Giordano Berti
- Storia dei tarocchi: veritą e leggende sulle
carte pił misteriose del mondo," (Milan, Mondadori, 2007)
Giordano Berti is an Italian author of considerable productivity in the theme of Tarocchi, compare
our biography. In his recent work in Italian language he remarks a few words to the central theme of Trionfi.com, the 5x14-theory:
pp. 18-20, translation by Ross Caldwell:
"There are even those who suggest that the game of Triumphs could
have been introduced to Ferrara by Bianca Maria Visconti, on the
occasion of her long stay in that city, from September 1440 to April
1441, as guest of the marquis Niccolo III d'Este. One indication is
furnished by a notice of payment for the 1st of January, 1441, where
there is recorded a disbursement in the amount of 2 lire and 5 soldi:
"A Magistro Iacopo de Sagramoro depentore per XIIII figure dipinte
in carte de bambaxo et mandate a Madama Bianca da Milano per fare
festa la scira della Circuncisione de l'anno presente." [note refers
to the Francesschini entry, see also our main article].
This notice should be examined with great attention. In the first
place, Iacopo (or Iacomo) Sagramoro, is the same one who, as we have
seen, was paid in 1422 for having painted 13 cards [compare Trionfi.com article], and again in
1442 for four packs of Triumphs. The payment of 2 lire, 5 soldi for
the fourteen cards given to Bianca Maria is a number proportionally
higher than the 6 lire for a whole pack of Triumphs. It is evident
that the figures painted for Bianca Maria were expensive, equivalent
to two months wages for a cobbler or tailor. But what gives greatest
pause is the number of figures commissioned by Sagramoro: fourteen,
in fact, is also the exact number of triumph cards in the Visconti-
Sforza Tarot, discounting the six cards which were executed at a
later time. These singular coincidences have pushed some to
hypothesize that, originally, the Tarot pack was not composed of 78
cards, but of 70, so that any suit (Cups, Coins, Batons, Swords and
Triumphs) had the same number of cards (14 x 5 = 70). A confirmation
of this hypothesis may come from another notice of payment, albeit
later by 15 years; July 21 1457, the treasurer of the Este court
wrote in the Registro dei Mandati:
[here follows the note to the Fancesschini entry 1457]
Thus, are we to believe that the first Tarots had fourteen Triumphs,
rather than twenty-two? It is possible, but not absolutely certain,
given that we do not know if the fourteen figures given to Bianca
Maria were Triumph cards. At the same time is not possible to affirm
that the commission of these fourteen cards came from Bianca Maria
herself.
It should be emphasized that in 1441 the future Duchess of Milan was
fifteen years old; for that era she was therefore an adult woman.
Also, she was extremely cultivated, so much so that the celebrated
humanist Guarino Veronese had delivered a eulogy when meeting her.
Could Bianca Maria have been in a position to guide a painter in
making a series of complex allegorical figures like the Triumphs?
Perhaps yes, if she had brought an example with her from Cremona, to
use as a model. Regarding the content of the allegories, they
certainly do not present images pertaining to a religious holiday,
the Circumcision of Jesus Christ, for which the fourteen cards were
explicitly realized. Yet it does not seem possible that such
allegories were identical to the fourteen original Triumphs of the
Visconti-Sforza pack, given that the series of cardinal virtues is
incomplete: the allegory of Justice, by herself, does not have the
same symbolic value. From which we can deduce that the fourteen
figures painted for Bianca Maria constituted a unique game, the look
of which we are ignorant." |
Ross Caldwell added his comment:
It's easy to feel slighted that Berti doesn't mention Lothar,
autorbis or trionfi.com, but there are many more - or equally -
important omissions of deep source-checking and plain sloppiness in
the book.
This book is not to be relied upon for exact details. For instance, he says on page 17 that Iacomo Guerzo, a servant and
wannabe artist, was paid 12 lire and 4 soldi [!!! which would have made to a very very expensive deck between the d'Este court card productions] for a pack of trionfi for the two boys [the actual price was 12 soldi and 3
denari - and this is the price of the cheapest known Trionfi deck produced for the d'Este court, and especially this condition gives this entry its specific worth, cause it contains the implication, that the early Trionfi-decks were not only objects for the courts], and it was given to Iacomo to pay to Marchione Burdochio [according to Ortalli - the actual entry given by Franceschini
doesn't mention Marchione, but says that the entry was among those
made to him].
