A Different Route Considered?

[Ross G Caldwell]

It's interesting as well to consider that *IF* the Tarot were the basis for the 52 cards in a regular pack, why were the Trumps and additional Court removed?

I guess it seems to me that there is some evidence that the Tarot was "building" on the 52 card pack. I think of the Cary-Yale, with its additional court cards.. showing some "experimentation" with the structure of the deck.

There was a lot of experimentation, and how much experimentation the tarot trumps went through is, as you know, a pretty contentious issue among the handful of curmudgeons who worry about it.

WPC's pronouncement that the deck had to have been attained its standard form by 1450 is prompted by the Florentine permission of that year (permitting the game of triumph to be played), combined with the existence of the pack in Ferrara and Milan already. Since the deck had a generic name and all packs known after this date show similar structure and subjects, it seems that there was a standard widespread form, and that local variations/experiments could not affect the whole. Finally, the Visconti-Sforza pack (after 1450, but could be as late as 1466, when Francesco Sforza died) is the earliest pack to show the standard subjects (although of course six of the cards are taken to be replacements, an interpretation rejected by Huck's 5x14 theory.)

Since Cary-Yale belongs to pre-1447 (for most experts), it can be understood as an isolated experiment. But what does that mean for the earlier references, in Ferrara? Does it suggest that before around 1450, there was not yet a 22-trump form? I suppose it could... or it could be that the 22-trump form just hadn't become standard yet.

My own belief is that the 21+Fool form of the trumps was the original. The Cary-Yale experimented with the number of court cards, but not the trumps. The three Theological Virtues replace the normal three Cardinal Virtues. I propose this means that the deck was commissioned by or for a woman - perhaps Maria of Savoy (known for piety also).

The association of Theological Virtues with a Woman and Cardinal Virtues with a Man is shown in Piero della Francesca's Triumphs of Battista Sforza and Federigo da Montefeltro -
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/piero/piero41.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/piero/piero40.html

So if I am right, even the Cary-Yale could have had 22 trumps, and doesn't need to be seen as a proto-Minchiate or 16 trump variant.

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

Great post Robert.

At this point in time, it looks like Tarot was created by "the courts of 15th Century Italy". I'm not convinced of that.

Wow - why not? Both d'Este and Visconti courts are pretty interesting. Filippo Maria Visconti had many interesting qualities - it is tempting to regard him as the inventor, as Tom Tadfor Little suggested all those years ago
http://www.tarothermit.com/marziano.htm

(on this page http://www.tarothermit.com/myth.htm he backs off the specificity).

But, I'm not convinced either. And the reason is, that triumph cards seem to have been around before either d'Este or Visconti knew about them, in a somewhat cheaper and more generic form.

 

[jmd]

Spot on, Ross!

And that is what is so darn appealing and inviting and frustrating...

those 'somewhat cheaper and more generic forms' are both what appears to be the case, and yet so elusive.

In some ways, it does seem that the Sforza Castle cards found, with their incredible clarity of detail as to the woodcut from which they originate, hint at something earlier... perhaps concurrent with the Visconti-Sforza type decks, or earlier, and instructing the more exquisite decks painted for the extravagant family.

To me at least, it makes more sense for the deck to have been painted for the family from a model that was already in existence, but for their own recreational usage, in a way showing off their wealth even in 'mere games', than it does an invention.

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

Spot on, Ross!

I didn't think so for a long time... I think the consensus - Dummett et al. - was for a courtly origin as well. It made sense, since the d'Este records precede the others by such a great distance, and I think the sumptuous surviving cards did tend to mislead researchers, even though they all know that they *are* misleading... i.e. they survived because of their rarity and value.

And that is what is so darn appealing and inviting and frustrating...

those 'somewhat cheaper and more generic forms' are both what appears to be the case, and yet so elusive.

It takes only a small hole to sink a large ship, and for the me the record of the d'Este servant's purchase of cards from Marchione Burdochio in 1442 is what sunk the d'Este, and even the courtly-invention, ship. They went outside for a cheaper triumph pack for children, to a Bolognese haberdasher.

This suggested to me a cheaper, more common item imported from Bologna (Marchione sold the d'Estes a lot of taffeta, a silk fabric made in Bologna). Then, the pack that Marcello receives as a gift in early 1449 or 1448 is "not worthy of a King" - meaning probably that it was one of these types, wherever it was made. Also, Francesco Sforza in late 1450 asks his secretary to find two packs of the "finest" triumph cards for him - this implies both a less-fine manufacture and a standing inventory in some printshop or workshop.

I have no doubt that the courtly and upper middle-class (i.e. Borromeo) fad for triumph cards started in the early 40s and really took off around 1450; but they were invented and produced en masse before then.

In some ways, it does seem that the Sforza Castle cards found, with their incredible clarity of detail as to the woodcut from which they originate, hint at something earlier... perhaps concurrent with the Visconti-Sforza type decks, or earlier, and instructing the more exquisite decks painted for the extravagant family.

To me at least, it makes more sense for the deck to have been painted for the family from a model that was already in existence, but for their own recreational usage, in a way showing off their wealth even in 'mere games', than it does an invention.

I think so too. But somebody had to invent it. I don't have a person in mind, but I think they were clever.

 

[gregory]

I think so too. But somebody had to invent it. I don't have a person in mind, but I think they were clever.

I am not convinced by the "invention" concept - I lean towards evolution... From all manner of things, probably, but probably NOT noble in the first instance. Maybe one person at one point pulled a lot of stuff together here, but that isn't the same as invention !

Signed: but what do I know

 

[Fulgour]

from: Nigel Suckling

Because it was an oral tradition, few details of how Tarot cards were actually used for fortune telling were written down before the eighteenth century when Antoine Court de Gebelin (1725-84) made a detailed study of them in his comprehensive encyclopaedia of ancient myth and legend Le Monde Primitif. Gebelin advanced the theory that they were of Egyptian origin – a lost ancient book of wisdom no less – that had been brought to Europe by gypsies, who were then supposed to have come from Egypt. So plausible were his arguments that they prevailed for well over a century and it is still popularly believed among Tarot enthusiasts that the pack is no less than the legendary Book of Thoth (the Egyptian equivalent of Hermes and Mercury) as Aleister Crowley later proposed.

http://www.dragontarot.net/origins.htm

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

Does Nigel Suckling claim to have done historical research?

If so, then he should expect his ideas to receive vigorous criticism. And he should be able to defend them, or abandon them as the case may be.

If not, what is he doing in the "historical research" forum?

Caveat lector.

 

[Fulgour]

Hello Ross

I like Nigel Suckling~ he has written a book on Tarot,
and co-created an authentic deck. I'm sure he would
welcome your viewpoint, if he were aware to do so...
but generally his views have the validity of presence.

 

[gregory]

Surely everyone's views are worthy of consideration ? If not, I certainly shouldn't be joining in here; I don't know a thing; I just have odd (very) ideas of my own. I hoped to learn. Except for posts saying "nonsense" (not very helpful) I have learned something from all the posts on this thread.

 

[Fulgour]

Caveat lector.

Consider, please, how the views of Nigel Suckling relate to Tarot
as a living tradition, alive first as potential, thriving upon further
development, and continuing today as vital and evolutionary...

This gives back the spark that mere detailed analysis snuffs out.