Hi Mike,

mikeh wrote:Ross: Thanks for your well-articulated reply to my objections (back on p. 13, viewtopic.php?f=12&t=334&start=120#p5508). I was a little annoyed at first, because I wasn't arguing that the other decks were complete as we have them, just that some might have been of other numbers besides 22, a number that didn't seem very natural to choose. (Yes, I know that Occam's razor would say that either the decks are complete as we have them (one "simple"--or simplistic-- solution) or they were all 22 (another "simple" or simplistic solution). I would rather argue from the real world, which is usually not simplistic (or "simple," as some might say).

For me, in this formulation of the "razor" - "pluralities (of entities) should not be multiplied beyond necessity" - the concept of "necessity" shows how our "simplicity" is achieved. It may not be that the simplest solution is the true one, but if there is no need to posit plurality - additional layers of complexity -, then the simplest is the most natural to choose. Simpler solutions also provide easier checks - you can research a single question for a simple theory and find out if it seems more or less plausible, or confirms the theory, much easier than you can by positing multiple, unnecessary theories (entities), and then trying to research them all and having to come up with all kinds of scenarios to justify the mythical entities. It is quicksand.

In this case, even though most of this reality is unknown and reality of the world is, often, complex, it is nevertheless unnecessary to posit all kinds of different standard subjects, in different orders, in the decades before our earliest carte da trionfi, in order to account for the standard series. The simplest solution does work, and accounts for all of the surviving examples and the existence of the game. The thing to be explained is the game of triumphs; the entities presumed are - an original or Ur-Tarot of 22 trumps and 56 suit cards, named carte da trionfi, and identified with the corresponding game trionfi and ludus triumphorum; - an initial diffusion from a single center; - adaptation of the game in different centers, with creative changes and reinventions in some cases; - rediffusion in some cases.

Those four entities seem to me to be the only necessary ones to account for all the variations and natural evolution of the game. The process of card loss is not gratuitous or ad hoc, because it is demonstrable, as a fact.

The structure of the Cary Yale is explained by the third entity, "creative changes". But since the Cary Yale is so early, it is possible to change the sequence of presumed entities by changing the first to "an original Ur-Tarot of 25 Trumps and 64 suit cards", and assume that the third entity, "adaptation", means a general reduction before the second, "diffusion", took place. This was Dummett's original theory in 1980. In this case it goes: creation: adaptation: diffusion: readaptation: rediffusion: etc... It only works if the original Tarot game stayed in a narrow circle for a time, long enough to be changed into what later went out as the standard series.

Either theory is plausible, and both contain only what is necessary to explain the evidence for the game of Triumphs. Everything else - various hidden experiments, different configurations of trumps, etc. are superfluous, gratutious, what the old logicians would have called "perverse", thinking - because unnecessary and unprovable.

That "multiplying entities beyond necessity" leads to twisted (perverse) theorizing, the quicksand of endless ad hoc theories, is amply demonstrated by the 5x14 theory, which has had to presume multiple points of diffusion for multiple (if not endless) entities, specific and ad hoc explanations for each of them, showing how, although standard subjects in the 5x14 and 5x16 models, they are not related, and finally a grand synthesizer of all the streams around 1490, - all instead of a single point of diffusion in the beginning and the natural process of adaptation and change to explain the variants, and the natural and demonstrable process of loss to explain the incompleteness of all 15th century standard series carte da trionfi.

Later you did address my concerns. I have been thinking about your arguments. I still have problems with them.

I say: Starting out with 22 doesn't make it any more likely that the number will stay at 22. I have been reading about the history of Rugby and American football. the same game was played for years at Rugby School. But when it spread to other schools, the rules started to change. Even the establishment of a central authority couldn't stop it: there was a "great schism." When it spread to another continent, the rules changed even more, into a game that wasn't even Rugby.

This analogy seems to be right, and supports the "single point of diffusion" model, which goes to "adaptation and change." - even to point where the original is almost unrecognizable in the most distant iteration (in Tarot's case, this would be giving the name "triumph" to a game with the regular pack, that has no permanent triumphs, and itself suffering the name change from "triumph(s)" to "tarot (tarocchi)", a process that took at least 20 years, between 1480 and 1500).

In tarot, players wouldn't have liked to come to a new place and find not only that the cards looked different, but they had a different order in the trump sequence, yet with no indication on the cards to remind them of what the order was. Yet that is exactly what happened. People also wouldn't like the rules changing, which of course they did if the "four papi" rule was an original rule. Whether they are playing with a few cards more or less is less important. In fact, if adding a card makes the game more interesting, they would welcome it. For example, American card companies added the Joker in the 19th century. That made some trick-taking games more interesting.

Hmmm... now you've changed the analogy. You say "players wouldn't have liked to come to a new place..." whereas in the first half of the analogy, it is the game that moves. The distinction is actually important though. Someone or a few do in fact bring the game in the first instance of diffusion, but once established, it is developed and changed by local players, not controlled by the original center of diffusion. Change and adaptation are natural and do not need to be pleaded for as causes for differences in the family of tarot games (since the alternative, multiple independent inventions, is impossible). Thus, change happened, and continues to happen, and our only task is to try to draw the lines of connection and explain some of the changes if we like.

One important factor explaining the variations in ordering of the trumps is that the cards were originally unnumbered, and there is no evidence that the rules were written down. So when the game went from one place to another (diffusion), it may have come with a greater or lesser perfection of knowledge about the way the game was played in the original place, including the ordering of the unnumbered trumps. Players getting their information at third, fourth or however many distant hands are bound to introduce changes that may grow into local traditions. Confronted with the trumps, it appears that many of the changes in order were ideological in nature, reacting to the reading of the sequence of allegories - particularly with the Virtues in the B and C orders, where Temperance trumps Death (C), and Justice is put before the last Judgement (B). I also argue that the changing placement of the Chariot in Florence is ideological, perhaps reflected in B and C as well. But overall, the Trump sequences are "synoptic", and Dummett succeeded in reducing them to three families, which are closely identified with three centers. This was the most important contribution to the study of Tarot history ever made.

The equal-papi rule is inherently unstable away from home, and only exists in Bologna and Piedmont/Savoy. It is a tendency to number and order all the cards - even the Fool finally gets a number in 18th century in northeastern France and eastern Germany, XXII. I guess the equal-papi rule seemed arbitrary and unnecessary to most players, and they just dispensed with it.

