Re: OK, I'll try
Hi Dave,
your understanding is very good, I guess. But let me give some additional notes.
catboxer said:
Harumph (clears throat) kashl kashl.
Evaluating this theory is difficult at best, and it's also a lot of work, but here goes.
The 2/10/1442 memo doesn't impeach the theory because it doesn't specify the number of "figures." It just names the suits and then says "all the figures." There's no way to determine how many cards were in those two.
Right. There's no way ...., but there is an additional document, given at:
http://www.geocities.com/research_of_tarot/trionfifigure.html
which was found by Ross Gregory Caldwell in March 2003, when the 5x14-theory was on its way.
It refers to
1. the 1.1.1441 (relatively near to the 10.2.1442),
2. to the later Trionfi-painter Sagramoro,
3. indirectly to the later Trionfi-commissioner Leonello,
4. to Ferrara, where the later decks were produced,
5. to Bianca Maria Visconti, the single daughter of the man, who as only commissioner of a Trionfi-deck before 1442 is known (Filippo Maria Visconti, commissioner of the Michelino-deck)
6. to something, which is an "amusement in the evening"
7. to something, which is a natural material to produce playing-cards
7. to, last not least, "14 figure", that is the same expression, which is later (10.2.1442) used in the Trionfi document.
8. However, any direct expression of playing cards is missing.
At Trionfi.com we're on the way to explore further conditions of this special document, which might clearify the value of the document, but there is certain hope, that we've with this the oldest written document about "Trionfi" decks after the Marziano-da-Tortano-manuscript. We're preparing already a longer time to present our informations, but as usual at trionfi.com, it's "under construction". If you're interested to take a look:
html://geocities.com/autorbis/ferrara.html
The best evidence in support of the theory is the 1442 memo referring to 70 cards, and the observation that the Visconti-Sforza trumps were not all painted by the same hand (probably Bembo's).
I assume a writing error. Not 1442, but 1457, Document 16
html://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri16.html
You're right. These both present the best arguments.
Six appear to have been added later, and it seems more likely these were additions rather than replacements. But then, it's impossible to say that for sure.
In the opinion of autorbis, who developed the 5x14-theory in May 1989 within two weeks, the facts around the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi and the other early decks as given by Stuart Kaplan, Encyclopedia I, are enough to conclude, that it is for 99 % sure, that the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi must be interpreted this way.
This sounds unbelievable. But as background: autorbis is a system-researcher with much experience, who has a set of "own techniques", partly based upon evaluation of probabilities. autorbis says, that he had no luck with communicating his own techniques in the past, especially in this question, and was mostly (let's say 99%) not successful to convince anybody of the inner logic of this "special technique" and "its results".
In the meantime other evidance for the theory was found, so that this special part with its troublesome difficulties to communicate it has lost its earlier importance.
autorbis says: It is 99 % sure at least. It's just his personal evaluation. If he's asked for reasons, he would reply. He don't feel sure, that his reasons would be understood and accepted.
The Cary-Yale deck contains a classically-rendered Strength card. But then again, it also contains other trumps not found in any other deck.
Not totally true: the Minchiate includes all Cary-Yale trumps.
The best we can say of this product is that it's an anomaly which contained 64 suited cards and an indeterminable number of trumps. As such, it neither supports nor impeaches any theory.
autorbis suggests, that it might be the fragment of a 5x16-deck, possibly referring to the 16 figures of the chess-game. autorbis doesn't neglect, that there are other possibilities.
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/VMnew.html
The Brera-Brambilla pack has only two surviving trumps. It offers no evidence for or against the theory.
Without neglecting other possibilities, autorbis points out, that this deck, apparently old (before 1447), might have had in its original state only 4 trumps or "special cards". autorbis sees the chance, that this deck originally was called an "Imperatori"-deck.
An document of 1423 from Ferrara indicates "8 Imperatori-cards", which probably were added as "special cards" to a normal deck.
Imperatori-decks are noted in Ferrara a few times (1423, 1443, 1452), the interest in them seem to disappear, when Trionfi-decks became popular. So there is the chance, that Imperatori-decks merged by adding a few special cards more in Trionfi-decks.
autorbis sees the following card-logic for the Brera-Brambilla as possible:
Emperor - addition to the 4 kings (Emperor is a survived card)
Empress - addition to the 4 queens (reconstructed)
Chariot - addition to the 4 knights (reconstructed)
Wheel - addition to the pages (the Wheel is a survived card)
His arguments:
1. An Empress must accompany the Emperor - as Queens do accompany Kings - it's naturally missing.
2. The Chariot is the only known Tarot-card with horses (beside Iustitia in the Bembo-cards).
3. The Wheel refers clearly to Fortuna and "fortune" was needed by the lower people.
autorbis arguments are "in development", not ready and readable in the net (will happen soon, as he said)
The Lombard II pack likewise has only two remaining trumps, but one of them is the Star, which gravitates against the 5 x 14 theory.
The Fournier cards, mentioned on another thread, have fifteen surviving trumps, three of which are not on the list of the fourteen alleged original trumps painted by Bembo. However, the Fournier cards were definitely not painted by Bembo, as some think. Bembo was usually a competent, if not a great technician, and the faces on these cards are nasty and badly rendered. There is, in addition, suspicion in some quarters that the Fournier cards are late 19th- or early 20th-century forgeries which, if true, would mean that they have absolutely no bearing on the 5 x 14 theory. See Kaplan II, p. 12.
Likewise, the Rosenthal cards are of undetermined and possibly recent origin. Two of its remaining trumps, the star and the sun, are not on the list. See Kaplan I, p. 99.
Of the nine remaining Goldschmidt cards, six might be trumps, but the images are so anomalous, bizarre and unidentifiable that this fragment can have no possible significance in evaluating the theory.
Another consideration is that the Fool is not a trump. The standard tarot trump sequence is 21 trumps and the Fool. Twenty-one was a magic and significant number long before the invention of tarot.
My own conclusion, as I have said elsewhere, is that the earliest period of tarot development was, like the present day, characterized by unrestrained and exuberant experimentation, improvisation, and artistic license. This is evidenced by the Cary-Yale deck, the Florentine Minchiate, the Sola-Busca cards, the all-"trumps" so-called Tarot of Mantegna, and others. Rather than looking for a system prior to about 1475, I think it's both easier and more sensible to conclude that there wasn't one.
[/B]
I'm not sure, how to interprete "there wasn't one". I would formulate, there were many systems, each with it's own idea and merits, but not each of them became a successful imitated version.
The following is an important observation: In autorbis opinion the numerology of the later Marseille deck was already given in the 14 Bembo-cards. With this 2/3 (idea to motifs and numbers related to motifs) of the later "famous Tarot" in 19th century were already manifested at the early stage.
So we really see with the 14 Bembo-cards the mother-deck of the later Tarot. The later addition couldn't change too much of the basic idea.
