Sunday, July 5, 2015

Chapter 4:The Invention of the tarot pack, 93-106, 150, 164, 217-19, 237

In Chapter 4 Dummett tackles a very big issue: the invention of the tarot deck. He begins by stating the difficulty: before the 18th century, people only saved what seemed to them to have intrinsic value; they didn't collect mere ephemera, as a record of life in bygone times. This creates enormous difficulties when it comes to playing cards, which were mostly simply discarded when worn out. Some were used to stuff the bindings of books, there to be discovered when the books were rebound. But these are great exceptions. So the researcher has to make due with inferences and speculations. Here is his most succinct summing up of the task (pp. 93f):
Dai dati di produzione citati nella grande opera in due volumi di H.-R. D’Al-lemagne, possiamo giungere a una stima approssimativa del numero di mazzi di tarocchi prodotti in Francia nel corso del XVII secolo: un milione sarebbe una stima cauta. Di questi ce ne sono pervenuti solo tre. Supponiamo che nel secolo precedente ne sia stato prodotto mezzo milione: di questi ce ne è pervenuto uno solo, incompleto.

Per questo motivo, non si può semplicemente tracciare la storia di un qualsiasi tipo di carte da gioco fino al 1700: bisogna ricostruirla. Praticamente ogni singola carta pervenutaci è di cruciale valore documentario e dobbiamo anche prendere in considerazione qualsiasi elemento di testimonianza letteraria o [end of 94] documentaria e tutto quello che sappiamo sull’evoluzione dei giochi di carte. E per questo motivo che qui consideriamo tutti i primi tarocchi sopravvissuti. Anche quando abbiamo davanti a noi tutti i dati, essi non ci rivelano direttamente tutto quello che vorremmo sapere: siamo costretti ad avanzare congetture e ipotesi e a costruire teorie su quelle che, come ben sappiamo, sono basi documentarie incomplete. Questo vale soprattutto quando cerchiamo di ricostruire sulla base di prove frammentarie la storia dei tarocchi nei primi sei o sette decenni del XV secolo.

(From the data cited in the production of the great work in two volumes of H.-R. D'Allemagne, we can arrive at a rough estimate of the number of decks of tarot cards produced in France during the seventeenth century: a million would be a conservative estimate. Of these there are only three have come down to us. Let us suppose that in the previous century half a million were produced: of these only one, incomplete, has come down to us.

For this reason, until 1700 it is not possible simply to trace the history of any type of playing cards: we must rebuild it. Virtually every single card that has come down to us is of crucial documentary value and we must also take into consideration every documentary element or literary testimony [end of 94] and everything we know about the evolution of card games. It is for this reason that we consider here all the first surviving tarots. Even when we have before us all the data, they do not directly reveal to us all that we would like to know: we are forced to speculate and build hypotheses and theories about those which, as we well know, are based on incomplete documentation. This is especially true when we try to reconstruct on the basis of fragmentary evidence the history of the tarot in the first six or seven decades of the fifteenth century.)
One might think from this that he would hold off on his speculations about the invention of the tarot until he had reviewed all this evidence with us. But no; instead he makes inferences from conclusions he presumably will argue for in later chapters. So I am left having to reconstruct his argument using what I can find later.

The first question is whether, given that a suit of trumps did not come that way from the Islamic world, the 22 triumphs existed separately before joined to the normal pack as a fifth suit. An affirmative answer was argued by Steele, who noted that the "Steele Sermon" did not mention any other cards in his sermon except the triumphs. Against this Dummett says that long before that sermon, we have the remains of decks where the normal deck and the triumphs are clearly one piece. The preacher did not mention the suit cards because he was addressing people who already knew how to use them--or might be tempted to use them, I would add, and he had nothing particular to say about them.

A similar argument works against Franco Pratesi's ("Italian Cards: New Discoveries", n. 6, The Playing Card, Vol. XVII, 1988, pp. 23-33) conclusion from a 1521 comedy he found in which two players agree on an order of triumphs but do not mention the other cards.

Another argument, advanced by Moakley, is that there were in fact picture cards called "trionfi" by some that formed a set by themselves and were used in games. The "Tarot of Mantegna" is one. Unlike some, Dummett is willing to concede that these cards were used in games, but they were never called "trionfi" and were never in wide use (p. 101):
Gertrude Moakley stabilisce, senza possibilità di dubbio, l'esistenza, nel Quattrocento, di parecchi mazzi corrispondenti a questa descrizione generale. Non sembra, tuttavia, che essi siano mai stati, in nessun momento, di uso molto diffuso; nessuno di essi conquistò il favore del pubblico o fu altro che una curiosità isolata. Ciò che più conta, non c’è motivo di ritenere che la parola «trionfi» sia mai stata usata per carte che non fossero tarocchi. Se Gertrude Moakley avesse ragione, gli accenni a ‘carte da trionfi’ nei libri contabili della corte ferrarese, dal 1442 in poi, potrebbero riferirsi non a mazzi di tarocchi, ma ad altri di questo tipo più generale; ma non esistono prove di un uso così generico del termine.

(Gertrude Moakley establishes, beyond any possibility of doubt, the existence, in the fifteenth century, of several packs corresponding to this general description. It does not seem, however, that they have ever been, at any time, in widespread use; none of them won the favor of the public or was anything more than an isolated curiosity. What is more, there is no reason to believe that the word "triumph" was ever used for cards that are not tarot cards. If Gertrude Moakley was right, the references to 'triumph cards ' in the books of the court of Ferrara, from 1442 onwards, could not relate to tarot decks, but other than this more general type; but there is no evidence of use as a generic term.)
I would add that these cards are considerably later than the International Gothic that we find on the cards, even if versions of them go back, as I suspect, to the early 1460s.

Moakley also brings up the inventory of the engraver Francesco Rosselli in 1523 cited by Hind (Early Italian Engravings, Vol. 1, part 1, 10-11, 305-8), with games named «giuocho del trionfo del petrarcha» [game of triumphs of Petrarch]; the «giuco d’apostoli chol nostro singnore» [game of the apostles of our lord)]; the «giuoco di sete virtù»; [game of the seven virtues]; and the «gioucho di pianeti cho loro fregi» [game of the seven planets and their attributes], Dummett says of them: (p. 101f):
Anche questi dovevano essere giochi che richiedevano carte figurate di tipi particolari; ma non sono genericamente classificati come ‘trionfi’. Il nome del primo gioco è collegato al poema I Trionfi

(These games also required special types of picture cards; but they are not generally classified as 'triumphs'. The name of the game is first connected to the poem “Il Trionfi” of Petrarch and cannot therefore be taken to support a general thesis.)
And again these games are after the invention of the tarot (Rosselli's earliest activity was in the 1470s). They are more likely the result of that invention than part of its cause.

Another example brought out by Moakley is some engravings attributed to Nicoletto da Modena, presented by Hind (op. cit. (note 14, Vol VI, 1938, Plates 640-7) as part of a deck of cards; "ma questo non è possibile, poiché sono di dimensioni molto variabili" [but this is not possible, since they are of very variable dimensions] (n. 9, p. 102).

In general, for examples of this type, Dummett comments (p. 103):
Il fenomeno attestato dagli esempi citati da Gertrude Moakley è una persistente e naturale tendenza ad inventare nuovi giochi che prevedono mazzi di carte strutturati in modo completamente differente dal mazzo normale. In Italia ci fu una particolare moda per tali giochi che durò fino alla fine del XVII secolo, come attestano due mazzi di questo genere disegnati da Mitelli.

(The phenomenon attested by the examples cited by Gertrude Moakley is a natural and persistent tendency to invent new games that provide decks of cards structured in a way completely different from the normal deck. In Italy there was a particular fashion for those games that lasted until the end of the seventeenth century, as attested by two decks of this kind designed by Mitelli.)
Dummett's other examples of this type later are all from the 18th century and after; so I don't know how "persistent" the fashion was during the 15th century.

There is one example that is actually before any known tarot, but it counts against the idea of an independent existence for the triumphs. That is the game described by Marziano in a letter to Filippo Maria Visconti, which Pratesi ( dates to 1414-1418, A letter by Marcello in 1449 refers to it as "a new and exquisite sort of triumphs" («un nuovo genere squisito di triumphi»; see http://trionfi.com/jacopo-marcello-letter-1449). Besides four regular suits, of 10 numeral cards and Kings (but unknown if there were other courts), there were 16 special cards identified with Greco-Roman gods and demigods, which beat any suit card but against each other were ranked in a definite way. Dummett says (p. 105f):
Il mazzo progettato da Marziano e dipinto da Michelino non era un mazzo di tarocchi; ma esso costituiva un primo passo in quel senso. E vero che Marcello descrive il mazzo come «un nuovo genere squisito di triumphi» 14. Se esso fu dipinto fra il 1414 e il 1418, non era affatto nuovo nel 1449; in questa data i tarocchi autentici dovevano essere ben noti — Marcello infatti dice di avere ricevuto in regalo «carte da quel gioco che chiamano ‘triumphits’». Non è dunque sorprendente che egli usi il termine «triumphi». Lo stesso vale per l’uso del termine in una traduzione in italiano della vita del Visconti scritta da Decembrio, opera di qualcuno che usava lo pseudonimo Polismagna 15. La parola «triumphi»• non è usata né da Marziano nel trattato sulle carte da lui stesso progettate, né da Decembrio nella sua descrizione del mazzo; questi fatti nuocciono alla tesi di Gertrude Moakley che il termine avesse un senso generico durante il secolo XV.

Il mazzo Marziano/Michelino, benché non fosse un mazzo di tarocchi, era un mazzo composto: comprendeva sia figure e carte numerali di quattro semi che carte figurate con significati simbolici. Milita dunque contro la tesi di Steele e Moakley che i trionfi dei tarocchi esistessero originariamente come un mazzo completo — tesi priva di qualsiasi prova positiva. Il mazzo di Marziano e Michelino depone anche a favore di un’origine milanese dei tarocchi.

(The deck designed by Marziano and painted by Michelino was not a tarot deck; but it was a first step in that direction. It is true that Marcello describes the deck as "a new kind of delightful Triumphs» 14. If it was painted between 1414 and 1418, it was not at all new in 1449; on this date the authentic tarot cards had to be well known - in fact, Marcello says he has received, as a gift, cards from that game they call 'triumphs'." It is therefore not surprising that he uses the term "triumphs". The same applies to the use of the term in an Italian translation of the life of Visconti written by Decembri, the work of someone who used the pseudonym Polismagna 15. The word "Triumphs" is used neither by Marziano in his treatise on the cards designed by himself, nor by Decembrio in his description of the deck; these innocuous facts Gertrude Moakley has stretched for her argument that the term had a generic sense during the fifteenth century.

The Marziano/Michelino deck, although it was not a tarot deck, was a compound pack: it included both figures and pip cards of four suits of picture cards with symbolic meanings. Therefore it militates against the argument of Steele and Moakley that triumphs of the tarot existed originally as a full deck - the thesis lacks any positive evidence. The pack of Marziano and Michelino argues also in favor of a Milanese tarot origin.)
While the Marziano deck certainly argues against any independent existence of a deck of "triumphs" only, I do think that Marcello himself was using the term generically, regardless of what terms Marziano used. A "new sort of triumph" means new in comparison with other triumphs existing at the time, regardless of what they were called. Here is the passage (I don't have the original):
Now I was aware that the most distinguished, illustrious Prince of Milan had thought out a certain new and exquisite sort of triumphs, being, as he was of everything, at one time the keenest in the invention of all the greatest things.
Marcello might, to be sure, be wrong. It might be that the only "sorts of triumphs" he knew were just the tarot pack and the Marziano, and he is just assuming that triumphs had existed before Marziano. They may have, too (I am thinking of the game of Emperors, about which more later).

in any case, Dummett then begins to advance his "conjecture" that the tarot deck was invented by Filippo Maria Visconti in around 1428. However I want to stop for a moment and consider his arguments against a separate existence for the 22 triumphs in some form.

Dummett does not consider that the separate game might have been a board game rather than a card game, and while not precisely the same as the triumphs of the tarot, might be a precursor of sorts. Chess has 16 pieces per side. Huck has developed the "chess analogy" in some of his posts, along with a positing that the Cary-Yale deck had 16 triumphs. Andrea Vitali also has essays on it. Also, there is the game of Goose.  It is a "racing" game like backgammon, in which players advance their tokens, in accordance with the roll of dice, along a preset course toward a goal. Goose is similar to tarot, however, in having both ordinary squares, on which one just lands (comparable to suit cards) and special squares, some positive, in that landing on them advances one in the game, and some negative, in that landing on one sends the token back to an earlier. There are 64 squares in all. While Goose itself has only been traced back to around 1500, these "racing" games have a long history. About games like Goose, some research can be found on a couple of threads on THF, but nothing more promising has turned up.

The next question is where the tarot might have originated. First (p. 94):
Abbiamo visto che i tarocchi devono essere stati inventati neH’ambito della nobiltà, e probabilmente in una delle corti dove c’era l’abitudine di giocare con carte dipinte a mano costose. Questo fatto rende le due corti di Milano e Ferrara gli aspiranti più probabili al titolo di luogo di nascita dei tarocchi, senza escludere assolutamente tutti gli altri.

(We have seen that the tarot cards were invented in the ambit of the nobility, and probably in one of the courts where they were accustomed to play with costly hand-painted cards. This fact makes the two courts of Milan and Ferrara the most likely candidates for the title of the birthplace of the tarot, without absolutely excluding all others.)
But there are two other places worth considering, Florence and Bologna (p. 97).
Come vedremo, intorno all’inizio del XVI secolo si erano già cristallizzate quattro tradizioni distinte, relative sia al disegno convenzionale dei tarocchi che alle modalità del gioco, tradizioni che da allora si svilupparono secondo linee in larga misura, se pur non totalmente, indipendenti l’una dall’altra. Queste quattro tradizioni avevano come centri le città di Milano, Ferrara, Bologna e Firenze.

(As we shall see, around the beginning of the sixteenth century four distinct traditions had already crystallized, relating to both the conventional design of the tarot and the manner of play, traditions that developed along lines largely, though not entirely, independent of the other. These four traditions had as centers were the cities of Milan, Ferrara, Bologna and Florence.)
FLORENCE

The earliest reference as of Dummett's writing is 1442 Ferrara. But Pratesi found a 1450 edict in Florence mentioning trionfi. Dummett says (p. 95):
Ad ogni modo, una scoperta di Franco Pratesi suggerisce che l’invenzione dei tarocchi risalga a molto prima. Si tratta di un editto del 1450 della città di Firenze relativo al gioco delle carte, il quale allude specificamente ai triumphi. L’uso delle carte da trionfi, cioè dei tarocchi, sarebbe stato limitato originariamente alla corte dove esse erano state inventate, e forse immediatamente dopo a una o più altre corti. Solo più tardi l’uso di queste carte avrebbe potuto infiltrarsi fra le classi meno benestanti, che non avevano i mezzi per comprare carte dipinte a mano. Queste ebbero modo di giocare con mazzi di carte del nuovo tipo solo quando i fabbricanti di carte da gioco fecero matrici di legno per stampare i trionfi e le Regine, producendo mazzi di tarocchi economici per una clientela più estesa. L’editto fiorentino deve essere stato indirizzato a tali giocatori meno ricchi. Senza questo editto, avremmo potuto datare la prima produzione dei mazzi di tarocchi stampati al 1480 circa, e l’arrivo di tali carte a Firenze al 1490; è certo, infatti, che questa città non è il loro luogo di nascita. La sco-[end of 95]perta di Pratesi fa retrocedere l’intera sequenza storica. Sembra improbabile che meno di due decenni siano intercorsi tra la prima invenzione dei tarocchi, in qualche luogo a nord della Toscana, e la loro diffusione a Firenze grazie alla produzione a buon prezzo da parte di fabbricanti ordinari. Di conseguenza, dobbiamo datare la loro invenzione al 1430 circa.

