Re: Dummett and methodology [was Re: The Sun]

#51
Ross wrote:
...the letters of this breviary (since they are books, breviaries have words, which are composed of letters) are symbolized by the batons,
A bit of a tangent here, but recycling an idea of mind that did not get much traction here - and that is the PMB "juggler" holding the point of his sceptre to the table before him as if it were also a writing implement. It seems that at least one contemporary person, Bernardino (in connecting batons with letters), could have interpreted this card as loosely 'scribal'. Detail of the PMB "Juggler" sceptre/scribal element, and same two-finger-forward grip of quills by Renaissance era scribes:
PMB juggler hand detail.jpg
PMB juggler detail
PMB juggler hand detail.jpg (66.98 KiB) Viewed 5973 times
Image

Image


The other figures who hold a sceptre do so without the "scribal grip" - all four fingers forward (thumb hidden):
king of batons - sceptre detail.jpg
King of Batons - detail
king of batons - sceptre detail.jpg (4.37 KiB) Viewed 5973 times

Re: Dummett and methodology [was Re: The Sun]

#52
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: The images of the breviary are the images on the cards.the letters of this breviary (since they are books, breviaries have words, which are composed of letters) are symbolized by the batons, the drunkenness by the suit of cups, the violence by suit of swords, the greed by the suit of coins. The king and queen are the king and queen of the ribalds, the "tops" are the sodomizing knights, the "bottoms" the lustful valets.
In your interpretation it sounds logical, but Depaulis noted at the end of text 2 ...

Image


... which says, that he didn't see "Ober and Unter" mentioned in text 1, but only in text 2. Now you interpret, by relating to the king the attribute "king of ribalds", and to the Queen the attribute "queen of ribalds" '(instead using them as own figures), that the following "sopra" addresses the figure "Ober" and "sotto" the figure "Unter".

hm ...

Ah, I see now, that you wrote earlier ...
"Personally I think that the 1425 "sopra" and "sotto" are in fact the Knight and Valet, which appear in the Latin as "milites inferiores et superiores".
... sorry, I missed this sentence before.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Dummett and methodology [was Re: The Sun]

#53
Phaeded wrote:
a bit of a tangent here, but recycling an idea of mind that did not get much traction here - and that is the PMB "juggler" holding the point of his sceptre to the table before him as if it were also a writing implement.
That might be part of why Piscina called the card the "innkeeper", someone else taking that interpretation (and Dummett's "merchant").

Ross wrote,
It seems that Dummett had forgotten about the Latin sermon of Bernardino of Siena where he mentions Queens in the pack. The Latin sermon is paralleled from a sermon delivered in Italian nearly 20 years earlier (1425, Siena). Bernardino expects his audience to know what he is talking about, so we may assume that normal packs of playing cards in the 1420s had four court cards, including Queens.
Thanks for the information, Ross. One small question. Is Bernardino clearly referring to a non-tarot, or could "carte e naibi" be his way of saying "triumphs and regular cards"? That way of looking at the cards, as a mockery of Christian texts, was applied by later preachers to the tarot. If so, Phaeded's point isn't so tangential. Giusti had "naibi a trionfi", which clearly refers to trionfi, at least. Is Bernardino's "carte e naibi" also clear, or could "carte" be an early way of referring to trionfi? Are there places at that time where "carte e naibi" unambiguously refers to the pack with just the four suits? I understand that in the second statement, the phrase is "charticellas seu naibi"; but could that be a later version, perhaps a "clarifying" interpretation or modernization of the first, not realizing a former use of "carte"?

Re: Dummett and methodology [was Re: The Sun]

#54
Ross wrote,
I think you're confusing two things here - the iconographic sequence per se and the decorative iconography. The subjects of the Thunderbolt, Star, Moon and Sun (for example) are just that, and nothing else. The trump sequence needs no textual basis, however much the decorative iconography illustrating the main subject might refer to something outside of the sequence.
It seems to me that the "decorative iconography" might also point to an interpretation of the card within the sequence, beyond what is given by the card's title and the corresponding object in the card. Moreover, it would be natural for a player to look for such an interpretation, at a time when he or she is not actively playing.

Ross wrote,
For the playing part, I think players do in fact "shut out" the part not needed for play. In modern cards the indices do all the work, and few people can really name offhand any iconographic distinctions between, say, the King of Diamonds and the King of Hearts. Anyone who gets lost in the decorations on the cards during a game would probably get a slap and told to pay attention to the game.
I don't disagree. The player is not interpreting while he plays. If he asks himself what the card means, that is something he will put off for a lull in play, or after play, or perhaps it will something he asks or speculates about out loud during play as a way of distracting another player.

Ross wrote,
We have to assume that the game inventor wanted to make the sequence as easy as possible to remember, and left it to the artists to fill up the cards with distracting imagery. In some cases, like the Thunderbolt, the thing that the lightning is striking became the main or outstanding feature of the card, but it doesn't change the fact that the subject of the card, its "meaning" in the sequence, is a bolt of lightning, whatever it is striking and however it is portrayed.

This subject is what needs interpreting if we are trying to get inside the head of the inventor, the meaning of the subject in the context of its place in the sequence.
I have been trying to understand this without success. I don't understand why the game inventor couldn't want to make the sequence as easy as possible to remember and also want to subtly suggest an interpretation beyond what little is suggested by the subjects (titles and their objects), perhaps generalized from the particular context in which it appears in the text that inspired him or her, perhaps even more than one interpretation, assuming that some players will know the interpretive methods of Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio. If so,the inventor will have the artist put clues in the details, in the context of details in nearby cards, for the player to reflect upon at his leisure. The inventor will also want to tell the artist enough that the artist won't put in details that go against the inventor's interpretation.

Then if a player, not then playing, wants to figure out what a sequence of cards meant to its inventor, and it wasn't obvious, it seems to me that the natural thing to do would be to look at the cards more closely for clues. In a church, if someone was looking at a sequence of saints and wondered if one of them was Bartholomew, they'd look for the knife. In a palace, if there was a frieze including a naked goddess (and entitled as such), a person would look to see what was with her, such as hounds or a naked little winged boy.

The only way he or she, and we, could get into the head of the inventor is by way of the cards and titles, i.e. specific cards in specific sequences in specific decks, bringing to them what a person then could bring. The subjects alone don't say much, even if it was known in what order they originally occurred. The "Angel" card clearly has to do with the afterlife. If "World" comes after "Angel", then maybe it does, too, although it's not obvious from looking at the A card.

So we have the subjects, words plus pictured objects: "World"--yes, there is something spherical there, a kind of globe. "Lightning" has lightning in it. And so on.

How could these words and corresponding objects alone convey the "Last Days" of the Bible, for any except the Angel card? Piscina and Anonymous didn't understand it, nor did anybody doing appropriati mention it, nor any literary source (not that these last said much at all). It's not obvious. And although he offered many interpretations (e.g. Manfreda), even Dummett might not have seen it--or, more likely, he declined it, given his refusal of the "hellmouth" interpretation of the Lightning card. All that one could get from the subjects of the the last seven of the early cards would be: two scary things, one supernatural and one natural with perhaps a supernatural cause; three celestials of increasing brightness; the raising of the dead; and a triumph, either having to do with a walled city or the material world, probably a triumph over it: so four spirituals and three celestials. The most conventional way of seeing the celestials would be as representing the passage of time. Whoever changed the title of the Temperance card to Fama probably thought that, thinking of Petrarch's sequence.

A player knows about trumping. Perhaps in this section he will find it a metaphor for a relationship between the subject trumping and the subject trumped. The Devil is stronger than Death. Lightning, as an instrument of God's power, is stronger than the Devil. The stars are more powerful than lightning, since lightning lasts but a second. The Moon is more powerful than the stars, being brighter. The Sun is more powerful than the Moon. The Last Judgment is more powerful than the Sun, since the Sun is extinguished at the end. If the World is more powerful than the Last Judgment, it must be something eternal as opposed to material. No reference to the Last Days here except in one card.

At most the sequence is a puzzle to be solved, yes, a riddle. There are numerous ways of solving it, and the simplest ones, which I just presented, have nothing to do with Last Days, except for one card, maybe two.

