Thanks for explaining why you needed this addition. It seems to me that for your purposes it is not necessary to give a date range for when the tarot became established as 22 triumphs. It is only necessary to say that it occurred no later than a certain date range. For that "the last quarter of the 15th century" is sufficient, i.e.: the tarot became established with 22 special cards by the 4th quarter of the 15th century if not earlier.

So instead of:

Contemporary research situates this time in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, because of three documents that have been preserved:
- a literary document: the poems of Boiardo (1487?)
- a deck: the Sola Busca (1491?)
- a list of 22 allegorical subjects: the Sermones de Ludo cum Allis (before 1500)

Write something like the French for:

Contemporary research situates this time as no later than the last quarter of the fifteenth century, because of three documents that have been preserved:
- a literary document: a poem of Boiardo (active c. 1460-1494)
- a deck: the Sola Busca (1491?)
- a list of 22 allegorical subjects: the Sermones de Ludo cum Allis (c. 1500 or before)

It is not certain that the Sermones are from before 1500. Decker found watermarks suggesting that the paper itself was c. 1500. Tarotpedia quotes him at http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Sermones ... _Cum_Aliis, but does not give the source, that I can find. Huck may remember where it is. Probably The Playing Card.

There is a recent essay on Andrea's site challenging the 15th century attribution of the Sola-Busca to the 15th century, arguing that it is a century later (http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=523). It is not convincing to me.

I think you should give sources, or at least links, for the datings in each case, the Boiardo (both for 1487 Huck and for c. 1460 SteveM), the Sola-Busca, and the Sermones (i.e. Decker's article, I think in The Playing Card).

For Boiardo, the Sola-Busca, and the Sermones, links to their tarotpedia entries are possibilities, but I am disappointed at the lack of sources given there. Trionfi.com does not seem to be any better.

For the Sola-Busca, a link to my post at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=988&p=14771#p14771 would probably be sufficient, for the bibliographic information to the most up to date authoritative account, that of a Brera exhibition catalog of 2013. There is also http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Sola_Busca_Tarot, but it does not give a source or a link to this source (even while basing some of its information on it).



As to the question of when Neopythagoreanism entered, or might have entered, the tarot, when I said that it probably was with Poliziano and Pico I was thinking primarily of the designs chosen for the Sola-Busca number cards, as suggesting a Pythogorean-based system useful for divination. I had not yet read Decker's The Esoteric Tarot, 2013, which, it seems to me, presents a convincing case for the possibility, at least, that Neopythagorean considerations affected the placement of the triumphs very early on, even before there were 22 of them. His chapter 5, most of which is available in Google Books, is well worth reading, albeit not swallowed whole: it cannot be quoted as an authority in itself, but it does give very specific references that can be checked and cited. (About missing pages, send me a pm.) He shows that one did not need the Theologumena; or in fact anything only in Greek. The extant and widely circulating Latin texts were sufficient, such as Macrobius, Martianus Capella, Augustine, etc. For specific references for specific numbers, Hopper's Medieval Number Theory, 1938, is also an excellent source, although not available online.

Origen would be another good source, if he was available then. I know that Origen wrote in Greek; what I don't know is if the part cited by Vitali on the Psalms was available, preferably, in Latin in the 15th century. If not, he cannot be quoted as a justification for there being 22 triumphs. I see on Wikipedia that Origen's homilies on the Psalms were translated by Jerome. If so, the necessary quote was probably available, but it needs to be checked.

MikeH wrote ...

Thanks for explaining why you needed this addition. It seems to me that for your purposes it is not necessary to give a date range for when the tarot became established as 22 triumphs. It is only necessary to say that it occurred no later than a certain date range. For that "the last quarter of the 15th century" is sufficient, i.e.: the tarot became established with 22 special cards by the 4th quarter of the 15th century if not earlier.