(However, a discovery of Franco Pratesi suggests that the invention of tarot cards dates back to much earlier. It is an edict of 1450, the city of Florence on the card game, which refers specifically to Triumphs. The use of the triumph cards, i.e. tarot, was originally limited to the court where they were invented, and perhaps immediately after one or more other courts. Only later could the use of these cards infiltrate among the less affluent classes, who did not have the means to buy hand-painted cards. They were able to play with decks of cards of the new type only when the manufacturers of playing cards made woodblock prints of the triumphs and Queens, producing economical tarot decks for a wider clientele. The Florentine edict must have been addressed to those less wealthy players. Without this edict, we would have been able to date the first production of printed tarot decks in 1480, and the arrival of these cards in Florence in 1490; it is certain, in fact, that this city is not their place of birth. Pratesi’s dis-[end of 95]covery sets back the entire historical sequence. It seems unlikely that less than two decades elapsed between the first invention of tarot cards, somewhere north of Tuscany, and their diffusion into Florence thanks to their production at a good price, by ordinary manufacturers. As a result, we have to date their invention at about 1430.)
But why is it "certain" that Florence was not the birthplace of the tarot? Apparently, the answer is that it did not have a princely court, and therefore the cards must have spread by means of cheaply made decks. If so, Bologna is geographically before Florence, going to Ferrara. At the beginning of Chapter 10, on Florence, in fact, Dummett says (p. 241:
Non si fa menzione del gioco dei Tarocchi nella letteratura fiorentina prima dell’anno 1526 (1); ma Franco Pratesi ha scoperto recentemente una Provvisione del Comune di Firenze del 10 dicembre 1450 che include il Trionfo in un elenco di giochi di carte permessi (gli altri sono la Diritta, il Vinciperdi e il Trenta) (2). Questa Provvisione fu reiterata nel 1463 con raggiunta della Cricca e della Ronfa. Come osserva Pratesi, non si può qui parlare di una corte principesca; il gioco del Trionfo — che possiamo identificare con quello dei Tarocchi — deve essere già stato nel 1450 un gioco del popolo fiorentino. Tuttavia, Firenze non è da considerare uno dei centri originari dei Tarocchi. Come vedremo, ci sono strette affinità fra i tarocchi fiorentini e quelli bolognesi, compreso un ordine dei trionfi di tipo A; per questa ragione il gioco deve essersi diffuso da una delle due città all’altra. Benché l’editto fiorentino del 1450 preceda di nove anni il primo incontestabile riferimento bolognese ai tarocchi, l’ipotesi che si siano diffusi da Ferrara a Bologna e di là a Firenze è più credibile della supposizione che siano giunti a Bologna da Ferrara attraverso Firenze. Dob- [end of p. 241]biamo quindi ritenere che la tradizione fiorentina dei tarocchi sia un rampollo di quella bolognese.
________________
1. In particolare, non si fa cenno ai tarocchi nella collezione curata da Antonio Francesco Grazzini, detto il Lasca, Tutti i trionfi carri, mascherate o canti camascialescki andati per Firenze dal tempo del magnifico Lorenzo de' Medici fino all'anno 1559, Firenze, 1559, che contiene un poemetto di Lorenzo il Magnifico sopra il «giuoco maladetto» dei «Frussi» (del Flusso).
________________
2. Franco Pratesi, 'Italian Cards: New Discoveries’, The Playing Card, Vol. XIX, 1990, pp. 7-17.

(There is no mention of the game of Tarot in Florentine literature before the year 1526 (1); but Franco Pratesi has recently discovered an allowance of the City of Florence of December 10, 1450, which includes Triumphs in a list of card games allowed (the others are Diritta [Straight], Vinciperdi e il Trenta [Thirty]) (2). This was repeated in 1463 with the addition of Cricca and Ronfa. As observed by Pratesi, you cannot speak here of a princely court; the game of Triumph - which we can identify with that of the Tarot - must have already been in 1450 a game of the Florentine people. However, Florence is not considered one of the original centers of the Tarot. As we shall see, there are close affinities between the Florentine and Bolognese Tarot, including an order of the triumphs of type A; For this reason, the game must have spread from one to the other of the two cities. Although the Florentine edict of 1450 precedes by nine years the first indisputable reference to Bolognese Tarot, the assumption that it spread from Ferrara to Bologna and thence to Florence is a more credible supposition than that they came to Bologna to Ferrara through Florence. We must therefore assume that the Florentine tradition of tarot cards is a scion of Bologna.

1. In particular, there is no mention of the tarot in the collection edited by Antonio Francesco Grazzini, called Lasca, Tutti i trionfi carri, mascherate o canti camascialescki andati per Firenze dal tempo del magnifico Lorenzo de' Medici fino al L’anno 1559 [All the triumph floats, masks or carnival songs in Florence from the time of the the magnificent Lorenzo di’ Medici until the year 1559], Florence, 1559 which contains a poem of Lorenzo the Magnificent on the "accursed game of ‘Frussi’" (Flusso).
_________________
2. Franco Pratesi, 'Italian Cards: New Discoveries', The Playing Card, Vol XIX, 1990, pp. 7-17.)
If I have inferred Dummett's argument correctly, it is not a good one. First, it is not certain that the tarot originated in the courts of Ferrara or Milan. Luxury decks could just as well have been produced for the wealthy bankers of Florence. Second, it was never certain that the decks attributed to Ferrara were not from somewhere else. In fact, the data of this very chapter 10, as I showed in my last post, suggests otherwise for the "Charles VI". Third, there are means of transmission that leapfrog over cities in their path: artists or artisans go where they think they can sell their skills, or where they have family to help them; merchants, likewise, if they cannot sell their goods in Bologna (due to the memory of Bernardino's preaching, perhaps) will go to where they hope they can, e.g. Florence. Condottiere, likewise, serve not only courts but also cities, and go wherever seems most promising to them.

The Giusti note of 1440 Florence/Angieri, brought to our attention by Depaulis, tends to show the holes in Dummett's argument. It makes it clear that there were still hand-painted decks there in 1440; perhaps the stage of printed decks hadn't been reached yet, or had just dawned. Also, that deck was intended for a condottiere, Sigismondo Malatesta. Given that the Cary-Yale was likely a gift to Francesco Sforza, another condottiere, diffusion of luxury deck through condottiere is suggested. Perhaps Sforza had been given a deck before he left Milan in 1436 to work for Florence and the papal states. He probably would have not spent much time, if any, in Bologna.

MILAN

Having eliminated Florence (for dubious reasons) and discussed Ferrara favorably, we are left with Bologna and Milan remaining for evaluation. Dummett has already said that for Milan the Marziano/Michelino speaks in favor of a Milanese origin. He continues (p. 106):
La prova di un’origine bolognese è molto debole. A favore di un’origine ferrarese sta il fatto che il primo accenno documentario ai tarocchi proviene da Ferrara; ma sappiamo che l’invenzione dei tarocchi deve essere di molti anni anteriore a questo accenno, e perciò la provenienza dell’accenno è puramente fortuita. Un motivo più robusto per supporre che Ferrara sia stata il luogo di nascita dei tarocchi è fornito dall’ambiente culturale della corte estense. Tuttavia, il mazzo Marziano/Michelino fornisce una prova diretta che Filippo Maria Visconti si interessò fin dall’inizio del suo regno a sperimentare nuovi tipi di carte da gioco; è probabile che i suoi esperimenti culminassero nel mazzo di tarocchi come lo conosciamo. Non abbiamo qui una dimostrazione dell’invenzione dei tarocchi alla corte milanese dei Visconti; ma in attesa di altre prove, questa è l’ipotesi più probabile.

Possiamo redigere dunque una cronologia provvisoria, basata di necessità su congetture; le date sono naturalmente approssimative:

1428: i tarocchi sono inventati alla corte viscontea.
1430: la corte estense di Ferrara conosce i tarocchi.
1435: i tarocchi si diffondono a Bologna.
1440: i fabbricanti di carte cominciano a produrre mazzi di tarocchi a buon prezzo, stampati da matrici di legno.
1442: i tarocchi si diffondono da Bologna a Firenze.
1444: la composizione del mazzo di tarocchi diventa standardizzata dappertutto.

Per ora non possiamo rispondere meglio alla domanda su quando e dove esattamente i tarocchi siano stati inventati.

