Tarot History Forum

Magic Moon wrote,

We don't know when or where the complete structure of 22 allegorical cards was consolidated. I think there's a possibility that this structure called Tarot was consolidated in France. I don't know if before 1495 there were decks with 22 allegorical cards or if the maximum was 20 or 21, as Rosenwald shows. It's likely that the name of this game didn't exist before 1495. In short, perhaps the French invented the name of the new variation and structure, or even the deck that includes the Matto (as a special card).

Boiardo died in Dec. 1494, so it was surely 22 before then - as early as 1460, although we have no idea when. In other respects, too, the probability of your supposition seems low. The Steele Sermon was delivered before it was put into the written form that survived. That the Fool was already a special card is indicated by its special placement outside the main list in the written version. I do not see how a change from 20 or 21 to 22 would likely lead to a change in the name of the game, unless the addition included the Fool. I can see how a change in the role of the Fool could lead to a change in name - but in Italy. In Bologna, Florence, and Piedmont, the Fool at some point acquired the ability to replace other cards in the scoring of combinations. Piscina writes (p. 15 at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Co ... frontcover; the Italian is on p. 14) :

I will also say why the Fool is so much desired by Players because not only it is very good and useful, in the combinations it can take the place of the King and the Queen, meaning the great Lords and Princes, of Knights, meaning men of average condition, of the Page, interpreted as the rest of human generation if any of them is missing; this wants to represent that most of this sort of people has some kind of closeness and familiarity with the Fool, being the one that replaces them when they are absent.

If it had just been Piedmont, and this was also a rule in France, I could see how the French could have led to that change. But Florence and Bologna count against that. And that rule did not get adopted in France, as far as known. Nor in Ferrara, at least by the time of Lollio.

About the dog on the Fool card playing a role in the name-change. We have to ask, when did that dog appear on the card? It is not on the Visconti-Sforza/PMB card, nor the Charles VI, nor d'Este card of 1483, nor the Sola-Busca, nor the Cary Sheet. It seems a later development. Once it was there, yes, I suppose, it could have suggested "chien" or even "talon" as the name of the small pile of cards discarded by the dealer. But that would have been later. Other games used the word "kitty" for their small piles. "Chien" could have been suggested by a French perception of the animal on the Fool card, which follows the dealer through the game.

Also, since throwing down cards is a characteristic of many card games, including ones existing before the game called "trionfi", (see Pratesi's essay "In the beginning was diritta"), it would not single out one in particular. Also, the cards discarded by the dealer are not used in trick-taking, so in that sense they are discarded cards but not cards discarded by players (players in the sense of those participating "in play", i.e. trick-taking).

Hello,
Thanks for the interesting details.

The Fool's dog surely emerged in the 16th century, as it seems typical of the Marseilles design, as you say. There is a dog in the Magician of the Paris Tarot, but I can't see it in the Magician of the Tarot by Geofroy (1557). By the way, I accepted the idea that the Paris Tarot dates from 1559. I don't know if there is a consensus on this. Some argue against it, saying that the back is like other 17th-century French decks, but I suppose the surviving Tarot de Paris example could be after 1600, while the woodblock was used to make older examples starting in 1559. The manufacturer's name is erased. I imagine it's not erased from the card itself, but rather was printed that way because it had been erased from the woodblock, which means it was possibly an older block used by a new manufacturer. Be that as it may, the name Tarot seems to refer to the Matto, which would indeed be the last card added to the sequence. We know that there are older Matto cards, but they probably didn't belong to a deck of 22 allegorical cards, but rather fewer. The 5x14 theory admits that new allegories already existed, but some painters chose the 14 trumps they wanted. Right? This is an important detail that has perhaps been little discussed. However, I assume there was a stable and habitual structure in commercial manufacturing. However, the preserved decks are luxurious and handcrafted, meaning they could have variations and cards that were slightly different from the trumps of the usual structure used outside of courtly circles, that is, among lesser social classes in Florence. The called Alessandro Sforza deck (from Borso's time, perhaps commissioned by him in Florence) is made using woodcut printing, which the creator then colored by hand. Is the Charles VI deck also made like this?

