Yatima said:
Although I am inclined to like the idea that the Bembo-14 and others of less-than-22-trump-decks were earlier than a full-fleches 22-deck, I want to question it for a moment. Please, prove me wrong to convince me even further…
1. We really have only the Bembo-14! But in relation to the Cary-Yale, anything might be possible. Maybe there have been the 3 theological virtues for the Pierpont Morgan, too? Most certainly, I would suspect, though, that there was a World that we can find at the earlier Cary-Yale; so there may have been art least 15 cards.
2. There is the Death-problem in the Bembo-14. If there have been only 14 cards, the Fool would be the 1st and Death then 13th. But, if we presume that the Fool was unnumbered from the beginning, Death would be 12th! Very unusual.
3. The “14 figures” for the Visconti girl at Ferrara does say nothing that can be related to the Tarot. Where they “figures” not “cards”? If they were cards, Where are the other cards of a pack? What may just 14 cards/figures be other than basis for a kind of murder-game…
4. The “70 card-deck” leaves too much open as to be a stronghold for a 14+the rest theory.
5. Is there any other evidence at all?
Yatima
To 1: There is not only the Bembo. There is document 16 from 1457
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/16/
speaking of 70 cards. There is Document B from 1441
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/00b/
speaking of 14 figure. There is Marcello accepting the Michelino deck with probably 16 trumps as ludus triumphorum in 1449:
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/03
http://trionfi.com/0/b/
There is on the other side NOTHING which supports the number 22 at the early time (before Boiardo). Neither the existence of Cary-Yale, Brera-Brambilla or the 14 Bembo cards can support the existence of a deck with 22 trumps, no document uses this number.
By this it seems plausible, that the general deck development went through the stage of decks with a 5th suit with an identical number of trumps as the suits had, before it reached 4x14+22. As it seems generally a time, in which experiments were common -the decks were handpainted and by this very open to individual changes - in contrast to mass-produced decks - one might assume, that there were also experiments, from which we know nothing.
This is known:
Michelino-deck: probably thought as 4x15
Brera-Brambilla: unclear
Cary-Yale: probably 5x16
Bembo-cards: 5x14
To 2: this problem is discussed at:
http://trionfi.com/0/f/
It seems likely, that the row started with 1-14 and that the Fool had position 11.
The number-change 11 --> 0 and 14 --> 20 was probably creatively changed according to "counting-problems".
It became erroneously a very importing change, as in the follow up 0= Fool and 20=judgment became standard. This condition seems to indicate, that the step to the later successful 22-trumps-version was done in Milan.
An early use of the sequence of 1-15 in relation to the 10 number cards + the 5 courts is already reported in 1377 by Johannes of Rheinfelden. With this a counting 1-14 or 1-13 or 1-15 or 1-16 has an old tradition.
http://trionfi.com/0/c/01/
To 3: The time of 1.1.1441 is the preparation time of a Trionfi-deck (the marriage of Bianca Maria is near - although it is still unclear, whom she will marry finally, Leonello or Francesco, it is a general feature, that young girls "prepare marriage in details" and a Trionfi-deck accompanying a Trionfo-event= marriage belonged to the preparation). The idea to accompany an important event (in this case a marriage) with the edition of a specific event-deck was already observable with the Michelino deck (with unsecurities). In later time (for instance Leonello's Trionfi decks from February 1442 and 1450 - with unsecurities)
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/01/
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/04/
and even in younger time (19th/20th century) the "event deck" became a natural feature, occasionally repeated for various opportunities. The earliest totally undoubtable "event deck" is
http://www.wopc.co.uk/germany/engraved.html
for the Spanish/Habsburg marriage 1496.
It might be espected, that the name Trionfi as name for the decks (or ludus triumphorum) developed, cause early decks with thisa name accompanied real other Trionfo festivities, as they became popular in Italy just around the same time, when Trionfi decks developed (around 1440 with a singular Trionfo of Filippo Maria Visconti 1425 "before the general development"). Something similar already was suspected by Gertrude Moakley in her main thesis.
To 4: you're funny. You've to realize, that there is NOTHING, that supports the early existence of 4x14+22 decks at this moment of time.
You cannot deal cards in 1457, which failed to exist until then.
When I say, "you're funny", don't take it personally. You're in good company with a lot of playing card history authorities and most of "informing Tarot history bulletins" in the web, which discuss a reality, which is only manifested by their own words.
Well, such "systems of believe" are very common in many contexts. One needs a rather stubborn character to put them back to that what they are: nothing ... just hot air ... and one needs: patience, patience and patience ....
and again back to documentary evidence.
"We really have only the Bembo-14!" ... you wrote. Yes, right, we've only the Bembo-14 to support the theory of the very early 4x14 + 22 - deck. And that means: you've nothing.
You've 14 Bembo cards, a 70-cards note from 1457 and a 14-figure note from 1441 to support the 5x14-theory and the Cary-Yale and Marcello-text to state, that there was generally much creativity in this early time.
You've no base to support the theory of farspread Trionfi decks before 1450/1454 and no support of a theory, that Trionfi decks developed outside of the Italian courts.