Tarot History Forum

Hi, Huck,

Huck wrote:Michael, since we know us you say "No" "No" "No" "No" "No" "No" "No" etc.

Since you've known me, I've tried to learn from the playing-card historians. I've said "yes" to them because they routinely make sense of the historical evidence.

Since I've known you, you've ignored the playing-card historians and their conclusions, you've claimed that they don't know what they are talking about, and that they are inexplicably biased. You've also specialized in far-fetched theories with phantom decks and exotic evolutionary scenarios which don't seem to explain anything. That's why I've said "no" to you.

You versus the scholars -- they make a lot more sense.

Best regards,
Michael

mjhurst wrote:Hi, Huck,

Huck wrote: You versus the scholars -- they make a lot more sense.

Best regards,
Michael

"You versus the scholars" ... That's nonsense ... I've in some cases other opinions as some, which you might perceive as "scholars". In other cases I learned from the same so-called scholars.
"Scholar" is not a German expression, I've not taken admiration with the mother milk for this term. Between the first things, that you learn as a Go-player, is, that "scholars" can be rather foolish in games, they are human and are often beaten easily. Much later in a player's development you learn, that also very good go-players cook only with water (a longer time they give you 9 stones handicap, which is much, and you don't have an idea, how they manage to be finally the winner). In different systems there are different values. Mankind develops various talents and one can learn from everything. Maybe at other opportunity one learns, that scholars might be quite useful, when you meet them in "their topic".

And occasionally one can learn from small Cowboys and Indians. And just from the own childish enthusiasm about the beauty of chess figures in own childhood. What does they mean in cultures, which had been not overcrowded with such material?
Take a look at Alfonso's chess book, and look how many variations they've of the table games? They had not the money or opportunity to have much different playing material, but they made the best of it.

Understanding "homo ludens" means to know about "playing" and about the "fun of it".

mikeh wrote:You're not complicit, Ross. You wanted a discussion, I hope, or at least a trial; you can't have a hanging with a trial. And here people other than the defendant are allowed to explore possibilities besides the one articulated in the first post.

Of course people can discuss whatever they want, there is no censorship here, except for spam and blatant - or perhaps even subtle - trolling. My reactions only express my frustration, not any implication that whatever you want to discuss should or might be stopped. I have the power to ignore what I consider nonsense, or address it. I'm trying to address selectively and concisely, so that it doesn't get yet more of an airing. I am clearly failing miserably.

There is actually no hope of absolutely "winning" this debate; even science can't convince millions of Creationists that the Earth is more than six thousand (some generously push it back to ten thousand) years old. So among the few experts in the facts of the earliest Tarot history, there is little chance that a theoretical consensus will emerge on the precise details that the broad public will then adopt, and it will become the common knowledge. The only point in continuing is so that if anyone should happen to come upon it in Google searches, they will find the threads littered with objections and counter arguments, instead of a continuous stream of self-referential and self-confirming theory.

The best way might be take a poll on the "Chess Tarot Theory", and makes sure opinion-makers outside this Forum take part as well - Thierry Depaulis, Gisèle Lambert, Franco Pratesi, Andrea Vitali, Gherardo Ortalli, Giordano Berti, John McLeod, David Parlett, Sandrina Bandera, etc., I hardly know everyone who might take part (Girolamo Zorli is already here) At the prospect of being called "experts" some of them may demur, but we should have enough to get an idea of how this idea floats.

Question 1: Do you understand the "Chess Tarot Theory"?
If "No", then stop here.
If "Yes", go on to question 2:
Question 2: Is the "Chess Tarot Theory"
A. Nonsense
or
B. Plausible
?

My guess is that 90% will drop out at Question 1, and of the handful that remain - probably all denizens of THF - only you and Huck will find it "B. Plausible".

The same consensus-seeking test could be done for the 5x14 theory, except that here the results will be different, since 1) the theory has changed over the last decade, and 2) the theory falls broadly in the category of "evolutionary theories", so that several of those questioned will probably have their own version of the 5x14 theory, independent of that promoted on trionfi.com. I know that Andrea has a version, and so did, at one time when I wrote to her, Maria Grazia Tolfo, editor of storiadimilano.it (hers was developed independently of Huck's, Decker's, and everyone else's). Thus the results will be more ambigous, depending on which evolutionary model people prefer.