In any case, an account of the 5x14 theory is now in print in
Italian.
Huck Meyer added:
- (in a Trionfi title page statement June 2007)
ACTUAL NEWS: Finally ... a reaction of the world of books (2007)
- to the 5x14-theory
We were reached this month by the news, that a text of
Giordano Berti, "Storia dei tarocchi: veritą e leggende sulle
carte pił misteriose del mondo," (Milan, Mondadori, 2007), pp. 18-20, reports about the 5x14-theory. Translated by Ross Caldwell:
"There are even those who suggest that the game of Triumphs could
have been introduced to Ferrara by Bianca Maria Visconti, on the
occasion of her long stay in that city, from September 1440 to April
1441, as guest of the marquis Niccolo III d'Este. One indication is
furnished by a notice of payment for the 1st of January, 1441, where
there is recorded a disbursement in the amount of 2 lire and 5 soldi" and then follows the entry, which was detected by us in March 2003 and
reported by us the same year:
| "A Magistro Iacopo de Sagramoro depentore per XIIII figure dipinte
in carte de bambaxo et mandate a Madama Bianca da Milano per fare
festa la scira della Circuncisione de l'anno presente." (which translated means: "And on the said day (1 January) two lire, five soldi marchesane, reckoned to Maestro Jacopo de Sagramoro, painter, for 14 figures painted on cotton paper and sent to Lady Bianca of Milan, to make festive the celebration of the Circumcision of the present year ... L. II. V."). |
Oh, well ... these anonymous "those who suggest" in Giordano Berti's text (and he actually seems to have forgotten to mention Trionfi.com at all) actually were
Ross Caldwell and
autorbis (both Trionfi.com authors), who met in December 2002 in the web and agreed with some others to join energies to research insecurities in the representation of older Tarot origin theories under the guidance of trionfi.com, especially the somehow not discussed statement (in that time not discussed, but times change), that Tarot cards reached their basic form (22 special cards + 4x14 small arcana) ca. 1450. This older statement was based on the existence of the socalled Pierpont Morgan Bergamo Tarocchi, which has remaining 54 small arcana cards and 20 special cards. This earlier theory interpreted a disturbing fact (that the 20 special cards were recognizable painted by two different artists) in the way, that 6 cards were lost and replaced later. Trionfi.com author autorbis, who studied the case already in 1989 in detail, found, especially on the base of mathematical calculations, that this explanation prefers an
unprobable case instead of a much more probable, in which an original deck with a 5x14-structure was originally given (and remained in its special form nearly complete till nowadays) and later enlarged to a greater version with some more cards. Autorbis discussed his opinion at private occasions with the playing cards experts
Detlef Hoffmann,
Stuart Kaplan,
Bob O'Neill and
Michael Dummett and some others in the 90's of 20th century (though these partly spurious communicative attempts didn't reach the necessary depth to find any form of agreement in the related matter), later finally with
Franco Pratesi, who offered a helping hand to a better knowledge of the relevant informations. Thanks to Franco Pratesi and
Gherardo Ortalli in early 2003 we were able to identify the entry of 1457 (
70 cards produced in Ferrara), which actually formed a much easier understandable argument than the complex mathematical argumentation before. Going back to Ortalli's source Adriano Francesschini, "Artisti a Ferrara in etą umanistica e rinascimentale. Testimonianze archivistiche, vol. I, Dal 1341 al 1471", Ferrara-Roma, Corbo, 1993, Ross Caldwell
found the above mentioned short passage from the 1st of January 1441. It's relevance for the 5x14-theory was detected and discussed in our small community - actually it's possible worth for playing card history could only be detected on the base of the 5x14-theory, as the normal focus for playing card researchers are words like "playing cards" or "Trionfi" or names of games.