I see that it seems logical to you that Boiardo's number 22 reflects the fact that 22 allegories like those in the Tarot already existed. This is logical if we take into account that this poem was possibly only read in front of an audience but wasn't published until the 16th century, when it wasn't even titled Tarocchi, since I believe that title dates back much later than the 16th century. However, Boiardo's 22 trumps don't resemble those in the Tarot. Also, when Huck explains the connection between Boiardo and his cousin Pico with the number 22, I get the feeling that this is intended to explain the consolidation of 22 allegories in the poem and not in the common deck of Tarot trumps, unless we think that the Tarot structure with 22 allegories arose in Ferrara in that cultural circle of Boiardo, Pico, and the wedding guests. I see that there is no solid evidence for the year 1487, but I tend to accept that hypothesis. I'm trying to understand Mikeh's logic and also Huck's logic. They're different, but I suspect that both accept that there were 22 conventional Tarot trumps before Boiardo's poem was written.

The Piscina fragment you've posted is interesting. So the Matto could replace a king or a queen. I don't understand what Piscina says about the page. Could the Matto also replace a page? So it couldn't replace a horse, knight, or rider. Could that playing rule in Piedmont have been the origin of the function that the Matto has in the Tarot played in France? I'm curious about that. But it seems that the Matto rule in Piedmont, Bologna, and Florence was very old. I find that interesting. So you say that the Matto was already special in Italy before the French played Tarot. That seems logical. And you say that the sermon called Steele that survives is copied from another that already had the list of trumps identical to the one that survives, with the Matto removed from the sequence. I haven't been able to delve into the arguments regarding the prior antiquity of that sermon. I suppose it was common to copy everything exactly as in the original, with the marginal notes in the margins, without including them in the main text. Some marginal notes seem very late. The main text would be identical to the original. I tried to understand Nathaniel's argument when he says that the two notes on the Fluxus game were by the same copyist, which supposedly proves that the full text is older. Well, if that sermon is ancient, then Boiardo copied number 22 from the Tarot deck, but he preferred to invent other mythological concepts and didn't need to draw inspiration from his cousin Pico's knowledge of Hebrew.

Thanks!

PD: Huck points out that Pico wrote a poem that once mentions the Trionfi deck. That's interesting, but does this poem offer any clues about the deck's structure or Pico's relationship with it?

Magic Moon wrote

Be that as it may, the name Tarot seems to refer to the Matto, which would indeed be the last card added to the sequence. We know that there are older Matto cards, but they probably didn't belong to a deck of 22 allegorical cards, but rather fewer.

If there were decks with the Matto but with fewer than 22 allegorical cards, then the Matto might well not have been the last card added to the sequence. The Devil might have been added later, for example.

Magic Moon wrote,

I don't understand what Piscina says about the page. Could the Matto also replace a page? So it couldn't replace a horse, knight, or rider.

"Page" is the English translation of the Italian "Fante," if you look at the Italian original that I linked to. It means a "foot-soldier" in Italian, and is the lowest of the four court figures in the tarocchi deck: in Spanish, the sota.

An example might help to explain how the rule he is talking about works. If extra points are given for getting three Fanti by the end of the hand and a playher (or the partnership) only has two, the Fool can count as a Fante, giving one the extra points. The same is true for two Knights (Caballos), Queens (Reinas), and Kings (Reyes).

Could that playing rule in Piedmont have been the origin of the function that the Matto has in the Tarot played in France?

I am not aware of any game in France where the Matto has that function.

Huck provided a link to Pico's poem mentioning the trionfi, so you can answer your question about it for yourself.

Thanks Minke for explications.

I probably can't contribute anything further to the research in this thread now.

********

Huck wrote:

"Pico made a poem about Trionfi decks"

The poem mention Trionfi cards. Only that. I dont know if all the poem is wrote thinking about especific cards. I think that anly Love is mentioned and it is not only a card. This is a concept in the live. Then, I think that it is not a poem about decks neither cards. It is a poem that mention Trionfi cards one time. This is my answer or idea each time that I read this poem.

