Re: Bolognese sequence
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 13:24
A discussion on "Meissner's Karnöffel" was split from this thread and can be found here:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=416
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=416
Over 500 years of history in 78 cards
https://forum.tarothistory.com/
I'm glad you brought up Meissner, and it has its own place now. I said before and always say, I think Karnöffel is Imperatori, and that Filippo Maria's probibitions in 1419-1420 are indirect references to this game, since he says that "card games must follow the old and proper system, court card following court card, and suit card suit card, in order." (or something like that, I'm quoting from memory).Huck wrote:I don't really miss it.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.
The real object behaves like a river, the observable number of "existing + once existing decks" can only be increased with the time. The factor of increase is variable, depending on new productions, which sometimes happen and sometimes not. The "news about the object, that reach us" is another value, much less controllable. It somehow presents a mirror of the development, but naturally it tells also lies about it. Few decks can be presented by more news than many, for instance. Their interpretation is more dependent on clever interpretation, for instance if a document is more valuable than others.
In your calculation one (probably more) information is missing: The poem of Meisner about Karnöffel. I try to fill it at least a little bit.
Hm ... something like "court card following court card, and suit card suit card, in order." is not in your article.Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
I'm glad you brought up Meissner, and it has its own place now. I said before and always say, I think Karnöffel is Imperatori, and that Filippo Maria's probibitions in 1419-1420 are indirect references to this game, since he says that "card games must follow the old and proper system, court card following court card, and suit card suit card, in order." (or something like that, I'm quoting from memory).
... .-) ... shall I attest a form of blindness? ..I'll address Meissner more in his own place. As far as influencing my calculations for dating, I don't think he is relevant at all, just as ronfa or any card game isn't. I'm looking for evidence of the game of Triumphs.
Will you state, that the Michelino deck isn't a form of "game of Triumphs"? It existed long before your proposed 1439.I don't think it could have had a long existence under another name, and then only when it was called triumphs did it start to get noticed.
Well, read the Mysner text again (after my reediting) and you'll find reason to assume, that the Karnöffel game from Mysner probably used special cards.I don't think games with "inner" trumps (suit cards with a trump function, like Karnöffel), or a wild card, are triumphs.
Actually Triumph games existed, which didn't use any special cards. And these games form the base for your games which "retain the Triumph name" - a not solidly based hypothesis, it seems, and only presentable in detailed discussion, I would say.The name triumphs appears to describe many of the cards in the trump sequence; the name fits the subject matter of the cards. It is unlike tarocchi or tarot, which does not "explain" the imagery or the game. Tarocchi is more like a nonsense name, like ronfa, or a nickname that supplanted the real name. The trumps retain their name triumphs (trionfi) in some places anyway, but the game is universally known by the tarocchi-derivatives.
Well ... you present your argument, as if you are drowned in the assumption, that whenever "Trionfi" as word appeared, that history spoke then of the "Trionfi deck", of which you are thinking of, and this you do although you know enough examples, in which this haven't been the case (Michelino deck, 70-cards note, Boiardo Tarocchi, Sola Busca Tarocchi).In other words, I think the name and the thing were invented together, whatever the precursors may have been. Even if the Papi were a separate part originally, which I think is plausible (although my theory does not depend on it), perhaps inspired by Karnöffel (maybe a Devil too? - and is the Karnöffel a Jack-Fool?), the conception of the trump sequence in Trionfi is self-contained and complete, and much more moralistic and complex.
... .. Well, your statement somehow seems to have religious dimensions, and about religion it is difficult to discuss. You believe, that "it" was there, whatever sort of real evidence existed?
