Rosanne
Haha I see also that on the Death card a Saracen death rider has annihilated whatever Papal Business those Cardinals were out and about on. The figures are not dead either lol. Maybe the idea was dead. ~Rosanne
Charles VI. from 1463 with 16 trumps
The crowned one
Thanks Rosanne.
Huck
The crowned one said:
I think, that this scene shall present the moment, when a letter arrived with the information, that the young Gonzaga-son would become cardinal (at least my memory tells me this story). So he still wasn't installed then as cardinal ...
Generally red hats were common ... in Florence. "Red" color for clothes was expensive in the production. As the people of Florence had their hands in textil production it was cheaper for them as for others.
Rosanne
The hat on the head of the Charioteer is called a Capitanesca- and is a Campaign hat made of felt. That is the hat on the two Cosimo paintings and medal Huck scanned in. That is most likely why there are no Capitanesca hats on the Magi Fresco- because of Peace. ~Rosanne
(and on the the head of Cosimo (grey) in the painting that Crowned One scanned in by Mantegna- they were originally from Mantua)
(and on the the head of Cosimo (grey) in the painting that Crowned One scanned in by Mantegna- they were originally from Mantua)
Huck
Rosanne said:
Hm .. you think, that it was a hat, which expressed war? Where do you found this explanation?
Huck
Hi Ross,
...
... It's always a condition for the human existence, that one has to ignore the most of the details of this world.
True, but there are also examples in the world, that some things are complete, even early card decks.
Well, I took it as such, as long these cards were given to somewhat like 1470's or 1780's.
But it was you, who declared that this deck might be of Florence and ca. 1450 and it might so attack something of the 5x14-theory.
I took you serious with it and naturally a closer look on the deck and on the connected conditions, how world would look, if your proposal would be right.
The first observation was, that only 2 cards of the common 22-set of Tarot were missing in the 40/41 cards of the Minchiate (Empress and Popess).
Now we have, if we consider the Charles Vi as a deck with 22 special cards, the relation of 6 missing to 16 existent cards. And we have just these 2 missing cards in the group of the missing 6 cards, which has under normal conditions a chance of
(6/22) x (5/21) = 30 / 462 = somewhat of less than 1/15
... so, according to all what is probable, it's somehow rather difficult to assume, that these 16 cards once had 22. Or, if they had 22, than 2 other motifs should have been used.
Additionally we've the devil missing in all other early decks, also connected to a not probable worth.
But astonishingly (and this was a troublesomepoint for my mind), it has a tower. The Tower was exspectd by us as from a later time.
The Tower made me think of chess. No human figure just on this card, where should this motif have come from?
Then I started to think of the Cary-Yale and chess.
The 14 trumps of Bembo are complete.
Well, the fixation on the idea, that these Tarot decks always followed a standard pattern, formed this "reality of an observation", that there were always only missing cards in all existent decks. De facto it seems, that at least twice we've gotten the complete series of trumps, but it was not believed, that they were complete.
Well, and against such reasonable assumptions there is luckily some probability calculation, that can control such assumptions.
16 trumps in Michelino deck
16 trumps in the Cary-Yale reconstruction
16 trumps in the really existent Charles VI
16 figures in the chess game
and a chess iconography with 16 figures before the Trionfi cards
14 pictures at 1.1.1441
14 Bembo cards
14 assumed trumps in the 70 cards-deck 1457
14x5 in a German deck (complete)
These other numbers 14 and 16 aren' that unusual.
You still haven't given any argument beside that the crown of the Emperor of the Rothschild cards and the crown of the Charles VI emperor are similar and arguments, that the Rothschild cards are very early, are doubted by yourself ... how do you come to your evaluation, that the Charles VI is just the deck of 1450 or between 1441 - 1455, as you say now?
I don't understand. The sermon includes a devil and we've no example of an early devil. The paper date is much later. We've a rather active card prosecution just in Florence in the Savonarola time. in the 90's. Why must this text be of an early date?
Well, it's not new, that position is taken against the "early standard deck idea of ca. 1450" at trionfi.com pages
It's an old thesis and its was fought about each detail. You say "And it is not invisible to us, but was there.". Anything, which was visible and which was dated before the new discussed date 1463, was discussed and evaluated.
The Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck showed 20 trumps and with many words it was argumented since begining of trionfi.com, that 6 cards of these came later (this is accepted theory also for art researchers). The existence of a 22 in context to the game before 1463 couldn't been shown. It was shown, that the 14 remaining trumps fit into the proposed pattern of a 5x14-deck.
The Cary-Yale fragment has 11 trumps. This object was seriously considered and reconstructed long ago as a deck with 16 trumps.
The Michelino deck was studied and identified as a sort of Trionfi game: with 16 trumps
The Brera-Brambilla fragment (2 trumps was considered and it was found, that it doesn't help much in the question.
The only 2 numbers of triumph cards, which appear in the various documents before 1463, are the "14 pictures" of 1.1.1441 and the "70 cards" from 1457.
Both numbers are very well interpretable inside the 5x14-theory.
So there is nothing, not a single item, that gives really evidence for the standard deck before 1463.
True, there have been various authorities, who have claimed, that the "standard deck" existed 1450.
But ... nobody before the trionfi.com work had spend so much energy and research on these early realities of the Trionfi cards before us. In the texts of all these authorities this chapter of Tarot history in the early years had stayed rather small. And: we as the later generation have tried fairly to capture each of these "wise words" and reflected them.
A statement isn't true, cause an authority says it. A statement is (perhaps) true, when it transforms a confusing appearance of a lot of documentary evidence to a plausible, understandable and somehow free of contradictions development to the eyes of the reader.
You ask: "Who could have the power to change everywhere the basic structure of a game that everybody knew already?"
Very simple. This could be easily changed by the relation between the "number of the handpainted decks" and the "number of the massproduced printed decks". Let's assume, that the "handpainted phase" produced till ca. 1470 (begin of the impact of the advanced bookprinting technology, which naturally also spread and developed other printing technologies as woodcut and copperplate engraving) 2000 - 10.000 decks (that's actually likely too high numbers, but with goodwill assumed) for ca. 8.000.000 inhabitants in Italy. A version with 22 cards, multiplied without end, which reached 100.000, 200.000 and finally 1.000.000 and more made this phase of experimental stage disappear. Only those few peoples, which did partake in the early development.
Who remembers "Apple IIe" and how it was with him from those users, who found later to a computer than 1482? Or those big monsters, which was programmed by some cartes with holes on them? Who could have the power to change everywhere the basic structure of a game that everybody knew already?
Nice source. It says, it is from 1512 after a copy of an inventory likely made after Lorenzo's death.
Lorenzo was a man of some age, when he died, and he had to religious feelings at his death (he wrote a religious play 1491). Why should he have had playing cards then, in this phase. He had enough children, who likely used the playing cards, which were in the possession of the family. No reason to assume, that he never had some.
... .-) ... I don't feel that naive, when I propose, that this Charles VI. deck is from 1463 and had 16 trumps only.
We've a good documentation of the early Trionfi decks, as they were objects for very rich persons. But we mostly have to do with only few persons in all these documents ... and these few persons mostly have relations to each other. So we reflect the world of a small elite cycle.And likely they found this interesting, that only persons of some standard could partake in this hobby.
Till in 1550 (likely not everywhere and not everybody) it was said, that Tarocchi cards were for rich persons.
Ross G Caldwell said:
...
... It's always a condition for the human existence, that one has to ignore the most of the details of this world. True, but there are also examples in the world, that some things are complete, even early card decks.
Well, I took it as such, as long these cards were given to somewhat like 1470's or 1780's.
But it was you, who declared that this deck might be of Florence and ca. 1450 and it might so attack something of the 5x14-theory.
I took you serious with it and naturally a closer look on the deck and on the connected conditions, how world would look, if your proposal would be right.
The first observation was, that only 2 cards of the common 22-set of Tarot were missing in the 40/41 cards of the Minchiate (Empress and Popess).
Now we have, if we consider the Charles Vi as a deck with 22 special cards, the relation of 6 missing to 16 existent cards. And we have just these 2 missing cards in the group of the missing 6 cards, which has under normal conditions a chance of
(6/22) x (5/21) = 30 / 462 = somewhat of less than 1/15
... so, according to all what is probable, it's somehow rather difficult to assume, that these 16 cards once had 22. Or, if they had 22, than 2 other motifs should have been used.
Additionally we've the devil missing in all other early decks, also connected to a not probable worth.
But astonishingly (and this was a troublesomepoint for my mind), it has a tower. The Tower was exspectd by us as from a later time.
The Tower made me think of chess. No human figure just on this card, where should this motif have come from?
Then I started to think of the Cary-Yale and chess.
The 14 trumps of Bembo are complete.
Well, the fixation on the idea, that these Tarot decks always followed a standard pattern, formed this "reality of an observation", that there were always only missing cards in all existent decks. De facto it seems, that at least twice we've gotten the complete series of trumps, but it was not believed, that they were complete.
Well, and against such reasonable assumptions there is luckily some probability calculation, that can control such assumptions.
16 trumps in Michelino deck
16 trumps in the Cary-Yale reconstruction
16 trumps in the really existent Charles VI
16 figures in the chess game
and a chess iconography with 16 figures before the Trionfi cards
14 pictures at 1.1.1441
14 Bembo cards
14 assumed trumps in the 70 cards-deck 1457
14x5 in a German deck (complete)
These other numbers 14 and 16 aren' that unusual.
You still haven't given any argument beside that the crown of the Emperor of the Rothschild cards and the crown of the Charles VI emperor are similar and arguments, that the Rothschild cards are very early, are doubted by yourself ... how do you come to your evaluation, that the Charles VI is just the deck of 1450 or between 1441 - 1455, as you say now?
I don't understand. The sermon includes a devil and we've no example of an early devil. The paper date is much later. We've a rather active card prosecution just in Florence in the Savonarola time. in the 90's. Why must this text be of an early date?
Well, it's not new, that position is taken against the "early standard deck idea of ca. 1450" at trionfi.com pages
It's an old thesis and its was fought about each detail. You say "And it is not invisible to us, but was there.". Anything, which was visible and which was dated before the new discussed date 1463, was discussed and evaluated.
The Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck showed 20 trumps and with many words it was argumented since begining of trionfi.com, that 6 cards of these came later (this is accepted theory also for art researchers). The existence of a 22 in context to the game before 1463 couldn't been shown. It was shown, that the 14 remaining trumps fit into the proposed pattern of a 5x14-deck.
The Cary-Yale fragment has 11 trumps. This object was seriously considered and reconstructed long ago as a deck with 16 trumps.
The Michelino deck was studied and identified as a sort of Trionfi game: with 16 trumps
The Brera-Brambilla fragment (2 trumps was considered and it was found, that it doesn't help much in the question.
The only 2 numbers of triumph cards, which appear in the various documents before 1463, are the "14 pictures" of 1.1.1441 and the "70 cards" from 1457.
Both numbers are very well interpretable inside the 5x14-theory.
So there is nothing, not a single item, that gives really evidence for the standard deck before 1463.
True, there have been various authorities, who have claimed, that the "standard deck" existed 1450.
But ... nobody before the trionfi.com work had spend so much energy and research on these early realities of the Trionfi cards before us. In the texts of all these authorities this chapter of Tarot history in the early years had stayed rather small. And: we as the later generation have tried fairly to capture each of these "wise words" and reflected them.
A statement isn't true, cause an authority says it. A statement is (perhaps) true, when it transforms a confusing appearance of a lot of documentary evidence to a plausible, understandable and somehow free of contradictions development to the eyes of the reader.
You ask: "Who could have the power to change everywhere the basic structure of a game that everybody knew already?"
Very simple. This could be easily changed by the relation between the "number of the handpainted decks" and the "number of the massproduced printed decks". Let's assume, that the "handpainted phase" produced till ca. 1470 (begin of the impact of the advanced bookprinting technology, which naturally also spread and developed other printing technologies as woodcut and copperplate engraving) 2000 - 10.000 decks (that's actually likely too high numbers, but with goodwill assumed) for ca. 8.000.000 inhabitants in Italy. A version with 22 cards, multiplied without end, which reached 100.000, 200.000 and finally 1.000.000 and more made this phase of experimental stage disappear. Only those few peoples, which did partake in the early development.
Who remembers "Apple IIe" and how it was with him from those users, who found later to a computer than 1482? Or those big monsters, which was programmed by some cartes with holes on them? Who could have the power to change everywhere the basic structure of a game that everybody knew already?
Nice source. It says, it is from 1512 after a copy of an inventory likely made after Lorenzo's death.
Lorenzo was a man of some age, when he died, and he had to religious feelings at his death (he wrote a religious play 1491). Why should he have had playing cards then, in this phase. He had enough children, who likely used the playing cards, which were in the possession of the family. No reason to assume, that he never had some.
... .-) ... I don't feel that naive, when I propose, that this Charles VI. deck is from 1463 and had 16 trumps only.
We've a good documentation of the early Trionfi decks, as they were objects for very rich persons. But we mostly have to do with only few persons in all these documents ... and these few persons mostly have relations to each other. So we reflect the world of a small elite cycle.And likely they found this interesting, that only persons of some standard could partake in this hobby.
Till in 1550 (likely not everywhere and not everybody) it was said, that Tarocchi cards were for rich persons.
Rosanne
He is dressed in Armour.Huck said:
He is Medici.
His associations are with Condottiteri.
Condottiteri wear these long after they have finished with war- they wore them as symbols of station.
It is not only war- they symbolise a campaign (in this case Lorenzo)
Made famous by Niccolò da Montefeltro's Compagnia del Cappelletto ("Little Hat Company") small red capitanesca hats like this...and young teenagers wore these hats like lampshades (junior version of Capitanesca)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzio_Sforza
Information gleaned from various sources like
Mercenaries and their Masters by Michael Mallett
Renaissance Paintings of Venice and Northern Italy by Ullman & Konemann publishers
and the paintings of famous Italian families in the Renaissance
Peasants, Warriors and Wives: Popular Imagery in Renaissance Italy by Keith Moxey.... and anything else I can lay my hands on in English.
These hats were not worn after 1550 after the contracts finished (Condottas)
~Rosanne
Huck
Rosanne said:
Well, Cosimo wasn't a condottiero. But Francesco Sforza also had this hat and likely to a time, when he already was duke. The expression "capitanesca", likely something indicating like "captain", signals, that it might have been a hat for people with some might to order about others.
Lorenzo got a lot of official positions, when quite young.
Rosanne
Who moved around during this time- had money,titles and education, swapped alliances between the Italian city States and likely played the game? The companies of mercenary armies.They came from all over,-Germany- Switzerland France etc; some became powerful political figures. Why not them?Ross said:
~Rosanne
Huck
Hi Ross,
In the prudence question I agree more or less with Michaels conclusion. It's (likely) Prudentia, when 4 figures (one unclear, one Temperance, one Strength, one Justice) appear in a united context (in this case caused by the polygonal halo) ... even if Prudentia would be even closer iconographically to Fama as it is given.
Likely the painter wishes then to express: It's wise or prudent to decide for his fame instead of another decision (for instance money-making, which would have been natural for a banker's son). Cosimo decided for sponsoring and thus for fame and the artists were happy about this generosity and honoured this. A quite normal business.
The descendants of the other part of the family by Cosimo's brother, which later became the grand dukes of Toscana, decided different and kept their money for themselves.
They didn't get that fame like this Cosimo part of the Medici family - but they had more money and finally this paid out.
Michael's argument
Well, the Prudentia-problem is very special for the 5x14-theory. An important argument was, that the group of "6 added card" were a logical addition in itself:
from http://trionfi.com/0/f/08/ (... looks, as if the page should be updated)
It was always troublesome to argue, why "World" should have been Prudentia.
The addition of Prudentia-Fortitudo-Temperantia was logical, as Iustitia was already in the Bembo-cards.
In the 14 Bembo cards this could stand alone, as the major focus is on the fighting knight in the background (unusual for the common Iustitia), but very special for Bianca Maria, who since her early youth waited in the manner of Justice for "her knight" Francesco Sforza. This was a private Justice, which didn't need the assistance of the other virtues.
But - naturally this "failure" provocated, that somebody added the 3 other virtues.
And he added also star-moon-sun as a second trio of cards.
So his addition had a logical form, and this, together with other arguments, discarded the possibility, that this composition of cards made by two painters happened according to an accidental loss of some cards.
Now, with the evidence of the Charles VI deck (with some thanks to Marco, who gave here a deciding impulse with his remark about the halos - at least to me; Michael may have read this all already by Shephard), we've too old decks with this feature and they help each other in the fact, that Prudentia was there from beginning and had only "hiding forms".
In the prudence question I agree more or less with Michaels conclusion. It's (likely) Prudentia, when 4 figures (one unclear, one Temperance, one Strength, one Justice) appear in a united context (in this case caused by the polygonal halo) ... even if Prudentia would be even closer iconographically to Fama as it is given.
Likely the painter wishes then to express: It's wise or prudent to decide for his fame instead of another decision (for instance money-making, which would have been natural for a banker's son). Cosimo decided for sponsoring and thus for fame and the artists were happy about this generosity and honoured this. A quite normal business.
The descendants of the other part of the family by Cosimo's brother, which later became the grand dukes of Toscana, decided different and kept their money for themselves.
They didn't get that fame like this Cosimo part of the Medici family - but they had more money and finally this paid out.
Michael's argument
mjhurst said:
Well, the Prudentia-problem is very special for the 5x14-theory. An important argument was, that the group of "6 added card" were a logical addition in itself:
from http://trionfi.com/0/f/08/ (... looks, as if the page should be updated)
It was always troublesome to argue, why "World" should have been Prudentia.
The addition of Prudentia-Fortitudo-Temperantia was logical, as Iustitia was already in the Bembo-cards.
In the 14 Bembo cards this could stand alone, as the major focus is on the fighting knight in the background (unusual for the common Iustitia), but very special for Bianca Maria, who since her early youth waited in the manner of Justice for "her knight" Francesco Sforza. This was a private Justice, which didn't need the assistance of the other virtues.
But - naturally this "failure" provocated, that somebody added the 3 other virtues.
And he added also star-moon-sun as a second trio of cards.
So his addition had a logical form, and this, together with other arguments, discarded the possibility, that this composition of cards made by two painters happened according to an accidental loss of some cards.
Now, with the evidence of the Charles VI deck (with some thanks to Marco, who gave here a deciding impulse with his remark about the halos - at least to me; Michael may have read this all already by Shephard), we've too old decks with this feature and they help each other in the fact, that Prudentia was there from beginning and had only "hiding forms".