A better test might be to ask such people whether they think the number and subjects of the Tarot trumps evolved in stages, or that the standard sequence was invented all at once. I imagine that people like Michael Hurst and I would then be in the minority (there is a reason for that).

But whatever might be done to establish consensus, it has to be done with a bigger group than this Forum.

If Marziano didn't mention chess, it's probably because chess is the shared framework, and he's writing about the things that go in the framework, his ideas, not the part that isn't original with him. He might not even have been aware of it, since it was part of the shared culture of the courts. It's only we who have to be aware of it, from a different time with different games and different rules for old games. At least that's what occurs to me at the moment. Maybe Huck thinks differently.

[Added later the same day: Other reasons why Marziano might have not mentioned chess. (1) He todidn't want to appear sycophantic, knowing that Filippo liked chess. (2) Filippo had already talked to him about how he wanted a 4x4 matrix for the special cards, based on chess considerations among other things that pertain to geomancy or to the number 16.]

The simpler explanation for why he didn't mention it is - because it has nothing to do with Chess. There is no need to read Chess into the background, into his unconscious psychology, or whatever. He explains his concept himself, and there is no Chess there. The number 16 doesn't HAVE TO relate to every other number 16 based system ever thought about.

But the proof is in the text itself. He doesn't mention Chess. There are four suits, marked by birds - what have they to do with Chess? Why only fetishize the 16 gods and heroes?

About Geomancy, which I investigated 9 years ago, no Geomancy author ever corresponds Chess pieces or Classical deities to the geomantic figures. The planets don't count, because they are part and parcel with the astrology that is the basis of the system, and they therefore, of course, include SATURN, who is notably absent from Marziano's scheme. No Geomancy author would have thought to "assign" anything to the 16 figures except what astrology demanded or allowed, in any case. It was tied up with the prescriptive and diagnostic divinatory "sciences", of which astrology was the key.

Did I forget to mention that Marziano's design has nothing to do with Chess OR Geomancy?

Actually Marziano's scheme is intelligible both intrinsically - from its design - as well as extrinsically - how he describes it. The first 12 gods are Olympians or quasi-Olympians - he notably avoids Pluto, the underworld god. Instead he re-introduces Vesta, who, in turn, fits perfectly with his scheme of "Virgins", all female.

In fact there is a good balance of male and female figures; the "good" orders, of Virtues and Virginities, are all male and all female respectively, while the "bad" orders of gods and heroes are mixed.

It can be noted that he explicitly notes that Mercury is "in the 9th, fairly middle place" ("fairly middle" because an even number has no exact middle), because he is "a mediator". How cool is that? Marziano gives us an explanation of what he means, and he explicitly shows that he thinks of them as a hierarchy.

The other four, non-Olympians, are added to fill out the fourfold scheme and its four themes; Hercules for his incredible virtus, Aeolus because of his control of the weather, which is changeable and unpredictable, hence suitable for the lesson of the vanity of riches, Daphne is obvious for the theme of virginity, and Cupid for the theme of pleasures.

In short, Marziano rigidly adheres to a fourfold scheme, including corresponding the hierarchy of gods and heroes to the four orders, divided 4x4 (=16) rather than 4x3 (=12). 16 is a square number.

There is no hint of a relationship with Chess, neither in the structure of the game, nor in the figures chosen to represent it. The only thing that serves to link the two is the coincidence that one side of an 8x8 chessboard contains 16 pieces. But what about the "fourfold structure" - how does that relate to Chess? Why remove the 16 gods and heroes from their proper place in the context of a whole deck of cards? How does the GAME relate to chess, rather than just to a fantasy extracting the 16 gods and willy-nilly associating them with Chess figures? Answer - it doesn't - THERE IS NO RELATION.

This is why I compared it to the fetishized number 22 - again, there is nothing in Tarot's structure or the images that relate it to the Hebrew alphabet. NOTHING - NO THING. It is the coincidence of the number 22, pure and simple, that generated this irrepressible fantasy, and many people toil in the mists and fog of fantasy-land to this day to make some connection real, to evoke something solid from the vapor.

It is a sorry sight, and a terrible waste of talent and energy.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: There is no hint of a relationship with Chess, neither in the structure of the game, nor in the figures chosen to represent it.