(The proof of Bolognese origin is very weak. In favor of an origin in Ferrara is the fact that the first documentary mention of the Tarot comes from Ferrara; but we know that the invention of tarot cards should be many years before this hint, and therefore the origin of the cue is purely fortuitous. A more robust reason to suppose that Ferrara was the birthplace of the Tarot comes from the cultural environment of the Este court. However, the Marziano/Michelino deck provides direct evidence that Filippo Maria Visconti was interested from the beginning of his reign in experimenting with new types of playing cards; it is likely that his experiments culminate in the tarot deck as we know it. We do not have here a demonstration of the invention of tarot cards at the court of the Visconti of Milan; but pending further testing, this is the most likely hypothesis.

We can therefore draw up a provisional chronology, based of necessity on conjecture; the dates of course are approximate:

1428: Tarot cards were invented in the court of the Visconti.
1430: the Este court in Ferrara knows the tarot.
1435: tarot spread to Bologna.
1440: card makers begin to produce decks of tarot cards at a good price, printed by woodblock.
1442 tarot spread from Bologna to Florence.
1444: The composition of the tarot deck becomes standardized everywhere.

For now it is not possible to respond better to the question of when and where exactly the tarot was invented.
Of course it is now known that painted decks were made in 1440 Florence.

With that the chapter ends, except for the passage I quoted earlier on why the name "triumphs" got attached to the new cards, that it is not simply that they "triumph" over the suit cards, but also that there is a reference to the "Trionfi" of Petrarch and perhaps to triumphal parades.

FERRARA

As to why Ferrara is next in line, besides the atmosphere of the Ferrarese court there is the fact that it is the only other place that actually had a court in the sense of a ruling family appointed by a higher power, in both cases the Holy Roman Empire. Bologna and Florence were republics. There is also the evidence of the early hand-painted cards of Chapter Three, which he attributed to Ferrara. That probably influenced Dummett's choice, even though many of these cards are probably Florentine.

BOLOGNA

I have looked for further arguments for and against the various candidates. I do find where he explains why the claim of Bologna is weak. He starts out his chapter 9, on Bologna, as follows (p. 217):
Il più antico riferimento accertato a carte da tarocchi a Bologna risale al 1459, quando un mazzo di tarocchi risulta fra gli oggetti rubati a un mercante in una rapina1. Questa data, di diciassette anni posteriore al primo accenno ai tarocchi a Ferrara, è coerente con l’ipotesi che il gioco si sia diffuso da Ferrara a Bologna nel 1435, o poco dopo.
______________
1 Cfr. Emilio Orioli, ‘Sulle carte da giuoco a Bologna nel secolo XV’, Il libro e la stampa, anno II (n.s.), 1908, pp. 109-19, a p. 112, e Albano Sorbelli, ‘Un’antica stamperìa di carte da giuoco’, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, 1940, pp. 189-97, alle pp. 192-3.

(The earliest reference found on tarot cards in Bologna dates back to 1459, when a tarot pack is among the items stolen from a merchant in a robbery 1. This date, seventeen years later than the first mention of tarot cards in Ferrara, is consistent with the hypothesis that the game spread from Ferrara to Bologna in 1435, or shortly thereafter.
______________
1. 1. See Emilio Orioli, ‘Sulle carte da giuoco a Bologna nel secolo XV’, Il libro e la stampa, anno II [On playing cards in Bologna in the fifteenth century', The book and the print, year II] (ns), 1908, pp. 109-19, p. 112, and Albano Sorbelli,, ‘Un’antica stamperìa di carte da giuoco '[An old printing house of playing cards], Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, 1940, pp. 189-97, at pp. 192-3.)
You will notice that he allows 24 years, or a little less, between the arrival of tarot cards in Bologna and its first mention in documents. That is an example of what Vitali has called attention to, the necessity of allowing at least 15-20 years between the invention of something and its being recorded in writing. In this case, it is not even the invention, but the arrival into that city.

Dummett does not seem to know that the merchant indicated in the 1442 Trionfi note in Ferrara was from Bologna (http://trionfi.com/etx-marchio-burdochi). That tends to support Dummett's "1435 or shortly thereafter" for Bologna. Surely such a merchant, wherever he got the cards, would also try selling them in Bologna itself. 1459 - 1442 = 17 years. It also might suggest that tarot was known already in Bologna, perhaps for 15 or 20 years, applying the "15-20 year lag" principle backwards from 1442. There is some evidence for that, although weak, which Dummett discusses next: a biography of Saint Bernardino and a painting of a certain Prince Fibbia. Here are his comments on Bernardino (p. 217f):
Nel 1423 San Bernardino da Siena predicò a Bologna un sermone di Quaresima contro i giochi: dopo il sermone, la gente portò oggetti da gioco — dadi, tabelle da tavola reale, carte — in piazza davanti alla chiesa di S. Petronio e ne fece un falò. L'Acta Sanctorum Bollandista contiene tre vite di San Bernardino 2. Di queste, la prima è quella scritta per ultima, essendo stata composta qualche tempo dopo la traslazione del corpo di San Bernardino (nel 1472), della quale dà notizia. Fra gli oggetti destinati al falò, vengono elencati triumphales charticéllae, cioè carte da tarocchi 3. Tuttavìa, la più antica delle tre vite, scritta, secondo il curatore (4), nel 1445, menziona solo «naibes» (carte da gioco normali) insieme ai dadi e alle tabelle da tavola reale. Inoltre, nel sermone San Bemar- [end of 217] dino parla diffusamente del gioco delle carte, ma non fa alcun cenno ai triumphi 5. E vero che egli menziona sia reges atque reginae (Re e Regine) che milites superiores et inferiores (soldati superiori e inferiori) in relazione alle carte da gioco, dimostrando di conoscere mazzi con quattro figure per seme, ma non ne consegue affatto che si trattasse di mazzi da tarocchi.
____________________
2. Tomo XVI (Maggio, Voi. V), Anversa, 1685, al 20 maggio.
3. Ibid., p. 267*, col. 1.
4. Ibid., p. 257*, col. 1.
5. S. Bernardini Senensis OJ F.M. Opera Omnia, a cura dei PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae. Vol. II, Firenze, 1950, p. 23.

(In 1423, San Bernardino of Siena preached a Lenten sermon in Bologna against games: After the sermon, the people brought items of the games - dice, backgammon boards, cards - in front of the church of San Petronio and made a bonfire. The Acta Sanctorum Bollandista contains three lives of San Bernardino (2). Of these, the first is written last, having been composed some time after the translation of the body of San Bernardino (1472), which gives news. Among the items for the bonfire, are listed triumphales charticéllae, i.e. tarocchi cards (3) However, the oldest of the three lives, written, according to the editor (4), in 1445, mentions only "naibes" (normal playing cards) along with dice and backgammon boards. In addition, in the sermon San Bemardino speaks extensively of playing cards, but makes no reference to triumphs (5). It is true that he mentions reges atque reginae (Kings and Queens), of milites superiores et inferiores (soldiers upper and lower) in relation to playing cards, providing information on packs with four figures in suits, but it does not follow that they were packs of tarot cards.
_________________
2. Vol. XVI (Maggio, Voi. V), Anversa, 1685, al 20 maggio.
3. Ibid., p. 267*, col. 1.
4. Ibid., p. 257*, col. 1.
5 S. Bernardini of Siena OJ F.M. Opera Omnia, edited by PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae. Vol II, Florence, 1950, p. 23.)
And on Prince Fibbia (p. 218ff):
Il ritratto fa parte di una serie che si trova nella grande sala del palazzo, ora divisa in uffici per l’Associazione Artigiani, e che rappresenta membri della famiglia Fibbia; a giudicare dallo stile, deve risalire alla seconda metà del XVII secolo. Mostra il principe in piedi accanto a un tavolo, con un mazzo di tarocchi bolognesi nella mano destra; parecchie carte scoperte sono cadute o stanno cadendo sul pavimento. La leggenda principale dice:
Francesco Antelminelli Castracani Fibbia, principe di Pisa, Monte Gioii, e Pietra Santa, e signore di Fusechio, fìlio di Giovanni, nato di Castruccio duca di Lucca, Pistoia, Pisa. Fugito in Bologna datosi a’ Bentivoglj, fu fatto generalissimo delle arme bolognese, et il primo di questa famiglia che fu detto in Bologna dalle Fibbie, ebbe per moglie Francesca, fìlia di Giovanni Bentivoglj.
Sotto di essa è scritto in lettere più piccole:
nventore del gioco del tarocchino di Bologna. Dalli XVI Riformatori della città ebbe per privilegio di porre l'arma Fibbia nella regina di bastoni e quella della di lui moglie nella regina di denari. Nato Tanno 1360 morto l'anno 1419.
[Eng of 218]Sembra che questa parte della leggenda sia stata sovrapposta a una più breve in lettere della stessa dimensione della principale, forse consistente solo nelle due date; ma pare improbabile che le carte da gioco che compaiono nel ritratto siano un’aggiunta posteriore. È innegabilmente vero che alcuni mazzi di tarocchi bolognesi del XVIXI secolo recano lo stemma dei Fibbia sulla Regina di Bastoni e quello dei Bentivoglio sulla Regina di Denari8, anche se tale pratica non fu mai generalizzata. Come dobbiamo interpretare questo ritratto e la sua leggenda?

