Re: The 14 + 8 theory

71
Phaeded wrote: 29 May 2022, 16:17 Seriously, that's what you consider conclusive proof - worse photos than what is available on-line? First of all, unlike your quality shot of the Ace of Cups these shaky photos - and the distracting light reflection (flash?) on all of the tooled elements - compare that to Wiki's hi-res after yours below. But to the point, the quatrefoil on the batons still looks like oxidized silver with a golden-hued shield, but the Knight of Swords (images below), the quatrefoil has a gold-greenish hue, but the right half of the shield a goldish hue, both set off from the surrounding silver; that is crystal clear on your own photo - not enhanced in any way, just enlarged:
My photos are not good, I admitted this in a previous post. These images of the knights are part of a picture of 8 cards together. The light was very bad and flash was prohibited, so no flash! But at least these images are taken from the original cards, that I saw with my own eyes. I'm not talking about the quatrefoils, these are only decoration, I'm only talking about the blazons. Your so called hi-res wiki image is a copy of the very bad reproduction made by US systems, never make the big mistake to take conclusions based on card reproductions. You have to base yourself on the original cards, just like I did. There is no golden hue or whatsoever on the white part of the blazon.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

72
Huck wrote: 22 May 2022, 04:23
I agree, that a hierarchical row of the 4 cardinal virtues ...
Justice = all three balanced
---------
Prudentia = spirit
Fortitudo = soul
Termperantia = body
... is the most logical arrangement and for this reason the best.

However, the practical real row arrangements of Trionfi sequences don't mirror this "most logical arrangement".

Mantegna Tarocchi
----------------------------
37 Justice
36 Fortitudo !!!
35 Prudentia !!!
34 Temperantia

Minchiate
---------------
17 Prudentia !!!
8 Justice !!!
7 Fortitudo
6 Temperantia

In most rows Prudentia has disappeared.
The original ordering Huck displays
Justice = all three balanced
---------
Prudentia = spirit
Fortitudo = soul
Termperantia = body


is the one from Plato's Politeia or Nomoi. Note that for Plato Prudentia is as well phronesis and sophia, so it is more prudence in the English form,, see Wikipedia "Prudence is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason".

For Christian scholars, however, Wisdom is something else and more: it is the insight God gives, which is not attainable by logic or reason. Prudentia does not disappear, it is transformed in the Christian Wisdom, leaning on the Salomonic tradition of the Bible (another insight you get when following Dante, since there is a lengthyful discussion of this in the Paradiso.)

I just wrote about it:
vh0610 wrote: 31 May 2022, 21:24

Note that the three Christian virtues are part of interrogations in the celestial paradise, whereas the four classic ones are not (in the triumphal procession of the earthy paradise in the last cantos of the Purgatory, this difference is also made). These three Christian virtues are in a certain sense beyond this world -- to be known “by heart” in the celestial paradise, as the interrogations show. Prudence in the sense of spiritual Wisdom (and not in the sense of scientific knowledge or ordered mind) is also heavily discussed in the Paradise, so it is also beyond earth. The Minchiate deck displays these four after the casa del Dio, with Love as the culmination, as always in Dante.
In other words: wisdom/prudentia is in the cards as a higher virtue, for Minchiate and Mantegna it is clear, for the others it does not disappear, after transformation it can be either -following Dante in Purgatory-- the sun, or it is --mostly-- the angel on top of the world (following Solomon) or in the World card with the tetramoprh, or it is the angel on the Judgement card (this you can derive from the triumphal procession at the end of the purgatory).

