Andrea Vitali recently wrote about a tarocchi apropriati from 1648, by Bartolomeo Bocchini (Bologna 1604 - Bergamo or Venice 1648/1653), in which Chariot is before the virtues: http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=881. The papi are omitted; instead, where they would be, he put the Matto. That was either on purpose, with a sly aspersion on the papi, or because he thought his story needed to end by his comparing himself with the "Bagattin". Otherwise the order is standard Bolognese, both in order and in the names of the subjects.

Thanks for drawing our attention to Vitali's article! Definitely a very interesting addition to the Bolognese evidence. Vitali says that the original date of the work is unknown—the edition from 1648 is the third printing (the book itself actually says this on the title page: "Terza impressione") and Vitali mentions a second edition from 1646, but the first printed edition is lost, and apparently the work was circulating in manuscript form beforehand as well. But given how close together the second and third editions were, it seems likely the first edition wasn't much earlier than 1645. The manuscript might have been written not too long before that—maybe sometime in the years after 1635, which Vitali gives as the terminus ante quem for the earlier Part 1 of the work. At the latest, it must have been written at least a few years before 1646.

So this is a second Bolognese list of trumps from before that mid-17th century period which Cuppi identified as the time of a significant revival in tarot's popularity among the literate classes. And as it has the Chariot in the same position as Croce's list, it definitely strengthens the case for dating the Pedini manuscript to no earlier than that mid-17th century revival.

Nathaniel wrote,

And as it has the Chariot in the same position as Croce's list, it definitely strengthens the case for dating the Pedini manuscript to no earlier than that mid-17th century revival.

Where do you see that? Chariot is between Amore and Tempra, the standard position before the virtues. https://archive.org/details/laprimaseco ... up?q=Carro. Croce's was different, Chariot after Fortezza, so after the virtues. posting.php?mode=reply&f=12&t=1899#pr23009

Thanks for pointing out that the piece could have been written as early as a little after 1635, the date of part 1.

mikeh wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2021, 10:22

Nathaniel wrote,

And as it has the Chariot in the same position as Croce's list, it definitely strengthens the case for dating the Pedini manuscript to no earlier than that mid-17th century revival.

Where do you see that? Chariot is between Amore and Tempra, the standard position before the virtues. https://archive.org/details/laprimaseco ... up?q=Carro. Croce's was different, Chariot after Fortezza, so after the virtues. posting.php?mode=reply&f=12&t=1899#pr23009

Oops! Yes, of course, you're right. I was getting the change in the order the wrong way around. I've been a little unfocused lately... So this Bocchini poem actually means that the change in the order must have happened by about 1630 or so, and the Pedini manuscript could therefore still theoretically date from around the time of Croce, at the earliest (but could also be from the mid-17th century or later).

Huck recently wrote in another thread, at viewtopic.php?p=23285#p23285

According Andrea Vitali and an expert for the history of costums Dr. Elisabetta Gnignera: "The work was painted by an unknown artist around the 30s of the 17th century."

I do not know what by Andrea Huck is referencing, but it seems plausible. If so, that is another reason for locating the "Bolognese order" as being created in the period between 1600 and 1640 or so: the cards were redrawn in the 1630s. That would be a good time to promote a slightly different order of trumps. Perhaps that is when the game of tarocchini was born, and the lack of distinction between titles for the "papi" was introduced (I do not mean the "equal papi" rule, which it seems to me could easily have preceded such a change).

http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=107&lng=ENG
"The work was painted by an unknown artist around the 30s of the 17th century (1). "
"1 - The dating of the painting is by Dr. Elisabetta Gnignera, our scientific consultant and one of the leading international experts in the history of costum."

Thanks, Huck. You originally had "the work", which I misinterpreted, forgetting the context, as "the deck", when in fact it was the Fibbia painting that the costumes date. So ignore what I said above: it was based on my misinterpretation.