a point of error

#21
Well, might be better to discuss it here ...

First a point, which might cause confusion.

The site Tretre meanwhile has this passage: "La corte di Ferrara acquistò a Bologna un mazzo di trionfi-tarocchi nel 1442."
http://www.tretre.it/menu/accademia-del ... .html#c485

This sounds, as if the cards for the boys were bought July 1442 in Bologna.

However, the earlier state of research at Trionfi was this:
"Burdochi, Marchione from Bologna
appears in document 02

The earliest mention of the phrase "chartexele da trionffi" occurs in carta 33, of the "Account of Debits B",(document 01) in volume 4 of the Guardaroba of the Camera Ducale Estense, in the Archivio di Stato di Modena, dated 10 February, 1442. This volume covers the entire calendar year (January - December) of 1442, as edited by Adriano Franceschini in 1993 ("Artisti a Ferrara in età umanistica e rinascimentale", Corbo, Ferrara-Roma, 1993, no. 841 (pp. 221-222)).

This volume of the Guardaroba accounts also appears to contain the first mention of "Marchione Burdochio da Bologna, merzaro", who appears in carta 5, dated January 2. He is being paid for bringing fabrics (taffetà), to be used by Sagramoro to prepare "standards and banners for the sepulcher" of Niccolo d'Este, who had died a week before.

On March 8 of 1442 (from a different account book, the "Amministrazione dei principi" A, "Regnati" 4, Memoriale; carta 30: Franceschini ibid. no. 482b (p. 223), Marchione is mentioned having supplied fabric for pennants to Sagramoro. No payment is noted.

He seems to have become useful to the court. On July 27 (carta 135 of volume 4 again), he is credited Lire XII, soldi XVIIII, denari VI for bringing more taffetà, this time so that Sagramoro can paint a depiction of the upcoming feast of the Assumption of Our Lady (August 15).

The day after, July 28, he is paid soldi XII denari III for a pack of carte da trionfi, given to the servant Iacomo "the cross-eyed" for the use of the boys Ercole and Sigismondo (this is also recorded on carta 135 of the Guardaroba volume 4, but (no doubt) because Marchione Burdochio is a merchant, not an artist, Franceschini did not include the reference in the 1993 volume. He published it in his 1996 article "Note d'archivio sulle carte ferraresi" in _Ludica_ 2, p. 170).

On September 12 (carta 216 of the same volume), Marchione Burdochio is credited for the "tranza de folexolo", coloured red, green and white, that he was supplying to Sagramoro between March 8 and December 11, for the latter to make around 24 pennants with the arms of the Signore. Giovanni di Pavia is mentioned in connection with him.

On December 20, Sagramoro is paid for the pennants and Burdochio is mentioned in passing, again with "Zuhane de Pavia".

After this year, 1442, Marchione Burdochio appears to drop from the picture.

It is interesting note that the first and second mentions of carte da trionfi are in 1442, the first occurs at the same time Sagramoro was getting materials from Marchione for other projects, and the second concerns a deck Marchione himself supplied to the court. After these entries, there is a lull of 7 years in the Este records, and there appear to be no records of carte da trionfi anywhere else.

...

(Ross Gregory Caldwell)"
According this Burdochi or Burdochio was in Ferrara at 27th July (so "in Ferrara") and at 28th the cards were bought (so also in Ferrara, probably the opportunity, that Burdochi was in Ferrara, was used to acquire the deck).

Anyway ... the link to Burdochio is only given by Ortalli, not by Francesschini. Do you meanwhile have better informations?
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: a point of error

#22
Huck wrote: First a point, which might cause confusion.

The site Tretre meanwhile has this passage: "La corte di Ferrara acquistò a Bologna un mazzo di trionfi-tarocchi nel 1442."
http://www.tretre.it/menu/accademia-del ... .html#c485

This sounds, as if the cards for the boys were bought July 1442 in Bologna.
Yes, this is a mistake by the writer of that line. If it is Girolamo Zorli, he is a Bolognese himself, so he may be forgiven for some excitement :) However, it should be corrected.
According this Burdochi or Burdochio was in Ferrara at 27th July (so "in Ferrara") and at 28th the cards were bought (so also in Ferrara, probably the opportunity, that Burdochi was in Ferrara, was used to acquire the deck).

