The Order and Meaning of the Trumps

Ross G Caldwell

Kwaw's post on the Fool and the 5x14 thread brought up something which is worth another thread - a discussion about the original order of the 22 trumps.

My opinion (currently):

The Fool plays a special role in almost all games, and also in the allegories, occult or otherwise, which explain the series. He is listed either first or last, but he doesn't have a number and he doesn't come anywhere in the middle (everybody knows the when and where of the exceptions, and they're not relevant).

So, I think the Fool belongs "outside", even if he is also the "lowest" - below the Bagatto, in terms of his position in society. He can also approach the highest, which the Bagatto never can, which is the Fool's freedom.

So, we are left with 21 trumps.

I am firmly convinced that the A order, which Tom Tadfor Little called the "Southern" order, is the original order. It has a few variations, notably between Florence and Bologna. The difference is where the Chariot should go - just before the Wheel, or just after Love.

Either position can make sense to me, since I see the order of the trumps to fall on two sides of the Wheel of Fortune - on the one side is human life and achievement, on the other side is what is inevitable and the higher powers.

Bologna makes sense as either a 3x7 series, or a 10-1-10 series. In both cases, the Wheel occupies exactly the middle.

3x7 I interpret as physical, moral and spiritual truth.
10-1-10 as microcosm and macrocosm.

From Bagattino to Chariot (1-7), we have conditions of life, Love which conquers everyone, and the Triumph - the highest glory a person can reach.

Then come the three virtues (Southern order remember), the Wheel, and the three inevitabilities - Old Age, Reversal of Fortune, and Death. These seven represent the balance of Virtues against Fate (Adversity) (3-1-3), while showing that Death is not avoidable in the end.

The last seven - Devil to Angel (southern order) - show the structure of the Cosmos from the lowest (Devil) to the highest (Angel), essentially like Dante. From the Devil we go to the Tower of Dis, which leads upward to Purgatory (Dante goes to this tower and sees the stars at the end of the Inferno, before ascending). The Star in the southern packs seems to refer to the magi following the star as well - so there is a veiled reference to the ultimate message here. There are three figures.

In the next card, the Moon, there are two figures, studying the Moon. The Moon can be an allusion to Mary, and the faith of the Church (with the two astronomers representing faith and reason - one points to the moon, one studies a text).

In the next card, the Sun, is a spinner. Mary is often shown spinning in scenes of the Annunciation (from an infancy Gospel account). The Sun then represents Christ. I think she might also be an allusion to Bologna, whose textile industry was the main source of wealth for the city, in addition to the school (the university could also be represented by the astronomer/astrologers - one of the biggest subjects studied in Bologna, next to Law).

After the Sun, the World. In southern style decks, the four-quartered world is shown with a Mercury like figure standing on it. I think Mercury here represents the Message, the Word, or the Gospel, sent to the four quarters of the World and ruling the Cosmos (the "World" in the card is actually the entire Cosmos (Mondo, Mundus, Universe), up to the starry sphere. Beyond the starry sphere is the Prime Mover, here symbolized by the Word, Mercury as Message.

Finally is Eternity, shown by an Angel blowing the trumpet (Tromba - homophone for Trionfo-Trump) on Judgement Day. This was a common way to show the concept of "Eternity" in Petrarch's "Trionfi". An Angel is also the exact opposite of a Devil, without blaspheming God himself by putting him in a card game.

This last point I think is important, because Bologna was (and is) a very Catholic city. This is why I think there *are* allusions to Christian doctrine in the cards, but veiled in conventional symbolism, rather than straightforward.

Above all, I think the erudition of the design betrays a very learned maker. In the Fool there is a Fool blowing a trumpet and beating a drum; in the highest card, there is an Angel blowing a trumpet. Two very different trumpets, at two ends of the scale! In the exact middle, Wheel of Fortune turning; I think this clear allusion to Boethius is also an indication of a learned creation.

By "learned" I don't mean a grey-bearded professor; since the early themes are carnivalesque, a triumphal procession, the rise and fall of human glory, and eternal things from Hell to Heaven, I think the designer was rather somebody like a "Goliard" - educated but not necessarily dogmatically orthodox students and clerics, who turned out verses such as the "Carmina Burana" and Bologna's own "Alma Mater Studiorum". Of course University towns, such as Bologna, is where you found "goliards".

