Archive.org has it here, for late September 2003 ...
http://web.archive.org/web/200310032159 ... ndex1.html
... but possibly we had it already some time earlier at our old geocity-site.
Possibly our activities had triggered the new interests in the early Tarot. We had then contact to John McLeod, who was close to Dummett in that time.
In March 2004 John Berry, an important member of the IPCS, died ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obitu ... 38305.html
... and the IPCS published posthum something of his work, possibly the last contribution of John Berry. In this article he took a position close to ideas of the 5x14-theory. In an earlier Book Review to Bob O'Neill's Tarot Symbolism of c. 1989 (? I have to look it up) he already expressed this position.
Possibly the article of 2004 was an indirect reply to Dummett's new theory, published Jan-Feb 2004.
Here is Dummett's article (Jan-Feb 2004):
Dummett presents the idea, that there once had been early a card deck with 18 trumps. The Fool and the 3 virtues are missing in this concept. The starting point is observation of the different positions of the 3 virtues in the different orders A, B and C.
As I don't remember to have read this idea elsewhere, I think, that this perspective of Dummett stayed more or less unknown.
Here's the 2nd starting point, the confusing 70-cards-note from Ferrara, which somehow kills the older theories about the origin of the Tarot cards (Tarot development was finished in 1450). 8 cards are missing.
Dummett thinks of the 4 queens as the first 4, although Brera-Brambilla and Cary-Yale Tarocchi already had queens.
Dummett assumes, that the other 4 cards should be Matto and the 3 virtues, which runs in the contradiction , that a Matto had been part of the PMB and that the PMB was considered to have been produced early in the 1450s and the Ferrarese date is 1457.
In a later article (not in the IPCS magazine) Dummett had changed his opinion again. He assumed then, that the whole PMB was made in the early 1460s and that Bonifacio Bembo and one of his brothers worked together on the deck.
Possibly with this specific problem about the Matto started the other, later opinion.
Dummetts speaks about the Cary-Yale Tarocchi and interestingly there is no word about his earlier 25 trumps suggestion. ""We do not know the full composition of the trump sequence in this pack."
Dummetts stands (in the yellow part) before the 5x14-theory ... as we will read he'll not decide for this solution. Possibly it would have helped him, if he had simply analyzed the (later) numbers of the 14 cards in the group of the first painter.
0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 ... 11 missing ... 12-13 ... 14-19 missing ... 20 ... 21 missing
I personally think, that this strange number row is much more secure in favor of the 5x14-theory than even the argument about the document of 1457. Sure: The document of 1457 has the advantage, that everybody understands the situation, which is more difficult in this other consideration.
The Cary-Yale-World looks more like "Fame" than "World" with its winged trumpet. Anyway, Dummett decided for an early 18-trumps-deck at this occasion. Later, obviously not satisfied, he changed to 2 artists in the 1460s, both working at the same time.
I think, I didn't know this article before I detected it today with some surprise. But it's so long ago, that I can't rely totally on my memory. Well, a pity. If there would have been a little more contact between the group LTarot and IPCS, life might have been more interesting and amusing.
The deciding number combination ...
0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 ... 11 missing ... 12-13 ... 14-19 missing ... 20 ... 21 missing
.... was shown to Dummett in private letter communication. At that time the document of 1457 wasn't known, at least not to us.
Ortalli had published 1996 with a representation of the note of 1457. Franco Pratesi had referred to it in a footnote in his article SEARCHING FOR TAROT SOURCES in 1998 (from: The Playing-Card, XXXVII, No. 2, 64-68 and No. 3, 111-116)
Footnotes:3.2 Tractatus De Deificatione Sexdecim Heroum.
The pack was painted for Filippo Maria Visconti by Michelino, but the actual treatise was written by Marziano da Tortona in the 1410s. This case is unique among the several indicated here - the connection with tarot is not a speculative one: we are in the presence of the earliest tarot pack or at least a quasi-tarot pack(6), here both book and cards are real, even though somewhat out of the ordinary and deserve further comment. We have sixteen personages, all gods or mythological personages, which are originally structured: they belong to four suits; however, their hierarchical order is not dictated by these suits, but proceeds continuously across them. We can thus forget that there are four groups of four cards and consider the set as a new series of orderly triumphs increasing in power from 1 to 16.
We have here a systematic set, but it does not cover the whole standard series of tarot 0-21 triumphs. The six lacking cards could not be added by following the same scheme because it is not possible to add three halves of court cards to each suit. The overall correspondence with the standard sequence is not yet satisfactory, but this source-book may provide an explanation for the manner in which the triumphal cards were inserted into the pack(7). We can think of several evolutionary steps leading to tarot. For instance, eight emperors added as higher courts; a different pack with a fifth suit consisting of ten pips and eight higher cards; four of the higher cards entering among the standard courts; a temporary pack consisting of five suits of 14 cards each; the addition to the latter of another set of eight major triumphs. The fact is that initial packs of 70 cards are documented(8), as well as the peculiar Marziano series of 16 personages.
6. F. Pratesi, The Playing Card, 18 (1989) 28-38.
7. M. Dummett, The Playing Card, 18 (1990) 73-75.
8. G. Ortalli, Ludica, 2 (1996) 175-205.
Full article at http://trionfi.com/research-tarot-sources
One may note, that Franco Pratesi at this passage referred to the possibility of 5x14 decks in the Tarot development, though not in context of the PMB: " a temporary pack consisting of five suits of 14 cards each".
I found a further reference to the 70 cards note by Franco Pratesi in ...
70. I trionfi di Marziano. The Playing-Card, 28 No. 3 (1999) 144-151.
This was Franco's last contribution before he took a longer pause from the playing card scene.
This time he gives not Ortalli's article as reference, but the earlier note of Campori.NUMERO DI TRIONFI E DI CARTE
Non deve sorprendere troppo che le carte trionfali siano solo sedici: che originariamente potessero
essere meno delle ventidue diventate tradizionali è stato suggerito da alcuni esperti anche per spiegare la
presenza di alcune carte diverse nei tarocchi Visconti-Sforza. Queste ultime sarebbero state aggiunte non
per sostituire delle carte andate perdute, come si suppone di solito, ma per adeguare un precedente mazzo
alla nuova tradizione. Una conferma indipendente si ricava dall’Archivio estense dove sarebbero citati antichi mazzi di trionfi di 70 carte (Footnote 3). Esaminiamo allora la possibile composizione di questo insolito mazzo, pur riconoscendo che questa discussione è inevitabilmente di carattere speculativo.
Al di sopra delle carte numerali (non esplicitamente citate ma necessariamente presenti per rendere
possibile la gerarchia discendente e ascendente indicata) ci sono le figure (di cui qui solo i re sono
ricordati in maniera esplicita). Per le carte superiori, si ha un cambiamento di ruolo e qui anche di seme;
però a tutti gli effetti è come se si prolungasse ognuno dei 4 semi con altre 4 carte superiori, in maniera in
fondo non dissimile da come nel tradizionale mazzo di tarocchi le quattro carte figurate all’interno di
ogni seme superano le dieci carte numerali.
Il meccanismo con cui questi trionfi sono stati inseriti nelle carte da gioco corrisponde a un’aggiunta
di figure superiori in numero uguale per ogni seme ma probabilmente in modo da poter formare un quinto
seme autonomo. Perché un sistema del genere funzioni esattamente, il numero complessivo delle carte
deve essere multiplo sia di 4 che di 5, cioè di 20. Limitandosi a numeri plausibili, si può iniziare con semi
di nove carte numerali e tre figure, il che ci ricorderebbe mazzi oggi comuni in Spagna; con l’aggiunta di
altre tre figure superiori per seme si potrebbe ottenere un quinto seme di dodici trionfi, e un mazzo
completo di 60 carte.
Ma più plausibile si presenta l’alternativa successiva, di dieci carte numerali e sei figure, per
esempio personaggi sia maschili che femminili, come citati già da Giovanni da Rheinfelden e come
sarebbero in parte conservati nel noto mazzo Visconti di Modrone; quattro carte superiori aggiunte per
seme, come nel mazzo di Marziano, potrebbero alternativamente costituire il quinto seme dei trionfi per
un totale di 80 carte, come già indicato da Michael Dummett (Footnote 4). Di qui si sarebbe potuto ottenere in seguito il mazzo standard dei tarocchi eliminando un paio di figure e “promuovendone” sei dalle carte superiori
dei quattro semi al nuovo seme dei trionfi.
3. G.Campori, “Le carte da gioco dipinte per gli Estensi”. Atti e Memorie delle RR. Dep. St. Patr. per le
prov. Mod. e Parm. 7 (1874) 123-132.
4. M.Dummett, “A Comment on Marziano”. The Playing-Card XVIII (1989) 73-75.