Additif :
The relevance of this note about the datation is to show that these Rules were probably in use before 1637 - probably sooner than 1580.
There is a point that should not be overlooked.
The function of the Fool as Excuse :

"On est donc en droit de penser que des pratiques très semblables – jeu à trois sans enchères, écart effectué par le donneur, importance des combinaisons (quatre rois, sept tarots), fou servant d’excuse, forte valeur (5 points) accordée aux rois, compte des points avec seuil à 20 – avaient cours au moins dans le dernier quart du XVIe siècle sinon plus tôt."

So we have as soon as 1580 and not 1637 the Fool as Exuse and the 7 Tarots - refering most probably to the 4 Kings and 3 Hautes : Bgat, Monde et Math.

Logical inference : if we have the Fool as Excuse as soon as 1580 , then we can infer rationaly that, knowing that the finality of the game is to win all the tricks - SCHLEM -, it's special last trick points making wad known in the last quarter of the XVIth century.
Morever as we have3 authors from different French regions publishing circa 1580, we can also infer than this was a practise of the game all over the French Kingdom.


Note 4 :
(4) Cette datation est reprise dans Lois et règles de jeux pour l’esprit et le bonheur des hommes par Manfred Zollinger : http://expositions.bnf.fr/jeux/arret/03_3.htm

Transcription d’après l’original conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale de France par Thierry DEPAULIS des Règles du Jeu des Tarots.’
L ouvrage est imprimé à Nerers, France en 1637.
L ’auteur est anonyme ; toutefois T. DEPAULIS en attribue la paternité à l’ Abbé de Mirolles.


Néanmoins, on remarquera que dès 1585, dans le Triomphe du Berlan de PERRACHE sont déjà textuellement présentes certaines expressions spécifiques plus tard littéralement reproduites à l’identique dans La Règle de la Maison Académique.dite de 1637.
“Ainsi, trois publications des années 1580 usent de termes qui sont en pleine concordance avec les Regles dv iev des tarots de l’abbé de Marolles (1637).

Outre le vocabulaire de base – mat, bagat,deniers, bâtons, triomphes, écart – qui est déjà courant en français, on rencontre des expressions ou des situations qui s’accordent pleinement avec ce que nous enseigne un texte légèrement postérieur.
Les comptes d’Henri de Navarre confirment le choix du jeu à trois.
On est donc en droit de penser que des pratiques très semblables – jeu à trois sans enchères, écart effectué par le donneur, importance des combinaisons (quatre rois, sept tarots), fou servant d’excuse, forte valeur (5 points) accordée aux rois, compte des points avec seuil à 20 – avaient cours au moins dans le dernier quart du XVIe siècle sinon plus tôt.
Henri de Navarre est béarnais, ses partenaires sont gascon, charentais ou champenois ;Tabourot est bourguignon, Perrache est provençal, Gauchet est francilien, ces trois-là font paraître leurs livres à Paris : tout laisse à croire que ces règles étaient connues dans une bonne partie du royaume.”
(T. DEPAULIS, Etienne Tabourot et le Tarot : http://www.academia.edu/15317283/_%C3%8 ... p._386-392

Rappel :

Dans la Regle de 1637
le Math fait nécessairement partie des 22 Triomphes :


Ce jeu qui est composé de soixante & dix-huict Cartes, se peut distribuer en cinq bandes, la première & la plus noble de toutes appellée triomphes qui sont au nombre de vingt-deux : & les quatre autres couleurs sont nommées d'espées, bastons, couppes & deniers, chacune desquelles a quatorze cartes

Page 4
"La beauté de ce jeu est d'auoir force triomphes & principallement les hautes auec le Monde, le Math, & le Bagat, & quelques Roys : par ce qu'auec les triomphes on surmonte tous les efforts des quatres [sic] peintures, quand on y fait des renonces. Et par le moyen du Monde, Math, & Bagat, & les Roys, on se fait payer autant de marques de chacun que lon en peut leuer en joüant, à cause de quoy on les nomme Tarots par excellence. Et toutes les fois qu'ils paroissent dans le jeu, il leur faut payer le tribut ou eux mesmes sont contraints de payer la rençon s'ils tombent entre les mains de leurs ennemis, c'est à dire que celuy qui les perd donne vne marque à chacun."
Page 7
"dans ce descompte les triomphes, excepté le Monde, le Math, & Bagat"

Le Math servant d' Excuse est considéré comme faisant partie des 7 Tarots :
"Monde, Math, & Bagat, & les Roys"

"excuse se faict auec la carte du Math, qui est vn des sept Tarots, qui ne prend point & ne peut estre pris"
"trois Tarots, Monde, Math, & Bagat"

I have published a Note 5 after Note 4

(5) Dans la Règle de 1637 (probablement en usage dans le dernier quart du XVI è siècle : cf Note 4)
le Math fait nécessairement partie des 22 Triomphes :

"(...) la première & la plus noble de toutes appellée triomphes qui sont au nombre de vingt-deux (...)"

Il est cité systématiquement après le Monde et avant le Bagat :

"La beauté de ce jeu est d'auoir force triomphes & principallement les hautes auec le Monde, le Math, & le Bagat, & quelques Roys : par ce qu'auec les triomphes on surmonte tous les efforts des quatres [sic] peintures, quand on y fait des renonces. Et par le moyen du Monde, Math, & Bagat, & les Roys, on se fait payer autant de marques de chacun que lon en peut leuer en joüant, à cause de quoy on les nomme Tarots par excellence. Et toutes les fois qu'ils paroissent dans le jeu, il leur faut payer le tribut ou eux mesmes sont contraints de payer la rençon s'ils tombent entre les mains de leurs ennemis, c'est à dire que celuy qui les perd donne vne marque à chacun."

"dans ce descompte les triomphes, excepté le Monde, le Math, & Bagat"

Le Math servant d' Excuse est considéré comme faisant partie des 7 Tarots :
"Monde, Math, & Bagat, & les Roys"

"excuse se faict auec la carte du Math, qui est vn des sept Tarots, qui ne prend point & ne peut estre pris"

Le Math fait partie des Hautes :
“les hautes auec le Monde, le Math, & le Bagat”
"trois Tarots, Monde, Math, & Bagat"

(T. DEPAULIS, Les Règles d Jeu des Tarots, 1634 : http://www.tarock.info/depaulis.htm)


Commentaire :

Pourquoi donc le Math fut-il expréssement nommé comme faisant partie des Triomphes en portant leur nombre à 22 et cité après le Monde et avant le Bagat parmi les Hautes - tout en conservant sa fonction spécifique d’ Excuse?
Le Math servant d’ Excuse est décrit comme “ne prenant pas et ne pouvant être pris”.
Les Régles ultérieures elles énuméreront 21 Atouts +l' Excuse.
La contradiction ne serait qu’apparente si l’on tient compte de l'hypothèse suivante :
- d'une éventuelle réminiscence de l'ancienne valeur du Matto à qui est accolée l’épithète “nulla” dans l’ Ordre B, circa 1500, où il est positionné sur une vingt deuxième ligne après le Monde et avant le Bagat.
- que la stratégie finale du jeu était de marquer le plus de plis et si possible tous - ce qui ne sera le cas pour le preneur qui a l' Excuse dans son jeu, que s'il la joue au dernier pli comme en cas de Chelem.
Le Math, s’il ne peut prendre et ne peut être pris , néanmoins emporte alors le dernier pli.
L'on peut inférer rationnellement que cette fonction particulière du Math servant d' Excuse remportant le dernier pli ( et donc tous les plis comme en cas de Chelem) était-possiblement en usage en 1637 ou avant (1580) - même si, dans l'état actuel de la recherche historique, les documents manquent.

Ainsi par exemple l'on sait désormais que jouerr aux tarots était une “tradition familiale” chez Henri de Navarre.
http://www.academia.edu/15317283/_%C3%8 ... p._386-392


Il est quasiment impossible qu'au cours de toutes ces parties ne se soit pas présentée la possibilité de gagner tous les plis pour un joueur ayant l 'Excuse dans sa main.
La seule manière de réaliser ce que l'on appellera ultérieurement le Chelem étant de jouer l 'Excuse au dernier pli après le Petit à l'avant dernier pli.
Que les rédacteurs de Règles n'aient pas noté cette stratégie ultra gagnante n' empêcha, à mon sens, nullement la connaissance empirique de cette spécificité par les joueurs avertis …
Sachant que la pratique ludique précéde toujours l’édition de Règles et que ces dernières sont éditées circa 1580 dans toute la France, on peut réduire la possibilité à zéro pour un joueur quelconque, vu le nombre de parties jouées dans le royaume et le nombre de joueurs, de ne pas avoir remporté tous les plis avec l’Excuse dans sa main ...
La rareté de ce que l’on nommera ultérieurement Chelem (nomenclaturé de nos jours avec annonce obligatoire) n’invalide donc en aucun cas la multiplicité des parties avec le Fou servant d’Excuse remportant le dernier pli comme un Triomphe (et c'en est un - même le plus beau : tous les plis étant alors remportés) - compte tenu du grand nombre de joueurs en France à l'époque et par conséquent du nombre élevé de parties jouées.

