Well, I can imagine another scenary

The MEdici deck its a Minchiate (Pulci speack about Minchiate, not gioco da trionfi or similar).

The Medici deck finished in French. I dont know the reason is in the BNF. Maybe a Medici's gif?

In the French court remove the cards that dont suit his game of tarot.

I think the Ockham's knife its not good for the human sucess.

Otello wrote: 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.

... ... Well, it was a long way through all these oppositions, I enjoy everybody with a similar 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".

The "falconer = Tower" idea was based on the imagination, that the deck was from 1468 and before the Charles VI-deck (which has a Tower). As both assumptions are gone now, it's not really vital, perhaps in a state of a "outsider-possibility.

- 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.

... the assumption, that prudence was there in the "world-card" (in the PMB II = "6 added cards") as part of the 5x14-theory + "6 added cards", was later confirmed by "4 figures with octagonal halos" in the Charles IV. deck. There are Fortitude, Justice and Temperance and a 4th with octagonal halo ...



This was considered to be "world" ... later



I hope, you see the octagonal halos on both and they are also at the both others.

It was debated, that there are similarities of this "world" card to "Fame"

One or some "Fama"-representations with octogonal halo and inside the 6-elements Petrarca signs produced in the 1450's and 1460's came to our attention.

So, whatever it was, it seems to be a mix between Fama - World and Prudentia ... just cause Prudentia had been the 4th cardinal virtue.

Indeed, the hypothesis, that the Charles VI had a complete trump set, arrived for us late and was then very surprising. But after some arguments got weight, that it had been earlier than generally suspected (c. 1470), it turned out by closer observation, that a reconstruction of the original chess pattern seemed possible.

And it had some parallels to the assumed Cary-Yale-composition. The major difference between Cary-Yale and later Tarot was the exchange of 3 theological virtues and Sun-Moon-Star ... in the later Minchiate the 3 theological virtues reappeared together with a "real" Prudentia, just as a "Florentine detail".

The Charles VI has only Sun and Moon and no star (with some right you miss it). It has also missing Papessa and Empress, two cards, which also don't turn up in the later Minchiate. The devil is missing, which is generally assumed to be of a very late date. The wheel is missing ... and it is also missing in the Cary-Yale-reconstruction. And the Bagatello is missing (as you note) and it is also missing in the Cary-Yale-reconstruction.

The Wheel was missing ... if both were a sort of chess game, they were not games of luck. This was an important difference. Games of luck were attacked, games of skill were allowed. So the Wheel was missing with some logic.

If we take the Bagatello as the "gambler" representation, its missing might explain for this reason. Till 1463 we have only one gambler card, that of the Bembo-version. It has symbols of the 4 suits at his table, somehow designed as a "master of the cards".

In the common Tarot the 4-figures-sequence Papessa-Empress-Emperor-Pope is that element, what mostly refers to the usual chess: Bishop - Queen - King - Bishop. But Charles VI hasn't Queen-Empress and later Minchiate also hadn't. So one has to assume, that Papessa-Empress-Emperor-Pope was "Northern tradition" and "Florentine tradition" took the Pope at the Queen-position. There was generally made much of the Italian-Roman intention to have the "Pope above the Emperor", and in the Mantegna Tarocchi (9 is Emperor, 10 is Pope) and in the usual Tarot (Pope 5, Emperor 4) it was realized. An idea, which places the Pope as a bishop in a chess game, might have found some critique. Possibly used in the Northern variants with some innocence, in Florence or "around Rome" such an identification would feel less convincing. In the common Cessolis chess tradition the bishop was an adviser (an aged man), and so it seems, that the Florentine version took Father Time and as the polar contradiction the bad adviser (the Traitor). The Pope got the Queen position (or possibly even the King's position, such making the Emperor to the weaker Queen). The Medici had some strong orientation to the pope.

Sun and Moon together are a valid "common pair", also without Star, as it turned up in later Tarot.
The dating suggests the year 1463, cause in this year "Trionfi cards were called an allowed game" (for a second time, the first happened in 1450).
The cards Moon shows two astronomers, one with rather significant "ugly" face. Toscanelli, Florentine mathematician had a rather significant "ugly" face (and it indeed looks a little bit similar to that of Toscanelli) and he worked for the Medici. The other astronomer with a sort of Turban looks like Regiomontanus.



Regiomontanus came 1461 to Italy. Before any association between the two astonomers wouldn't have been possible.

The sun card shows a woman with wool-spindle. That was the industry, which made Florence a rich city. Toscanelli at the moon card had demonstrated a Florentine virtue, "Science". This woman now shows another Florentine virtue, "industry".

Observing now the condition, what had happened ... "Sun-Moon-Star replaced 3 theological virtues" (common Tarot insight) ... then we see, that originally possibly "Florentine virtues replaced theological virtues".

In the Cary-Yale-reconstruction it was assumed, that the 7 virtues + the card Love represented the the row of the 8 pawns of Chess. From this it has to be assumed, that the 8 pawns in a Florentine Tarot also would present 7 virtues + Love, but instead of 3 theological virtues they incorporated 3 Florentine virtues.But what's the third Florentine virtue?

The Fool.
Lorenzo de Medici had been "a little bit educated" by Luigi Pulci in the period 1461-1463 and in this time the "Morgante" was made, reaching a state till chapter 15 or 16 (first from 23 (maybe c. 1470), later from 28 (possibly 1478). Morgante was a giant, and the hero Orlando did win his friendship during a stone-throwing-battle. The Charles VI Fool shows a giant-Fool and 4 little men with stones in their hands.



Later in the development of the Morgante story a second giant, a little bit smaller than Morgante, was invented, Margutte. In the later d'Este Tarot (estimated to be from "a little later than 1473") we see also a giant-Fool and a giant-Magician. Perhaps Pulci accepted with the invention of Margutte the existence of the Bagatello in the earlier game.

So there we are. Death and Triumphal chariot present horses - a good and a bad one as it was with the advisers. It stays the "Tower in destruction" - bad tower - and the judgment - good tower. At the Cary-Yale-picture judgment we see a tower, not very dominant, but it's clearly there.

The whole fits with the year 1463 and the condition, that a "standard" Tarot didn't exist and the whole genre is in the phase of creative development. Lorenzo is a teenager (14 years), in the view of the time "just grown-up" and he has a strong "creative influence" by Pulci, more a "funny poet" than "too serious". Pulci with difficult financial conditions.
In 1464 the Medici Chapel gets ready (Gozzoli pictures) with its march of the 3 holy kings, and likely this causes the star as an additional picture in the trio sun-moon-star ... perhaps this moves an internal progress to some Minchiate structure (rather insecure, which trump-number then was favored).

Actually there's a teenager group with very noble conditions and creativity was part of their education. Card playing was a medium for young people then, serious older men played ... if they played ... chess, this was accepted.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: 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.

We have beside the Sola-Busca Tarocchi and Mantegna Tarocchi no example for numbers on cards, which are counted as Tarocchi. The Boiardo poem offers a row at least.
So the time between numbering and painting the Charles VI might have been plausibly rather extended, and the writer possibly couldn't know anything better than we do know about the situation of the production time of the deck. So the numbers have an informative value for the time of the writer, but likely or at least possibly no informative value for the production time. As this problem cannot be solved in the given research state, it actually contributes somehow nothing, at least not, if the deck is dated so early as 1463 or 1470 or similar.

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.

One needs only an early French collector, who was puzzled about this deck, which seemed incomplete ... and who knew then, which numbers were commonly used for Tarocchi cards in his time. And with no respect for the antiquity of the cards he added the numbers. We have also French stamps on the cards, another sort of vandalism in the archive.

mmfilesi wrote:Well, I can imagine another scenary

Congratulations. I knew you could.

But, if the facts would constrain your imagination in any way, my counsel would be to learn everything possible - everything actually known - before imagining any scenarios. This means asking questions first, coming up with theories second, when there is no other alternative.

The MEdici deck its a Minchiate (Pulci speack about Minchiate, not gioco da trionfi or similar).

Only Huck assumes it is a Medici deck. There is no direct evidence for it. He assumes it is indicated on the banners on the Chariot.

What Pulci was talking about, we don't know. The game was first known as Germini in Florence, then later Minchiate (late in the 16th century).

The Medici deck finished in French. I dont know the reason is in the BNF. Maybe a Medici's gif?

This would have been a good place to ask a question rather than propose a theory.

The deck is first attested in the collection of Roger de Gaignières, courtier to King Louis XIV, and most famous as a collector of French antiquities and antiquarian. An English visitor of 1698, Martin Lister, noticed the cards in his collection. Lister even recognized that "there was not a compleat set of them". De Gaignières left them to the Crown in 1711.

Where, when and how he obtained the cards is unknown. At some point he made an inventory of his collections, including his cards, and described the 17 cards we know now as "Charles VI". He had one another deck in his collection, which seems to have been the Tarot de Paris. He lists the Charles VI cards alongside what he took to be their equivalents in the (complete) Parisian Tarot (he mistakes the Charles VI world for Fortune, for instance). Therefore - de Gaignières didn't write the numbers on the Charles VI cards.

In the French court remove the cards that dont suit his game of tarot.

As I said, de Gaignères already had only 17 cards. He didn't remove any cards, and he didn't number them, since he didn't even know what some of them were. He just collected them, and passed them on to the King, who put them in the library.

Moreover, Tarot wasn't played in the French court in the 18th century. It was already out of style in the early 17th century.

They certainly didn't play with antique cards, and certainly not with 17 cards.

I think the Ockham's knife its not good for the human sucess.

I wasn't applying Occam's razor - I said it was the only reasonable solution, and it ALSO happens to be the simplest. That's nice when it happens.

Sometimes you have to "multiply entities" (i.e. theoretical objects) in order to explain something. In this case we don't, since loss of cards is universal in 15th century Tarots. The loss of cards is not an invented process, it is an attested fact.

Huck wrote: We have beside the Sola-Busca Tarocchi and Mantegna Tarocchi no example for numbers on cards, which are counted as Tarocchi. The Boiardo poem offers a row at least.
So the time between numbering and painting the Charles VI might have been plausibly rather extended, and the writer possibly couldn't know anything better than we do know about the situation of the production time of the deck. So the numbers have an informative value for the time of the writer, but likely or at least possibly no informative value for the production time. As this problem cannot be solved in the given research state, it actually contributes somehow nothing, at least not, if the deck is dated so early as 1463 or 1470 or similar.

There are also numbers on the Catania and Este cards. The Catania numbers are consistent with the Charles VI, which is not surprising since it looks like the same workshop made them. The Este cards are consistent with both the B and A orders, since the Sun is numbered "18".

Whoever numbered these decks used the same regional numbering of the iconographic family of the origin of the cards, that is, they come from the same place. France does not know the B or A orders anywhere, which means we should reject any notion that these cards were numbered in France, especially at a late date.

One needs only an early French collector, who was puzzled about this deck, which seemed incomplete ... and who knew then, which numbers were commonly used for Tarocchi cards in his time. And with no respect for the antiquity of the cards he added the numbers. We have also French stamps on the cards, another sort of vandalism in the archive.

What time did French players use an A order, which collected the Virtues together below the Wheel of Fortune, and made the Angel the highest card, and only had three papi or an unnumbered Bagatto?

So "one needs only" quite an exceptional individual in quite an exceptional environment, in order to imagine this scenario.

But, of course, "anything is possible", unless it is postively proven impossible, by a signed and dated affadavit explictly declaring otherwise, that cannot be considered a forgery...

You and Marcos have proven my point - it is easier to invent scenarios out of thin air than to be constrained by the facts and their implications.

No matter what I say, or how detailed my reasoning based on the facts, you will find an "unknown" and fill it with a thousand interconnected and unknown ways that it could have been otherwise, as long as it supports your preferred story.

I think most people are reasonable, and will see that we have fragmentary decks from the 15th century, which once contained the 22 standard trumps. This includes the Charles VI, Catania, Brambilla, Visconti-Sforza, and Este decks. The Cary-Yale is a unique deck, both in the trumps and the Court Cards.

mmfilesi wrote: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.

Off course I'm not pretending the Tower should get the meaning of the Star!

I only say it's difficoult for me to accept the presence of Sun and Moon without the Star, but I'd accept the theory of Charles VI as a complete set if it was including Star and not the Tower.