It is true that adding a card can be successful at making the game more interesting, but continual different additions, within a short time, would seem only to be annoying. I think the trumps had to be all at once, just as, when Germini was invented, they added the 20 extra cards all at once, in a single place between the Tower and the Star. If it were gradual, you would expect more disruptions of the standard sequence. There also seems to be no reason why a wild card or an "excuse", like the Fool, could not have existed before the Tarot sequence was invented, since such a card seems to have been invented multiple times independently in history. But, there is no evidence for it in Italy before Tarot, and it doesn't solve any problems to posit such a scenario, so it seems unnecessary to posit it.

Yet many people would still prefer that the game remain, as much as possible, the same from city to city.

I don't know why you think this. Local traditions of play develop and are codified - outsiders don't have any say in this. Travellers, if they know their hometown version of a game, find delight in learning about how another place plays it, especially if it has different figures and some strange rules. But even if they learn the version in the new town, and find it enjoyable, they will not have much success introducing any changes back home - except rarely, like when the concept of bidding was invented (I think in the mid 17th century) in the Spanish game of Ombre, and spread throughout all of Europe in a few years.

However you might be right about Bologna being first, and having 22 trumps from the beginning. I am not against that. I am just against applying "Occam's razor" as opposed to examining possibilities and gradually ruling out some and supporting others empirically, while saying "I can't say" otherwise. You have a reasonable proposal, one that stimulates my imagination to look for more corraboration. So I want to get back to discussing it, even to the extent (in this post at least) of ignoring all the other decks I can think of in other cities after 1442.

There may have been good reasons for choosing 22 trumps in 1438 or so. I hadn't read Vitali's article on tarot origins (http://www.associazioneletarot.it/The-H ... 1_eng.aspx. He cites Origen on the number 22: the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible correspond to the 22 Hebrew letters. Given the thriving Jewish population in Bologna, Kabbala, with its 10 sefiroth and En Sof, might also be relevant. So I am back to that old issue, after I thought I had safely buried it. (I wasn't convinced by Ross's arguments on the thread "Tarot and Kabbalah." But I won't discuss them here; I posted my own thoughts there. On Bologna and the 5x14 theory, another Vitali essay is worth reading, http://www.associazioneletarot.it/Bolog ... 9_eng.aspx.)

I'll have to go back and read that - but what didn't you like about my proposal - was it the dice one? Whatever the case, I'm not sure that is necessary now - the way my allegorical interpretation goes, the total number itself was not a determining factor, unless it was some calculus for the ratio of trumps to suit cards for play. More likely, I suspect that the allegory required that number of cards, no more and no less.

One concern I had was about who in 1438 or so might have sponsored and designed the cards. I liked Ross's suggestion that maybe the tarot came out of the Law Faculty at the University. The Law Faculty had a particular connection to Antongaleazzo Bentivoglio, Ross's candidate for "hero" in the deck. He got a Doctorate in Civil Law from there in 1414 and was a lecturer in that faculty 1418-1420 (Ady p. 11). He was paid one of the highest salaries of the time, 300 lire, suggestive of his importance at the University ("Bologna's Bentivoglio Family and its Artists: Overview of a Quattrocento Court in the Making," by David J. Drogin, p. 76, in Artists at Court: Image-Making and Identity, 1300-1500, ed. Campbell).

Another thing is that there would have been precedents in allegorical visual art connected with that particular faculty. There was a tradition in which professors who dominated both university and civic affairs commissioned tombs with reliefs and little statues on them (Drogin p. 76). The tradition may have been started in 1300 by one Rolandino Passeggeri, a professor of civil law, who "accumulated enough power to effectively control the city." The tombs invariably showed books and a professor lecturing to his students. Here is a later such tomb, done in 1430-1435 by Jacopo della Quercia and workshop (Drogin p. 75)

Thanks, I didn't know about Antongaleazzo's law affiliations.

You're right, and my choice of lawyer or jurisconsult for the inventor is not off-hand. I considered Ugo Trotti's interest in the game, as well as Alciato's, and later Pierre Grégoire's - all were Law experts. In Bologna, where I ended up, it is a logical place to find experts in Law, and they could be creative. Most importantly, I considered Malatesta Ariosti, a Ferrarese jurisconsult whose family originated in Bologna. Ariosti is the one who designed, wrote and directed the triumphal entry for Borso d'Este in Reggio in 1453, with so many resonances with the trumps (He was in turn influenced by Alfonso's triumphal entry in 1442, at least the Florentine part; although the author of this is anonymous, it was sponsored by the merchants of Florence).

Someone trained in Canon and Civil Law, with the attendant background in Roman history (since Justinian's code was the basis of civil law), given the indications of interest through generations of legal experts, is not a mean candidate to be the inventor of the game of triumphs, in my scenario and interpretation.

My thinking lately is that the Bolognese pattern and game initially had a small diffusion northward and southward. We know it went northward to Ferrara by 1442, and I assume it also went to Florence in the south shortly after its invention. Westward it seems that the Bolognese game also made it to Piedmont very early, where it became established deeply enough that Bolognese features of play remained even when a different pattern of cards became standard. Perhaps someone like the poet Martin le Franc, secretary to Felix V during his entire papacy, had occasion to visit Bologna in 1440 and introduced the game to his peers in Savoy.

I suspect it was the privileged classes who adopted this game from the Bolongese scholars who first created it, and began commissioning luxury versions. The first recorded is that of the Este, by their house artist Sagramoro in 1442 (not extant); the next luxury versions are those of Visconti, Brambilla and Cary Yale, done by Bonifacio Bembo between 1443-1445 (Bandera 1999) - these are extant; the next seems to be the Issy-Warsaw cards, in Ferrarese style, around 1450. In this the Chariot resembles the Visconti Chariots, which shows mutual influence of their styles. On the other hand, the Visconti-Sforza Hermit looks like the Florentine Charles VI and Catania Hermits, dating probably from the late 1450s. My conclusion is that luxury cards were highly sought after and changed hands as gifts among the privileged classes during the 1440s and 1450s.