If you wish, I can detail it.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

73
Iolon, here's my long overdue response to your post from two weeks ago:
Iolon wrote: 21 May 2022, 16:37 1. Why do you say the cardinal virtues don't have a fixed order. Since Plato this order did not change: Temperance, Force, Prudence and Justice.
Ross's response to you has already covered this issue pretty thoroughly now without me needing to add much (although I must point out, once again, that the Rosenwald sheet is not a good reference for the order of the virtues, because Justice and Fortitude are both numbered VIII, and the trumps were obviously not rigorously placed in their correct order on the sheet). As for Plato, he doesn't really seem to have ranked the cardinal virtues. Even Justice was presented as being dependent on the other three, not superior to them. In any case, as I have already said, I think the mere fact of the variation in the ranking of the cardinals in the various tarot trump orders is itself sufficient evidence that there was no obvious, intuitive, generally accepted order for them.
2. You have to be extremely prudent to state that Florence and Milan had the same order of the highest trumps. In fact, we don't have a single clue about the order in the Visconti Sforza trumps, at least not what concerns the order during the time that Filippo Maria still lived.
My arguments in this regard form a hypothesis, not a statement of historical fact. That being said, we do have a couple of reasonably good clues to the ranking of the highest trumps in both the Visconti Sforza deck (the PMB) and the Visconti di Modrone deck (the CY). Ross has already mentioned one of them in this thread, namely Thierry Depaulis' observations that five of the six replacement cards in the Visconti Sforza deck rank highly in the Type C order, that all of them except World have the same cliff-edge at the bottom that we also see on the Death card (which would be the next one down from the replacement cards in the order), and that it is likely that they were all lost together, along with the original Devil and Lightning cards. It is not hard to imagine this happening: In some 16th century tarot games, players appear to have scored points for assembling sets of cards from the tricks they won (such as the five lowest cards, the five highest cards, and so forth). This was a feature of the Minchiate game, for example. Perhaps a player had assembled all the cards from Temperance to World on the table in front of them, and then someone knocked a drink over, flooding the cards with wine... So this set of five lost cards makes it seem like World would have been the second-highest card in this deck. (I also think Depaulis was right about Temperance being above Death in the Visconti Sforza deck, meaning that its order would have been essentially Type C except for the top two. I don't think the additional replacement of Fortitude really undermines this much; it is quite conceivable that the Fortitude card could have suffered damage independently at some other moment.)

But there is also another point which I think confirms this ranking of the Visconti Sforza Judgment and World cards beyond doubt, and it greatly surprises me that no one seems to have ever pointed it out before: The Judgment card has God on it. Many people in the 15th century thought it was blasphemous to depict a figure like God on a playing card at all (which is probably one reason why no other surviving card from this time does); imagine how much more blasphemous it would have seemed if He had been on a card that was inferior to another card which only had a couple of little angels on it! This is simply inconceivable. The Visconti Sforza Judgment card, with God in His majesty in pride of place in top center, was unquestionably intended to be the highest card. Moreover, it seems likely that the designers put God on the card partly in order to emphasize its rank, because this ordering was probably a minority preference in Lombardy at the time; certainly we know that Lombardy eventually rejected this ordering in favor of the World as highest.

Things look very different in the Visconti di Modrone deck. Here, God is (as usual) not on the Judgment card, which has no prominent central figure at all. The World card, on the other hand, has a layout reminiscent of the Visconti Sforza Judgment card, with a prominent central figure in the top half, holding similarly shaped objects in a similar pose.
The two other cards of the top pair (Visconti Sforza World and Visconti di Modrone Judgment) likewise look broadly similar to each other: Both feature two small angels, without any main central figure. This again looks like a deliberate decision by the designers of the Visconti Sforza deck, imitating the layout of the second-highest card in the earlier Visconti decks for their World card, just as they imitated the layout of the formerly highest card for their Judgment card. In each case, the result is an extremely unusual design: Just as the Visconti Sforza Judgment card is only one to have God on it, so too the Visconti Sforza World card is the only one to lack a main central figure. All other early World cards have an allegorical female figure or an angelic figure centrally placed above the world.
Image
Image
.
Visconti-Sforza World, Judgment
Image
Image
.
Visconti di Mondrone Judgment, World

On the Visconti di Modrone World, the figure is admittedly not God. However, we can be very certain[1] that the female figure was an allegorical personification of Eternity, the highest of Petrarch's Trionfi (with the landscape below representing the "new world" described in the poem), whereas the Last Judgment is merely an event described in the Eternity poem. This makes the World/Eternity card very likely to have been the highest ranked. This impression is strongly reinforced by the large crown in the center of the card, which inevitably suggests sovereignty, rulership, supreme power. All in all, this image strongly suggests that the card was the highest in the trump sequence, especially when contrasted with the Judgment card. And of course, this is also consistent with what became the standard trump order in Milan.