The survival of information by historical accident is a very important aspect of my dating method. There is no reason that tarot cards from the 20s and 30s, documents mentioning them and art depicting them, should not have survived just as our information from the 40s and 50s did. This is why I found Cristina Fiorini's dating of the Rothschild cards to 1420 so implausible - look how isolated it is. But comparison of Giovanni dal Ponzo's art with the cards showed a different hand anyway, at least to my eye and those people I showed it to, so the basis of the comparison is gone anyway - and there is no historical/documentary reason to think they are that early. The plotting of the evidence showed a trend, and that trend - like the mouth of your "river" - must end up somewhere in the second half of the 1430s. Tracing everything backwards from its tributaries, following the river downstream, the river of Tarot disappears into the sea (of ideas and influences, from whence it was born) somewhere within 5 years of 1442. That's my prediction from the evidence anyway.
Yes, thanks, Mysner it is.Huck wrote:I've edited various parts of the Mysner (actually this form is the original name of Meisner in the 15th verse, perhaps we should use this one to be accurate) article to get it to the form, I desired, perhaps you read it again.
This is something we discussed on LTarot in 2007, Michael was part of it.Hm ... something like "court card following court card, and suit card suit card, in order." is not in your article.Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
I'm glad you brought up Meissner, and it has its own place now. I said before and always say, I think Karnöffel is Imperatori, and that Filippo Maria's probibitions in 1419-1420 are indirect references to this game, since he says that "card games must follow the old and proper system, court card following court card, and suit card suit card, in order." (or something like that, I'm quoting from memory).
"1420: Filippo Maria forbids anyone to play cards, if not according to the correct and ancient system [Nel 1420 vietò qualsiasi giuoco delle carte, quando non fosse secondo il retto e antico sistema](F. Malaguzzi Valeri, "La corte di Ludovico il Moro" (Milano, Hoepli, 1913-1917) vol. I, p. 268)."
If it appears in the source, it would be quite interesting to know.
So there is a text of Buti with the life of Filippo. Italian text, I assume. Does much text refer to this specific theme?Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
This is something we discussed on LTarot in 2007, Michael was part of it.
Here are the relevant posts -
(Ross 2/4/2007)
I have received Giordano Berti's new book "Storia dei tarocchi"
subtitled "Verità e leggende sulle carte più misteriose del mondo."
(Mondadori, 2007).
He notes the same 1420 prohibition of Filippo Maria forbidding the
game of cards when not played "according to the old and correct system"
(see e.g. http://trionfi.com/0/p/08/t1.php ), but he also quotes a
detail not noted by Buti et al. in 1925 which explains what that "old
and correct system" (I think it is better translated now "old and
correct method") was -
"iactando foras figuras et alia signa pro tali signo et tali figura."
Literally,
"throwing forth the figures and other signs according to such a sign
and such a figure."
This clearly refers to the principle of following suit in a card game.
Berti explains it this was as well "that is to say, following the suit
played by the adversary, so as to limit the role of chance." (p. 8)
(BTW, Berti does not mention Buti et al.'s edition of Decembrio's
_Vita_ of Filippo Maria, but Alberto Milano in 1980 citing C. Santoro
(ed.) _Giochi e passatempi dei secoli passati_ (Milano, 1957))
The first thing I note is that the law was (logically enough) in
Latin - something not clear in Buti et al.
The second interesting thing (besides the explanation of the principle
itself) is that it consistently distinguishes "figuras" from "signa".
That seems to be "court cards" from "pips." Why? Did this "old and
correct method" mean that a king had to be played for a king, a valet
for a valet, etc., regardless of suit? It doesn't make any sense.
Naturally the trumps should have had suit signs, as games with trump function were not the only games, for which cards were made - but inside trump games trumps are a own category outside of the suits.And surely, the court cards had their suit indices on them, and so
were "signa" as well. Is it just an aesthetic observation?
