Re: Visconti snake

Thanks for answer :)

I'm surprised. As much I look the cards, always new things out. In any case, do not change my arguments.

a) The numbers are placed after and not are enough to know if they are order A. To order C have many variants (documentated) in the sixteenth century. I think we can only say some deck is order A to the XV and XVI if:

1) The angel is the greater triumphs.
2) The virtues are gathered.
c) Exists four Popes or Moors instead four different characters.

That is, I dont think this numbers are important, sorry.

La datazione dell'originale è o...
Well, that's not a good arguments. With permission, I dont believe in the precision of oral tradition. Rumors, faulty memory ... There are many elements that generate noise in the oral tradition. Not serve to establish a precise date .... And you know it. The document is from 1724. This is the only data secure, direct. The rest is conjecture, gossip, recall a memory of a memory. Sorry very much, but I don't think is a sure historic date when born of the memory of a grandfather. My grandmother live the last ten years of his life mixing all her memories.

And in any case, there is no objective reason, scientific, by which "molto antico" does not mean the XVII century. And I'm saying I dont know one proof, robust, demonstrating the existence of order A for the XV and XVI. Not XVII.
When a man has a theory // Can’t keep his mind on nothing else (By Ross)

Re: Visconti snake

Pedini was a scholar, an archivist, and he said the manuscript he was copying was "molto antico". He wasn't relying on an oral tradition.

Pisarri, who published rules for Bolognese Tarocchino in 1754, also relied on this manuscript. Lorenzo Cuppi demonstrated this by exact verbal agreement between Pisarri and Pedini.

I have no reason to doubt Pedini's judgment about the age of the manuscript he was copying, and I definitely don't agree with your impression that the term "very ancient" could refer to a document only 50 years old.

For the existence of A - order and iconography - in the 15th century, if the cards themselves, their numbering, the strambotto, the 16th century Minchiate, the dating of Pedini's original manuscript, and the persistence of the game in Bologna don't convince you, then there is nothing more to say.

You want, as I predicted earlier, a signed and dated affadavit from the 1450s or so, explicitly stating what the order and subjects of the cards in Bologna or Florence was.

Your suspicion is irrational. History is not trying to fool you. Rational deductions lead to the conclusion that the A order and iconography were used in Florence and Bologna since the 15th century.

Re: Visconti snake

mmfilesi wrote: a) The numbers are placed after and not are enough to know if they are order A.
The iconography is A - compare. Do I have to go to the trouble to make an image in Photoshop showing how similar the Charles VI and Catania are to the later Bolognese and Florentine cards?

The numbers are A - specifically the Florentine sequence.

Iconography-numbering=A. There is no question. It doesn't matter when the numbers were written on the cards.

Re: Visconti snake

Sorry very much. I fail to understand. I ts the same case with the circular arguments Dummett. I'll try to explain, but I don't know if I can in English.
The iconography of the Charles VI...
I dont think the iconography can be used to establish a chronological framework. Between 1450 and 1600 could be exists many iconographic streams. Its clear that in the same cultural area, they tended to draw the cards in the same way. But this does not mean, not necessarily supposes, that:

a) A pattern iconographic is = same rules.

b) A pattern iconographic is = the same structure.

I try to explain the trap of this syllogism:

a) The pigs are mortal
b) Humans are mortal
c) Therefore, humans are pigs.

One problem is the structure and other the iconography. Deduced from an iconographic data one structural data is very risky.

Sorry, sorry very much, but I think the only method for know the structure are numbers and documents. And, excepts this rara avis poem strambotto, I don't know documents for the XV and XVI demonstrate the existence of order A. Only the order C (with variants). For me the story are documents, the rest is science fiction.

Since you assert the opposite, the burden of proof is on you.
No. Just the opposite. I try to explain.

I cant demonstrate the nonexistence of unicorns pink. But if someone said me exists unicorns pink, I said, OK, perfect, where are the proof? I love the unicorns pink and I want, really want, they exists, but if I dont have proofs, I cant believe in unicorns pink.

