Yes, I can see that it has been a couple of years since you last posted on this subject.
But to answer your question, I obtained pix, et al., for the 41/97 Minchiate deck (ca. 1658) attributed to François de Poilly the Elder (1623-1693) from the BnF with the exception, as noted above, of the Valet of Hearts. Insofar as the Romain Merlin description pertaining to this deck, I see only two [rather curious] anomalies: Aries (French, le bélier) is listed for the month of December and, conversely, Capricorn for March.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b1 ... ate.langEN
Similarly, the BnF served as my resource in terms of the Poilly deck with a 22/78 format consistent with a tarot pack:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8 ... ate.langEN
It should be noted that the unnumbered Momus trump has been incorrectly placed on the BnF website, where one should find No. 16, Element Air/Juno. Further, the bibliographic record provided by the BnF incorrectly gives this pack a 42/98 format. I, thus, presume that this record actually pertains to yet another pack—viz. the Minchiate, version 2 (ca. 1712-1741) attributed to François de Poilly the Younger (1666-1741) and having a 42/98 format.
Full bibliographic record
Title : [Jeu de Minchiate de fantaisie à enseignes françaises] : [jeu de cartes, estampe]
Author : Poilly, François de (1666-1741). Graveur présumé See only the results matching this author.
Publisher : [François de Poilly] (Paris)
Date of publication : 1712-1741
Type : Scènes historiques -- 1701-1788, image fixe, estampe
Language : French
Format : 1 jeu de 98 cartes : gravure en taille-douce coloriée à la main ; 9,4 x 6 cm
Format : image/jpeg
Copyright : domaine public
Identifier : ark:/12148/btv1b8409718z
Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Estampes et photographie, RESERVE FOL-QB-201 (106)
Relation : Notice de recueil : http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb410884129
Relation : Appartient à : [Recueil. Collection Michel Hennin. Estampes relatives à l'Histoire de France. Tome 106, Pièces 9209-9294, période : 1765-1769]
Relation : http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb415080681
Description : Référence bibliographique : Hennin, 9242
Description : Référence bibliographique : Depaulis, Tarot 1984, 63
For this third deck, finding no other, single Internet source, I simply went by the reconstruction provided by you and Mike H. and which, of course, begins with Chaos at No.1.
Incidentally, in terms of my earlier inquiry in re the ordering of the astrological signs in this deck, I was subsequently able to ascertain from B/W pix found on the web that Libra and Scorpio appeared in the conventional order as Nos. 39 and 40, respectively. I have revised my summary of this deck accordingly in my previous post.
Yes, thank you, Huck. I obtained this link from an earlier post of yours on the ATF forum and, in fact, used it to compile the diagram posted in my previous communiqué in re della Bella’s god-to-KQJ-court-card identifications.Stefano della Bella fables pictures should be all here:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/c ... mages=true
Additionally, I thus obtained the below link for Marolles’ Temple des Muses (Paris, 1655), with designs by Diepenbeeck and plates by Bloemart (under whom the elder Poilly apprenticed in Rome). This website is also most useful for obtaining magnifications of the book’s illustrations.
After the title page follows the illustration, “Chaos,” which figures so prominently in your research, albeit perhaps the title, “Star Wars,” would better serve. Note, for instance, Leo getting hosed by Aquarius, Sagittarius with his crossbow fixed on Gemini, and Taurus-Scorpio in a Mexican standoff—a pattern followed throughout the zodiac.
Additionally, for its use of iconography, some might find the book’s last illustration, “Sleep,” of interest.
Interesting . . . I somehow failed to grasp that, according to your theory, the first Minchiate deck (ca. 1658) attributed to François de Poilly the Elder had a 42/98 format, with “Chaos” as—what? Presumably, a “lost” No. 41 trump after Stars, Moon, Sun, World, and Fame? Further, may I thus presume that your theory redefines “Fame” in this context as “Temperance/Fama Sol”—viz. as found, for instance, in the Viéville deck (Paris; ca. 1650)?In all the decks we've only the number exchanges. Actually it seems, that all 42 cards existed already around c. 1658 or c. 1660.
It was the elder Poilly, who developed the "Chaos Faible" with the production of pictures for Marolles' "Ovid" in 1654. Why should one assume, that a later Poilly added the Chaos figure?