"... for having colored and painted the cups and the swords and the coins and batons and all the figures of 4 packs of small triumph cards ..." ... http://trionfi.com/0/e/01/ ... Why is there a "small", I wonder ... cause "chartexele" ? ... "depento le chope e le spade e li dinari e li bastoni e tutte le figure de 4 para de chartexele da trionffi "
We can note that the earliest record (1442) of "cartexelle da trionfi"
doesn't seem to distinguish either court cards from their suits, or
perhaps court cards from trumps, but it *does* distinguish "figures"
from "suits" - "...the cups and swords and coins and batons and all
the figures of four pairs of triumph cards."
http://trionfi.com/0/e/00/
We've short after 1420 "indications" of unusual decks and we've one unusual deck described, the Michelino deck. The Michelino deck is in it's structural form "only" a variation of the deck, which Johannes of Rheinfelden already knew 1377, his 60-card-deck with the artificial change of the 4 lower courts into Greek/Roman gods.If the "signa" in the 1420 law are the same as the four suits of the
1442 triumph card reference (i.e. including court cards), what are
the "figuras" of the 1420 law? Do they indicated the existence already
of an additional suit by 1420 in Milan - maybe triumphs? (making
sense, since in tarot games one has to play a trump to a led trump if
possible).
I am working under the hypothesis that it did "drop from heaven" - or rather, came out of the mind of an inventor at a particular place and time, in Bologna. This is my theory, it doesn't contradict any facts, but it demands a particular interpretation of the Bolognese iconography. It could be wrong, I'm not claiming it's proved, but so far I like it.Huck wrote:... .-) ... shall I attest a form of blindness? ..I'll address Meissner more in his own place. As far as influencing my calculations for dating, I don't think he is relevant at all, just as ronfa or any card game isn't. I'm looking for evidence of the game of Triumphs.
We're searching for the origin of Tarot and it's not expected to have dropped from heaven.
I don't know that there were earlier combinations of cardinal virtues or the star-moon-sun grouping, independent of Triumph cards. I don't posit those. I don't need them either, but of course I cannot say they are impossible. But if the evidence doesn't demand them, and a theory doesn't need them, why worry about thinking about them?You also accept, that the Tarot sequence incorporated other earlier combination like cardinal virtues or sun-moon-star groups and you have no problem with them, if they appeared earlier as book painting, frescoes or whatever form. Will you now close the eyes, if you meet other earlier use of groups, as it appears "only" on playing cards and in actual games? The research is about playing cards, isn't it? And there is no doubt, that playing cards had been older than the Trionfi cards, there is a general strong suspicion, that the sequence developed from cards and not from an outside order with no relation to playing cards.
What do you understand as "THE game of triumphs" ? How do you use this?
I think it is very much a game of triumphs. But it is not called that, and it does not resemble the standard sequence and subjects, nor even the suits. Remember I said, the name and the thing came together, in my opinion. I didn't say that the "concept" of triumph-function or special cards was invented in 1439.Will you state, that the Michelino deck isn't a form of "game of Triumphs"? It existed long before your proposed 1439.I don't think it could have had a long existence under another name, and then only when it was called triumphs did it start to get noticed.
Well, I'll like to reconstruct "the old reality" from that, what is "more or less" contemporary known. Dragging facts from the later state of information I regard with suspicion, although I respect, that this naturally also must be done occasionally, cause the "field of the unknown (and its extensions in time and space)" is simply unknown, but nonetheless "it also had been, if it had been".I am working under the hypothesis that it did "drop from heaven" - or rather, came out of the mind of an inventor at a particular place and time, in Bologna. This is my theory, it doesn't contradict any facts, but it demands a particular interpretation of the Bolognese iconography. It could be wrong, I'm not claiming it's proved, but so far I like it.
Perhaps we could agree to name it in a specific signifying way, maybe "assumed Bolognese prototype Trionfi" or as you like it (better not such a long term), but "ludus triumphorum in a fixed form" is not very precise and confusing and somehow you claim, that if the Trionfi term was used in 15th century, that it was spoken of this development. But there were not only Bolognese decks.The fact that there are precursors doesn't contradict the idea that the "ludus triumphorum", in a fixed form, with the standard subjects in a particular order, was a singular invention. Every invention has precursors, there are sources for everything, nearly.