If the Florentine style of luxury cards influenced the Milanese style, it could have been the game was introduced through the Borromeo family, who originated in Tuscany, and by the 1440s were extremely influential in the Visconti court and Milanese milieu, while maintaining contact with Tuscany. Their interest in Trionfi is proven by the fresco of wealthy people playing the game on the wall of a room in their palace in Milan, which is contemporary with the composition of the two Visconti packs. Tuscan influence also came from immigration of artisans from Tuscany into Milan in the 1440s -

The (silk) industry expanded more rapidly in the west. In Milan it was already in evidence in the 1440s, when Duke Filippo Maria Visconti took a personal interest in its development, appointing agents with the task of attracting foreign craftsmen. In 1442, his envoys came up with the name of a Florentine, Pietro di Bartolo, who was welcomed with open arms in Milan and later came to be counted as the founder of the local silk industry. After 1443 he was joined by many other artisans and entrepreneurs who arrived in Milan from Liguria and Tuscany (especially Lucca), and in the 1450s there was also a considerable immigration of Bergamask craftsmen and setaioli who had previously settled in Venice.

(Luca Molà, The Silk Industry in Renaissance Venice (Johns Hopkins UP, 2000) pp. 3-4)

So there was plenty of room for an importation of Florentine cards in the early 1440s. We seem to have a triangle of Florence-Ferrara-Milan for luxury cards, with Florence being the dominant model originally (Jacopo di Poggino is called a "card painter" (depintore di naibi) in Florence in 1446, although printed cards were already strongly present), Ferrara remaining an in-house speciality of the Este, and Milan's pattern coming to be preferred in the 1450s (witnessed in Malatesta's letter to the Duchess Bianca Maria requesting cards from the Cremona workshop in 1452; although a condottiere for Florence (although decommissioned at the time of his request for the cards), he nevertheless sought Milanese cards).

I assume Bologna's pattern was always printed, and it was in Florence that the first adaptation of that pattern was made. It is this Florentine adaptation that was mass-produced enough for export, and is probably the ancestor of the C and B styles of printed cards, whereas Florence's later printed pattern (Rosenwald) is derived from their luxury standard with influence from the previous printed style (evident in cards like the Old Man).

Thus: Bologna printed -> Florence, Ferrara; Florence adapation to both new printed style and luxury style -> Luxury styles of Florence, Ferrara, Milan -> Florence's luxury style influences its printed pattern; Ferrara's luxury style may have had printed progeny (there is some evidence); Milan's luxury style has no known printed analogues. The standard patterns of B (Budapest/Met museum sheets) and C (Cary Sheet - Tarot de Marseille - Viéville) both derive ultimately from the non-luxury ancestor of the Rosenwald sheet, but after the change from the Bolognese printed pattern (since the vignettes under the Star, Moon and Sun are absent in the Rosenwald sheet, but each of the A, B and C patterns have vignettes. Minchiate's vignettes are 2 times out of three related to the Bolognese pattern; B is completely different; C has two or more styles (Cary sheet- Tarot de Marseille; Viéville; Anonymous Parisian); but the fact that vignettes are there at all indicates that the Rosenwald pattern is not the direct ancestor of the others).

So Florence should have at least one missing printed pattern before Rosenwald:
Bologna-Florence common -> missing Florentine pattern(s) -> Rosenwald
................................-> missing Florentine pattern .................. -> Minchiate

Ross wrote:That "multiplying entities beyond necessity" leads to twisted (perverse) theorizing, the quicksand of endless ad hoc theories, is amply demonstrated by the 5x14 theory, which has had to presume multiple points of diffusion for multiple (if not endless) entities, specific and ad hoc explanations for each of them, showing how, although standard subjects in the 5x14 and 5x16 models, they are not related, and finally a grand synthesizer of all the streams around 1490, - all instead of a single point of diffusion in the beginning and the natural process of adaptation and change to explain the variants, and the natural and demonstrable process of loss to explain the incompleteness of all 15th century standard series carte da trionfi.

... ... the truth is interesting, not the theories about it. Either it was, as you say, an early version with 22 motif-fixed special cards, or it was not so and the sequence developed in different steps, a slow approach to a final, then far spread version.

And for your part, there is simply no early evidence for the 4x14+22-structure. There is only a fiction with some probability on the surface of matter ... which gets disturbed, if the researchers dig deeper. And at Trionfi.com we digged deeper, so we disturb the surface, and the natural result are "multiplying entities beyond necessity", "twisted (perverse) theorizing", "quicksand of endless ad hoc theories" ... from various sides.
The greater the error, the greater the confusion, if it is repaired. The standard deck at ca. 1450 is a great error.

The mountain of insight about the origin Tarot had been, that the standard Tarot existed ca. 1450, presented by Dummett, Decker & Depaulis in their "Wicked pack of cards" in a short sentence. Probably the short sentence means, that they weren't really interested to discuss it. But it could have been only stated on the base of the existence of Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi (no other real evidence they had) and a consequential dating of the deck to ca. 1450.
Recently Dummett rearranged his theory about the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi to a date around 1462-1465 ... with no word about the circumstance, that this would change the earlier statement about the "standard Tarot" considerably (which would by this have been started also ca 1462-65) and with no word about the considerable activities of Trionfi.com, which in summary to that what was earlier done to the origin of Tarot at least would have had a 10:1 relation. Well, at least a sign, that somebody started to think.

Gherardo Ortalli in the "Prince and the playing cards" in the mid 90's wrote the following:

In 1454 Don Messore's workshop started up the production in the palace; by now an old man, Sagramoro painted Tarots until 1454-56; then from 1457 Gherardo da Vicenza comes on the scene, mentioned for the time in connection with two very valuable packs: "carte grande da trionfi" rich in gold and colors.(footnote 55)

Footnote 55: Francesschini 1993, p. 485, n. 823m (but see also 823f). The cards had to be painted thick gold and all made with fine splendid colors: "messe d'oro fitamente, et fati tute de coluri fini et brunide, et depinte de roverso una paro rosa, uno paro verde". There were "carte 70 per zogo" - not an easy number to explain. If we add the 14 cards per suit (the numerals from the ace to 10 plus the four faces, king, queen, knight and knave) to the 22 figured cards (the 21 trumps and the Fool) the figure does not tally. This question is still to be solved by playing cards specialists. See also Campori 1874, pp. 127-128

The first, who jumped to this note, was the group around Trionfi.com (at least I'm not aware that anybody made a greater event out of it). The 5x14-theory existed already since 1989, so it was then already clear with 99% security, that the 14 Bembo trumps and the small arcana had build a deck with 70 cards (well, the 99% security exist and existed only for persons with a specific approach and insight), so this was a greater confirmation, especially for persons, who don't like complicated thinking. At least this was nothing, which could be discarded just by the usual common arrogance ("the experts do know this all better than you"), as it had factual character. "70 cards" ... thee they are.

