola-Busca artist had arranged it so.
In Minchiate the Chariot has the number 10, as we know.
Well, I detected the Lucca Tarocchi in it. The Lucca Tarocchi threw 9 cards away, and kept 13, and these were the Minchiate trumps No. 9 - 20 (starting with 9 = wheel) and the Fool.
One riddle had remained, and this was, that the wheel wasn't detected in the cards of Sola-Busca. Also one card, which was recognizable as Magician (Sola Busca = Panfilio), but which wasn't used in the Lucca.
I wrote in the thread:
The one missing card from the Lucca Tarocchi is the "Wheel". There is no wheel at all the Sola-Busca cards. If I would assume, that 1 Panfilio presents the wheel, then all difficulties are gone. Panfilio has the greatest rounded shield of all the warriors, not enough to conclude the wheel, but ...
Panfilio in the Sola-Busca was the lowest trump.
In the Lucca Tarocchi the card "9 Wheel" was the lowest trump.
Well, no doubt, Panfilio is the Wheel.
I guess, something is solved now.
Well, the Lucca Tarocchi ...
It i's a feature of the Rosenwald
discussion, that the Wheel creates problems. It was similar in the Sola Busca. It's also a feature of the Rosenwald
, that one has to suspect a 69-cards-game with missing "4 tens", missing "4 queens" and missing "Fool" against the normal Tarot. It's a feature of the Lucca Tarocchi, that there are indeed 69 trumps, and that the trumps 1-8 of Minchiate are missing and also the Papessa, which isn't a Minchiate trump, but in Tarot (also measured against the complete 78-cards-version of Tarot). Both cards - Fortune and Papessa - look as the keys in the possible changes of the Rosenwald
It's a feature of the 5x14-theory, that possibly some early Trionfi decks had only 70 cards, possibly even the dominant version of the game for some time. 70 and 69 are close to each other.