Filippo Maria Visconti, commissioner of Trionfi decks, is the same man, who ordered to install a chess club in Milan in 1427.
Niccolo d'Este, duke Ferrara, from which we've some of the earliest Trionfi notes, played chess ... he was married to Parisina, one of the earliest women which are recorded in context of earliest Italian playing card documents.
Cosimo di Medici played chess ... he ruled in Florence, which had a dominant role in the first production of Terionfi decks.

Do you call all this "no hint"?

Card playing rich ladies lived in one household with Chess preferring important men. Wasn't this a relationship?

I don't talk of Cathars, who invented Marseille cards, which found to existence 500 years later. I talk of communicative situations between persons, who occasionally parted the bed.

Hi Mike,

mikeh wrote:Andrea says that in this case:

Dovrebbe essere escluso un intervento fiorentino: data la distanza che separa le due città, sarebbe stato più logico affidarsi ai Bolognesi che erano fra l'altro molto esperti.

(A Florentine intervention should be excluded: given the distance which divides the two towns, it would have been more sensible to apply to the Bolognese, who were among other things very capable.)

Then there is the question of the Strambotto and the Rosenwald. I think Andrea is casting doubt on Depaulis's use of either of these to argue for a Tuscan origin for the Charles VI. After describing the Rosenwald, Andrea says

L’Algeri sostiene che mentre la struttura iconografica dei Trionfi appare mutuata dai Tarocchi di Carlo VI, le restanti carte appaiono di elaborazione successiva.Di contrario avviso è il Depaulis che vede in questo mazzo una sorta di “proto-minchiate” fiorentine. Fra l'altro, da una comparazione che egli compie fra l'ordine di queste carte, i Tarocchi di Carlo VI e quelle indicate nello Strambotto de' Trionfi dei primi del sec. XVI, ne risulta una forte similarità, giungendo così ad affermare che anche i Tarocchi di Carlo VI sarebbero stati prodotti in Toscana.

Nell'ordine di tutti i mazzi presi in esame sono presenti minime varianti, prodotte a mio avviso sia da una diversità del gioco che poteva differenziarsi da città a città, più che da regione a regione, sia da una variante temporale, cioè dal diverso periodo di creazione dei mazzi. I Tarocchi di Carlo VI furono infatti realizzati nella seconda metà del sec. XV, come affermano gli storici dell'arte, mentre sia lo Strambotto che i Tarocchi Rosenwald sono di epoca leggermente più tarda. In quel periodo dieci anni potevano influire moltissimo (figura 2 - Ordine del Tarocco Bolognese e dei Tarocchi Toscani - figura 3 Una sezione del primo foglio del Tarocco Rosenwald).

(Algeri argues that while the iconographical structure of the Triumphs [in the Rosenwald, Andrea means] is apparently drawn from the Charles VI tarot, the remaining cards most probably belong to a later development. Of an opposite opinion is Depaulis, who sees in this pack of cards a sort of Florentine “proto-minchiate”. On top of that, from a comparison he performs between the orders of these cards, the Charles VI and those indicated in the Strambotto de' Trionfi of the early XVI century, a strong simiarity is shown, allowing him to claim that the Charles VI might have been made in Tuscany.

In the order of all the packs of cards examined we find very small changes, made - in my opinion - both by the differences in playing the game, which could differ from city to city, even more from from region to region, and by a temporal change, that is, from the different times of manufacture of the packs. Actually the Charles VI tarots were made in the second half of the XVth century, as the art historians affirm, while both the Strambotto and the Rosenwald Tarot belong to a slightly later age. In that period ten years could have a large influence...

I don't quite follow all of what Andrea is saying relative to Depaulis, perhaps because I haven't read Depaulis. Andrea doesn't seem to be challenging Depaulis's idea of the Rosenwald as a "mini-Minchiate." But this last part, that "ten years could have a large influence" seems to me quite true, whether you are speaking of Bologna or Florence.

For me the point is that the Charles VI could just as logically have been made in Bologna as in Florence, and just as logically 1470s as 1460. I take the date of the d'Este cards, c. 1475, as clearly established; but that isn't so important for considerations here; they could have been taken from a pattern extant far earlier in Ferrara, even before 1460. What I find especially of interest is what Algeri says about the similarities beteeen the Charles VI on the one hand and the d'Este cards and the Schifanoia on the other. It seems to me that the Schifanoia, and probably the d'Este, would have used Ferrarese models. I suppose the Ferrarese could have used a Florentine Charles VI for their design of the Schifanoia frescoes and for their d'Este cards. But the Schifanoia seems so Ferrarese otherwise; it was an object of civic pride. I can understand why they might have borrowed from the "Mantegna" cards for the Schifanoia: the "Mantegna" were done by a Ferrarese artist, in part inspired by the Belfiore Muses of 1449. I have more trouble seeing them copying cards from Florence, again out of civic pride. Bologna, however, was also a major production center and could have produced cards for Ferrara and even Florence (if something there had curtailed production or increased costs).

So not only do I have doubts about the special conservatism of Bolognese players, I am left in great uncertainty about where the Charles VI was made, for whom, and when, at least between Florence and Bologna and between 1460 and 1470. Perhaps you can clarify further, Ross.

I don't know how much Andrea has followed the arguments for attributing Charles VI to Florence. Below is an account of how it was done, but first, here is a summary of the important points:

- Charles VI and Catania are related - certainly the same workshop, if not the same artist.
- Charles VI and Catania had the same numbering, where numbering appears.
- Most importantly for us, the Chariot is numbered ten ("x" and "10" respectively) on both decks, which is a distinctly Florentine numbering, never attested in Bologna.
- The chances of both decks having been made in Bologna but numbered in Florence, seem very low.
- Similarly, the chances of Bologna having once used the Chariot=10 position, but then moved the Chariot down to just above Love - coincidentally the same as the Tarot de Marseille in France - seem only moderately more likely. Note that in Florence herself the order with Chariot above Fortune is attested only with the advent of the Minchiate, which we can surely place only in the late 1520s; in the Florentine Strambotto of circa 1500, the Chariot is just under Fortune.
- The Rosenwald sheet Chariot looks like the Catania Chariot. Catania is a close relative of Charles VI, so that if Catania is Florentine, so is Charles VI.
- The Rosenwald Sheet has about 1/3 more similarity to Charles VI and Catania than either does to the BAR sheet. (see linked AT post below)
- The Rothschild cards in the Louvre (with whom belong the Knight of Swords from Bassano del Grappa) are stylistically similar to the Charles VI and Catania cards (look especially at the faces and hands, then the similarities start to become more apparent in other features)).
- The Rothschild cards contain an Emperor who holds a Florentine gold florin, identifed as such by the Florentine fleur-de-lis upon it. This is a detail never noticed by anyone before art historian Cristina Fiorini or Thierry Depaulis (I'm not sure which one noted it first) in 2005.
- All of the three sets of cards - Charles VI, Catania, Rothschild - resemble the output of the Florentine studio of Apollonio da Giovanni, in the 1450s and 60s (known mostly by manuscript illuminations and cassoni).
- All of this Florentine attribution of the cards was made before the critical discoveries of Franco Pratesi of actual Florentine Trionfi makers - both luxury and common.
- Thus - the order of the cards, the stylistic similarities among different sets, and the existence of known trionfi makers in Florence at the appropriate time for the style, all make Florence very much more certainly their place of origin over Bologna.

There are probably other arguments that I have forgotten off-hand.

More detail:

I began making arguments in favor of a Florentine provenance in February 2006
http://tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=71 ... stcount=16
- based on comparing the Rosenwald Sheet with the Charles VI. The tally ended up with more similarity between the Rosenwald and Charles VI than between standard Bolognese cards (BAR and more recent cards) and Charles VI. Thierry later noted that the Charles VI Fante of Swords resembled the Fante of Swords in one of the other Rosenwald sheets (which is probably part of a Minchiate (it has centaurs)) than the typical Bolognese Fante of Swords, thus increasing the tally on the side of Florence.

A little later I found out that Cristina Fiorini, working with Thierry Depaulis on the Rothschild cards in the Louvre (the luxury cards, not the R half of the BAR sheet) for her doctorate in art history, had assigned these cards to Florence, and also suspected that Charles VI and Catania belonged there too. The only thing I objected to was her attribution of the Rothschild cards to Giovanni dal Ponte (following the suggestion of Bellosi in the 80s), and the date of circa 1420, which I found hugely improbable.

Knowing my objections, Thierry suggested she publish her findings in an article in The Playing Card, while suggesting I do the same in response to hers when it came out.

Huck wrote:

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: There is no hint of a relationship with Chess, neither in the structure of the game, nor in the figures chosen to represent it.