How do we explain the change in order from what looks like Type C in Visconti di Modrone to the C' of the Visconti Sforza, and then back again to Type C? I have already presented the basis for an explanation in my "14+8" posts in this thread, namely that Milan had the World as the highest ranked card from the beginning, when the Trionfi trump sequence was shorter and based more directly on Petrarch's poem cycle, and then Milan adopted a modified sequence created in Florence, where World had been demoted to second and Judgment promoted in its place. As I said in those posts, I think Milan ultimately rejected the change to the order of top two trumps, leading to the formation of the Type C order. But it is possible, or indeed quite likely, that a certain minority of people in Milan and Lombardy initially accepted the Florentine order in its entirety and hung on to the Florentine order for the top two for several years, before finally acquiescing to the majority. This minority apparently did not include Filippo Maria Visconti, but presumably did include Francesco Sforza (perhaps because he first learned to play tarot in Florence, or in the company of Sigismondo Malatesta?) and also the members of Bon family in Bergamo. In other words, for most people in Milan, the World was originally the top ranked trump, and for them that never changed; but for a while there was a minority who regarded the Judgment/Angel card as the top trump instead, before eventually adopting the same order as everyone else. (The rest of the trump sequence probably settled into the Type C order fairly early and was accepted by all, with only the top two remaining a bone of contention for some time; this is easy to imagine, because we know from other moments in tarot history that the highest trumps were typically the focus of more attention from the players than any others, and prompted more resistance to change in their ranking.)

I'll add here an incidental comment on the question of whether the copied PMB cards are forgeries or not, which was raised in passing by Ross: According to the talk that Thierry Depaulis gave at the Tarots Enluminées study day in March, the PMB copies probably are forgeries. There is apparently paint on some of them which dates from after 1875, and some were painted on parchment, which is otherwise unknown for Renaissance playing cards—not surprisingly, as its fragility and tendency to warp into a curve makes it completely impractical. I think he allowed the possibility that some of the copies might still be genuine, but it didn't sound very likely, on the whole. It looks like he is going to revisit this topic at the Morgan study day this month, so you can hear all the details from him then.
(I still haven't received confirmation from the Morgan for that study day, by the way; should I be concerned? Have the rest of you received your confirmations yet?)
3. I strongly disagree with you that the 14 or even 22 trump structure developed in Milan. In 1441 the Duke of Ferrara gave 14 figures to Bianca Maria Visconti, most probable the trumps of a 70 cards Tarot deck and later that year the Visconti di Modrone with, what I believe, 16 trump cards. [...]
We must "agree to disagree" about that then.

[1] : More evidence for why we can be very certain of this will be presented in my upcoming essay.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

74
I want to weigh in on the order of virtues issue. It seems to me that we cannot go by paintings, because besides being all sorts of sequences, and whether to go from right to left, left to right, or center outwards is up to the viewer. Also, there are many other variables. What is needed is an authority.

Plato's order really is a hierarchy, because it is based on the model of the three parts of the soul, which in turn are related to the three parts of the body: stomach and genitals lowest, then heart and lungs, then head. Food and sex are less important than breath (pneuma, also spirit), and all of these are under the authority of the rational part of the soul, corresponding to the head (well, at least I think that's where he put it: it doesn't matter, since reason is what is operative). The only uncertainty is whether wisdom (Plato's version of prudence in the Republic) is higher than Justice. Justice is Plato's most important virtue, since it concerns everyone, even if it is dispensed by the wise. In those days, the Republic was the dialogue people knew addressing this issue.

