... :-) ... Nice. I love critiques. Thank you.
As not every reader likely gets the context, I present the two graphics ...
Cary-Yale Tarocchi
with a larger and readable version at ..
http://a-tarot.eu/pdf/cy-jpg.jpg
Charles VI Tarot
with a larger and readable version at ..
http://a-tarot.eu/pdf/ch-jpg.jpg
The pictures were much work, so they are copyrighted.
They were presented inside ...
viewtopic.php?f=12&p=11263#p11263
Back to Michael and Ross ...
But you're late. The Chess Tarot theories weren't hidden. You had opportunity to attack already 4 years ago. And you're coming with two, so ,as if one alone wouldn't have been strong enough. And you claim, that they're might be much more in the background ... that's an old strategy of war to make the enemy believe, that whole armies would soon arrive.
Well, you look weak with such tactical games ... :-)
Let's not hide, that this a fight between two much larger theories, one assuming a sort of "Ur-Tarot" with the criteria of a 4x14+22 structure and with the 22 most often used motifs of Tarot ... and this theory says, that this deck existed within a short range of time before 1440, the date of the currently first known evidence for the use of the word Trionfi or ludus triumphorum or similar. This imagined deck should have - according this theory - influenced all other Trionfi decks, which followed. The major current propagandists of this theory are just Michael Hurst and Ross Caldwell, as I understand it, and it was earlier somehow also proposed a little more careful by Dummett, Decker and Depaulis in Wicked of Cards for c. 1450 in a very global manner, in this text just stating it in one sentence. Dummett later indirectly revised his theory, by giving the proposal, that the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi was made in the early 1460s and not in the early 1450s.
This (not the specified Dummett-theory, but the other) is a rather simple theory. It's proposal is made under the condition, that evidence for the existence of the game structure of 4x14+22 isn't known till the Boiardo Tarocchi poem. The production time of this poem proposed by others ranges between 1461-1494, my own suggestion is "around January 1487".
The alternative theory, which is attacked here, is based on the contradictions to the above noted theories. Each of the contradictions has evidence, is known or should be known by Michael and Ross, as it occasionally was presented here and at other places. In spite of these contradictions Michael and Ross stay at their position with arguments, which they better tell themselves, cause I likely wouldn't be able to present their ideas very precisely.
The major points of contradiction are:
--- the Michelino deck - very unusual and NOT the typical Tarot deck - was called by a speaker of the year 1449 a Ludus Triumphorum. With this statement nobody can be sure, what objects were addressed, when speakers used the word Trionfi or Ludus Triumphorum in 15th century. It seems clear, that it was a game (Ludus) and it is very probable and almost proven, that it was a game of cards, but details, what game structure was used (how much cards and how much trumps) and which basic motifs were used is very rare between the written documents.
--- the note in 1457 in the Ferrarese account books gives the information, that the produced two decks had 70 cards. The document is clearly related to Trionfi cards and it speaks not of 78 cards, which one would suspect, if the game structure would have had already traditionally 4x14+22 structure. The number of cards might be explained not in only one way, but the major explanations seems to be, that it had been a 5x14 deck, in other words a deck with 14 special cards. Another possibility is, that the deck was reduced in its number cards, and indeed in a later time of the Tarot development reduced decks appear, though not in the form of "70 cards". Decks with 70 cards should have been rare, but indeed a deck appeared (Master PW deck, c. 1500) and it had 5x14-structure. There's not much known from Master PW, but short before 1500 he had worked for the court of the Emperor, which knew an Italian Empress (Bianca Maria Sforza), which had an unusual intensive love for playing cards. So it might be, that Master PW imitated an Italian deck form, though rather individually.
--- the description of the Michelino deck by Martiano da Tortona gives us 16 trumps, likely totally 60 cards (16 trumps + 4 kings + 10 number cards), very different trump motifs (gods), different suit signs (birds). A similarity to the common Tarot motifs and game structure is neither recognized in the game structure nor in the motifs. The similarity to the Tarot game is only recognized by the very rudimentary game rules.
--- a not 100 % secure document is the note of 1.1.1441. It speaks of 14 pictures, which are made by the later Trionfi card painter Sagramoro, commissioned by the later Trionfi card commissioner Leonello as a present for a guest of the Ferrarese court, the later Trionfi card commissioner Bianca Maria Visconti, daughter of the commissioner of the Michelino deck (Filippo Maria Visconti), who likely also commissioned Brera-Bramblla Tarocchi and Cary-Yale Tarocchi. Well, it's not noted, that these pictures are playing cards, but the date of first of January had been traditionally used for gaming and gambling activities. So in this scene of proven Trionfi card commissioners, a Trionfi card painters and 1st-of-January gamblers it wouldn't be astonishing, if the not full described 14 picture objects were playing card related objects, and especially remarkable it is, that we have at the same Ferrarese court in 1457 "70 cards decks" with the probable deck form 5x14.
****************
So far the contradicting information from known written Trionfi card documents. As far I know it, there's no other document (besides surviving cards) in the current moment, which adds anything of interest about the used deck structure in the time of begin of Trionfi development and the time of the Boiardo poem. If anybody knows of one, he/she is invited to add his/her observation.
So we can go to the decks and look, what we can get from them.
We do not get much of decks with only few pictures. Brera-Brambilla, the few Ferrarese cards of c. 1455 (one trump with a chariot) and the 16 Este cards with Aragon heraldic from c. 1475 don't allow to say much about the structure, also Goldschmidt (9 cards) and Guildhall cards can't be counted. Relevant deck structure information we have only from Cary-Yale Tarocchi (11 trumps), Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi (20 trumps, 14 of painter 1 and 6 of painter 2), Charles VI deck (16 trumps), the Alessandro Sforza cards (4 trumps; only included as they add to the knowledge about the Charles VI), then after it clearly the Boiardo Tarocchi poem with some cards of unknown date (no trumps, but with the security, that it had 4x14+22 structure) and then the Sola-Busca with the same structure - but both very different trump motifs and in the case of the Boiardo also different in the suits. The dating of Boiardo Tarocchi poem (my dating: 1487) is close to that, what is assumed for Sola Busca generally (1491). There is no discussion from my side about the point, that the deck structure 4x14+22 was reached in this time, so that's definitely that's not part of our battle, if I'm allowed to call this a battle.
We've a further large group of Visconti-Sforza cards similar to those of Rosental Tarocchi cards (23 cards, 6 trumps), the Bartsch card cards (13 cards, 5 trumps), the Victoria Albert cards (4 cards, 2 trumps) and some minor findings, which I leave aside, cause the ace of cups has the motto of Isabella d'Este, who took the motto in the year 1505 ... it seems, that these are later productions and so not of relevance.
So in essence we have a battlefield in the interpretation of ...
a. Michelino deck, cause this a full deck description (though it are not cards)
b. Cary-Yale deck
c. Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck
d. Charles VI plus some interpretaive help of Alessandro Sforza card
Did I forget anything? Please add it. Yes, I accept the Rosenwald Tarocchi as a possible rather early form of Minchiate, but it is insecure in this and it would complicate the discussion.
a. For your hypothesis you can't claim the Michelino deck ... it has 16 trumps. I can claim it for the Chess hypothesis, cause it has 16 trumps.
b. For your basic hypothesis you can't claim the Cary-Yale Tarocchi - it hasn't 4x14+22 structure, it has definitely 16 cards in a suit. Following the hypothesis of the 5x14-theory it seems logical to assume a 5x16-structure. The (possible) 5x16-structure makes it possible to claim it for my chess hypothesis. As the deck consists only of fragments, it's necessary to make a reconstruction suggestion. I suggest 14 of 16 cards, leaving 2 positions open, just by assuming, that, if it contained 4 virtues, it likely had 7 virtues totally. I didn't suggest anything for the last two positions, knowing, that there is more than one possibility of similar value.
Well, Dummett suggested, that there were 24 trumps (the usual trumps plus the 3 theological virtues), but this suggestion has not the advantage, that it relates to the earlier Michelino deck (well, there was a time, when Dummett didn't know about this deck) with 16 trumps and that it not relates to the 5x14-model (which Dummett didn't know in its full extension; t least I assume this). I judge it as the weaker proposal. Inside the IPCS there were viewing points of Ron Decker and John Berry, who - somehow - pointed to the model of 5x14, but I didn't realize a stronger relationship to that, what later followed by Trionfi.com.
There was a letter contact to Dummett in the mid 1990's, in which some basics of the theory were described, Dummett avoided an intensive contact and suggested, that the theory should be published and pointed to his personal duties as grandfather for his real grandchildren, which didn't allow him to invest too much time.
In the early time of Trionfi.com there was some intensive exchange with John McLeod, who in this time together with Dummett prepared their immense book about the Tarot games rules. So somehow Dummett might have been informed about our developments by this way. Dummett redraw his opinions about the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo and suggested as a new proposal for the two artists two Bembo brothers and as date a time from begin to the mid 1460s. So he was with his dating outside of the discussion caused by the 1457 document.