After reading Huck message I correct my position: I'd accept, also, if we had the Star and not the Fool:

Huck wrote:In the Cary-Yale-reconstruction it was assumed, that the 7 virtues + the card Love represented the the row of the 8 pawns of Chess. From this it has to be assumed, that the 8 pawns in a Florentine Tarot also would present 7 virtues + Love, but instead of 3 theological virtues they incorporated 3 Florentine virtues.But what's the third Florentine virtue?

The Fool.

Frankly speaking, IMHO the Fool as third florentine virtue looks forced.
I see a lack of coherence in images: there is a strong coherence in Forza-Giustizia-Temperanza images of Charles VI; there is a strong coherence between Sun and Moon, we have a "hole" in the golden background to show the sky, as we have in the Tower, too.
In other words, assuming the serie is complete, I see more coherence between the images of Tower-Moon-Sun than of Fool-Moon-Sun; (but I cannot find a coeherence in the meaning.)

Huck wrote:the assumption, that prudence was there in the "world-card" (in the PMB II = "6 added cards") as part of the 5x14-theory + "6 added cards", was later confirmed by "4 figures with octagonal halos" in the Charles IV. deck. There are Fortitude, Justice and Temperance and a 4th with octagonal halo ...

The octagonal halo is a strong point.
But the 3 other virtues are more choerent: they are all sitting on a throne... Also, I don't see a relation between Prudence and the sceptre and globe holded by the lady.
OK, it is possible that Prudence is different because it's the most important, etc. etc.

Anyway, with: "the desperate search for a place for Prudence in the Tarot deck is misleading" I mean the serie of 22 cards, I have no argument for denying the presence of Prudence in a "Proto-Tarot" deck (given the Charles VI is a complete serie of 16 cards).
The big problem is we look at the Tarot suite from the wrong perspective: we know the final result of the evolution and we try to make "reverse engeniering" of this process; we looks for reasonable fact, but maybe there was no sense at all in the changes happened. After all - as you say - it was just a game.
We know originally there was no esotheric meaning in the Tarot, but sometimes we reason as a high & deep meaning was hidden in Tarots from the very beginning.
What about the inventor of Tarot having a different idea than the 4 theological virtues?

By the way: what about Este World? Can you find evidence of Prudence in this card (or other ancient World)?
It's a question: I don't know.

Huck wrote:If we take the Bagatello as the "gambler" representation, its missing might explain for this reason. Till 1463 we have only one gambler card, that of the Bembo-version

Again: what about Este Bagatto?
Maybe I rely on outdated informations and actually the Este Deck is more modern than I believe? (around 1450)


Anyway, about Charles VI beeing complete or not, I think Ross has the strongest point.
I don't see a reason for a later numbering of the cards if not for making the game easier; why should somebody want to put numbers on a supposed broken (not complete) game?
It doesn't make sense for me...
On the other side, the Darwin Price is here to remember us that sometimes humans take actions not so smart.


Ciao
Marco

[edit]

4)

Only Huck assumes it is a Medici deck.

Sorry, me too. Not only for the Medici's heraldic in the Charriot,

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=517#p7255

but also:

- The red Chariot is = carroccio fiorentino
- The lilies (Giglio), symbol of Florence, in the scepter of the Emperor.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=517&start=10#p8255

hi Otello,

Huck wrote:In the Cary-Yale-reconstruction it was assumed, that the 7 virtues + the card Love represented the the row of the 8 pawns of Chess. From this it has to be assumed, that the 8 pawns in a Florentine Tarot also would present 7 virtues + Love, but instead of 3 theological virtues they incorporated 3 Florentine virtues.But what's the third Florentine virtue?

The Fool.

Frankly speaking, IMHO the Fool as third florentine virtue looks forced.
I see a lack of coherence in images: there is a strong coherence in Forza-Giustizia-Temperanza images of Charles VI; there is a strong coherence between Sun and Moon, we have a "hole" in the golden background to show the sky, as we have in the Tower, too.
In other words, assuming the serie is complete, I see more coherence between the images of Tower-Moon-Sun than of Fool-Moon-Sun; (but I cannot find a coeherence in the meaning.)