Filippo Maria Visconti, commissioner of Trionfi decks, is the same man, who ordered to install a chess club in Milan in 1427.
Niccolo d'Este, duke Ferrara, from which we've some of the earliest Trionfi notes, played chess ... he was married to Parisina, one of the earliest women which are recorded in context of earliest Italian playing card documents.
Cosimo di Medici played chess ... he ruled in Florence, which had a dominant role in the first production of Terionfi decks.

Do you call all this "no hint"?

There's NO HINT in the ACTUAL EVIDENCE. The ACTUAL EVIDENCE is contained in the cards themselves, and in Marziano's case, the book he wrote.

There's no need to theorize based on circumstantial evidence when DIRECT evidence is available. And also, these guys liked Chess, so what? Filippo liked knucklebones too, and snowball fights - what about that? He was also scared of Fridays, and thunderstorms, is that relevant? What about astrology, surely that was more important than Chess to all of them. And Filippo had a Jewish doctor, and Don Messore had just been to Egypt, and Cosimo di Medici was hosting the biggest international conference in European history, and... anything you want.

The evidence itself keeps saying - '"No Chess". "Nope, nothing to do with Chess, you must have the wrong address."

Card playing rich ladies lived in one household with Chess preferring important men. Wasn't this a relationship?

I don't talk of Cathars, who invented Marseille cards, which found to existence 500 years later. I talk of communicative situations between persons, who occasionally parted the bed.

("parted" does not mean the same as "shared" in this case - it should be "shared the bed")

Why is it that a woman's game would be adapted to a game in which they usually had no part? (you also mention it above regarding Bembo's Pavia fresco - but it was outside, on the north wall, not inside. Anybody in the courtyard could see it)

Constantly invoking the women seems to undermine your already shaky circumstantial argument.

Hi, Huck,

Huck wrote:

mjhurst wrote:You versus the scholars -- they make a lot more sense.

"You versus the scholars" ... That's nonsense ... I've in some cases other opinions as some, which you might perceive as "scholars". In other cases I learned from the same so-called scholars.

We're not talking about "some cases" or "other cases".

We're talking about this case: "Huck's 'Chess Tarot theory".

Huck wrote:"Scholar" is not a German expression, I've not taken admiration with the mother milk for this term.

I'm not sure what you mean. However, "scholarship", referring to academic rigor in the application of methods, both scientific and historical, is something that Germans have famously excelled at in a number of fields, including art history.

Huck wrote:Between the first things, that you learn as a Go-player, is, that "scholars" can be rather foolish in games, they are human and are often beaten easily. Much later in a player's development you learn, that also very good go-players cook only with water (a longer time they give you 9 stones handicap, which is much, and you don't have an idea, how they manage to be finally the winner). In different systems there are different values. Mankind develops various talents and one can learn from everything. Maybe at other opportunity one learns, that scholars might be quite useful, when you meet them in "their topic".

Yes, there is a universally recognized distinction between theory and practice.

Boethius wrote:On the border below was inwoven the Greek letter Pi, on that above was to be read the Greek letter Theta. And between the two letters there could be marked degrees, by which, as by the rungs of a ladder, ascent might be made from the lower principle to the higher.

Knowing how to do something is not the same as knowing about that same thing, its mechanisms, its history, its place in society. Just as notable scholars may not be good at playing a particular game, (no practical expertise) excellent players may be incompetent when it comes to understanding them (no theoretical expertise).

Here, we are attempting the higher (in Boethius' allegory) discipline of Theory, intellectual understanding about something (Tarot history) rather than the lower discipline of Practice, playing the game. You may be a fine Go player, and no one has challenged that. Congratulations. However, that expertise clearly does not help you understand Tarot history. The mere fact that you can become obsessed with something as patently absurd as this Chess/Tarot idea, and cling to it for years as part of the 5x14 Theory, is proof that your judgment in such matters is unreliable and your ability to learn, even with the help of much explanation, detailed examples, and visual aids, is limited.

Huck wrote:And occasionally one can learn from small Cowboys and Indians. And just from the own childish enthusiasm about the beauty of chess figures in own childhood. What does they mean in cultures, which had been not overcrowded with such material? Take a look at Alfonso's chess book, and look how many variations they've of the table games? They had not the money or opportunity to have much different playing material, but they made the best of it. Understanding "homo ludens" means to know about "playing" and about the "fun of it".