We've a limited view on that, what happened with playing cards in 14th and 15th century. That, what we can observe from our documents is far less then 1 % of that, what had really happened, possibly even far less than 0.001 % or 0.00001 %.
How could we exclude the existence of a deck with 4x14+22-structure - for instance - for the year 1387 ?
We can't, the documentary evidence about playing cards is not big enough. If we have 100 documents telling the existence of playing cards in 1387 (we don't have this much, I think), the unknown 101th document might tell us about its existence and we might come to the conclusion, that 1% of the decks in 1387 would have been Tarot cards.
Well, we have the first very sure appearance of this game structure with the Boiardo poem and the Boiardo poem has some good reason to have appeared in 1487, but we cannot exclude an earlier existence.

We have few documents only, which suggest other game structures with a 5th additional suit of trump cards. The existence of these can't prove the non-existence of decks with 4x14+22 structure, neither for 1387 or for 1425 (latest date for the Michelino deck, later called ludus triumphorum) or for 1440 (earliest Trionfi deck document).

For instance we cannot exclude the existence of games with different game structures at the same time. If Florentine cardmakers started to produce early Minchiate decks with 96 or 97 cards in 1465, and a Bolognese cardmaker still produced 5x14-decks in 1477, than that's simply possible and not a contradiction. Similar differences might have occurred at one location, Florentine card producers might have made 5x14-decks AND 5x14+22-decks AND Minchiate decks at the same location and time, further a single creative card producer might have produced these different versions and further different versions all in one small factory alone and at the same time. Just acting in the interest of his customers and their different wishes. From the import lists to Rome (Esch report) we know, that the market was rather active.
http://trionfi.com/n/130902/
In 107 documents from 10 years between 1453-1465 we know of 1831 imported decks, but the number of these decks might have been 3000-4000, cause a good part of the documents refer to not counted Trionfi decks. And there's no guarantee, that another big number entered Rome on illegal or other not counted ways.

I remember, that the Esch report was widely ignored.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=345&p=14076&hilit=esch#p14076

Added:

What we also have, is, that the name Tarochi or Taraux appeared late in our documents: 1505 in Avignon and Ferrara, and on a long march it changed the understanding of the words ludus triumphorim or trionfi. Possibly an indication, that a new game mode (4x14+22) had appeared and got influence enough to get a new name.

Boiardo's poem came from Ferrara (possibly 1487). The word Tarochi started in Ferrara as a name for a card deck (1505). The Franciscan list of trumps came (likely) from the region of Ferrara. In the list of the cardmaker 1559 in Rome Ferrara Tarocchi decks play a special, dominating role.
Florence - cause its many artists - possibly played a big role in the origin of the Trionfi decks - likely. But for the Tarocchi development it looks, as if Ferrara was the important location. And Florence took a clear preference for Germini and Minchiate finally.

Boiardo was an inventive man. His deck likely was first made around 1497, when Boiardo was already dead. Alfonso (earlier than the Avignon production) likely ordered his deck in the context, that he became duke of Ferrara in January 1505.
Alfonso had married January 1491 and travelled to Venice in the next 2 months (which possibly explains a 22-card-deck - the Sola Busca - in Venice).
Boiardo made his poem for the wedding of Lucrezia - 1387, four years earlier.

Venice was late with Trionfi deck notes (beside the Iacopo-Marcello-notes and notes in Florence, which sold Trionfi decks to Venetian addresses earlier). Crema - 1483, Brescia - 1488, Salo - 1489, Bergamo - 1491, all allowances in city statutes and all on Venetian territory. Crema is strange in this row, cause 1483 was the time of the war between Venice and Ferrara and Crema was then partly occupied by Milanese troops.

Background: Venice was involved in a bad war with the Osmans from 1463-1479. In the war 1483-1484 Venice gained some territory from the opponent Ferrara. Peace was made at the costs of Ferrara, and much later Venice had to pay a price for it (in 1508-12, with the participation of Alfonso, then duke of Ferrara). The situation of 1487 was special.

In summary: The 5x14+22 playing card model might have been developed by Boiardo. But it didn't very much relate
to the deck versions, which followed the model of Petrarca's Trionfi.

Rectification about the first addition.
I've deleted what could be controversory and conserved the consensus a minima.

