I bought a copy of John Shephard's 1983 book The tarot trumps: Cosmos in Miniature
; it sells for almost nothing these days. For the origin of the tarot, in chapter 5, "The Original Story", he took Moakley's 1956 article and 1966 revision as his inspiration, but with modifications. Here is his table, using the "Charles VI" order from Dummett, based on the little numbers on the cards, and the Sermones
As you can see, he has made a few adjustments to Moakley.
I didn't think too much at first of associating the Bagat with a guide. Nothing like that is suggested in the early tarot Bagats. Love of riches seems a better fit (assuming he is a shell-game trickster or unauthorized seller of medicines of dubious value). In favor of the guide, Shephard points to the minchiate image. He holds that the minchiate preserves the best equivalent of what the early Florentine tarot would have looked like, better than the Charles VI itself (although of course there is no surviving Charles VI Bagat) The minchiate images survived for centuries without much change, he argues (in that way like the Bolognese, which the minchiate resembles; however I myself think that there is a better explanation, namely the power of the Church to enforce conformity, a power it did not have in the 15th century). And indeed the minchiate Bagat does seem like he could be a guide: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... c14a6d.jpg
Shephard also holds that the tarot was invented around 1440. He doesn't actually say it was in Florence, just that the Florentine minchiate represents the early designs. and the Charles VI its order. He may well be right about the 1440 for Florence and the full 22 card sequence. And I can well believe that the minchiate images might for the most part reflect the oldest designs, especially in Florence.
In support of the 2 + 5 at the beginning he shows a "Triumph of Love" from 1488 Venice; the procession has a book-toting Popess, a bishop, and perhaps a pope (only a 3-tiered hat is visible) as well as a crowned figure, with Petrarch and his guide looking on (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 1-love.jpg
Here and in the next group, I wonder if Shephard, at least in his table, is taking Petrarch too literally. The Pope is not necessarily "captured" by love. Some were, and some simply loved God, who wants to be chosen rather than capturing anybody. And Petrarch has no chariot for Pudicitia, nor is she identified with Laura in that poem, nor is Pudicitia virtue in general. Unlike other type A cards, however, the minchiate does have a woman on the chariot. And if we look at the Charles VI chariot, what we see is indeed a very masculine representative of virtue triumphant.
I suggested in an earlier post that the Star is particularly apt for Fame, as it is the heavenly body mentioned specifically by Petrarch in his poem on that triumph. It seems to me, too, that the Tower card as the Tower of Babel is also in part apt for Worldly Fame, in that the Bible says it was being made, according to the builders to "make a name for ourselves" (Gen. 11:4, Douay-Rheims translation of Vulgate). It is aptly triumphed over by the Star of Bethlehem. a different kind of fame. The early tarot tower cards didn't show anyone dying, nor did they locate the tower in hell. The minchiate did, and for Shephard that is enough. The Bolognese card does show people losing their footing; perhaps they are in danger of dying.
So we might have 4 or 5 cards for Death, 1 or 2 for Fame, 2 for Time, and 2 for Eternity. The earlier Petrarchans get more cards because they deal with life, which is of more immediate relevance. since the intended audience is presumed living, and for which there is a vast store of images, Shephard says. The others are more abstract and just need a reminder of their presence, of relevance to the soul later on.
Shephard (p. 40) suggests, although with little conviction compared to the rest, that the PMB Hermit, Wheel, and Hanged Man took the place of the CY's three theological virtues, and that the 3 cardinal virtues were immediately before the Chariot card. That's an interesting thought. I can't see how it can be that simple, but that it conflicts with my own speculations is no reason to reject it out of hand. There might be some truth there somewhere. The 3nd section might get 7 cards that way, leaving Death with 2.
For the Moon as "sublunar" time, he observes that the minchiate image has a clock face: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5e7P4Y3Wo3w/S ... thMoon.jpg
. He interprets the courting couple under the Sun as "Petrarch united with Laura at the end of Time" (p. 39).
Shephard's insistence on looking at the minchiate imagery as that of the early tarot is certainly provocative. I do not know whether such a schema as his explains why the tarot has the images it does (as opposed to just 6 of them, at an earlier stage, with a different look). It might, as designers saw various ways of elaborating on the basic themes, and other personifications to add to each procession, besides the lead figure. If nothing else, it may explain at least how some people saw the tarot, more or less, at the time when illuminated manuscripts and cassoni of the 6 Petrarchan triumphs became popular (i.e. starting 1440 for manuscripts, c. 1445 for cassoni). And such a view of the tarot, promoted by its very name (triumphs), may explain why such illustrations became popular in the first place.
Here is all of Shephard, Chapter 5, which explains his table in more detail.