Giordano Berti in his text (which is given at 2 book pages, so actually rather short against the 100's of articles full of details, that we presented till now in the web) tries to shorten the complex argumentations of the 5x14-theory, but forgets for instance to mention, that the 1st of January, the feast of circumcision, was a day of gambling and this condition naturally indicates playing cards (at least this was general custom with some documentary evidence at the court of Bianca Maria Visconti son Galeazzo Maria Sforza). It stabilizes our suggestion considerably, that these 14 pictures on cotton paper had indeed something in common with playing cards.
Our research around this "1st of January 1441" started in the year 2003 and it still endures and isn't finished yet - and still we've the feature of new results occasionally (with special thanks to
Alain Bougearel at this place) and these results are not all at the internet page - partly simply, cause we haven't enough resources of free time to present them (and, btw, we're more than one person at trionfi.com and not all opinions are unique).
Giordano Bruni's text gives the impression, as if we had decided to favour the interpretation, that "Bianca Maria Visconti introduced the Trionfi to the Ferrarese court". Actually we haven't decided in this way, we just see the documentary evidence and evaluate possibilities of interpretation. This activity at the 1st of January 1441 had a lot of possible contributors: Sagramoro, the painter, Leonello, the probable commissioner, two girls in Bianca Maria's age, Beatrice and Isotta d'Este, Guarino da Verona, the mentor in Ferrara, Leon Battista Alberti and Angelo Decembrio, two occasional visitors of the court of possible intellectual influence, Gonella, the court fool, and others .... Actually - and in my eyes most probable - these objects of 1.1. 1441 might be a result of a collective brainstorming at the court, a creative activity just born out of the situation, that Bianca Maria Visconti as a high guest was in Ferrara and all was done to please her, cause the hope existed, that Bianca Maria would marry the Ferrarese heir Leonello and that this might have changed the political situation of the state of Ferrara considerably to much higher aspirations, perhaps forming a Milanese-Ferrarese dukedom, which would have dominated Northern Italy. The situation of just this moment in time was very complex, cause the decision about the marriage of Bianca Maria Visconti influenced also the current Venetian-Milanese war.
Nonetheless we've to thank Giordano Berti for his remarks. It seems to be the first reflection inside the printed media, as far we know about it. We're idle enough to assume, that this late reaction happened not cause missing quality in our work, but just according to the condition, that the book market works slow and late and not according the technical possibilities of modern media and the year 2007 ... and that we should be happy to have decided to publish more or less in the web.
Autorbis added:
I agree with Huck, that the major point of Giordano Berti's note is the fact, that it is the first intellectual response from the book market - and that we have to thank for this. Indeed we have to state, that a lot of our representatation of our research is still incomplete and for these reasons difficult to evaluate in serious form from the outside. I would think, that this our somewhat vague state (somehow typical for the vitality of the internet) caused some confusion for others not familiar with our habits and the conditions of publication, which are quite different from those of the book-market. We've to excuse for it, but it's simply part of some not always sufficient production conditions.
One point in Giordano Berti's representation should be clarified:
|
"But what gives greatest
pause is the number of figures commissioned by Sagramoro: fourteen,
in fact, is also the exact number of triumph cards in the Visconti-
Sforza Tarot, discounting the six cards which were executed at a
later time. These singular coincidences have pushed some to
hypothesize that, originally, the Tarot pack was not composed of 78
cards, but of 70, so that any suit (Cups, Coins, Batons, Swords and
Triumphs) had the same number of cards (14 x 5 = 70).
|
The "singular coincidences" get my focus - it seems to say, that we in our theory overestimate the value of specific informations. One should mention at this place, that from the documents, which lead back in the time before 1460 only few allow any insight about the structure of the mentioned games. These documents are:
- The Brera-Brambilla deck - it has only has 2 trumps and doesn't allow any conclusion about the nature of structure of this deck. For instance it might be the fragment of a deck with 4 trumps only. It was likely produced before 1447.
- The Cary-Yale - it has 11 remaining trumps and not all motifs of them belong to the traditional series in the 21-trumps+fool - pack. Also it has a very unusual small arcana - construction with totally 16 cards per suit. It might be for instance the fragment of a deck with a 5x16-structure. Suggested are as time of production 1427, 1441 or at least before 1447. An outsider opinion suggests 1468.