A un moment de l’histoire, probablement au plus tard avant la fin du dernier quart du XVè siècle, le nombre des cartes finit par se fixer à 78 soit 56 + 22.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Hg6j ... sp=sharing

English translation:
At one point in history, probably at the latest before the end of the last quarter of the fifteenth century, the number of cards finally settled at 78, i.e. 56 + 22.

That looks good enough. It seems to me that "finally settled at 78" does not exclude odd variants, or holdouts, here and there with with 70-77 cards, i.e. 56 + 14-21.

This might be a good place to call attention to an argument that Franco advances for the achievement of 22 cards everywhere earlier than the last quarter of the century, closer to mid-century. Here is my translation, from viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1120

I must, however, recognize that the hypothesis of twenty-two triumphal cards added quickly in their entirety to the ordinary deck has a very big advantage over other hypotheses. This point in favor of considering the diffusion of the new deck in various cities is appreciated: if the triumph pack was radically altered during the first years or decades it is difficult to consider a diffusion in various locations of types modified gradually with the result of a final form that is everywhere different in only a few details, typically, how the cards were ordered, especially those representing the virtues. The history of playing cards in Switzerland and Germany helps us to see something very different and meaningful with the appearance of several variants of the same names and symbols used to characterize the four suits (40). For the tarot there is no verification of anything similar.

It seems to me that by itself this is not a good argument. The series from Devil to Sun is the same everywhere, in the same order. It would be very easy to insert that series, or any part of it, into the game at any time, spreading from one dominant center of tarot production to the rest, leaving the local producers only the freedom to change the inessential details on the cards (in that way similar to the variants in suit symbols that Franco observes in Switzerland).

However this counter-argument only works if the deck is already at least 16 triumphs plus the Fool (22- the 5 from Devil to Sun). It does not justify a deck with only 14 added cards as late as 1477, except as an isolated survival of a much earlier form. Also, the Tower, Moon, and Sun appear already in the Charles VI, and the Star, Moon and Sun in the d'Este. I find it hard to believe that these decks, or the 2nd artist cards of the PMB, are as late as 1487. I am inclined to believe, with Franco, that the deck was standardized, or nearly so, already everywhere at least by the 1450s. SteveM's observation in this thread about Boiardo's style tends to support this as well. Only the Devil card is unaccounted for in the luxury decks. It may have been a late addition, but the numbers on the Charles VI (added later, but seemingly reflecting what was in the deck then) do not support this; it can also be explained as removals out of piety or fear of the Inquisition, which associated it with witchcraft.

Mikeh wrote :
This might be a good place to call attention to an argument that Franco advances for the achievement of 22 cards everywhere earlier than the last quarter of the century, closer to mid-century
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17735#p17734
...
Topic open
...


The following question could also be of interest and may not be "incidental" : when the 4th court card is added to the 3 of the "ordinary" cards?

"The 56-card deck ... was the basis for Tarot"

Trick-taking games of some sort, traditionally the most popular form of card game, probably arrived with the cards. However, while we know almost nothing about the games played, the design of the Mamluk decks changed very little as adopted by the Italians, and so-called Moorish cards may have also been used in Europe. The four suits were Swords, Staves (the Mamluk decks used Polo Sticks), Coins, and Cups. Each suit had ten pip cards and three "court cards", a King, Knight, and Page, creating a 52-card deck. While that basic Italian suit system continued to be used, variations developed almost immediately. Spanish decks changed the Staves into Clubs, and altered the designs, and German cardmakers developed a number of alternative suit-systems.
In the earliest known description of playing cards, Brother John described decks in which the number of court cards and even the number of suits were increased from the norm, and some in which female figures were used on the court cards. In addition to regular decks, novelty decks were also produced in the 14th century, including one with images of gods and emblematic animals.
Although Tarot did not appear until the 1440s, the suit-cards used in Tarot were the same as standard Italian playing cards. In some regular Italian-suited decks of the period, Queens had been added to the suit cards, creating a 56-card deck, and such a deck was the basis for Tarot.

http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Tarot_History

Note :
Nevertheless, the usual later ludical ordering is the succession : Jack, Knight, Queen and King.

In another formulation : what datation could be given to the "Tetractys game" of the 56 suit cards?