Hi Steve

Thanks

I have an approximate translation of Alain's notes 4 and 5. In quoting from the 1637 rules, the problem is that I do not know what some of the terms mean. I can guess, but I would appreciate Alain's explanation of "renonce".I think it means "to play a card in a trick", but I am not sure, as well as "leuer", "descompte", and "rencon".

In note 4, there was a typographical error in the spelling of "Nevers"; Alain's French text has "Nerers", corrected below. Another typo seems to be that the date of the Rules is given as 1434. Another minor error, it seems to me , sh that he attributes the date of 1437 to the Maison Académique, which in fact did not discuss the tarot until 1659. I did not correct these last two errors, pending Alain's approval.

In the quote from Depaulis I have followed the punctuation and paragraphing of Depaulis's original, i.e. putting only the technical terms in italics and with the whole quote in two paragraphs. It is the last two paragraphs of Depaulis's essay, if anyone wants to consult the original.

The highlighting in bold type is Alain's, which I have followed.

Here are the additions, notes 4 and 5:


(4) This dating is included in "Lois et règles de jeux pour l’esprit et le bonheur des hommes" [Statutes and rules of games for the mind and the happiness of mankind] by Manfred Zollinger: http://expositions.bnf.fr/jeux/arret/03_3.htm

Transcript from the original, kept in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, by Thierry DEPAULIS of Règles du Jeu des Tarots.
The book is printed in Nevers, France in 1637.
The author is anonymous; however T. DEPAULIS ascribes authorship to the Abbot of Mirolles.

Nonetheless, it will be noted that from 1585, in the Triomphe du Berlan by PERRACHE specific expressions are already textually present later literally reproduced identically in The Rules of the Maison Académique, considered of 1637.

Thus, three publications of the 1580s use terms that are in full conformity with the Regles dv iev des tarots of the the Abbot of Marolles (1637). Besides the basic vocabulary - mat, bagat, derniers, bâtons, triomphes, écart - which is already current in French, expressions or situations are encountered that are fully consistent with what a slightly later text teaches us. The accounts of Henry of Navarre confirm the choice of a game for three.

We are therefore entitled to think that very similar practices - three players without bidding, discard made by the dealer, importance of combinations (four kings, seven tarots), Fool serving as excuse, high value (5 points) granted to kings, counting points with a limit at 20 – took place during at least in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, if not sooner. Henry of Navarre is a Béarnais, his partners are Gascon, Charentais or Champagnois; Tabourot is Burgundian, Perrache is Provencal, Gauchet is Île de France, these three issue their books in Paris: there is every reason to believe that these rules were known in a good part of the kingdom.

(T. DEPAULIS, “Etienne Tabourot et le tarot": http://www.academia.edu/15317283/_%C3%8 ... p._386-392, p. 386-392)

(5) In the Rule of 1637 (probably in use in the last quarter of the 16th century: see Note 4), the Fool is necessarily made part of the 22 Triumphs:

(...) la première & la plus noble de toutes appellée triomphes qui sont au nombre de vingt-deux (...)

(...) The first and noblest of all called triumphs, which are of the number of twenty-two (...)

It is systematically cited after the World and before the Bagat:

"La beauté de ce jeu est d'auoir force triomphes & principallement les hautes auec le Monde, le Math, & le Bagat, & quelques Roys : par ce qu'auec les triomphes on surmonte tous les efforts des quatres [sic] peintures, quand on y fait des renonces. Et par le moyen du Monde, Math, & Bagat, & les Roys, on se fait payer autant de marques de chacun que lon en peut leuer en joüant, à cause de quoy on les nomme Tarots par excellence. Et toutes les fois qu'ils paroissent dans le jeu, il leur faut payer le tribut ou eux mesmes sont contraints de payer la rençon s'ils tombent entre les mains de leurs ennemis, c'est à dire que celuy qui les perd donne vne marque à chacun."
...
"(...) dans ce descompte les triomphes, excepté le Monde, le Math, & Bagat.