I highly recommend both books. Sonja Musser Golladay's translation of Alfonso may still be online... yes, there appears to be a PDF here. And Huizinga's book, Homo Ludens, is well worth the time.

None of which makes the Chess/Tarot connection anything other than a perverse figment.

Best regards,
Michael

Ross: thanks for explaining why you say the Charles VI is Florentine. That helps me. Now I have something I can look for holes in; then, Ih hope, you can fill them in for me--or deny that they are holes. I'll work on it. It is kind of a side-issue, since I don't see Huck quarreling with you on that pont; but it does hang me up when it comes to accepting your version of the facts.

Aside from that, I am trying to understand the two theoretical positions. I find them both very complex. To me one is not more understandable than the other. Understanding a statement, e.g. the result of the Pythagorean Theorem, is not the same as understanding the Pythagorean Theorem itself, the theory, which involves seeing why it should be true.

In the case of tarot, there are facts to account for. We might agree that one fact is a 1487 tarot with 22 trumps Well, that is what is to be explained. One simple explanation: it was that way c. 1440. Defending that thesis is part of the necessary work. But even if true, that is not enough, unless you choose not to go that way (unless of course you think that going any further is nonsense, another position needing defense) . Why did a tarot with 22 trumps appear in c. 1440? You can appeal to things like economics, conclaves, artisans in a particular place, political considerations, etc. But there is one other thing: somebody dreamed it up, either all by himself or herself, or in conjunction with others, or on the basis of something that came before. So the problem remains the same, merely pushed back to another time. That needs explaining, too. We are dealing with the psychology of human invention.

My assumption about this psychology is that inventions usually come step by step. Nobody invented the automobile from scratch. Somebody invents a compact gasoline engine, and before that there was a carriage that needed such an engine, with a steering mechanism. And before that, an engine that was not as compact as a gasoline engine, and a carriage without steering and not as compact as a personal automobile. Maybe that's the exception, but I think that in general it's true.

I'm not sure that inventions proceed in the simplest possible way, either. The field of scientific discovery isn't precisely the same, but it might have some examples. Kepler had a whole Pythagorean theory of the heavenly bodies that he used in arriving at his hypotheses. Newton was an alchemist, and the law of gravity was a mathematical codification of a principle from alchemy, a modification of Aristotle, the princple universal attraction (as opposed to earth-attraction). Einstein finally got rid of that baggage; his theory is simpler in that sense, although hardly simpler to understand.

If we look at what preceded the tarot, we see various things. We see Marziano's description of a game of the gods. We see Petrarch's Triumphs, and Triumphal processions in Italy. We see children of the planets, We see ladders and concentric spheres ascending to heaven. We see dances of death. We don't see them all together in one package. And we also see a lot more that on first glance doesn't seem to be part of the package, just as Pythagoras and alchemy don't seem to be part of modern physics: moralized Fulgentius and chess (very similar), lot books, alchemical sequences, Neoplatonic and Neopythagorean treatises,Greek and Roman classical literature, etc. etc., many of these things came to Northern Italy then and not earlier; others had been around quite a while.

Well, it's true that there was Shakespeare, who recycled earlier stories, borrowed language and imagery from the Bible and an immense range of classical Greco-Roman literature as well as many other sources, used exact Italian geography, exact knowledge of English law, etc, an amazing synthesis. But even his work evolved over time (including different versions of plays already written), getting more and more complex, borrowing from more things, going deeper into human psychology and spirituality.

I assume that Ross and Michael propose a particular theory of the process of the tarot's creation: the combination of many diverse subjects into one sequence all at once, the Children of the Planets, the ladder to heaven, the Book of Revelation, the Petrarchan Triumphs, all without need for further correction?

Some people say the Bible was created that way, divine inspiration through all the steps of the process, hence uncorrectable. Demonstrably false, thanks to rigorous academic scholarship, but countless people still believe it.

Well, assuming that the tarot was not a product of divine inspiration untarnished by human imperfect reception (and I am not accusing anybody of that), there were other cultural influences as well. What were they? Huck's theory takes more than just a diagram. But he does provide more: the psychology of influential personalities, examples of blurred boundaries between chess and tarot, and an account of how it might have happened more in comformity with what we know about the psychology of human invention, including invention by geniuses like Newton or Shakespeare.