A player would surely notice what was on the cards besides the title-object at some point in his handling of them, and if he happened to ask himself, in a lull, what the sequence meant in its last 7 cards, beyond the minimum that I have suggested, he or she surely would look at the details of each card for clues. That is the normal thing to do. He might even have the idea that they alluded to the Apocalypse. So he would look for confirmation, with natural clues as much as conventional ones. He would do so in just one such deck at a time. Where decks differ in details, only one is the best approximation of the original. In the A type celestials, he won't find confirmation of his hypothesis of the Apocalypse; all he will find is meanings that clearly suggest that it is not the Last Days at all. He would have to be very obstinate to still maintain, despite the people on the Star card looking to it for directions, the calmness of the astronomers drawing the moon, and the equal calmness of the lady spinning on the Sun card, that the Book of Revelation was the celestials' subject, as opposed to the mere passage of time, or the trumping metaphor I mentioned. With the PMB, however, he might be able to see how the details there relate to Revelation, if he granted considerable artistic license. And if someone knew that the PMB was the model for the Charles VI, he might be able to make a case that the Charles VI artist mistook what was going on, misinterpreting the inventor's intentions. To argue the reverse would be more difficult, requiring a statement from the inventor. Even then, such a statement would only reveal what the inventor intended, not what was on the cards. For example, the Belfiore Muses didn't conform to Guarino's program for them; it's not that they did conform, ignoring details.

It seems to me we have to take such a perspective, putting ourselves in the place of the reflective player, and inventor wanting to meet him part way, in order to get any understanding of what the meaning might have been. Otherwise we are merely spinning our wheels. For example, if in 18th century London there was a series of sculptures, one of which was entitled "goddess", showing a naked lady accompanied by a winged boy with a bow and arrow, and someone, even the artist, insisted it was Diana (because Diana was shown two scenes further on), that would be simply perverse, unless there were details elsewhere in the series that backed him up (say, a chiseled statement explaining how Diana changed Acteon into a putto, and other details suggesting an irreverent attitude toward Greek mythology). To insist that a picture of a geometer calmly drawing a phase of the moon represents the Apocalypse before the moon has been darkened or destroyed is equally perverse, if all we have to support our idea is an Angel raising the dead two cards further down, while a card before it looks like the Magi with the Star of Bethlehem and the card after it one of the Fates, spinning the thread of a new soul, or maybe just a woman calmly spinning, under a bright sun. As a sequence, all we have in the A's is three celestials, possibly representing the passage of time until the Last Days, of which one moment is shown on the Angel card.

Re: Dummett and methodology [was Re: The Sun]

#55

http://www.rosscaldwell.com/images/book ... 13p122.jpg
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Huck, there's no deck with a "King of Ribalds". Bernardino is moralizing a normal deck of cards.

He is saying that the card players are servants of the Devil, and that they therefore mock holy things. Alessandra Rizzi has called this moralization, Bernardino's invention, the "diabolic liturgy". They are sodomites, drunkards, greedy, violent, fools.

In this mockery of Christian religion, there are priests and congregants. They use a breviary, a prayerbook. In the mockery, this prayerbook is the deck of cards. The cards reflect the users, and the values of the users. In the diabolic liturgy, instead of a church, they congregate in a tavern; instead of reading a prayerbook, they play cards; instead of communion, they get drunk; instead of fellowship, they sodomize each other and kill one another over money. You know, the usual.

The images of the breviary are the images on the cards.the letters of this breviary (since they are books, breviaries have words, which are composed of letters) are symbolized by the batons, the drunkenness by the suit of cups, the violence by suit of swords, the greed by the suit of coins. The king and queen are the king and queen of the ribalds, the "tops" are the sodomizing knights, the "bottoms" the lustful valets.
Hello Ross,
I completely agree with your point, but I interpret the passage in a slightly different way:

As you know, breviaries are historiated, so are playing cards. The letters are: batons, things for fools; cups, things for drunkards and innkeepers; coins, things for the greedy; swords, things for quarrels, fuss and murders. The historiated letters are: king, king of the ribalds, queen, queen of the female ribalds; knight, the sodomite; page, the luxurious.

All the cards are letters of the breviary. The court cards are the historiated initials, the pip cards are the other letters.

The symbols of the suits are associated with the vices of the players. The batons stand for foolishness (as in Giotto's "stultitia" allegory).

The principle of decreasing variability

#56
I have been trying to think of other methodological principles for indicating the relative priority of sequences in time, on the model of the principles that have been formulated for ascertaining manuscript priority. It seems to me that one such principle might be that of degree of variability in the order. If you look at the various orders of trumps that Dummett and others have lined up, you will see that some trumps are more variable from one deck to the next than others. (For reference: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YlU6F53x-_E/U ... .35+PM.png; http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rEbZ-DxvUhs/U ... rders2.jpg; http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1EdTAS9Qo6E/U ... .56+PM.png.) The Bagat is invariably number one; the Pope, or at least one of them (in the Bolognese), is invariably 5th; the Hanged Man is 12th, as befitting the 12th disciple; the sequence from Devil to Sun is invariably the same; and the Fool is a wild card. This suggests to me that there was a period of experimentation in the development of the tarot, with hand-painted decks mostly, and much variation in the order of trumps, followed by a period of greater production in which there was an effort to keep the order of the additions standardized among regions, while not changing the order of what was already there.

That idea is supported when we look at the earliest known tarots, the Visconti (i.e. Cary-Yale and Brera-Brambilla). None of those cards I just mentioned is among the cards that have survived from these decks, whereas all of the ones I have not mentioned are among them, with the exception of the Popess. The Popess can be explained by Dummett's hypothesis that she was originally Prudence; I imagine that she would have been changed to Popess at the same time that the Pope was introduced.

The number of unchanging cards is 9. leaving 22 minus 9, or 13 variable cards, which I would suggest are all in the earlier, perhaps even the original, tarot. However in the Visconti cards we also have Hope, Faith, and Charity. Either they were part of the earlier ones everywhere, or they were a Milanese experiment. That they were part of the earlier order everywhere, in that order, is weakly suggested by the Minchiate, in which these cards take the same place in the order that in the tarot are taken by the Star, Moon, and Sun, in that order. Prudence is also there, in between Hope and Faith. However it is weak evidence, since there are other additions in the Minchiate as well, notably the four elements and the zodiac signs.

So on this line of reasoning it is likely that the earlier order had 13 or (if the CY was an exception) 16 trumps. Given that the Cary-Yale had 16 suit cards, it seems to me reasonable that the principle of having the same number of trumps as suit cards was followed. 13- and 14-card suits also existed. When the trumps increased beyond 16, this principle would have been unworkable and hence abandoned. For the CY, these particular 16--the Petrarch 6, Virtues 7, Empress, Emperor, and Fortune--also fit very nicely into Huck's chess analogy hypothesis (see viewtopic.php?f=11&t=788&hilit=chess&start=20#p11571 and my post following). The number 13 for trump cards would fit the principle for decks of 13 cards per suit (omitting the theologicals). 14 would suggest that one more trump was part of the deck, in decks where the suits had 14 cards each. These two numbers, 13 and 14, are supported by early documents: 1422 Ferrara for 13 new cards (http://trionfi.com/playing-cards-ferrara-1422); for 14, the 14 figures of 1-1-1441 Ferrara and the 70 card decks of 1457.

New paragraph (added next day): Given what I have said about variable cards vs. invariable ones, how could there be 14, one more than the variable ones? It seems to me that earlier cards could be invariable for other reasons than the end of the experimentation period. "Bagatella" just means "trifle", in other words, the lowest, so any card with that name would be number 1 even during the experimentation period. Also, in Italy, the Pope's authority was greater than the Emperor's, so his position would always be such as to trump the Emperor. Finally, the raising of the dead might have been seen as requiring a prior reference to Christ as the condition for salvation; so one of the celestials, the Star (of Bethlehem) or the Sun (a symbol for Christ) would then invariably precede the Angel and World. So the deck might have been 13 first (with Prudence) and then 14 in Ferrara and Florence (adding a card--Bagatella, Pope, Star, or Sun--and if the new card is the Pope, perhaps changing Prudence to Popess) and 16 in Milan (with the theologicals and Prudence). Or it could have been 14 without being 13 first, with Prudence and a Pope or celestial, and Milan replacing the celestial or Pope with the theologicals. The composition of the PMB is anybody's guess.

The above replaces the paragraph I wrote originally (subtracted next day): Based on what survived in the d'Este and Charles VI decks, a 14th card is most likely to have been the Fool, the Pope, or the Sun. If the celestials represented the passage of time, it seems to me that the Moon would be less likely than the Sun; the presence of clouds makes the Moon less useful for reckoning time, whereas the light of the sun always comes through. The Fool seems to me slightly less likely because it might not have been considered part of a what would have been a fifth suit. If the Pope was part of the 14, it is likely that the Popess was as well. So the deck might have been 13 first (with Prudence) and then 14 in Ferrara (without Prudence, with Pope and Popess) and 16 in Milan (with the theologicals and Prudence).

My post resumes: I am not suggesting that 13, 14, or 16 was the original number of trumps, as I have only gone back as far as the Visconti decks, or possibly, for 13, to 1422. It just seems to me that at that time, as early as 1422 to as late as 1447 in Milan, even later in Ferrara, but perhaps earlier than 1447 in Florence (the center of mass production), at least one of these would have been the number. What there was before that, if anything, seems to me beyond the reach of meaningful speculation.

Can this principle of decreasing variability, as I will call it, tell us anything about which of the orders, A, B, or C, was first? It seems to me that it might, but not much. The extant cards of the Cary-Yale and Brera-Brambilla are both consistent with the "early" cards. The extant cards of none of the other early decks are. To that extent, unless there is reason to think otherwise, the earliest tarot would be from Milan. I do not think that the slightly earlier date in Florence amounts to a lot, because the Cary-Yale might be slightly earlier (we can disregard the coins), or if that was merely a display deck (suggested by the holes, the large size of the cards, and their relatively good condition), then the pattern from which it was taken; also, Malatesta and Sforza would have known each other. But the 1440 note is indeed something, and for that reason Florence cannot be discounted. And there is still Bologna. There is also the 1422 note in Ferrara, which again isn't much, but is something, as well as the known enthusiasm for frivolity in the Estensi court, as Dummett noted. But in any of these cities, what my "principle of decreasing variability" points to is a deck of 13, 14, or 16 trumps, depending on the number of cards in the regular suits.

Re: The principle of decreasing variability

#57
I agree with a good part of it, though in some points I think, that you explain it too complicated, at least for my poor English .... :-)

For ...
mikeh wrote: That idea is supported when we look at the earliest known tarots, the Visconti (i.e. Cary-Yale and Brera-Brambilla). None of those cards I just mentioned is among the cards that have survived from these decks, whereas all of the ones I have not mentioned are among them, with the exception of the Popess. The Popess can be explained by Dummett's hypothesis that she was originally Prudence; I imagine that she would have been changed to Popess at the same time that the Pope was introduced.
I don't think, that the Popess had been originally Prudence (or one has to explain, what "originally" in this context shall mean, cause the origin is in the case a longer development with probably many stages.

Recently "Conversus" at AT asked, why the Popess has the number 2. To this I replied:
In German we have a specific playing card expression "Jungfrau" (= virgin), which is used, when somebody got no trick at all (in trick taking games). In trick taking games this might be very bad (double loss occasionally or other heavy loss), in specific other "negative trick games" like "Ramsch" or "Null" (= zero) in Skat, where the game goal is to get "no points" or "no trick", it's very good, as it doubles the negative point value of the unlucky player, who won most of the points.

"doubling" is naturally connected to the number "2".

"Virgins" (Maids, Junckfruwe) had been in card playing decks long before "Trionfi" became a name for very specific cards (c. 1440), so long before the "Popess in Tarot".

1377 John of Rheinfelden knew 4 maids in a deck with 4x15 structure (with 5 courts).
1455 the Hofämterspiel knew 4 Junckfruwe, but connected them to number "6".

Image


(the German shield is the suit sign, the VI is the number, the Junckfruwe the name of a "court profession"; just a "lady of the court")

In the JoR deck the Maid was connected to number 12 (which means 10+2), Queens had 14 (10 + 4) and Kings 15 (10+5)

Image

http://a-tarot.eu/p/2013/jor.jpg
... so Arne Jönssen (expert for the JoR text) in "Schweizer Spielkarten 1" (1998) p. 141

So the maid had here a connection to "2" again.

In the common escalation process during a card game in Germany "Contra - Re(contra) - Bock" is said for "doubling", so we get ...

Contra = x2
Re = x4
Bock = x8

.... whereby "Re" associates "Rex" = (king) and "Bock" is an expression, which is also used for a horse (it's slang for a horse, usually used for male sheep or male goat).

Now Rex = King has 4 points in German games usually, Queen has 3 points, and the Jack has two points.