Aquinas's order of virtues is straightforward, in the last sentence of the following quote, and I expect it was quoted in many a sermon (Summa Theologia II-II-123-12, (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3123.htm#article12).
As Augustine says (De Trin. vi), "In things that are great, but not in bulk, to be great is to be good": wherefore the better a virtue the greater it is.Now reason's good is man's good, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) prudence, since it is a perfection of reason, has the good essentially: while justice effects this good, since it belongs to justice to establish the order of reason in all human affairs: whereas the other virtues safeguard this good, inasmuch as they moderate the passions, lest they lead man away from reason's good. As to the order of the latter, fortitude holds the first place, because fear of dangers of death has the greatest power to make man recede from the good of reason: and after fortitude comes temperance, since also pleasures of touch excel all others in hindering the good of reason. Now to be a thing essentially ranks before effecting it, and the latter ranks before safeguarding it by removing obstacles thereto. Wherefore among the cardinal virtues, prudence ranks first, justice second, fortitude third, temperance fourth, and after these the other virtues.
While the reasoning may need more explaining, the conclusion is clear enough.

He immediately adds that Ambrose put Fortitude highest, but says that the statement was in the particular context of having to do with both military and civil matters. Aquinas was a higher authority than Ambrose in any case.

I think that the Rosenwald does count in favor of Fortitude being higher than Justice in it, because in all but one placement on that sheet, the order does conform to known A orders. The one exception, the Wheel, is not in accord with either A order: nowhere is it after the Hanged Man. Fortitude is between VIII Justice and X Chariot. So it is very likely just misnumbered.

Ross, where does Depaulis give the argument that the Chariot was originally above the virtues, since it is one of the 12 on the Paris sheets? I have been treating that argument as though it was something I thought of, so if Depaulis said it first, I want to know.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

75
mikeh wrote: 07 Jun 2022, 13:06
Ross, where does Depaulis give the argument that the Chariot was originally above the virtues, since it is one of the 12 on the Paris sheets? I have been treating that argument as though it was something I thought of, so if Depaulis said it first, I want to know.
I don't think he's published this interpretation anywhere, only said it in a private communication to me. You've come to it independently.

Added later: I've been searching for the post, but can't find it. I don't think it could have been a verbal communication, since I haven't seen Thierry in person since 2012.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

76
Thanks for trying, Ross. Well, I'm glad he agrees with me. My post was Nov. 1, 2020, at
viewtopic.php?p=22895#p22895, first post.

Now I have two questions about the 6 added cards. The main one is, why de' Russo? In the essay naming him, I could find no argument other than that he was Ferrara-schooled and did work in Venice, which is where the other 14 cards are thought to have been meant to go. That is what is known as circumstantial evidence, which would fit many, including some whose whereabouts weren't that closely tracked. There was also an appeal to authority, namely that of an art historian specializing in de' Russo. Well, art historians are focused on one aspect of the total picture. In any case, what is there about de' Russo's style in particular that leads to that conclusion, him and nobody else? For example, why is Cicognara excluded? Most art historians previously thought him a perfectly good candidate, and from looking at his work in the Cremona museum, I can't exclude him. Looking at de' Russo's work from that period on the internet, all I could find were sad-faced Madonnas similar to the lady on the Temperance, Star, and Moon cards. But Madonnas looking at their bambinos with prescient sadness were popular. There is a Jacopo Bellini sad-faced Madonna, for example. I hope there is more to it than that.

Another question is perhaps too simple-minded, but I will ask it anyway. Why would a Venetian family want to pay an artist to do a Milan-oriented Fortitude/Forza card, showing a man with his stick raised before a cringing lion, given that the Lion was Venice's animal? I am not aware that people were so concerned then about preserving an original model as opposed to making creative adjustments to fit new circumstances. And I cannot imagine that Francesco would be so undiplomatic as to approve such a design, even for use as an examplar or display in Milan or Cremona. It seems to me more his sons' style, thinking themselves high and mighty.
Last edited by mikeh on 08 Jun 2022, 10:59, edited 2 times in total.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

77
mikeh wrote: 08 Jun 2022, 01:49 Thanks for trying, Ross. Well, I'm glad he agrees with me. My post was Nov. 1, 2020, at
viewtopic.php?p=22895#p22895, first post.
Excellent observation. I'm open to the possibility of the original sequence to have gone Love-3 Virtues-Chariot-Fortune, both from the Croce list and this insight deduced from the BAR sheets' cards. My reservations stem from seeing no point in the Bolognese lowering the position of the Chariot, whereas movement and changes can be observed in Florence's ordering, such as the suppression of one of the papi and the removal of the religious trappings of another one, resulting in three secular figures; and the movement of the Chariot from immediately before to immediately after Fortune.

The Chariot does tend to move, or the Virtues do, displacing the Chariot. In Viéville, the order is Love-Justice-Chariot-Fortitude-Fortune. Does Viéville show a "transition phase," and is the Chariot moving down, or up? At least in all of the other French decks, as well as the "Belgian" family related to Viéville, the Chariot is VII, after Love. And this is the order in the Steele Sermon (while Temperance is placed before both Love and Chariot, of course typical for B), and in the Italian Leber Tarot in Rouen, early 16th century, so this position for the Chariot is attested early in Italy. In Rosenwald the Chariot is X, after the virtues (like the Charles VI and Catania numbering), and Fortune, while out of order and unnumbered on the sheet, should be XI. The weirdest position is the other B sequence, of the Budapest sheets, where the Chariot can only be VII, between VI Temperance and VIII Love. It's weird because it is the only order I know where Love is higher than the Chariot.

Either way, it does not matter for the groupment theory of meaning, that is that Love, the Virtues, and the Chariot belong together below the Wheel of Fortune. They are a single "picture" of such an idealized triumphal car, like Borso's manuscript painting or Federico da Montefeltro's panel. The relevant proverbial phrase that goes with it was already quoted by Panofsky to Moakley, Cicero's "Duce virtute comite fortuna" - with virtue leading, (good) fortune is a companion. This could equally well apply to the logic of placing the Chariot after Fortune as well; the triumphator has all virtue AND good fortune. Except that the Wheel of Fortune always depicts the downward turn, which makes most sense in the context of what follows in the trump sequence.

So, I remain tentative on the "high" Chariot, but I am certain that Love belongs first, and that the Virtues and the Chariot belong in the same section or group.
Now I have two questions about the 6 added cards. The main one is, why de' Russo? In the essay naming him, I could find no argument other than that he was Ferrara-schooled and did work in Venice, which is where the other 14 cards are thought to have been meant to go. That is what is known as circumstantial evidence, which would fit many, including some whose whereabouts weren't that closely tracked. There was also an appeal to authority, namely that of an art historian specializing in de' Russo. Well, art historians are focused on one aspect of the total picture. In any case, what is there about de' Russo's style in particular that leads to that conclusion, him and nobody else? For example, why is Cicognara excluded? Most art historians previously thought him a perfectly good candidate, and from looking at his work in the Cremona museum, I can't exclude him. Looking at de' Russo's work from that period on the internet, all I could find were sad-faced Madonnas similar to the lady on the Temperance, Star, and Moon cards. But Madonnas looking at their bambinos with prescient sadness were popular. There is a Jacopo Bellini sad-faced Madonna, for example. I hope there is more to it than that.
I can't personally defend it any more than that. Franco de' (or dei) Russi just seems like the best attribution yet. What is most important is that a Venetian artist and context is now the consensus.
Another question is perhaps too simple-minded, but I will ask it anyway. Why would a Venetian family want to pay an artist to do a Milan-oriented Fortitude/Forza card, showing a man with his stick raised before a cringing lion, given that the Lion was Venice's animal? I am not aware that people were so concerned then about preserving an original model as opposed to making creative adjustments to fit new circumstances. And I cannot imagine that Francesco would be so undiplomatic as to approve such a design, even for use as an examplar or display in Milan or Cremona. It seems to me more his sons' style, thinking themselves high and mighty.
This I can't answer. My reaction to the image finds it jarring if this card is understood to have been made for a Venetian, like Venice is being beaten. Even if Hercules and the Nemean Lion is understood, the symbolism of the Lion for Venetians could not be lost. On the other hand, maybe it is to be read as the Lion ready to pounce forward, and "Hercules" reading to swing his club, both facing the same enemy. Seems like a stretch, though.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

78
Thanks, Ross. I have a couple more things to say. First, as far as moving the Chariot. One reason is the purpose given to it in the Tekely poem, done late in the same century as it would have moved.

The last tercet goes:
Temper your ardor, slow your Chariot, and quickly
Leave off the immature desire of Love of Rule,
Do not take the Pope for a Bagattino or a Fool.

(Tempra l’ardir, trattien il Carro, e ratto / Lascia d’Amor d’Imper la voglia acerba, / Ne il Papa tien qual Bagattin, o Matto.)
Here it's clear that there are two types of immature ardor that need tempering, power and love, which combine as the lust for power. So having them both trumped by Temperance, a verb (temper) in Bologna, as well as the other virtues, makes sense. Then Fortuna can do her thing.

About the card with the lion: there is then the question, what alternative scenario is there, for that Fortitude card ending up in a deck done for a Venetian? Others, maybe Phaeded, have suggested that perhaps it and the others were on the market at some point, and some later owner of the original bunch bought or traded for them, to fill out the sequence. The only motif in the deck that carries through on the new cards is the cliff feature, and that was common enough. We somehow assume that there was only one Visconti-Sforza deck. But wouldn't the Sforza have made at least one for themselves? If so, they could have had the cards done, and the later owner of the Venetian version bought them. So maybe they were part of a different deck now lost, or never finished or commissioned as a whole.

Another possibility: they were special cards done for some special purpose: as memorial cards. I find some sense to the argument that these cards have Sforza family members in them: the daughter Elisabetta Maria, for the woman (she died in childbirth, really too young to bear a succession of children, and resembles other girls in other paintings, in a context with people who also resemble family members); Francesco, for the man, and various sons as the putti, one grabbing the sun, others pointing to the renovated Milan as the New Jerusalem. The Sforza seemed to have liked to put themselves in their paintings; notably, there is the Adoration of the Magi that seems to have all the sons in it. In our own day we have decks with real people in them. Dali inserted his wife. I have photos of a series devoted to a famous Spanish singer who died early, perhaps the 1990s, I don't remember her name.

In short, there are scenarios less odd than a Venetian ordering a card with a cringing lion. This is not to say that Russi could not have had other contracts, with people who weren't Venetian. If so, he could have done them later, too. There is also a question of just when Russo would have arrived in Urbino. The last link below, the Vatican, says that he arrived there in the middle of the 1470s, if I understand it properly. He may have done some work for him while still in Venice, too.

Here are some Russis on the Web.

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O498 ... -giovanni/

https://www.naturalpigments.com/artist- ... -workshop/

https://blogs.getty.edu/iris/explore-re ... ur-laptop/

https://spotlight.vatlib.it/it/latin-cl ... rb_lat_308 (click on the Diomedes)

https://spotlight.vatlib.it/it/latin-cl ... -1455-1482

The resemblances to the cards seem to me superficial. Anyone could do a sad virgin. Russi is said to have been influenced by Bellini, who did a famous sad virgin, but surely Russi wasn't alone. The putti have no resemblance at all. Perhaps I am missing something.

Added: one more link, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_dei_Russi. It has one more image and says the project in Urbino was 1474-1482.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

80
Huck wrote: 08 Jun 2022, 19:03
mikeh wrote: 08 Jun 2022, 12:19 Thanks, Ross. I have a couple more things to say. First, as far as moving the Chariot. One reason is the purpose given to it in the Tekely poem, done late in the same century as it would have moved.
The expression "Tekely poem" isn't introduced in the Forum ...
http://trionfi.com/pratesi-cartomancer
... "Techeli" leads to the "Pratesi cartomancer".
I haven't studied it, but here is the information I have, from a list of Tarocchi Appropriati I made in 2007 -
11. 1680-1690 Bologna
Anonymous, "Il Giuoco di Tarocchini sopra Michele Tekeli Ribello."
(Berti and Vitali 1987, 109-110 (no. 39)); Vitali and Zanetti 2005, 67 and 171 (text); Berti
2007, 179-180)
Text:
Image


Angiol d’Inferno sei Michel, ch’al Mondo
Tentasti d’Austria il Sol vendere nero,
Tù la Luna Ottomana, Astro, ch’è immondo,
suscitasti fellon contro l’Impero.