Anyway ... the link to Burdochio is only given by Ortalli, not by Francesschini. Do you meanwhile have better informations?
Yes, this is in the list of references you quoted -
The day after, July 28, he is paid soldi XII denari III for a pack of carte da trionfi, given to the servant Iacomo "the cross-eyed" for the use of the boys Ercole and Sigismondo (this is also recorded on carta 135 of the Guardaroba volume 4, but (no doubt) because Marchione Burdochio is a merchant, not an artist, Franceschini did not include the reference in the 1993 volume. He published it in his 1996 article "Note d'archivio sulle carte ferraresi" in _Ludica_ 2, p. 170).
It is a short article a little earlier than Ortalli's in the volume. Remember that Franceschini did not transcribe the entire archives - only those entries concerning artists and artistic commissions. As a merchant doing other things, there may be much more on Marchione in those records.
Image

Re: a point of error

#23
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: It is a short article a little earlier than Ortalli's in the volume. Remember that Franceschini did not transcribe the entire archives - only those entries concerning artists and artistic commissions. As a merchant doing other things, there may be much more on Marchione in those records.
Well, we have then (for the moment) still no direct evidence for a relation between the Bolognese merchant Burdochi and the deal of the card deck to the one-eyed servant ... only the word of Ortalli. For a deciding fact, which is placed in many arguments and heavily discussed, that's not good enough ... is there no way to improve this? Perhaps with e help of Zorli, who should be interested?

Judging by research for Burdochi or Burdochio in the search engine, there is absolutely nothing. Burdochi is a very rare name.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: a point of error

#24
Huck wrote: Well, we have then (for the moment) still no direct evidence for a relation between the Bolognese merchant Burdochi and the deal of the card deck to the one-eyed servant ... only the word of Ortalli. For a deciding fact, which is placed in many arguments and heavily discussed, that's not good enough ... is there no way to improve this? Perhaps with e help of Zorli, who should be interested?
Franceschini writes: "Alla carta 135, in data 28 luglio, tra gli accrediti a Marchione Burdochi merzaro trovo registrato: 'E adi dicto per uno paro de carte da trionfi; ave Iacomo guerzo famelio per uxo de Messer Erchules e Sigismondo frateli de lo Signore. Apare mandato a c___,………… L. 0.XII.III' [Franceschini 1996:170; cf. Bertoni 1917:220 note 3]

(on carta/page 135, dated 28 July, among the credits to Marchione Burdochi, merzaro, is found registered...)

This is where Ortalli gets the idea that Iacomo guerzo was given money to pay Marchione for a pack of triumph cards. This was his function, where he is noted in the records. Franceschini writes of Iacomo - "Quanto a Iacomo guerzo, era uno dei 'famegli' addetto a servizi vari più umili, reservandosi ai paggi i più nobili." (As for Iacomo guerzo, he was one of the 'servants' charged with various of the more humble tasks, reserving the more noble to the pages."). He then goes on to list some of the errands Iacomo carried out.

I don't think you can read that Iacomo guerzo was a painter (or the entry would have said so, or he would have other things noted in Franceschini, since painters and other artisans were his precise concern), so the only reasonable conclusion to this article being "among the credits to Marchinoe Burdochi", is that Iacomo was given money to pay Marchione for the cards for the use of Ercole and Sigismondo, i.e. exactly as Ortalli reads it. He was given money to go get the cards and bring them back.
Judging by research for Burdochi or Burdochio in the search engine, there is absolutely nothing. Burdochi is a very rare name.
I don't know. I think he is not interested to do archival work himself. I haven't talked with him in awhile, but I will consider asking him what he thinks next time I do. He knows a real archival scholar, Lorenzo Cuppi, so maybe we can get some more information (don't count on it soon though).

Ross
Image

Re: Bolognese sequence

#25
I try to understand, what you wished to argument about an invention in Bologna in 1439.

From Piscina 1565 in Piemont we know for the first time of the 4 Papi rule ... the same rule is found (later ?) in Bologna. You conclude, that there is "far distance" and "no historic near political connection" recognizable, and you conclude, ergo it must have been an old rule. Part of the argument is the position of the Angel as high trump.

The "two popes" and "two emperors" (the papi) guide you back to the date of 1439, when a second pope Felix is elected and one could somehow talk of "2 popes" and "2 emperors" at the same time.

