Tarot History Forum

Magic Moon wrote: 06 May 2025, 15:52
There's a confusing detail regarding Avignon 1505. Thanks, MikeH, for sharing the text. Ross and others say that Avignon sent tarot cards to Piedmont. However, I read the text and understand it's the other way around. Am I wrong? According to the 1505 text, a playing card maker in Avignon bought woodblocks and tarot cards from a Piedmont card maker and a Piedmont paper maker. That is, the Italian designs were brought to Avignon.

As I read it, payment for the fifty reams of paper involved a payment of mixed goods and currency. The Piedmont paper & card makers receive woodblocks for playing cards, some cards from Lyon & four dozen packs of Tarot, plus 34 Avignon Florins from John Fortis as part payment for fifty reams of paper:

machine translation from the Latin gives:

Purchase of paper on behalf of the discreet Master Joannes Fortis, card-maker, citizen and resident of Avignon.

In the year from the Lord’s Nativity 1505, on the sixth day of the month of December, in my presence, the notary, personally appeared Christoforus Galea, a merchant from Pinerolo in the Diocese of Turin, a paper manufacturer, and Bernardinus Truque, a card-maker from the same place and diocese. Both together and each individually, jointly and severally, in good faith and on behalf of themselves and their heirs, sold to the said Master Joannes Fortis, who was present, fifty reams of medium-quality card paper, each ream weighing eighteen pounds according to the weight standard of Avignon, as the smaller measure.

The said Christoforus Galea and Bernardinus Truque, both together and each individually, on behalf of themselves and their heirs, promised to deliver, hand over, pay, and effectively provide these fifty reams of paper of the specified weight to the said Master Joannes Fortis or his agents, in the present city of Avignon and at his or their residence, from now until the middle of the upcoming Lent (Quadragesima).

This agreement was made for the price and under the terms agreed upon between them, namely forty-five florins in the current coin of Avignon.

In partial deduction of this price, the said Christoforus Galea and Bernardinus Truque, on behalf of themselves, confessed and acknowledged in the presence of the said Master Joannes Fortis that they had received and actually taken the amount of thirty-four florins in Avignon currency, as a down payment and in partial payment. This payment consisted of:
– five molds (or plates) for the production of playing cards,
– two large packs of cards from Lyon,
– four dozen smaller packs commonly called taraux (i.e., tarot cards),
– three pounds of pig bristles,
– and the remainder in pigments from Flanders known as perceys (likely blue or grayish pigment).

The remaining balance, the said Master Joannes Fortis promised, on behalf of himself and his agents, to pay to Galea and Truque or their agents, upon receipt of the aforementioned fifty reams of paper.

Perhaps someone with better Latin can clarify who received what!?

It seems fairly clear to me, both from Thierry's French and this machine translated Latin, in the second to last paragraph of what Steve translated, that the tarot cards came from Jean Fort, in Avignon, to Christoforus Galea and Bernardinus Truque of Pinerola, as part-payment, among other things, for the 50 reams of card-grade paper they supplied to Fort. I am not sure what you are basing your interpretation on, Magic Moon.

Hello. Thanks for the explanation.

I was confused thinking that all the objects were purchased, but in fact, it seems to be a form of purchase that includes a mixed component of barter. The payment was 34 florins, paid for objects worth 34 florins, as Steve says. It's important to translate this part correctly: "pro arris paga et in solutum scilicet in." I understand it to mean something like: "as a deposit and it's paid, that is" (como pago de arras y está pagado, a saber). The automatic translators confuse me, but I ultimately think Steve is right. That is, those objects and tarot cards were valued at 34 florins, and then the remaining 11 florins remained to be paid, because the text later says that a portion remains to be paid. I thought that perhaps they paid 34 florins plus the objects valued at 11 florins, but this is incorrect. Well, the important thing is that those objects and tarot cards were sent from Avignon to Piedmont. Thanks!

Looking at these objects in detail:
The text mentions four dozen "quartarum" called taraux (tarots). I don't understand if "quartarum" is different from "cartarum." Elsewhere, the text says "cartarum." This word can refer to playing cards or perhaps sometimes to paper. The expression "duabus grossis cartarum" could refer to two large cards (from Lyon) or perhaps two packs of paper (from Lyon)? We think the text mentions 48 tarot decks, but perhaps it refers to 48 trump cards? The text doesn't say anything like pari, pack or deck. It only says "quartarum."

In any case, it seems there were tarot makers in Avignon and Piedmont around 1505. These woodblocks were probably made to produce a complete tarot deck, with suit cards and trump cards. Ross looks at further documents and says that the Avignon card makers went out of business before 1520. I understand that there were tarot makers in Piedmont during the 16th century, at least from 1505. If we assume that the Cary sheet was made in Avignon for Italy, this was certainly before 1520. It's also possible that it's a sheet printed in other french city or in Piedmont or perhaps even Milan.

We know that Piedmont game was influenced by bolognese game but I wonder if the Vieville order described in Piedmont by Piscina came from Avignon or originated in Piedmont. We think the Piedmont order came from France because we see that numbers were later printed even on the four Papi, which followed the rule of equal papi in Piedmont. Dummett thought the Piedmont order and design came from Milan via France, but I don't know if there is an old Milanese list that has the order of trumps described by Piscina in Piedmont.

My initial goal was to find out if an order similar to the Bolognese order existed in Milan when the Sola Busca deck was created. Furthermore, the Piedmont Tarot is related to the Bolognese Tarocchino.

We were talking about the four Popes as possible heirs to the Emperors game, which could have originated in Florence or in Bologna with Fibbia. On the other hand, the Petrarchan trumps could have come from Florence or Bologna. Perhaps the Emperors' game originated in Bologna, and the triumphs originated in Florence and merged with the Papi? Perhaps it was the other way around?

Magic Moon wrote: 07 May 2025, 22:31 Dummett thought the Piedmont order and design came from Milan via France, but I don't know if there is an old Milanese list that has the order of trumps described by Piscina in Piedmont.

A few years ago, I wrote the following thoughts about this in my notes:

The Viéville order is very close to those of Alciato in Milan (only difference: Chariot and Fortitude are swapped) and the "Susio" poem in Pavia (only difference: Empress and Popess are swapped). If the Viéville order had come by a more circuitous route, via Burgundy and/or Switzerland, one would expect more divergence, something more like the Tarot de Marseille order (and indeed the Tarot de Marseille order may well have come to France from one of those countries). The slight difference between Viéville and Alciato/Pavia, on the other hand, is exactly what one would expect if the French imported the Lombard game of tarot directly sometime around 1500 or so, and the Lombard game then continued to evolve in Milan and Pavia for a few decades after that. As the trumps in Lombardy appear to have remained unnumbered throughout that time (and all the way to at least the end of the 17th century), a minor change to their order could have occurred there fairly easily. In France, however, it is possible that cardmakers began numbering the trumps relatively soon after the importation of the Lombard game, thus preserving an earlier Lombard order; they were certainly numbering them in at least some decks by 1557 (e.g. the Catelin Geoffroy deck). Alternatively, the French may have made a minor change of their own to the trump order shortly after importing the game.

Magid Moon wrote

Looking at these objects in detail:
The text mentions four dozen "quartarum" called taraux (tarots). I don't understand if "quartarum" is different from "cartarum." Elsewhere, the text says "cartarum." This word can refer to playing cards or perhaps sometimes to paper. The expression "duabus grossis cartarum" could refer to two large cards (from Lyon) or perhaps two packs of paper (from Lyon)? We think the text mentions 48 tarot decks, but perhaps it refers to 48 trump cards? The text doesn't say anything like pari, pack or deck. It only says "quartarum."

Itemizations commonly left out words like "pari", leaving them understood. See what Franco says about "2 dozzine di charte da giuchare" at https://www.naibi.net/A/PONTORMO.pdf (translated at https://pratesitranslations.blogspot.co ... nk_14.html).

Magic Moon wrote,

We know that Piedmont game was influenced by bolognese game but I wonder if the Vieville order described in Piedmont by Piscina came from Avignon or originated in Piedmont. We think the Piedmont order came from France because we see that numbers were later printed even on the four Papi, which followed the rule of equal papi in Piedmont. Dummett thought the Piedmont order and design came from Milan via France, but I don't know if there is an old Milanese list that has the order of trumps described by Piscina in Piedmont.

We don't know that the Piedmont game was influenced by the Bolognese game. Why would it put Temperance seven cards away from its position in Bologna, unless it was influenced by Lombardy. If so, it makes sense that the "equal papi" rule would have applied there, too, until it didn't. Likewise, the this-worldly scene on the Modrone World card - a girl on the opposite bank from the knight, someone but not her being transferred from one side to the other, in other words, earthly drama related to Fame - looks like it would come before the end of Time following the Judgment. At least to me, at least as likely as the other way around. In my view the Piedmont order came from Lombardy, even if Piedmont is the only place there is any record of it.

And the Piedmont order described by Piscina is not the same as the Vieville order: for Piscina, Judgment and World are reversed, and the "papi" are in no particular order.

Magic Moon wrote,

My initial goal was to find out if an order similar to the Bolognese order existed in Milan when the Sola Busca deck was created.

And I don't understand why you want to relate the SB to Lombardy, of all places. Ferrara, Venice, and even Bologna and Florence are closer to hand.

Thanks. Interesting.
I am studing your posts.

Mikeh wrote:
"I don't understand why you want to relate the SB to Lombardy, of all places. Ferrara, Venice, and even Bologna and Florence are closer to hand"

The reason is the World in the higher place. It seems strange that the World Cup were the highest triumph in Bologna. Do you think that probably there were early an order in Boloña with the world higher? This is a good option, especialy becouse World card is in the top row of the BAR.

Ferrara has the World in the highest position, but the virtues are not united as required by Huck's structure for the Sola Busca, understood as an analogy with the Lucca Tarot. Perhaps Ferrara had an early order similar to the Bolognese one with the World at the top, but perhaps that seems more likely in Milan because we have less early information about the order in Milan than in Ferrara, where there are Tarocchi Met and Ludo cum Aliis. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps Sola Busca is inspired by an order from Ferrara around 1490, and Ludo cum Aliis dates back to after 1490, when the Type B order was stablished. Do you think Ferrara is more possible than Milan for the Sola Busca cards?

Venice also does not have the virtues together.

Magic Moon: You favor Lombardy over Ferrara/Venice as influencing the SB because in Ferrara/Venice the virtues weren't together. But they weren't together in Lombardy either (or Piedmont). So I do not follow your logic. Also, I don't see why the virtues matter, since they would not have been part of the 69 card game Huck is positing.

I do not think there was an earlier order in Bologna with the World high, because the order and visual look of the cards is so similar to Florence, where the Angel was high. The cards on the BAR do not seem to me to be in any particular order, except that they are the last twelve.

Hello

Nathaniel
Nice to meet you! Are you the same Nathaniel that wrote an article about Trappola some years ago? Thanks for ideas. Susio seems interesting. I have to look for this order.
I thought that Alciato has more differences with Vieville that you mention. Alciato: Pope, Justice, Strength, Love, Chariot, Wheel. Vieville: Pope, Love, Justice, Chariot, Strength, Wheel. This is the information in Filesi web but Ross say what you say. I am lookin for the solution in this conflict. Now I find that Depaulis in 2013 wrote what you say in Alciato order. Depaulis image-text here: viewtopic.php?p=23758#p23758 Then probably Filesi did a mistake. Other problem is the date 1538 in Alciato (Filesi web). Here are the three mistakes in Filesi (World in Piscina, Love in Alciato, year in Alciato): https://www.mmfilesi.com/el-tarot-5-el- ... -triunfos/ I didnt get answer from Filesi when I wrote message in facebook trying to contact. Then I cant ask to Filesi about this mistakes.

Mikeh
You've made me think that there's probably no justification for thinking that the Sola Busca reflects a Bolognese order in Lombardy. So, based on the structure proposed by Huck, I opt for Bologna. Huck's structure finds no equivalents for cards not in the Lucca Tarot, but we see four empty spaces in the quintet, with the Chariot occupying the second position. That is, there's room for Love below and the virtues above.

The BAR sheets have two groups that coincide with Huck's structure for Sola Busca, as I tried to explain. The top cards of the two decks form a raised group, and the cards placed in the lower row form an earthly group. The Hanged Man and the Old Man are strange, but they can be adapted to that abstract logic of heaven and earth. In BAR, the world is in the top row, and just below the world is the angel. This is the logic I'm proposing.