Stella d’orror della Saetta il pondo,
qual Demonio infernal, scoccasti fiero,
Con influsso di Morte il brando à fondo,
Girasti Traditor, Vecchio severo;

La Ruota alla fortun ampia superba
Con la Forza inchiodar speravi affatto
Di te Giusta vendetta odio si serba;

Tempra l’ardir trattieni il carro, e ratto
Lascia d’Amor, d ‘Imper la voglia acerba,
Ne il Papa vien per Bagattin, ò Matto.

Commentary:

Da un manoscritto presso la Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna, copia messa a disposizione da Andrea Vitali dell’Associazione Le Tarot.
La grafia è seicentesca. Il componimento è un sonetto classico. Riporta l’ordine bolognese dei trionfi, che sono sottolineati nel testo. I bolognesi numerarono i trionfi nel XVIII secolo. Al momento della redazione di questo sonetto, il mazzo dei tarocchini non aveva ancora numerato le icone dei trionfi. Sembra dunque che fosse destinato a essere mandato a mente per aiutare i giocatori a ricordarne la scala durante il gioco.
La scala bolognese è così riportata : Angelo, Mondo, Sole, Luna Stella, Saetta, Diavolo, Morte, Traditore, Vecchio, Ruota della Fortuna, Forza, Giusta, Tempra, Carro, Amore, Papi, Bagattino e Matto.
Queste denominazioni sono bolognesi. In particolare la Saetta identifica la Folgore o Fuoco, il Traditore l’Appeso, il Vecchio o Tempo l'Eremita, la Giusta la Giustizia, la Tempra la Temperanza.

L’involontario protagonista del sonetto è Michele Tekeli. L’ungherese Imre Thoekeli era un nobile magiaro protestante dei tempi dell'assedio turco ottomano di Vienna. Nelle varie lingue, questo nome è riportato con variazioni. Il nome proprio latino era Emericus, quello europeo contemporaneo era Michele. Thoekeli diventa talvolta nei documenti Toekeli, o Tokeli, o, come in questo caso, Tekeli.
Nel 1682, Thoekeli, alleato all’Impero Ottomano contro l’Impero Austriaco, si firmava con questi versi in turco :
Sono un amico della Grande Famiglia Ottomana. Sono ai loro ordini.
Sono il Re dell’Ungheria Centrale. Mi chiamo Tokeli Imre.
Nel 1682 gli Ottomani mobilitarono un grande esercito pare di 200.000 uomini per prendere Vienna. Vienna era cattolica e capitale dell'Impero Romano d'Occidente. Thoekeli, a capo d’una fazione di nobili e baroni in storica lotta contro il predominio absburgico, si alleò coi turchi, col disegno di diventare re d’Ungheria e forse, una volta caduta Vienna, qualcosa di più. La propaganda cattolica sparse la voce che per compiacere i suoi potenti alleati Thoekeli si convertì all’Islam.
Come sappiamo, l’assedio di Vienna terminò nel 1683 con la totale disfatta dei turchi per mano dell’alleanza composta da truppe in prevalenza cattoliche : polacchi, imperiali, bavaresi e sassoni guidati dal re di Polonia Giovanni III Sobieski.
Questi dati lasciano congetturare che il sonetto sia successivo al 1683. Forse è databile tra il 1685 e il 1690.

Riportiamo qui sopra una gustosa vignetta in parodia della sconfitta turca a Vienna nel 1683. Si trova presso la Biblioteca Forteguerriana di Pistoia. Scorgiamo tre protagonisti : il tedesco, il Gran Turco e il veneziano che giocano a Primiera. Il turco ha quattro carte di seme diverso, quindi una primiera. Il veneziano ha un 55, cioé Sette, Sei Asso dello stesso seme, in questo caso di denari. Il tedesco vince il piatto con un flusso, quattro carte dello stesso seme, in questo caso di spade. I semi dei punti vincenti sono allusivi : denari veneziani e armi tedesche contro una primiera multietnica.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160810071 ... le-tekeli/