This is quite an impressive jump-back-argument, stretching about 126 years from "first sure evidence" to assumed context of origin - naturally a little bit insecure. But as far rules are concerned, we cannot overlook, that not very much is known in the early time and that it is hardly imaginable, that they played without rules, so your attempt is justified.

Let's observe the phenomenon from another perspective. The term Tarocchino ...
"The oldest note of Tarocchino is a manuscript mentioned by Pissarri and Vincenzo Maria Pedini. These two men report a document (and called it "ancient") that probably is from the beginning of the XVI century. Nobody has found this manuscript.
Cfr: L. Cuppi, Tarocchino Bolognese: due nuovi manoscritti scoperti e alcune osservazioni, The playing card, 30, 2001-2002, pag.84"
private note of Andrea Vitali

... is from a time near to Piscina 1565. "Tarocchino" (small Tarocchi) expresses, that the Tarot is reduced in its cards, only 62 are used. All 2-3-4-5 cards don't exist.
And the trumps No.s 2-3-4-5 jump from the usual hierarchy, now being all of the same rank.

So we've twice the sequence 2-3-4-5 appearing in this deck structure and its rules and we may ask if this is an accident. Probably not, somehow this should be related. "Either these special features appeared at the same time by one inventor, or one feature dragged the other to appear also", seems to be plausible alternatives. If there was
only one inventor, your theory gets trouble, if Tarocchino was mentioned rather late for the first time. The other possibilities allow, that there was something earlier about the Papi, which later was friendly adapted to a system with missing small arcana.

There is something earlier about the 2-3-4-5 in other rules and it seems, that you overlooked it.
Ross wrote:I think Karnöffel is relevant - I think, if it is the "Emperor's game" it may have suggested the idea of permanent trumps to Filippo Maria at least, and also why not to other people? It was being made in Florence in the early 1420s, perhaps as a kind of German suited cards, maybe the 5x13, or maybe just a four-suited pack for playing the "Emperor" (German)'s game.
Yes, Karnöffel. The trumps 2-3-4-5 are not "Papi", but Kaiser (Emperor). These 4 Kaiser have a hierarchy in the rules (each can trump in specific regions of the other cards, but are bounded to the suits) so it's different than the Bolognese-Piemont.

This rule is clear with 1537, but somehow present in the indications around 1490, obscure in the poem of Meisner ca. 1450 and in 1426 we've the note, that Karnöffel exists - in a time, when also the Imperatori cards exist. But we don't know the rules of this time.
But we are before 1439 in 1426.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Bolognese sequence

#26
Huck wrote:I try to understand, what you wished to argument about an invention in Bologna in 1439.

From Piscina 1565 in Piemont we know for the first time of the 4 Papi rule ... the same rule is found (later ?) in Bologna. You conclude, that there is "far distance" and "no historic near political connection" recognizable, and you conclude, ergo it must have been an old rule. Part of the argument is the position of the Angel as high trump.

The "two popes" and "two emperors" (the papi) guide you back to the date of 1439, when a second pope Felix is elected and one could somehow talk of "2 popes" and "2 emperors" at the same time.

This is quite an impressive jump-back-argument, stretching about 126 years from "first sure evidence" to assumed context of origin - naturally a little bit insecure. But as far rules are concerned, we cannot overlook, that not very much is known in the early time and that it is hardly imaginable, that they played without rules, so your attempt is justified.
Remember that my argument for the date of "within 5 years of 1442" is based on sound inference from the plotting of the data, not theory or circumstantial evidence.

My attempt to get a more precise date takes me into theory. Then I look for circumstantial evidence to support an interpretation of the iconography.

I don't look for interesting social events and then say that tarot would look good there. First I look for a date, the closest I feel comfortable saying is rational and reasonable inference from the facts - then I let myself look more closely at the situation right on the ground, to see if I can go any further in the dark. I ended up in the situation of 1437 and onward for a few years, of which you know at least the outline of the players and the events.

If I had gone the other way and wanted really two Emperors and two Popes, 1410 would be better, since there really were 3 Popes at this time and two German kings, if not exactly Emperors, when Sigmund and Wenceslas had joint rule. But I cannot accept 1410 as a date for carte da trionfi, so I have to pass on it.

For the rule, Piscina is the first one to state it explicitly. Of course, we don't have any description of Tarot rules that are actually dated until 1637, and these are French rules. Before that is only inference from fragments, and the undated "ancient" rules alluded to by Pedini and Pisarri. The earliest "rule" we might have is Trotti, who says Triumphs is best played in two pairs, two against two. The Borromeo fresco shows that the direction of play was counterclockwise, as it still is in most Tarot games. Marcello unfortunately gives no hint of counting rules or order of play - he assumes Isabelle will figure it out. It must have been obvious it was a trick taking game, but things like "combinations" and "sequences", let alone subtle rules like equal papi or Bagato as a wild card, would not be easy to invent.

Inference can be strong, however. There is no reason to reject the Bolognese rules being original and ancient, since Bologna's iconography is highly resistant to change and the Pedini rules are still preserved at the core of the modern Bolognese game of Ottocento. More than that, Piedmont has many Bolognese features.

This is important, because Piedmont was already importing French (Avignon) cards in 1505 - it is our earliest reference to "taraux". They were importing cards, but likely not rules. Why not? Because they persisted to play with a high Angel and equal Papi EVEN WHEN playing with cards numbered with the Tarot de Marseille numbers! This has to indicate that Piedmont had the game for enough time before importing French cards, that the change in card style didn't affect them very much. Was Avignon making Bolognese style cards then? Or did the Piedmontese have such a deep attachment to their by-then traditional style of play, with those Bolognese characteristics, that a very different kind of iconography and order didn't affect their play much. I think the latter of course.

The upshot is that to become so widespread and traditional in PIedmont by 1505, means several decades at least. So we have *indirect* evidence of the equal-papi rule in the late 15th century, if not the mid-15th century. The only way out of this conclusion is to say that the PIemontese invented these rules at some time, and Bologna adopted it, but that seems a priori out of the question, given Bologna's conservatism, not to mention the fact that there is no evidence of a PIedmontese influence on Bologna that could account for it.
Let's observe the phenomenon from another perspective. The term Tarocchino ...
"The oldest note of Tarocchino is a manuscript mentioned by Pissarri and Vincenzo Maria Pedini. These two men report a document (and called it "ancient") that probably is from the beginning of the XVI century. Nobody has found this manuscript.
Cfr: L. Cuppi, Tarocchino Bolognese: due nuovi manoscritti scoperti e alcune osservazioni, The playing card, 30, 2001-2002, pag.84"
private note of Andrea Vitali
Cuppi believes Pedini's source should be mid-16th century (not early, that I know of), but otherwise right. Dummett and McLeod say that to be conservative, they are going to date it "late 16th century" (hardly a difference, but whatever). In any case, it is earlier than the French Tarot rules.
... is from a time near to Piscina 1565. "Tarocchino" (small Tarocchi) expresses, that the Tarot is reduced in its cards, only 62 are used. All 2-3-4-5 cards don't exist.
This is not exactly true. The Bolognese Primiera cards are exactly the same "pattern" (usually determined by the court cards) as the Bolognese Tarocchino cards, and Primiera has pips 1-7, and three court cards. So these pips still existed, and persist, in another local game. The same makers just bundled cards differently for two different local games. Bolognese Tarot players just didn't see the need for all those pips, and the shortened game gained in favour so much that it eclipsed the 78 card version. But those pips stayed in Bologna, in the same pattern (it is unique to Bologna, like so many regional patterns in Italy) as the pips in the tarocchino pack (Primiera and Tarocchino share three court cards and the Aces, 6s and 7s, so they can be compared easily).
And the trumps No.s 2-3-4-5 jump from the usual hierarchy, now being all of the same rank.

So we've twice the sequence 2-3-4-5 appearing in this deck structure and its rules and we may ask if this is an accident. Probably not, somehow this should be related. "Either these special features appeared at the same time by one inventor, or one feature dragged the other to appear also", seems to be plausible alternatives. If there was
only one inventor, your theory gets trouble, if Tarocchino was mentioned rather late for the first time. The other possibilities allow, that there was something earlier about the Papi, which later was friendly adapted to a system with missing small arcana.

