Visconti snake

[Otello]

Yes I agree, it is very possible the snake is blue, like in many heraldic images, or some cards in the CY deck, for instance the ace of coins, lover, etc....

OK, let's make a rought try with blu and green...
(Well, I'm not so good with Paint Shop, I suspect I may get better results repainting the snake from scratch )




Ciao
Marco

P.S. Thank you for the warm welcome, Robert. I'm still reading the old messages - I've found your forum only few days ago - but I think I share the approach to tarot history with you and many forumers.

[Otello]

Well, I'm back from the page on trionfi.com about the Visconti snake and I have two questions for Huck:

- I agree the snake may be a replacement for the Devil, (actually, it is the main reason I'm interested in this card) but I get lost when you assign to the "Ur-Tarot" the numbers of the Marseille Tarot.
I mean, AFAIK the sequence was sligtly different at that time, Devis was XIV, not XV, etc.
Am I missing something?

- How do you connect the Snake card (as a replacement for the devil) with the 5x14 theory?
Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the 5x14 theory: it looks self evident to me - regardless for who, when and why painted the 6 new cards - from the moment I knew 6 cards were painted later, which is about 30 years ago.
(Hoping this subject has not been covered in the "The 5x14 Theory: An Investigation" part II thread, which I'm reading, but I'm only at page 13 of 31...)

Ciao
Marco

[Lorredan]

Not that you asked Otello but here is...
Alciato’s Book of Emblems

To the most illustrious Massimiliano, Duke of Milan. An infant springing from the jaws of a curling snake is your family’s noble device. We saw the Pellean king had made such coins, and had celebrated with them his own decent. It teaches that while he was sown from the seed of Ammon, his mother was fooled by the image of a snake and that he was the offspring of divine seed. He comes forth from the mouth. Is it because in this way, some claim, certain snakes bear their young, or because Pallas sprang that way from the head of Jupiter?"

~Lorredan

[Huck]

Well, I'm back from the page on trionfi.com about the Visconti snake and I have two questions for Huck:

- I agree the snake may be a replacement for the Devil, (actually, it is the main reason I'm interested in this card) but I get lost when you assign to the "Ur-Tarot" the numbers of the Marseille Tarot.
I mean, AFAIK the sequence was sligtly different at that time, Devis was XIV, not XV, etc.
Am I missing something?

- How do you connect the Snake card (as a replacement for the devil) with the 5x14 theory?
Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the 5x14 theory: it looks self evident to me - regardless for who, when and why painted the 6 new cards - from the moment I knew 6 cards were painted later, which is about 30 years ago.
(Hoping this subject has not been covered in the "The 5x14 Theory: An Investigation" part II thread, which I'm reading, but I'm only at page 13 of 31...)

Ciao
Marco

hi Otello,

it's nice, that you're interested in the 5x14-theory.

The article about the Ur-Tarot ...
http://trionfi.com/0/g/61/
... was written December 2004.

***********************
In about August 2005 the riddle seemed to solve in the manner, that ...

1465 ... the six cards were added ... so a model developed with 20 trumps or special cards (visit of Lorenzo de Medici in Milan)

1468 ... it seemed to turn to the 4x14+22-model ... it was suspected, that the Ur-Tarot developed then, with falconer and Visconti-Viper. The deck model of the Rosenwald Tarocchi seemed to have developed then (marriage Galeazzo Maria - Bona of Savoy).
It was then already believed, that a development took place in Florence between 1463-1466, which formed a "sort of Minchiate", a variated trump game with more than 14 special cards.

1477 ... it seemed possible, that Tower and Devil developed around this time (after Galeazzo Maria's death)

It was assumed then, that the Charles VI Tarot (with a Tower) developed "somehow" after 1470 and was based on a model 4x14+22.

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

In winter 2008 the possibility opened, that the Charles VI cards developed earlier than 1470 and from Florence.

With this the possibility opened, that the Charles VI was connected to the development, which was suspected already before in Florence 1463 (in this year Florence got a second allowance for Trionfi games) - 1466 (in this years Pulci wrote a letter to Lorenzo and mentioned "Minchiate").
New analyzes around the new conditions led to the hypothesis, that the Charles VI had not 4x14+22-structure, but in its beginning just the 16 trumps, which are all given in the existing deck fragment (16 special cards, one court card). The new hypothesis led to the assumption, that this deck was made at Lorenzo de Medici's 14th birthday. Various iconographic considerations seem to contribute to this idea.