From my analys of the Whole arithmological "matrix",
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Hg6j ... duUWc/view

and looking at the suits cards, it appears that not only there is the "addition" of the 22 figurative subjects
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Hg6j ... V3UUU/view

but also the 4th added "figure" to the "ordinary" suit's court cards - so two "differences" = the 22 and the additive 4th court card.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17646#p17639

In "ordinary" cards, there are usually 13 : from 1 to 10 and 3 court cards
In "Tarots", there are usually 14 - from 1 to 10 and 4 court cards.
The arithmological analys of the Square Number 4 (16= 4x4) shows :
4=3+1

Rappel:
Les 16 "Honneurs" répartis en quatre Emblèmes et hiérarchisés depuis le Valet jusqu'au Roi.
4x4 =16

L arithmologie pythagoricienne affirme que 16 est un Nombre carré de base 4.
Toutefois, les 16 figures, elles, sont séquencées en quatre carrés de 4.
Ce sont 4 Nombres carrés de 4 qui composent les 16 figures car elles sont distinguées en quatre ensembles distincts ou emblèmes.
Donc: 16 = 4x4
Le Tarot arithmologique lui offre une série de 4 carrés successifs soit :
4x4 = 16


Or, l'arithmétique pythagoricienne explique qu'un nombre carré est la somme de deux nombres triangulaires successifs -
à savoir ici : 4 = 1+3
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/pytha ... 335.99.xml

Autrement dit,
"Un nombre carré est un nombre polygonal qui peut être représenté géométriquement par un carré."
Ainsi 4 peut être représenté par un carré de 2x2 points.

" Les nombres carrés sont donc les carrés parfaits non nuls - le n - ème étant n au carré.
Le produit de deux nombres carrés est un nombre carré.
La représentation du premier nombre carré est un point.
Celle du n -ème s'obtient en bordant deux côtés successifs du carré précédent par 2n - 1 points"


Donc :
4 = 2 au carré = 1+3

Les Quatre Carrés des 16 Honneurs correspondent parfaitement à quatre carrés de 4 sachant que la génération pythagoricienne du nombre carré 4 est égal à 1+3 ( les deux nombres triangulaires successifs)
- quelles que soient les correspondances assignées :
Eléments / Emblèmes ou Enseignes / Emblèmes ou autres analogies
- quelle que soit la hiérarchie à donner aux quatre honneurs entre eux
- quelles que soient leurs valeurs respectives en points selon les règles du jeu.

La disposition arithmologique elle souligne spécifiquement que les Honneurs dans chaque emblème sont à compter comme :
1+3 = 4
1 et 3 sont les nombres deux triangulaires successifs composant le Nombre carré 4.

1 1
1 1
=
1
+
1
1 1

Nota bene
L'ordre de lecture des nombres dans chaque rang du Nombre Carré 4 sera celui proposé par Théon de Smyrne et Jamblique , il est identique à celui du Nombre Pentagone 22, à savoir de droite à gauche.



Post sciptum
Par ailleurs, cette disposition arithmologique du Nombre Carré 4 en géométrie plane donne la première figure solide dans l 'espace de la Pyramide :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... on.svg.png

Ce qui devient intéressant, me semble-t-il, quand on pense que les cartes ordinaires avaient habituellement 3 figures auxquelles s'est surajoutée une 4è dans le Tarot...

3 4
1 2

Exemple :

- En faisant correspondre la valeur "arithmologique" du nombre 4
1
2 et 3
4

à la valeur en points des Honneurs
soit : 1, 2, 3 et 4

3 possibiltés pour le quatrième Honneur en 4è position arithmologique selon que l'on retienne la Dame, le Cavalier ou le Roi.

