Datation of the Tarot =22+14x4=78

Namadev

Hi all,
Considering o that the appealtion Tarot (Rabelais naming) is exclusive of the 22+16+40 structure, I would like to have the different opinions about it's datation.
It seems to me that there are at least 3 points of view for the datation of the 78 structure.
1)DDD : mainly based on the remaining VS and rational inferences for an "uncomplete" deck initially made of 78 cards.
from the discussions I've had with Thierry Depaulis, their latest datation would be 1451.
2)Lothar's argumentation based on the Boïardo.
"Boiardo is clearly 4x14+22-structure. The date of the
poem is unclear, from ca. 1460 till 1494 (Boiardo dead
in december 1494) all is possible"
3)Post Boiardo and before Rabelais's taraux : circa 1505?
Ross seems in some posts to hint something similar...


Alain
 

Ross G Caldwell

Namadev said:
Hi all,
Considering o that the appealtion Tarot (Rabelais naming) is exclusive of the 22+16+40 structure, I would like to have the different opinions about it's datation.
It seems to me that there are at least 3 points of view for the datation of the 78 structure.
1)DDD : mainly based on the remaining VS and rational inferences for an "uncomplete" deck initially made of 78 cards.
from the discussions I've had with Thierry Depaulis, their latest datation would be 1451.
2)Lothar's argumentation based on the Boïardo.
"Boiardo is clearly 4x14+22-structure. The date of the
poem is unclear, from ca. 1460 till 1494 (Boiardo dead
in december 1494) all is possible"
3)Post Boiardo and before Rabelais's taraux : circa 1505?
Ross seems in some posts to hint something similar...


Alain

I don't know. Boiardo is the earliest, we presume (since he is undatable too).

I don't think 1451 is secure for Bembo's cards - it could be anytime in the 1450s, or even before 1466, when Francesco died. But even then, we are talking about 14 trumps, not 22.

It is quite a coincidence that 56 and 14 = 70, and a note in 1457 Ferrara says "Big triumph cards, 70 per pack". Since only 14 trumps survive from the Visconti-Sforza pack, this all makes for a nice working hypothesis - there were only 14 trumps in a pack of "carte da trionfi" until around 1457.

Of course, since two other cards are missing from Bembo's pack, we can't say that the 6 missing trumps didn't get lost too.

The d'Este cards all have some Virtues missing in Bembo's original set, and the World card etc. But they all date from later than 1470. Just like the so-called "replacement" cards from the Visconti-Sforza deck. So a good deal of trionfi creativity appears to have happened around 1470.

The problem is the Cary-Yale, which has Fortitude (and the Theological Virtues as well), and apparently World, which are missing from the Bembo 14. But the Cary-Yale is also hard to date - presently there is no consensus, since Algeri, a respected art scholar specializing in the Visconti cards, holds that these trumps date from 1468. Cary-Yale is so different from other packs, both in numbering, suits (5 suits, including arrows) and subjects, that it is hard to make a theory based on it.

So in general, I assume that Trionfi subjects could be fairly varied for the first two or even three decades, 1441-1471. I assume that this is because the cards were artisanal items, often even made to order for rich people, and were not yet printed. A printed set must have soon set a standard. I guess then that the 22 standard trumps happened sometime after 1470. Boiardo's poem could also have been written after this time.

This means that when Marcello sent Isabelle a trionfi pack in addition to Michelino's pack, it probably contained 14 trumps; when Francesco Sforza wrote for triumph cards in December of 1450, he was referring to a 14 trump pack, etc.

Nothing theoretically prohibits a larger number from an earlier time, but to speak of it requires reconstruction from later pack designs, that is later than 1470. We know with certainty that a pack with 70 cards existed in 1457, and was called "big triumph cards". I think this is central. True, we don't know from this entry the number of trumps, but can we think that standard, regular or "small" triumph cards actually had *more* cards than a "Grand" pack? Packs with shortened suits are not known until the 16th century, according to Dummett.