I thought a lot about the Cary sheet today. I don't know if it's from Piedmont or Lombardy. Maybe I should look for a THF thread specializing in that. Probably here: viewtopic.php?p=26996&hilit=Susio#p26996

Thanks

Added later:

Hello Mikeh

Thank you for the explanations about the 1505 Avignon text. It's very valuable that you translated this Pratesi text, and your blog articles are very useful. So, sometimes the documents mention pari, and other times it's understood that each dozen playing cards refers to a dozen decks of playing cards. Thank you.

Some popular texts (for example, the Wikipedia article I shared about the Piedmontese tarot) say that the tarot game in Piedmont is influenced by Bologna and Florence. We said that in Florence there's no rule of equal popes, so I only see Bologna's influence in Piedmont. I understand that this popular statement refers to the rule of equal popes and the Angel over the World. Saying that this Bolognese influence exists doesn't imply that the entire Piedmontese tarot sequence comes from Bologna. I understand that the Piedmont order arose in Piedmont, Avignon, or perhaps Lombardy, but those two details of the game form or hierarchy were the same as in Bologna. That's why it's said to be a Bolognese influence. The Piedmont sequence is not the same as the Bolognese one, but it shares those two details, which are similar due to the influence of Bologna, or perhaps because that was the original game, as I understood when reading Mikeh's theory about the possible early and widespread existence of the rule of equal popes, which would later persist only in Bologna and Piedmont. I think we understand each other and that we're just a little confused by some nuances of language. I understand that an influence is not the same as an origin or provenance. The theory about the early rule of equal popes is understandable and is possibly a very valid option.

Is it a question of influence of Bologna on Piedmont for the two similarities you note, or of the survival in those two places of practices once prevalent also in Florence and Lombardy? I prefer the latter. It is not "my" theory; it was advanced by Ross (see viewtopic.php?p=20687#p20687), and I agree. We also have to bear in mind that "VIII Imperadori" in 1423 and "Imperadori" of 1434, from which the "equal papi" rule might have originated, is documented in Ferrara but produced in Florence. No sign of it elsewhere. (On the 1434, see Pratesi at https://naibi.net/p/55-IMPER-Z-1OCR.pdf, translated at viewtopic.php?p=26839#p26839.)

About the Alciato order, I don't think one should simply take Depaulis's word for it, but reason out which is right. In the Alciato poem, the problem is that the order in which the trumps are presented is not the same as the order he presents. That is, in the fourth lihttps://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=20687#p20687ne (this is in Parergon juris libri tres; posteriores juris libri VII, 1543, p. 90, in Google Books):viewtopic.php?p=20687#p20687

Cedit amor forti & iusto, regemq[uei, uam?]; sacerdos:

the order of presentation is Love, Fortitude, Justice, with Justice apparently below Fortitude, which is below Love; but the "cedit" puts Love after the other two. Since the whole poem starts at the highest and ends at the lowest, this means that Love is lower than the other two. That this is so is confirmed in the order of King (i.e. Emperor) vs. Priest (i.e. Pope). It is not likely that King is higher than Priest in Alciato's order. That's why Depaulis (following Pratesi before him, at https://naibi.net/p/40-MARSMIL-Z.pdf) is right.

mikeh wrote: 10 May 2025, 23:47 Is it a question of influence of Bologna on Piedmont for the two similarities you note, or of the survival in those two places of practices once prevalent also in Florence and Lombardy? I prefer the latter. It is not "my" theory; it was advanced by Ross (see viewtopic.php?p=20687#p20687), and I agree.

I, of course, disagree ;-)
viewtopic.php?p=22359#p22359
The Bolognese order, with its equal ranking of the papi, is highly idiosyncratic, and there is simply no evidence of it ever having been used anywhere in Italy except Bologna and Piedmont. Since it is very easy to imagine the Bolognese game being taken directly to Piedmont by merchants and/or other travelers along the ancient and very busy road that went from Bologna to Piedmont (and thence France), bypassing most of Lombardy, there is absolutely no rational reason to conclude that the Bolognese order is likely to have been used in any other areas of Italy.

It is not likely that King is higher than Priest in Alciato's order. That's why Depaulis (following Pratesi before him, at https://naibi.net/p/40-MARSMIL-Z.pdf) is right.

Yes. The meaning of the Latin poem is unambiguous. Pratesi, in the article that you linked to above, gives a correct transcription of the relevant verses as regemque sacerdos / Flaminicam regina praeit = and the priest precedes the king, the queen precedes the flaminica.