In Tarot trumps ...
the Emperor (trump 4) replaces the king (point value 4)
The Empress (trump 3) replaces the queen (point value 3)
The Popess (trump 2) as the Jack has 2 points

JoR's row had ...

15 king (10 + 5)
14 queen (10 + 4)
13 Ober (upper Marshal, often on horse) (10 + 3)
12 Maid (10 + 2)
11 Unter (lower Marshal, often foot soldier) (10 + 1)

Comparing it with the Tarot row, we have, that the Ober as horseman has disappeared in the row.

15 King - 4 Emperor
14 Queen - 3 Empress
(13 disappeared horseman)
12 Maid - 2 Popess
11 Unter - 1 Magician

In an early Trionfi card version (PMB, and that what descended from it) the horseman reappeared, on the card Justice, which usually has the number 8 (but not in PMB, where we don't know numbers for).

Image

http://a-tarot.eu/p/2013/knight.jpg
... here in a forgery of 19th century

************

So we would have (if Justice was 8) ...

x8 ... Ober = "Bock" = horseman

x4 ... King = "Re" = Emperor

x2 ... Maid = "Contra" = Junckfrawe, Popessa
If one follows this argumentation, then the "true origin of the popess" (as far we can know it), is already the maid in the JoR deck.
Naturally one can call the "origin of the popess" the moment, when this second female court card "maid", "lady of the court", "maitresse of the king" (in one of the two master Ingold decks), Junckfruwe was replaced with something, which looked like a popess. The earliest example is in the PMB (as far we know it).

In the PMB we have the addition of six cards, and for the first 14 trumps (first artist) we have the condition, that it contains only one card, which really looks like a virtue: Justice. Further we have the condition, that an earlier game of the same Visconti-Sorza family (Cary-Yale deck) had 7 virtues. So it seems a logical assumption, that the six added cards (from second artist) were considered to be virtues or a modification of the six virtues.

Star-Sun-Moon is a triad, and it seems, that it replaced the theological virtues. 2 cardinal virtues are really there: Strength and Temperance. The only missing virtue would be Prudentia and there is offered the only remaining card interpreted as world.

In the Minchiate (arranged in this order at an unknown date) we have the following conditions.

6-8 ... three cardinal virtues

16-19 Hope, Prudentia, Fides, Caritas ... so 3 theological virtues and between them Prudentia.

36-39 Star-Moon-Sun-World

The key structure number in Minchiate is "20", not 21 or 22.
20 new cards are moved between 1-15 and 16-21 in the common Tarot sequence, so that we have:

1-15 ... normal Trionfi cards
16-35 Minchiate additions
(36-40) 5 not numbered cards from the group of normal Trionfi cards.

Now we can observe, that the group "16-19" (additional virtues) is exactly "20 steps" before the group "36-39" (the triad sun-moon-star and world), so we have somehow a very direct Florentine confirmation for the PMB, that Sun-Moon-Star replaced the theological virtues. The 4th involved lower card (Prudentia, the missing cardinal virtue) is directly related to the 4th unnumbered card "World".

********

This observation directly relates to our very early discussion about an import of a Florentine new card system, which was brought to Milan by young Lorenzo de Medici in 1465 (at least in theory), which (in theory) caused the Milanese change from 14 trumps to 20 trumps.

*********

And it adds naturally also to the observation, that in the 16 Charles VI deck trumps 3 cardinal virtues with "octagonal halo" are presented and a 4th octagonal halo is seen as card "World" or "Fame", rather obviously indicating, that this is the otherwise missing "Prudentia".

***********

Naturally we have the phenomenon, that Florence in Minchiate had an open Prudentia, and the normal Trionfi/Tarot decks hadn't this card, so possibly a "hidden Prudentia". Florence, as it seems, never had a Popess, but Milan had. Perhaps indeed some persons in Milan identified the Popess as "hidden Prudentia".

For the 14 (or 13+1) trumps of the first artist it makes not so much sense to assume 2 cardinal virtues in the deck ... well, one might argue, that Prudence (in a game of skill) and Justice (play fair, don't cheat) were desired virtues at the card table, and Fortitudo (don't fight, when losing) and Temperance (don't drink) not.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Dummett and methodology [was Re: The Sun]

#58
Huck wrote,
JoR's row had ...

15 king (10 + 5)
14 queen (10 + 4)
13 Ober (upper Marshal, often on horse) (10 + 3)
12 Maid (10 + 2)
11 Unter (lower Marshal, often foot soldier) (10 + 1)

Comparing it with the Tarot row, we have, that the Ober as horseman has disappeared in the row.

15 King - 4 Emperor
14 Queen - 3 Empress
(13 disappeared horseman)
12 Maid - 2 Popess
11 Unter - 1 Magician
Interesting.

But I am not convinced that German regular cards would have influenced Italian trump cards, is only out of local pride. The Northern Italian nobles no longer saw themselves as Germans first, Italians second--especially ones of commoner descent like Sforza. It could only have come from Barbara of Brandenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_of ... %931481%29); I don't think she would have had enough influence.

Here is another possibility. I am very much out of my element, so I may have my facts wrong, and I can't seem to find good sites on the Web to check my memory. In Italy--maybe even Bologna--there was the sequence King-Queen-Knight-Maid-Ace sometimes in Batons and Swords. Aces were high in those suits. The Knight drops out and we have King-Queen-Maid-Ace. So the Popess takes the place of the Maid, and the Bagat takes the place of the Ace (the One).

Another question: If there is a Popess, there has to be a Pope. Why use some analogy with strange suits, rather than just putting her next to the Pope, like the Empress is with the Emperor? My answer is roughly the same as Decker's in his book, which I should probably discuss on that thread, although it does raise methodological issues. But first I want to try more systematically to track down one of Decker's references (for Philo Judaeus on the number two; he doesn't say where in Philo the doctrine he cites comes from, and I haven't found it).

Huck wrote,
Florence, as it seems, never had a Popess, but Milan had.
That is not clear. Most of the early A-order decks do have Popesses. Dummett (Game of Tarot p. 402l) reasoned that the Bagat must have been unnumbered, because the highest trump is numbered 20, and all the rest are one less than they normally are, except for Death at 13. See http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YlU6F53x-_E/U ... .35+PM.png. The same practice was followed in the Bolognese (where the lowest number is 5Love) and the Catania, and most likely was followed in the Orfeo, he says. Other A-order decks solve this problem by stopping the numbers before 13, so that Death won't get 14.

Re: Dummett and methodology [was Re: The Sun]

#59
Mike -

Searching "philo" "alexandria" "monad" "dyad" brought up references such as David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Brill, 1986). Of 11 references to "monad" in the book, some are viewable, such as these pages -


http://www.rosscaldwell.com/images/book ... p283ff.jpg

It seems Philo utilized the dualistic concept in QG and QE, which stand for Quaestiones in Genesim and Quaestiones in Exodum, respectively.

QG was translated in the 19th century from a new Latin edition of the Armenian version by Charles Duke Yonge, here -
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

I hope this is helpful.
Image

Re: Dummett and methodology [was Re: The Sun]

#60
mikeh wrote: Huck wrote,
Florence, as it seems, never had a Popess, but Milan had.
That is not clear. Most of the early A-order decks do have Popesses. Dummett (Game of Tarot p. 402l) reasoned that the Bagat must have been unnumbered, because the highest trump is numbered 20, and all the rest are one less than they normally are, except for Death at 13. See http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YlU6F53x-_E/U ... .35+PM.png. The same practice was followed in the Bolognese (where the lowest number is 5Love) and the Catania, and most likely was followed in the Orfeo, he says. Other A-order decks solve this problem by stopping the numbers before 13, so that Death won't get 14.
I'm not sure what you can mean by "most", Mike. The situation is actually the opposite.

Of all the A types, only the Rosenwald Sheet shows what are clearly a Popess and an Empress. The painted sets - Charles VI, Catania and Rothschild - don't have her; the late 15th century strambotto which lists the trumps in the A order (the earliest such list we have) doesn't have her; none of the Minchiates have her, and of course no Bolognese set or list has her, nor does the Sicilian or what we know of Roman Tarot.

Any comparative list which shows Bologna as containing cards named Pope, Popess, Emperor, Empress, is simply wrong and misleading (as are the names "Grand Duke of Tuscany", "Western Emperor" and "Eastern Emperor" for the Minchiate cards; these names were invented by Romain Merlin in the 19th century; the native sources for Minchiate call these cards only ever by the names Papa Due, Papa Tre, and Papa Quattro).
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Huck and 3 guests

cron