1340, playing cards in Bohemia

Huck

DianeOD said:
This may sound like a cop-out.

Hm. There is the tendency here to keep a topic as the topic - it has the idea, that later users can orientate themselves to a special theme and find under this point material to the titled topic. "Playing cards in Bohemia 1340" ... that's not "a Bohemian on a trip through Europe 120 years later". I agree, that Rozmital is an interesting topic and would make a nice theme for itself.

I'd like to be clear.

I agree. Me to.

I find the whole argument about Atouts being invented by the nobility - and especially by the Italian nobility - to be built on a premise which I find self-referential and a-historical.

I assume, you speak of the Atout as the "Atout of Tarot" and you think of them as the 22 special cards or of a variation of the special cards like for instance the 17 figures, that you see as a complete Tarot-theme.
For these we've the condition, that we've some hundred real Tarot playing cards in Italy for 15th century and from nowhere else (if we leave Guildhall and Goldschmidt fragments out), also we've about 50 accompanying documents, from which nearly all are refering to Italian conditions and only 2-3 involve French contexts.
From the documents we've the condition, that they to a high degree involve high nobility in Italy, very seldom the ordinairy public
From all this the conclusion is near, that Tarot or this way to create special cards with the function of trumping beside the standard Matrix decks was born in Italy by high nobility. This is normal conclusion, that "a tree comes from the forest" is the usual rule and that "a forest comes from one tree" is a rare case.
A "rare case" would demand generally really good arguments to become the true story.

If you speak of "Atout" as the trumping rule inside card games, so already Dummett has the opinion, that trumping existed with the invention of playing cards in Europe, though he's missing final evidence in the way "that one cannot be sure about it."

That premise is that the pack of cards entered Europe as a means for playing games of the modern kind - or at least direct ancestors of the modern-day, secular, value-neutral, gambling kind.

We've various documents of large numbers, which attest gambling. We've moralizations - like John of Rheinfelden - which attest, that there was a specific new enjoyment about the cards as a new technical medium, which could carry a lot of "good ideas", not only gambling. On side-pathes we've this alternative-to-gambling uses attested by decks like the Boiardo Tarocchi or Murner's cards, likely also the Mantegna Tarocchi. We've old assumptions about connections between playing card productions and other graphical productions (Saints, Madonnas, etc).

There is not only one premise, I don't see that. The passed researchers took the objects, as they found it, and tried to interprete them.

Such an argument, to hold water, *has* to posit a time when the supposedly original pack of 40 cards (and don't mention the Mamluk cards; verbal imagery is equivalent to pictorial imagery) - got some Atouts added to it.

I don't understand "40 cards". The general idea is, that the 52-cards-deck was early, documented by Johannes of Rheinfelden.

This in turn demands that one *presume* without any reference to the historical context, that - say - the Gringonneur reference is to three packs of that sort.

The Gringonneur document unluckily states no information about the structure of the decks. The only insecure may-be information is, that the 3 decks took the price of 56 sols Parisienne and therefore - maybe - had been decks with 56 cards and possibly a 5x14-structure.

To make that assumption is certainly nothing but speculation. And since we have numerous images from as early as the eighth, and more easily 'read' figures in plenty from the 12th-14th centuries to show that figures of the atout sort were well known and were being used in medieval churches and some manuscripts, the balance of probability would, in other areas of scholarship, lead to a presumption that Gringonneur's '3 packs' very likely included some such, especially since they still appear.

Nobody discusses the circumstance, that all singular Tarot motifs appeared earlier, before the cards, at various places.
But nobody - till now - could point to the complete group in an earlier presented iconographical representation, as far I know. Some point to alphabetic structures - but a letter inside a practisized alphabet is truely something different as a picture on a playing card.
I don't see any reason, why just "Gringonneur's 3 pack very likely" included figures, which remind Tarot cards, with the same right we might assume, that the mentioned playing cards in Bohemia 1340 or those of Wenzel of Burgund had Tarot motifs.
Well, there is no way to exclude it, one can only state, that there is no evidence and we can state, that Johannes of Rheinfelden had enjoyment about cards and that he especially enjoyed his special deck with 60 cards and that, if he had known Tarot cards, that very likely he would have mentioned them.

THat such figures were always found in the educational/moral environment, and are... (tho granted, my papers in support as yet are not many ...) based on the system of astronomical moralia, so it seems more reasonable to me to suppose that whether or not they gained their present form in Italy, the most distinctive and plainly 'paired' images remaining in the Charles VI cards represent the original form of those images in Europe.

Well, the simple way to make other see, how "plainly the images in the Charles VI are paired", would be, that you give a clear description, what you see in them. That, what you've given till now ... for instance

"Suhail – alpha Carina – L’ermit – "The Cenobite" (Hermit)"

... nice. Who's Suhail?
Do you exspect me (or the reader) to request the search engine to get insight, where you see your convincing argument? Well, I think, you're creating "your" communication problems yourself. You exspect, that your reader already knows, what you want to tell them.
Shall I learn from Internet, that Suhail relates to Canopus, second brightest star of the heaven, after Sirius, and has the Arabian meaning of splendid wisdom and likely you therefore think, that it is comparable the hermit? It's not my job to explain that to myself ... you've a theory about the context of your words, not me.

Now I learn, that these images are "plainly paired". Nice, that I learn that. I didn't find it in the text, that I copied, where I see that

"[10b]-- wrongly included: Maison de Dieu – the other Jauzah – Gemini.
.... giving in total 17 cards".

?????
Well ... it's your problem, that you don't give a clear way to understand your ideas. I can live with incompatible data.

I absolutely disagree that these were invented for and by the nobility, tho I do accept that they were chiefly used at times of high holiday, or solemnities, and elections.
The connection between "Names" and slips of paper/cards can be glimpsed by considering the correlation which Ibn Arabi recorded between the names of God (names formerly for individual dii gentium) and the asterisms of the lunar mansions. But we also find this hint in the account of the Nestorian Mar Sawwma, during his election to the primacy.

It's nice, that you know of Ibn Arabi and the Nestorian Mar Sawwma who was elected to the primacy. Do you exspect me to request the search engine? Shall I search for the correlation, that Ibn Arabi recorded between names of God and lunar mansions? Well ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Arabi

... that was your job as author to give me (as reader) information, what sort of guy this was. The complete article doesn't mention his specific names of God in a correlation to houses of the moon. Do you exspect me to repeat your studies to understand, what you wanted to say? And "Mar Sawwma" ... search engine find "no documents". Totally interesting. keyword: Nestorianism
... negative, a person similar to Mar Sawwma is not mentioned.

So - since I cannot even agree with the assumptions from which the foundations of the Dummett-de Paulis thesis have been constructed, I think that any exchange between us on such subjects in this forum will be nothing but contentiousness. And while healthy debate is good, contention I believe is unfruitful for the speakers, and uncomfortable for the audience.

From now on, I think perhaps I would do better to limit my contributions to pictures from sources prior to 1377, and perhaps links to other papers.

In peace

Diane

Peace is always good.
But I personally don't feel to be in too much dependancy of Dummett and Depaulis, if that is your impression.

DianeOD

Thank you for responding. I mean that genuinely.

If you feel that I can answer any questions helpful to you, I will of course respond to. We are here to learn and share, I think.

You mention the ref to Mar Sawwma... who was born in China, travelled and stayed in Persia for some years, and then was sent to the west, where he travelled, met various kings - even went to England - and met the pope. We have evidence from the Nestorian enclaves along the trade-routes to China (colonised by the Nestorians from the 8thC or so) that paper tokens were used there. Some of the so-called Chinese 'money' from that early period is more properly considered 'promissary notes' and have inscriptions and images which (together with other evidence too finicky to discuss here) adds to the likelihood of Nestorian influence in the development of the Chinese-Mongol equivalents.

Use of paper slips and Names for divination is contained within the account of Mar Sawma and his companion Mark. I have a copy of the book. I have recently found it on the web, but didn't bother copying the net address. Will do so if you think it useful. (Its very long)

Relevant passage has to be understood in that broader context of Nestorian beliefs, objects found within Chinese and Uigar areas, and so forth, but it runs:
"When they arrived [in Edessa/Persia, hoping to continue towards Jerusalem] the Patriarch Denha told them that it was unnecessary for them to go to Jerusalem, and that he had other and better work for them to do, namely, to go back to China and help to rule the Nestorian Church there. To enable them to do this he had determined to ordain Mark Bishop, and Sawma Visitor-General. The two monks said they were unworthy of such honours and responsibilities... but Mar Denha insisted, and at length they bowed to his will. Now Mar Denha wished to give Mark another name, and having written several names on pieces of paper and laid them on the altar, by means of a kind of divination (or lottery?) one of the papers was selected, and on it was written/graven "Yahbh-Allaha," i.e."God gave (him)." Mar Denha thereupon gave Mark this name, and ordained him "Metropolitan of Kathay and Wang," i.e. two districts of Northern China, in 1280."

Thereafter the journey to the west began. It included Christian cities on the way, and took - from memory - about two years for the round trip. The monks spent an entire winter in Genoa.

I expect it will be convenient if I put the information into another thread. I think your point about keeping things together is a good one.

I see no reason, by the way, to exclude the Guildhall images. They are very well informed.

Huck

DianeOD said:
I see no reason, by the way, to exclude the Guildhall images. They are very well informed.

Well ... they are not naturally cards from Italy, so in the question "evidence by statistical methodes" it's not correct to count them for Italy or as evidence for an Italian origin. Anyway, counted with Guildhall/Goldschmidt cards or without them the statistic gives the answer, that these objects should have their origin in Italy. Naturally statistical methodes are not always correct ... the game of Go was invented in China, but in statistical percent mode more Koreans and more Japanese players exist, cause historical development suppressed the game in China.
So the idea of Tarot might have originated elsewhere, but blossomed in Italy. But for such a story one really needs good evidence.

There are interesting cards in China, for instance combinations between Chess and cards, also Domino and cards ...

DianeOD

Chess and Dominoe etc.

Huck - I'm going to start a thread on Tarot history versus historiography.

I will explain my issues with the "Italian invention" school of thought there, without disappointing meople who are coming here to read about Bohemia.

- OK? (perhaps we can make it the 'duelling ground' in general lol: