venicebard
After sleeping on it, I have to say there is some basis even in crude translation (KJV) for thinking the author of Revelations had ‘bardo-Qabbalistic’ (Gnostic) connexions in mind. Some of what fits tarot itself, such as what suggests the Vieville LeSoleil (child on horseback), undoubtedly derive from the book... but the book itself has a few too many coincidings with deeper knowledge to dismiss out of hand. And the vast majority of these follow bardic numbering (perhaps because that's what I was looking for but more likely because chapters run 1-22, not 1-9, 10-90, & 100-900, though ancients sometimes used the alphabet for 'numbering' chapters).
Improved printing technique (cheapness) is what allowed the shallower to flourish, and the more divided-up (mountainous) nature of Italy favored local variation. But if you look at the three types suggested by Dummet and others, it is the western that is the most widespread, that 'caught on', the one with the properly ordered 22. It is true that this is generally seen as originating in Milan, and I cannot prove otherwise (though I do not agree), but at least I agree with mainstream scholarship on what was mainstream tarot. (I sympathize with your maverick status though, as you might well imagine!)
You have entered the crux of our disagreement in this post. Here you are looking for a ‘broad development’ that might have influenced cardmakers, whereas I am looking at a result (TdM) wrought directly by individuals who were themselves initiated into a great secret (if I were just out to sell something, I certainly wouldn't pick such a difficult product to sell)Huck said:
It was itself in part a reaction against philosophical (Aristotelian) Judaism.
Having to do with early printing of Kabbalistic works in Italy? but you are looking at effects, I at the cause. What filtered up to the public (as printed works, as ‘Christian Cabala’, and eventually as Kabbalah, Qabbalah’s surviving flotsam) was the effect, while what directly shaped TdM was the original understanding, created (as I said) by the confluence of Jewish and Keltic currents in 12th-century Provence.
You are the one ‘bucking the mainstream’ here I believe, in that Bembo’s 20 are normally taken as derived from 22, since the 14 were ‘filled out’ by another artist (2 being omitted or perhaps removed), indicating 14 were seen as deficient.
(HERE is the complexity!)
The ironic thing is that I agree with you totally, except that I define as ‘easy’ (simpler) what makes sense (in terms of having an internal rationale of more depth than “Oh, here’s the Mongols’ 4 suits, let’s add a fifth!” which is a pretty shallow, cheap origin for such deep, rich color in a gem (TdM)! Occam’s razor forces me to go with a theory that matches depth with depth.
Improved printing technique (cheapness) is what allowed the shallower to flourish, and the more divided-up (mountainous) nature of Italy favored local variation. But if you look at the three types suggested by Dummet and others, it is the western that is the most widespread, that 'caught on', the one with the properly ordered 22. It is true that this is generally seen as originating in Milan, and I cannot prove otherwise (though I do not agree), but at least I agree with mainstream scholarship on what was mainstream tarot. (I sympathize with your maverick status though, as you might well imagine!)
And we're on the way to train mankind, that there is a specific point to observe ... the assumption, that there are 22 (or 21 trumps + fool), has nothing contemporary and nothing which is earlier, which give this conclusion evidence, in the contrary, a document from 1457, in which is spoken from 2 Trionfi decks, notes 70 cards for these decks. As the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-deck usually is assumed to be from ca. 1452, there jumps up a contradiction and serious doubt. A note from 1449 speaks from Ludus triumphorum, but has only 16 trumps and astonishingly has strange Greek gods as trumps. And a document from 1.1.1441 again speaks of "14 figure", which are used for a party at night at a day which often was determined for playing - and indicators seem to point out, that these figure are trionfi, cards. "14 figure" (and trionfi motifs are called later figure), not 22, 14 Bembo-cards, 14 trumps and totally 70 cards in the year 1457 give a solid lead from 3:0 in the soccer-game "5x14-theory versus 22-standard", especially as the 1449-Marcello-note indicates, that the decks at this time simply do not know standard. 