So if shortening the suits is a 16th century innovation, and there were only 70 cards in a trionfi pack in 1457, the only solution is that there were as yet fewer trumps. We do have evidence of the number of trumps *growing*, since the Minchiate was created in Florence by the addition of trumps, but we have no evidence of their number being *decreased.* It seems clear, that the number of trumps therefore started smaller and grew.

My guess, 1470.
 

Ross G Caldwell

Re: Re: Datation of the Tarot =22+14x4=78

Ross G Caldwell said:
I Packs with shortened suits are not known until the 16th century, according to Dummett.

So if shortening the suits is a 16th century innovation, and there were only 70 cards in a trionfi pack in 1457, the only solution is that there were as yet fewer trumps. We do have evidence of the number of trumps *growing*, since the Minchiate was created in Florence by the addition of trumps, but we have no evidence of their number being *decreased.* It seems clear, that the number of trumps therefore started smaller and grew.


This is Dummett's opinion (or at least was in 1980) in "Game of Tarot", p. 318, during his discussion of the Tarocchino of Bologna, which is played with a deck shorted by removing cards 2-5 from each suit - not by shortening the Trumps. He finds no evidence of any card game with such a shortened pack before the early 16th century.

This seems a powerful argument - we have direct evidence of *augmenting* the number of trumps, from Minchiate (and Cary-Yale). We also know that the *order* was not always the same. Thus, we can say that the subjects could very easily have had some variation, both in number an order, before settling into definite patterns.

It is therefore plausible to suggest that the number of trumps increased from 14 to 20, 21 and 22 at some time.
 

Namadev

Re: Re: Datation of the Tarot =22+14x4=78

Ross G Caldwell said:
Nothing theoretically prohibits a larger number from an earlier time, but to speak of it requires reconstruction from later pack designs, that is later than 1470. We know with certainty that a pack with 70 cards existed in 1457, and was called "big triumph cards". I think this is central. True, we don't know from this entry the number of trumps, but can we think that standard, regular or "small" triumph cards actually had *more* cards than a "Grand" pack? Packs with shortened suits are not known until the 16th century, according to Dummett.

So if shortening the suits is a 16th century innovation, and there were only 70 cards in a trionfi pack in 1457, the only solution is that there were as yet fewer trumps. We do have evidence of the number of trumps *growing*, since the Minchiate was created in Florence by the addition of trumps, but we have no evidence of their number being *decreased.* It seems clear, that the number of trumps therefore started smaller and grew.

My guess, 1470. [/B]

Hi Ross,

About shortened decks, I know that Mickael Hurst has a brillant thesis that he'll probably expose when the Perrache group will have translated the third paragraph with John Mc Leod of the oldest French Rules of 1637.

Nevertheless, I agree with you.
Morever the exemple of the 1637(1585 French rules) show that the 22 Atouts remained off the process of shortening the deck.
Example of shortening a decck (1637, probably 1585)

Toutes les cartes doivent être distribuées entre les trois joueurs.
On ôte d'abord 12 cartes des 56 couleurs :56-12 = 44
Il reste à distribuer 66 cartes : 44 "mineurs" et 22 "majeurs"

"Et ainsi comm'il faut distribuer toutes les cartes entre les
joüeurs, il en demeurera vingt-quatre a celuy qui faict, & vingt &
vne a chacun des autres."

24+21+21=66


Alain
 

Namadev

Re: Re: Re: Datation of the Tarot =22+14x4=78

Namadev said:
Morever the exemple of the 1637(1585 French rules) show that the 22 Atouts remained off the process of shortening the deck.
Example of shortening a decck (1637, probably 1585)

Toutes les cartes doivent être distribuées entre les trois joueurs.
On ôte d'abord 12 cartes des 56 couleurs :56-12 = 44
Il reste à distribuer 66 cartes : 44 "mineurs" et 22 "majeurs"

"Et ainsi comm'il faut distribuer toutes les cartes entre les
joüeurs, il en demeurera vingt-quatre a celuy qui faict, & vingt &
vne a chacun des autres."