La leggenda non avanza la pretesa che il principe Fibbia fosse l’inventore del gioco dei Tarocchi in generale, ma solo della particolare forma praticata a Bologna e nota in precedenza come ‘Tarocchino’ perché giocata con un mazzo ridotto. La pretesa più modesta è la meno plausibile. Perché una variante del gioco originale potesse essere inventata da qualcuno morto nel 1419, il mazzo dei tarocchi stesso avrebbe dovuto essere stato inventato non più tardi della prima decade del XV secolo, cioè a soli trentanni circa dall’introduzione delle carte dal gioco in Europa; e ciò è difficile da credere.

Se il principe Fibbia ha avuto qualcosa a che fare con il gioco dei Tarocchi, è di gran lunga più probabile che fosse l’inventore, non della variante bolognese del gioco, ma del gioco stesso, la cui origine dovrebbe in tal caso essere anticipata a prima del 1420. Nel XVII secolo, i giocatori bolognesi erano già da tempo abituati ai soli giochi di Tarocchi della varietà caratteristica di Bologna, tutti praticati con il mazzo ridotto di sessantadue carte; l’unica eccezione era la forma davvero deviarne di derivazione fiorentina e conosciuta come Germini o Minchiate (mai come Tarocchi), che si giocava con un mazzo del tutto particolare. E ben possibile che nella mente di chi compose la leggenda sul ritratto non fosse chiara la distinzione fra l’invenzione dei Tarocchi e l’invenzione del Tarocchino; costui potrebbe aver pensato che non esistessero altre forme del gioco e persino che esso fosse ignoto al di fuori di Bologna e dintorni. Se è così, il principe Fibbia potrebbe davvero essere il primo inventore del mazzo dei tarocchi e del gioco con esso praticato.

Per dimostrare tutto questo, una testimonianza cosi tarda, di tre secoli e mezzo successiva al fatto, non ha gran peso. La più semplice spiegazione dell’esistenza della leggenda che il prìncipe Francesco Fìbbia abbia inventato il gioco è che essa sia basata su fatti; ma sono possibili altre spiegazioni ugualmente convincenti. La storia può essere nata come ipotesi per spiegare la presenza sulle carte degli stemmi dei Fibbia e dei Bentivoglio; qualche ricercatore intraprendente può aver passato in rassegna i registri alla ricerca di un membro di una delle due famiglie sposato con un membro dell’altra. Dopo tutto, la storia di questi stemmi, fornitaci dalla leggenda sul ritratto, non è molto plausibile; un fabbricante di carte non avrebbe avuto alcun bisogno di autorizzazione per mettere uno stemma su una carta. Allo stesso modo, l’autore della vita di San Bernardino (posteriore al 1472) potrebbe aver dato per scontato che i tarocchi, ben noti quando egli scriveva, esistessero già nel 1423 e che dovessero quindi essere inclusi nel falò.
_______________________
8 Un mazzo del genere è al British Museum, un altro a Milano nella collezione di Giuliano Crippa.

[The portrait is part of a series that is found in the great hall of the palace, now divided into offices for the Artisans' Association, which represents Fibbia family members; judging by the style, it must date from the second half of the seventeenth century. It shows the prince standing next to a table with a pack of Bolognese tarot cards in his right hand; several cards have fallen or are falling on the floor, their fronts exposed. The main legend says:
Francis Antelminelli Castracane Fibbia, Prince of Pisa, Monte Gioii, and Pietra Santa, and Lord of Fusechio, son of Giovanni, born of Castruccio Duke of Lucca, Pistoia, Pisa. Fled to Bologna gave himself to the Bentivoglio, was made chief of the Bolognese arms, and the first of this family of the Fibbia said in Bologna, had for his wife Francesca, daughter of Giovanni Bentivoglio.
Below it is written in smaller letters:
Inventor of the game of tarocchino of Bologna. From the XVI Reformers of the city had the privilege of putting the Fibbia arms [arma] in the Queen of Batons and that of his wife in the Queen of Coins. Born Year 1360 died Year 1419.
[end of p. 218] It seems that this part of the legend has been superimposed on shorter letters of the same size of the main, perhaps consisting only in the two dates; but it seems unlikely that the playing cards that appear in the picture are a later addition. It is undeniably true that some Bolognese XVIIIth century tarot packs bear the Fibbia arms [stemma] on the Queen of Batons and that of the Bentivoglio on the Queen of Coins (8), although this practice was never widespread. How should we interpret this portrait and its legend?

The legend does not advance the claim that Prince Fibbia was the inventor of the game of Tarot in general, but only the particular form practiced in Bologna, formerly known as 'Tarocchino' because they played it with a short pack. The more modest claim is less plausible. Why a variant of the original game could be invented by someone who died in 1419, the tarot pack itself would have had to have been invented no later than the first decade of the fifteenth century, that is just about thirty years after the introduction of the cards from the game in Europe; and it is hard to believe.

If Prince Fibbia had something to do with the game of Tarot, it is far more likely that he was the inventor, not of the Bologna variant of the game, but the game itself, the origin of which should then be advanced to before 1420. In the XVIIth century Bolognese players had long since become accustomed to only Tarot games characteristic of the variety of Bologna, all charged with the short pack of sixty cards; the only exception was the really divergent form derived from Florence known as Germini or Minchiate (never as Tarot), which was played with a pack of its own. It may well be that in the mind of whoever composed the legend of the portrait there was not a clear distinction between the invention of Tarot and the invention of Tarocchino; he might have thought that there were no other forms of the game and even that it was unknown outside of Bologna and its surroundings. If so, prince Fibbia could really be the first inventor of the tarot pack and the game being practiced with it. [end of 219]

To demonstrate all this, a witness so late, three and a half centuries after the fact, does not have much weight. The simplest explanation for the existence of the legend that Prince Francesco Fibbia invented the game is that it is based on facts; but there are other possible explanations equally convincing. The story could have originated as a hypothesis to explain the presence of the arms [stemmi] of the Fibbia and the Bentivoglio on the cards; some resourceful researcher may have reviewed the registries for a member of one of the two families married to a member of the other. After all, the history of these coats of arms [stemmi] given to us by the legend on the portrait is not very plausible; a card manufacturer would have had no need for permission to put a coat of arms on a card. Similarly, the author of the life of San Bernardino (after 1472) may have taken for granted that the tarot, well-known when he wrote, already existed in 1423 and that it should therefore be included in the bonfire.
_____________________
8. A pack of this kind is in the British Museum, another in Milan in the collection of Giuliano Crippa.)
These arguments here are often used to discount both pieces of evidence. Dummett is not doing that. He is only saying that the statements should not be be considered as reliable, say, as the Ferrara Wardrobe Registry. The alternatives are not more plausible than the simpler and more straightforward inference. I think more can be said for the accounts that Dummett is criticizing. in the case of St. Bernardino, the later biographer may have thought that the earlier one was remiss in not mentioning tarot cards, which he finds particularly reprehensible (or commendable) and for which there is abundant testimony of their presence in his 1425 bonfire. He is trying to write a credible biography, not one that will provoke controversy among those who approve or disapprove of tarot, or those who may think it reflects well or badly on the city.

