A specific detail may be noted ... The "Varlet" (= Valet) is designed in all 4 suits in the upper part with an "F" plus a letter for the suit (in this case "B for Baton"). In the case of the V-arlet the letter is different to the start letter "V", for all other court cards it's Chevalier with C, Roi with R and Royne also with R.



As the expression Varlet or Valet has in Italian playing card slang the term "Fante", from this "error" the strong suspicion results, that at least the basis of the deck might be an Italian production ... perhaps only parts of the courts and part of the pips are Italian (remembering the 1457 Tarot de Lyon, where the suit cards are from the German Vigil Solis version, this would be not a single case, where this was done in this way). However, the pips of the Coins would be hardly Italian.

The framed form of the Tarot de Paris reminds ....



... the Colonna sheets in Rome, where we also can see an "FB" and a "CB" ... likely we would also see an R (Re) for the kings and another R (Regina) for the queens, if we would know the complete deck.



The finding of Rovereto, from which it is assumed, that it might be a Roman deck, is also similar, though without letters for quick recognition (whic seen by other cards).
Possibly this is an indication, that a Southern Italian deck arrived in Paris, which somehow was redesigned as "Tarot de Paris". Gonzaga wasn't in Paris, but looking through the life of the Strozzi, we find, that Piero Strozzi had been in Rome relatively short before his death (? and possibly his son, too ?).

Naturally I consider this not as a "sure argument", just as a strong indication, but not more.

Hello,

The Fante initial has been pointed by Depaulis, this sound undoubtedly like an Italian origin evidence, he also describes the pips as "of Spanish inspiration" (I'd really like to see some more evidences about that last point if anyone has something handy, specifically regarding the four Aces (ars) and both the 2 of Épées and Bâtons).

Bertrand

Bertrand wrote:Hello,

The Fante initial has been pointed by Depaulis, this sound undoubtedly like an Italian origin evidence, he also describes the pips as "of Spanish inspiration" (I'd really like to see some more evidences about that last point if anyone has something handy, specifically regarding the four Aces (ars) and both the 2 of Épées and Bâtons).

Bertrand

****************************

Leber Tarocchi





http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/leber/

In my opinion possibly around 1505, Avignon (commission pope Julius)

So much research, Huck. Bear with me please, as I'd never catch up if I spent the rest of my life trying, and this is just a thought...
Can we date the coins featuring three fleur de lis and depicted on the deniers courts with any accuracy? I found one online Here - the date given is 'probably 17th century', which is not too helpful, especially if there were similar earlier ones.

Pen wrote:So much research, Huck. Bear with me please, as I'd never catch up if I spent the rest of my life trying, and this is just a thought...
Can we date the coins featuring three fleur de lis and depicted on the deniers courts with any accuracy? I found one online Here - the date given is 'probably 17th century', which is not too helpful, especially if there were similar earlier ones.

I'm not sure, if I understand the question. As I declared, the heraldic specialist Popoff made partly an identification of the coins heraldic (I couldn't understand all identifications and Popff couldn't identify all heraldic). Nonetheless the catalog stated, that this deck was made "after 1600".
I tried to identify the time of the deck.

I found 3 confirmations for 1559. Two of coins, 9 of coins and 10 of coins.

Ten of coins: One coin has heraldic of king Henry II, who died 1559.

9 of coins: One coin has heraldic of Diane de Poitiers, the lover of Henry II. She was pressed aside, when Henry II died by Henry's wife Catherine of Medici - in 1559.

2 of Coins: Strozzi and Gonzaga heraldic. This heraldic fits only in the period 1557 (when Gonzaga appeared in France) till 1482 (when Filippo Strozzi died; after 1582 there was no important Strozzi in France, as far I see it).

The situation of 1559 is ideal, as in this year peace was made. Peace contracts were a good time to produce a playing card deck for the many festivities.

This are the major arguments. Filippo di Piero Strozzi and Louis Gonzaga were the only Italian in the heraldic (beside a shield for Milan). Tarot came from Italy. The 2 of coins were often used for the name of the producer of decks.
From this it has to be assumed, that Filippo di Piero Strozzi (18 years old in 1559) and Louis Gonzaga (20 years old in 1559) commissioned the deck to enjoy their French comrades with a new Italian game.

**********

I see the possibility, that the deck later was copied ... perhaps from this we have the dating contradiction. Nonetheless it has to be assumed, that the prototype was made in 1559.

Generally we have the situation, that Marolles knew the French Gonzaga family (duke of Nevers-Rethel) well and that Marolles clearly showed engagement for Tarot cards. Marolles was a graphic collector and he sold the collection (10.000's of objects) to Louis XIV. From there it became part of the Bibliotheque nationale.
It maybe assumed, that Marolles collected also playing cards. Perhaps we wouldn't know neither the Noblet deck nor the Vievil deck nor the Tarot de Paris deck without Marolles.
The prototype of the Tarot de Paris might have been in Gonzaga hands ... perhaps just a family memory. Perhaps it's the original or perhaps it was copied by Marolles.

Huck wrote:

I'm not sure, if I understand the question.

Is it not possible that the deck as we know it today was not made to celebrate an important event - that a card maker simply published an uncommissioned deck? The heraldic coins could have been copied from an earlier time or an existing deck (or part of an existing deck), but it would hardly be possible to anticipate future coins. If the latest coins could be dated with accuracy that date would be more reliable than using the dates of the earliest to date the creation of the deck as we know it today.

Edited to add that the panel and banner on the 2 and 4 of coins look incomplete, as if lettering either broke off the woodblock or was removed - for whatever reason. It is a very special deck - it's amazing to be able to date it to 1559, but it would be good to know the whole story if there is one. Leave no turn unstoned...

Pen wrote:Huck wrote:

I'm not sure, if I understand the question.

Is it not possible that the deck as we know it today was not made to celebrate an important event - that a card maker simply published an uncommissioned deck? The heraldic coins could have been copied from an earlier time or an existing deck (or part of an existing deck), but it would hardly be possible to anticipate future coins. If the latest coins could be dated with accuracy that date would be more reliable than using the dates of the earliest to date the creation of the deck as we know it today.

Edited to add that the panel and banner on the 2 and 4 of coins look incomplete, as if lettering either broke off the woodblock or was removed - for whatever reason. It is a very special deck - it's amazing to be able to date it to 1559, but it would be good to know the whole story if there is one. Leave no turn unstoned...

I considered the possibility, that just the part of the information (2,9 and 10 of disks), what makes the key to the 1559 dating, were transferred from a situation of 1559 to a later date.
I naturally have no response ... that's a possibility.
In matters of probability it seems the more unlikely version, the interpretation, that simply the deck was from 1559, seems more natural.
There are many other reasons outside of the deck situation, that make it probable probable, that Louis Gonzaga was active in Tarot promotion in France.

A few days ago we found confirmation, that the grandfather of Filippo di Piero Strozzi played Germini in 1517 with Lorenzo di Medici (duke of Urbino in the time of pope Leo).
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=780
Lorenzo was father of Catherine de Medici, Queen of France in 1559. Just another context ... also the Strozzi family has some relation to early Trionfi/Germini/Minchiate cards.

Thanks Huck, I must reread this thread and catch up with some others.

The linework seems consistent in style, quality and detail throughout the deck, which would suggest that the deck is complete and without later additions. And 1559 is too early for Olimpia Maidalchini to be the inspiration for La Papessa.

The maker's name being missing from the relevant cards may indicate that this was removed because the deck in the collection was printed from woodblocks that had been bought in or taken over by a different card maker from the original. I think this may have been discussed before though.

Pen wrote:Thanks Huck, I must reread this thread and catch up with some others.

The linework seems consistent in style, quality and detail throughout the deck, which would suggest that the deck is complete and without later additions. And 1559 is too early for Olimpia Maidalchini to be the inspiration for La Papessa.

The maker's name being missing from the relevant cards may indicate that this was removed because the deck in the collection was printed from woodblocks that had been bought in or taken over by a different card maker from the original. I think this may have been discussed before though.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't give up too early ...

Maybe the following interests you:


from Dummett/McLeod I p. 325

The later edition of the Charles de Brosses text seems to be this ...
http://books.google.de/books?id=qwU4AAA ... te&f=false
... and there it is letter XLIV, not XLV

Well, there is Ronciglione ... a place, which had a playing card production privilege at the territory of the Chiesa. The place had been a sort of private propriety for the Farnese. How and when they got this privilege, is not clear, actually the most important time for the Fornese was the time of Pope Paul III (1533-49) ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III
... so it seems plausible, that the privilege somehow goes back to this time, or possibly to other privileges oof thi time, which later caused the playing card privilege. A confirmation for an early privilege is missing, but at least near the end of 16th century they seem to have had it. In 1649 there was a war around the Ferrarese territory at the Chiesa region and the Farnese lost it, so also they lost Ronciglione and the playing card production privilege. But Ronciglione itself still had the privilege till c. 1700.
There were found some Ronciglione cards and these cards were Minchiate cards.



There is a report ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=652&hilit=ronciglione

****************

Now we have a writer in c. 1740, assuming, that a cuurent Minchiate deck is going back to a pope Innocenz X (1644-1655), and the armies of Pope Innocenz X took the Minchiate city Ronciglione in 1649, and you claim, that the sister-of-law of pope Innocenz X has something to do do with the Papessa of the Tarot de Paris.

Further there are far reaching indications from rather complex contexts, that Minchiate was in an increasing development and Tarot interests went down in the same period.

Perhaps I don't understand your argument. I don't know, why you're fixed on the Tarot de Paris.
The Papessa was a Trionfi card already in 15th century. Papessa jokes existed already in the time of Alexander VI in context of his lover Giulia Farnese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulia_Farnese

She was sister of the young cardinal, who later became pope as Paul III. Actually it was she who detected the region around Ronciglione, which the Farnese later got.
What's so remarkable with the Tarot de Paris Papessa?





We've a sort of "Egyptian style" (Sphinx) at the Pope card, and, strange enough, it's known, that Alexander VI had Egyptian ideas. But in 1559 Alexander was dead a longer time.

Robert earlier collected some Sphinx chairs:


.. at ...
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=113&start=40

Huck wrote: ...and you claim, that the sister-of-law of pope Innocenz X has something to do do with the Papessa of the Tarot de Paris.

I didn't ever claim this, it was an idea that seemed to fit after I read about her notoriety. I posted in the other thread to see what others thought of it.

Perhaps I don't understand your argument. I don't know, why you're fixed on the Tarot de Paris.

I'm definitely not 'fixed' - the truth is what's important.

What's so remarkable with the Tarot de Paris Papessa?

Look at her Huck - La Papesse (sic) from the Tarot de Paris is unique! The expression of distaste? on her face as she balances the book in that odd way and her body language - I remember when we discussed her in an earlier thread that Debra interpreted the raised knee and posed left foot as coquettish, but I hadn't seen that possibility until she pointed it out. She does intrigue me - the whole deck does. Then there's the Moon card, which seems to have been inspired by The Ship of Fools illustration - discussed on This thread (scroll down).

I think the artist responsible was skillful and professional - even allowing for slight variations from the original drawings caused by the actual engraving of the woodblock, what we're seeing is pretty much as s/he drew it.

Thanks for the links - I'll away and read now...