When we look at the only comparable contemporary situation with enough deck examples - the German decks - one detects there also a lot of creativity and experiments. So I assume creativity and partly I can point to it. If I request further the factor of the "unknown" I've to assume more strange developments.You see it as "Tarot was the winner out of countless experiments that died out". I see it as one of very few experiments with extra trumps, perhaps only the second after Marziano, which could not have been widely known.
We have a deck with 70 cards called Trionfi. We have the Boiardo Tarocchi poem, we have the Sola Busca Tarocchi. We have 50 Mantegna Tarocchi Triumphs. We have Marcello claiming the Michelino deck a Trionfi deck. The Bembo has two painters, surely not without reason. We have variants in all major cities.You also accept, that the Tarot sequence incorporated other earlier combination like cardinal virtues or sun-moon-star groups and you have no problem with them, if they appeared earlier as book painting, frescoes or whatever form. Will you now close the eyes, if you meet other earlier use of groups, as it appears "only" on playing cards and in actual games? The research is about playing cards, isn't it? And there is no doubt, that playing cards had been older than the Trionfi cards, there is a general strong suspicion, that the sequence developed from cards and not from an outside order with no relation to playing cards.
What do you understand as "THE game of triumphs" ? How do you use this?Maybe a misunderstanding. I pointed out in the Mysner-thread (now post 1), that specific elements of the Mysner-Karnoeffel-scheme refer to the triumph numbers 0-7, so their meaning is similar to cardinal virtues and sun-moon-star, which also appear in other contexts and reappear in Tarot and are then identified as "imported units" without doubt.I don't know that there were earlier combination of cardinal virtues or the star-moon-sun grouping, independent of Triumph cards. I don't posit those. I don't need them either, but of course I cannot say they are impossible. But if the evidence doesn't demand them, and a theory doesn't need them, why worry about thinking about them?
Adapting this step would result in a game development like
Karnöffel brought 0-7 ...
was further developed with the Bembo cards to a 5x14-structure ...
6 cards were added ...
later the 22-form developed
Perhaps you overlooked this, as I've developed the Mysner articles in reediting steps.
I personally missed a solid representation of that, what you mean and what you not mean. So I'm asking for it, just to understand you. For the dating of the name I've no problem, not that I think 1439, but I would suggest, that it developed probably 1441 with the marriage of Bianca Maria and Francesco. At 1.1.1441 the term was not used, but in February 1442....
By THE Game of Triumphs, I mean the 22 standard subjects added to a 56-card standard pack. The only things I feel might have had an existence outside of those standard triumphs are the Fool and Bagato, as wild cards. This is only because I strongly suspect that additional wild cards are an old invention (which the Chinese independently (apparently )invented) - but I don't see a need to speculate further on that. The trump sequence, as in Bologna, makes sense to me as it is. It doesn't need to posit anything else.
What is the point of multiplying needless speculations? So far I have not received any discussion of my theory at all - no review, no critique, nothing except an out-of-hand rejection from Michael, you, and others. So, without helpful input or contrary facts to challenge me, I can only go on developing it on my own.
On the dating issue I have won you (for the name "trionfi", which is all I am arguing, although we don't agree on what that name signifies) and Michael, and at one point it seemed Thierry, but he refuses to really commit. So, again, there has been no discussion of my position, nor any coherent critique explaining why it should be rejected.
But it is new, and like 5x14 may take some time to get debated properly.
For the general Trionfi-as-festivity I know of 3 larger festivities in Florence in 1439 accompanying the council and these seem to have stimulated further festivities (and the whole council might have a stimulating effect on many activities, for instance the library development). If it could have had an effect on playing cards, is doubtful, as Eugen is deep suspected to have been against playing cards - and that what I've read about the Florence festivities, didn't sound as if there were made some. Not, that Eugen have had in 1439 the same controlling power as in 1445, so maybe a Florentine found it a pious work. The two emperors (Western + Eastern in Minchiate) might have been a remind of the council situation, either realized in 1450 (Trionfi allowance) or even earlier.