Positions A, B ou C
A. Série Valet (1) Cavalier(2) Roi(3) et Dame(4)
l 'on obtiendrait
3 4
1 2

R D
V C

B. Série Valet (1) Dame (2) Roi (3) et Cavalier (4)
l 'on obtiendrait
3 4
1 2

R C
V D

B. Série Valet (1) Cavalier(2) Dame (3) Roi (4),
l 'on obtiendrait
3 4
1 2

D R
V C

Conclusion dans tous les cas de figures (Dame ou Roi y compris Cavalier en 4è position arithmologique) :
1+2+3+4 = 10



Remarque :
This brings us to see the Suit Deck of 56 (40+16) as a "Tetractys game".
Rappel :
Les 4 Tetrades emblématiques du Tarot :
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17646#p17639
Note : à titre d'exemple, c'est le Roi qui est positionné en 4è position arithmologique selon la hiérarchie de la Règle de 1637 de Marolles.
Les 4 Tetractys emblématiques du Tarot :
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17646#p17645

Nota bene
La question non encore résolue celle de l'ordre de succession des Emblèmes entre eux.
A titre de proposition hypothétique, j'offre une correspondance pythagoricienne , celle de Philolaos qui identifie les Quatre Eléments dans l 'ordre suivant : Terre Eau Air et Feu disposés aux quatre directions cardinales ...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Hg6j ... BhYzQ/view

Point d'ordre :
Quelles que soient les correspondances adoptées pour les Emblèmes et quelque soit la hiérarchie choisie pour les Honneurs, arithmologiquement les 4 carrés successifs des Honneurs sont de toutes façons obligatoirement orientés aux 4 angles du Ciel :

En termes zodiacaux :
Ascendant Milieu du Ciel Descendant Fond du Ciel
(Maison I) (Maison IV) (Maison VII) (Maison X)

La disposition arithmologique rend visible un 5è carré virtuel au Centre des Quatre précédents - 5è carré virtuel formé en unissant virtuellement entre eux le 4è Honneur de chacun des 4 Emblèmes ...
C'est bien ce 5è Carré virtuel constitué des quatre 4è Honneur de chacun des Emblèmes qui
- est la spécificité du "Tetractys game" des 56
- ajouté aux 22 sujets allégoriques, spécifie le Jeu du Tarot de 78 cartes


"The 56-card deck ... was the basis for Tarot"

Alain ...

The following question could also be of interest and may not be "incidental" : when the 4th court card is added to the 3 of the "ordinary" cards?

John of Rheinfelden (1377) knew a deck with a 4th and 5th playing card.

Also ...

Ambraser Hofjagdspiel
Location/Time: upper Rhine, Schreiber dates 1445/1455, nowadays often 1440/45 are given
Structure: 56 cards, 4x14, King Queen, Ober (all on horse, Obers are male), Unter (beside horse), Banner, 1-9
Suits: Hunting Tool, Hawks, Dogs, Stags

http://trionfi.com/0/p/25/

Alain ...

In another formulation : what datation could be given to the "Tetractys game" of the 56 suit cards?

In German games it's common counting, that King = 4, Queen = 3, Jack = 2 ...
Surely that's older stuff, but where it really can be observed first ...

Rules of the Trumpfspiel:
The dealer is chosen by luck, the lowest card determines the dealer.
It's not told, how many players; it's not told, how much cards and which cards.
Everybody gets 9 cards.
From the remaining cards the highest is turned and determines trump (it's not said, if the "highest cards" are also trump, but likely they are). If the turned card is an ace, the dealer can exchange this to a worthless card, if other cards follow from the trump suit, then these he may exchange also. It's not said, if the other players may exchange anything.
The game is won by the highest points.
Ace has 4 points.
King has 3 points.
Frau-Queen has 2 points.
Jack-Bub has 1 point.
(this should make 40 points totally)
If somebody gets all tricks, the win is doubled.

thread ... viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1051 (from 1637)

Here it are ...

Ace has 4 points.
King has 3 points.
Frau-Queen has 2 points.
Jack-Bub has 1 point.

This leads to a game ...
https://www.pagat.com/couillon/couillon.html
... with strong similarities, somehow in the border of France and Germany.

Known Tarot rules are late, as we know, but it uses mostly 2 point-systems:

King = 4 (number of Emperor in trump sequence)
Queen = 3 (number of Empress)
Cavallo = 2 (number of Popess, which is somehow the "Junckfrawe", an old court card)
Fante = 1 (number of Magician)
or
King = 5
Queen = 4
Cavallo = 3
Fante = 2

One may conclude, that 1-2-3-4 is the original, and 2-3-4-5 followed.