The second holy and stupid believe was the expectation, that whenever in 15th century documents with the word "Trionfi" appeared, that it automatically would mean "Tarot cards in the standard version, with 4x14+22-structure, always and only". Well, this believe got problems with ...

(a) "... eo ludo quem triumphum appellant: cartae quedam oblatae mihi"

(b). "… novum quoddam et exquisitum triumphorum genus."

... both appearing in Marcello's letter from November 13, 1449. It means, that a speaker in 1449 could address cards with quite unusual features, "birds as suit cards, trumps with gods, and only 16 of them and totally probably 60 cards" as a ludus triumphorum.

With this anything about an automatic connection between "Trionfi cards in written documents" and "cards with Tarot motifs and 4x14+22 structure" drops in the water. Not naturally a wrong conclusion, but a rather risky conclusion. Really a point, where a solid researcher mind should start to consider, if he has some wrong sorted evidence in his pocket.

What have the golden Trionfi cards and the Michelino deck in common? Both are expensive, both are possibly made for triumphal occasions. Both have a trump row with allegoric motifs - somehow. The number and structure - that's only a variable.

We have a German deck of 1496, which is assumed to have been produced for the marriages of the children of Emperor Maximilian with the children of the Spanish court. In the general European context this were marriages of a higher social context than the marriage of Bianca Maria with Francesco Sforza, and in the final result, Emperor Charles V. and his brother Ferdinand, we have the final owners of the dukedom of Milan ... between many other countries and regions. Would you think, that Charles V. or Maximilian or any observing Italian diplomat would have had any problems to call this marriage deck of 1496 a "Trionfi deck" ?

Maximilian especially was totally fond of "triumphs", German triumphs of course, not Italians. Art histotry knows a lot about his favor.

Well, the deck of 1496 has a 4x13 structure, totally different suits. But a nice copperplate engraving. 'But it's a Trionfi deck in function.

Huck wrote: ... ... the truth is interesting, not the theories about it. Either it was, as you say, an early version with 22 motif-fixed special cards, or it was not so and the sequence developed in different steps, a slow approach to a final, then far spread version.

And for your part, there is simply no early evidence for the 4x14+22-structure. There is only a fiction with some probability on the surface of matter ... which gets disturbed, if the researchers dig deeper. And at Trionfi.com we digged deeper, so we disturb the surface, and the natural result are "multiplying entities beyond necessity", "twisted (perverse) theorizing", "quicksand of endless ad hoc theories" ... from various sides.
The greater the error, the greater the confusion, if it is repaired. The standard deck at ca. 1450 is a great error.

You have given yourself at least four problems to solve with your theory, in just this instance (multiplying beyond necessity):
1. When did 5x14 originate, and what is the meaning of the choice of those images?
2. When did 5x16 originate, and what is the meaning of the choice of those images?
3. When was the Devil invented and added in?
4. When did all of this come together to form the standard series?
(and all the attendant questions raised by your scenario)

I have only one problem to solve with my scenario:
1. When did the 22 trumps originate, and what is the meaning of the choice of those images?

The evidence of an early 22 is precisely in the surviving decks themselves, which taken as a whole, both Visconti and Charles VI included, contain all the standard subjects but the Devil. The loss of cards is natural and demonstrable for all the decks, so the fact that they are not complete is not a difficult problem to solve.

You prefer to make problems more complex, just for fun. Nothing contradicts an original-22 hypothesis either, even if there is no explicit statement before the undated Steele Sermon that "Tarot has 22 trumps" or "Tarot has 78 cards". The 70 card Ferrara statement is at best an indirect challenge, since it also does not spell out the number of trumps.

The mountain of insight about the origin Tarot had been, that the standard Tarot existed ca. 1450, presented by Dummett, Decker & Depaulis in their "Wicked pack of cards" in a short sentence. Probably the short sentence means, that they weren't really interested to discuss it. But it could have been only stated on the base of the existence of Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi (no other real evidence they had) and a consequential dating of the deck to ca. 1450.

Also, I believe, the then-newly discovered Florentine permission of 1450, and Kaplan's representation of Sforza's desire to purchase ready-made packs in 1450. Both of these also indicate a standard that is begin referred to.

Also, at this time, Dummett still believed (and maybe still does) that Triumphs was a luxury production with limited circulation, and probably looked like the Cary Yale. So the "standardization of 1450" was a shortening of the deck, not an augmentation.

But longer thinking on the problem has contradicted that for me. You know I supported the 5x14 for awhile, at least through 2003 or for most of it. It was my own thinking that convinced me otherwise, not Dummett or anybody else. I'm not even sure anybody else thinks like I do.

Recently Dummett rearranged his theory about the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi to a date around 1462-1465 ... with no word about the circumstance, that this would change the earlier statement about the "standard Tarot" considerably (which would by this have been started also ca 1462-65) and with no word about the considerable activities of Trionfi.com, which in summary to that what was earlier done to the origin of Tarot at least would have had a 10:1 relation. Well, at least a sign, that somebody started to think.

Well, since it was not only the PMB that made him (them) think that way, I don't think changing the date for PMB changes the date for the emergence of the standard.

The first, who jumped to this note, was the group around Trionfi.com (at least I'm not aware that anybody made a greater event out of it). The 5x14-theory existed already since 1989, so it was then already clear with 99% security, that the 14 Bembo trumps and the small arcana had build a deck with 70 cards (well, the 99% security exist and existed only for persons with a specific approach and insight), so this was a greater confirmation, especially for persons, who don't like complicated thinking. At least this was nothing, which could be discarded just by the usual common arrogance ("the experts do know this all better than you"), as it had factual character. "70 cards" ... thee they are.

Sure, you have every right to be proud, and I don't begrudge people agreeing with it, if you can convince them. I don't, that's all. I presume a standard Triumph cards and game, which produced variations of course, but a standard nonetheless. Therefore the 70 cards note is either a variation of the standard (Hurst solution, or, if trumps, my "B" solution in the paper I wrote a while ago on this question), or a mistake of the accountant (my preferred solution).