From this consideration the theory developed, that the Charles VI had been a Tarot game with some orientation towards the chess game and its 16-figure-iconography, which existed already in the time of Cessolis, so early 14th century. Similar ideas were already considered much earlier since 1989 for the Cary-Yale-fragment, but couldn't then been "proven" or "well argumented" cause the Cary-Yale nowadays exists only as a fragment. Further contribution to an early 16-trumps-tradition is given with the existence of 16 trumps for the Michelino deck.

This Chess Tarot Hypothesis became stronger, when it was discovered, that also the 5x14-Bembo deck and the Hofämterspiel showed some Chess-elements. Currently it's considered, that this Chess development was stronger than the 5x14-version in the early time.

A little before in December 2008 the hypothesis had developed, that the long searched date of the Boiardo Tarocchi poem was likely "around January 1487", so much later as earlier suspected.
From this the observation of a "strange accident" developed ... in January 1487 Lucrezia d'Este married (who likely was honored with the Boiardo Tarocchi poem with a first sure sign of the game structure 4x14+22), and in December 1486 Pico de Mirandola, much younger cousin of Matteo Maria Boiardo, published his famous theses about Kabbala and Christianity (Kabbala has a strong relation to the number 22).

From this "strange accident" the possibility was seen, that the Tarot in ca. 1486/87 hadn't 22 trumps, and that Boiardo was the first who used this structure ... this position had first only the character of an unlikely possibility, but it became stronger in the further researches, as some researches seem to fit better with this assumption of a "still missing 22-structure till 1486" as with a "complete Tarot structure in 1468"

In the last year an analysis of the Lorenzo Spirito text (first surviving from 1482, but possibly already given 1473) showed a used 4x20-structure und possibly was inspired by an existing card game structure with 20 or 40 trump-elements like the Minchiate. Another number-favor was observed around Montefeltro 1474-1476, which seemed to promote structures with an 28, possibly inspired by a Persian-Mongolian chess game (Tamerlane chess).

When Boiardo used the 4x14+22-structure in 1487 as a first version of it, it doesn't mean automatically, that all Trionfi card versions imitated this immediately. So it still is a question, when the known dominant Tarot version "as we know it" was used first. One possibility seems to be "since 1505".

****************
The Rosenwald Tarocchi interpretation as "made in 1468" was shocked by Andrea Vitali's assumption, that the whole had the character of a "later forgery". We ourselves made the observation, that we couldn't find any use of the motto "nec spe, nec meru" before Isabella d'Este, who used this since 1505 (at least). Isabella d'Este - in a biography - had a strong favor for collecting beautiful cards and for card playing.

She promoted Massimiliano, duke of Milan in December 1512 /Januar 1513 (a good moment to promote new Trionfi cards, now called possibly "Tarot" or Tarocchi). As the type of the "Rosenwald Tarocchi" is rather farspread (the Bartsch for instance looks like a fragmented version of it), this might result in the interpretation, that some of the surviving Visconti-Sforza card fragmens are from early 16th century.

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

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the 5x14 theory: it looks self evident to me - regardless for who, when and why painted the 6 new cards - from the moment I knew 6 cards were painted later, which is about 30 years ago.

It's an older hypothesis, that the 6 cards were painted by Cicognara in 1484. Dummett himself had spend lots of paper and repeated articles to fight this idea. Recently he came up with the idea, that the deck was painted by two Bembo brothers (Benedetto and Bonifacio) in one production somehow "early 1460's". So there is no fixed hypothesis like "30 years later", just the rather definite assumption "this were two two different painters".
Which actually might have happened "within one production", no doubt, that's possible, but not likely. Or, "around the same time", but that also seems not likely.
The 5x14 theory was in its beginning based mainly on the condition, that both compositions of the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi, the group of 14 elements, and the group of the 6 elements didn't look "composed by accident", but by something, which contained intention.
Attempts to calculate the probability of this accident usually produced a value "below one 1 %".

From this evaluation alone this deck hardly could have used the 4x14 + 22 structure, which led to an intensive research, if anything else "really old" would support a Tarot game with 22 special cards. Nothing was found, instead further details confirmed the 5x14-theory.

***********

... .-) ... You've a lot to do, if you want to follow this thread and others. Part of the discussions took place at Aeclectic Tarot in the Tarot History Forum ...
http://tarotforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=78
...
another part in an earlier yahoogroup LTarot (closed now), with some few very old extensions at TarotL.

You seem to be a very engaged researcher. As this you're really right here ... .-)

[Otello]

Thank you for the reply, Huck.

I have to read carefully your post and think about it, just a short note for now:

it looks self evident to me - regardless for who, when and why painted the 6 new cards - from the moment I knew 6 cards were painted later, which is about 30 years ago

Language barrier here: I'm not saying the 6 new cards were painted 30 years later; I'm saying that about 30 years ago I knew that 6 cards were painted later and immediately it looked obvious to me that the original format ot the deck was 5x14.
(As you say somewere in the 5x14 P.2 thread, if you do play card games, you see the matter in a different way, and I was a bridge player.)

Fact is I know the PMB deck from 1975 (first printed edition by Monumenta Longobardica); the booklet by Gabriele Mandel contain some mistakes, including he says 5 cards, not 6, were painted later.
I was 18 and I hadn't the skill to understand that actually 6 cards are from a different painter... I understood the new cards are 6 around 1980.

ciao
Marco

[Huck]

Ah, I understand ... yeah, this c. 1980 was early, and before Trionfi.com's time, which goes back to some research in May 1989. Occasionally we meet somebody, who had independently a similar idea about it, the earliest we know of is Roland Decker.

http://trionfi.com/0/f/10/

And I agree, that a Bridge player would have it easy to recognize that, similar to good players of other intensive games. Good players are simply trained to recognize rare compositions, and also there is some common technique with probability calculation.

It's rather difficult for people with esoteric background, who are often trained (by "informative" books) to believe in something "of very big importance", and often have a very specified Tarot theory by themselves. There was always a rather dominant trend to have "authorities in heaven", instead of simply looking at the facts. And a lot of opposition to this idea 5x14-theory, and much more opposition to the idea, that it is based on a rather deadly calculation with less than 1% error probability for an error in this point.

[Lorredan]

A pregnant d'Este woman? Which woman?
Something similar appeared with Theolinda ... according a legend, of course.

I think the Viper is Ludovico, Beatrice D'Este's Husband and the pregnant woman was Isabella who was concerned about Beatrice's pregnancy and should she have a son? Something along these lines anyway.Some sort of connection with the black silken haired IL Moro(Moro Negra - black Italian silk from Lucca)
I am presuming this card is from Isabella's stable of beautiful cards.
~Lorredan

[Otello]

Ah, I understand ... yeah, this c. 1980 was early, and before Trionfi.com's time, which goes back to some research in May 1989. Occasionally we meet somebody, who had independently a similar idea about it, the earliest we know of is Roland Decker.

Well, for sure I'm not pretending my ownership of the 5x14 theory; having an idea is very different from verifing a theory, looking for evidence, etc. (I imagine you know better than me... On my side, I'm not professionally involved in history of art, for me it's just a hobby) and I was very happy to discover you made this job and, at least, you have found good foundation for this theory.


Back to your previous message, I agree on most of your thesys;

- I think the CY deck was 5x16 (it looks obvious to me, for the same reasons of the 5x14 theory)

- I think the 3 steps evolution (14>20>22) is very reasonable and it's very possible the Snake takes the place of the Devil.

- I agree the 22+4x14 pattern is a later development, maybe younger than Minchiate.

- I do not agree about the Falconer taking the Tower place; I'm with Kaplan here: I think more likey the Falconer is the Fool; after all there are some variation in other Rosenthal cards (The Star, The Sun, Aces...), so it's reasonable to imagine the Fool was changed, too.
I mean, in my opinion trying to assign the place of the Tower to the Falconer just because the subject have some variations is a little "forced".

- I do not agree with the theory of the Charles VI having 16 figures only, because the 16 existing cards serie does not look complete to me: at least I miss Bagatto and Star, but I'd be ready to accept Bagatto is "included" in the Fool, if at least we had the Star instead of the Tower...

Finally, I think the desperate search for a place for Prudence in the Tarot deck is misleading and the weakest part of every theory I've read (yours, Ross's, etc.), but I think it's better to speak about this matter in a separate thread.

Off course: I've no evidence for my opinions.

