It's fun to say that we don't really know anything.
I didn't state that.
How do you define "commoner"? The cheapest category of Trionfi deck took about 10 Soldi. The normal deck took 1 Soldi (Scempi), and a Doppio too 1 2/3 Soldi. 10 Soldi is a 1/2 Lira.Within a decade of the earliest evidence, it seems that Tarot was being played by both nobles and commoners across most of northern Italy.
In the case, that Florentine prices are comparable to Ferrarese prices (actually one might assume, that Florentine mney had more value than Ferrarese), we would have, that a common noble man had 20 Lira in a month, from which he had to pay a horse, 1-2 Servants, noble clothing, a place to live etc. and possibly a family. A servant is said to have gotten 1/2 - 2 Lira. Highest salary (rare high officials) at a court were at the category of 80 Lira. It's a good question, how much "free money" a noble man had in a month, which he could spend for luxury, maybe 5 of 20? Then a cheap Trionfi deck of 10 Soldi would take 1/10 of the free money for a month for his luxury. For a servant with 1 or 2 Lira income the Trionfi deck would be likely "impossible". Even the cheap deck would be expensive.
We note in the silk dealers list, that they buy only few Trionfi decks (the highest number in all Florentine trader deals had been 14), they don't risk to have "too much" of them.
I think, that in the 1450s we cannot expect usual "commoners", but "rich citizens" as the users of these "lowest price Trionfi decks".
Do you think, that, if the development took longer than a "one-night-stand", it necessarily would become less coherent or less unified? I would think, that is an argument with no content."It is considered very sure", BY YOU, one guy, that this hypothesis is true. You find it plausible in part because you have no understanding of the meaning of Tarot. The trumps make no sense to you, and therefore it seems okay to select an arbitrary subset. However, anyone who has any understanding of the design of the trump cycle would consider the 5x14 Theory highly implausible, because the 22-trump hierarchy makes sense as a coherent, unified design.
... :-) ... It's in research definitely necessary to make relations between the different findings. And in the art of "piling one speculation on the speculation on the other" you're using the same mechanism. "This is a deck with 22 special cards" and "this is a deck of 22 special cards" etc. and "all have lost cards". Funny enough, you're attacking your own methods.Clearly, it does not follow that because one deck had 14 trumps that others did. The decks we know almost all had 22 or more. However, that has been your claim or implication over the years. Piling one speculation (the 1457 "confirmation") on top of another (the 14-trump V-S deck) is not history, it is historical fiction.Huck wrote:This observation naturally not allows to state, that all other decks of the time also had 5x14 structure with the same probability.
Do you want to state, that the 1457 document didn't spoke of 70 cards, but of 78? Do you want to state, that only one painter made the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi, and not two, from which one made 14 and all pips, and the second only 6? Do you want to state, that Sagramoro didn't paint 14 picture?NONE of your arguments for the 5x14 Theory are clear, direct, fact-based --
If you don't, why do you state, that my arguments are not "fact-based"? The 14 appears 3 times in the circle of persons, who definitely had Trionfi decks, and if I take the 5x14-deck of Master PW I've a later deck using the same game structure.
In contrast the number 22 is missing in all early documents, so there's nothing with facts, beside the weak assumption "cause as it was later so, it must have been earlier so".
Not more than yours.... they are all speculative.
Hm ... it seems more realistic, that some of the engaged persons in Tarot History found meanwhile more sense in an evolutionary model than in the alternative, as it is defended by you. So the "crackpot" and the "eccentric" comes back to you. The 5x14-model has not much, but at least a few arguments, and the version of an early deck with 22 cards has none.The 5x14 Theory was a hunch, a guess, decades ago. The idea that there was an early form of Tarot with 14 trumps, specifically the fourteen Bembo trumps of the Visconti-Sforza deck, was worth serious consideration. It was given serious consideration, many times over. It turned out to be a bad idea -- most hunches turn out to be bad ideas. We explore them and then move on. If we cling to them without good reason, then we become "crackpots" or "eccentrics".
Well, prove your point. Find the document, which testifies one or two or three 22s in the early documents. I for my part spend a lot of energy to explore this German lot book system, just cause it uses a 22x22x22x22 - structure. I don't fear the early 22-version. I show a greater interest in the documents and we cooperate, that new findings are done.
Your major interest had been, that you took a pause long years. Ross stated, that you've done greater progress in art history. Maybe, would be nice. Earlier you was good with documents, the "Fragments" were a good work in their time.
But for the moment you behave like a male dog at his dog-walk, not very impressive. And you're aggressive as the youths in their puberty. Your arguments are rather empty, much polemic words, no facts. You want to impress as Django with the quickest colts.
Perhaps you get better ideas than that.