I want believe the "order C" exists in centuries XV and XVI. Perfect, why not? Where are the proofs:

a) In numbers put in two decks (Catania and Medici). Ok, when someone put this numbers?

b) In a Rosenwald sheet (with incomplete numbers). Ok, when are made this sheet?

c) In a document of 1724 where someone said the grandfather of her grandfather plays with this rules... (molto antico). Ok. Whats mind "molto antico"? 100 years or 200 or 300 or... Please, friend. Its not serious, and you know it.

d) In a poem Strambotto <- This is the only one document. Well, its an important document and indicated us, we can suspected maybe the "order C" exists in Firenze around 1500. But this document can be explained for other reasons (a transition between proto-minchiate and minchiate, for example). This means, its not enough.
Your suspicion is irrational. History is not trying to fool you. Rational deductions lead to the conclusion that the A order and iconography were used in Florence and Bologna since the 15th century.
No, sorry. I only ask documents. Its irrational make history with documents and not with fantasies or conjectures? Well, then I am irrational, but I am an irrational documented :) .
When a man has a theory // Can’t keep his mind on nothing else (By Ross)

Re: Visconti snake

- Exists a previous deck with 16 triumphs
- With 16 triumphs the deck can fits into a chess scheme
- And, very important, if the deck is made in 1441, in occasion of the Bianca and Francesco married, we have this curious coincidence. In 1441, Sforza are 40 years old; Bianca, 16; and the difference is 24. (Now I can't find it in trionfi). And, remember, for Filippo Maria the numbers are very important.

So, we have an strange deck with an unknown number of triumphs. They maybe are 22 or any another number, but all the tracks indicate they were 16.

And I repeat my doubt for this second steep: why we have not found any reference to 22 triumphs for this second phase (+/- 1435-1450?
Well, the problem is more difficult ... there's not only no reference to 22 triumphs in 1435-1450, but also not till an acceptable date of the Boiardo Tarocchi poem, that's 1487. But numbers are seldom in the documentary material, that we have. We have a "secure" date of 70 cards in 1457, which seems to point to the 5x14-theory (so 14 trumps), and a "very secure" 16-trumps-version with the Michelino deck (actually the only thing, that's more or less 100% secure).
From this perspective it seems rather logical to ask for possible 16-trumps-version in

a. the Cary-Yale Tarocchi (11 surviving trumps)
b. the Charles VI deck (with precisely 16 trumps, and these in an unusual composition of 16 trumps + one court card)

For the Charles VI we've the condition, that it seems probably "from Florence" and that the Minchiate (from Florence) is known for having no Empress and no Papessa. These both cards also are missing in the Charles VI. If we calculate the probability of this condition, so we have to make little math:

6x5 / 22x21 = 30/462, so roughly 1 / 15 , or, if you wish to have it more precisely, 30 / 482 = 0.0622406639, so
about 6.1 % ...

Well, it simply looks improbable, that this is accident. But if I assume, that the deck had 22 trumps, which were then replacing Empress and Papessa?

Taking this all together, it's somehow logical to assume, that the deck might be complete, as far the trumps are considered.

Well, and when taking this serious, then it is detectable, that the deck has parallels to Cary-Yale, and after that you find correspondences to concrete real actions in Florentine history in a specific time (1463) and it fits with other earlier results of the 5x14-theory .... :-) ... and then it's somehow okay, it likely cannot become as secure as the 5x14-theory, but there's no reason to assume another theory for the moment. Charles VI Tarot had likely 16 trumps and not more. And there was a relation to Chess ... :-)

Well, anybody is free to think, what he wants, not only in this matter, and it would be nice, if he/she follows his/her research or theories careful and with honesty and some self critique, as good as possible.

Re: Visconti snake

... :) ... Thanks for responding, but you go too fast. And I need go very slow on my ship of fools by the Doubt's Sea, and I am yet in 1450, not in 1460 :) .
NAVELOCOS.jpg NAVELOCOS.jpg Viewed 6413 times 87.35 KiB

In the next steep we have two decks. (or...?)

1) Brera, with two triumphs: Emperor and Fortune. Its a very difficult know when is made this deck. Well, maybe we can said "Perhaps before 1447".

2) PMB, with 14+6 triumphs

If we accept the PMB are from +/- 1452, maybe we need refine some details of this argument:

"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".

Because we are not sure the Charles VI, Catania and Este decks are from 1450, we need reduce the Kaplan Table to PMB, CY and Brera, the only decks made (probably) around 1450 or before:
pmb_kaplan.gif pmb_kaplan.gif Viewed 6413 times 13.51 KiB
This leaves us with two scenarios (or maybe three):

- The PMB have 22 triumphs in origins and the 6 cards were added to replace lost cards.
- He was 14 triumphs and the 6 cards added more later to bring the deck to a new structure.

Well... We have any document, deck, oral tradition, anything, before 1460 where said the "gioco da trionfi" have 22 triumphs? If exists, I don't know.

But, as Huck said, we have two interesting notes where appear the number 14:

1. 1441, 1st of January, payment to the painter Sagramoro for painting "14 figure"
E adi deto (1 gennaio) lire due, soldi cinque marchesani, contanti a Magistro Iacopo de Sagramoro depintore per XIIII figure depinte in carta de bambaxo et mandate a Madama Bianca da Milano per fare festa la scira de la Circumcisione de l'anno presente... L.II.V.

"And on the said day (1 January) two lire, five soldi marchesane, reckoned to Maestro Jacopo de Sagramoro, painter, for 14 figures painted on cotton paper and sent to Lady Bianca of Milan, to make festive the celebration of the Circumcision of the present year ... L. II. V."
In this note not appear the phrase "gioco da triomphi", but is really interesting.

2. The note of 1457 (now I cant find in trionfi)

«Maestro Girardo de Andrea da Vizenza dipintore de avere adi 21 de luglio per sua fatura et spesa d'oro fino, coluri, de avere depinto para due de carte grande da trionfi, che sono carte 70 per zogo, le quale sono mese d'oro fitamente, et fate tute de coluri fini et brunide, et depinte de roverso uno paro rosa, uno paro verde. Le quale ebe Piedro de Schiveto per uxo de lo Signore ; de quale dito dimanda ducati 8 del paro, a soldi 56 per ducato, fano lire 22, soldi 8 ; et Galioto li tasa lire 28. Se n'abate soldi 2 per lira, sono 2, soldi 16; resta suo credito…L.25.4».

70 - 56 = 14

In sumary, between 1400 - 1457 we not have any document where appear "22 triumphs", but we have documents or decks with 14 and 16.

OK! If we have a clue of unicorn pink, a document, then (after, no before) we can begin with the hipotesys and the doubts.

When are added the six cards?
Can we sure are only six?
Why were accepted this cards so badly painted?

In really sumary of my position about the Huck teorhy. I don't agree on some details. For example, I'm not sure the Charles VI deck aka the Medici Deck was from Lorenzo. Or I don't know when are added the 6 cards... And many more questions. But from my opinion, in my humble opinion, is the only documented hypotheses about the origin of tarot cards. In history, what you see is what you get, the rest are literature.
When a man has a theory // Can’t keep his mind on nothing else (By Ross)

Re: Visconti snake

I'm not sure, that these are forgeries. If they are, then other Sforza card fragments would be also forgeries.

I think, that this deck type was made in commission of Isabella d'Este, who ordered them for Massimiliano Sforza in 1512 (restoration of the Sforza rule, which endured only till 1515). That is - just my opinion - a Sforza deck made under completely different conditions than PMB and the earlier type of Sforza cards.

The hand on the picture give the guarantee, that these cards are rather large.

Thanks to all, who participated in the publication of this picture.
Well, 10 years later a color photo finally came out!
Kaplan I was produced 1978. The Kaplan text spoke of the year 1939, to a time, when colored photos were rare.


I found this:
No longer available
(Jeu, Tarot) - 22 lames sur peau de vélin, enluminées sur fond doré criblé avec ciselures, fin 19e

Hammer Price:Auctioneer has chosen not to publish the price of this lot
Auction Date:18 Oct 2016 13:30 CEST
Auctioneer:Henri Godts
See item details ... 8d00ec8132

They were sold as objects from late 19th century.

And this ...

And this ...

Large picture: ... iginal.jpg

And this ...

from viewtopic.php?t=365&start=40#p4839
The picture left is the Rosenthal and the picture right is from Victoria-Albert Museum. If the Rosenthal is a forgery, it nonetheless transports meanings of 16th century (if the Victoria-Albert card is not also a forgery). With that the Rosenthal is more a facsimile than a forgery.

"Nec spe nec metu" (neither hope nor fear) was a motto of Isabella d'Este.

Kaplan wrote, that the word in the upper part he couldn't identify.