Tarot History Forum

mikeh wrote:

Likewise, I think Tarot probably came from Florence to Lyon already in the 1450s or 1460s, perhaps in both forms, but certainly in a popular form.

Well, perhaps then, although some defense of that statement would be useful, one that doesn’t apply as well to the Sforza, who were on just as good terms with Louis XI as the Medici. But by the late 1450’s, a 22 trump mass-produced deck with the Popess is more believable, available in both Florence and Milan but perhaps produced elsewhere, incorporating Milanese and other cities’ innovations. And why do you say that Lyon used the Florentine A order? Are you assuming that the Piedmontese order, when it was similar to Bologna’s, came from there? I have assumed, based on later evidence, that Lyon took the C order. And if Lyon did take Florence’s A order, which one was it--without the Popess, without Death being 13, or with 2 cards numbered the same?

The Virtues are separated in every family but A, so either Bologna or Florence took separated Virtues and grouped them together (creating the dreadful (pseudo-)problem of the numbering of Death), or A was original and everywhere else they got separated and placed wherever convenient for either 1) the numbering of Death, or 2) allegorical reasons (like B's Temperance and Justice).

I take the second position, obviously - A original, everywhere else derivative. If the A went directly to Lyon, the Virtues were separated there, perhaps for the reason of placing Death at 13, since France provides the eariest witness to the superstition of unlucky 13 (at a table), and it is not known in Italy until the 19th century. This doesn't explain its resilience in Italy in all numbered orders, however. I suggest that this is a pseudo-problem for the Italian decks - Death is where it is, which is fourteenth ordinally. This caused a problem for the French numberers, who solved the problem by splitting up the Virtues (symmetrically), and placing Temperance above Death. Some Italian decks, like B, had already moved a Virtue above Death (Justice between Angel and World), so Death naturally, and coincidentally, fell into 13. The same happened to those decks that removed the Popess or one of the Popes, and then numbered their cards. And Bologna also conformed to the pattern because it didn't consider the Bagattino to have a number. I'm guessing that "coincidence" won't fly as an argument for most people, but it seems to me that, taken on a case by case basis, this is what "Death at 13" adds up to, except possibly for France.

If it really did originate in France, and was deliberately to associate Death with 13, then the French numbering and superstition had overwhelming influence, even outside of the bounds of Lombardy. In the absence of a native 13 superstition in Italy, I prefer the coincidence solution. One thing that makes a French-Ferrara connection more plausible is the switch of Angel and World as the highest card, and the coincidence in time of the adoption of the name "tarocchi/tarreaux". Besides Death at 13, there is not much else in common between the styles, so unless World-high is also a coincidental change, there must have been some interaction. The Steele Sermon is early enough that we can prefer the scenario of the B order - maybe those made in Venice (? - I think that is considered a plausible place for the Budapest/Met cards) - making its way to France and influencing the custom there, perhaps after Death and the order of the Virtues had been settled, so the only thing left was to make the World the highest card, and then you have the Tarot de Marseille order. Maybe Viéville knocks the Virtues argument out the window - perhaps it was B that changed an unnattested former A in France to the C of the French orders.

That's not bad - Florence A goes to France (unnattested); in the meantime B messes with the inherited order for allegorical reasons, separating the Virtues, putting World high, and accidentally putting Death at 13; this B order, mass-produced, goes to France, where they like the numbered cards with Death at 13, but the Virtues are inelegantly placed; a Lyon cardmaker (say) rearranges the Virtues but keeps one above Death to keep it at 13, while at the same time retaining the high World.

Hi Steve,

SteveM wrote:

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:I forgot to answer this point, but the Strambotti de triumphi seems to be anonymous. We can't use Serafino's biography to find out anything about it. I'll get back to that.

Sorry, my bad; from the link you gave I understood it was taken from one of the 16th century collected works of Serafino, my lack of understanding of the language and difficulties with reading through the text online. Huck also seems to be under the same misunderstanding, could you clarify the position with the poems and its inclusion in the text you linked too?

The text Strambotti d'ogni sorte & sonetti alla bergamasca gentilissimi da cantare inuse liuti & variati stormenti (sic), was published with no author, place, or date. Bibliographers have been able to identify the printer as Eucharius (Eucario) Silber, active in Rome 1480-1509. Hence the "c. 1500".

I'll just quote Depaulis on it -

It is printed with other such songs in an anonymous, undated little book of around 1500, entitled Strambotti d'ogni sorte & sonetti alla bergamasca gentilissimi da cantare inuse liuti & variati stormenti [sic] (8) (no place, no date...). The text of the song appears on the seventh page and reads thus:

Strambotti de triumphi

Miracomãdo aquel angelo pio,
al mõdo al sole alla luna & lostello
alla saetta & aquel diauol rio
la morte el traditore el vechiarello
la rota el caro & guistitia di dio
forteza & temperanza & amor bello
al Papa Imperatore & Imperatrice
al bagatello al matto più felice.(9)

(8) "Very nice songs of various kinds and Bergamo style sonnets, for singing with the lute and other various instruments". Stormenti is clearly a mistake; it is corrected as instrumenti in what seems to be a slightly later printing (BnF, Imp., RES- YD- 623).
(9) Here given from BnF, Imp., RES- YD- 623.

Four different printings of the book are known to exist,(10),... A close inspection of the typographic material allows book historians to identify the printers who are behind these pamphlets. A copy now in the Pierpont Morgan Library, Dept. of Printed Books, in New York (Sander 7095), is assigned to Eucharius (Eucario) Silber who came to Rome in 1480 and was active until 1509, when his son Marcello took over his workshop. It is not unreasonable to date it "around 1500". The BnF Rothschild IV. 2. 54 (or "Picot, Rothschild, 1029" = Sander 7094) copy is attributed to another German-born printer active in Rome, Johann Besicken, who was in business between c. 1500 and c. 1508. The BnF Réserve des Imprimées copy, with corrected title, might have been printed at a later date by Eucario Silber's son Marcello, who is known as a printer and publisher in Rome from 1510 to 1527.

(10)Max Sander, Le livre à figures italien, depuis 1467 jusqu'à 1530 : essai de sa bibliographie et de son histoire, III, Milan, 1942; rp. Lodi, 1996, nos. 7093-7095, to which must be added the Réserve des Imprimées copy (RES- YD- 623), probably a post 1510 printing.

A fourth printing, assigned to Verona and dated "c. 1500" by Sander (Sander, 7093), must be in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele in Rome. Most of its contents was published by Mario Menghini in his edition of Serafino de' Ciminelli's poems. Here is how Menghini published the "Song of the Tarot":

(the one already posted)

A strambotto is a kind of Italian song, usually composed of a single stanza of eight hendecasyllabic (11-syllable) lines. It is considered as an ancestor of the madrigal as well as a source for the French Renaissance chanson. Serafino de' Ciminelli, known as Serafino Aquilano (1466-1500), was one of the main composers of strambotti in his time. Some of his works were published together with other, generally anonymous, songs. The booklet Strambotti d'ogni sorte & sonetti alla bergamasca gentilissimi includes some of Ciminelli's works.

So the situation appears to be that the book is a compilation of various authors. While some of the poems are Ciminelli's, many others are unnattributed, including ours.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: That's not bad - Florence A goes to France (unnattested); in the meantime B messes with the inherited order for allegorical reasons, separating the Virtues, putting World high, and accidentally putting Death at 13; this B order, mass-produced, goes to France, where they like the numbered cards with Death at 13, but the Virtues are inelegantly placed; a Lyon cardmaker (say) rearranges the Virtues but keeps one above Death to keep it at 13, while at the same time retaining the high World.

One more point in favour of a B influence in France is the Hermit card in the Budapest/Met sheets - he has a lantern, just like the French cards. He has turned from an allegory of Time to a real "Hermit". It could be that the proposed Florentine deck going to France is unnecessary, and what really went were Eastern-order (B) cards - the only thing the French cardmakers then changed was the order of the Virtues, and the designs.

For me the question looks like -

Is it:

A =>B =>C
A =>C =>B
or
.......B
....../
A =>
......\
.......C

I think the last scenario involves the most assumptions and strains plausibility the most. Especially since both B and C move the Virtues and other cards around, particularly making the same choice to make the World the highest card. This, and the Hermit, make me think that there is a connection, and it goes better if B influences C, since 1), the Bud/Met cards are earlier than any C cards we have (excluding the Cary Sheet for the time being), and 2) we know Venice (where they may conceivably be from) became protectionist of its card industry in 1441, which probably caused greater local production of cards - I assume some were exported, or at least transported.

"Venetian" cards like the Bud/Met ones might have been like those given to Jacopo Antonio Marcello in 1448/1449, which he said were "not worthy to be given to royalty" (but he sent them anyway, when he got Michelino's pack as well). In any case Marcello's gifts are the first introduction of Trionfi to France, and if Venetian (he was Venetian), it may well have been the B type. Their very crudeness might have been the impetus for their redesign when received in France.

Huck, I had read your "4 moors" thread. I had also read Trionfi's exposition of the chess analogy, and your presentation of it on other threads. It just doesn't seem at all secure to me, and quite unnecessary to account for the invention of the game. As I've said before, we don't even know if Filippo Visconti played chess. I know you've said he must have, since he started a chess club. Well, maybe there were chess enthusiasts at court, and guests he wanted to impress who played chess. It just seems to me that there are other ways of reconstructing the Cary-Yale, perfectly natural rationales that do not entail the two pairs. Filippo Visconti must have been a pretty devout Roman Catholic, and wanted others to be devout as well, if he had Hope, Faith, and Charity cards. That's reason in itself not to have a Popess card.

In the present discussion, I can't see that it makes any difference whether the CY did or didn't have a Popess card. If you accept the chess argument, then the CY didn't need a previous "papa" from Bologna or Florence to instigate it. If you don't accept the argument, then the CY didn't have to have a Popess card for it to be invented in Milan, because there was the PMB, which fairly securely does have such a card, still long before any evidence of Popess cards in Florence.My point was only to deny that there had to be two pairs, and that if the Empress was there, then the Popess had to be there, too, at some time.

The 2nd and 3rd quotes you responded to were quotes from Ross, which I cited so as to state my objections. For clarity I will try to remember to put "Ross said," or whoever, each time I quote somebody, and not just the first time in a series of quotes from the same person.

Now to Ross's posts. Ross said:

If Florentine artisans, possibly including a card painter or two, began coming in 1443, that is enough time for the Brambilla and Cary Yale to have been commissioned, and adapted from the Florentine model.

Your quotes about the silk industry didn't mention Florence, just Tuscany and the city of Lucca. If Lucca was mentioned by name, Florence would likely have been. I don't see why artisans for the silk industry would have included a card painter or two. A different line of transmission would be gifts; but that line could have gone either way.

You talk a lot about destruction of records in all the cities. Well,much of Ferrara was destroyed in the salt war, yet there are still records. Much of Milan was destroyed by the French and others, yet the Sforza-era correspondence and other records of tarot remain, such as the Borommeo mural, and numerous decks. Florence experienced very little destruction, it is the best preserved city of them all, yet there is nothing there, in records or paintings, to suggest tarot early on. Bologna largely escaped destruction, mainly the Bentivoglio palace was destroyed.. There is nothing there, either. According to Ady, some of the Bologna records were moved to Ferrara. I assume they have been examined for tarot information, with nothing found Yet somehow for you Florence and Bologna become the main centers of tarot dissemination. I don't get it.

Ross said

.Popess - no Popess - Popess is counterintuitive - ...

What I said was "no Popess - Popess - no Popess." That's not counter-intuitive. My suggestion was that the Rosenwald (the middle term in my series) was an experiment that didn't take hold.

there is no reason not to prefer dating the Rosenwald sheet a decade earlier, c. 1490, so the only presumption that remains (in my scenario) is a change from two Emperors and Popes to the Rosenwald configuration. Either that, or the Popess and Empress are original features, and the Bolognese changed it. You already know why I prefer the first scenario - the unlikeliness of inventing rival Popes and Emperors after the schism was ended and the Council (and conciliar controversy) was a distant memory (not to mention the fall of Constantinople in 1453, eliminating the Eastern Empire), and the conservatism of Bologna's game, in contrast to Florence's continual evolution.

There is also no reason not to prefer dating the Strambotti a decade or two earlier; you say later that the earliest publisher was in business since about 1480. And it might have been circulating for a while before that. The fall of Constantinople was not a distant memory in the later 1450's, when I imagine this innovation of the "four papi" being mass-produced. And if Antongaleazzo and Annibale were not distant memories then (the tomb to Annibale was done in 1458), neither was Felix V, who reigned until 1447.

Ross said,

? - Bologna certainly has a Bagattino...The Bolognese don't number the Bagattino.

. I was going by Kaplan vol. 1, p. 50. He interpreted the card as the Fool, even though he has a wand, because between it and the Lover card, numbered 5, are only the four Moors, unnumbered. Perhaps this deck makes Death number 13 by conflating the Bagattino and the Fool. Having two unnumbered cards would also do the job: Lover would get 5 and Death 13. That looks like an effort to make Death number 13. Well, I was mostly concerned with the Rosenwald, which seems to be trying to force Death into the 13th position, by deliberately giving two virtue cards the same number..

Ross said,

this B order, mass-produced, goes to France, where they like the numbered cards with Death at 13, but the Virtues are inelegantly placed; a Lyon cardmaker (say) rearranges the Virtues but keeps one above Death to keep it at 13, while at the same time retaining the high World.

Well, that part, at the end of your post, is what I already said. It makes sense and is enough. Your long exposition before that, about the A order's journey to Lyon, is not much in accord with Occam's razor.

My response to Ross's next post:
A might still have been first, with no Popess, in both Florence and Milan (and Bologna, if you insist). Or actually, if there were only 14-20 trumps in 1440-1442, an ancestor of A. Then, with a Popess, B develops in Ferrara (or Venice, I don't care, but before that its ancestor, perhaps shorter, is in Ferrara). The Rosenwald is then an unpopular attempt to insert the Popess into the A order. Yes, the C order might have been invented in France, from the B order. Or in Milan, after the Popess and perhaps other new cards are introduced. Or in Milan it might have gone: (1) ancestor to A; to (2) something between A and C, unknown; to (3) C, in France.

I'll move these images if they are off topic, just let me know.

I was at the Ashmolean Museum here in Oxford a few weeks ago, they've recently opened after nearly a year of being closed for renovations. I noticed a painting showing the Life of Caesar (Triumph of??? damn, I didn't write the title down, I'll go back and get it.. anyway... I did capture is at least that the image is "by the Master of the Jarves Cassoni, XV Century, Florentine School". Anyway, it really made me think of the Charles VI Chariot.






Charles VI:

Very nice, Robert!

I don't have a Caesar with that headwear. It looks as though it is a very pro-Caesar point of view - he is conflated with Christ, the sacrificial lamb (Caesar had to die in order to found the Empire which would promote Christianity - the more traditional view of Julius Caesar; his virtual sanctity is shown in Dante's Hell, where Judas and Caesar's betrayers are the only ones being eaten by Satan).

I'd like to know more about this "Master of the Jarves Cassoni" - I assume these pictures are from the "Life" rather than from a cassone.

I'll check again. I think it was a cassone panel, the shape was right, but the subject a bit odd, no? I thought I photographed the info plate. There were other images too, and they were from cassone panels, so it is likely I think.

There was also a beautiful Triumph of Chastity (which I've added to the Precipice thread: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=426&start=30#p5630 ). You can see all of the images from the visit today here (including also an Apollo from the Caesar panel):
http://www.robertmealing.com/photograph ... ashmolean/

The first scenes show the note that was passed to him that warned him of the betrayal, but which he didn't read.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:I'd like to know more about this "Master of the Jarves Cassoni" - I assume these pictures are from the "Life" rather than from a cassone.

I don't know how reliable this is:

The quattrocento sculptor Apollonio di Giovanni (di Tomaso) was known as the "Master of the Jarves Cassoni" before being securely identified, from the Jarves example in Yale's collection.

http://www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org/jarvesj.htm