Phaeded wrote: 24 Aug 2023, 22:27 As for two papal-tiarad female figures in the Rosenwald, there's hardly a consensus on what that deck even is and you want to use that to explain the ur-tarot? The ambiguities of the Rosenwald is made clear by Pratesi's own chart of it's 3rd sheet in 2016: viewtopic.php?p=17007#p17007

Instead of the heavily damaged print, Inv. Nr. B 100, at the Deutsches Spielkartenmuseum in Leinfelden-Echterdingen, you might try the Rosenwald sheet itself, in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC -
https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-obje ... 41321.html

There is absolute consensus on what it is, 21 trump cards and three queens.

It's late here, I'll have to respond more fully tomorrow.

Phaeded wrote: 24 Aug 2023, 22:27 Assuming the theologicals were present in a deck in Florence - where surviving series of the 7 virtues are writ large everywhere (and the earliest known deck includes them, the CY) - is unexceptional.

I don't assume that the Theological Virtues were present in a deck in Florence. Just as I don't assume their Triumph cards had six court cards in a suit.

The VdM is Filippo Maria's response to the Florentine deck. Bigger and better. When he saw the Florentine World card, the "world" showed the Tuscan hills. In response, he made the world the duchy of Milan, looking south from Como, past Milan in the center, to Genoa on the coast. This was HIS world.

I find Sabine Abele-Hipp's 2022 analysis of the iconography of this card persuasive for the most part (see Abele-Hipp, "The world of Filippo Maria Visconti - Studying the landscape on the World card of the Visconti di Modrone", The Playing Card, Volume 51/2 (Oct.-Dec. 2022), pp. 52-60; she also published a book in German last year that I announced here - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2646&p=25569&hilit=hipp#p25569 ).


Filippo Maria had agency, and he was not afraid to change the "received text." For instance, Decembrio says that he loved Petrarch's Canzoniere, but "he himself established the order in which he wanted the sonnets to be read" (Ianziti-Zaggia, p. 125). Ianziti notes (note 122 p. 290) that Decembrio wrote a now-lost commentary on the Canzoniere, so that may have told us what Filippo Maria's arrangement was. Despite the loss, perhaps Filelfo's commentary gives us a clue. Filelfo's commentary only includes 136 sonnets, but it switches the standard order of two of them, that is, traditional two and three are reversed, and traditional sonnet 80 is moved later to between 82 and 83.

He seems to credit himself for these changes though, no reference to Filippo Maria's usage. He doesn't comment on the changed order of 80, but he does on the first switch -

At the beginning of Sonnet 2 -

Comincia il secondo sonetto d'il presente primo libro. Quantunque da molti ordinato sia i nel terzo luogho. Ma se con diligenza considerar vorremo l'amoroso principio comprenderemo questo prima di tutei dover sequire dopo la prefatione antedetta.

The second sonnet of the first book begins. Although it is placed in the third position by many, if we want to consider it diligently, we will want this amorous beginning, which we must understand before all the others, to come after the aforementioned preface.

At the beginning of Sonnet 3 -

Questo terzo sonetto se truova da molti scretto nel secundo luogho d'il presente primo libro cioè immediate dopo la prefatione. Ma a me pare secondo l'ordene d'amore stia meglio nel terzo luogho, pero che e una continuatione a le cose dette di sopra cerca el suo essersi n'amorato nel venerdi santo.

This third sonnet is found written by many in the second position of the first book, immediately after the preface. But to me, it seems that according to the order of love, it fits better in the third position because it is a continuation of the things said above, concerning his falling in love on Good Friday.

In another instance of Filippo Maria's willingness to innovate, remember our discussion of his de-legitimation of Giacomo Visconti's succession in 1429, in which he appears to be open-minded about having a daughter as an heir, which is in contradiction of the explicit order of his father that only male descendents may inherit the duchy, whether of his male line, or, should that fail (as it did), through the male issue of Valentina. This latter provision formed the legal basis of Louis XII's claim to Milan, since he was Valentina's grandson.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1422&p=21833&hilit ... sia#p21833

That the Visconti di Modrone would be a similar innovation, a proud response, especially in the World card, to the Florentine model, seems completely in character. The presence of so many more feminine figures in the deck might also be interpreted as a provocative assertion of the life of the court and thereby the superiority of the courtly, monarchical state model, over the entirely male-dominated and factionally riven oligarchy of Florence.

To propose two church allegories - 'papessi' - by retro-dating the assumed format of the fragmentary Rosenwald back to the ur-tarot, is beyond speculative, especially since there is no sign of a second 'popess' in any of the hand-painted decks we find in Ferrara and Milan (or even Pesaro/Catania-Castello Ursino). That speculation needs something more convincing than fragmentary sheets printed in c. 1501 in Perugia.

What most makes La Papessa a "popess" is the papal crown. Faith is crowned, but not with the papal crown. Faith's iconography is so conventional and clear that no-one would ever mistake her for a popess. But however we define or explain the Popess, it seems to me that since there was an Empress to correspond to the Emperor, if there were a Pope, which I don't think anyone doubts, then there would have also been a Popess. Beyond wearing the papal tiara, we can't say anything more about how she looked. Whether it would have confused people to have this kind of cross twice, I don't know; the papal tiara and the virtue's crown might be sufficient to distinguish them, as is the large cup which would not have been present on the Popess. We don't have the Pope's tiara to compare, so we can't say how distinctive it was in any case.

My use of the popular cards was simply to show that Popess cards don't necessarily have a cross, and that the Florentine model which inspired the VdM might have had a similar Popess, sans processional cross. However, the Bolognese Papi here, of which the only remaining examples are from the 17th century Dalla Torre deck, show one holding the Keys and the other holding a large processional cross.

Ross wrote,

But however we define or explain her, it seems to me that since there was an Empress to correspond to the Emperor, if there were a Pope, which I don't think anyone doubts, then there would have also been a Popess.

The evidence is against "if there were a Pope, there would have also been a Popess". The Strambotto had a Pope but no Popess, and the same for Minchiate. Nor do the handwritten numbers on the ChVI suggest a Popess, as opposed to a numbered Bagatello. The analogy to the Emperor does not hold, because there is no Popess in the sense in which there is an Empress, that is, a real person married to the Pope. The analogy to Bologna's numbering system also does not hold, because the numbers may well have been done so as to correspond to that of Minchiate, which we know was produced in Bologna, presumably for the Bolognese (since the Angel card had a Bolognese skyline) at the time the numbers were put on. In Minchiate, of course, the Bagatello is numbered.