Generally we have occasionally at various locations an allowance for card playing only at specific days and for festivities. This might have caused the name Trionfi cards.
Generally we have later the tradition of festival books (as for Camilla Aragon and Costanzo Sforza). Maybe this started with cards or larger papers in a more humble form. Generally also theater shows might have had some paper productions around them.
So it would be of interest to understand the sacra rapresentatione of Bologna - perhaps one of the shows explains something.
Generally we have the factor of Alberti, an "inventor" in his character with many ideas. He was well known in Ferrara ... and had been in Bologna and was near to Cesarini, who possibly brought up the theater ideas there. And Cesarini was a dominant cardinal in Ferrara and Florence ... and in 1439 probably still related to Bologna.
Occasionally we meet the fact, that playing cards were forbidden and Trionfi cards were allowed. So Trionfi cards probably were part of "accepted education", perhaps cause its pious content.
I think it is very much a game of triumphs. But it is not called that, and it does not resemble the standard sequence and subjects, nor even the suits. Remember I said, the name and the thing came together, in my opinion.{quote]I don't think it could have had a long existence under another name, and then only when it was called triumphs did it start to get noticed.
Will you state, that the Michelino deck isn't a form of "game of Triumphs"? It existed long before your proposed 1439.
I didn't say that the "concept" of triumph-function or special cards was invented in 1439.
I think we agree more than you realize, but you're not making the effort to understand me. There was an evolution of card-play and the shape of the pack that made Triumphs possible - this includes the idea of trumping itself, the addition of the Queen to the court cards, maybe wild cards, and possibly (if invented in Milan) the idea of strict hierarchy of trumps in an extra suit. Some or all of these (and others) may have contributed to the idea to invent what became the "standard" sequence. It didn't happen by accident - it was promoted.
By the way, you know the earliest (certain) mention of printed playing cards comes from Palermo in 1422, don't you? Florence and Ferrara both know printed cards before Triumphs were invented, so it is not terribly unlikely that the game was originally printed.
Well, I'll like to reconstruct "the old reality" from that, what is "more or less" contemporary known. Dragging facts from the later state of information I regard with suspicion, although I respect, that this naturally also must be done occasionally, cause the "field of the unknown (and its extensions in time and space)" is simply unknown, but nonetheless "it also had been, if it had been".I am working under the hypothesis that it did "drop from heaven" - or rather, came out of the mind of an inventor at a particular place and time, in Bologna. This is my theory, it doesn't contradict any facts, but it demands a particular interpretation of the Bolognese iconography. It could be wrong, I'm not claiming it's proved, but so far I like it.
Perhaps we could agree to name it in a specific signifying way, maybe "assumed Bolognese prototype Trionfi" or as you like it (better not such a long term), but "ludus triumphorum in a fixed form" is not very precise and confusing and somehow you claim, that if the Trionfi term was used in 15th century, that it was spoken of this development. But there were not only Bolognese decks.The fact that there are precursors doesn't contradict the idea that the "ludus triumphorum", in a fixed form, with the standard subjects in a particular order, was a singular invention. Every invention has precursors, there are sources for everything, nearly.
When we look at the only comparable contemporary situation with enough deck examples - the German decks - one detects there also a lot of creativity and experiments. So I assume creativity and partly I can point to it. If I request further the factor of the "unknown" I've to assume more strange developments.You see it as "Tarot was the winner out of countless experiments that died out". I see it as one of very few experiments with extra trumps, perhaps only the second after Marziano, which could not have been widely known.