I think I see the goliardic spirit in the trumps.
 

dminoz

Ross, this is an interesting analysis. I find this subject fascinating. Why do you prefer the A ordering over the B (Steele Sermon) or C (Marseilles)?

Also, is it correct that the Steele sermon ordering is based on just the one document, or is there wider use of it? Putting Justice between the Angel and the World is a nice touch.
 

Ross G Caldwell

dminoz said:
Ross, this is an interesting analysis. I find this subject fascinating. Why do you prefer the A ordering over the B (Steele Sermon) or C (Marseilles)?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can do it justice completely in a post, but here are my main thoughts.

Bologna (A) appears to have historical priority. This is not proof tarot was invented in Bologna, but it moves it away from Ferrara or Milan.

The argument is based on inferences from the earliest references to carte da trionfi in the Ferrara accounts. The earliest reference (Saturday Feb. 10 1442) mentions four suits and "all the figures" of 4 packs of carte da trionfi. This detail is never done again in any Ferrara reference, so it seems that the deck is new to the accountant, and by extension the court. Four decks also implies that a model is being copied; and the same record also mentions that two sets have green backs, and two red. This implies that the game already had known rules. It all goes to show that game had been in existence before this record for some amount of time. But how long?

From other records of the production of hand-painted decks, we know that an average amount of time for making one deck was about 10 days. Thus, the commission for the first four decks ever mentioned is likely to have been given in early January, 1442.

This date seems significant for the following reason: the SECOND earliest record of "carte da trionfi" occurs in the same Ferrara records on Saturday July 28, 1442. The pack costs about 1/8 of one of the earlier ones, and it is bought for two young boys (8 and 10) in the court by their servant. The important thing for me is that the servant buys it from a cloth merchant, Marchione Burdochio, who happens to be from Bologna.

Now when we go back to early January 1442, when the commission for the four expensive decks was given, which appear to be the first the court ever had, we find this same merchant selling silk cloth (taffeta) to the family on January 2. The taffeta is to be used by the artist Sagramoro, the artist of the first four packs, for banners and other decorations for the sepulchre of the recently deceased Marquis of Ferrara.

So, putting it all together, Marchione Burdochio sells the second deck, at a relatively cheap price; and he is involved closely with the artist of the first decks ever mentioned. Since taffeta was a speciality of Bologna, and wasn't made in Ferrara yet (not until the 1460s actually), Marchione must have been dealing Bolognese fabric. So, as a "merzaro", what we might call a "haberdasher", Marchione sold other things besides cloth. It seems reasonable to think he got these other things from Bologna as well. Since the deck was cheaper, but still had to be profitable, it seems likely that the deck would have already existed in some quantity where his source was. Most importantly, he is near the family and the artist when we suspect the earliest deck used a model was introduced to the family.

In other words, I think Marchione introduced "carte da trionfi" to the Este. And I think he got his decks from Bologna.

This conclusion effectively erases Ferrara from the running for me.

Milan is different, and more inferential, chiefly because the Ducal records that might supply as much detail as Ferrara were lost in 1447. So no help there.

The first record of the card game "Triumphum" in the environs of Milan comes from November 1449. The writer calls it "new" (so at least he has never seen it before) and considers it beautiful and intriguing enough to send as a present to a Queen.

But we know that the game was known earlier than that, indirectly.

The dating of the Cary-Yale is too difficult to rely on to establish chronology. It should have been made during Filippo Maria Visconti's lifetime, since it has his Ducats on the Denari suit. So before 1447. But that's the only ante quem we can safely state.

The fresco in the main hall of the Palazzo Borromeo shows people playing a card game that seems to be trionfi. This fresco is dated to about 1445. The Borromeo were bankers for the Visconti, so if it is a game of trionfi (I think so) we know it was known among the wealthy classes in Milan in the mid-40s.

We know also that Filippo Maria Visconti liked to play chess and cards, and was in general fascinated by intricate and complicated things. We know he was involved in the creation of something like a trionfi deck before 1425 (Marziano da Tortona, who designed the deck, died in early 1425). This deck had different birds representing the suits, and 16 gods in the role of "trumps" (they are not called trumps, but that is stated as their role - they beat all the other cards).