Generally we have, that the feature "Sagitta (lightning) - Star - Moon - Sun" would give a show of increasing light. Also we have, that card No 16 (aka "highest card" ... it likely had no numbers, but it's 16th in sequence) in the Michelino deck, "Jupiter" has "4 lights in the corner", not directly addressed as sun-moon-star-lightning, but with ...

http://trionfi.com/martiano-da-tortona- ... -16-heroum
translated by Ross

He is seated on a starry throne, with regal emblems. Four stars appearing above, attend him, while by the right part a splendour of right reason of the conduct of humanity, in which customs he instructed ingnorant men, the first leaders of the state. At the left that light by which he published the inviolable laws and he decreed the society which would be cherished by humankind, being guarded by equality. On the lower right side appears a burning star like Mars, which he lets loose frightfully if scorned, but especially so that the republic may be preserved. How the illustrious example of Jupiter shines for men! Who for the sake of sacred worship happily defeated the blaspheming Giants by war. To the left, a thunderbolt, which at one time he often used to protect his sacred laws against so many lustful and violent men.

... in which thunderbolt appears and also star, but the upper lights are described only allegorically.

Jupiter (16) might have been considered to be split in 4 parts later (16 = lightning, 17 = Star, 18 = Moon, 19=Sun) but generally it stays not clear, if this observation is meaningful for the "after-Micheliono-deck" development.

... Generally I assume, that the Fool is not forced as a Florentine virtue, as it presents "Florentine literature" poetry had a high social value, higher than for instance painting), not "just a Fool".
Well, we have Pulci and his generally accepted creativity around Lorenzo from 1461 till ca. 1474/75. In the critical time (the first years) we've around Lorenzo also his special peer-group, likely also influenced by Pulci: many of them became writing persons inclusive Lorenzo. Pulci had his place in the Mugello, only few km distance from an important castle of the Medici, which was used in the critical time likely mainly by Lucrezia Tornabuoni and her children (and relatives and friends of the boys). So Pulci had a sort holidays-teacher-job .. likely a wonderful time for the boys.
The relation Pulci-Lorenzo was close. Later - when Lorenzo became of more importance - members of the platonic reacted with envy on the low born, not careful educated Pulci (with private financial problems) and in the time of 1474-75 there was a sort of plot against Pulci, which made his presence in Florence rather impossible.

Huck wrote:the assumption, that prudence was there in the "world-card" (in the PMB II = "6 added cards") as part of the 5x14-theory + "6 added cards", was later confirmed by "4 figures with octagonal halos" in the Charles IV. deck. There are Fortitude, Justice and Temperance and a 4th with octagonal halo ...

The octagonal halo is a strong point.
But the 3 other virtues are more choerent: they are all sitting on a throne... Also, I don't see a relation between Prudence and the sceptre and globe holded by the lady.
OK, it is possible that Prudence is different because it's the most important, etc. etc.

Anyway, with: "the desperate search for a place for Prudence in the Tarot deck is misleading" I mean the serie of 22 cards, I have no argument for denying the presence of Prudence in a "Proto-Tarot" deck (given the Charles VI is a complete serie of 16 cards).
The big problem is we look at the Tarot suite from the wrong perspective: we know the final result of the evolution and we try to make "reverse engeniering" of this process; we looks for reasonable fact, but maybe there was no sense at all in the changes happened. After all - as you say - it was just a game.
We know originally there was no esotheric meaning in the Tarot, but sometimes we reason as a high & deep meaning was hidden in Tarots from the very beginning.
What about the inventor of Tarot having a different idea than the 4 theological virtues?

Some people treat the problem "origin of Tarot" as a one-step-operation and then they think, that this "one-step-operation" took place very early. In contrast to this I see many variants appearing in the development (especially in the phase of the hand-painted decks) and it's true, it's just a game and only the modern hyper-attention (inclusive our own work on it ... ... ) makes it "important".
For the missing "Prudentia" ... in the case of Borso we have that he occasionally left Justice aside, but not in the sense, that this was missing, so it was interpreted, that Borso himself incorporated Justice. So actually a "special trick" of the artists ... the virtues are complete. If this was done also in the arrangement of the Tarot, and if, when it was done occasionally, it was done "always", is a question of research. There were obviously decks, which hadn't cardinal virtues, and which generally differed from other Tarot. Why not decks with "missing Prudentia", and otherwise, why not decks with "attending prudentia". There's simply not only one way to make a "playing card deck", there's just one deck between the Tarot versions, which became most successful in its genre and has survived till nowadays. Luckily also some of the minor versions survived ... somehow they're often more interesting.