Maybe a misunderstanding. I pointed out in the Mysner-thread (now post 1), that specific elements of the Mysner-Karnoeffel-scheme refer to the triumph numbers 0-7, so their meaning is similar to cardinal virtues and sun-moon-star, which also appear in other contexts and reappear in Tarot and are then identified as "imported units" without doubt.You also accept, that the Tarot sequence incorporated other earlier combination like cardinal virtues or sun-moon-star groups and you have no problem with them, if they appeared earlier as book painting, frescoes or whatever form. Will you now close the eyes, if you meet other earlier use of groups, as it appears "only" on playing cards and in actual games? The research is about playing cards, isn't it? And there is no doubt, that playing cards had been older than the Trionfi cards, there is a general strong suspicion, that the sequence developed from cards and not from an outside order with no relation to playing cards.
What do you understand as "THE game of triumphs" ? How do you use this?I don't know that there were earlier combination of cardinal virtues or the star-moon-sun grouping, independent of Triumph cards. I don't posit those. I don't need them either, but of course I cannot say they are impossible. But if the evidence doesn't demand them, and a theory doesn't need them, why worry about thinking about them?
I personally missed a solid representation of that, what you mean and what you not mean. So I'm asking for it, just to understand you. For the dating of the name I've no problem, not that I think 1439, but I would suggest, that it developed probably 1441 with the marriage of Bianca Maria and Francesco. At 1.1.1441 the term was not used, but in February 1442....
By THE Game of Triumphs, I mean the 22 standard subjects added to a 56-card standard pack. The only things I feel might have had an existence outside of those standard triumphs are the Fool and Bagato, as wild cards. This is only because I strongly suspect that additional wild cards are an old invention (which the Chinese independently (apparently )invented) - but I don't see a need to speculate further on that. The trump sequence, as in Bologna, makes sense to me as it is. It doesn't need to posit anything else.
What is the point of multiplying needless speculations? So far I have not received any discussion of my theory at all - no review, no critique, nothing except an out-of-hand rejection from Michael, you, and others. So, without helpful input or contrary facts to challenge me, I can only go on developing it on my own.
On the dating issue I have won you (for the name "trionfi", which is all I am arguing, although we don't agree on what that name signifies) and Michael, and at one point it seemed Thierry, but he refuses to really commit. So, again, there has been no discussion of my position, nor any coherent critique explaining why it should be rejected.
But it is new, and like 5x14 may take some time to get debated properly.
We have a deck with 70 cards called Trionfi. We have the Boiardo Tarocchi poem, we have the Sola Busca Tarocchi. We have 50 Mantegna Tarocchi Triumphs. We have Marcello claiming the Michelino deck a Trionfi deck. The Bembo has two painters, surely not without reason. We have variants in all major cities.I don't think it could have had a long existence under another name, and then only when it was called triumphs did it start to get noticed.Huck wrote: Will you state, that the Michelino deck isn't a form of "game of Triumphs"? It existed long before your proposed 1439.I think it is very much a game of triumphs. But it is not called that, and it does not resemble the standard sequence and subjects, nor even the suits. Remember I said, the name and the thing came together, in my opinion.
I didn't say that the "concept" of triumph-function or special cards was invented in 1439.
I think we agree more than you realize, but you're not making the effort to understand me. There was an evolution of card-play and the shape of the pack that made Triumphs possible - this includes the idea of trumping itself, the addition of the Queen to the court cards, maybe wild cards, and possibly (if invented in Milan) the idea of strict hierarchy of trumps in an extra suit. Some or all of these (and others) may have contributed to the idea to invent what became the "standard" sequence. It didn't happen by accident - it was promoted.
By the way, you know the earliest (certain) mention of printed playing cards comes from Palermo in 1422, don't you? Florence and Ferrara both know printed cards before Triumphs were invented, so it is not terribly unlikely that the game was originally printed.
This statement seems worth responding to publicly. First, let me say that this appears to refer to Ross' Bologna-origin Theory, broadly conceived in terms of both the historical and iconographic perspectives. Above those quotes in the same post was this:Ross wrote:So far I have not received any discussion of my theory at all - no review, no critique, nothing except an out-of-hand rejection from Michael, you, and others.