But could Filippo have designed the tarot? My impression, having studied him in depth, is no. He didn't like to have death mentioned in his presence; he didn't like clowns, fools or actors; he was serious. Perhaps most important, I found that his grandfather and father had officially banned the practice of shame painting in Milan, and I have found no indication that Filippo Maria ever used it or tolerated it. In fact he demanded that the Florentines erase theirs that they had made of Filippo's general Piccinino, when he negotiated a peace treaty with them. So given his respect for the traditions of his family, and his dislike of the shame painting, I think it is unlikely he would have put it in a deck of cards.

So, it could still have been invented in Milan or around it, independently of the Visconti, but there is no direct evidence of it, and it was known earlier in Ferrara and it seems, Bologna.

If it was known earlier in Bologna, Milan could have known of the game through either Bologna or Ferrara quite easily, since Visconti relations with Ferrara were intimate, and Visconti actually was Lord of Bologna from May 1438 to June 1443, again through his general Piccinino and the latter's son.

There is no record that the Ferrarese ever used the shame painting, but the Bolognese certainly did. They and the Florentines were the two biggest practitioners of it. In any case, the earliest mention of triumph cards in Bologna is 1459, when a pack is recovered from a thief. Interestingly, a German "master" says that they are his; it seems the German is a cardmaker, which might imply that he made the cards in Bologna (there were many cardmakers in Bologna, and lots of Germans too).

So much for historical data and inferences.

The other side of my argument is from the internal evidence of the rules. In particular, the unlikely rule of the four equal-ranked "Papi", and its existence in Piedmont and Savoy, and the fact that in Piedmont and Savoy the game ranks the Angel (Judgement) card highest, even though they use packs of cards with the TdM order (importing all their cards from France). The fact that they stuck to these rules implies they knew the game from a long time before. And since they were already importing French cards (or at least Avignon cards) since 1505, it seems those rules must have been in place before then.

But we don't know anything about the 15th century Milanese game, we only have some cards, and we're not sure how they're ranked. Dummett and everybody following him assumes (not unreasonably) that it must be the same ranking that is attested from 1543 onward, the "C" order, Lombardy and TdM.

But games suffer both internal and external changes. Internal ones are usually slower, but external ones are applied by force. It happened in Bologna in 1725 when the Papal legate demanded the Papi be changed to Mori. All the old molds were altered or destroyed, on threat of imprisonment and fine. It happened in Sicily in (forget date - 1680s?) when the ruler demanded that the Devil be changed to a Ship, and a few other things (Papessa was already gone from the mother deck of Sicily by then).

My belief then is that an external change happened to the Lombardy-Milanese game around 1500. This was the French occupation, in which I propose that the Milanese market was flooded with the French form of the game, being massively produced, for export, just then in Lyon, Avignon and other places. This games was know as "tarocs" and in Italian became "tarocchi", and is first noted in 1505 in Avignon and Ferrara. I think the Milanese game became "tarocchi" then, in 1499 or 1500, and the style of game changed then.

The important thing in this argument is the force of the external change, and the fact that the French influence was restricted to Milan, and did not affect any other place directly.

My hypothesis is then that the original game spread from Bologna outwards, southwards to Florence and north and westwards to Ferrara, Milan, Savoy, and probably even France, in a few years, maybe a decade or so. The French cardmakers adapted the game the most, since they were the least familiar with its imagery and rules; the same game roughly prevailed in northern Italy until the French invasion, first a short one in 1494 and then a long occupation from 1499-1525. The invasion allowed a huge influx of cards from France into Milan, and destroyed the local makers, who adopted the French model.

This is then why the C order is different from the A (and why the A prevails in Piedmont and Savoy, in the rules, although the cards are French).

The B order is different story, but it all ties in. The problem came with numbering the cards, which the French first did. My thinking is that the C order was invented when numbering the cards in Avignon or Lyon (Depaulis favours Lyon, I Avignon), as follows -

In the old order, from Bologna, if the cards are numbered from Bagatto to Death, Death is number 14. This is because all three virtues are below the Wheel (The Bolognese were the last to number their cards, not until around 1800). So when the French makers numbered them, they had a problem. Their solution seems to have been to split the virtues up, and elevate Temperance above death. So you have a series of 3 x 7, like the A order, but Death can still be *numbered* 13. The World-Angel switch seems to me to have been a French innovation as well.

This pack was a big influence in northern Italy in the wake of the French invansion. The Bolognese and the south were not influenced, but Milan and Ferrara were. Ferrara started to number its cards also (Met. sheets etc.), but interpreted the series differently - they didn't see a 3 x 7 order, just a straight sequence. They weren't under the direct market pressure of the French cardmakers, like the Milanese were, so they could do what they liked. They split up the virtues and gave it a more theological order, in which the Angel is simply the Resurrection, while Justice becomes the last Judgement (I think). Then, I would interpret, a New World.

That's a very brief account of my thinking on these issues.

Also, is it correct that the Steele sermon ordering is based on just the one document, or is there wider use of it? Putting Justice between the Angel and the World is a nice touch.
Click to expand...

Yes, only one manuscript. But the B order is reflected in Ferrarese literature from the 16th century, and in the Met. sheets and Budapest sheets (well presented in Kaplan II).

Ross
 

Namadev

Bologna "encore et toujours"

Ross G Caldwell said:
I'm not sure I can do it justice completely in a post, but here are my main thoughts.

Bologna (A) appears to have historical priority. This is not proof tarot was invented in Bologna, but it moves it away from Ferrara or Milan.

The argument is based on inferences from the earliest references to carte da trionfi in the Ferrara accounts. The earliest reference (Saturday Feb. 10 1442) mentions four suits and "all the figures" of 4 packs of carte da trionfi. This detail is never done again in any Ferrara reference, so it seems that the deck is new to the accountant, and by extension the court. Four decks also implies that a model is being copied; and the same record also mentions that two sets have green backs, and two red. This implies that the game already had known rules. It all goes to show that game had been in existence before this record for some amount of time. But how long?

From other records of the production of hand-painted decks, we know that an average amount of time for making one deck was about 10 days. Thus, the commission for the first four decks ever mentioned is likely to have been given in early January, 1442.

This date seems significant for the following reason: the SECOND earliest record of "carte da trionfi" occurs in the same Ferrara records on Saturday July 28, 1442. The pack costs about 1/8 of one of the earlier ones, and it is bought for two young boys (8 and 10) in the court by their servant. The important thing for me is that the servant buys it from a cloth merchant, Marchione Burdochio, who happens to be from Bologna.

Now when we go back to early January 1442, when the commission for the four expensive decks was given, which appear to be the first the court ever had, we find this same merchant selling silk cloth (taffeta) to the family on January 2. The taffeta is to be used by the artist Sagramoro, the artist of the first four packs, for banners and other decorations for the sepulchre of the recently deceased Marquis of Ferrara.

So, putting it all together, Marchione Burdochio sells the second deck, at a relatively cheap price; and he is involved closely with the artist of the first decks ever mentioned. Since taffeta was a speciality of Bologna, and wasn't made in Ferrara yet (not until the 1460s actually), Marchione must have been dealing Bolognese fabric. So, as a "merzaro", what we might call a "haberdasher", Marchione sold other things besides cloth. It seems reasonable to think he got these other things from Bologna as well. Since the deck was cheaper, but still had to be profitable, it seems likely that the deck would have already existed in some quantity where his source was. Most importantly, he is near the family and the artist when we suspect the earliest deck used a model was introduced to the family.

In other words, I think Marchione introduced "carte da trionfi" to the Este. And I think he got his decks from Bologna.

This conclusion effectively erases Ferrara from the running for me.

Milan is different, and more inferential, chiefly because the Ducal records that might supply as much detail as Ferrara were lost in 1447. So no help there.

The first record of the card game "Triumphum" in the environs of Milan comes from November 1449. The writer calls it "new" (so at least he has never seen it before) and considers it beautiful and intriguing enough to send as a present to a Queen.

But we know that the game was known earlier than that, indirectly.

The dating of the Cary-Yale is too difficult to rely on to establish chronology. It should have been made during Filippo Maria Visconti's lifetime, since it has his Ducats on the Denari suit. So before 1447. But that's the only ante quem we can safely state.

The fresco in the main hall of the Palazzo Borromeo shows people playing a card game that seems to be trionfi. This fresco is dated to about 1445. The Borromeo were bankers for the Visconti, so if it is a game of trionfi (I think so) we know it was known among the wealthy classes in Milan in the mid-40s.

We know also that Filippo Maria Visconti liked to play chess and cards, and was in general fascinated by intricate and complicated things. We know he was involved in the creation of something like a trionfi deck before 1425 (Marziano da Tortona, who designed the deck, died in early 1425). This deck had different birds representing the suits, and 16 gods in the role of "trumps" (they are not called trumps, but that is stated as their role - they beat all the other cards).

But could Filippo have designed the tarot? My impression, having studied him in depth, is no. He didn't like to have death mentioned in his presence; he didn't like clowns, fools or actors; he was serious. Perhaps most important, I found that his grandfather and father had officially banned the practice of shame painting in Milan, and I have found no indication that Filippo Maria ever used it or tolerated it. In fact he demanded that the Florentines erase theirs that they had made of Filippo's general Piccinino, when he negotiated a peace treaty with them. So given his respect for the traditions of his family, and his dislike of the shame painting, I think it is unlikely he would have put it in a deck of cards.

So, it could still have been invented in Milan or around it, independently of the Visconti, but there is no direct evidence of it, and it was known earlier in Ferrara and it seems, Bologna.

If it was known earlier in Bologna, Milan could have known of the game through either Bologna or Ferrara quite easily, since Visconti relations with Ferrara were intimate, and Visconti actually was Lord of Bologna from May 1438 to June 1443, again through his general Piccinino and the latter's son.

There is no record that the Ferrarese ever used the shame painting, but the Bolognese certainly did. They and the Florentines were the two biggest practitioners of it. In any case, the earliest mention of triumph cards in Bologna is 1459, when a pack is recovered from a thief. Interestingly, a German "master" says that they are his; it seems the German is a cardmaker, which might imply that he made the cards in Bologna (there were many cardmakers in Bologna, and lots of Germans too).

So much for historical data and inferences.

The other side of my argument is from the internal evidence of the rules. In particular, the unlikely rule of the four equal-ranked "Papi", and its existence in Piedmont and Savoy, and the fact that in Piedmont and Savoy the game ranks the Angel (Judgement) card highest, even though they use packs of cards with the TdM order (importing all their cards from France). The fact that they stuck to these rules implies they knew the game from a long time before. And since they were already importing French cards (or at least Avignon cards) since 1505, it seems those rules must have been in place before then.

But we don't know anything about the 15th century Milanese game, we only have some cards, and we're not sure how they're ranked. Dummett and everybody following him assumes (not unreasonably) that it must be the same ranking that is attested from 1543 onward, the "C" order, Lombardy and TdM.

But games suffer both internal and external changes. Internal ones are usually slower, but external ones are applied by force. It happened in Bologna in 1725 when the Papal legate demanded the Papi be changed to Mori. All the old molds were altered or destroyed, on threat of imprisonment and fine. It happened in Sicily in (forget date - 1680s?) when the ruler demanded that the Devil be changed to a Ship, and a few other things (Papessa was already gone from the mother deck of Sicily by then).

My belief then is that an external change happened to the Lombardy-Milanese game around 1500. This was the French occupation, in which I propose that the Milanese market was flooded with the French form of the game, being massively produced, for export, just then in Lyon, Avignon and other places. This games was know as "tarocs" and in Italian became "tarocchi", and is first noted in 1505 in Avignon and Ferrara. I think the Milanese game became "tarocchi" then, in 1499 or 1500, and the style of game changed then.

The important thing in this argument is the force of the external change, and the fact that the French influence was restricted to Milan, and did not affect any other place directly.

My hypothesis is then that the original game spread from Bologna outwards, southwards to Florence and north and westwards to Ferrara, Milan, Savoy, and probably even France, in a few years, maybe a decade or so. The French cardmakers adapted the game the most, since they were the least familiar with its imagery and rules; the same game roughly prevailed in northern Italy until the French invasion, first a short one in 1494 and then a long occupation from 1499-1525. The invasion allowed a huge influx of cards from France into Milan, and destroyed the local makers, who adopted the French model.

This is then why the C order is different from the A (and why the A prevails in Piedmont and Savoy, in the rules, although the cards are French).

The B order is different story, but it all ties in. The problem came with numbering the cards, which the French first did. My thinking is that the C order was invented when numbering the cards in Avignon or Lyon (Depaulis favours Lyon, I Avignon), as follows -

In the old order, from Bologna, if the cards are numbered from Bagatto to Death, Death is number 14. This is because all three virtues are below the Wheel (The Bolognese were the last to number their cards, not until around 1800). So when the French makers numbered them, they had a problem. Their solution seems to have been to split the virtues up, and elevate Temperance above death. So you have a series of 3 x 7, like the A order, but Death can still be *numbered* 13. The World-Angel switch seems to me to have been a French innovation as well.

This pack was a big influence in northern Italy in the wake of the French invansion. The Bolognese and the south were not influenced, but Milan and Ferrara were. Ferrara started to number its cards also (Met. sheets etc.), but interpreted the series differently - they didn't see a 3 x 7 order, just a straight sequence. They weren't under the direct market pressure of the French cardmakers, like the Milanese were, so they could do what they liked. They split up the virtues and gave it a more theological order, in which the Angel is simply the Resurrection, while Justice becomes the last Judgement (I think). Then, I would interpret, a New World.

That's a very brief account of my thinking on these issues.



Yes, only one manuscript. But the B order is reflected in Ferrarese literature from the 16th century, and in the Met. sheets and Budapest sheets (well presented in Kaplan II).

Ross
Click to expand...

Hi Ross

This field of investigation inaugurated with Vitali's "Il Tarocchino di Bologna" is of high interest.
Your article is excellent.


Francophones can follow your discussion now :
'Bologne encore et toujours'
http://bougearel.blog.lemonde.fr/bougearel/

Why "encore et toujours"?

Because of the precedent note :
'The pseudo Charles VI deck : Bologne?'

Best to you

Alain Bougearel
 

dminoz

Thanks Ross, that's a good read. Interesting and clear.

I've got this unfortunate mental disorder which causes me to cover many pages of notebooks with lists, charts and diagrams attempting to discover patterns and correspondences within the tarot, both majors and minors. (I know I'm not the only person who suffers from this syndrome.) I've spent more time than I'd like to admit on the B and C sequences, but have never looked at the A sequence. It has some interesting quirks, especially the World/Angel thing.

I guess I know what I'll be doing for a while...
 

le pendu

Ross,

THANK YOU!

This is a wonderful thread, I really enjoyed it very much.

When looking at the old Bolognese cards, there is something about them that "rings true" with me. (From Ross' site: http://www.geocities.com/anytarot/earlybologna.html )

In case anyone is interested, there's a thread about the Tarocco Bolognese here:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=46917

I wonder how some of the imagery made it all the way over to the Jacques Vieville Tarot? Haven't thought it through.

But anyways, thanks again Ross for the thoughtful, interesting, exciting thread.

robert
 

Cerulean

I'm very interested in the theory presented here.

I'm not certain if this directly relates to the thinking, but I'm only lately looking at Andy's playing cards for what they say of the Ferarra Tarot...I am thinking this sentence kind of fits:

"...The tarot decks referred to the environment of Bologna (type A) apparently were never made in luxury editions, but only in 'economy' version, i.e. printed and stencil-coloured, to be sold to the common public..."

The reference is on the third page of the Tarot Trump sequence of the Ferarra order (C), which they compare to Milan sequence(B):

http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards86.htm

If what Ross says of the Bolognese Tarot...."original game spread from Bologna outwards, southwards to Florence and north and westwards to Ferrara, Milan, Savoy, and probably even France, in a few years, maybe a decade or so..." this seems very logical as a pattern progression.

Maybe I'm mixing things up, but I think I see what he is saying...thanks much for this explanation!

Cerulean
 

Ross G Caldwell

dminoz said:
Thanks Ross, that's a good read. Interesting and clear.

I've got this unfortunate mental disorder which causes me to cover many pages of notebooks with lists, charts and diagrams attempting to discover patterns and correspondences within the tarot, both majors and minors. (I know I'm not the only person who suffers from this syndrome.) I've spent more time than I'd like to admit on the B and C sequences, but have never looked at the A sequence. It has some interesting quirks, especially the World/Angel thing.