By the way: what about Este World? Can you find evidence of Prudence in this card (or other ancient World)?
It's a question: I don't know.

The d'Este deck is later and has one putto above + eagle below , the Sforza deck is older and has two putti. Both have circular objects, which presents something (similar to the "Fame-Prudentia-World" card in the Charles VI). In the Sforza case it's a city (Milan ?), in the Charles VI it are some cities between mountains (the Florence region knows Mountains). If this is meant as a contrast, than the Florence version looks more republican, and the Sforza version more like dukedom. The Ferrarese version possibly points to the empire with its version (eagle ?), the content of the round object is closer to the Florence presentation than to the Sforza version.
It's all not really "World", it's more like "our own location" and some angel guardians (putti) are there to have an eye on it.

This is somehow like the last of the 22 pictures of the "Splendor Solis" ... the poet has returned home, somehow.
Just a typical finish.

Huck wrote:If we take the Bagatello as the "gambler" representation, its missing might explain for this reason. Till 1463 we have only one gambler card, that of the Bembo-version

Again: what about Este Bagatto?
Maybe I rely on outdated informations and actually the Este Deck is more modern than I believe? (around 1450)


Anyway, about Charles VI beeing complete or not, I think Ross has the strongest point.
I don't see a reason for a later numbering of the cards if not for making the game easier; why should somebody want to put numbers on a supposed broken (not complete) game?
It doesn't make sense for me...
On the other side, the Darwin Price is here to remember us that sometimes humans take actions not so smart.

Ciao
Marco

No, the d'Este deck is assumed "after 1473", cause some Aragon heraldic was detected (Ercole married Eleanor, daughter of Ferrante, king of Naples). ... ... though also Leonello had an Aragon wife, daughter of Alfonso of Aragon, but this latter possibility wasn't discussed, which seems plausible, cause Alfonso was against playing cards.

From 1470 till nowadays was a long time, in which a lot of archives might have added those numbers. And it seems to clear, that the writing of the numbers was added later. If one hears of an artwork, that something was "added later", one naturally attempts to see it without the addition.

1463 and 1473 are 10 years difference, especially if there are reasons to assume a "big change" in ca. 1465. For the current moment of research I assume for the 1470's a somehow undefined state with 20 trumps or possibly 40 in an alternative version called Minchiate, which possibly is altered by Boiardo in 1486. Actually I wouldn't mind, if there would turn up a good argumentation with evidence, proving that the Tarot had 4x14 + 22 structure ca. 1470, but I don't see anything.

Thank you very much for you time and patience, Huck,
while digging in the forum archive I understand there are many new informations discovered in the last few years; I have to study very hard to fill the gap...

About the Fool as florentine virtue, my concern is about the image, not the astract allegory; I mean, your description makes sense, but looking at Fool-Moon-Sun of Charles VI I cannot see a coherent trio; I'd say it's a question of personal background: I'm more a designer than a historian.
I'd say Sun and Moon may work as a pair without the Star, but this way you'd have to promote Sun and Moon to a major chess figure and I don't know which cards downgrade to pawn... I imagine you have deeply explored this scenario, yet.

Huck wrote:Some people treat the problem "origin of Tarot" as a one-step-operation and then they think, that this "one-step-operation" took place very early. In contrast to this I see many variants appearing in the development (especially in the phase of the hand-painted decks) and it's true, it's just a game and only the modern hyper-attention (inclusive our own work on it ... ... ) makes it "important".

I agree with you it was not a one-step-operation, but I'm not so sure there were so many variants: except for Star-Moon-Sun tris - AFAIK (not considering the PMB II cards) we have 3 different traditions for them, originating Marseille, Tarocchino and Minchiate patterns - I see very little variations in the images and most (all?) of them may be explained with card makers mistakes or misunderstandings; I mean, the Hermit hourglass one day became a lantern, Temperance got a pair of wings, etc. but still we have an old man walking and a feminime figure pouring water...
Ah, I forgot Forza... here we have 2 traditions, the column, we find it later in Tarocchino and Minchiate, and the lion; even the PMB II baseball player has a lousy lion at his feet.
I mean, if the Hermit hold a lantern or an hourglass may be very important only if you look for esotheric symbols on the cards... (I hope you understand what I mean.)