On the dating issue I have won you (for the name "trionfi", which is all I am arguing, although we don't agree on what that name signifies) and Michael, and at one point it seemed Thierry, but he refuses to really commit. So, again, there has been no discussion of my position, nor any coherent critique explaining why it should be rejected.
Sure enough, that sounds like a reference to the overall Bologna-origin theory, (rather than the infinitely narrower question which was being beaten to death in much of the thread, and which he treated separately in that quote). That Bolognese-origin theory is something I've wanted to talk about for nearly three years now, since January 3rd, 2007 when I first learned about it, so this is as good a time as any.Ross wrote:I am working under the hypothesis that it did "drop from heaven" - or rather, came out of the mind of an inventor at a particular place and time, in Bologna. This is my theory, it doesn't contradict any facts, but it demands a particular interpretation of the Bolognese iconography. It could be wrong, I'm not claiming it's proved, but so far I like it.
Terms like "great job", "best candidate", and "best argument" are not counted as rejection by sane people, hence my conclusion that Ross has completely lost his grip on reality.You are doing a great job in terms of the history, and I've said so repeatedly, and I noted that this current analysis and argument concerning historical reasons why Bologna is the best candidate for the origin of Tarot is the best argument of its kind that I've seen.
I have enjoyed and applauded each of the many historical elements of this theory for many years, enthusiastically encouraging Ross regarding both his historical findings and, usually, his conclusions as well. Given that reality, this "out of hand rejection" noise is not only the exact opposite of the truth concerning my years of support for his work, but it is also a huge distortion of my own position regarding many individual facts and positions. I take issue with Ross' historical findings and conclusions to about the same degree that I take issue with the findings and conclusions of other playing-card historians like Dummett and Depaulis -- virtually never.I really like your assessments above, as a probabilistic approach to guessing at likely origins.
That was my initial response, on DAY ONE of learning about the Bologna-origin Theory. He added a bit more detail, to which my repeated replies were "Excellent." (It must be tough to deal with such a harsh response, especially on the very first day you present a broad and deep theory to someone. No wonder he holds a grudge.) Here is one of those replies:I hadn't put the pieces together, but obviously all these areas you've been working on, the Bolognese origin and ordering, the sermons, the iconographic study of the composition of the trumps, and so on, all fit together as pieces of the same overall picture. Not noticing that is more than merely silly, it was stupid. You are working on the second really serious iconographic study of Tarot, a real Moakley 2.0. I'm more-than-usually impressed.
Damn me for being so negative!Excellent. Moakley offered a beginning at that, but there is so much more to draw from.
Note that on Day One I understood that his interpretation was intimately connected with a constellation of other elements he had been working on as an overall Bolognese origin theory. It was obviously going to be based on the Bolognese ordering and iconography, in one of several possible versions. That's a big part of what makes it so appealing, and I was emphatically clear about my view of it -- "I really [emphatic adverb] LOVE [emphatic verb in CAPS] the way your interpretation is turning out, and all the supporting elements that I consider ancillary...."I'll have to look up some of these things. Are there any journal articles that you really want to see? I'd be happy to print out a few and I'm sure that with some practice I'll get better at scanning them. Let me know. I really LOVE the way your interpretation is turning out, and all the supporting elements that I consider ancillary -- like the number of trumps -- as well.
Why those subjects, in that order? I concluded that fan letter, two days after he first mentioned the speculum principis idea:I just wanted to know what the trumps meant. That was it -- that fucking simple. I assumed that the original meaning was something well known, at least to some folks, and that it could be found in books. It would be an art history question, and naturally someone would have answered it.
That was only two days after I understood what he seemed to be working on, as soon as I had a general idea of his basic analysis.Anyway, here's where you come in: you appear to be doing exactly what I had hoped someone would do, all on your own. Based on the notes you've sent in the last few days, you are writing Moakley 2.0 -- a comprehensive iconographic and historical analysis of the trumps. Naturally, you're not coming up with quite the same conclusions I did, but I didn't need someone to duplicate what I'd found. You're walking the same general paths, and doing a much better job of it in many ways. If I had encountered what you are just now getting written up, back before 2000, I would probably have been content that I'd found a reasonable answer. So, when I say that I REALLY appreciate what you're doing, I ain't kidding!