For Prince Fibbia, there is still the question of the stemma of the Fibbia family on the Queen of Batons. Is it there because of the portrait, or vice versa? If the stemma came first, why would it continue get a place of honor along with the Bentivoglio, throughout the centuries? That didn't happen with any other marriage deck. And what about 17th century decks? It seems to me likely that the stemma is there because of the portrait. If so, why the Fibbia coat of arms at all? There would likely have been a legend. Without the legend, even if the portrait had been done, it would not by itself have carried enough weight to warrant being put on the card. People would have objected, just as they did in the case of the "mixed government".On the other hand, the Fibbia may have been friends with certain card manufacturers. And maybe people did object, so that we don't see the stemma very often.

But most importantly, nothing about the early history of the tarot, before 1440 is a hard fact. It is all hypothesis, this no more or less than anything else. And even in 1440 we know nothing about the deck itself, except that it existed in hand painted form.

Dummett concludes, about Bologna (p. 219):
Non siamo pertanto in grado di decidere con sicurezza fra le due ipotesi: se i tarocchi siano stati inventati a Bologna nella seconda decade del XV secolo e si siano diffusi in seguito, prima a Ferrara e poi a Milano; oppure se siano stati inventati a Milano o a Ferrara nel decennio 1420-30 e si siano diffusi da Ferrara a Bologna nel decennio 1430-40. Possiamo solo dire che, sulla base delle carte pervenuteci, incluse quelle dipinte a mano, le carte da tarocchi bolognesi presentano maggiore affinità con il disegno ferrarese che con quello milanese. Nonostante l’incertezza sulla loro origine, la storia dei tarocchi a Bologna può essere ripercorsa senza difficoltà dalla fine del XV secolo ai giorni nostri.

(We are not therefore able to decide with confidence about the two cases: if tarot cards were invented in Bologna in the second decade of the fifteenth century and have spread as a result, first at Ferrara and Milan; or if they were invented in Milan or Ferrara in the years 1420-30 and have spread from Ferrara to Bologna in the decade 1430-40. We can only say that, on the basis of the cards that have come down to us, including those painted by hand, Bolognese tarot cards have a greater affinity with the design of Ferrara that with the Milanese. Despite the uncertainty about their origin, the history of tarot cards in Bologna can be traced without difficulty from the end of the fifteenth century to the present day.)
The only problem is that the designs he calls "Ferrara" are more likely Florentine. So we are back to Florence.

FERRARA AGAIN, AND THE GAME OF IMPERATORE

Lacking extant early cards, one argument in favor of Ferrara is the early playing card notes, including "13 new playing cards, of which 5 are figures" in 1422 (http://trionfi.com/playing-cards-ferrara-1422). That is a very weak argument, since they might also have been replacement cards. But all we have are weak arguments.

Another possibility, this time relating to Florence as well as Ferrara, is a note of 1423 in which Ferrara pays for "one pack of VIII Emperor cards" from Florence (http://trionfi.com/0/c/). Given that it required a special pack, could the game of Emperors (or "VIII Emperors", or 8 special cards called "Emperors") have been a predecessor to Tarot? And perhaps even a predecessor to Marziano's game? We know nothing specifically about that Italian game referred to as "Imperatore" other than references to it exist from 1425 to 1450. In Germany, however there was a game "Karnoffel", of which Dummett says (p. 164):
...il riferimento più antico è del 1426, quando fu incluso in un’ordinanza della città di Nòrdlingen fra i giochi che potevano essere legalmente praticati alla festa annuale della città39. Il primo accenno al Karnoffel risale quindi quasi precisamente al momento in cui, secondo la congettura del capitolo IV, fu inventato il gioco dei Tarocchi.

(...the earliest reference is from 1426, when it was included in an ordinance of the city of Nordlingen among games that could be legally practiced at the city’s annual festival 39. The first mention of Karnoffel then goes back almost precisely to the time when, according to the conjecture of Chapter IV, the game of Tarot was invented.)
Here is Dummett on Karnoffel (p. 164d):
Il Karnoffel si giocava originariamente con un mazzo tedesco di quarantotto carte (senza Assi). Nei semi semplici le carte erano ordinate nel modo consueto: Re (la più alta), Ober, Unter, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 la più bassa). L’elemento eccezionale era che, originariamente, scoprendo una carta, uno dei semi diventava seme di briscola; ciò che affascinava Johann Geiler e gli allegoristi protestanti era che l’ordine in questo seme veniva completamente sconvolto. La carta più alta diventava l'Unter di briscola, chiamato il Karnoffel; seguiva il 6 di briscola, chiamato il Papa; e la terza carta più alta era il 2 di briscola, chiamato il Kaiser. Dal punto di vista della storia dei giochi di carte, il fatto più interessante è che solo alcune carte del seme di briscola diventavano briscole e, fra queste, alcune erano solo briscole parziali. Nelle forme più antiche del gioco, solo il Karnoffel, il Papa e il Kaiser erano vere e proprie briscole, in grado di battere qualsiasi carta di un seme semplice. Dopo questi era il 3 di briscola, che poteva battere qualunque carta del seme semplice che non fosse il Re, ma era battuto a sua volta dal Re. Allo stesso modo, il 4 di briscola poteva battere qualsiasi carta dall'Unter in giù, ma era battuto dal Re o dall’Ober; il 5 di briscola poteva battere qualsiasi carta numerale ma era battuto da tutte e tre le figure. Supponiamo, per esempio, che, in un gioco a quattro, le Campane siano il seme di briscola. Il primo giocatore gioca l'Unter di Ghiande, il secondo il 4 di Campane che lo [end of 164] batte. Il terzo gioca l'Ober di Ghiande, che batte il 4 di briscola. Per assicurarsi la presa, il quarto può giocare una qualsiasi delle carte seguenti, se la possiede: il 3 di Campane; il Re di Ghiande; il 2 di Campane (Kaiser); il 6 di Campane (Papa); oppure l'Unter di Campane (Karnoffel). Nel gioco del Karnoffel, non c’è obbligo di rispondere al seme o giocare una briscola.

Il 7 del seme di briscola, chiamato il Diavolo o 7 maligno, aveva un ruolo speciale. Se giocato in una presa, ma non come prima carta, non poteva vincerla; ma, se giocato come prima carta, batteva automaticamente qualsiasi altra carta, tranne, in alcune versioni del gioco, il Karnoffel. Le rimanenti carte del seme di briscola, il Re, l'Ober, il 10, 9 e 8, non avevano alcun valore come briscole: di fatto esse formavano tra loro un seme semplice a parte. Se la prima carta della presa era una briscola, poteva essere battuta solo da una briscola più alta: per esempio, se le Campane erano briscole e si apriva la presa con il 3 di Campane, esso poteva essere battuto solo dal 2, dal 6 o dal Unter di Campane, in quanto briscole superiori, e non dal Re, che non era una briscola. Ma se si apriva con il Re di Campane, esso contava come il Re di un seme semplice: non poteva essere battuto dal 3 di briscola, ma solo dal 2, dal 6 o di Unter di briscola.

(Karnoffel originally was played with a pack of forty-eight German cards (without Aces). In the simple suits, the cards were ordered in the usual way: King (the highest), Ober, Unter,[/i] 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 (the lowest). The exceptional element was that, originally, revealing a card, one of the suits became the trump suit; what fascinated Johann Geiler and the Protestant allegorists was that the order in this suit was completely shocking. The Unter of trumps, called the Karnoffel, became the highest card; the 6th trumps followed, called the Pope; and the third highest card was the second trump, called the Kaiser. From the point of view of the history of card games, the most interesting fact is that only a few cards of the trump suit became trumps and, among these, some were only partial trumps. In the most ancient forms of the game, only the Karnoffel, Pope and Kaiser were real trumps, which can beat any card of a simple suit. After these was the 3 of trumps, it could beat any card of the simple suits that was not the King, but was in turn defeated by the King. Similarly, the 4 of Trumps could beat any card from the Unter down, but was beaten by the King or the Ober; the 5 of trumps could beat any numeral but was beaten by all three figures. Suppose, for example, that, in a four-player game, the Bells are the trump suit. The first player plays the Unter of Acorns, the second the 4 of Bells, which [end of 164] beats it. The third plays the Ober of Acorns, which takes the 4 of trumps. To make the trick certain, the fourth can play any one of the following cards, if he possesses it: 3 of Bells; King of Acorns; 2 of Bells (Kaiser); 6 Bells (Pope); or Unter of Bells (Karnoffel). In the game of Karnoffel, there is no obligation to follow suit or play a trump.

The 7 of the trump suit, called the Devil or the malignant 7, had a special role. If played in a trick, but not as the first card, it could not win; but, if played as the first card, it automatically beat any other card, except, in some versions of the game, the Karnoffel. The remaining cards in the trump suit, the King, Ober, 10, 9 and 8, had no value as trump cards: in fact they formed among themselves a separate simple suit. If the first card was a trump, it could only be beaten by a higher trump: for example, if Bells were trumps and the trick opened with the 3 of Bells, it could be beaten only by the 2, the 6, or Unter of Bells, as the superior Trumps, and not by the King, which was not a trump. But if you opened with the King of Bells, it counted as the King of a simple suit: it could not be beaten by the 3 of trumps, but only by the 2, the 6, or the Unter of trumps.
_________________
19. Cited by W.L. Schreiber, Die alteste Spielkarten, Strassbourg 1937, pp. 42-3.
The Kaiser as the 2 of trumps is not far from where the Emperor is in the tarot. Nor the 6 as the Pope. That there is a Devil, right next to him, seems an allegory for treachery, as we see in the tarot's Hanged Man and the Devil. Could Karnoffel have influenced Tarot? Dummett says not, because tarot was unknown in Germany until the 16th century. But there is the matter of the name. Dummett explores the relationship (p. 166):
Un nome alternativo per il Kamóffel era il Kaiserspiel (il gioco dell’Imperatore) e pare che questo sia sempre stato il nome con cui era noto in Svizzera; il più antico riferimento svizzero ai Tarocchi di cui siamo a conoscenza, quello già citato del 1572, raggruppa di fatto i due giochi con un terzo: nella espressione «troggen, munteren und keiseren», il primo nome si riferisce ai Tarocchi e il terzo al Kaiserspiel o Kamóffel-'. Nel testo latino di uno dei sermoni del Geiler, Keiserspil è indicato come nome alternativo per il gioco, con la traduzione latina «ludus Caesaris»; ma un testo latino proveniente da Wurzburg contiene un passo relativo al periodo 1443-55 a proposito di «un tale... che giocava a carte a un gioco chiamato dell’Impe-ratore»22. «Ludus Imperatoria» («gioco dell’Imperatore») sarebbe una traduzione latina del tutto naturale di «Kaiserspiel» e può pertanto indicare il gioco chiamato da Geiler ludus Caesaris, cioè il Kamóffel. In questo caso, il gioco avrebbe anche potuto essere noto a Ferrara. Nel 1450, un certo Andrea di Bonsignore di quella città ricevette un compenso di 2 lire per aver dipinto due mazzi di «carte da imperatori»25; intorno al 1454 Borso d’Este giocava a carte dette dell’imperatore e un libro contabile per gli anni 1452-7 registra due pagamenti, di 12 soldi al mazzo, per «carte da imperaturi» o «de imperatore

(An alternative name for Karnoffel was Kaiserspiel (the game of Emperor) and it seems that this has always been the name by which it was known in Switzerland; The earliest reference to the Swiss Tarot of which we are aware, that the above-mentioned 1572, in fact, includes two games with a third: the expressions ‘troggen, munteren und keiseren'; the first name refers to Tarot and the third to Kaiserspiel or Karnóffel. In the Latin text of one of the sermons of Geiler, Keiserspiel is indicated as an alternate name for the game, with the Latin translation of "ludus Caesari”; but a Latin text from Wurzburg contains a passage which covers the period 1443-55 about "a man... playing cards in a game called Imperator" (22). "Ludus Imperatoria" (“Game of Emperor”) is a completely natural Latin translation of "Kaiserspiel' and may therefore indicate the game called by Geiler ludus Caesaris, i.e. Karnóffel. In this case, the game could also have been known in Ferrara. In 1450, a certain Andrea Bonsignore of that city received a fee of 2 pounds for having painted two decks of "emperor cards” (23); around 1454 Borso d'Este played a card game called Imperator, and an account book for the years 1452-7 records two soldi payment for the deck (24), for "carte da imperaturi: or "de imperatore".
_______________________
22. "... quidam unus... ludens to cartas Ludum vocatum imperatoris." W. L. Schreiber, Die àltesten Spielkarten, p. 52; the text is a manuscript Tractatus de - tractibilis by Paulus Wann, cod. lat. 4695, 37; and cod. lat. 12730, p. 56b, in the Staatsbibliothek in Monaco of Bavaria.
23. G. Campori, ‘Le Carte dipinte per gli Estensi nel Secolo XV’, Atti e Memorie delle Reali Deputazioni di Storia Patria per le provìncie modenesi e parmensi ('Painted Cards for the Este family in the fifteenth century’, Proceedings and Memoirs of the Royal Deputation of National History in the provinces of Modena and Parma], Vol III, Modena, 1874, p. 123-32; see p. 127.
24. See G. Bertoni, Poesie, leggende, costumanze del medio evo [Poems, legends, customs of the Middle Ages], p. 218 for the game of Duke Borso and Note 3 to the entries in the account book of the court. W.L.Schreiber, op, cit. p. 96, calls them Imperator cards painted at Ferrara in 1450 but does not give a source.
But Dummett finds it more likely that the Ferrarese "Emperors" was a different game entirely, stimulated by the game of tarot (p. 166):
Dal momento che Ferrara fu uno dei centri più antichi del gioco dei Tarocchi, è difficile non sospettare che il Kamóffel poteva aver fornito l’idea originale che condusse alla creazione del mazzo di tarocchi. Se è così, il Kamoffel, è il lontano antenato del Whist, del Triomphe, dell'Ombre e di tutti gli altri giochi, lungo una linea che, sorprendentemente, attraversò i giochi per i quali fu inventato il mazzo dei tarocchi.

Nel complesso, tuttavia, le probabilità sono a sfavore di questa ipotesi. Se le «carte da imperatore» prodotte a Ferrara dovevano servire per giocare al Kamóffel, presumibilmente esse avevano semi tedeschi; ma non esistono altre indicazioni che carte con semi tedeschi fossero conosciute, e meno che mai prodotte, in Italia durante il XV e persino il XVI secolo. Inoltre, sembra che il Kamóffel fosse fin dall’inizio quello che fu poi in seguito — un gioco del popolo; è pertanto difficile supporre che giungesse all’elegante corte di Ferrara. Più probabilmente, i due giochi del Kamóffel e dei Tarocchi, non erano collegati e rappresentarono due approcci indipendenti all’idea di briscola quale noi la conosciamo attraverso il Bridge e giochi simili. Nel Kamóffel si utilizza uno dei semi ordinari, ma solo ad alcune delle sue carte è assegnato potere totale o parziale di briscola; nei Tarocchi al mazzo viene aggiunta un’intera nuova serie di carte figurate. Proprio come la licitazione entrò a far parte di molti giochi a prese che in origine ne erano privi, così l’idea di briscola fu incorporata in quasi tutti i giochi di questo tipo; da alcuni, per esempio la Trappola, si sa per certo che era originariamente assente. I più famosi fra i giochi che hanno rifiutato l’idea della briscola sono il Picchetto e quelli della popolare famiglia italiana del Tressette; anche alcune forme successive della Trappola rifiutarono l’idea, mentre altre l’adottarono. Toccò ai Tarocchi dare l’idea agli altri giochi di carte.

(Since Ferrara was one of the oldest centers of the game of Tarot, it is difficult not to suspect that Kamoffel could have supplied the original idea that led to the creation of the Tarot deck. If so, Kamoffel is the distant ancestor of Whist, Triomphe, Ombre and all the other games, along a line which, surprisingly, was traversed by the games for which the tarot deck was invented.

Overall, however, the odds are in disagreement with this hypothesis. If the "emperor cards" produced in Ferrara are supposed to be used for playing Kamóffel, presumably they had German suits; but there are no other indications that cards with German suits were known, and even less, produced in Italy during the fifteenth and even sixteenth centuries. Moreover, it seems that Karnoffel was from the beginning what it was later - a game of the people; therefore it is difficult to suppose it came to the elegant court of Ferrara. More likely, the two games, Kamóffel and Tarot, were not related and represented two independent approaches to the idea of Trumps as we know it through Bridge and similar games. In Karnoffel one of ordinary suits is used, but only a few of its cards are assigned full or partial power of trumps; in the Tarot deck a whole new set of picture cards is added. Just as bidding became part of many trick-taking games that originally were without it, so the idea of trumps was incorporated into almost all games of this type; in some, for example Trappola, it is known with certainty that it was originally absent. The most famous among the games that have rejected the idea of the trump are Picchetto and those of the popular Italian family of Tressette; even some forms of subsequent Trappola rejected the idea, while others adopted it. Contact with Tarot give the idea to other card games.
The part about German suits is very weak: Italians would simply have made decks with Italian suits. Also, there was no standard German suit-system in 1425. Also, Dummett does not appear to know the 1423 reference, which implicates both Ferrara and Florence.

Dummett seems to think that Karnoffel was a peasants' game and therefore unlikely to have influenced an Italian game of the court. True, it turns things upside down. But I don't see why the upper classes might have been just as interested in playing such games, if only to know how to stop such revolutions. 

In Karnoffel, only three cards were full triumphs, while others weren't trumps at all. In this regard the 1423 note might mean 5 full trumps, with pictures, and the rest partial or non-trumps.

If Emperors was first, when would it have given way to tarot? Even in 1450, Borso was still playing the game, although that seems to be the last reference in Italy. 1423 in Ferrara is not that far from 1428 in Milan. And perhaps when Marcello spoke of Marziano's game as one "sort" of triumphs, Imperatore was another, and the tarot deck a third. Some of the extant cards of incomplete decks with only an Emperor and maybe one or two other triumphs might also be from an Imperatore deck (Rothschild, Brera-Brambilla).

MILAN AGAIN

I can give two other arguments in favor of Milan, neither very strong. One is that when the Cary-Yale cards came to Yale, they were each associated with a suit, just as in the case of Marziano's game. I still have the email to that effect from the Beinecke Library. The cards are labeled that way on their website. However it is not known whether these associations were originally there.

My other argument for Milan is from information I learn in Dummett's chapter on the early rules of the game in various places. The winner of the game, everywhere is not determined only by who gets the most tricks, but by who reaches a pre-set goal first, e,g, 300 points; in that way, it is a kind of race. In the scoring, the court cards have point values from 1 to 4, different for each rank, but in Milan only three of the triumphs have point-values: the Fool, the Bateleur, and the World. Dummett says (p. 150):
È possibile che la selezione delle carte di valore di punteggio fra i trionfi avesse già subito variazioni nel XV secolo nei tre centri originari del gioco: Milano, Ferrara e Bologna. Il sistema di gran lunga più conosciuto è quello che, con ogni probabilità, fu usato a Milano. In base ad esso, c’erano solo tre carte di valore di punteggio, a parte le sedici figure, e ciascuna di esse valeva 4 punti: il trionfo più alto (il Mondo), il trionfo più basso (il Bagatto) e il Matto.

(It is possible that the selection of cards with point values among the triumphs had already undergone changes in the fifteenth century in the three original centers of the game: Milan, Ferrara and Bologna. The system that was by far the best known is that, in all probability, used in Milan. According to it, there were only three cards with point values, apart from the sixteen figures, and each of them was worth 4 points: the highest triumph (the World), the lowest triumph (the Bagatto) and the Fool.)
In Bologna, however, the triumphs with point-value are those plus the Angel. Here is Dummett (p. 237):
Come abbiamo spiegato in precedenza, nella forma originale del gioco dei Tarocchi un giocatore o partito segnava un punto per ogni presa fatta* Nei semi, le carte con valore di punteggio erano solo le figure — un Re valeva 4 punti, una Regina 3, un Cavallo 2 e un Fante 1. Nella tradizione milanese c’erano altre tre carte con valore di punteggio: il trionfo più alto (il Mondo), il trionfo più basso (il Bagatto) e il Matto, che valevano ciascuna 4 punti. Il sistema bolognese era equivalente a questo (se pur descritto in altro modo), con due differenze. Prima di tutto, 6 punti extra venivano assegnati a chi faceva l’ultima presa; in secondo luogo, non solo il trionfo più alto, l’Angelo, ma anche quello immediatamente successivo, il Mondo, erano carte con valore di punteggio, e ciascuna valeva quanto un Re. A parte le figure, dunque, c’erano solo quattro carte con punteggio, tutte in pratica da 4 punti: l’Angelo, il Mondo, il Bagattino e il Matto: queste erano (e sono) collettivamente note come ‘tarocchi’; i trionfi in generale non sono chiamate ‘tarocchi’, ma semplicemente ‘trionfi’.

Questo sistema di punti base deve essere molto antico e risale probabilmente alle prime forme del gioco così come esso era praticato a Bologna.

(As we explained above, in the original form of the game of Tarot a pair or a player scored a point for each trick made.* In the suits, only the figures had point-values - a King was worth 4 points, a Queen 3, a Knight 2 and a Jack 1. In the Milanese tradition there were three other cards with point-values: the highest triumph (the World), the lowest triumph (the Bagatto) and the Fool [Matto], each worth 4 points. The Bolognese system was equivalent to this (albeit described in another way), with two differences. First of all, 6 extra points were awarded to those who made the last trick; Second, not only the highest triumph, the Angel, but also the one immediately following, the World, were cards with point-values, and each was as good as a King. Apart from the figures, then, there were only four with point-values, all in practice 4 points: the Angel, the World, the Bagattino and the Fool: these were (and are) collectively known as 'tarots '; triumphs in general are not called 'Tarots', but simply 'triumphs'.

This system of point-values must be very old and probably dates back to the earliest forms of the game as it was practiced in Bologna.)
But Milan's point system is simpler. If games progress from the simpler to the more complex, the Bolognese would be later (for example, bidding is added to trick-taking). The reason for the addition would be that the Angel has been promoted to high triumph, on religious grounds, and point-values go to the highest and the lowest. But since the World already had point-value, it is not taken away. The Bolognese game is more complex in other ways, because points are scored for the last trick.

The Bolognese game developed another complexity, namely, scoring points for combinations of cards: Dummett talks about this way of getting points in relation to Bologna but not Milan: it is "characteristic" of Bologna (p. 237):
Questo sistema è probabilmente molto antico e costituisce un tratto caratteristico del gioco bolognese. Forse precede la riduzione del mazzo da settantotto a sessantadue carte; ma è improbabile che sia tanto antico quanto il sistema di punti base a cui si è sovrapposto.

(This system is probably very old and is a characteristic feature of the game in Bologna. Maybe it precedes the reduction of the seventy-eight to a sixty card pack; but is unlikely to be as old as the points system on which it is superimposed.)
So if one game is more complex than another, it is likely to have become that way later in time than simpler games.

This argument of mine for Milanese priority is by no means conclusive. It is possible that after the game was invented in Bologna, it died out there, possibly as a result of St. Bernardino's preaching. But it continued in Ferrara, and the "13 cards" note reveals the primitive state of the triumphs originally, with only five picture cards and the rest numerals. Somewhere along the line, on this scenario, it was improved. Then the game came back to Bologna after it became popular in Florence and followed whatever developments Florence added.

In favor of Milan, I have appealed to one difference between the A, B, and C orders. Some have thought that the placement of the virtues in the three orders says something about the priority of one order over another. That is possible. But I see no a priori reason why they should all be placed together. If it follows a Petrarchan progression, different virtues might be needed for different parts of life. In fact, the A order is unique among the three in having them together, just as it is unique in having the Angel as high trump. Putting the virtues together might then be a rationalization of earlier practice, which seemed to those later as chaos.

On balance, I think Dummett is right to single out Milan as being most likely to have the tarot deck by around the late 1420s, as a development out of Marziano's game; there are other reasons as well, as I have discussed. Before that, it is hard to say. Bologna remains possible. And Ferrara and Florence, too, given the "VIII Emperors" of 1423 (made in Florence for Ferrara) and a possible relationship to tarot. Along with that, the Rothschild cards, fairly securly Florentine, might be of that period. After Milan, it is also hard to say, because of all the possibilities, until it ends up in Florence in the mid to late 1430s. Everything is very hazy. But that is the nature of the beast.

No comments:

Post a Comment