Moreover, I see no reason to assume that Filippo included even a Pope in the VdM. The Emperor and Empress correspond to the secular Kings and Queens of the suits, on a trans-national level, higher than they are. There is no such correspondence to Pope and Popess, in the form of national ecclesiastical heads in the four suits. Moreover, there was a certain sensitivity among clerics to those cards, again especially the Popess; in his case, generations of his forebears had been excommunicated because of the association with Manfreda. It is entirely based on later decks that one makes the assumption of a Pope and Popess. I do not deny that they are possible, by analogy to Emperor and Empress, but the analogy is very weak. It is not like assuming a card for Prudence, which has a basis in four other virtues that are present. As Dummett said (Game of Tarot, p. 87),

Since four of the stock set of seven Virtues were included among the triumphs, it seems probable that the other three were also: Temperance and Justice, which belong to the standard list of triumph subjects, and Prudence, which does not.

Another card for which there is some basis is one for Time, because five other Petrarchan triumphs are extant. But the Pope and Popess are more problematic.

mikeh wrote: 25 Aug 2023, 11:27 The evidence is against "if there were a Pope, there would have also been a Popess". The Strambotto had a Pope but no Popess, and the same for Minchiate. Nor do the handwritten numbers on the ChVI suggest a Popess, as opposed to a numbered Bagatello. The analogy to the Emperor does not hold, because there is no Popess in the sense in which there is an Empress, that is, a real person married to the Pope. The analogy to Bologna's numbering system also does not hold, because the numbers may well have been done so as to correspond to that of Minchiate, which we know was produced in Bologna, presumably for the Bolognese (since the Angel card had a Bolognese skyline) at the time the numbers were put on. In Minchiate, of course, the Bagatello is numbered.

I mainly assume it because there was a standard and common game of Triumphs being played in many places, and the game that came from Florence to Bologna and Ferrara by early 1442 at the latest must have had these four figures.

Ferrara, Milan, Lyon, etc. did not all think to create a Popess out of thin air. Nor Bologna two Popes, whether a Popess and Pope or two male Papi. The explanation is that this figure was present in the deck that came to them originally.

One of the features of Minchiate is that there are only three "imperial" papi. The Strambotto of around 1500 can be taken as evidence that the removal of the Popess happened in Florence before the addition of the new group of 20 cards in Minchiate. The numbering on Charles VI Emperor ("III") and Love ("V"), and on the Palermo Empress ("2"), leaves open the possibility that the lost Bagatto was unnumbered in those decks, and that a Popess, if still present when they were numbered, was numbered "1". The other possibility is that, by the times both decks were numbered, the owners had removed the Popess.

I agree with how Thierry Depaulis assesses the evidence in "Early Italian Lists of Tarot Trumps" (The Playing Card, Volume 36, number 1, pp. 39-47) where he first published his discovery of the Strambotti de triumphi:

Another outstanding point [of the Strambotti] is the absence of the Papessa. It is certainly no mistake. I interpret this omission as a witness of the transition between the 78-card Tarot pack as known in Florence towards the end of the 15th century, of which the Rosenwald sheet is probably an example, and the forthcoming Minchiate (or rather Germini), where the Papessa has disappeared, perhaps to comply with Papal recommendations. Pope and Popess have always been subject to hot discussion due to their somewhat sacrilegious theme. (p. 43)

"To keep Death at number 13" is the frequently heard explanation for the non-numbering of the Bolognese Bagatto. It can be equally used to explain the numbering of the Bagatto, "Papa uno" in Minchiate; since there were only three imperial cards left after the suppression of the Popess, the Bagatto had to be numbered. It's a wash, and perhaps this was not the reason for the numbering in Minchiate and the non-numbering in Bologna.

I don't think we can assume that Minchiate produced in Bologna was for a thriving local market. Bologna made French style Tarot cards as well at this time, and I've never heard anyone argue that the Bolognese tarocchi used both kinds of cards. The production was for export, to Lombardy, Piedmont-Savoy, and over the Alps.

Moreover, I see no reason to assume that Filippo included even a Pope in the VdM. The Emperor and Empress correspond to the secular Kings and Queens of the suits, on a trans-national level, higher than they are. There is no such correspondence to Pope and Popess, in the form of national ecclesiastical heads in the four suits. Moreover, there was a certain sensitivity among clerics to those cards, again especially the Popess; in his case, generations of his forebears had been excommunicated because of the association with Manfreda. It is entirely based on later decks that one makes the assumption of a Pope and Popess. I do not deny that they are possible, by analogy to Emperor and Empress, but the analogy is very weak. It is not like assuming a card for Prudence, which has a basis in four other virtues that are present. As Dummett said (Game of Tarot, p. 87),

Since four of the stock set of seven Virtues were included among the triumphs, it seems probable that the other three were also: Temperance and Justice, which belong to the standard list of triumph subjects, and Prudence, which does not.

Another card for which there is some basis is one for Time, because five other Petrarchan triumphs are extant. But the Pope and Popess are more problematic.

I tend to think that Filippo Maria's structural innovations in the VdM were limited to the two new court cards and the set of Theological Virtues. Whether he suppressed uncomfortable cards like the Devil and Lightning, or included Prudence for the sake of completeness, I have no basis to speculate, except for the reasoning I've explained. He kept Death, which was a subject he felt particularly uncomfortable about, so I don't see why he wouldn't keep the other standard subjects that might be a little uncomfortable, since they were an expected part of the game that the players already knew.

Added later:

It just occurred to me that there is a Pope in the VdM Death card, so that might give us a clue as to what the Pope card looked like in that deck. A lot of the triregno is worn away, but it seems that the crown consisted of gold crowns on a white background.

Ross Caldwell wrote: 25 Aug 2023, 09:51 Filippo Maria had agency, and he was not afraid to change the "received text." For instance, Decembrio says that he loved Petrarch's Canzoniere, but "he himself established the order in which he wanted the sonnets to be read" (Ianziti-Zaggia, p. 125). Ianziti notes (note 122 p. 290) that Decembrio wrote a now-lost commentary on the Canzoniere, so that may have told us what Filippo Maria's arrangement was. Despite the loss, perhaps Filelfo's commentary gives us a clue. Filelfo's commentary only includes 136 sonnets, but it switches the standard order of two of them, that is, traditional two and three are reversed, and traditional sonnet 80 is moved later to between 82 and 83.

He seems to credit himself for these changes though, no reference to Filippo Maria's usage. ...

I think you're giving too much credit to Filippo. Not familiar with Decembrio’s work, but will address Filippo’s commissioned a commentary of the canzoniere in 1445 from Filelfo here. From my long Literary source for trumps: Dante’s Paradiso post:

...an overlooked work in his oeuvre that would allow Filelfo to stake his claim to an understanding of one of the earliest Greek writers on astrology, Empedocles (in fact, it was a spurious work attributed to him but believed to be genuine in the Renaissance), and perhaps also reveals his own awareness and understanding of the proto-tarot deck painted by Michelino, designed to the specifications of previous humanist advisor to Filippo, Marziano da Tortona....