I guess I know what I'll be doing for a while...
Click to expand...

Oh, I do that too of course!

On the World/Angel change, one "circumstantial" bit of evidence makes me prefer the A sequence - the discovery of the New World in 1492.

I am speculating that before 1492 meant the complete cosmos which in the next card comes to an end in Eternity/Judgement. The character on top is Mercurial, which I interpret variously, but could be either the created World's "fleeting" nature (Mercury is speed, fleetingness), the "World" which is passing away; or, more allegorically, as the "Word" (Mercury as a speech and communication), the Prime Mover outside the World, its creator.

The differences between the Rosenwald (A-Florence) and Met. museum sheets' (B-Ferrara (or Venice)) "World" card are minimal - an Angel holds a world. In Bologna the character is not an Angel but a Mercury. Of course Angel means "messenger" and Mercury is the "messenger" god, so the meaning could be identical. But in the B order the relative positions of the Angel/Judgment and "Messenger/World" are changed.

Wherever those intriguing observations lead, the final card in this sequence shows the End of the World (fittingly) - Judgement and resurrection.

After 1492, the World took on a new meaning; everything changed, the entire point of view of Europe changed; suddenly New World didn't imply only Apocalyptic things.

So, could the relative change of position of these two cards reflect the discovery of the New World, and a change in the implications of the word "World" (Mondo, Monde)?
 

Ross G Caldwell

Namadev said:
Hi Ross

This field of investigation inaugurated with Vitali's "Il Tarocchino di Bologna" is of high interest.
Your article is excellent.


Francophones can follow your discussion now :
'Bologne encore et toujours'
http://bougearel.blog.lemonde.fr/bougearel/

Why "encore et toujours"?

Because of the precedent note :
'The pseudo Charles VI deck : Bologne?'

Best to you

Alain Bougearel
Click to expand...

Thanks Alain. I shall have to work to translate it into French.

Perhaps we can put some of Vitali's results pertinent to Bologna somewhere as well. There is the difficulty that he came to no firm conclusions... even the date of Fibbia's death is unclear (1399 or 1419?).

I think there is a lot more research to be done in Bologna.
 

Ross G Caldwell

Cerulean said:
"...The tarot decks referred to the environment of Bologna (type A) apparently were never made in luxury editions, but only in 'economy' version, i.e. printed and stencil-coloured, to be sold to the common public..."

The reference is on the third page of the Tarot Trump sequence of the Ferarra order (C), which they compare to Milan sequence(B):

http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards86.htm

If what Ross says of the Bolognese Tarot...."original game spread from Bologna outwards, southwards to Florence and north and westwards to Ferrara, Milan, Savoy, and probably even France, in a few years, maybe a decade or so..." this seems very logical as a pattern progression.

Maybe I'm mixing things up, but I think I see what he is saying...thanks much for this explanation!

Cerulean
Click to expand...

I love Andy's site. And he continually adds to and updates it. Of course there's plenty to argue with... but much more to admire and agree with.

It is an interesting observation about Bolognese tarocchi. It is not certain that "luxury" editions were never made however... the Charles VI and Catania cards really don't have an artistic home. Ferrara was just a guess on the part of Giuliana Algeri (everything that's not Milan must be Ferrara/Este), but really they don't seem part of any Ferrara school.

Lately people are beginning to think they were made in Bologna! The later numbering on them both is actually A type, although it seems more influenced by Florence (only three imperial/papal cards) than Bologna, who never numbered their cards. At least the person who numbered them couldn't have been Bolognese!

But the Bologna connection might be revealed by the Catania cards... somebody proposed that the emblem on the shield of the Catania King of Swords is that of Alessandro Sforza, Lord of Pesaro (1445-1473). Pesaro is a little south of Rimini, on the east coast of Italy. In 1477 in Bologna a cardmaker Pietro Bonozzi is commissioned to make a whole bunch of cards and trionfi cards for a man from Rimini. So we know that Bolognese cards went to the area in the 1470s.

Charles VI and Catania Bolognese? Why not?
 
which imagery for majors? Aretino's Le carte parlanti