24+21+21=66


Alain [/B]

Fourth papargrah :

"Mais afin de le trouuer plus agreable il est bon d'oster douze cartes inutiles des quatre peintures, c'est a dire trois de chacunes, sçauoir les dix, neuf, & huict des couppes & deniers, & les trois, deux & az d'espées & bastons qui sont les moindres de chacun de ces points, par ce que les hautes de couppes & deniers ne sont pas de plus grande valeur que les basses des Espées & bastons."
 

Ross G Caldwell

Re: Re: Re: Datation of the Tarot =22+14x4=78

Namadev said:
Hi Ross,

About shortened decks, I know that Mickael Hurst has a brillant thesis that he'll probably expose when the Perrache group will have translated the third paragraph with John Mc Leod of the oldest French Rules of 1637.


As far as I know, Michael thinks that the way to explain away the 70 card trionfi pack from 1457 is to suggest a shortened pack like the Tarocchino - take out some small cards. But he is not apparently aware that there is no evidence of such a shortened pack in the 15th century, and Dummett relies on his certainty in this matter for his datation of the game of Tarocchino to the first quarter of the 16th century (p. 318).

Maybe there is now, my information on this obscure matter is over 24 years old :)

On the contrary, there is evidence of *adding to* the number of trumps. If it could happen to the Minchiate, it could have happened to the earlier trumps in the 1450s.
 

Huck

Alain: "Considering o that the appealtion Tarot (Rabelais naming) is exclusive of the 22+16+40 structure, I would like to have the different opinions about it's datation."


On the base of autorbis' considerations:

--- the year 1468

which is an estimation, just like betting on a horse, and can easily be wrong.

1468 - marriage Galeazzo Maria and Bona of Savoia.

There are signs of mass production in the late 70ies in Bologna. A change from 14 to 22 after reaching the state of mass-production seems unlogical. When there was already too much publical use
of the 5x14-version, the deck wouldn't have changed that easy.

An existence of the successful 22-version (based on the 5x14-deck of Bembo) before 1466 would demand "too much lucky accident". Other versions with 22-structure before that date are not in the same way unbelievable, but not really likely (perhaps there have been various experiments to create a new type of deck, so an accidently appearing "22-version" wouldn't have been naturally deciding. For instance Boiardo might have been earlier - without influencing too much, nobody did prefer his "love tarock". Also it's not impossible, that the Sola Busca reaches in this time, the year 1491 is not totally reliable.

1466 is the first date for the Minchiate, this indicates, that there were experimentation in the air of this decade.

In 1457, at the visit of Galeazzo Maria, there is already experimentation. The page gets some colours to paint a deck and Gherardo Viczenza is paid for the colours. (Dokument 17)

http://trionfi.com/0/e2/17/

Galeazzo Maria has a personal crazy accident in 1466 around the number 22 - but he did need time to react. The marriage was 2 years later and a good time to be creative. Galeazzo Maria was mightful enough to bring mass production together. He was mightful enough to be imitated and to set a trend. The development of printing favours this date, there is a printing revolution in Venetiain 1470. A process, in which the marriage deck of Galeazzo Maria jumped to become in the course of the development the prototype for the first mass production Trionfi deck, is conceivable.

But perhaps he already knew the Boiardo version and decided to make the concept to his own without caring too much about the details of the other version.

The crazy accident of Galeazzo:

1466: Galeazzo Maria is 22 years old. His father dies.
1447: Bianca Maria is 22 years old. Her father dies.
1424: Francesco Sforza is 22 years old. His father dies.

When the Tarot deck - for which the family was or became famous - already had 22 trumps, this would be a little too much accident. The story has more logic, that the deck got 22 trumps, CAUSE the accident took place.
 

Yatima

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
 

Huck

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.