The work in question is, oddly enough, simply a commentary on the first 136 poems of Petrarch’s Canzoniere, in compliance with a request of the ailing Filippo Visconti (the duke would die two years later). What is of interest is this:

In ten cases he adds to his comment on a particular Petrarchan poem material derived from some classic poem; and in each case his additional comment contains one or more translations or paraphrases, in terza rima, of a passage or passages in the classic poem concerned” (Ernest Wilkins, “‘Empedocles’ et alii in Filelfo's Terza Rima”, Speculum, Vol. 38, No. 2, Apr., 1963: 318-323. 318).

Available via JSTOR here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2852456. What interested me, in light of my theory that the 7 planets were added later in the PMB version (disguised as Ages of Man/ Children of the Planets), was this (and again this work appears a mere half dozen years or so before the PMB, c. 1451):



The implicit context of the sonnet in question with regard to which heaven Laura will be assigned to is purely Dante's Paradiso (my proposed model for the Trumps): all of the slightly flawed souls are assigned to a planetary sphere that Dante encounters on his way up to the Empyrean.

At all events, much more likely Filelfo had a formative influence on both the CY and the PMB for his next patron. Filippo would have just given a general direction in commissioning a work; e.g., “make me a more interesting version of Florence’s new card game featuring my realm.” There’s a reason he employed humanists….

Phaeded

Ross write,

I mainly assume it because there was a standard and common game of Triumphs being played in many places, and the game that came from Florence to Bologna and Ferrara by early 1442 at the latest must have had these four figures.

Yes, the game was played in several places. But we don't know if they all had the same trumps, or the same number of trumps, or how many. That is seen in a rough way later, more or less, once there are enough decks twenty years later, but not in all the centers until the 1540s. That they did not all play precisely the same game is indicated by the differences in order from one place to another, especially of the virtues. How the game varied from place to place is a matter of speculation, and there are many things to consider.

With regard to the VdM especially, one is the precedent of Marziano, with his four groups of four. If these groups played a role in the game, then similar groups likely would do so in a Milanese version with different subjects. 16 trumps is also suggested by the 16 cards per suit, producing a ratio of 1:1. That is of course only one possibility: it is hard to say of an experimental deck of which we have incomplete information just what the experiment consisted of.

To anticipate your objection, I am not making the assumption that the VdM had 16 trumps. I am saying that initially we don't know one way or the other. I am arguing that 16 is at least as reasonable as 25. I cannot see that I am making any assumptions not justified by a preponderance of evidence. Hypotheses are another thing. One hypothesis is "all the trumps seen later, plus the theologicals"; another hypothesis is "not all the trumps seen later." Then we consider arguments for and against.

In relation to Marziano's four groups, it remains a fact to be explained, why the VdM trumps were grouped in four boxes (as they have been at Yale, for an indeterminate length of time), such that if there were four groups, and the virtues were inserted in their Lombard order, they correspond precisely to the correlations suggested by the visual symbols on those virtues in relation to the four suit-symbols, as suggested in the two documents that Moakley found, Giangalleazo's funeral oration and Ringhieri. In other words, there is a relationship between groups of trumps and the four suits in both games. (I say "four groups" and not "four groups of four" because it does not really matter how many trumps are in each group, from 4 to 6.)

Ross wrote,

I don't think we can assume that Minchiate produced in Bologna was for a thriving local market. Bologna made French style Tarot cards as well at this time, and I've never heard anyone argue that the Bolognese tarocchi used both kinds of cards. The production was for export, to Lombardy, Piedmont-Savoy, and over the Alps.

It doesn't have to be very thriving. And I was talking about Minchiate, not Tarot. What evidence do you have of a thriving market for Minchiate in Lombardy, Piedmont-Savoy, and over the Alps? Well, I suppose they could be for import to Rome, muscling in on Florence. But if Minchiate was played by church officials in Rome (e.g. Francesco Brunetti, who wrote a treatise on Minchiate), surely it would have been played in Bologna, too, which was famous for its theology school. And it might just be that they didn't use the word, but referred to it as one form of "tarocchi", as opposed to "tarocchini." Since it didn't originate in Bologna, it wasn't worth any special mention. Anyway, I am not making the assumption that Minchiate was played there; I am only saying that it is a plausible one. I am thereby challenging your assumption about the numbering of the cards there, and perhaps now your assumption, if that is what you are doing, that the only reason for a Bolognese skyline would have been to advertise the wares of Bologna. (I am referring to the card at http://www.endebrock.de/coll/pages/i31.html.) To make Death 13 is another explanation of the numbering. By the 17th century that was universal, as well as being associated with Death in many places, thanks, if nothing else, to Montaigne, but also to the Grail stories, which were popular in Italy, and perhaps folk traditions which writers weren't concerned to popularize, or feared popularizing because of church disapproval. It does not mean that 17 cannot be considered unlucky at the same time.

Ross wrote,

Ferrara, Milan, Lyon, etc. did not all think to create a Popess out of thin air. Nor Bologna two Popes, whether a Popess and Pope or two male Papi. The explanation is that this figure was present in the deck that came to them originally.

They did not all think to create a Popess out of thin air, to be sure. But somebody did, somewhere, and from that it spread. It didn't have to be in a deck in Milan under Filippo Visconti. It was in the PMB "first artist" cards, but that could have come with the new regime, borrowed from elsewhere. I see no reason why it should have been in Filippo's deck, just because some cards are missing. Some missing cards are predictable on internal grounds, namely Time and Prudence. Pope and Popess are not in that category. While there are many little variations in the order in various locations, the cards from Devil to Sun are always in precisely that order, in the tarocchi lists. That suggests that they were made part of the deck under different conditions than those which vary from place to place, of a desire for more agreement among centers, including standardizing this new game as much as possible without disturbing the order of the pre-existing cards otherwise. (This standardization, including of the subjects, would probably have been at the hands of Florence, as the leading arts and crafts center.) The Popess by the variability criterion is an early card, admittedly, but between 1441 and 1452, or whenever the PMB was made, is a significant gap of time, enough for a card to be added or distinguished by gender and secular vs. spiritual.

I do not see that Depaulis's statement says anything about Milan under Filippo. Actually, it seems to me that when Depaulis says, "Pope and Popess have always been subject to hot discussion due to their somewhat sacrilegious theme," that applies as much earlier as later, and even more so in Filippo's situation. That was my point. In other words, the Pope and the Popess are cards to be hesitant about including. In particular, the Popess was a particularly sore point, due to jokes that might be seen as undermining papal dignity (Pope's mistresses, Pope Joan). Tangentially, I don't see that the Rosenwald shows that there was a Popess in Florence at that time (not the end of the fifteenth century, but more like 1505 Perugia, by Pratesi's research, pretty much the same time as the Strambotto). The order of virtues on the page is that of Bologna. Or, since both Justice and Fortitude got the same number, it may have been meant as a compromise between Florence and Bologna. Added later in day: however, I now remember another argument in favor of four from the beginning in Bologna and Florence, pope, anti-pope, emperor, false emperor, any of which can defeat any other. Then reinterpreted in terms of gender. That's a reasonable possibility. I had forgotten about that. But there is still good reason for Filippo not to have had a Popess.

Uncomfortableness is not my basis for why Filippo wouldn't have had a Popess. It has to do with excommunication or other trouble with the Pope, due to the Manfreda business, which the papacy surely had not forgotten and which Filippo did not need to stir up. (That would also apply to the Pope card, but less so, if it already existed elsewhere.) If there was no Popess in 1441 elsewhere, it would look suspicious to create one. Once the Popess is part of the deck, it is a different story. It can be added safely by a family that is half-Visconti. Emperor and Empress are politically OK, since he is a duke by virtue of them; it is also suggested by the secular pairs under them, kings and queens, etc., which do not include members of the spiritual hierarchy. Filippo was also uncomfortable about Love, and probably Fame and Judgment. But they are from Petrarch, a foundation of the game. Also, Pudicizia and Eternity, both important for Filippo, justify Love's and Death's presence, as the means for dealing with them.

Ross wrote,

I tend to think that Filippo Maria's structural innovations in the VdM were limited to the two new court cards and the set of Theological Virtues. Whether he suppressed uncomfortable cards like the Devil and Lightning, or included Prudence for the sake of completeness, I have no basis to speculate, except for the reasoning I've explained.

I don't see that you have any basis for assuming that the theological virtues were his innovation. They might have already been in the game elsewhere; then it split into two, one of them dropping the theologicals but inserting the celestials in the same place in the order, after the Tower, while the other expanded the trumps even further. Or already there existed two games. "Minchiate" is referred to as a game as early as 1466, and then periodically thereafter, 1477, 1506, etc. I don't see why it couldn't have originated as a variant with 22 trumps, or fewer, even earlier, one including the theologicals. It may not have had its own name. If it was less popular than other versions, there is no reason even a different name should have made the records.

There is actually one hint that a trionfi-game might have existed under the name "minchiate" earlier than 1466: the ca. 1440 (or later?) Florentine sonnet by Burchiello (reported in Italian at http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=199&lng=ITA, discussed here at viewtopic.php?p=15172#p15172 and following). As Huck observed, the verb "minchiare" is followed by "Triumphi" two lines later, the latter with examples: arms (swords, shields?), love (Empress-Emperor, Love?) Brutus (the Traitor?), Cato (the Old Man?), lovers (Love, Empress/Emperor?), women (virtues, fame, empress, fortune, female lover?), and poets (Petrarch, Boccaccio, perhaps Dante, inspiring some of the titles, images and order?). Of course the main reference is to Petrarch. Vitali thinks it is the only reference, but double meanings in such satirical poems are to be expected. I know this is speculation. My main point is that the whole issue is speculation, a matter of what you choose to look at and what you make of it. Which is not to say that there aren't more or less persuasive arguments for different hypotheses with more or less comprehensiveness.

That is a nice detail you found in the Death card, the triregnum. It is evidence of what the Pope would have been wearing if there was such a card in the VdM. That hat on a Popess, especially if her cross staff were on a different side from Faith's, would distinguish the two. Book vs. cup doesn't hurt.

mikeh wrote: 26 Aug 2023, 12:56 Ross wrote,

Ferrara, Milan, Lyon, etc. did not all think to create a Popess out of thin air. Nor Bologna two Popes, whether a Popess and Pope or two male Papi. The explanation is that this figure was present in the deck that came to them originally.

They did not all think to create a Popess out of thin air, to be sure. But somebody did, somewhere, and from that it spread. It didn't have to be in a deck in Milan under Filippo Visconti.

It was in the original deck, as FAITH. All of the theologicals get replaced and Faith with the clear cognate of Ecclesia. Moreover, Ecclesia is dressed as a Franciscan, which was riding a crest of popularity in Milan.

These other convoluted explanations for the Popess (including both Faith and Ecclesia in the same deck, based on later card deck variants) are weak to the point of being inscrutable.

Again, per my Dante theory:

Why are the three theological virtues replaced? Twofold: 1. Dante himself provides a rationale - the theological virtues are in fact not perfected in their respective planetary spheres but are found again perfected in the 8th sphere of the fixed star (on this point, see in particular Frank Ordiway, “In the Earth's Shadow: The Theological Virtues Marred,” Dante Studies 100 (1982): 77-92). And 2. Unlike his old friend Cosimo in 1440 [Anghiari joint victory with Papacy], in 1450 Sforza is not politically aligned with the Papacy. To advertise the theological virtues, closely associated with the popes (see Donatello’s papal tomb in the Florentine baptistery, for example), would have been beyond the pale (unacceptable to friends and foe alike to have claimed those virtues for oneself, especially when one just took a city as a conquering condottiere). Cognates and/or anti-types necessarily then replace the Theologicals in the PMB. The precarious historical situation of Sforza in c. 1450 largely dictates what the replacement themes must be but even here Dante provides rationales for each choice.

Replacement of Faith by the “Papess”
Faith is in the sphere of the moon where the first soul that Dante encounters is the nun Piccarda, and it is she who must represent this virtue. Piccarda was a Franciscan Clare (before she was forcibly pulled out of her convent of Santa Chiara at Monticelli near Florence) and thus the much-debated PMB “Papess” card suddenly loses it mystery when we see this card for what it is: a Franciscan nun upon which is set the symbolic three-crowned tiara (Church Penitent-Militant-Triumphant), making her represent the collective Faith of the Church. The lack of the black wimple on the nun indicates she is a Franciscan tertiary, thus an emphasis on the inclusiveness of this trump to represent not just the Order proper but indeed the entire Church, lay persons included (e.g. Tertiaries; it is also important to remember that St. Francis was figuratively married to Lady Poverty which this trump also speaks to). For images of a Franciscan tertiary nun that match the PMB “Papess” see the Franciscan tertiary patron kneeling behind St. Francis at the foot of the Cross/Tree of Life in the Gaddi fresco in the Franciscan convent of Santa Croce in Florence http://www.ourladyofthepearl.com/images/gadditre.jpg (for additional images of Franciscan tertiaries as art patrons see plates 297, 313, and 314 [the S. Croce fresco] and especially the discussion of the same on pp. 261-65 of Catherine King, “Women as patrons: nuns, widows and rulers”, in Siena, Florence and Padua: art, Society and Religion 1280-1400, Vol II: Case Studies. Ed. Diana Norman, 1995: 243-266). Germane to Sforza’s political needs in 1450 was to at least keep the new pope neutral (Sforza was often at war with the previous pope over his former possessions in the Marche), Nicholas V, who had already involved himself with the Franciscan order at the outset of his papacy:

Almost immediately upon becoming Pope Nicholas V, he issued the Franciscan targeted Bulla Pastoralis officii (July 20, 1447) which had the aim of responding to the requests of the “friars of the Third Order living in Italy”, by giving them the right to possess “houses, oratories, and other places” (domus, oratoria atque loca), together with the right to found other houses “with the permission of the diocesan bishop” .… Since the first Regular Tertiaries seem to have been hermits, Nicholas V invited them to adopt a habit which would distinguish them from simple hermits, and at
the same time from other religious Orders (from this link: http://www.franciscan-sfo.org/hland/histfranmov2.pdf )

To put to bed any lingering doubts about this identification of the “Papess”, the conditions in Milan at the time the PMB produced explain the need for a Franciscan Tertiary in light of the one popular communal project that extended from the Visconti to the Sforza era: hospital reform.