There is something earlier about the 2-3-4-5 in other rules and it seems, that you overlooked it.
I don't really follow this reasoning - I just see Tarocchino as a shortened tarot game, like many others. I don't see why the symbolism of the pip numbers in any sense had to play a part. Why did Primiera get rid of the 8, 9 and 10?
It's a very fanciful connection - or rather, I'd say it is fanciful to connect this apparent coincidence. The traditional Piedmont game uses 78 cards still, all the pips are there - if the equal papi rule was invented when the pips were removed, why didn't Piedmont follow suit? This line of reasoning would actually support the antiquity of the equal-Papi rule - at least in place when 78 card tarot was still played in Bologna.
Ross wrote:I think Karnöffel is relevant - I think, if it is the "Emperor's game" it may have suggested the idea of permanent trumps to Filippo Maria at least, and also why not to other people? It was being made in Florence in the early 1420s, perhaps as a kind of German suited cards, maybe the 5x13, or maybe just a four-suited pack for playing the "Emperor" (German)'s game.
Yes, Karnöffel. The trumps 2-3-4-5 are not "Papi", but Kaiser (Emperor). These 4 Kaiser have a hierarchy in the rules (each can trump in specific regions of the other cards, but are bounded to the suits) so it's different than the Bolognese-Piemont.

This rule is clear with 1537, but somehow present in the indications around 1490, obscure in the poem of Meisner ca. 1450 and in 1426 we've the note, that Karnöffel exists - in a time, when also the Imperatori cards exist. But we don't know the rules of this time.
But we are before 1439 in 1426.
Again, my dating is working inward from a date deduced from solid evidence, all the facts plotted. I'm not looking for conceptual cognates or symbolism to fix a date for the possible invention of tarot. Of course it could have happened at nearly any time after the introduction of cards in Europe. I'm looking for a good jumping off point for starting to make conjectures, and "after 1437" is something I'm relying on.

Look at the chart of the evidence, and put a dot where you think it might have been invented. The further you get from the late 1430s, the more isolated it looks. That's fine, except there is *no good reason* for it to be so isolated. There is as much archival, chronicles, and other documentary material, and paper remains, from the 1420s and 1430s as there are from the 1440s and 1450s - why do we only get information from the 1440s and 1450s (and onward)?
Image

Re: Bolognese sequence

#27
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: Remember that my argument for the date of "within 5 years of 1442" is based on sound inference from the plotting of the data, not theory or circumstantial evidence.
How else could you justify, that we have in Bologna one single half-proven piece of evidence with Marchione Burdochi with a preceding piece of playing card evidence in 1427 and following piece in 1459? This are 32 years without playing card notes, if not counting Marchione Burdochi.
Well, we will not change, that Bologna is near to Ferrara and there are playing cards. Also we will not change, that 1441/1442 is the hot spot for Trionfi card development and 1439 is near to it.
My attempt to get a more precise date takes me into theory. Then I look for circumstantial evidence to support an interpretation of the iconography.
I don't look for interesting social events and then say that tarot would look good there. First I look for a date, the closest I feel comfortable saying is rational and reasonable inference from the facts - then I let myself look more closely at the situation right on the ground, to see if I can go any further in the dark. I ended up in the situation of 1437 and onward for a few years, of which you know at least the outline of the players and the events.
Well, no doubt, it makes sense to become acquainted with the history around the secure dates, when studying playing card history.
If I had gone the other way and wanted really two Emperors and two Popes, 1410 would be better, since there really were 3 Popes at this time and two German kings, if not exactly Emperors, when Sigmund and Wenceslas had joint rule. But I cannot accept 1410 as a date for carte da trionfi, so I have to pass on it.
Well, you're looking for the relevance of a specific feature - the Papi-rule - not for the complete Trionfi deck. So I don't see a reason to drop 1410 out of the calculation and I also don't see a reason not to observe 1378. One Emperor died (Charles IV), another (Wenzel, only king) arrives and we got two popes in this year, a problem, which dominated the European scene till 1415. And - more important - just at this time Europe started to play cards in greater dimensions.
So the assuzmption, that something with popes + emperors developed just at this "very early" time and later became more famous as Imperatori and later Papi cards and was also involved in the new mode of Trionfi card production, leads to a possible interpretation.
For the rule, Piscina is the first one to state it explicitly. Of course, we don't have any description of Tarot rules that are actually dated until 1637, and these are French rules. Before that is only inference from fragments, and the undated "ancient" rules alluded to by Pedini and Pisarri. The earliest "rule" we might have is Trotti, who says Triumphs is best played in two pairs, two against two. The Borromeo fresco shows that the direction of play was counterclockwise, as it still is in most Tarot games. Marcello unfortunately gives no hint of counting rules or order of play - he assumes Isabelle will figure it out. It must have been obvious it was a trick taking game, but things like "combinations" and "sequences", let alone subtle rules like equal papi or Bagato as a wild card, would not be easy to invent.