We got the article from John McLeod, and Ross and Michael were informed. Dummett didn't note Trionfi.com and not the 1457 document in this context. Well, one should consider, that the IPCS members were more of an older generation and hadn't a greater wish to have much internet access. Further they more lived in the "world of great men" with a lot of other duties, and hadn't the time to look for the younger generation of Tarot and playing card researchers. The world is, as it is, and one has to accept, that everybody limits his engagement to the part, what he's interested in.
c. The Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck ... Michael and (likely also) Ross and DDD in Wicked Pack of Cards claim this for their (partly different) theories. Well, there is a series of counter arguments based on the condition, that there were two painters (5x14 theory). The "two painters problem" made Dummett redraw his earlier suggestion and made him suggest a Bonifacio-Bembo brother as the second painter (Benedetto Bembo) ...
Art (c. 1460) by Benedetto Bembo
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ ... etto_Bembo
... and just suggesting, that both worked at the same time (which is not part of the 5x14-theory).
Anyway, this is claimed by both sides (mine and that of Michael and Ross)
d. So we're at the final possible source, and this is that of the Charles deck.
So let's look at the arguments of Ross and Michael:
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
First, there is no evidence - none whatsoever - that the (so-called) Charles VI cards were made for Lorenzo de Medici, or any Medici. The penants on the Chariot, showing a design with seven dots, is the flimsiest basis on which to make this identification.
... :-) ... well, this is a somehow comical form to present the condition of a deck.
The first sentence explains "There is no evidence". The second sentence explains "there is a piece of evidence, but is is considered disputable". This is clearly a rhetorical maneuver to make a fact ignorable.
In summary there is something. And as there is nothing else in the deck, which looks like heraldry, one has to handle this with care, as heraldry often serves as an identification of the location and also the time of a deck. The "seven palle" arrangement is said to have been used before 1465, when the Medici changed to "6 palle" with one of the Palle filled with a French Lille.
One may consider this as a weak hint, but it's a hint and if one overlooks it, it would be definitely "bad research". Now just the card of the Triumphal Chariot is a very special card, often (likely) used to point to somebody ...
In some of the much later Marseille deck type it points to the designer of the deck.
In this case to IN = Jean Noblet
In some early cards it's a female charioteer (Cary-Yale Tarocchi; Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi), and it likely points to the owner of the deck or the "celebrated person" - in the both mentioned occasions likely to Bianca Maria Visconti. That's not really a new idea.
The Charles VI has a young male charioteer.
From other Trionfi decks we know definitely, that a lot of very young persons are involved as the "receiver" (that person, who got the deck at a celebration). There are the young brothers of Leonello (9 and 11 years old). There is Bianca Maria in the 1.1.1441 document (15 years-old). There is Galeazzo Maria liSforza kely as the honored visitor in Ferrara in 1457 (13 years old).
There is the general view of the time, that playing cards were accepted for young persons and for women, but not really accepted for elder men, who better should spend their time with the more interesting game of chess - if recreation was desired (recreation was an accepted value).
So ... the analysis of the symbol leads to a young man close to the Medici before 1465 (change of the heraldry).
Well, look for somebody ... Lorenzo de Medici has the advantage, that Pulci wrote him a letter, in which he mentioned Minchiate in 1466. He has the advantage, that he was the oldest of the young Medici, and all the elder Medici were sick. So he was educated as a person, who soon might become a person of great importance. The year 1463 has the advantage, that Lorenzo de Medici became 14 years old. It was a tradition, that persons were considered as grown-ups, if they became 14.
Lorenzo de Medici got the following picture, when he was born:
The painter was Lo Scheggia ...
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=171021
Lo Scheggia appeared as a confirmed playing card producer in a recent article of Franco Pratesi in the years 1447-1449.
http://trionfi.com/naibi-on-sale
He painted on Cassone and he painted this figure.
An anonymous painted this rather special Temperance in the Alessandro Sforza cards:
Following the assumption, that the deck was made for Lorenzo, is like shaking the right apple tree, and enough apples drop.
There are other reasons, why one should look to Florence in matters of the Charles VI, reasons, which are accepted by Ross. If one looks to Florence, the Medici are not far. If you call this, as you called it: "The penants on the Chariot, showing a design with seven dots, is the flimsiest basis on which to make this identification. " ... and you've a good feeling about it, then do so. But you're responsible for the stand, that you take ... that's a common law in history.
Ross wrote:Second, the cards are numbered, and the highest number was "xx", the Angel. Whoever numbered these cards had at least 20 trumps in front of him. They were numbered after being painted, we know that because the numbers are written in ink over the border design. But we don't know when they were numbered. It could have been as soon as the paint dried, it could have been decades later. What is important is not to base your opinion of when it was done on what you wish to be true.
I naturally don't doubt, that the cards are numbered, but as you state yourself: "Whoever numbered these cards had at least 20 trumps in front of him.
They were numbered after being painted
My position is, that Minchiate might have developed parallel or short after 1463 with a first date in 1466 anyway, so relative short after the production of the Charles VI. The calculation says, that there was (likely) considerable movement in Trionfi card iconography in Florence just in these few years, so the contradictions in the added numbers must not say much about the original intentions of the deck itself. My analysis treats the deck as if the numbers wouldn't exist - the numbers are treated as a later addition. I'm interested in the original state of the deck.
Ross wrote:A reasonable guess at the dating of the numbering, therefore, will be that it is after they dropped the Popess, and after the strambotto, when they raised the Chariot to an even more exalted place above Fortune. Since it's merely a guess, "around 1500" is not bad, which might imply a decade or so either way.
Well, that's far away from the time, which interests me. I've currently no opinion to this point.
Third, the cards are not chess pieces. The images on the cards don't represent chess pieces. There are only 16 "chess" cards - what kind of game is this? Cannibal chess, where you eat your own side?
Fourth, the coincidence of the surviving number of trumps -16 - is just that - a coincidence. Perhaps we should try to correlate them to the Geomantic figures instead, there are 16 if those as well. Perhaps Chess itself derived from Geomancy, or vice-versa, or there was a tradition of using Chess to make Geomantic divinations?
Fifth, the number of surviving cards needs no further special explanation than that 6 trumps were lost. 55 suit cards have also been lost. There is no way to measure the "probability" of such a proportion or ratio of trumps to suit cards, since every surviving Tarot of the 15th century (Sola Busca is not standard and may not be 15th century) is fragmentary and offers different ratios of surviving trumps to suit cards.
Well ... the deck contains 16 trumps and one court card. I just think, that nothing was lost. In think, that somebody bought (or got as a present) just the full 16 cards trump-set (inclusive Fool) and then took one additional court card as a possible stylish design, how somebody else (another paying card producer) might attempt to form additional 56 pips according own wishes about heraldic details in it.
The deck was later in France ... let's assume, a French diplomat had been in Florence, saw this deck and found it beautiful, but wouldn't like to take the pips cause they had Florentine heraldic. Naturally he would have gotten, what he desired, and we find later trump set with 16 trumps + one court card as "example". The plan to paint the full 56-cards as pips never realized, but the bought deck somehow survived in a playing card collection. End of the story.
According this the deck wouldn't have been the "deck, that Lorenzo got to his birthday", but just a deck, which appeared in a series, and which had either greater or lesser similarity to a deck, that Lorenzo really got. We have another deck with great similarity to the Charles VI in the Alessandro Sforza deck fragment. Typically the Chariot card is altered (as discussed, the owner card), but also Temperance is changed for possibly "erotic reasons", and these erotic figures appear also at other place in the pips. Hermit and World are more or less identical, so the whole looks like an "adapted Florentine deck", adapted cause of very personal reasons. The card painters realized, what specific customers desired with no own ideological reasons about it, a common behavior of artists, one should mean.
We discussed this earlier, that hand painted serial cards could be easily altered to very personal cards, just by changing a few cards.
I don't know, how they played with the chess cards, how should I know this? Trionfi cards or Tarot cards are in their structure empty containers, they could be filled with any graphical-content-ideas, for instance funny animals as in the Animal Tarock, or with buildings of a city, or with military motifs, whatever the public or a specific customer desired. Or with the Boiardo Tarocchi poems or with Sola-Busca-heroes.
Chess motifs were a very popular topic in 14th century and also in 15th century. Mixing Chess ideas with Petrarca's Trionfi ideas seems to be that, what led to the later typical Tarot cards. It's very probable, that Petrarca's Trionfi motifs became popular just around the time, when we see the Trionfi cards words appear for the first time in documents.
*****************
... :-) ... well, Michael, old champion, to your parts ...
It is not necessarily inappropriate when the nonsense is self-evident to most people.
It might be worthwhile to review the original chess/playing-cards thesis for comparison. I'll quote an old guy (George Beal, 1975) referencing an earlier old guy (William Chatto, 1848).
