Re: Date of Invention

#31
Thanks.

Wow, what a jumble! I hope he's figured it all out by now.
SteveM wrote:On pages 21 / 22 he gives a timeline, against 1415 he writes:

1415 "Tarot cards are painted for the Duke of Milan."


On page 20 Douglas writes:
"The twenty-two allegorical trump cards may not have formed part of the original pack. The earliest undisputed reference to playing cards which we have, a detailed description of cards and card games made by a German monk living in a Swiss monastery in 1377, makes no mention of these striking designs.
"However, the major trumps were certainly in existence in 1415, when a beautiful hand-painted Tarot pack was created for the young Duke of Milan, Filippo Maria Visconti. (n.6)
With the term "young Duke of Milan", he must be referring to the Marziano pack. I'm not sure where the date comes from then, if not Samek Ludovici. I seem to remember people trying to date it that early, but in reality there is no way to date it with any greater precision than between 1412, when Filippo Maria became Duke (at age 19), the same year Marziano came to work for him, and early 1425, by which time Marziano was dead.

A further complication, which Douglas could not have known about, arises when the artist of the pack is considered. Marziano wrote the text before 1425. Decembrio's account only mentions Marziano in connection with the pack, and implies that he painted it too, for the famous sum of 1500 ducats. But the only other evidence of the pack that we have is the letter of Jacopo Antonio Marcello, from 1449, who says that Michelino da Besozzo painted it. This artist had a long career, active from 1388 to around 1450. Marziano is not known to have been a painter, so if Michelino really is the only one who painted the pack based on Marziano's text, he could have done it after Marziano died, and anytime before Filippo Maria's death in 1447.

I think it most reasonable to date the painting of the pack close to the time of the writing of the text though.
n.6 on p.223 says:

"See Tarocchi by Franco Maria Ricci, Parma, 1969. The Visconti Tarot Cards are exquisitely reproduced in this authoritive work by Professor Ricci."


I am not sure here whether he is saying Ricci is the source for his dating, or only that the Visconti cards are reproduced in Ricci. The only cards remotely close to that date I can think of are those referenced by Martiano of Greek Gods? Perhaps Douglas has confused a reference to these (the Martiano - which are in various places described as the earliest tarot cards) to the those reproduced in Ricci? But I think the dating for the Martiano is usually later, 1418-1425 (?), and Ricci is very clear in the English translation dating the first series to c.1428 and third to c.1441/1447.
I think he is referring to the Samek Ludovici text as his source, so I would guess that that date is in the Italian somewhere.

The dating of 1428 (at the eariest) for the Modrone/Cary-Yale is not accepted anymore, principally because Bonifacio Bembo would have been only a child then. There is also no reason to believe it had to be made for a marriage, whether this one or any other. The current consensus, based on Bembo's stylistic development, is 1443-1445 (around the time of his "Lancelot of the Lake").
Douglas on p.22 also writes ~
"There is a strong possibility that the twenty-two Tarot trumps evolved independently of the four suits. They are not mentioned by Brother Johannes of Brefeld in 1377, and although the existence of the Visconti Tarot in 1415 proves that they were known at that time, the speech made by the Franciscan Friar in Northern Italy somewhere between 1450 and 1470 clearly differentiates between them and the remaining cards."


I think the speech by a Franciscan Friar he is refering to is probably the Steele Sermon, though the dating he gives is again probably too early?
There is no firm consensus on the date of the sermon itself, although the paper it is written on dates to around 1500 (this information came from Ronald decker - as did the suggestion it was a Francsican). 1450 is not impossibly early, but since it appears to be based on another sermon, written by James of the Marches (again undated, but before around 1460), the best dating puts it after 1460.
Image

Re: Date of Invention

#32
robert wrote:It's almost certain the the Minchiate was derived from tarot. The difference between the decks is that the additional cards were all added... as a singular unit... into the pre-existing tarot deck.
On the other hand, wouldn't the presence of an "Eastern Emperor" in the Minchiate deck cap the latest date that it would likely have been invented, or at least that name bestowed, at sometime not very long 1453, when Constantinople fell? If the Minchiate is an expanded Tarot, the idea for the expansion cannot have come much later than the deck itself.

It may be a case, of names being changed after the imagery was imperfectly understood, also.
Le beau valet de coeur et la dame de pique
Causent sinistrement de leurs amours défunts.

- Baudelaire

Re: Date of Invention

#33
SteveGus wrote:
robert wrote:It's almost certain the the Minchiate was derived from tarot. The difference between the decks is that the additional cards were all added... as a singular unit... into the pre-existing tarot deck.
On the other hand, wouldn't the presence of an "Eastern Emperor" in the Minchiate deck cap the latest date that it would likely have been invented, or at least that name bestowed, at sometime not very long 1453, when Constantinople fell? If the Minchiate is an expanded Tarot, the idea for the expansion cannot have come much later than the deck itself.

It may be a case, of names being changed after the imagery was imperfectly understood, also.
The names "Eastern Emperor", "Western Emperor" and "Grand Duke" are not native. They were invented by the French playing card historian Romain Merlin in 1859.

The native sources of the game call the first five cards of the Minchiate trumps papi, and individually papa uno, papa due, etc. (trumps I to V (our Bateleur to Amoureux)).

Ross
Image

Re: Date of Invention

#34
Hi, Ross,
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:I’ve been considering my plotting of the earliest evidence for tarot some more.
I've been considering your chart some more too: great piece of work.

I've been out of the loop, i.e, not following the List closely, for a few years now. And I'm just now, finally, recovering from a computer disaster early this year. The good news is, a new computer and operating system. The bad news is everything else. (Including years of lost emails, again.) Anyway, I have just started thinking about posting some Tarot stuff again. (I may repost some old GeoCities stuff to my blog, that kind of thing.) However, I've missed some findings in the last few years and forgotten even more, so I need to review a bit.

Considering my areas of interest, it seemed that a good place to begin would be to remind myself of the earliest evidence of Tarot, using the updated version of your 2007 chart. Your chart is a great graphic summary of the first half-century of Tarot, whether the Y-axis is arranged chronologically or geographically. When done geographically, it outlines all the earliest evidence along two relevant dimensions. This is the latest update I found.

Ross' "scientific-looking" Chart (geographically ordered)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=917&p=13527#p13527



I'm trying to identify the 66 items indicated on the chart, (and more, naturally), and make a list for my own reference. Not necessarily in any detail: For example, there were the items noted in your original 2007 article, from Thierry Depaulis: Siena, 1452; Ancona, 1460; Rome, 1474, 1475, and 1478; Recanati, c1480. In that case, that is sufficient for my purposes, i.e., for me to know where the dot comes from. Obviously, when detail is available, like your translations of many of the references which are on trionfi.com, that is preferred. (BTW, a monograph compilation of your translations of early Tarot-related texts and passages is long overdue. I'll pay now, if you're taking subscriptions.) And some items require detailed discussion for any real understanding, such as your insightful analysis of two 1442/Ferrara items in terms of Marchione Burdochio and Bologna. But most items don't have such deep and indirect implications. Basically I'm just trying to identify these Tarot-related items from the first half-century or so of Tarot.

If there is a complete listing somewhere, I failed to find it. Could you please give me the link? Otherwise, I'll tell you what I've failed to find and ask a few questions. If some of my questions are grossly ignorant or stupid, try to have patience with a born-again newbie. Above, in 2009, you posted a list of items indicated, both to your blog and to the List. That was my starting point.

Date of Invention (chronologically ordered)
http://ludustriumphorum.blogspot.com/20 ... ntion.html
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=258&p=3181#p3181

Here is a timeline by Robert, also originally based on your posts, with an addition (Pratesi's "1453-1458 Florentine triumphs by Filippo di Marco") by Lothar.

Chronology of Early Tarot Evidence
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=817

I tracked down some other pages to add bits and pieces. This included stumbling through the labyrinth at trionfi.com, mostly using Google site-search (the "site:" operator) with a location and date. (For example, searching "site:trionfi.com cremona 1484" showed me "in the year 1484 the excellent painter Antonio Cicognara (of the same family as the Count) painted uno magnifico mazzo de carte dette de' Tarocchi, da me veduto (a magnificent pack of the cards called tarocchi, seen by me) for Cardinal Ascanio Sforza.") But I still have a few questions.

LOMBARDY
1) I failed to ID the 1452 doc. We have the 1448 doc for Marcello, the 1450 doc for the Sforza letter, the 1452 doc for the Gismondo letter, and then another doc is indicated. Does this relate to Milanese decks being sold in Rome? http://trionfi.com/giovanni-da-pistoia
2) After the 1468 "Brescia and Domodossola" doc and two frescos, there is the 1474 "two letters of GM Sforza requesting packs of triumphs" with a doc indicated. Looking around for those letters, the closest item I found was this:
Pavia, 27 April 1475. "Volemo ne mandi per nostri piaceri para vinticinque de carte da zughare a cricha et para cinque de triomphi" (We wish to be sent for our pleasure 25 packs of cricca playing cards and 5 of triumphs)(G. Porro, "Lettere de Galeazzo Maria Sforza Duca di Milano", _Archivio Storico Lombardo_ V (1878) p. 273).
Is that what is being referenced?

FERRARA
1) I failed to ID the 1478 doc.
2) Is there any reason why Boiardo isn't indicated?

FLORENCE
1) Is there any reason why the 1466 Minchiate doc isn't indicated?

Again, thanks for this great piece of work, and apologies if I'm overlooking the obvious.

Best regards,
Michael
We are either dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, or we are just dwarfs.

Re: Date of Invention

#35
hi Michael,

1. This is central list with different aspects ... about the time 1440-1465.
http://trionfi.com/etx-origin-triumphs
It's not complete in its details ... but so much isn't missing.

Well, let's say, it wasn't finished, cause there wasn't enough resonance by the readers.

2. A central list of all known events (1440-1465) is this (should be more or less ready; the notes of the Esch report are shortened):
http://trionfi.com/early-trionfi-cards-notes
More to the Esch report is here (not finished, just an overview):
http://trionfi.com/n/130902/

3. Later notes (1465 - 1500) were only reflected at the older list ... till c. 2009)
http://trionfi.com/etx-old-trionfi-documents-menu
Since then a only few new notes have appeared ... they weren't included.

*********
1) I failed to ID the 1452 doc. We have the 1448 doc for Marcello, the 1450 doc for the Sforza letter, the 1452 doc for the Gismondo letter, and then another doc is indicated. Does this relate to Milanese decks being sold in Rome? http://trionfi.com/giovanni-da-pistoia
http://trionfi.com/giovanni-da-pistoia is the second article to Giovanni da Pistoia (background only to the person), the first is ...
http://trionfi.com/triunfi-playing-cards-rome
... relating to a note of the Esch-text of 2007 ...
1453. Giovanni da Pistoia:
"12 immagine di legnio e 8 paia de triunfi da giochare";
dog.: 36 bol. (=10 duc.); reg. 48, fol. 45v, luglio.
It's the oldest Triunfi document (1453), that Esch had found in his archive. In the recent work of Franco Pratesi this article was the first article, that he published at Trionfi.com, in the following half year he found all the other documents. After that he focussed on the region of Arezzo (15th century, only one Trionfi deck) and mainly on Minchiate (most of these articles belong to a later period ... 17th-19th century).
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Date of Invention

#36
Hi, Lothar,
Huck wrote:
1. This is central list with different aspects ... about the time 1440-1465.
http://trionfi.com/etx-origin-triumphs

2. A central list of all known events (1440-1465) is this (should be more or less ready; the notes of the Esch report are shortened):
http://trionfi.com/early-trionfi-cards-notes
http://trionfi.com/n/130902/

3. Later notes (1465 - 1500) were only reflected at the older list ... till c. 2009)
http://trionfi.com/etx-old-trionfi-documents-menu
Thanks for the links. I had reviewed those pages, among numerous others. I am still unclear on the three items mentioned, and curious about the two omissions. I assume that I'm overlooking something obvious, but it isn't yet obvious to me.

Best regards,
Michael
We are either dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, or we are just dwarfs.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron