Tarot History Forum

Phaeded wrote:Ross,
Straw man’s argument and you know it. Unless I’ve missed something there is not a single scrap of explicit evidence as to why anyone actually commissioned a triumph deck; Giusti, the only reference to actually state such a deck was commissioned (again, unless I’ve missed something), merely provides the name of the city in which it was made.

Hello Phaeded,
what you write deeply saddens me. You sometimes seem to have some awareness of the fact that your knowledge of the available evidence is incomplete, but more often you seem to lose touch with the situation and write things like the first sentence in this post or that "it is impossible to not think" what you think, or that your own fantasies are "not unreasonable". We are very lucky to have a chance to discuss here our hobby with serious scholars like Ross. I think we should try to speak to them with some respect, so that they don't lose their interest in helping us understand more of tarot history.

Giusto Giusti clearly states that the Tarot deck was a personal gift (“donai”) from him to Malatesta. He personally commissioned the deck and paid for it.
Venerdì a di 16 settembre donai al magnifico signore messer Gismondo un paio di naibi a trionfi, che io avevo fatto fare a posta a Fiorenza con l’armi sua, belli, che mi costaro ducati quattro e mezzo. (Friday 16 September, I donated to the magnificent lord sir Gismondo, a pack of triumph cards, that I had made expressly in Florence, with his arms, and beautifully done, which cost me four and a half ducats.)
I am sorry that to you Depaulis' discovery “merely provides the name of the city in which [the deck] was made”. I hope that, if you take the time to carefully read this sentence again, you will be able to get a lot more information out of it. If you have trouble reading Italian, I will be happy to help.

Luckily, Ross and other scholars have also found other evidence as to why people commissioned card decks. Apparently, they were commissioned for the personal use of the commissioner or as gifts (but no case I can think of can be interpreted as a marriage gift). Here are some examples:
* Filippo Maria's 16 Gods deck (1425 ca) which the duke invented and comissioned to Marziano and Michelino. (The documents have been translated from Latin by Ross). A game that would “be enjoyable, and ... fitted to the serious man wearied of virtue ... and ... conducive to happiness”. Filippo Maria kept this game for himself (Marcello found it among "the riches and splendours of the Duke" in 1449). His personal passion for card games is documented by Decembrio.
* This 1442 note in which Leonello D'Este pays for a trionfi deck made “for his own use”.
* This other 1442 note in which a deck is bought for Leonello's young brothers (9 and 11 years old).
* This 1452 letter (brought to our attention by Ross) in which the secretary of Francesco Sforza commisions a trionfi deck with the ducal coat of arms as a present for Sigismondo Malatesta (who had written to Bianca Maria asking for such a deck).

Thanks to trionfi.com and google, this information is accessible to everyone. Others have done the hard work for us, I feel grateful to them. If you are not interested enough in the subject to do a google search, you could politely ask for help, instead of writing that “there is not a single scrap of explicit evidence” about something.

I replay to the question regard the date of realization of the fiorino of FMV.
The date of first issue is 1442, stands in all of numismatics.

In my book Storia dei Tarocchi (Mondadori, Milano 2010) I haven't pointed out the mismatch between the size of the coin current use and imprinted on the cards of the Tarot deck of FMV.
It would have been better if I had added a note

However, on this subject, I checked me in his time with prof. Michael Dummett. The only logical answer, on which we agreed fully, is as follows: for the Tarot cards was made a new matrix for print, slightly larger than the current coin.
The reasons might be different, but the more plausible it seemed probably wanted to avoid dumping workshops a mint coinage that could get into the hands of counterfeiters.

Giordano Berti

Thanks Marco, I was going to bring up the same references, and a few others. The laconic statement "per suo uxo" may not be very satisfying for some people as enough reason to commission a deck of expensive cards, but that is exactly what it is. They were commissioned by people with lots of money to make gorgeous decks of playing cards to... play cards with (and impress friends and guests in the process).

Francesco Simonetta's letter of 1452, on behalf of Francesco Sforza, also calls the deck "uno paro de carte da triumpho per zugare" - which is a fairly literal name that could be translated "a deck of triumph cards for playing" or, less literally, the name "triumph playing cards" (by analogy with "carte da gioco"). So this commission actually says explicitly what it was for.

Not also that it does not describe anything special about the triumph cards except that they are to contain Malatesta's arms, and of, course, to be done as sumptuously as possible. This was their custom feature, beyond their normal luxury for a man of his status. No more directions for the artist were needed, because the triumph deck was a standard kind of cards, which the artist knew how to make.

Giusto Giusti's record of his commission also simply states that he had Malatesta's arms painted on the deck - we should likewise assume that it was therefore in all other respects - subjects and number of trumps - a standard triumph deck.

The same kind of language can be noted in the February 10 Este note, which mentions four suits and "tutte le figure" - "all the figures". It doesn't say "some figures", or "many figures", but THE figures - all THE figures of a normal triumph deck. It was a standard thing with that name, not a new creation with a different conception of subjects or number of subjects.

In 1477, the long contract for a commission of playing cards and triumph cards between Roberto Blanchelli and Pietro Bonozzi, cardmaker in Bologna, asks for cards and triumphs "per zugare", without asking for anything special about the number and subjects of the trumps. It was a standard product. There were two kinds of cards - normal playing cards, and triumph playing cards.
http://trionfi.com/0/e/00/

In other cases, not triumph cards, one of the earliest records of playing cards, in France, 1392, says that the three decks were made for the King (Charles VI of France) "pour son ebattement" - for his entertainment or recreation. Besides being ornate and gilded, no other description is given - they were just normal decks of cards, albeit made for a king.

Fernando de la Torre's instructions for a deck to be made for Mercia Enriquez of Mendoza, around 1450, had only one trump, an Emperor, and in other respects it was a normal Spanish suited deck, although it had poetic inscriptions on the pips and the court cards were to represent specific characters. Despite its unique