The beauty of this game is having strength in triumphs & principally the high ones with the World, the Math, & the Bagat, and some Kings: for this with triumphs one overcomes all the efforts of the four [sic] figures, when one makes the renonce. And by means of the World, Math, & Bagat, and the Kings, one gets paid so many marks from each that one can leuer while playing, because of which they are called Tarots par excellence. And every time they appear in the game, they have to pay tributes or themselves are forced to pay the rencon if they fall into the hands of their enemies, that is, he who loses gives one mark to each.

(...) In this discount [?: descompte] triumphs, except the World, Math, & Bagat

The Math serving as Excuse is considered as being part of the 7 Tarots :

...Monde, Math, & Bagat, & les Roys
...
(...) excuse se faict auec la carte du Math, qui est vn des sept Tarots, qui ne prend point & ne peut estre pris"

World, Math, & Bagat, and the Kings"
...
(...) excuse is made with the card of the Math, which is one of the seven Tarots, which cannot take anything and cannot be taken

The Math is part of the Highs [Hautes]:

(...) les hautes auec le Monde, le Math, & le Bagat
(...) trois Tarots, Monde, Math, & Bagat

(...) the highs with the World, Math, & the Bagat
(-...) three Tarots, World, Math, & Bagat

(T. DEPAULIS, Les Règles du Jeu des Tarots, 1634 : http://www.tarock.info/depaulis.htm)

Comment:

Why was the Math specifically named as one of the triumphs in bringing their number to 22 and cited after the World and before the Bagat among the Highs - while retaining its specific function of Excuse?

Math serving as an excuse is described as "not taking and not being taken."

In subsequent rules will be listed 21 Atouts + the Excuse.

The contradiction is only apparent if one takes into account the following hypothesis:

- of a reminiscence of the old value of the Matto to which is awarded the epithet "nulla" in the B Order, circa 1500, where it is positioned on a twenty-second line, after the World and before the Bagat.

- that the ultimate strategy of the game was to score the most tricks and if possible all - which will be the case for the player who has the Excuse in his hand, if he plays it at last trick as in the case of the Chelem.

The Math, if it cannot take and cannot be taken, however, then takes away the last trick.

One can rationally infer that this particular function of the Math, serving as Excuse, winning the last trick (and therefore all the tricks as in case of the Chelem was possibly in use in 1637 or before (1580) - although in the the current state of historical research, the documents are missing.

For example, we now know that playing tarot was a "family tradition" of Henry of Navarre. (http://www.academia.edu/15317283/_%C3%8 ... p._386-392).

It is almost impossible that in the course of all these hands played the opportunity will not present itself for a player with the excuse in his hand to win all the tricks.

The only way to achieve what is later called the Chelem is to play the Excuse as the last trick after the Petit [Little One, i.e. the Bateleur] in the next to last trick.
That the drafters of the Rules did not note this ultra-winning strategy does not prevent, in my opinion, empirical knowledge of this specification by serious players ...

In addition, knowing that players’ practice always precedes published rules and that these are published circa 1580 throughout France, the probability is reduced to zero, for at least one player, considering the number of hands [parties] played and number of players in the kingdom, not winning all the tricks with the Excuse in his hand

The rarity of what will be subsequently called the Chelem (nomenclature of our time with mandatory announcement) therefore does not invalidate in any case the multiplicity of hands with the Fool acting as Excuse winning the last trick as a Triumph (and what is even more beautiful: all the tricks then being won) – taking into account, in France at the time, the large number of players and therefore the high number of hands played.

Now I would like to make some comments about these notes.

I have left in what seem to be some small errors in note 5: 1634 is not the year of the Rules transcribed by Depaulis, nor is that year part of the title at the website given, http://www.tarock.info/depaulis.htm. Also, it is not the same as the Maison Academique rules, which were of 1659 and not in consideration here. One other thing is that the object of the game was not to win as many tricks as possible (assuming I have understood "pli" properly as "trick"), but to win as many points as possible. There is also the question of how to translate others of the 1637 terms: leuer [lever = raise?], descompte [discount?], partie [hand?], rencon [recompense?], and renonce [put a card into play?].