Ciao
Marco

[mmfilesi]

I do not agree with the theory of the Charles VI having 16 figures only, because the 16 existing cards serie does not look complete to me: at least I miss Bagatto and Star, but I'd be ready to accept Bagatto is "included" in the Fool, if at least we had the Star instead of the Tower...

I dont think the Star is instead of the Tower. The meanings are different. But the Star is not necessary. His meaning can be displayed on other cards... like the moon.

Medici deck

06_carlosvi_luna.jpg (38.8 KiB) Viewed 523 times

Ercole d'Este deck

08_erc_estrella.jpg (28.68 KiB) Viewed 523 times

In "Le nozze di Constantio et Camilla" the banquet is presided by the Sun and the Moon. They dont need the Star.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=418&hilit=camilla+sforza&start=20#p6410

[Ross G. R. Caldwell]

I don't know what card the biscione on the Tozzi and Rosenthal sets (Kaplan I, pp. 99, 101; Dummett, Game of Tarot, pp. 70 (no. 8), 87-89) is. Kaplan suggests a "joker or identification card". Dummett doesn't suggest anything. My guess would be the Ace of Batons.

That is, if they are genuine. If not, it could be a forger's attempt to tempt a buyer with a really explicit sign of Visconti (and hence 15th century) origin. Both sets of cards have disappeared from view: the Tozzi set "in the 1960s", the Rosenthal set in either the 1920s or 1930s. I don't know that anything about the situation as Dummett described it in 1980 has changed:

It thus becomes a matter of some importance for the study of fifteenth-century hand-painted tarocchi to determine whether any or all of the Rosenthal cards are genuine, and, as a first step, where they are. Mr Albi Rosenthal, of Oxford and London, who is presumably the British dealer referred to by Kaplan, has informed me that in the 1920s his father sold some hand-painted Italian tarocchi to Herr von Hardt of Switzerland, but does not know where the Hardt collection is now. He has also told me that at a later date some fifteenth-century hand-painted tarocchi were shown to him at his Curzon Street office in London, but that these were definitely found to be forgeries. Which of these two sets, if either, is that designated 'the Rosenthal cards' by Kaplan is unclear. It is to be hoped that the cards themselves, or at least some more detailed illustrations of them, become available for examination; in the meantime, we owe a considerable debt to Mr Kaplan for bringing the set to public attention.

(p. 89; my bold emphasis)

On the issue of the number of cards originally in the "Charles VI" set: they are numbered, and the person numbering them had before him either 21 or 22 cards. They were numbered after the painting of the cards, but how long after or precisely when is anybody's guess.

(using English names; numbers in parentheses are hidden or illegible, but necessary) -

xx.....Angel
xviiii. World
xviii...Sun
xvii....Moon
-
xv.....Tower
-
xiii....Death
xii.....Hanged Man
(xi)....Hermit
x.......Chariot
-
viii....Justice
vii.....Fortitude
vi......Temperance
v.......Love
(iiii)...Pope
iii......Emperor
-
-
Fool

The only reasonable explanation is that there were 21 or 22 cards , and that the missing numbers represent lost cards.

(22 - leaving the Bagatto unnumbered as well, which the Bolognese numbering since the late 18th centuries uses; 21 - if the Popess or a Pope were removed and only three of the papi remained, an order attested in the Florentine strambotto of circa 1500, which makes it an intermediate state before the Minchiate order a couple of decades later.)

Any other explanation requires mental gymnastics involving several unknown conditions and implausible steps.

Here are a couple (to show how agile I am) -

1. The set was once considered incomplete, and had the other cards added. This set was numbered. At some later date, all of the added cards were removed - for some reason(s, i.e. further invented scenarios) - or lost (a highly improbable accident).

2. The numberer compared this set of 16 trumps to another Florentine or Bolognese-ordered Tarot, and decided to number these cards according to that system, for some reason (i.e. further invented scenarios). Since the Bolognese never numbered their cards before the late 18th century, if it were the Bolognese system, the numberer was a great innovator a few centuries ahead of his time. If the Florentine, then by placing the Chariot above the Wheel of Fortune he was also a great innovator, since this is not attested in Florentine decks before Minchiate. If after Minchiate, he was also a great innovator because the Minchiate Angel, World, Sun and Moon are not numbered. He also removed the additional Minchiate cards to maintain the standard trump sequence.

Please feel free to invent more complex scenarios in order to avoid the simple solution.

Ross