Re: Pratesi Oct. 2016: tarot origins
Posted: 08 Nov 2016, 12:16
Phaeded wrote
And while I am at it: I re-read your material about Bruni and prudence. Yes, Prudence and Fame could have been conflated into one card, in Florence. That would obviate the need to drop one of the virtues in order to get 14 cards, otherwise 2 imperatori + 6 petrarchans + 7 virtues= 15. That won't work in a Milan deck with 14 cards per suit, because of the known presence, in the BB, of the Wheel of Fortune, which I presume is not present in Florence, in the 14 card scenario. There would have to be another conflation, but I don't know what. Justice with Emperor or Angel?
I also re-read the 2004 piece by Dummett (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1073#p16421) in which he postulates Milan 1420 for the invention of the tarot, earlier than he did in 1993, but it seems to me reasonable enough, even without evidence. He thinks the virtues would have been added later, as an addition after an 18 triumph deck had spread to other cities, one that people in other cities heard about but without knowing the order, maybe in 1430. Such a hypothesis would also fit my hypothesis that the cards went from 8 picture cards (possibly with 6 number cards) to 14 by adding the virtues.
Or it might be, it seems to me, that whoever decided the order in one city saw the allegory differently than in the original place, as to how the virtues fit in with the other cards, or were used to having them go in a particular sequence, or just misremembered. It is harder to fit the virtues into a story-line than it is the petrarchans. Dummett doesn't seem to have considered that there could have been as few as 14 or 16 triumphs, including all 7 virtues (with 1 or 2 perhaps conflated with other allegories), meaning that most of the others would have been petrarchans.
I was just referring to Ross's prediction about what Franco would find, in the second half of 1439. The assumption is that Franco will look in the books of the lily for 1431-1434 and 1436-1439 next. Yes, you have many good cards exposed, Phaeded, not only in the books of the lily but elsewhere. I wasn't contesting that. It's just that there are quite a few years we know nothing about.Why are you restricting the realm of evidence to card playing laws and their application?
And while I am at it: I re-read your material about Bruni and prudence. Yes, Prudence and Fame could have been conflated into one card, in Florence. That would obviate the need to drop one of the virtues in order to get 14 cards, otherwise 2 imperatori + 6 petrarchans + 7 virtues= 15. That won't work in a Milan deck with 14 cards per suit, because of the known presence, in the BB, of the Wheel of Fortune, which I presume is not present in Florence, in the 14 card scenario. There would have to be another conflation, but I don't know what. Justice with Emperor or Angel?
I also re-read the 2004 piece by Dummett (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1073#p16421) in which he postulates Milan 1420 for the invention of the tarot, earlier than he did in 1993, but it seems to me reasonable enough, even without evidence. He thinks the virtues would have been added later, as an addition after an 18 triumph deck had spread to other cities, one that people in other cities heard about but without knowing the order, maybe in 1430. Such a hypothesis would also fit my hypothesis that the cards went from 8 picture cards (possibly with 6 number cards) to 14 by adding the virtues.
Or it might be, it seems to me, that whoever decided the order in one city saw the allegory differently than in the original place, as to how the virtues fit in with the other cards, or were used to having them go in a particular sequence, or just misremembered. It is harder to fit the virtues into a story-line than it is the petrarchans. Dummett doesn't seem to have considered that there could have been as few as 14 or 16 triumphs, including all 7 virtues (with 1 or 2 perhaps conflated with other allegories), meaning that most of the others would have been petrarchans.