The second holy and stupid believe was the expectation, that whenever in 15th century documents with the word "Trionfi" appeared, that it automatically would mean "Tarot cards in the standard version, with 4x14+22-structure, always and only". Well, this believe got problems with ...

(a) "... eo ludo quem triumphum appellant: cartae quedam oblatae mihi"

(b). "… novum quoddam et exquisitum triumphorum genus."

... both appearing in Marcello's letter from November 13, 1449. It means, that a speaker in 1449 could address cards with quite unusual features, "birds as suit cards, trumps with gods, and only 16 of them and totally probably 60 cards" as a ludus triumphorum.

This situation is unique to this pack, and both he and Polismagna calling it a "Triumphs" is explicable by analogy - it has suits and trumps. Sola Busca might also a "ludus triumphorum", because it has trumps. But it is not the standard. Marcello was comparing Michelino's pack to the standard - the only thing that can explain this is that the structure of the pack was four suits and a suit of trumps, that it was clearly designed that way. This is why he said it was a new kind of triumphs - different from the "old kind" - the old kind were the standard!

You have given yourself at least four problems to solve with your theory, in just this instance (multiplying beyond necessity):
1. When did 5x14 originate, and what is the meaning of the choice of those images?
2. When did 5x16 originate, and what is the meaning of the choice of those images?
3. When was the Devil invented and added in?
4. When did all of this come together to form the standard series?
(and all the attendant questions raised by your scenario)

I have only one problem to solve with my scenario:
1. When did the 22 trumps originate, and what is the meaning of the choice of those images?

Hm ... if you think, that having less questions is better than having only one, don't research. Cause none question is then better than one ...
The whole development of Trionfi and Tarot cards is a matter with changes. Structural changes, motifs changes, rules changes ... and each change is connected to smaller questions, why, who, where etc.. And this would be even so, if you're assumption would be right.

In usual game development the variation is greater at begin in a creative phase and less variating when a final dominating form has been found. For instance chess, which knew many forms, but nowadays is dominated by one strong version. The alternatives partly still exist, but if you speak of chess, everybody assumes, that you know very specific rules and no others. Similar Backgammon, King Alfonso knew a lot of different rules at end of 13th century, but if you play nowadays, players often know some variations, but actually backgammon is played. Part of the "domination by one version" is mass production. The "domination" has the advantage, that players can play at a higher level of strategy, if the rules questions doesn't need to be discussed before game, also the development eliminates bad game qualities by improvement.
It's highly unlikely, that somebody made one game, and it wasn't changed. If you reach your goal and can identify a person, who invented the 22-special-cards-game around 1438, you only move the questions of the
5x14-theory to another time ... and in a time region, where research is considerably more difficult - we don't have documents, as you know.
So, what you're attempting to do ... business with the unknown? Dream-fulfilling phantasy? Prince Fibbia ante portas? The Tarot deck was the mother of the playing cards? Well ... nothing is impossible, the factor of the "unknown stream of development", the big Alpheus, is mighty. And I can tell you, even the old Greek knew something like Tarot, and Tarot has similarity to good old I-Ching and the Egyptians had 22 districts in upper Egyptia and they engraved the heraldics at the fronts and backs of their temples ca. 2400 BC.

But humble me is interested, what one can conclude from really existing contemporary documents. And the
4x14+22-structure in connection to these surviving colorful Trionfi cards simply has no evidence for an early existence.

The evidence of an early 22 is precisely in the surviving decks themselves, which taken as a whole, both Visconti and Charles VI included, contain all the standard subjects but the Devil. The loss of cards is natural and demonstrable for all the decks, so the fact that they are not complete is not a difficult problem to solve.

You prefer to make problems more complex, just for fun. Nothing contradicts an original-22 hypothesis either, even if there is no explicit statement before the undated Steele Sermon that "Tarot has 22 trumps" or "Tarot has 78 cards". The 70 card Ferrara statement is at best an indirect challenge, since it also does not spell out the number of trumps.

The number 70 of 1457 plus the structure of the Michelino deck and additionally the information, that Bembo painted 14 trumps is the only information, that you have for the early time. You may hammer the ground, throw you to bottom like the 3-years-old-toddler occasionally prefer to do so, reality doesn't change, nobody talks of a 22. All these "triumphal processions" take place and they show a lot of creativity, but a recognizable pattern, which indicates close nearness to Tarot motifs and structure can't be detected. They play around with allegorical symbols, and it's not really recognizable, that these playing cards are of great importance for Italian society. Trotti writes 35 pages or so about games, Trionfi cards get a sentence or two. Trionfi cards are a small thing at the border of general life, that's it. And from this small unknown playing card universe you get some single pieces of information, and one of these few golden words says "70 cards" and you say "an indirect challenge", the golden grail of 22 must be elsewhere.

Stupid reality behaves as if this important 22-trumps version doesn't exist. The 70 card note is from Ferrara, and a great part of our documents is from Ferrara. Well, that doesn't matter, let's go to Bologna, there is a great nothing of playing card notes, there we find the real object. A real good nothing cannot contradict.

....

"70 cards" ... there they are.

Sure, you have every right to be proud, and I don't begrudge people agreeing with it, if you can convince them. I don't, that's all. I presume a standard Triumph cards and game, which produced variations of course, but a standard nonetheless. Therefore the 70 cards note is either a variation of the standard (Hurst solution, or, if trumps, my "B" solution in the paper I wrote a while ago on this question), or a mistake of the accountant (my preferred solution).

That has nothing to do with pride, it's a song of clamor and suffering about the stupidity of mankind and about the endless patience you need to explain a few not to difficult logical patterns, which a few persons understood within 5 minutes.

I don't remember, what your B-solution was.

The second holy and stupid believe was the expectation, that whenever in 15th century documents with the word "Trionfi" appeared, that it automatically would mean "Tarot cards in the standard version, with 4x14+22-structure, always and only". Well, this believe got problems with ...

(a) "... eo ludo quem triumphum appellant: cartae quedam oblatae mihi"

(b). "… novum quoddam et exquisitum triumphorum genus."

... both appearing in Marcello's letter from November 13, 1449. It means, that a speaker in 1449 could address cards with quite unusual features, "birds as suit cards, trumps with gods, and only 16 of them and totally probably 60 cards" as a ludus triumphorum.

This situation is unique to this pack, and both he and Polismagna calling it a "Triumphs" is explicable by analogy - it has suits and trumps. Sola Busca might also a "ludus triumphorum", because it has trumps. But it is not the standard. Marcello was comparing Michelino's pack to the standard - the only thing that can explain this is that the structure of the pack was four suits and a suit of trumps, that it was clearly designed that way. This is why he said it was a new kind of triumphs - different from the "old kind" - the old kind were the standard!

If Marcello would have known, that the deck was from 1425, he probably wouldn't have said "new". "Old" was probably that, what Marcello already knew in 1449. Whatever these cards were, there is no indication, that they had 22 special cards. He knew probably the Cary-Yale, as he was responsible for Venetian connection to Francesco Sforza already in 1441/1442. As a diplomat he probably also knew about Ferrarese cards.

Hi Huck,

The lost card argument alone isn’t strong enough for you. Here’s another way to prove that Bembo, extended-Bembo (PMB), and Charles VI both descend from a common group of 22 subjects.

You claim that the Bembo 14 and Charles VI are independent and self-contained, complete series. What are the chances of these two decks being invented around the same time, as independent realizations of the theme of “triumphs”?

On the other hand, what are the chances they are derived from a common group of standard subjects and have lost some cards?

Bembo and Charles VI share 10 of the same subjects:
Fool
Emperor
Pope
Love
Chariot
Justice
Hermit
Hanged Man
Death
Judgement

That is, already 71% of Bembo’s cards are in Charles VI, and 62.5% of Charles VI’s cards are in Bembo. In other words, they share most of their subjects. If trionfi subjects are supposed to be random, freely created according to occasion, calculate the odds. The odds of independent invention and unrelatedness are further reduced when you consider that these 10 are in the same order in both sets (I believe the Tarot de Marseille order being applied to the Bembo 14 is a big part of your argument; and taking the numbers on the Charles VI as correctly being of the A or southern type, since that is the style of the iconography).

When the second painter is added to make the PMB, they share an additional 5 cards, for 15 total:
Fortitude
Temperance
Moon
Sun
World

That is, now 75% of PMB is in Charles VI, and 93% of Charles VI is in PMB. In other words, they share a huge amount of their cards. If PMB had a Tower, 100% of Charles VI would be in the PMB. The only reason that Charles VI and PMB are not identical (besides the Tower), is that Charles VI only has 16 cards, while PMB has 20. Otherwise, the subjects are identical. Another way to put it is that, minus the Tower, Charles VI is exactly 75% of PMB, because 15 cards is 75% of 20 cards.

If trionfi subjects are random and these decks do not derive from a common pool of subjects, in already standard orders, calculate the odds of this perfect level of agreement in subjects and near-perfect in terms of order.

It would be quite a coincidence that the second artist in PMB added cards already in the Charles VI, all in the standard series of 22, and not other subjects not in the standard series of 22. And what a coincidence that Charles VI knew a Tower, which would “later” be part of the standard series. Did the second artist of the PMB just use Charles VI subjects, invent a Star, and drop the Tower as well?

What are the odds that, once increased, Bembo's deck would now have all the remaining subjects of the Charles VI, except for the Tower?

Of course the simplest and only plausible explanation is that both series originally shared the same subjects and the same number of subjects, and both lost some cards. Neither has subjects not in the standard series, and both have the identical subjects, with the exception of PMB lacking a Tower, and Charles VI a Star. Is it more likely that Charles VI never had a Star, nor PMB a Tower, or that both lost one of these cards along the way?

Given that loss is a fact, I think reasonable people will see what the most reasonable answer is.

All of the cards of both sets are in the standard series, so the most logical position is that both sets of cards are based on the imagery common to the standard 22, and have suffered loss of cards.

Additionally we have the numbering on the Charles VI cards, which prove that the person who numbered them had 21 cards in front of him. Given the perfect agreement of subject matter in the extant Charles VI with that of the PMB, I think we can guess what those missing cards were.

... .-) ... I don't know or don't understand, what you'll prove with your calculation. The decks weren't made at the same time and they hadn't the same intention.

The Charles VI. wished to be a chess-analogy with its 16 cards, and the 14 Bembo cards wished to be an analogy to a common suit ... in the eyes of their producers (says my humble opinion). Partly they used the same motifs, which at least partly depends on the condition, that they had forerunner decks with cards, which already had established as "common and occasionally used" playing card motifs. One of these decks is the Cary-Yale, important especially for the Florentine Charles VI, cause the Cary-Yale also had a chess-analogy-intention. But the Florentine deck (Charles VI) replaced cards of the Cary-Yale, the theological virtues Caritas-Spes-Fides were changed to Sun-Moon-Fool (according my opinion), also the Empress was not used, but the Pope (from whom we have no evidence, that he was in Cary-Yale).

The additional six cards (PMB) were - in my opinion - brought from Florence to Milan (May 1465, Lorenzo in Milan), so your observation, that the PMB nearly has all Charles VI motifs, comes from the condition, that a deciding (good) communication took place - then.
But ... Sforza and Bianca knew the Cary-Yale and I would strongly assume, also Pietro de Medici knew the Cary-Yale long before 1463. But they hadn't at specific times the interest to have the same cards, also there is no evidence, that anybody had an interest in 22 special cards. We have evidence or at least indications of evidence for 14 trumps (3 times; Bembo + 1.1.1441 + 70-cards-note 1457) and evidence for 16 (3 times; Michelino, Cary-Yale and Charles VI). At least I see this so.
The parent decks for all these versions were probably Imperatori/Karnöffel cards, which by no mean should have been all similar, likely also with creative variations.
From the Michelino deck we've 16 trumps, and at least partly these trumps weren't later used or variated (by some one cannot be sure, for instance Amor might have mutated to Love etc.). So we have also examples, that motifs disappeared, which once was used.

Ross: Some of the things you criticized me for were things I thought you were saying, and which I was granting as not unreasonable. Thanks for the clarifications. I will go back and look at earlier posts.