That gives an indication of the first phase of 2-1/2 years of correspondence, which Ross terms "out of hand rejection" of his theory.If you were to collate, organize, and present all the assorted pieces of evidence from the various angles you've discussed into a coherent whole, it would be the most impressive monograph on Tarot iconography ever written. LOL -- admittedly, that simply means "better than Moakley", but it would be *much* more impressive than Moakley's interpretation. I would LOVE to see such a thing published, or even presented online. That's the self-serving part of adding bits and pieces to your already striking collection and reminding you that this is a very valuable thing you are working on. I don't know if you *need* any encouragement, but just in case... I really like the speculum principis idea.
A few weeks later, Kwaw posted that Enter the King was (partly) available online. I had wanted to read that book for a long time, and was immediately blown away by its implications for Ross' theory. I stopped reading mid-page to write to him, on 4/8/08:Great start. Of course, whether it comes to you in a dream or after years of observation, the proof is in the testing, and this insight is great not just because it has a rational basis but because it works so well in terms of the trump sequence.... THIS is the (start of the) monograph that I most want to see, even more than translations of the endless things (including more of Panormita) that I'd like to see you translate.
Ross thanked me for my enthusiasm, saying that it encouraged him to read more of Kipling, and he agreed that it answered my primary criticism of his interpretation. It's worth nothing that in this single incident we have 1) an example of my having had a serious criticism (revolving around the role of Death in the trump cycle), 2) an example of my providing the answer to a weakness in his theory, and 3) my accepting that answer as more than adequate. These argue against Ross' claim that he received no criticisms, received no help, and the implication that I'm incorrigible. I replied:Well, I've only read the first few pages of Chapter 4, "Third Advent", and I'm already thinking that you are going to end up with a better interpretation of the trump cycle than mine. This chapter seems to have been written specifically for you... well, for me too. I love this stuff, and I might have to switch sides before even getting my own site updated. This is massively cool. I'm not giving up yet, of course..., but by the time I get done reading this chapter I just may have to start writing a concession speech.
Earlier this year, May 20th, I was still encouraging him to pull it all together and publish it, at least online. It was at this point that he started to sound... loony. Again, I don't have permission to quote him, but the gist was that he was in no hurry to write up and present the Bologna-origin theory because it couldn't be proven to ME! (How weird is that?!) Keep in mind that this was more than two years after I began telling him it was the greatest idea since sliced bread, or at least since travestied Petrarch, and more than a year after I told him that Kipling had turned my greatest objection into a point of support for his interpretation. Here is part of my reply:...now that we're getting deeper into this triumphal stuff, and especially with Kipling's Third Advent stuff, well... if I were selling one or the other hypothesis, I'd rather be selling yours. This is great stuff.
So... two points here.Because you are not the arrogant obnoxious SOB that I am, because you have done a lot of very cool historical background work, and because your interpretation requires a lot less commitment to a specific, detailed, obscure (looney fringe) kind of reading, I am certain that you will be more successful than I have been at making an impact. IMO, you will be Moakley 2.0.
[...]
My view is that, in lieu of some definitive text like Marcello's transcription of Marziano, it's always going to be highly speculative. As such, different readings are a certainty, and there is room for more than one good one.
[...]
As for my criticisms, you've already seen them and they will almost certainly remain the same. If I were a door-to-door salesman hawking Tarot interpretations, I'd be selling a version of yours. I'd still be using my own at home, but IMO it is much easier to make a good case for yours. Mine only makes sense after you've gone through multiple layers of meaning (a bitch to even get someone to play along with that exercise) and in the context of the overall evolution of deck designs, comparing various decks.