Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#41
I have a few comments on Franco's latest note (above).

First, on the question of whether the woodblock for the 3rd Rosenwald sheet could be used as one of four blocks fora minchiate deck, there is the question of the 4th queen, as there is no room for her on the blocks as they now appear as long as the Empress remains with its Roman numeral III. If that III is something added after the printing from the block is done, then there is less of a problem, since a minchiate deck only has three crowned figures as "papi". This would have to apply to all the numbers, because minchiate numbers are necessarily (once one of the "papi" is made into a queen) all different from those we see in the Rosenwald except for number one and the unnumbered last five. That the numerals were not part of the woodblock has not been established, as far as I know.

Even if this problem can be resolved, there remains a problem, as the minchiate Queen of Batons doesn't have the ball in her hand of the Rosenwald Empress, an important Imperial attribute. See e.g. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/c ... 9&partId=1. This is surmountable. The player just learns to ignore the ball.

A similar issue is that of the papal attributes on two of the remaining Rosenwald "papi", which are not present in minchiate. See, besides the above link, http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05114/d05114.htm compared to http://trionfi.com/rosenwald-tarocchi-sheet. But perhaps in the early days of minchiate this issue is not important.

The rest of what I have to say pertains to the table that Franco drew up:
Image

Here are my complaints.

(1) We can't be sure that the "tarocchi" interlude was part of the play as performed in Sansepolcro. It might have been added at the request of the publisher, to advertise his wares, and the title adjusted to make sure no one missed it. If so, the deck would correspond to what was known in Perugia. That relates mainly to (2) below.

(2) Franco's table doesn't include the Cardinal. In fact Perugia is not far from wherever the Anonymous Discourse was written (Central Italy), and that writer mentions the "highest dignitaries" as "in the spiritual, Cardinal and Pope, in the temporal, King and Emperor". Anonymous also says that there are two "Papi". This suggests that one of the "Papi" was called, informally, the Cardinal. It seems to me justified to put, tentatively of course, the Cardinal as one of the cards, probably below the Emperor. (There remains the issue of whether in minchiate the "papi" ever were given such names, as opposed to just "papa 1" etc. It must be assumed that we are dealing with a proto-minchiate, but one slightly more advanced than the Rosenwald, in that one of the spiritual dignitaries has by now lost his tiara.) I know that we should have only four cards in this deal. But there is one that seems to me unjustifiably there, for which see (3) below.
[Added later: see a later post where I examine the text. Franco seems to be closer to the truth.]

(3) Franco includes "Bagatella" and "Matto" as two separate cards. Two such cards are not mentioned in the play, at least as Franco presents it (and I checked his 1987 piece as well), only one, called Matto. This is an excellent argument for the non-existence of one of these cards in the deck being referred to. But there is no justification from the play for listing two such cards. To make a quartet, we have the Cardinal. [Added later: see later post examining the text of the play. They are clearly two cards, as Franco says.]

From Franco's description, I assume that the cards are being dealt four at a time. So the first four are Cardinal, Emperor, Pope, and Fool. If Fool=Bagat, these could be prototypes of the "four Papi" of minchiate, in which Love is called the "papa five".

(4) There is the question of where this Fool card should go. It seems to me that they are meant to be putting the cards in this quartet in the order they thinking they should go, not how they standardly go. They think that the Fool should be after the others mentioned. Perhaps they are thinking of professional Fools, who not only make their employers laugh but also teach them things, as well as the "natural fools", who even surpass most rulers (as a cynical joke). But this does not mean that in the standard order the Fool is in that place. Probably it is where the Bagat is in minchiate. So we have 1?Fool, 2Cardinal?, 3Emperor, 4Pope. [See later post: Emperor is before Pope; it remains unclear where the Fool goes, even though it is presented after Emperor and Pope.]

(5) There is the question of what numbers the next group should get. It seems to me that Notturno has either forgotten about or is deliberately ignoring the Love card, which is always present at this point in the hierarchy. Perhaps if he included it, then some witticism would be expected, and he didn't feel like having to think of one, that the scene was long enough already. So I think the numbers on the next four cards should be one higher than Franco gives them. So the 8th card would really be Justice and not Chariot, regardless of what Notturno's characters say. Then 4 more cards are dealt. Three of them are discussed, but they don't really want to deal with the Hanged Man, that's too close to home.

We really cannot take what is in the play strictly literally. He is not instructing the audience as to the standard order, he is simply entertaining with something part of the audience will recognize, and perhaps trying to make the game look interesting so they rest of the audience will buy it. [This last is sustained by an examination of the text. The issue of the previous paragraph is not addressed in the text, but the paragraph still seems to me appropriate reasoning.]

The net result is that Notturno's first 11 triumphs ares closer to those of a 96 card Minchiate (in the manner of the Rosenwald) than it might appear. [This conclusion is not justified, since the Bagat and the Fool are two separate cards.]
.
(6) it would be very helpful if Franco would post photocopies or transcriptions of the relevant pages of the text, not only for the explicit part on the tarocchi but also for the parts he thinks are implicitly referring to the special minchiate images. Then we could discuss these things further. [Added later: Franco says he had made photocopy of the Notturno and looked for it recently but couldn't find it, and that finding the microfilm now is hardly possible. I forget that it was 1987 when he had it. Added still later: part of the text is reproduced on trionfi.com, as Huck says later.]

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#42
Notturno’s Gioco di Triomphi
by Franco Pratesi, 1988
(from: The Playing-Card, XVII, No. 1, 23-33)
http://trionfi.com/notturno-gioco-triophi

1521 Notturno revisited (2011)
http://trionfi.com/notturno-tarocchi

Image

Title page

Image

Note of the printer (Perugia 1521)

Image

Internal Summary

Image

The word "Tarocchi" appears in the title of the play. From the perspective of current research (2011) this seems to be the earliest appearance of "Tarocchi" (1521), earlier documents prefered "Tarochi" (first note from 1505 in Avignon and Ferrara).
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#43
I look further and see that Huck got Franco to post the relevant section on trionfi.com. It is at http://trionfi.com/notturno-tarocchi. Added: in posting what follows, I see that Huck posted this link already, while I was writing.

The Bagatella is indeed mentioned:
C. To. Mi dispiace ben chio la sparechio
Il bagatella è questo, dar til voglio.
K. Glie mia, chl matto è de tutti altri spechio.
How to translate. Well, Florio says that "sparecciare" means "to make unready". And "speccio" is "I reflect" (like a mirror).
So, perhaps:
I indeed regret making unready
The Bagatella is this one, I want to give it to you.
K. It is mine, the Matto, of all the others I reflect.
Is the Bagatella a different card from the Matto? I cannot tell. Well, there is more
C. Di te mi meraviglio, anci mi doglio
Che nosco in gioco poniti a la zuffa
Senza intender il scritto di sto foglio.
Chi ben atteggia civetta e camuffa
Astutamente, senza far il stolto
Quel resta vincitor di la baruffa.
Non bisogna sciocchezza saper molto
Non bisogna ignorantia ma virtute
Volendo haver nel fin, qualche honor colto.
K. Tu dici il ver, tengo le labia mute
E gliè tua tottalmente Caballino
Che hia le virtuti in te tutte compiute.
C. Hor piglia e qui farai da paladino
Se vinci questa, che lè la fortezza
Che doma ogni mortal e ogni divino
Questa quella è che tutto stringe e spezza
E il bagatella non pur, ma anchor vinta
Spesso è ragion, da sua tanta fierezza.
Well, here is a try:
C. Of you I marvel, thus I grieve
That with us in the game you put yourself in the battle
Without comprehending the writing on the sheet.
Who poses as well owl and craftiness
Cleverly, without acting the fool
One who remains the victor of the scuffle.
Do not know much nonsense
Do not need ignorance but excellence
Wanting to have in craft, gathered some honor.
K. You tell the truth, I keep my lips mute
And yours totally Secret
That you have the excellences [virtutes] in you all complete.
C. Now you seize and here you make the paladin
If you win this, you lè the fortress [fortezza, also = fortitude]
Taming every mortal and every divine
This one is that everything shakes and breaks
And not surely the Bagatella but again vanquished
It is often with good reason, from his great fierceness [or arrogance].
I left in the few words I can't venture a guess. It seems that one person is wanting the other to be craftier, like like the Bagatella. If so, it is a different card. Strength seems to be defeating craftiness, however.

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#44
Notturno Tarocchi ... with perspectives on Sola Busca and Lucca Tarocchi and Karnöffel

My researches to the Sola-Busca Tarocchi had arrived at something rather complicated ...

Sola-Busca riddles
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1041

This was a state between many difficult questions ...

Image


I came to the conclusion, that one group of cards could be related to standard trumps (with insecurities), another group not. When I arranged a table in the above given manner (0 and 21 embedding 1-20 with numbers running from the left bottom corner up to the right top), then the 9 cards with no chance to be identified gathered in the two middle groups (blue ground). One card in these middle groups was, however, very clear: The Chariot.

Image


I remember ...
I made a pause and recovered a bit.

I couldn't avoid to think about the Lucca Tarocchi. I hope everybody knows, what this is. It's a strange reduced Tarocchi with 69 cards, from which 13 belong to the category "special cards" (1 Fool and 12 others)

not numbered Fool
9 Wheel
10 Chariot
11 Hermit
12 Hanging Man
13 Death
14 Devil
15 Tower
not numbered Star
not numbered Moon
not numbered Sun
not numbered World
not numbered Fame

So I make now a short summary of all that, what I found out by trial and error
Somehow I arrived at ...
(40) 20 World (in Sola-Busca 21)
(39) 19 Angel (in Sola-Busca 17)
(38) 18 Sol (in Sola-Busca 16)
(37) 17 Moon (in Sola-Busca 17)
(36) 16 Star (in Sola-Busca 4)
15 Tower (in Sola-Busca 20)
14 Falconer (in Sola-Busca 9) ... somehow later replaced as devil
13 Death (in Sola-Busca 13)
12 Hanging Man (in Sola-Busca 8)
11 Father Time (in Sola-Busca 5)
...
1 Panfilio (in Sola-Busca 1)
0 Mato (in Sola-Busca 0)
12 cards ... with a 13th, Chariot, in the background

Lucca Tarocchi:



I recognized, that 1, Panfilio took the role of Wheel card, which in Minchiate is below the Chariot. Panfilio would be the Magician in normal Tarocchi (important cause its 5 point in the game), but in the Lucca Tarocchi the Wheel would have the lowest rank of the trumps.

The function of the Chariot became clear: he was the 10 to the 9 heroes, which couldn't be identified.

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

Since then I got the clear opinion, that the Lucca Tarocchi rules with 69 had older roots, reaching back to 15th century. Actually a suspicion since I've learned about its existence. 69 cards, that looked like a memory on the 5x14-theory.

The hypotheses to the Rosenwald Tarocchi (2011) played a role. 69 cards + 3 queens on 3 woodblocks would make a Trionfi game with 69 cards.

Now we look at the Notturno: Franco's listing ...
10 Vecchio
09 Rota
08 Carro
07 Giustia
06 Temperantia
05 Fortezza
04 Bagatella
03 Matto
02 Papa
01 Imperatore
.... although there are 3 overlapping cards to the Lucca Tarocchi version (Vecchio, Rota, Carro) it looks like a collection, that neither Sola Busca nor Lucca Tarocchi used.
And another strange feature: Imperatore + Papa below below the Matto, that looks like a memory on Karnöffel or Imperatori decks.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#45
Here is the poem starting from where they start describing the cards to where I began in the previous post.
T. Hor gioca. D. To limperatore è questo.
T. Limperatore. D. Sì. T. E questo è il Papa
Che tutto pote o andassela dil resto.
D. Come dil resto o vadigli la capa
E tutto il mio valor, che questo è mio.
T. O vedi come chi non sa sincapa
O dimmi il Papa non è in terra Dio.
D. Made sì. T. Donque hai persa la questione
Che un Deo vince un mortal, perho vinch’io.
D. Hor contender non vo, ti do ragione.
T. Mi la da la iustitia, come un tratto
Lo sai, e sanlo tutte este persone.
Well:
T. Now play. D. The Emperor is this one.
T. Emperor. D. Yes. T. And this is the Pope
That all power rests or goes from him.
D. How of him rest or go from him at the head
And all my valor, this is mine.
T. O see how those do not know without a head
Or tell me the Pope is not God on earth.
D. Yes indeed. T. Then you have lost the question
One God wins over one mortal, So I win.
D. Now I do not want to contend, I agree with you.
T. To me that is justice, as at once
You know it, and so know all these people.
So that's just saying why the Pope beats the Emperor. He's God on earth.
Ioca tu. K. To. T. che cosa è questa. C. Il matto
Che Imperatori Papi e Cardinali
Vince e domina sol con un sciocco atto.
T. Donque voi por gli Dei con gli animali.
K. Made no, ma gli matti hora son Dei
Et son qua giuso, in tutto principali.
T. O veggio ben che for di senso sei.
K. For di senso se tu che in sin gli morti
Sanlo onde dici quel che dir non dei.
Non vedi tu per tutto e più in le corti
Che senza questi principi e signori
Vivon, senza contento, scemimorti.
Non sai tu che se alcun gratie e favori
Vol, forza è andar di questi per le mani
Che a tutti gli altri son superiori
E quanto più son temerarii e insani
Tanto en più grandi, hor non più sei risciolto
Confessa come perditor rimani.
T. Tu dici il ver, donque anch’io far vo il stolto
Per farmi grande e haver propitia stella.
K. Hor non più Caballin, volgi in qua il volto
E mira un poco questa, come è bella.
C. Che cosa è questa. Per tua fede è il vechio
K. Nol vedi tu. Rispondi si da quella.
My guess:
Settle you. K. To. T. what is this. C. The Matto
That Popes and Cardinals Emperors
Vanquishes and dominates only with a silly act.
T. Then you put gods with animals.
K. No indeed, but the gods are now mad
And are down here, in all the princes.
T. O I see full well the sense in that.
K. For the sense that if you until dead
Know that whence you say what the gods not to say.
Do not you see all and more in the courts
That without these princes and lords
They live, not happy, half dead.
Do not you know that if any graces and favors
You want, perforce is to go through the hands of these
That to all the others are superior
And how much more I am foolhardy and insane
Much greater are they, now no more be dangerous
Confess as one destroyed.
T. You say the truth, Then I too go to make the fool
To make me bigger and have a propitious star.
K. Now no more, Caballin, turn here the face
And look a little at this, how beautiful it is.
C. What is this. By your faith it is the old one.
K. Not him you see. Reply about that one.
That was mostly about fools. They vanquish Cardinals, but unlike the Emperor and the Pope the Cardinal is not introduced as a card. Yet that might just be because the author has no special point to make about Cardinals. The last four lines are the introduction to the next card, the Bagatella, which clearly is a separate card. It's odd that the one being taught the cards takes the Bagatella for an old man. Usually he is presented as young, except in the PMB.

It is hard to say if there is any implied order here, it seems to me. He has the Emperor first, so he can talk about the superiority of the Pope. He then has the Fool, so as to talk about how fools are in power, and that professional fools (such as writers of comedies?) have more wisdom. It is a rhetorical order, at least. But it lacks the form of the usual composition we deduce orders from, where one thing follows after the other in rapid succession. What do others think? (And if there are other ideas about what is being said, please say so.)

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#46
In some interpretations of Karnöffel the Karnöffel is interpreted as cardinal. Maybe only cause of the similarity of the word.

For instance here:
https://books.google.de/books?id=T6cFAA ... el&f=false

One Karnöffel-theory states, that the pope got in the Karnöffel game the number 6 cause of pope Alexander VI. If this is true ... Cesare Borgia, his son, was an impressive cardinal, who easily could have invoked some Karnöffel-talking. Indeed it looks, as if the popularity of the game increased in this time.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#47
Here is what Andrea Vitali says about Notturno's order, after listing the triumphs in the order they are talked abut in the play (http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=243, http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=254):
Evidentemente si tratta di un ordine che fa comprendere come all’autore non interessasse la precisa aderenza al gioco, ma solo ed esclusivamente l’aspetto letterario, che volle libero da qualsivoglia costrizione.

(It is clearly an order that permits us to understand that the author was not interested in a precise adherence to the game, but only and exclusively in the literary aspect, which he wanted free of every constraint.)

However he does not examine the text. He cites Franco's article in The Playing Card and also says,
L'opera era stata menzionata da Rodolfo Renier in Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo, Bologna, 1894.

(The work had been cited by Rodolfo Renier in Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo, Bologna, 1894.)

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#48
Here is more of the play:
D. Hor non più to questa è una Dea dipinta
Chio ti rispondo, detta temperanza
Che al mondo è diva, se ben quivi è finta.
T. E tu to questa che tutte altre avanza
Chè la iustitia, senza di la quale
Mancha ogni iusta e natual usanza.
D. Ben la iustitia adesso nulla vale
Anci non vi si noma né si trova
Chel suo corso è mancato qual mortale.
T. Mancato, cosa inaudita e nova
Io sento, che iustitia mai non manca
Perché è diva, anci ogn’hora più rinova
Si che perduta lhai, questa è mia franca.
D. Tu dici il ver. K. Hor to questa Timbreo
Che è il carro, in ch ogni gloria si rinfranca.
T. Che val il car. C. Come d’ogni tropheo
D’ogni triompho ogni fausto e ogni pompa
Ne questo il seggio è de ogni semideo
Non vè cosa qua giù, che non corrompa
Se non questo, che ogn’hor più triomphando
Sen va, senza che alcuno lo interrompa.
T. Parmi che questo vada sol rotando
Colmo di fieno paglia pietre e legni
Come istromento vile e miserando.
For which:
D. Now no more to this is a painted Goddess
Chio answer thee, that temperance
Which in the world is heavenly, if there it is indeed feigned.
T. And you to this that all others advance
is justicia, without which
each just and native custom is lacking.
D. Justice indeed is now worth nothing
Thus it is neither named nor is found
that its course is lacking in what is mortal.
T. Failure, unheard and new
I feel that justice is never lacking
Because it is a goddess, thus every hour more renews
You have lost that, this is my release.
Q. You say the truth. K. Now to this Thymbraeus
Which is the chariot, in which all glory is reviving.
T. What value the car. C. As of every Trophy
Of every Triumph every auspice and every pomp
This is the seat of every demigod
THERE'S something down here, that does not corrupt
If not this, it every hour more triumphing
By itself it goes, unless someone stops it.
T. It seems to me that this goes only turning
Full of straw hay stones and dead wood
How vile and miserable an instrument.
And the end of the passage:
K. Anci i Dei tutti, de celesti regni
Iove, Saturno, Apol, Mercurio e Marte
Con questo adempion tutti i lor dissegni.
T. Sia maledetto il mio giocar de carte
Che mai tener non ne poti pur una.
K. Cusì advien chi entra in bal senza haver larte.
Hor to questa è la Rota di fortuna
Che non pur move regge e doma il mondo
Ma tutti gli pianeti e sol e luna.
C. O che tu fingi o che sei cusì tondo
A voler por una con quattro rote
Et adeguar il cielo col proffondo.
K. O che parole d’intelletto vote
A metter di fortuna lalta insegna
Con queste cose vil basse e idiote
Non vè cosa ima mediocre o degna
Che cotesta non cangi a suo diletto
E che in un punto non accenda e spegna.
Donque confessa il suo fallo e diffetto
Come nulla non intende e vol iocare.
C. Hor su non più gliè tua questo è lo effetto
Timbreo in fin gliè sua, non contrastare.
Ma per chiarirvi tutti il vechio è quivi
Che non sapendo faravi imparare.
D. Il vechio non è in numer de gli vivi
Anci è cosa insensata e scemimorta.
C. Scemimorta anci è in numer de gli divi
Deh dimmi ovedi tu persona accorta
Che gioven sia se non è carca de anni
Che ogni excellentia il tempo seco porta.
K. Caballin, per mia fé tu ci usi inganni.
C. Come inganni non sai chel tempo è quello
Chel tutto vince e dona gaudio e affanni
Sì che non contrastar, chel non è bello
Conoscendo haver perso, che ogni modo
Se perdi, non gli va se non lo anello.
For which:
K. Indeed all the gods, of heavenly realms
Jove, Saturn, Apollo, Mercury and Mars
With this fulfillment of all their designs.
T. Cursed is my playing of the cards
Than ever to take not even a prune.
K. Such comes to one who enters bal does not have the art.
Now this is the Wheel of fortune
That not only holds up and moves, and tames the world
But all the planets and sun and moon.
C. Either that or you pretend that you're thus round
To want for one with four wheels
And equal the sky with vastness.
K. Or that empty words of intellect
Putting of fortune a high banner
With these things vile, low and idiotic
You do not see things low, mediocre or worthy
That this same does not change to his desire
And in a moment ignites and is extinguished.
Then confess your fault and defect
As you know nothing and want to play the game.
C. Now it is no more yours this and the effect
Timbreo, in short [or until] it is yours, no conflict.
But to clarify all, the old man is there
Not knowing, to make you learn.
D. The old man is not numbered among the living
Rather is a thing without sense and half dead.
C. Half dead thus is numbered of the gods
I pray you tell me whereby one young
Is experienced if not laden with years
Time opens the door to every excellence.
K. Caballin, by my faith you use us deceived.
C. As deceived you do not know what time is,
That conquers all and gives joy and sorrow
That not opposing, that is not beautiful
Knowing to have lost, so that every way
If you lose, it does not go out except the ring [wheel?].
Well, that's as much as I can get. Someone else can have a go at it. The characters are C for Caballino, K for Castalio, D for Delio, and T for Timbreo.

It seems to me that this sequence is arranged more for rhetorical purposes--i.e. for a witty dialogue--than to convey a precise order, although the actual is more or less followed. It tells us more about how the cards were seen symbolically than it does about the sequence: that is, specific interpretations of the cards, the concept of triumphing over, and that different, in fact opposing interpretations could be given to the same cards.

So we have Fool = crazy, silly, godly, dominating emperors and popes both through entertainment and by infecting them with their stupidity.
Bagatella = crafty, even too crafty for his own good. when Fortitude beats him.
Justice, Temperance things not of or in this world, unlike Fortezza (so maybe not appropriate to this part of the sequence). Yet Justice is said to be the basis of law and custom, and temperance is at least feigned.
Wheel = a cosmic power and dealing with trivial things
Old Man = wise, unaware of what is going on, near-godly, near-dead. Time, both all-destroying and all-enriching, source of both sorrow and joy.

About Temperance and Justice. I notice that the book ends with two sonnets praising Bembo. Bembo is Pietro Bembo (1470-1547), the famous Venetian poet and scholar. [Added later: see addition at end of post.] I notice also that Andrea says of Notturno, "Poeta improvvisatore, probabilmente al soldo della milizia veneziana" - Improvisational poet, probably paid by the Venetian militia (http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=243). Venice would have used the B order, with Justice high. So perhaps Notturno is appealing to both audiences, that of the A order and of the B order. And maybe C as well, if Temperance is not of this world.

Added about the sonnets to Bembo: actually, they might have been for Pietro's father Bernardo, who had recently died in 1519. It is still a Venetian family.

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#49
Andrea Vitali has found a new document, in which a row of trumps contained 21 special cards.
viewtopic.php?f=11&p=18784#p18784

The structure of this new row has similarities to the variously discussed Strambotto poem.

I made an analysis of the puzzling features:
viewtopic.php?f=11&p=18784#p18784
Well, the new finding (21 without Papessa) is interesting for the theories to the Rosenwald Tarocchi ... and for the Strambotto poem, which is the oldest Tarocchi appropriati (also 21 cards without Papessa) and somehow possibly the oldest known row of the Tarot cards.
The high position of Justice (position 12) confuses the Strambotto row ... that gives to think.

The high position of Justice confuses also the row of the Ferrarese Tarocchi (though at another position as in the new source; position 20).

The Rosenwald Tarocchi (if we take the sequence of the cards as the true row) has a confusing card Fortune (position 13) instead.

In the PMB with 14 cards we have a confusing jump of the card Judgment in comparison to the later row.
0 (from 11) - 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-(11)-12-13-(14) .... 20 (from 14)

Well, the beginning of all this "moving processes" might be, that the Unter-Fante (position 11 for JvR) became painted "in foolish" manner, and finally jumped to 1 (Hofamterspiel, Rosenwald) and then to "0-zero" ... possibly accompanying the increasing use of Arabic numbers against Roman numbers.

The opposite of "Fool" is logically "Prudentia". And Prudentia disappears in this "Foolish game" ... we discussed this often.

The Rosenwald has at the trump suit sheet 3 additional ladies (Queens): Cups, Coins, Swords. Missing is the Batons-Queen.

If one would attribute the 4 virtues to the 4 suits, how would one do it?

Justice has a swords - Swords.
Temperance has cups - Cups.
Prudence has a mirror - this looks like Coins.
Fortitudo feets with batons ... fighting.

But: Fortitudo one could buy with Coins in the Condottieri culture. Or coins had a
Prudence has a viper as a symbol. A viper was around the tree in paradise. Batons might mean a tree ...

If the Rosenwald Tarocchi was played with 3 sheets only, the Queen of Batons would have disappeared. Also not present is Prudentia from the 4 virtues.

If the Rosenwald Sheet was played with 96 cards, the Fool was merged with the Magician (so it were not 97 cards).

If one splitted the Fool and the Magician to two cards, than one would have 97 cards, but if one threw out the Papessa in the same change (just by replacing Papessa and old Fool-Magician to Fool and Magician on the woodcut blocks), then one would have had still 96 cards.

We don't have a picture of the missing 4th sheet of the Rosenwald. Actually there are 2 possibilities, how this might have looked like;

1. Four 10s + 1 Queen + 19 Minchiate trumps
2. Four 10s + 20 Minchiate trumps

The 19 additional trumps might have been 4 elements + 12 zodiac-signs + 3 cardinal virtues. Prudentia is the one card in the group of the additional cards, which is not part of a defined group.

Well, the final version has it, that there were 97 cards, the Papessa had disappeared, Prudentia got Nr. 17 (instead the logical 16) and the Queen of batons was also there.

How should one call it? Florentine wisdom added 20 cards to the trumps.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: "3rd Rosenwald Sheet", Pratesi 6/16, 12/16, now 1/17

#50
There is another possibility for the "4th sheet":

3. 16 tens, 4 Fools, 4 Queens of Batons.

The 4th sheet only has to be used once for four times of the others. The matrix remains the same, so that there is no need to reset anything.

I don't think you can play tarocchi without a Queen of Batons. All the other Batons are present; it's either all or none. You can play without a Popess, but you still need a Queen of Batons. I suppose you could stipulate that what looked like a Popess, despite the tiara, the Roman numeral II, and the absence of anything resembling a baton, was really the Queen of Batons. But that is rather awkward and cheap. Also it is too easy to forget that the lady with the tiara isn't really a trump but a Queen. Enough so as to make it a rather unpopular purchase, I would think.

It would make more sense to play without the Empress, since she does have a baton; to make her a Queen of Baton, you just have to ignore the globe and the Roman numeral III. That is possible in Minchiate, which has three undifferentiated "papi", but not in tarocchi, which never in any list removes the Empress. Even then, it is rather odd-looking, and it would be very easy during play to confuse the Queen of Batons with a "papa", again probably enough to make such a deck an unpopular purchase.

Removing Prudence to make room for a Queen of Batons is indeed possible. But it is one of the hallmarks of the Minchiate is that it has the three theological virtues. That would suggest all seven; six would be very poor form, in a deck that doesn't otherwise stint on complete sets: i.e. elements and zodiacal signs.

I like very much your assignments of suits to virtues.
Justice has a swords - Swords.
Temperance has cups - Cups.
Prudence has a mirror - this looks like Coins.
Fortitudo feets with batons ... fighting.
It is that set of assignments I used in my reconstruction of the CY, with each virtue put into a different quadrant of the known suit-assignments, given the Beinecke ordering (below is from viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1086). The words in italics are my proposed "missing cards":
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests

cron