George Beal wrote:...the Chinese were making block prints long before we had invented printing in Europe, and the Indians probably invented chess, so why should playing-cards not have originated in the East too? ... Chatto, with some logic, connects the game of chess with playing-cards, for there are some parallels.
"It is not necessarily inappropriate when the nonsense is self-evident to most people."
You might call anything "nonsense" and design this your statement as "self-evident to most people" - as far I remember, you more or less repeat yourself with this statement, what you earlier attempted to use in connection to the 5x14-theory. You weren't very successful with this, and you likely will be not successful this time.
The "original chess/playing card thesis" - if there is one - is likely from Johannes of Rheinfelden, relative contemporary to the begin of playing card development in Europe, and likely more in the state of an observer. A possibly second great name would be Breithaupt, who wrote about the question, and somebody with a similar spectrum might have been chess master Antonius Van Der Linde, who had also historical interests, and you would have your fun with him, if you would be able to read his German texts. In matters of sarcasm about the attempts of other history researchers he easily would beat you in 21 of 22 challenges ... :-) ... I would guess.
Nonetheless, in matters of a comparison between Tarot and Chess you wouldn't likely have to go far in the past, if you search the search the original chess / Tarot thesis, cause Johannes of Rheinfelden had been Pre-Tarot and Pre-Trionfi cards. Well, maybe somebody made indications, that there is a Tower in chess or other minor suggestions, I don't know.
And that we will find a contemporary 15th century statement, which says, "we invented the Tarot on the base of Chess and we made this in this described manner ... ", is not really probable.
In dramatic contrast, there is no such parallel with the Tarot trumps. The trump hierarchy is solitary, unlike the warring colors of either chess or regular playing cards. The trump hierarchy is not broken into anything analogous to nobles and foot-soldiers, the way that both chessmen and suit cards are. The idea makes no sense on a very basic level -- it is, or should be, self-evident.
Hm ... I don't speak of the Tarot deck with 5x14+22 structure (I think, this should be clear), I speak of decks with 16 trumps, and as it appears, the cards weren't numbered. In the discussion are Michelino deck (16 trumps), Cary-Yale Tarocchi (assumed to have had 16 trumps, not all trumps are known) and Charles VI (assumed to have had only 16 trumps; all are known). It's not about decks which followed later.
It seems, that you misinterpret my object.
There are as many points to debate as Huck wants to put out there, but I have no "better" criticism. The folly is so apparent as to beggar rational analysis: JUST LOOK! Look at a chess set. Look at the Tarot trumps. They are very different types of subject matter, and to claim that one might be based on the other requires ignoring the obvious and substituting "self-evident nonsense".
Well, we have have definitely chess allegories, as for instance the "Echecs Amoureux" by Evrart de Conty ... that's from c. 1398 and so relative contemporary to the period, which interests us. In his text Conty uses 16 gods and 32 other allegorical figures, which to a good part descended from the "Roman de la Rose". The group of the 32 figures are parted in a group of 16 for the figures of the female player and in 16 for the male player (each related to a defined role and chess figure) and the whole shall likely tell something about the communication between Men and Women. The text is old French, extremely long, difficult to read and it stayed a riddle to me, what he wanted with the 16 gods. It seems plausibly to assume, that the author somehow related them to the 16 figures at the chess board, but it stayed a riddle to me, which god belonged to which figure ... maybe it was somewhere stated in the text, but it's difficult to deal with such a text monster. It's just a practical difficulty. I don't have the text, I borrowed it from a library and I'd time limited access only. And it's a practical problem to copy 900 and more pages. And another problem to read them.
Well, you can observe the gods or the 32 better defined figures, and you might easily come to the conclusion, that these are NOT chess figures. But if an author in this old time, which was obsessed by chess enthusiasm, would make up his mind to define these gods or allegories as chess figures, well, the researching author of nowadays has to understand his idea from a long time ago and he can't judge the whole matter from his 21st century view.
There are two other chess allegories of relevance, one from c. 1470 and another from c. 1515, if I remember correctly, and both also deal with gods. And the 4th in this collection seems to be just the Michelino deck text ... and there, as we know, it relates to Tarot and its development. Well, the production of the text was followed by intensive critique in the literary cycles at the court of Valentina Visconti, which was the half-sister of Filippo Maria.
You find these texts and much more in my chess collection ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=460
... which is just my attempt to understand a little bit more from Chess history. That's indeed a complex world of its own. Perhaps after this you could do a little more, than just running around and crying "folly, folly, folly" in view of my proposal.
Well, thanks for your critique. I hope, I could enlarge your enjoyment.