In Alain's "Comment", his last point, about how old the "Chelem" may reasonably assumed to be, seems to be that surely the occasion would have arisen, sometime in the 16th century France, that a player had the opportunity to win all the tricks, and so all the points, until the last one, when he would have to play the Excuse if he had it in his hand. In that case, surely he would not be denied the privilege of winning everything, and a bonus besides. So probably the tradition of the "Chelem" existed then, even if it was not written into the rules until much later, even the 19th century. (Looking at Dummett and McLeod (A History of the Games Played with the Tarot Pack, vol. 1, p. 200), I see that they do not give a date for the rules of the French game involving the Chelem, except "from 1850 or earlier to c. 1939". They think it a reasonable guess that these rules were those in effect after 1939, but are unsure about the period before then. They do not mention the Chelem anyplace else in the book that I can find. Also, "Chelem" is not in the index of Game of Tarot.

That seems to me a reasonable argument, although one sufficiently weak to justify its being in a note rather than in the main text. It seems very strange that such a grand use of the Fool would not have been mentioned until so late.

The point about the Fool being listed between the World and before the Bagat is also a good one, although again weak.

However the point abut the Fool being one of the "seven tarots" does not seem to be relevant to the question of whether it is to be considered a Triumph, nor whether it should be considered the 22nd in the series. The problem is that the four kings are among the seven, and they are clearly not triumphs. This defect can be removed by simply deleting the two sentences in which "seven tarots" appears.

mikeh wrote: I have left in what seem to be some small errors in note 5: 1634 is not the year of the Rules transcribed by Depaulis, nor is that year part of the title at the website given, http://www.tarock.info/depaulis.htm. Also, it is not the same as the Maison Academique rules, which were of 1659 and not in consideration here. One other thing is that the object of the game was not to win as many tricks as possible (assuming I have understood "pli" properly as "trick"), but to win as many points as possible. There is also the question of how to translate others of the 1637 terms: leuer [lever = raise?], descompte [discount?], partie [hand?], rencon [recompense?], and renonce [put a card into play?].

Marolles autobiography, book 1, p. 190 (related to the year 1633, in a side note) and p. 213 (related to the year 1637)
https://books.google.de/books?id=zJoPAA ... ts&f=false

At page 190 the topic is Marolles father, who loved to play with Tarots (he seems to have died this year).
At page 213 the topic is the Gonzaga-Nevers daughter, whose father died in this year, and who later became the queen of Poland.

As I understood the situation, the Gonzaga-Nevers family knew Tarots from their beginning and they possibly had own ideas, how to play Tarots. So the daughter urged Marolles to write "her rules", which weren't naturally identical to that, which other (French) Tarot players might have played (for instance the father of Marolles).
The future Queen of Poland became then involved in the life of the salons of Paris, possibly "her rules of Tarot" played a role in this development, which didn't take much time, as she was soon engaged to become Queen of Poland (she had first an affaire with the Polish King's brother, who was in Paris in 1640). In an earlier period of her life she was a sort of prisoner in convents, cause of the wars around Mantova (her father had become heir of Mantova in 1627, which caused a war and the French interest to have the daughter under control. She was 26 in 1637, twice a marriage had been planned, but both didn't work out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Louise_Gonzaga

Alain, I had worked out once, that the "Tarot de Paris", usually given to c. 1600, likely was done in 1559, initiated by 2 young Italian princes (Gonzaga and Strozzi). Louis Gonzaga, one of them, became then duke of Nevers and very influential in France. Likely he caused, that Henry III of France, before king of Poland, became very interested in Italian fashions in 1574.
So there is one family line between Isabella d'Este in Mantova (with influence on some Sforza cards in 1512) and Louis Gonzaga in 1559 and this Gonzaga-Nevers daughter in 1637. Tarot became very very popular in France with Henry III, not before.

In Alain's "Comment", his last point, about how old the "Chelem" may reasonably assumed to be, seems to be that surely the occasion would have arisen, sometime in the 16th century France, that a player had the opportunity to win all the tricks, and so all the points, until the last one, when he would have to play the Excuse if he had it in his hand. In that case, surely he would not be denied the privilege of winning everything, and a bonus besides. So probably the tradition of the "Chelem" existed then, even if it was not written into the rules until much later, even the 19th century. (Looking at Dummett and McLeod (A History of the Games Played with the Tarot Pack, vol. 1, p. 200), I see that they do not give a date for the rules of the French game involving the Chelem, except "from 1850 or earlier to c. 1939". They think it a reasonable guess that these rules were those in effect after 1939, but are unsure about the period before then. They do not mention the Chelem anyplace else in the book that I can find. Also, "Chelem" is not in the index of Game of Tarot.

Chelem, in English Slam and in German Schlemm ...
... in 1820 part of the rules of Jeu de Boston, which became popular as a development from Quadrille and Whist in c. 1780 ...

1820
https://books.google.de/books?id=PVxVAA ... em&f=false

1798
https://books.google.de/books?id=oL5bAA ... em&f=false

1780
https://books.google.de/books?id=mVdeAA ... st&f=false

Another expression, which was used before, seems to be "vole", in German also interpreted as "Volle" (= full) or "Tutti"

1765
https://books.google.de/books?id=XrBbAA ... st&f=false

1801 "Taroc vole" in l'Hombre-Taroc
https://books.google.de/books?id=V61AAA ... oc&f=false

1770 "vole and devole" in L'Hombre
https://books.google.de/books?id=i0oVAA ... le&f=false

BOUGEAREL Alain wrote:Hi Steve

Thanks

Progress report : Just to let you know it hasn't been forgotten! Am in the process of tidying up a completed but somewhat rough translation - hopefully will have ready to post tomorrow.

mikeh wrote:Now I would like to make some comments about these notes.

I have left in what seem to be some small errors in note 5: 1634 is not the year of the Rules transcribed by Depaulis, nor is that year part of the title at the website given, http://www.tarock.info/depaulis.htm. Also, it is not the same as the Maison Academique rules, which were of 1659 and not in consideration here. One other thing is that the object of the game was not to win as many tricks as possible (assuming I have understood "pli" properly as "trick"), but to win as many points as possible. There is also the question of how to translate others of the 1637 terms: leuer [lever = raise?], descompte [discount?], partie [hand?], rencon [recompense?], and renonce [put a card into play?].

(Anonyme, Les Regles du Jeu des Tarots, Nevers, 1637)
Transcription d’après l’original conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale de France par Thierry DEPAULIS des Règles du Jeu des Tarots.’
L ouvrage est imprimé à Nevers, France en 1637.
L ’auteur est anonyme ; toutefois T. DEPAULIS en attribue la paternité à l’ Abbé de Mirolles.






In Alain's "Comment", his last point, about how old the "Chelem" may reasonably assumed to be, seems to be that surely the occasion would have arisen, sometime in the 16th century France, that a player had the opportunity to win all the tricks, and so all the points, until the last one, when he would have to play the Excuse if he had it in his hand. In that case, surely he would not be denied the privilege of winning everything, and a bonus besides. So probably the tradition of the "Chelem" existed then, even if it was not written into the rules until much later, even the 19th century. (Looking at Dummett and McLeod (A History of the Games Played with the Tarot Pack, vol. 1, p. 200), I see that they do not give a date for the rules of the French game involving the Chelem, except "from 1850 or earlier to c. 1939". They think it a reasonable guess that these rules were those in effect after 1939, but are unsure about the period before then. They do not mention the Chelem anyplace else in the book that I can find. Also, "Chelem" is not in the index of Game of Tarot.

That seems to me a reasonable argument, although one sufficiently weak to justify its being in a note rather than in the main text. It seems very strange that such a grand use of the Fool would not have been mentioned until so late.

Yes


The point about the Fool being listed between the World and before the Bagat is also a good one, although again weak.

However the point abut the Fool being one of the "seven tarots" does not seem to be relevant to the question of whether it is to be considered a Triumph, nor whether it should be considered the 22nd in the series. The problem is that the four kings are among the seven, and they are clearly not triumphs. This defect can be removed by simply deleting the two sentences in which "seven tarots" appears.

Well, I still have some hesitation ...
"The beauty of this game is to have many trumps [1] and principally the high ones [2] - along with the World, the Fool and the Bagat [3], and a few Kings: because with trumps one overcomes all the efforts of the four suits(4), when one makes voids in them [5]. And by means of the World, Math, Bagat and the Kings, one is paid as many tokens [6] as one can win by playing them, so they are called "Tarots par excellence" [7]. And whenever they appear in the game, tribute must be paid for them, or they themselves are forced to pay a ransom if they fall into the hands of their enemies, in other words a player who loses one of them has to pay a token to each opponent

(7)" Kings, World, Fool and Bagat are worth 5 card points, and each 5 card points are worth 1 token at the end of the play. But a player is *also* paid one token immediately by each opponent when playing one of these cards, provided that it wins the trick. The immediate payment is same amount that the card is worth in the final count: effectively you get paid twice. Hence these cards are called Tarots "par excellence" (superior to all others).

(8) In other words, whenever you play a "Tarot par excellence" you immediately collect one token from each opponent if it wins, but if it is captured, you pay one token to each opponent instead."

See, Notes 7 and 8
http://www.trionfi.com/0/p/1637.html


"Monde, Math, & Bagat, & les Roys" = WORLD, MATH AND BAGAT AND THE KINGS
I see the mention of the Math afterMonde and after preceded by the conjonction of coordination AND by Bagat as important : it clearly integrates the Math in the group Monde, Math ET Bagat puis the Four Kings
In the Seven Tarots , we have 2 groups:
1. The 3 Tarots :
Monde, Math et Bagat
2 The Four Kings

The 3 are also noted
- as the 3 Tarots :
"trois Tarots, Monde, Math, & Bagat"
-as being part of the Highs :
"le Monde, le Math, & le Bagat”

So?

mikeh wrote:Now I would like to make some comments about these notes.

I have left in what seem to be some small errors in note 5: 1634 is not the year of the Rules transcribed by Depaulis, nor is that year part of the title at the website given, http://www.tarock.info/depaulis.htm. Also, it is not the same as the Maison Academique rules, which were of 1659 and not in consideration here. One other thing is that the object of the game was not to win as many tricks as possible (assuming I have understood "pli" properly as "trick"), but to win as many points as possible. There is also the question of how to translate others of the 1637 terms: leuer [lever = raise?], descompte [discount?], partie [hand?], rencon [recompense?], and renonce [put a card into play?].

In Alain's "Comment", his last point, about how old the "Chelem" may reasonably assumed to be, seems to be that surely the occasion would have arisen, sometime in the 16th century France, that a player had the opportunity to win all the tricks, and so all the points, until the last one, when he would have to play the Excuse if he had it in his hand. In that case, surely he would not be denied the privilege of winning everything, and a bonus besides. So probably the tradition of the "Chelem" existed then, even if it was not written into the rules until much later, even the 19th century. (Looking at Dummett and McLeod (A History of the Games Played with the Tarot Pack, vol. 1, p. 200), I see that they do not give a date for the rules of the French game involving the Chelem, except "from 1850 or earlier to c. 1939". They think it a reasonable guess that these rules were those in effect after 1939, but are unsure about the period before then. They do not mention the Chelem anyplace else in the book that I can find. Also, "Chelem" is not in the index of Game of Tarot.

That seems to me a reasonable argument, although one sufficiently weak to justify its being in a note rather than in the main text. It seems very strange that such a grand use of the Fool would not have been mentioned until so late.

The point about the Fool being listed between the World and before the Bagat is also a good one, although again weak.

However the point abut the Fool being one of the "seven tarots" does not seem to be relevant to the question of whether it is to be considered a Triumph, nor whether it should be considered the 22nd in the series. The problem is that the four kings are among the seven, and they are clearly not triumphs. This defect can be removed by simply deleting the two sentences in which "seven tarots" appears.

Hi Huck

Noted. Thanks.

The data given by Depaulis about Henri de Navarre (later on Henri IV King of France) and Tarots is the following :
http://www.academia.edu/15317283/_%C3%8 ... p._386-392

pp 6 et 7

VI. LE JEU DU ROI DE NAVARRE

C’est une sorte de scoop : Henri IV, alors seulement roi de Navarre, jouait régulièrement au tarot. On aurait pu s’en aviser plus tôt, puisque le fait est rapporté depuis 1863, mais ce détail n’a guère intéressé les principaux biographes du souverain le plus populaire de France.
Une cascade de renvois, sautant d’un sujet à l’autre, m’a conduit au livre de GustaveBascle de Lagrèze,
Henri IV, vie privée, détails inédits (Paris, 1885).
Au chapitre XXIII, intitulé «Henri joueur », on lit, p. 248 :
« En 1586, il [Henri de Navarre] perdit une somme assez forte en jouant au tarot avec MM. de Montausier et de Boisdoré (B.2848). »
L’auteur a puisé sa documentation dans les comptes de la cour de Navarre, aujourd’hui conservés aux Archives départementales des Pyrénées-Atlantiques, à Pau. D’ailleurs, il n’est que de parcourir l’Inventaire-sommaire des archives départementales antérieures à 1790, Basses-Pyrénées : Archives civiles,I :Séries B. Nos1 à 4537 publié par Paul Raymond (Paris, 1863)pour y retrouver notre document ainsi transcrit (p. 235) :
B. 2848 (Carton.) — 23 pièces, papier1586. — (…) perte au jeu du tarot faite par le Roi contre de Montauzier et Boisdoré. »
Les comptes de la cour de Navarre (et de Béarn) ont fait l’objet de publications, il est vrai partielles. Parmi elles, de larges fragments ont été publiés par Paul Raymond dans la Revue d’Aquitaine et des Pyrénées (RA) en 1867-1868
5.
Une lecture attentive devait révéler pas moins de quatre références au tarot.
La première est assez discrète car elle se trouve dans une liste de dépenses payées par le Trésorier général de Navarre en 1574 (RA, XI, 1867,p.246 = ADPA, B.149)
« Au trésorier, 52 l.t. [livres tournois], savoir 12 écus pour l’achat d’un casque (…) ; 6écus [= 18 l.t.] mis ès mains de S.M. [Henri de Navarre] pour jouer au tarot avec les sieurs de Bacqueville et Sommyeres. »
La référence suivante se trouve dans les « Dépenses extraordinaires du Roy de Navarre pendant les mois de janvier, février et mars 1582 » (RA, XII, 1868, p. 162 = ADPA, B.70):
« A Pierre de Lafons le jeune, 48 l. [livres] 5 s.t. [sols tournois] fournis par lui au Roy estant à Capchicot pour jouer au tarot avec MM. de Clermont et Frontenac. »
Capchicot est un lieu-dit de la commune d’Allons (Lot-et-Garonne) devenu célèbre dans la légende henricienne. Henri de Navarre y fit construire un « château » (maison forte)qui lui servit de rendez-vous de chasse, et où il jouait au tarot – empruntant de l’argent àun valet – avec son écuyer et confident Antoine de Buade de Frontenac (c.1550-1626), gentilhomme gascon qui le suivait jusque dans ses aventures galantes.
Ici aussi les joueurs sont trois.
Nous savons par Marolles que le tarot à trois est la forme classique française au XVIIe siècle.
Il en était sans doute ainsi déjà en ce second XVIe siècle.
Les registres de « Dépense extraordinaire du Roy de Navarre » nous apprennent aussi qu’au dernier trimestre de 1583 le « trésorier … a baillé par ordre de S.M. à M. le comte de Guiche 20 s.t. pour jouer au tarot » (RA, XII, 1868, p. 263 = ADPA, B. 82).Ce comte de Guiche est le jeune Antoine II de Gramont (1572-1644), fils de Diane«Corisande » d’Andoins, le grand amour d’Henri de Navarre, rencontrée en mai 1582.Henri de Navarre fait donc œuvre de prosélyte : il encourage le fils de sa maîtresse à jouer au tarot! La somme est modeste mais proportionnée aux besoins d’un enfant de 11 ans.
Enfin, tout au début de la série publiée par Paul Raymond dans la Revue d’Aquitaine et des Pyrénées,
les « Dépenses extraordinaires de Jeanne d’Albert pendant le mois de juillet1571 » nous révèlent (RA, XI, 1867, p. 129 = ADPA, B.20) que la reine de Navarre avait payé « A l’argentier, 48 s.t. pour deux paires [jeux] de tarots pour Madame », soit 24 solstournois par jeu, somme très élevée, quand on sait qu’un jeu ordinaire coûtait environ un solen 1581 et qu’un jeu de tarot valait 4 à 5 sols à Paris en 1605. Madame n’est autre que la fille de Jeanne (et sœur d’Henri), Catherine de Bourbon, princesse de Navarre, alors âgée de 12 ans.
Le tarot était donc une "tradition familiale !"