Part of the Tarot rules are 3x4 or 3x5 points for highest trump, lowest trump and Fool.

Further each trick has a value (which differs). Mostly this question is solved by card counting.

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

The 5x14-deck is considered to have been early (at least by me).

If I use the 1-2-3-4-system and 4 points for each special trump and 1 point for each trick I get with the 5x14-deck

40 points [(1+2+3+4)x4] for the 1-2-3-4-system
12 points for the special trumps
17.5 points for 70 cards in a game with 4 players
-----
69.5 points totally

... which is nearly 70 points for a game with a deck with 70 cards. The 1/2 missing point might have been used as a tie-breaker.

In a French rule (for 78 cards, from which I assume, that it is a later rule) we get the following system ...

40 points [(1+2+3+4)x4] for the 1-2-3-4-system
12 points for the special trumps
26 points for tricks for 78 cards in a game with 3 players
------
78 points totally

So there are 78 points for a game with 78 cards.

There exist different Tarot counting systems. But I think, that in the "original old rules" players were interested to have elegant number-systems. Number of game points identical to the number of cards seems to have been an interest of the rules makers.

John of Rheinfelden (1377) used for his 60 cards deck ..

15 points ... Kings
14 points ... Queens
13 points ... upper marshall (= Ober)
12 points ... Maid (Junckfraw = virgin = Lady at the court)
11 points ... lower marshall (= Unter)
number cards according their numbers

This system seems to have been reduced in Italian Tarocchi versions to ...

4 = King
3 = Queen
2 = Cavallo
1 = Fante
(the maid is lost)

... but in the trumps row (Milanese version)

4 = Emperor. higher than king
3 = Empress, higher than Queen
2 = Popess = Virgin = Maid (Cavallo is lost)
1 = Magician, lowest trump

In the Minchiate versions (court cards) we have ...

4 = King
3 = Queen
2 = Cavallo (human-animals)
1 = 2 male pages, 2 female pages (Maid + Unter)

... here Maid and Unter are mixed at one position, and that already at the Rosenwald Tarocchi.



So we see that JvR model is proceeded in variants.

Merci Huck pour cette réponse détaillée.

NB I intend to refrence the link of your post
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17737#p17736


So ...1440-1445-seems as a good guess

Ambraser Hofjagdspiel
Location/Time: upper Rhine, Schreiber dates 1445/1455, nowadays often 1440/45 are given
Structure: 56 cards, 4x14, King Queen, Ober (all on horse, Obers are male), Unter (beside horse), Banner, 1-9
Suits: Hunting Tool, Hawks, Dogs, Stags

I see : Queen King ...am I wrong?
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/ambras/



So Queen Highest and fourth?
So in hierachical order from the lowest to te highest
Unter (first) Obers (second) King (third) Queen (fourth)

[quote="BOUGEAREL Alain"]Merci Huck pour cette réponse détaillée.

NB I intend to refrence the link of your post
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17737#p17736

### no problem ###


So ...1440-1445-seems as a good guess

Ambraser Hofjagdspiel
Location/Time: upper Rhine, Schreiber dates 1445/1455, nowadays often 1440/45 are given
Structure: 56 cards, 4x14, King Queen, Ober (all on horse, Obers are male), Unter (beside horse), Banner, 1-9
Suits: Hunting Tool, Hawks, Dogs, Stags

#### likely it happened much earlier, but there's no confirming evidence ###


I see : Queen King ...am I wrong?
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/ambras/

### ... has likely nothing to say, just a typo. I've to correct: only two Unters are beside the horses ... ###

As it could be the most ancient German reference to the "Tetractys game"...I'm looking with attention.

Hierachy from the highest (fourth ) to the lowest (first)?
Queen then King then Knight then Page? Or errata typo?

Or, from the lowest (first) to the highest(fourth) :
the Knight or Ober is second above the Page or Under and the Queen is fourth above the King (third)

Example Spades
Queen

King

Ober

Under


Same in the other Emblems...