- The Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi ... painted by 2 painters. It might serve the "early-standard-theory" and it might serve the 5x14-theory as a piece of evidence. Either it had once a 5x14-structure or it it is the first known example of the standard Tarot.
- The entry of the Ferrarese account books, which Giordano Berti focused, from 1.1.1441: it reports the number "14".
- The letter of Jacopo Marcello 1449 together with the work of Martiano da Tortona, likely ca. 1424/1425. Marcello talks of a Trionfi deck, but he means a very unusual playing card deck with 16 trumps and motifs totally unfamilar to that of the later standard deck. It's likely, that this deck had only 11 cards per suit. Marcello's way of naming this deck makes plainly clear, that in Tarot history the term "Trionfi deck" not necessarily had been connected to a deck with the standard form (4x14+22), as we know it.
- The entry fom 1457, which clearly states, that there were 70 cards (likely in a 5x14-form) only in two decks produced probably for the visit of Bianca Maria's son Galeazzo Maria Sforza.
- And additionally the "VIII" mentioned "Imperatori cards" from 1423, which might have a context to the later development of the Trionfi cards.
And that's all, as far I can see it, which might relate to the early state of Trionfi cards, as far the deck structure is concerned. Any document, that exists with some information in the question about the structure of the decks prior to 1460, might be called "singular" - there are not much and more or less all are different. Using the term "singular coincidences" in a rhetorical way to decrease the worth of this few really given information goes to the direction to accept no information at all about this time, just cause there is simply not much information.
And, indeed, as far the socalled standard deck with 21 trumps, 1 fool and 56 small arcana is concerned, it is really true, there is no sure information, that this type of deck existed before 1460 and perhaps even not a little later. The only slight indication, that it really might have existed before this date, is the Pierpont Morgan Bergamo deck. But just this only "singular" piece of evidence was painted by two different painters. And the work of the first painter (13 trumps and a Fool plus all of the remaining small arcana) gives after closer examination the impression, that this might have been once a complete deck, with a normal, not really surprizing 5x14-structure, a normal relative to the standard form of card playing decks with 4-5 suits and an equal number of cards per suit, which are known in Playing Card History by much contemporary evidence.
In argumentations of the past we had often met the point, that the later massive appearance of decks with the standard form (21-1-56 plus the related iconographical motifs) somehow "proves" the existence of a hypothetical much earlier form with the same structure. I personally think, that this is just a wrong conclusion. Much traffic at 7 a.m. in the Tube station doesn't imply any active train at 4 o'clock in the morning. A massive appearance of a specific deck form later just tells the story of success of this specific deck form. It doesn't include naturally the information, when this success occured in historical time and how it developed.
The first Tube train might have started around 5, 5.30 or 6 o'clock or earlier or later. Without additional information we've no clue to tell the time of the first train. And our additional informations tell: there was traffic (there were card decks with similarity to the standard deck) before, but just not that type of train we're looking for. In real life, when you need the Tube at 4 o'clock to reach the early plane, it's in most cities advisable to use a taxi. And in real Tarot research it's most advisable to see, what's really in the documents. And 1457 there is a note, that the Ferrarese Trionfi deck had 70 cards (and most of our knowledge about early Trionfi decks is based on Ferrarese documents). And a note, that the decks in this time had 21 trumps and a fool, is missing.
So simply: there is no evidence for a deck with 4x14+22-structure before 1460. Instead of this there are indications of other deck forms, partly with similarities to the later successful standard Tarot deck. And for the current moment of research it means: A sentence like "the Tarot reached its standardization ca. 1450" is simply hypothetical fiction.
Instead of the hypothetical fiction, which actually in the process of research only had the natural function of a "working hypothesis" and not more, a careful study of the really given documentary details, which by some were valued as mere anomalies of the hypothetical main development (well, in the manner above demonstrated, classified as "singular coincidences"), might guide to the true story of the development of Tarot cards, which simply happened a little later and in a different manner as expected.
The book is offered
at this place.