The chess part, I have to say, is still difficult for me. It is clearly unnecessary, no argument from me there. Also unnecessary for Chaucer, etc. But Pythagorean cosmology and alchemy were probably unnecessary for the development of modern physics, even though in fact they were part of that development. What can be said for chess is that it was part of the culture of the time for the type of people in a position to invent a game. And the more we learn about that culture, and how it might connect with their games and other activities, the more we can hope to understand how tarot happened.

Ross wrote, in answer to my query about how it is known where the Charles VI is from

Below is an account of how it was done, but first, here is a summary of the important points:

- Charles VI and Catania are related - certainly the same workshop, if not the same artist.
- Charles VI and Catania had the same numbering, where numbering appears.
- Most importantly for us, the Chariot is numbered ten ("x" and "10" respectively) on both decks, which is a distinctly Florentine numbering, never attested in Bologna.
- The chances of both decks having been made in Bologna but numbered in Florence, seem very low.
- Similarly, the chances of Bologna having once used the Chariot=10 position, but then moved the Chariot down to just above Love - coincidentally the same as the Tarot de Marseille in France - seem only moderately more likely. Note that in Florence herself the order with Chariot above Fortune is attested only with the advent of the Minchiate, which we can surely place only in the late 1520s; in the Florentine Strambotto of circa 1500, the Chariot is just under Fortune.
- The Rosenwald sheet Chariot looks like the Catania Chariot. Catania is a close relative of Charles VI, so that if Catania is Florentine, so is Charles VI.
- The Rosenwald Sheet has about 1/3 more similarity to Charles VI and Catania than either does to the BAR sheet. (see linked AT post below)
- The Rothschild cards in the Louvre (with whom belongs the Knight of Swords from Bassano del Grappa) are stylistically similar to the Charles VI and Catania cards (look especially at the faces and hands, then the similarities start to become more apparent in other features)).
- The Rothschild cards contain an Emperor who holds a Florentine gold florin, identifed as such by the Florentine fleur-de-lis upon it. This is a detail never noticed by anyone before art historian Cristina Fiorini or Thierry Depaulis (I'm not sure which one noted it first) in 2005.
- All of the three sets of cards - Charles VI, Catania, Rothschild - resemble the output of the Florentine studio of Apollonio da Giovanni, in the 1450s and 60s (known mostly by manuscript illuminations and cassoni).
- All of this Florentine attribution of the cards was made before the critical discoveries of Franco Pratesi of actual Florentine Trionfi makers - both luxury and common.
- Thus - the order of the cards, the stylistic similarities among different sets, and the existence of known trionfi makers in Florence at the appropriate time for the style, all make Florence very much more certainly their place of origin over Bologna.

Very clarifying. I either didn't know or didn't remember these things. The Charles VI was most likely made in Florence. Great. One less uncertainty to have to deal wtih.

But what follows? Let's see, going over your points gain, and my granting the conclusion:

- Charles VI and Catania had the same numbering, where numbering appears.
Most importantly for us, the Chariot is numbered ten ("x" and "10" respectively) on both decks, which is a distinctly Florentine numbering, never attested in Bologna.

I grant that both were made in Florence. That this numbering is distinctively Florentine as opposed to Bolognese is a point at issue.Like Andrea says: These are very small differences, and 10 years could make a big difference. I will hold off until the end of this post whether this is particular point is relevant to the larger issue.

- The chances of both decks having been made in Bologna but numbered in Florence, seem very low.

Well, where they were made now isn't the issue. I grant their being made in Florence in 1450s and 1460s.

- The Rosenwald Sheet has about 1/3 more similarity to Charles VI and Catania than either does to the BAR sheet. (see linked AT post below)

I'll take your word for it. Also for the next four observations.
So it seems like the Rothschild cards, the Charles VI, and the Catania were all made in Florence in the 1450s and 1460s. And the BAR wasn't made in the same workshop, and perhaps not the same city.

There remains the Rosenwald. What follows from its style, which is similar to the Charles VI and the Catania, since it very certainly does have a Popess?

If the Rosenwald sheet is closer in style to Charles VI/Catania than the BAR is to them, that suggests that the Rosenwald was made using Charles VI/Catania as a model, and the BAR wasn't. However since the Rosenwald was made much later, maybe even in the 16th century, we have no way of knowing under what circumstances the Popess was there. Maybe the deck was for export to another city. Maybe Florence had added the Popess, which it had formerly resisted, and then in a fit of conservatism brought on by Savoranola, had second thoughts and removed it. So the sheet couldn't be used. Who knows?