The movement to reform Milan’s corrupt charities took on momentum in earnest in under the leadership of Martino della Gazzada, a wealthy banker and merchant and member of Misercordia; after St. Francis’s visit to Milan in 1441, della Gazzada became a Franciscan Tertiary under the newly formed Observant monastery of Santa Maria degli Angeli. Following della Gazzada’s example, by December 1442, 19 new male members from the city’s merchant class had joined the Tertiaries and in 1447 the community had more than doubled in size (Evelyn S. Welch, Art and authority in Renaissance Milan, 1995: 133).

Upon the death of Visconti in 1447 the new Ambrosian Republic moved quickly to form a committee to continue the hospital reform, the Deputati sopra le Provvisioni dei Poveri, with della Gazzada taking a lead role in what proved to be one of the most popular initiatives of the Republic (ibid). When Sforza took over in 1450 his plan was not to just sanction a process already in place but closely associate his regime with it so as to take the credit for its final realization in the form of the enormous Ca’ Grande hospital, built on Bernarbo Visconti’s old palace in Porta Romana that Sforza donated for the project (ibid, 136). Although prominent Republicans such as della Gazzada were excluded and Sforza’s own secretary inserted as a lead deputy, Cicco Simonetta, the connection to the Franciscan Tertiaries was maintained, via Simonetta’s own representative who tended to day to day activities, Giovanni Caimi, a ducal courier whose “family had been closely connected to her Franciscan Tertiaries in the 1440s, and in 1446 Giovanni was charged with the administration of the Ospedale deo Poveri in Bianca Maria’s dower town of Cremona”(ibid, 141). Two Ciami women donations ensured the commencement of the Ca Grande’s construction in 1456. Thus a popular communal movement that became closely aligned with Franciscan Tertiaries that had preceded the arrival of Sforza was nevertheless coopted into an expression of his own piety. Although the hospital (1456) post-dated the PMB (c.1451), the religious sentiments of the Milanese patriciate, as well as the lower classes that formed the backbone of the Tertiary Order, would have been the apt symbol of popular piety at the time of Sforza’s investiture and thus an apt symbol of the Church in Milan. Sforza primarily courted the Milanese patriciate and Welch notes that while most wealthy Milanese men and women did not the Franciscan Tertiaries many were buried in the Tertiaries’ habits (ibid, 133).

The above is historically grounded and explains why an Ecclesia would appear as a Franciscan tertiary in Milan precisely at the time the PMB emerges. Faith replaced by Ecclesia is Occam's razor on its finest edge. Competing theories relying on retro-dating later developments back to the beginning are ahistorical and groundless.

Finally, note that the pope was resident in a DOMINICAN church in Florence in 1434-1443, and if one does not allow the theologicals in the Florentine ur-tarot then one must propose Ecclesia was one of the trumps. Before mumbling that Ecclesia must have been dressed as a Dominican nun then, look in vain for such an allegory of Ecclesia in Florence in that time period, even in the allegorically rich cycle of frescos in the "Spanish Chapel" of Santa Maria Novello, the Dominican foundation hosting Pope Eugene.

We do have a contemporary allegory for the Florentine church in 1440, sung in the streets via a poem of Anselmo Calderoni, the Florentine herald, on the occasion of the Anghiari triumphal celebration:

O Lord, we praise you, all of us singing, / together with your Mother the glorious Virgin, / and praising all the apostles / and especially the great Baptist /with all the court of heaven / portrayed in the form of a white rose, / since it is the day when he who opens the portals / of Paradise admits the Florentine people, / who were victorious by just Fortune / against the evil Niccolo Piccinino / and his followers./ And all honor to the men of Sforza,/who enforced the triumph of the Holy League,/pursuing and driving out the men of the duke” …. (translation in Dale V. Kent, Cosimo de' Medici and the Florentine Renaissance: the patron's oeuvre, 2000: 280).

In Florence and its recently built marvel of the dome of S. Maria del Fiore, it would have been impossible to think of Ecclesia as anything other than the Virgin, especially with all of the Miseracordia images such as the one in the Loggia of Bigallo near the duomo:



Perhaps, as suggested by the arch above, the ur-tarot "world" trump featured the Virgin holding lilies atop the arch, looking down on the city of Florence in its Tuscan contado, with the dome undoubtedly featured. Given the likelihood of the theologicals in the ur-tarot, the "World" then is the only place where Santa Maria, protector of of the Florentine ecclesia, would have been found in the deck (I would assume a more generic Florentia holding a florin would be found on the Chariot (Mary would not be put in such a position)- the CY has the radiate dove embossed on chastity's jousting shield instead).

But per the town herald himself - the official civic propaganda of the time - the symbol the city turned towards was Dante, in accord with the late obsession of her humanist chancellor himself, Bruni having penned his volgare vita of Dante in 1436, the year after the dome was completed. While we normally think of lilies and Mary, and indeed the lily is the civic symbol par excellance of Florence, S. Maria del Fiore technically means any flower. And a rose, specifically a white rose, is the culminating vision in Dante's Paradiso. The same Church Triumphant the pope was viewing in the Spanish Chapel was the same Church Triumphant reaching its ultimate destination in Dante's Paradiso, the souls he meets in the lower planetary spheres have ventured downward from their place in the Rose), literally depicted as a white rose, for example, in Giovanni di Paolo’s illuminated manuscript of the Commedia, c. 1450, for King Alphonso of Naples (Yates Thompson 36):



Beyond the miseracordias, there is no generic ecclesia in Florence but the people as Church Militant aspiring to the Church Triumphant, proudly sung out in song; again: "portrayed in the form of a white rose... Paradise admits the Florentine people, / who were victorious by just Fortune." The queen of this white rose is the Virgin Mary, traditionally represented as a rose herself (see Par. 23.73-4) and the white Rose appearing throughout Cantos 30.106 to 32.138.

This ineffable destination of the Catholic Empyrean, needless to say, is not in the ur-tarot; its the steps to get there that the tarot teaches (the reason Judgement is in there). Otherwise the only hint of Ecclesia, Faith appearing as a separate trump of faith with the other two theologicals, must have been Santa Maria atop the arch looking down on her dominion as Florence's tutelary "goddess" or queen. But what is clear is that Dante, specifically the Paradiso, permeated Florentine thought precisely at the time the ur-tarot was created. The entirety of the ur-tarot is shot through with the structure of the Paradiso. More on that in another post....

Phaeded

For those not used to using the THF "search" function, note that Phaeded is quoting from his 2015 post at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1062&p=16260&hilit=ordiway#p16260. That is in case you were wondering what happened to the other theological virtues. Hope, for Phaeded, becomes the Hanged Man, and Charity becomes the Pope.

Leaving his Dante theory aside, I gather from the part he quoted now that it was Francesco who effected these changes, so as not to appear too aligned with the Pope. However, he also needs not to alienate the Pope, so he, or a minion, invents a card called either Popess or Ecclesia, but interpreted as Ecclesia. People after him preferred just "Popess," allowing the reading of various salacious interpretations into it.

It seems to me that ecclesiastics are more easily offended than that. It looks like a female pope, matching in headgear the PMB Pope. There is also the order to consider. Hope, Faith, and Charity would have all been together previously. Where do Eccleasia, Hanged Man, and Pope go? Are they still all together? If so, where, and why would they have changed? One possibility: they were all where Hanged Man is, just before Death. Or else they were roughly where they are found later, and it was Hanged Man that changed, to be just before his fate. In any case, Ecclesia would be, at the beginning or soon after, associated with the Empress; if her male counterpart is the Pope, that makes her the Popess easily enough. Francesco does not need such trouble. Probably the card already existed as a Popess elsewhere: Ferrara and/or Florence, most likely, since Bologna had her "papi". The pope and associated curia had been both places, 1438 in Ferrara, 1439 onwards more in Florence, so wherever it was initiated, it probably would have been in effect in Florence in the 1440s. The headgear on your image of Miseracordia also fits. If these places were already interpreting "Popess" as "Ecclesia", and the curia knew it, then it is safe for Francesco to have it in his deck, too. Yes, I know I am going back on my earlier skepticism about the Popess being in Florence; I had forgotten the most important argument, that of accounting for the "equal papi" rule in Bologna.

Is this adjustment to your presentation - namely, "Popess" interpreted as "Ecclesia" in Florence - acceptable to you, Phaeded? If so, I can think some more about how crucial the "equal papi" rule is at the beginning, compared to your "Dante" origin theory (they seem incompatible). My initial thought is that the rule has to have been part of the Bolognese game whenever it was first played in Bologna, or soon after. But whether it has to have already existed elsewhere before that (i.e. Florence) is harder to say. Even in the Alessandro Sforza deck (Florentine), an Empress is present, so not just "Papi". It is easier to change things once a game is accepted than it is to introduce something objectionable at the beginning.

You say that "Competing theories relying on retro-dating later developments back to the beginning are ahistorical and groundless." But Faith is in Milan. Was it added by Filippo? if so, it was not in Florence. But it needed to get there before 1450, to become the Popess - a retrodating. Was it already present in Florence? That assumes the reliability of retro-placing it there? It seems like if not retro-dating, then retro-placing, is inevitable. Given that Florence and Milan were hostile to each other then, I'm not sure that retro-placing is more secure than retro-dating. (I am not actually sure what you mean by "retrodating": perhaps you mean the inclusion of cards not already in the culture. That is contra-indicated by the invention of tarot figures a short time later: the hermit with his hourglass, the Bagatella, never before seen in art, the ChVI Fool, the various figures associated with the Sun, Moon, and Star. But admittedly the CY is fairly conservative in its surviving images.) Anyway, I do not go back to the beginning: for you to say that Anghieri is the absolute beginning is ahistorical (meaning "lacking a historical perspective or context") and groundless.

From a historical perspective, even the Giusti note does not show that it can safely be assumed that Florence was the birthplace of the tarot, much less that it was within 3 years of 1440 (or 5). Florence is simply where the records are best preserved. Records from Ferrara are also well preserved, at least the account records, so I think it is safe to say that it was not invented in Ferrara. But Bologna and Milan are a different story, due to the burning down of the duke's and "chief citizen's" houses there preceded by a fast exit of their inhabitants. Surviving tarocchi records from before 1447 in Milan and 1506 in Bologna are sparse. Also, one source of records in Florence, arrest records, would not apply in Milan and probably not in Bologna. Moreover, one of the 1442 records shows it to be a game suitable for children, a use even less likely to be recorded (in arrests, at least). In such cases, the medievalists' rule of thumb, allowing 15 to 20 years at least between the beginning of the use of a lemma and its first preserved record, as documented by Andrea Vitali and used elsewhere in playing card literature (by Hoffmann and Haas, if I recall) applies. It also seems to be what Dummett used in 1993 and (with Depaulis and Decker) in 1996 (1428 or so as optimal in 1993, 1425 in 1996, adding 1410 as the earliest possible). Dummett's shift in 2005 to late 1430s seems to me, without further explanation (which he did not give), ahistorical.

In response to my suggestion that the numbering on the trumps of the Bolognese tarocchini was done so as to conform to the numbering in Minchiate, Ross wrote:

"To keep Death at number 13" is the frequently heard explanation for the non-numbering of the Bolognese Bagatto. It can be equally used to explain the numbering of the Bagatto, "Papa uno" in Minchiate; since there were only three imperial cards left after the suppression of the Popess, the Bagatto had to be numbered. It's a wash, and perhaps this was not the reason for the numbering in Minchiate and the non-numbering in Bologna.

In this connection there is the short article of 26 years ago by Girolomo Zorli, in The Playing-Card 26:3, Nov.-Dec. 1997, p. 89, "Bolognese Tarocchino: 'Sequenza' Cards,'" about the scoring of sequences in relation to the numbers on the trumps.

Added later in day: This explanation is not full enough, as he recognizes in footnote 1. For the actual formula, see https://www.pagat.com/tarot/ottocento.html#sequences. Unlike what Zorli gives, the formula is quite counter-intuitive. Also, the Bagattino and Matto very much count, in the sense of earning points in the sequence. Zorli's point remains, however: for the formula to work, the scavezza - the card that breaks the sequence, from scavezzare, to break - has to have the number it has. The Bagattino does not have a number because it, like the Matto, is a wild card. The Mori do not have numbers because they are all equal and the formula does not require that they have them. If the sequence goes down that far, the scavezza is zero.

This practice of using the formula to calculate points (and to check the opponents' claims as to their points) also explains why it is only the top four cards that are unnumbered, as opposed to the top five in Minchiate: the first possible scavezza is the Star. The formula provides a quick way of calculating the opponent's score in the sequence given what trumps the other side, without the sequence, has. The numbers codify on paper a practice that probably already existed in the game, in which the players, for this purpose, knew not only a card's place in the sequence but also its number and referred to it as such, even when the numbers weren't on the cards.

The question remains, however, whether there could have also been a simple formula if the cards were numbered differently. In that case, the numbers might have come first, then the formula. I don't think so, but it has to be thought through. My guess is that the rules would have to change, too. In particular, it is a formula for calculating points, not cards, and requires that the first three cards have 10 points total, then 5 points for each additional cards, and that both the Bagattino and the Matto be wild cards. That the rules were constructed in order for the formula to work seems the wrong way around: it is just too strange. There were rule-books written before numbers were put on the cards, as Zorli indicates. In fact, Pisarri's description of the role of the Bagattino and Matto is precisely then as now, and the first three cards do have 10 points, plus 5 for each addition. Not only that, he even gives the scavezza number for each card, from Stella to Amore: it is precisely what was later put on the cards (page 40, in archive.org). He does explain how to derive points from the scavezza. It seems to me fairly straightforward, and equivalent to the formula at pagat.com. The only difference is that pagat.com does the subtraction from 21 first, then multiplies by 5, whereas Pissari multiplies by 5 first, and then subtracts from 105 (i.e. 21x5).

I want to add a few things to the preceding post. I wrote:

The question remains, however, whether there could have also been a simple formula if the cards were numbered differently. In that case, the numbers might have come first, then the formula. I don't think so, but it has to be thought through. My guess is that the rules would have to change, too. In particular, it is a formula for calculating points, not cards, and requires that the first three cards have 10 points total, then 5 points for each additional cards, and that both the Bagattino and the Matto be wild cards. That the rules were constructed in order for the formula to work seems the wrong way around: it is just too strange.

Actually, from what is presented on pagat.com, the numbers might well have come first, even with all the rules the same. All that is needed is a slight change in the formula.

Before quoting pagat.com, I need to say what contatori are: they are what I have called wild cards, namely the Bagattino and the Matto. They can substitute for single-card gaps in the sequence, once it is established, and go at the end if not used. They count as the cards they substitute would, namely, 5 points. Also, I need to explain why the formula is used even in cases where it is just as easy to count the points. The custom in Bologna is that at the end of the round only one side shows the cards they have amassed in tricks; from them the short-cut can be used to show one side's points from the other side's cards. Now here is Pagat.com :

1. If the opponents of the Angel have the World, Sun and Moon, or if they have two of these three cards with both contatori, there is no grande [grande is the name of a sequence that starts with the Angel].
2. Otherwise, identify the scavezzo (breaking card) - the highest numbered trump held by the opponents of the Angel that is not in the grande. Count how many contatori and trumps higher than the scavezzo the opponents of the Angel have, add this to the number of the scavezzo itself, subtract the result from 21 and multiply by 5. This is the value of the grande.
3. If there is no scavezzo - so that the team with the Angel have a grande fino ai calzettini (down to the socks) - then the scavezzo number is zero. Count all the trumps and contatori held by the opponents of the Angel, subtract that number from 21 and multiply by 5.

Then pagat.com gives examples, first from the perspective of the sequence itself:

1. Angel, World, Moon, 16: trump sequence of 4, worth 15 points
2. Angel, Matto (for the World or Sun), Moon, 16, 15, Bégato (for the 14), 13, 12: trump sequence of 8, worth 35 points. Note it is not necessary to replace both the World and the Sun with wild cards.
3. Angel, World, Sun, Moon, 16, Matto, Bégato, 13: trump sequence of 7, worth 30 points. Note this is not a sequence of 8: both the 15 and the 14 are missing, the gap of two stops the sequence, and the 13 cannot be added.

And then from the perspective of the scavezzo:

In example 1 above the scavezzo is the 15, and the opponents of the Angel have both contatori and the Sun. 15+3=18. 21-18=3. The value of the grande is 3×5=15.

In example 2 the scavezzo is the 11, and the opponents of the Angel have the World, Sun and 14 of trumps. 11+3=14. 21-14=7. The value of the grande is 7×5=35.

In example 3 the scavezzo is the 15 and the opponents have no trumps or contatori to count. 21-15=6. The value of the grande is 6×5=30.

If the opponents of the Angel have nothing relevant except the 7 of trumps, the Matto and one Moor the scavezzo is 0, 21-3=18 and the value of the grande is 18×5=90. This is a case in which the scavezzo method is clearly quicker than counting all the cards in the grande. The team with the grande will also score 15 for their sequence of Moors in this case.

Now here is what I want to say about that formula:

If Love was 6 and not 5, the formula could have just added one to the number to be subtracted from, i.e. 22 and not 21. Since there are 20 regular trumps and 2 contatori, 22 is perfectly reasonable. In that case, whatever Mori the opponents of the team with the Angel have will count as breaking the sequence. The number will be 5 (one less than that of Love) if they have all four, 4 if they have three, 3 if they have 2, 2 if they have 1. If none, you subtract 1 from 22. It is only this last that is counter-intuitive. But it is just a formula.

In pagat.com's first example, the scavezzo is the 15. The opponents of the team with the Angel have both contatori and the Sun. 15+3=18. 21-18=3. 3x5=15 points.

But subtracting from 22, if the scavezzo was 16, the result would be the same. 16+3=19. 22-19=3. 3x5=15.

Then if Love breaks the sequence, and the opponents have both contatori, we would have 6+2=8. 22-8=14. 14x5=70. This is the same as subtracting 5 from 21: 5+2=7. 21-7=14. 14x5=70.

In the case where the grande goes down to the Mori, it is whatever Moro breaks the sequence that is the scavezzo. Let us assume that the opponents of the Angel have 3 Mori and no contatori. Without contatori, they will have whatever two trumps the possessors of the Angel used the contatori to substitute for them. By the conventional formula, you add 3+2=5, subtracted from 21 equals 16. So the sequence totals 80. By the new formula, it is the second Moro, numbered 4, that breaks the sequence, which in the alternative will have the number 4+2=6, and 22-6 = 16. Either way, 16x5=80 points.

It is true that this business of adding one to the number of Mori is a bother. But it is easily gotten used to.

However, Pisarri's text refutes this argument. It is not that he has the numbers in his text (p. 40, bottom, shown in the last post) even before there were numbers on the cards. We don't actually know when numbers were put on the cards. If it was a gradual operation, Pisarri could have been conforming himself to a deck that did have numbers. It is true that he says he is copying an old manuscript, but in this part he may not be. Alternatively, the cards may have been commonly referred to by scavezzo number even before numbers were on the cards.

What is more important is Pisarri's way of thinking about the formula, which gives its rationale rather than just presenting a formula. He says (p. 41):

Spiegato ora il numero distinto d'ogni Trionfo, discendo a mostrar con due esempi la maniera d'adoperare gli stessi numeri. Pongasi dunque che quelli, che hanno perduto, si trovino avere in Tavola Amore e Vecchio e Matto. In questo caso sarà d'uopo notare l'ultimo Trionfo, che cavezza, e ricordandosi il numero, ch' egli ha, far così: all'Amore, che ha il 5, aggiugnere 'A Vecchio, e dire 6 poi il Matto, e dire 7. Fatto questo, si dovrà multiplicare eso numero 7 per 5 che fa 35, i quali 35 punti cavati dalli 105 punti di tutta la sequenza delIa Granda, restano 70 punti, numero preciso, che si ricavava dalla detta sequenza.

Having now explained the distinct number for each Triumph, I proceed to show with two examples the manner of using these numbers. Let it therefore be assumed that those who have lost are found to have Love and Old Man and Fool on the Table. In this case, it will be necessary to note the last Trump, which makes the break, and remembering the number it has, do as follows: to Love, which has 5, add to it the Vecchio, and say 6, then the Fool, and say 7. Having done this, you will have to multiply this number 7 by 5 which makes 35, which 35 points taken from the 105 points of the whole sequence of the Granda, there remain 70 points, the precise number obtained from said sequence.

This is the same procedure as on pagat.com, but presented differently. You start with the number of the card that makes the break, then add to it however many trumps are above it that the other team has (in this case the Vecchio, Old Man), plus whatever contatores it has (in this case the Fool). Then instead of subtracting it from 21 and then multiplying by 5, he multiplies by 5 and subtracts from 105 (21x5), which yields the number of points in the sequence.

Pisarri's second example (see my previous post) is a little more complex. The opponents of the team with the Angel have the Sun, the Tower, the Hanged Man and the Wheel. This means that the team with the Angel has Angel, World, and Moon, starting the sequence without the need for any wild cards, as well as the Star, to continue it. Then between Star and Devil it substitutes the Matto or Bagattino for the Tower. It then continues with Devil and Death with a gap of one after the latter. It uses the second wild card to substitute for the Hanged Man, between Death and Old Man. Lacking the Wheel, it has run out of wild cards and the run has to stop. To calculate the value of the sequence, you take the number of the Wheel, 10, and add the number of trumps above it not used in the sequence, 3 (not their scavezzo numbers, just how many cards there are), for 13. 13x5=65. 105-65=40, the value of the sequence.

For Pisarri - employing a common practice in tarocchi games - what is important is the total number of points and subtracting from that. Since it is 105, that prevents the version that subtracts from 22, because 22x5=110, not 105. That is, you subtract the points prevented by the break from the total possible. That number is given by the scavezzo number of the card causing the break, in the possession of the team that didn't have the Angel, plus whatever other trumps above it (including the Matto and the Bagattino) it has. From this perspective, it is absurd to make the figure to be subtracted from 5 more than the actual maximum.

We could change the total number of points to 110 if the value of the first three cards of the sequence totaled 15 instead of 10. But in that case, paradoxically, the scavezzo doesn't change. So in example 1, where the sequence is Angel, World, Moon, Star. The four cards = 20 points. Oddly enough, the scavezzo is still 15. 15+3= 18. 18x5 = 90. 110-90 = 20. Total number of points for 22 cards = 110.

So let us try 115. 16+3=19x5=95. 115-95 = 20. The first three get 15 points, which is what we wanted. But now the total number of points is still 22x5=110. It's not 115.

I have no idea whether there is some combination of points for an initial number of cards plus some other number per card that can have 16 as its scavezzo number. I haven't found one. It seems to be 15 that works.

But it is still worth asking, why is it that the first three cards are worth 10 and not 15? In Minchiate , sequences of at least three of the top five cards, Angel to Star, are worth 10 points per card, however many of the five one has. If it had been 5 points per card, three cards would be worth 15 points, not 10 as in Tarocchino. My answer: The feature of increasing the number of points per card as the combination becomes more difficult is also seen in the scoring of the criccone (3 or 4 of a kind); there it is even worse: 4 cards are worth twice what 3 cards are worth, and is doubled again if a team has three or more criccone.

Another question: Could the Bolognese game of Ottocento, more or less, or at least its way of scoring sequences, have been the game played in Florence early on, so that the numbers on the cards of the Charles VI (ChVI) were scavezzi, and all that was different was a slightly different order of trumps (Fortitude, Chariot)? There is more of a difference than the order of trumps: there is no reason for scavezzo numbers on the cards below Love and on the top four, if the game was Ottocento. If it was a variant in which the "papi" were ranked by gender and papal vs. imperial, there still wouldn't be numbers on the top four. Those numbers on the ChVI have as their only function that of indicating their order. However, I suppose that could be someone's personal preference: if you're going to number the rest of the cards, why not the last few?

Then there is the question of the unnumbered Bagatello. In Minchiate, a Florentine game, the only card that could be added to sequences was the Matto. Is there any other reason why it would be unnumbered in the 78 card version that preceded it, having to do with the the scoring of points in sequences? What concerns me is whether it is necessary to have the Tower at 15, to serve as a scavezzo number, and so on all the way down. Then Love will have to be 5. If so, and there are four "papi," the Bagatello is left at 0. This requires more thought.

Corrected from what was here originally a few hours earlier.

One further thought, added a little later: On the other hand, if the team with the Angel wins all the trumps and the Matto, but doesn't get the Bagatello - assuming it is not a contatore - then it doesn't have all 105 points, so that the Bagatello can't have a scavezzo number of zero. It has to be 1, taking away 5 points from the 105. Yet Love is 5, and there are four "papi." I don't get it.

Added next day: Let me try again. With just one contatore, the maximum number of points is still 105. However there is one less contatore to add to the scavezza. In example one, where the granda is Angel, World, Moon, Star, if the scavezzo is 15, we add the Sun and the Matto, 15+2 = 17, 17x5=75. 105-75=30. But in fact the granda is 15. If the scavezzo number is 16, then the computation is 16+2= 18. 18x5=90. 105-90=15, which is correct. That was my mistake, assuming that the scavezzo number would be the same with one contatore. The Tower card has to be 16, the same as its ordinal number. In that case, on condition that the Matto is the only contatore, the little numbers on the Charles VI wouldn't be scavezzo numbers.

Now let me add my other variation, that the first three cards of the Grande have the same value as the rest of the cards, 5 points. In that case example one is a granda of 20 points, and the total number of points is 110. In that case 16 + 2 = 18. 18x5= 90. 110-90= 20. So that variation still doesn't make any difference.

Now my conclusion is that the numbers on the Charles VI, at least those below the Moon, are scavezzo numbers only if the game in Florence was the same as in Bologna, with both the Bagatella and the Matto as contatori. Well, I suppose that is not very remarkable. Minchiate could have reduced the contatori to one easily enough. Since a form of Minchiate already existed by the time the numbers were added, it would have been rather confusing for players, but not too badly, as other rules would have been different, too. The main problem is why the Bolognese would have waited so long to put scavezzo numbers on the cards. It seems likely that they discovered the short cut only later. Pedini does not mention it. Whoever put the numbers on the ChVI could have discovered it independently. There remains the issue of why the Moon, Sun, World, and Angel would have been numbered. It seems to me that it was only to indicate the order. If the rest of the numbers were scavezzi, such numbers would suggest that a grande was possible with even one or two of the highest cards, the third filled in by a conttore. If they are not scavezzi, probably the same would have been true throughout. In that case the Bagatello would have been number 1, not unnumbered, so as to distinguish it from the Matto, and the analogy to Bologna fails. How strong this argument is I'd better not say at this point, as there are also arguments on the other side.