Since you didn't know about Antongaleazzo's lawyer credentials, there are perhaps other things you don''t know. Here is a summary, from Ady. In 1412 he received a special grant from John XXIII, to receive the proceeds from the tax levied against moneylenders (i.e. Jews). Ady surmises that it was a reward for his role in putting down a Bolognese revolt against the Papacy the year before. Around the time of his law degree in 1414, Annibale was born out of wedlock. There was considerable doubt as to whether Antongaleazzo or Gaspar Malvesi was the father. On one account, the matter was settled by the dice. Then he went to the Council of Constance, accompanying John XXIII with Batista Canetoli and other Bolognese lawyers (plenty of consciousness of two popes in the Law Faculty!). After John XXIII's imprisonment, he and the others returned and declared a republic. In 1420 Antongaleazzo married Annibale's mother (Gaspar married Antongaleazzo's sister) and also achieved mastery in Bologna. Pope Martin V reacted by imposing an interdict on the city; Antongaleazzo decided that the most prudent course was to remove himself in favor of the Pope and the Canetoli. For 3 years he and his family lived in the Castel Bolognese outside the city. But he was still a rallying point for disaffection, so he "bowed to the inevitable" and in 1423 "went off to seek his fortunes elsewhere," as a condittiere for Florence. In 1426 he and his brother Ercole started serving the Papacy. In 1434 Cosimo di Medici became all-powerful in Florence, and probably as a result of Cosimo's urging, in 1435 Eugenius IV allowed Antongaleazzo and his brother to return. After mass soon after, the papal guards seized and beheaded him.

Now for a different topic. What is your response to Vitali in the following passages? First, from http://www.associazioneletarot.it/The-H ... 1_eng.aspx)

The number of the Triumphal cards at the beginning maybe was composed by 8 allegories, later by 14 and then was finally set on 22, number that in the Christian mystical meaning represents the introduction to the wisdom and the divine teachings engraved in humanity. Such path, that reports a progressive adaptation of these "playing cards" to religious numerological laws, was probably adopted to avoid the sentence of the Church which was continually cast against the card games considered of hazard.

The number 8 comes from Petrarch; the number 14 would correspond to a celestial ladder. Vitali gives a picture with close to 14 rungs, someone climbing the virtues. The number 14 comes from Trionfi, as Vitale says in another essay. But he doesn't construct a specific correspondence between rungs and particular cards.

Then, at http://www.associazioneletarot.it/Bolog ... 9_eng.aspx Vitale describes the move from 14 (arrived at from Trionfi's evidence) to 22:

To be able to understand when this increase happened, in my opinion we need to analyze the so-called Tarots of Charles VI (now in the National Library in Paris) of the second half of the XV century, so called because in the XIX century it was wrongly identified as a deck mentioned in 1392 in a book of counts of the French king. Only 17 cards remain of which 16 Triumphs and the Page of Swords. The order that makes distinguish these cards, to which shortly later were combined Romans numbers, results to be that of the Bolognese Tarot with the Angel to dominate the World and with minor variations in the numbers of cards of the Chariot, Strength and Temperance. In the illustrated scheme (figure 3) their order is compared with the traditional one of Bologna. The substitution of the Popess, of the Pope, of the Emperor and of the Empress with Four Popes, was effected in the XVI century because the four figures possessed a same value of taking.

And finally, after noting the Bolognese merchant in Ferrara:

So, if in 1442 they were illuminated cards and the popular cards of triumphs, this means that their origin is to be found in the preceding decades. It is in fact a formulation based on the historical method of attribution for which, in this case, it is necessary to consider the time needed for this game to become so popular to be produced even as works of art in the greatest Courts of Northern Italy. The dating of the invention of the canonical triumphs is therefore to be anticipated at the first decade of XIV century, a date that corresponds to a series of situations in Bologna from which we can hypothesize that it was that city to give them birth.

I assume that "XIV century" is a mistranslation of "Quattrocento." What I get from this is that Bologna may have been the origin of the 22 (if we can exclude Florence), but that previously there was a 14 trump game, recorded in Ferrara, perhaps brought there from Bologna. That would reconcile all the data. Vitali holds that if there were popular decks there in 1442, the game must have been in Bologna for decades; hence the game started in Bologna.

Here are my own criticisms: (1) Vitali's assignment of the "four papi" to the 16th century is in question if masculine-looking Empresses and Popesses were around earlier. (2) An alternative explanation for why the popular deck was in Bologna (besides the game's being around for decades) is that Bologna was a republic, and the deck had propaganda value for the Bentivoglio from the late 1430''s on, and hence did not need decades. (3) Vitali is short on details. If there were two major waves of printed card production, one with 14 trumps and the other with 22, just when was each, even roughly? The 14 must have been produced at least until the mid-1450’s, for there still to be hand-painted versions in Ferrara in 1457. And in between, could there have been hand-painted versions that added cards, some of which then were later incorporated in the 22-trump edition? And just which cards would the original 14 have been, more or less?

So I am tempted to add my speculations to Vitali’s account, to fill in the blanks and see if they make sense. For example, Milan, for its painted cards, adds 2 to the 14, for its own reasons (the 16-trump Michelino, the 16-card suits, etc.), and creates the CY. Then later Milan adds more, for the PMB.

Another thing I am tempted to add is a construction of what the 14 trump sequence might have looked like, just to be sure it makes sense. Lacking anything better, I will combine the Charles VI, the CY, and the d'Este, as the earliest representatives of the three cities in the 15th century. There are 11 + 16 + 8 = 35 trumps. We have:
2Fools
1Bagatto
1Empress
2 Emperors.
2 Popes.
2 Loves.
2 Chariots.
1 Justice.
1 Hermit.
1 Wheel.
2 Strengths.
1 Hanged Man
2 Deaths.
2 Temperances.
0 Devils.
1 Tower.
1 Hope
1 Faith
1 Charity.
1 Star.
2 Moons.
2 Suns.
2 Angels.
3 Worlds.

Well, I get 36. I made a mistake somewhere, but I can't find it. Ignoring my mistake, I see that my 2's and 3's add up to 12. So let us add the Wheel and Justice, as the trumps most needed to tell the story. So we have Fool, Emperor, Pope, Love, Temperance, Strength, Justice, Chariot, Wheel, Death, Moon, Sun, World, and Angel. Yes, we have a story—from simple obedience to authority, to the inwardly-driven practice of virtue, to life in eternity.

The CY changes Moon to Faith, Sun to Charity, adds Hope and Empress. We still have a story. We have one with many other combinations, too.

To this list, Milan adds what I call the “ancestor” cards: the Popess, for Sister Manfreda; the Hermit, for grandfather Amadeo; the Hanged Man, for grandfather Muzio. (In between being a duke and being a pope, Amadeo of Savoy was a hermit.) The printer in Bologna (the Microsoft of 15th century tarot) says, “Great,” and adds them to his next edition, along with others that other places have added, with names like Bagatto, Empress, Star, Devil, and Tower. He makes Empress and Popess suitably androgynous, to appeal to the local cynics and commemorate Annibale and Antongaleazzo.(Annibale’s tomb was done in 1458.) Fortunately he has secured a monopoly in this business, one way or another.

I don't know if this way of fleshing out Vitali's thesis is ridiculous or not. Maybe somebody can do better.

So I have another question, Ross, having to do with the invention of the Popess. It seems to me that if one assumes, with Vitali, that the numbers on the Charles VI cards reflect their original order and not just a later one, then the Devil is established as an original card in that deck but not the Popess, omitted by personal preference of the commissioner, just as, in the PMB, the Tower and Devil are omitted by personal preference. This strengthens the idea that the jump from 14 was to 22 and not to 21 and then a later jump to 22. I presume that one reason you don't say that the numbers in the Charles VI reflect the original order, is that you say that the Popess was invented in Florence. But the evidence for her invention is in Milan: the PMB figure, plus, historically, the Visconti ancestor and Boccaccio's Famous Women, describing Pope Joan, in the Pavia library, corresponding to the foot popping out like a baby in the Fournier version. Could you explain why you say that Florence invented the Popess?

”Summus Pontifex Iulius belligeratur, uincit, triumphat, planeque Iulium agit”

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
I don't know if there is an earlier one, since Giovio died in 1552 (it may have been only published posthumously).

However, I found it slightly earlier in Gabriele Simeoni (without Giovio's name), Le sententiose imprese, et dialogo del Symeone (Lyon, 1560). I thought it was very much worthy of comparison with the World card of the Beaux-Arts sheet, c. 1500, which is attributed to Bologna.

....The Beaux-Arts sheet, the earliest example of the established Bolognese tradition, stands apart from these other examples of the A or southern tradition - even though it represents Fame, it also represents a certain kind of fame, not just a standard personification of it. This is "Imperial Fame", just like in the Giovio-Simeoni example.

Does the Beaux-Arts World reflect the original Bolognese tradition, or is it a change made to the design, and the original looked more like a female personification of Fame/Glory? My own belief is that it reflects the earliest Bolognese tradition, and this belief rests on the conservatism of the Bolognese tradition.

The Bibliothèque de l'École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts / Rothschild Sheets are dated late fifteenth early sixteenth century. In the early sixteenth we have the circumstance of the 'liberation' of Bologna by Pope Julius II, a circumstance that may have been reflected in changes to any Bolognese design.

“Pope Julius II (1503-13), who took his name from Julius Caesar, set out to rival Caesar’s triumphs in a reign of unabashed belligerence. The humanist Francisco Albertini commemorated the two triumphs celebrating Julius’s victories over Venice, enthusiastically tracing the parallels between pope and Caesar:

”I pray that, like the other completely invincible Julius, of whom it was written in his third triumph, ‘I came; I saw; I conquered’, Your Holiness may be able to repeat the same words in a triumph of the cross of Christ. Even though the two triumphs that I have spoken of revived the ceremony in a very fine manner, I shall add a third, which will be the greatest of all, a triumph for victory over those infidels, the treacherous Mahometans.”
(Miller, p. 45)

“Rather than try his luck in battle, Giovanni Bentivoglio – whom Julius for good measure had also excommunicated – fled Bologna as papal detachements neared the city, thereby ending forty-three years of his personal rule and the century-long Bentivoglio signoria. In a single campaigning season the warrior pope had thus dramatically accomplished his ambition to re-estabilsh direct papal rule to Umbria adn Emilia-Romagna. Or as the inscription read on the coins tossed to the Bolognese on 11 November 1506, while Julius was carried on his sedia gestatoria through thirteen hastily constructed triumphal arches to the cathedral of S. Pietro: BON[ONIAM] P[APA] IVL[IVS] A TIRANO LIBERAT.

“Erasmus, who witnessed Julius’s entry into Bologna as its “Liberator,” looked askance at the pope’s warrior prowess: the Supreme Pontiff Julius wages war, wins victories, celebrates triumphs, and acts wholly like Julius [Caesar). (Stinger, p.236 / Miller, p.45)

SteveM

The Renaissance in Rome by Charles L. Stinger
Roman Triumphs and Early Modern English Culture by Anthony Miller

SteveM wrote:”Summus Pontifex Iulius belligeratur, uincit, triumphat, planeque Iulium agit”

Interesting thesis Steve; it's very plausible. We can trace some changes over time in the Bolognese iconography: the menacing Devil of the BAR and the Agnolo Hebreo cards are substituted with a somewhat less menacing Devil (he's not eating people) - if we take Hebreo to be "late 16th century" (the only suggestions I can find), then this change happened around 1600, probably as a natural evolution which all cardmakers adopted; the figures on the Star change - the main figure adopts a papal tiara, the orb behind the main figure's head is lost, the two other figures gradually assume crowns, and lately the central imperial crown has become an orb (without a cross) - these also are natural, internal evolution; the figure on the World is definitely interpreted as Mercury, being given a real caduceus and winged shoes, since the 17th century at least. It is therefore not implausible at all that the figure on the World card in the BAR sheets was a deliberate change adopted by all Bolognese cardmakers.

Thus we are back looking for the only hint in the painted Florentine cards, Charles VI and Catania, for what the original design implied, and it is certainly not a "Last Emperor" in these cards. I have interpreted this figure as "apotheosis", eternal fame and glory of the triumphant soul. The transfiguration to an armed Julius is not innappropriate here at all.

If I have any qualms at all, it is only that there is no hint of papal identification in the BAR figure. But he was known, famously or infamously, as the warrior-pope, so maybe that is not much of a problem. Especially if the cardmakers didn't want to make too pointed a reference, verging on caricature.

So... I'll have to think about this, especially in relation to the apocalyptic interpretation of the final section and the imagery in the BAR sheets.

Thanks very much.

Ross