Then let's look at Minchiate: I think they are a good evidence against Prudence hidden somewere in Tarot; as there is coherence in symbols between Tarots and Minchiate, and Minchiate have theyr own established symbol for Prudence...
What you think about this?


ciao
Marco

This is the origins of my doubts about the Medici deck aka Charles VI deck aka Gringoneurs cards aka fiorentina deck aka the deck of discord :

a) This is the text of Dummett about the numbers (Il Mondo, pags. 226-227):

"Una numerazione che presenta questa caratteristica è quella che si trova nell'unico gruppo di carte dipinte a mano in cui i trionfi siano numerati, i cossidetti tarocchi 'Carlo VI'. Si ricorderà che in essi i numeri romani minuscoli non sono probabilmente un tratto originale delle carte, ma sembrano tracciati da una mano quattrocentesca. Essi sono elencati da Robert Steele nel suo articolo del 1900; sembra che le sommità delle carte siano state ulteriormente limate dopo quella data e quinidi non tutti i numeri sono oggi chiaramente leggibili, acnhe se, per quanto se ne può discernere, essi confermano la lettura di Steele. L'unica sua lettura che deve essere errata è quella del Papa come ii. Sfortunatamente, si tratta di una delle carte di cui non si decifra più il numero, ma in tutti gli altri casi la 'i' finale é scritta 'j'. Steele indica il numero dell imperatore come iij, e questa carta deve essere di rango inferiore al Papa, sebbene anche qui il numero non sia piú visibile. Se pertanto, correggiamo il numero del papa in iiij, ma accettiamo tutte le altre letture di Steele, oteniamo la seguente sequenza:

xx - l'Angelo
xviiij - il Mondo
xviij - il Sole
xvij - la Luna
mancante
xv - la Torre
mancante
xviij - la Morte
xij - l'Impiccato
xj - l'Eremita
mancante
viiij - il carro
viij - la Giustizia
vij - la Fortezza
vj - la Temperanza
v - l'Amore
iiij - il Papa [ii in Steele]
iij - l'Imperatore
mancante
mancante
mancante".

-o-

b) Ok, we can remember the three orders of Dummett. This order are similar to A, with the three virtues in the same group:

Standard order A || The numbers of Medici Deck

(0) Bagatto
(1, 2, 3, 4) - quattro Mori || iiij - il Papa [ii in Steele] + iij - l'Imperatore
(5) Amore || v - l'Amore
(6) il Carro || viiij - il carro <- One problem
(7) la Temperanza || vij - la Fortezza
(8) la Giustizia || viij - la Giustizia
(9) la Forza || vj - la Temperanza <- One problem
(10) la Fortuna ||
(11) il Vecchio/Eremita || xj - l'Eremita
(12) il Traditore || xij - l'Impiccato
(13) la Morte || xviij - la Morte
(14) il Diavolo ||
(15) il Fulmine (Torre) || xv - la Torre
(16) la Stella ||
(17) Luna || xvij - la Luna
(18) Sole || xviij - il Sole
(19) Mondo || xviiij - il Mondo
(20) Angelo (Giudizio) || xx - l'Angelo


-o-

c) Ok. I don't know very much about the order A. I only know this fonts about the triumphs order for the centuries XV and XVI:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=552

And not exist a documentary evidence for the order A for the centuries XV and XVI. Please, if you know another font, I would be really grateful if you said me.

+ Neither its clear when happened the change of the four Moors / popes.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=422&hilit=mori

-o-

d) In any case, with these data we can ask:

1) How many triumphs have the deck in origin?

I think we can not answer this question. Could be 21, 22, 40... We can only know that, at least, had 21. But we can not know more with security. There are many possible scenarios. For example, if we accept the deck is from Florence, we can think in origin was a minchiate.

2) Who and why someone put the numbers?

I think we can not answer this question, at least, with the documentation I know. Again there are many possible scenarios.

Then, what we can said about the pattern of this deck? I think, nothing.

We only know that consisted, at least 21 triumphs. However, we also know that Lorenzo was playing minchiate with Pulci. Therefore, as a line of investigation, hypothesis and conjecture, I think its interesting to study the possibility this deck is a minchiate in her origin.