Inference can be strong, however. There is no reason to reject the Bolognese rules being original and ancient, since Bologna's iconography is highly resistant to change and the Pedini rules are still preserved at the core of the modern Bolognese game of Ottocento. More than that, Piedmont has many Bolognese features.
A resistant iconography is found for many mass produced decks with woodcut technique. Early woodcut use for trionfi is only postulated, not documented. Bolognese decks for the early time are missing ... :-) ... one cannot turn the same things round and round and finally conclude, now it's very old. We've two older entries, Marchione Burdochi and 1459, not more. We've signs of starting mass production in Bologna in 1477. We've a Papi-feature, which might be already a part of the Imperatori decks phase, so it's not specific Bolognese, but possibly already part of the broader stream ... we have Papi-signs in Bologna, Florence and Piemont and in Karnöffel.
...

The Bolognese Primiera cards are exactly the same "pattern" (usually determined by the court cards) as the Bolognese Tarocchino cards, and Primiera has pips 1-7, and three court cards. So these pips still existed, and persist, in another local game. The same makers just bundled cards differently for two different local games.
... .-) we research Trionfi decks, not necessarily other variants of card decks (which naturally also existed). In the case of the Tarocchino the special handling of 2-3-4-5 is the topic.


Huck wrote: Yes, Karnöffel. The trumps 2-3-4-5 are not "Papi", but Kaiser (Emperor). These 4 Kaiser have a hierarchy in the rules (each can trump in specific regions of the other cards, but are bounded to the suits) so it's different than the Bolognese-Piemont.

This rule is clear with 1537, but somehow present in the indications around 1490, obscure in the poem of Meisner ca. 1450 and in 1426 we've the note, that Karnöffel exists - in a time, when also the Imperatori cards exist. But we don't know the rules of this time.
But we are before 1439 in 1426.
Again, my dating is working inward from a date deduced from solid evidence, all the facts plotted. I'm not looking for conceptual cognates or symbolism to fix a date for the possible invention of tarot. Of course it could have happened at nearly any time after the introduction of cards in Europe. I'm looking for a good jumping off point for starting to make conjectures, and "after 1437" is something I'm relying on.

Look at the chart of the evidence, and put a dot where you think it might have been invented. The further you get from the late 1430s, the more isolated it looks. That's fine, except there is *no good reason* for it to be so isolated. There is as much archival, chronicles, and other documentary material, and paper remains, from the 1420s and 1430s as there are from the 1440s and 1450s - why do we only get information from the 1440s and 1450s (and onward)?
We cannot really mix the dating of the Papi-feature with the problem, if specific decks were called "Trionfi decks" (which has a specific dating). Nor can we bind it to decks with 22 special cards exclusively.
Also one cannot fix on the "same rank-feature" as very special ... this is simply a special handling of the trumping rule, it appears for instance also in Doppelkopf in specific rounds (not in all). It's just a feature (though a little rare) in trick taking games. "If two or more Moors are played to a trick and no higher trump is played then the last Moor played wins." In Doppelkopf the rule is "Zweite Dulle sticht die erste".
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Bolognese sequence

#28
This is fascinating gentlemen. I wish I could contribute, but am very much enjoying the conversation.

:popcorn
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Bolognese sequence

#29
Huck wrote:
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: Remember that my argument for the date of "within 5 years of 1442" is based on sound inference from the plotting of the data, not theory or circumstantial evidence.
How else could you justify, that we have in Bologna one single half-proven piece of evidence with Marchione Burdochi with a preceding piece of playing card evidence in 1427 and following piece in 1459? This are 32 years without playing card notes, if not counting Marchione Burdochi.
You're missing my point with that paragraph - the dating within 5 years has nothing at all to do with Bologna, or any other center. It is an inference based on the pattern of evidence when it is charted chronologically.

As I said on my blog when I posted some considerations on it, the chart - in the form it is laid out - gives no indication at all that I can see from where the diffusion of the game began. In order to go further, since there is no direct evidence, a daring soul has to use other methods. Those other methods are not so easy to argue, and naturally rely upon persuasion to make friends. The old rhetorical techniques. I'm not so good at them, and neither has been most anybody who has tried.

But the dating - that I can show graphically. The important point to remember is that the 1430s are not a "dark age", neither are the 1420s. Compared to the 1440s and 1450s, they are equal - so given the amount of data from the first ten, twenty or thirty years after 1442, we have a *right* to expect some piece of evidence for carte da trionfi in at least *some* decade or two, or three before 1442. In 135 years of research, some very determined, it has not shown up. If it does, I predict within five years of 1442, and I will bet on - for the sake of the game - within three years. Some people prefer hidden decades of development - what can I say?
Well, we will not change, that Bologna is near to Ferrara and there are playing cards. Also we will not change, that 1441/1442 is the hot spot for Trionfi card development and 1439 is near to it.
That is true, but I'm not arguing arbitrarily. The dating method doesn't say anything about origins outside of suggesting that it was in Ferrara or Milan. It takes historical or circumstantial considerations to sift the data further - back to arguable methodologies.

I'm happy when you say "for the name carte da trionfi, you may be right", because that's all I'm saying. We differ in that I think the name and the thing appear together. There may have been precedents, but they weren't what the 1442 Ferrara records, or any subsequent records, meant by carte da trionfi.
If I had gone the other way and wanted really two Emperors and two Popes, 1410 would be better, since there really were 3 Popes at this time and two German kings, if not exactly Emperors, when Sigmund and Wenceslas had joint rule. But I cannot accept 1410 as a date for carte da trionfi, so I have to pass on it.
Well, you're looking for the relevance of a specific feature - the Papi-rule - not for the complete Trionfi deck. So I don't see a reason to drop 1410 out of the calculation and I also don't see a reason not to observe 1378. One Emperor died (Charles IV), another (Wenzel, only king) arrives and we got two popes in this year, a problem, which dominated the European scene till 1415. And - more important - just at this time Europe started to play cards in greater dimensions.
So the assuzmption, that something with popes + emperors developed just at this "very early" time and later became more famous as Imperatori and later Papi cards and was also involved in the new mode of Trionfi card production, leads to a possible interpretation.
At one time I thought the Papi the might be a "fossil" inside the Tarot sequence, maybe they were part of the Imperatori, or whatever - it is not impossible.

The point is that I don't start by looking for a good historical situation - I start by finding what I think is the most rational dating, and THEN look at the historical situation. I find that it is not necessary to posit a fragmentary growth of Papi here, Virtues and Vices there, shaking it out and slowly forming into a game of 22 trumps.

Of COURSE there are necessary preconditions, ideas, concepts, rules of play - I talked about it for years. I still think Karnöffel inspired the idea of permanent trumps, even in a negative way like in Marziano (who made a virtuous game rather than an anarchy game like Karnöffel). Queens were necessary - they are the ones who "civilized" the pack, or at least made it suitable for women and children (or rather, they might have been introduced for that reason). The idea that the card-pack represented the whole world - from kings to commoners and beggars - this was necessary also for the invention of Tarot.

But the game of Triumphs itself, I think is a singular thing, and even the name shows it - it makes sense (it is not meaningless, like e.g. ronfa), and it makes sense of the subject matter of the added cards. The name and the subjects being so close, it cannot be coincidental - they had to have been conceived together.
A resistant iconography is found for many mass produced decks with woodcut technique. Early woodcut use for trionfi is only postulated, not documented. Bolognese decks for the early time are missing ... :-) ...
I'm not sure what you mean - regular decks or trionfi? Whichever it is, it doesn't matter, because "early decks" for whichever town in Italy, are missing, except for luxury Tarots. When woodcuts come along, every type, A, B, and C has its witness, and they are as near as we can tell contemporary. So your barb has missed its target - for printed decks, Bologna and A are better witnessed than any other printed early type (Rosenwald, Beaux-Arts/Rosthschild) - two for the one of B and C (Budapest/Dick and Cary Sheet respectively).

Ross
Image

Re: Bolognese sequence

#30
robert wrote:This is fascinating gentlemen. I wish I could contribute, but am very much enjoying the conversation.

:popcorn
You can't contribute *anything" Robert? Not even on my lovely graphic comparison of Caesars? :-B

Well, I don't blame you. I can't see this "image" though. What's wrong with it?
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron