Hm ...
before I started to response to your idea I quoted you with ...

Pen wrote: Please bear in mind that this is the Unicorn Terrace, but I'm not wedded to this idea, so feel free to pick holes. demolish if you will, or just explain to me why it can't be this simple.

... so a clear sign, that I was aware, that it is considered an Unicorn topic, and also I noted, that you seemed to be open for critique.

So I offered my critique for the basic situation. "An Ur-Cartolaio, 1425, makes a Tarot with 22 special cards, and these 22 cards shall be those, which are known by the 20th century" - as I understood it. I gave reasons, why I think, that this is a rather unlikely situation. There's no evidence for 22 special cards at this time, something like evidence comes possibly 60 years later. That's a lot of time.

A Cartolaio, btw. and only very likely as I'm not an expert in this, was a writing material or bookseller, not naturally an artist, who produced playing cards ... though it might have been occasionally also his business to sell playing cards. A document of 1559 gives this latter impression, but generally it's given, that he wasn't playing card producer. So perhaps it's good advice to use this term NOT with enthusiasm.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartolaio
http://www.wheretraveler.com/classic/in ... 7193.shtml

Cartaio, another complicated word, seems to have been understood as a paper trader. So that's another trap for humble playing card researchers with not much Italian.

Lack of evidence is not evidence for the historical non-existence of such.

Naturally. I said ...

"Naturally the factor "missing evidence" can't be used to exclude the possibilities of "clouds of the unknown far in heaven". Definitely there are lots of such clouds in the reality of true history and certainly one has to calculate their possible existence, when studying the facts which are really known ...

... just precisely expressing "Lack of evidence is not evidence for the historical non-existence of such.", well just in the manner, how I interpret English language.

...

Huck wrote:Well, I know, that Ross assumes something similar ... and a lot of "authorities" have assumed a realization of the "Standard Tarot" in the time of "c. 1450".

But really there's a bunch of cards, maybe 300 for 15th century in different as "fragmented" interpreted positions, and around 50 relevant documents, which use the term of ludus triumphorum, Trionfi or similar. In the evaluation of the earlier "authorities" the different appearances of these were interpreted as "always talking of the same type of deck" ... though we know of a lot creativity in matters of Trionfi similar decks. In reality we have:

1. Only once a real relation between object, structure and name ... well, that's just the Michelino deck and it's just a deck with many differences to usual Tarot: 16 gods, totally 60 cards, birds as suits.

If the earliest tarot cards had no titles, how can this be determined? It’s the reason I believe those first words written by Ur-Cartalaio (if he existed) are so important.

What can or cannot be determined? The Michelino deck is described only, it doesn't exist, or better, it did exist, but was lost. The description was translated by Ross some years ago. The gods titles are given by the text.
http://trionfi.com/0/b/11
The "socalled Ur-Cartolaio" better expressed as the "the card producer" was in this case Michelino da Besozzo, a famous artist. Another famous Italian card producer of the relevant time was Jacopo Sagramoro, who really made Trionfi cards (later) in Ferrara. Another was Ioannes quondam Joannes di Colonia, who was involved in a brawl in 1427 in Bologna ... there's no evidence, that he made Trionfi cards. A first printer with woodcuts appears in a tax list Florence 1430 ... I think, this is the first, who is definitely known for woodcut use in Italy.
A printing machine for cards reached Ferrara in 1437.
In the 1441 Venice document it's apparent, that Venice "earlier" (with not clear determination, what earlier means) possessed the engraving and printing mystery, but now (in 1441) others did know it also.

The first known woodcut is datable to 1423, Buxheim, Germany.

The hand-painted decks were (for convenience) excluded as being too idiosyncratic. Historians don’t all agree on the structural theories.

Okay, you did state that. The first surviving woodcut decks might be from 1500 or around this time. If you leave the information, which the hand painted decks give, aside, you have not much left. Alright, it happened 1425 according your fiction ... as you desire.
Generally I indeed think, that a game ... similar to the later game Tarot ... was played before the period of the hand painted luxury productions, which we can observe. It was played with usual playing cards ... the additional suit wasn't necessary to play the game. So any problem with names or figures with meaning didn't exist, just the natural hierarchical order of the common suits was used. One of the Kings was used as highest card, the ace as the lowest (Pagat) and the Jack as the Fool, naturally of the suit, which was declared to be trump. This as a very cheap solution, you could use usual cards.
Fixing the game structure with an additional "high-value-set" (like Tarot, complicated to paint and naturally in any case "more expensive") was a rich-persons-idea, which claimed their exclusivity.

Huck wrote:So you have the paradox experience, that reality somehow avoids to give clear confirmation for the theory of an existence of the standard Tarot in 1450 ... but just in the few cases, which are useful in the much "not speaking" information, it talks, as if nobody knew, that the decks should have had 4x14+22 - structure (as modern mind seems to expect this).

Huck, I can’t quite get my head around what you’re saying here. But I’m happy to throw my idea in the bin if you think it’s beyond the bounds of possibility, even though I’m now rather fond of Ur-Cartalaio… And thanks again for your reply - 'twas better than being ignored...

Pen

[/quote]
Well, I just expressed, that a lot of people have the romantic interest, that "their Tarot (as they know it)" should be very old. But history is history and not naturally romantic.
The documents just say, that the Trionfi cards 1457 in Ferrara had 70 cards only and that the Michelino deck was also a Trionfi deck with its 16 trumps. And nobody spoke of 22 trumps in the early period in connection to the Trionfi word. And even the cheapest Trionfi decks known were "rather expensive". Still in 16th century around 1560, when cheap woodcut decks existed without doubts, common Tarocchi cards were still considerably more expensive than other usual playing cards. Lollio in 1550 still states, that Tarot was a game for rich persons.

Early Trionfi decks were "designer cards" ... not thought to be used and sold at the big common market. Likely as today these designer items aimed at exclusive customers.

A Cartolaio, btw. and only very likely as I'm not an expert in this, was a writing material or bookseller, not naturally an artist, who produced playing cards ... though it might have been occasionally also his business to sell playing cards. A document of 1559 gives this latter impression, but generally it's given, that he wasn't playing card producer. So perhaps it's good advice to use this term NOT with enthusiasm.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartolaio
http://www.wheretraveler.com/classic/in ... 7193.shtml

Far Carte nel Settecento
Arte e tecnica nella fabbricazione delle carte

http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page. ... 28&lng=ITA


CARTOLAJO

Il Cartolaio è il Fabbricatore, o il Mercadante che vende le Carte da giuocare

Huck wrote:Hm ...
before I started to response to your idea I quoted you with ...

Pen wrote: Please bear in mind that this is the Unicorn Terrace, but I'm not wedded to this idea, so feel free to pick holes. demolish if you will, or just explain to me why it can't be this simple.

... so a clear sign, that I was aware, that it is considered an Unicorn topic, and also I noted, that you seemed to be open for critique.

Huck, I was and am. I simply answered your points quote by quote as they came up.

Huck wrote:So you have the paradox experience, that reality somehow avoids to give clear confirmation for the theory of an existence of the standard Tarot in 1450 ... but just in the few cases, which are useful in the much "not speaking" information, it talks, as if nobody knew, that the decks should have had 4x14+22 - structure (as modern mind seems to expect this).

Huck, I can’t quite get my head around what you’re saying here. But I’m happy to throw my idea in the bin if you think it’s beyond the bounds of possibility, even though I’m now rather fond of Ur-Cartalaio… And thanks again for your reply - 'twas better than being ignored...

Pen

Huck wrote: Well, I just expressed, that a lot of people have the romantic interest, that "their Tarot (as they know it)" should be very old. But history is history and not naturally romantic.
The documents just say, that the Trionfi cards 1457 in Ferrara had 70 cards only and that the Michelino deck was also a Trionfi deck with its 16 trumps. And nobody spoke of 22 trumps in the early period in connection to the Trionfi word. And even the cheapest Trionfi decks known were "rather expensive". Still in 16th century around 1560, when cheap woodcut decks existed without doubts, common Tarocchi cards were still considerably more expensive than other usual playing cards. Lollio in 1550 still states, that Tarot was a game for rich persons.

Early Trionfi decks were "designer cards" ... not thought to be used and sold at the big common market. Likely as today these designer items aimed at exclusive customers.

I understand that last section now. And don't forget that you guys have a 20 year start on me, so I'd never catch up even if I were as dedicated to the task as you are.

Thanks for the extra info though, and I promise never to speak of 'intuition' or 'feelings' re. the Ur Tarot. Off now to the Great Bin of RUTT (Romantic and Unrealistic Tarot Theories).


Pen

Good evening,

just to clear up certain details in my confused mind :

Huck wrote:Still in 16th century around 1560, when cheap woodcut decks existed without doubts, common Tarocchi cards were still considerably more expensive than other usual playing cards. Lollio in 1550 still states, that Tarot was a game for rich persons.

Is Cary Sheet datation around 1500 (or two decades before as Ross noted a few days ago) considered doubtful to you ? Or do you mean that the Cary Sheet may not have been targeted at a "cheap" audience ?

Regarding

A printing machine for cards reached Ferrara in 1437.

I googled it so in case anyone is looking for the reference : http://trionfi.com/playing-card-printin ... rrara-1437

And finally

The first known woodcut is datable to 1423, Buxheim, Germany.

is this that one ? http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/p-11467.jpg

The "bois protat" (Burgundy) is dated 1370

http://blog.bnf.fr/10ans-et-apres/index ... ccidental/

Bertrand

hi Bertrand,

Bertrand wrote:Good evening,

just to clear up certain details in my confused mind :

Huck wrote:Still in 16th century around 1560, when cheap woodcut decks existed without doubts, common Tarocchi cards were still considerably more expensive than other usual playing cards. Lollio in 1550 still states, that Tarot was a game for rich persons.

Is Cary Sheet datation around 1500 (or two decades before as Ross noted a few days ago) considered doubtful to you ? Or do you mean that the Cary Sheet may not have been targeted at a "cheap" audience ?

We have Tarocchi-prices and prices for usual playing cards in "around 1560" by this ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=654
... article. The prices are NOT final-user prices, but total-sale prices. But the relations between different decks should likely be mirrored in the final-user prices.
I didn't talk about the Cary-Sheet. Kaplan II, p. 287, talked of mid 16th century, in the general talking was mostly 1500 or 1510 (?). Nobody knew about reasons, as far I know. I didn't saw, that Ross dated it "two decades before" ... Where?

...

The "bois protat" (Burgundy) is dated 1370

http://blog.bnf.fr/10ans-et-apres/index ... ccidental/

Looks interesting, especially the dating. In the articles, that I read earlier, the discussion was led rather controversial. Some talked of c. 1430, others from 1370. Some argumentation went in the direction, that surviving stamps from 14th century were used for textile printing. However, the example, that you quoted, doesn't look like a textile stamp motif.
A few years ago, a Spanish article appeared with the claim, that they had playing cards "made c. 1400, with woodcut technology". I lost the address and the argument didn't reappear.

In China the technology was known very early and in Persia around 1300 they knew how to make even woodblock-books, I found in the web.
As far I know it from playing cards, there is not much early evidence for the use of woodcut in playing card production technology. C. 1420 seems to be the earliest suspicions, beside the above mentioned very early Spanish claim.
If there was woodcut technology before, it might have existed with strong local limitation, which would assume, that the technology wasn't spread very far. Perhaps those, who knew about it, kept it as a secret.

Is Cary Sheet datation around 1500 (or two decades before as Ross noted a few days ago) considered doubtful to you ? Or do you mean that the Cary Sheet may not have been targeted at a "cheap" audience ?

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp! Somebody can explain me this, please? I can not the Ross explication of this.

...........

And I promise never to speak of 'intuition' or 'feelings' re. the Ur Tarot.

I think this is a serious error. The only way to discover new things is start with different premises. Its a very healthy mental exercise walking different roads. I really grateful you for open this thread.

Huck wrote:I didn't talk about the Cary-Sheet. Kaplan II, p. 287, talked of mid 16th century, in the general talking was mostly 1500 or 1510 (?). Nobody knew about reasons, as far I know. I didn't saw, that Ross dated it "two decades before" ... Where?

here
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=566&p=10145#p10145

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Re: Cary Sheet again
by Ross G. R. Caldwell on 05 Apr 2011, 23:47

I'm going for that region too, Robert. I'm thinking it's much earlier than normally suspected - "much" meaning a few decades. So I'm leaning to Burgundy, around 1480.

Huck wrote:Looks interesting, especially the dating. In the articles, that I read earlier, the discussion was led rather controversial. Some talked of c. 1430, others from 1370. Some argumentation went in the direction, that surviving stamps from 14th century were used for textile printing. However, the example, that you quoted, doesn't look like a textile stamp motif.

From the scarce texts I've read, they tend to suggest that it may have been too big for knowns papers in this time - hence textile printing is proposed, but maybe woodcut printings were used on parchment too, or maybe glued papers were used, or maybe historical data about paper size are incomplete.

The information about the date coming from the Bibliothèque Nationale blog, I tend to consider it is quite serious, although political reasons may push people to claim "my woodcut is older than yours".

Anyhow burgundy is curiously consistant with Ross proposition in the "cary sheet again" thread (provided that it was not a joke I misunderstood !)

Bertrand

mmfilesi wrote:

Is Cary Sheet datation around 1500 (or two decades before as Ross noted a few days ago) considered doubtful to you ? Or do you mean that the Cary Sheet may not have been targeted at a "cheap" audience ?

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp! Somebody can explain me this, please? I can not the Ross explication of this.

...........

And I promise never to speak of 'intuition' or 'feelings' re. the Ur Tarot.

I think this is a serious error. The only way to discover new things is start with different premises. Its a very healthy mental exercise walking different roads. I really grateful you for open this thread.

Marcos, dear friend, I may have promised never to speak of these things, but I fully intend to continue to use them...

And to be honest, I no longer know who or what to believe.

http://www.letarot.it/Bolognese-Industr ... 8_eng.aspx

Pen

I also dont know what think about it.

Ok. About the Ur-Cartolaio bolognese origin we have this clues:

1) Since the early fifteenth century was a flourishing industry of cards in Bologna, a city with university atmosphere. The University of Bologna enjoyed great prestige and attracted students from all over Europe, attracted by the variety and quality of its studies, including law, grammar, rhetoric, logic, theology, Greek and Hebrew. As today, the students spent their leisure time in the many "osterie" (pubs) in the city, and sure in this pub exist many decks of cards.

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

2). The sermon of Bernardino of Siena in 1423. But this sermon have the first reference (copy) with "Triumphal charticellae" in 1472.

See: A. Vitali. Saint Bernardine and the Cards

http://www.letarot.it/Saint-Bernardine- ... 7_eng.aspx

3) The following argument in favor of Bolognese origin is a note of 1442 in the book of accounts of the Este court in Ferrara. In this note said a "merciaio" (a kind of merchant, but also producer) made a couple of decks of triumphs to the Este family:

«uno paro de carte da trionfi; ave Iacomo guerzo famelio per uxo de Messer Erchules e Sigismondo frateli de lo Signore»

Ross find this"merciaio", Marchionne Burdochi, is from Bologna:

While the discovery of the document Burdochi is due to Bertoni, Ross Caldwell has been credited with identifying the Bolognese source of the merchant. Below is a summary of the story transmitted by the same Caldwell: "The Marchione Burdochi story has basically three acts, with increasing detail; 1) Bertoni cites it without precision, and he does not mention Burdochi; 2) Franceschini finds it, and notes that it is in Burdochi's accounts; 3) I find that Burdochi was Bolognese.
- 1904/1917 - Giuseppe Bertoni publishes a paraphrase of the reference of 28 July, 1442, from the Ferrara archives in Modena. He doesn't state exactly where it was, and he doesn't mention that the account was Burdochi's (1904 - Nuovi tarocchi versificati, in "Giornale storico della letteratura italiana", vol. 43, p. 57 n. 5; 1917 - Poesie, leggende, costumanze del medio evo, pp. 126-127).
- 1993 - Adriano Franceschini publishes Artisti a Ferrara in età umanistica e rinascimentale. Testimonianze archivistiche, vol. I, Dal 1341 al 1471 (Ferrara-Roma, Corbo, 1993). He has edited accounts pertaining to artists at the court of the Este family, and includes several mentioning Marchione Burdochi (also Burdochio). However, he doesn't include the carte da trionfi reference, because it does not have to do with an artist.
- 1996 - Adriano Franceschini publishes "Note d'archivio sulle carte ferraresi" in Ludica 2, pp. 170-174, which describes how he searched for Campori's reference and found it. He mentions that the record was of accounts for Marchione Burdochi (p. 170).
1442 [28 July – credit to Marchione Burdochi, merchant]:
E adi dicto per uno paro de carte da trionfi; ave Iacomo guerzo
famelio per uxo de Messer Erchules e Sigismondo frateli de lo
Signore. Apare mandato a c___,………… L. 0.XII.III
[Franceschini, 1996: 170; cf. Bertoni, 1917: 220 note 3].
- 2003 - I go through Franceschini's volumes carefully, looking for references to cards. I assemble a list of references to Burdochi. The earliest mention of the phrase "chartexele da trionffi" occurs in carta 33, of the "Account of Debits B", (document 01) in volume 4 of the Guardaroba of the Camera Ducale Estense, in the Archivio di Stato di Modena, dated 10 February, 1442. This volume covers the entire calendar year (January - December) of 1442, as edited by Adriano Franceschini in 1993 (Artisti a Ferrara in età umanistica e rinascimentale, Corbo, Ferrara-Roma, 1993, no. 841 (pp. 221-222).
This volume of the Guardaroba accounts also appears to contain the first mention of "Marchione Burdochio da Bologna, merzaro", who appears in carta 5, dated January 2. He is being paid for bringing fabrics (taffetà), to be used by Sagramoro to prepare "standards and banners for the sepulcher" of Niccolo d'Este, who had died a week before.
On March 8 of 1442 (from a different account book, the "Amministrazione dei principi" A, "Regnati" 4, Memoriale; carta 30: Franceschini ibid. no. 482b (p. 223), Marchione is mentioned having supplied fabric for pennants to Sagramoro. No payment is noted.
He seems to have become useful to the court. On July 27 (carta 135 of volume 4 again), he is credited Lire XII, soldi XVIIII, denari VI for bringing more taffetà, this time so that Sagramoro can paint a depiction of the upcoming feast of the Assumption of Our Lady (August 15).
The day after, July 28, he is paid soldi XII denari III for a pack of carte da trionfi, given to the servant Iacomo "the cross-eyed" for the use of the boys Ercole and Sigismondo (this is also recorded on carta 135 of the Guardaroba volume 4, but (no doubt) because Marchione Burdochio is a merchant, not an artist, Franceschini did not include the reference in the 1993 volume. He published it in his 1996 article Note d'archivio sulle carte ferraresi in "Ludica" 2, p. 170).
On September 12 (carta 216 of the same volume), Marchione Burdochio is credited for the "tranza de folexolo", coloured red, green and white, that he was supplying to Sagramoro between March 8 and December 11, for the latter to make around 24 pennants with the arms of the Signore. Giovanni di Pavia is mentioned in connection with him.
On December 20, Sagramoro is paid for the pennants and Burdochio is mentioned in passing, again with "Zuhane de Pavia".
Since Marchione Burdochio was Bolognese, I suspected his pack of carte da trionfi was also Bolognese".

http://www.letarot.it/Bologna-and-the-o ... 9_eng.aspx

OK. This is an importan clue, but we need resolves two problems:

a) What is exactly a "merciaio"? a producter or ar mechant? In the first case, he can be also a cartolaio and this detail is very important. For now, I cant find an exactly reference, only this:

Dello specchio di scientia vniversale. By Leonardo Fioravanti
http://books.google.es/books?id=DCH7mR_ ... ro&f=false

and its not clear what is the "merciaio".

b) We can are sure, Burdochio by or made the "triomphi" cards in Bologna? No. We need know more about this Burdochio.


4) The third argument about the origin Bolognese of Ur-Cartolaio is based on a painting in the early seventeenth century by an unknown artist, which is now in the Palazzo Fibbia of Bologna:

http://www.letarot.it/The-Prince_pag_pg107_eng.aspx

Problem: the picture are made in the begining of 17 century, not near 1420. We can imagine more posibilities to explain this picture.

5) The fourth argument is related to a robbery. In 1459, during an investigation of a thief named Floriano, a barber, found among the spoils a deck of trumps ("unum per cartarum a Triumphis") that had been stolen from a German "maestro" named Giovanni d'Alemagna, where the title "maestro" (I dont know how is the English word) must be understood in relation to some guild, perhaps the cards-maker.

So where was invented the tarot? In Bologna by the Prince Fibbia? In the Milan of Filippo Maria Visconti? In the Este court in Ferrara? In the Florence of the Medici? With the documents we have in this moment, in my humble opinion, the most reasonable answer to this question is: we need continued with a further investigation.

Pen wrote: And to be honest, I no longer know who or what to believe.

http://www.letarot.it/Bolognese-Industr ... 8_eng.aspx

Pen

... ... you mean this article? That's from Girolamo Zorli, a man from Bologna ... naturally he interprets the facts a little bit from a Bolognese perspective ...
http://www.letarot.it/Girolamo-Zorli_pag_pg84_eng.aspx

Some Italians have a local preference ... and one should look at life with some humor.