So I am at a loss to know how your argument, so far, shows with any probability what you want it to show.

There was one premise of your argument that I questioned. Let us suppose that you are right, and we do know for sure that the Chariot wasn't numbered 10 in Bologna during the 1450s and 1460s. Nothing follows from that other than the Catania and Charles VI weren't made for Bolognese consumption. That seems reasonable enough, given that they were made in Florence.

But perhaps there are other relevant considerations. There is the Strombotto, which omits the Popess and seems to be from the A order region, 1500 or before. So yes, the Popess was omitted in all or part of the A region by then. Yes, there was the Savoranola regime in Florence, and much confusion even after. A good time to drop the Popess (suggesting that she was a creature who was particularly offensive to someone powerful in the Church; I doubt if it was Alexander VI). That tends to suggest that the numbers were written on the Charles VI around then or after. Or maybe the Strombotto wasn't written with Florence in mind, and the Charles VI numbers were written either before the change or with that time in mind, or somewhere else.

But the Rosenwald has a Popess. So, we might hypothesize, either the Popess came back to Florence briefly then (but after the Strombotto and after the numbers were written on the cards) or it wasn't made for Florentine consumption. Otherwise, you have to assume that the Rosenwald was made before the Strombotto was written. That doesn't seem safe at all.

So we are left totally up in the air about how many trumps there were in the Charles VI, even granting it was made in the 1450s-1460s in Florence. It was made long before the Strombotto and the Rosenwald. The Popess could well have been added in the 1470s or 1480s--to conform to practice elsewhere in the A region. And about the Strombotto (without a popess) and the Rosenwald (with), well, who knows? Many possibilities, as I have indicated. I know it's not the simplest hypothesis, but it's almost the simplest. And it is consistent with known facts. The climate did change drastically in the 1490s and never really stabilized in that century, or until the Medici established themselves as Dukes. So Florence has its notorious not-extremely-conservative tarot players.

Actually, it's not the players. It's the decks. They are subject to censorship and the fear of "bonfires of the vanities." And the facts themselves suggest ups and downs or this way and that way in or outside the region: the Strombotto without a Popess, the Rosenwald with, close to the same times in probably the same region.

The other issue is regarding how probable it was that there were 22 trumps in Bologna in the 1450s and 1460s remains at issue. I have given reasons for doubting your argument, which you have not addressed. But I see now that I may have misunderstood something you said. So I might need to reformulate my position. When you say that the Bolognese players are extremely conservative, what time period are you referring to? Is it the time period after the end of the 18th century, from which you have the "Bolognese order of trumps," up to now, or the time period from 1506 up to now? Do we even know if the game was played in Bologna from the mid-17th century to the late 18th century? I am basing my question on Dummett's remark, quoted by Andrea in "The Order of the Triumphs" (http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=221), speaking of tarot in Bologna:

"Anche se ancora esistenti nel 1588, la vecchia forma e il mazzo completo erano stati completamente dimenticati alla metà del XVII secolo, benché persistesse il nome di Tarocchino"
("Although still in existence in 1588, the old form and complete pack had been completely forgotten in mid seventeenth century, although the name Tarocchino persisted".)
Michael Dummett, Il Mondo e l’Angelo, Naples, 1993, pag. 224.

I don't know why Dummett said this; I don't have the book.

Ross answered my question in another thread, I don't remember which!

Here I want to add a couple of things about the chess analogy. It didn't start with Huck; he has merely given it the most elaboration, turning it into a theory rather than an observation. Charles de Brosses noticed it in the 1730s (I cite a document included in the English translation of an essay by Andrea Vitali at http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page. ... 91&lng=ENG

En vérité, il est fort joli; je trouve que c'est le seul jeu de cartes qui ait quelque rapport aux échecs, en ce que les pièces sont variées, et que l'on fait une perpétuelle guerre, tantôt aux unes, tantôt aux autres; car telle est importante dans un certain moment, et telle dans un autre.

(In truth, it is very lovely, I think it is the only card game that has any connection to chess in that the pieces are varied, and there is a perpetual war, sometimes with one, sometimes with others, because this is important at one time, and so at another.)