******

Yesterday I were looking again Ur-Tarot by Teikemeier here:

https://trionfi-com.translate.goog/0/g/ ... r_pto=wapp

It propose that in 1468 existed a deck in Milan with the Visconti biscione. The idea is that, later, the biscione was changed by Demon. The biscione cards that we know was created in 1491 perhaps. There are different cards with biscione and with fish. We dont know exactly the date neither the context. There are different theories but it is confusing. I dont know how Teikemeier mix the Ur-Tarot theory with Falcon theory. I can invent my own theories but most theories seem wrong when we discuss them.

Thanks everything

I once thought that perhaps the Taro or Po Rivers were used to transport paper, similar to how I believe the Rhine River in Germany was used to transport paper. But I know of no direct evidence of the possible use of these Italian rivers for transporting paper. The Po River rises in the area of ​​Savoy and Piedmont and descends eastward, passing north of Ferrara and ending south of Venice. It would only be a useful river for transporting paper from Piedmont to Ferrara or Venice, but in the opposite direction, it is not useful, as we might suppose. So, that would not be the hypothetical reason for linking the name of the Taro River to a game. The battle theory seems more likely.

Paper mills needed the river, cause the mill did need it. If the expensive paper was transported on the river ... I think, this was risky. The transported paper needed special protection. Playing cards were transported in wooden barrels, when the transport happened by ship.

Magic Moon wrote: 21 Jun 2025, 20:22
Huck wrote:

"Pico made a poem about Trionfi decks"

The poem mention Trionfi cards. Only that. I dont know if all the poem is wrote thinking about especific cards. I think that anly Love is mentioned and it is not only a card.

Mirandola wrote that "the triumphs of love fill many pages" and was probably referring to Petrarch, or perhaps more generally of how his 'triumphs' have inspired many poems and songs.

Huck

Nice your reflection.
And the direction of Po river and Taro river perhaps is not interesting to transport paper, in case that there was not paper mills in Genoa or Piedmont to transport to Bologne, Ferrara or Venice. But Perhaps the wooden barrels containing cards you mention were transported from a playing card factory in Piedmont to other locations along the Po River, but it seems that Bologna had its own playing card factories.

Another theory that I find very flawed is one I read once: the name Tarot of the cards comes from the fact that the gold in tarot cards is shiny and reflects like the water of the Taro River.

******

Mikeh

I thought that perhaps the latin term tarus in derogatory form would be tarucus, and I think that perhaps this latin tarucus could have derived from the milanese word tarocho or tarocco. I don't know if the evolution of letters and sounds seems acceptable to you.

*********

Steve ...

Thank you for your interpretation of Pico's poem. I'm not good at interpreting abstract poems, even less so when they're written in another language and in ancient dialects. I can read, but I accept various interpretations, and I don't know the author's intention. For example, with Folengo, I'm not able to conceibe by myself all the interpretations you've proposed in the other thread. I don't even see them as poems about the future, as those who say that luck is destiny argue. But I suppose it's possible to write a poem in the present tense to describe a future situation. There's a lot of freedom in poetry. An oracle can speak about the future using poetic phrases in the present tense. In poetry, anything goes. If you offer me the opposite interpretation, I'd probably also accept that it could be valid, although I can hardly be absolutely certain about the author's intention, especially if it's an abstract poem and I can't understand what it's trying to communicate. Indeed, some people might think that Pico's poem mentions the Trionfi card group or even that it mentions several cards it draws inspiration from, like Love and Heaven, for example. But another person might interpret the same poem as not even referring to playing cards but to the trumps from Petrarch's poem. In any case, I don't know what information one interpretation or another could provide. It's fine that Pico knew the Trionfi card game, but I don't see that as an important clue for our investigation. When we think about the number 22 and Boiardo talking with his cousin Pico about that number, I'm not clear about the purpose of Huck's argument. I don't deny it, but I don't know what the argument or the hypothesis being proposed exactly is. Huck thinks that perhaps Boiardo and Pico were the ones who came up with the idea that the Tarot deck should have 22 allegories? In that case, the structure of the Tarot could be later than Boiardo's poem, since they came up with the idea of ​​the number 22 for the deck. But if you think the Tarot already existed with 22 allegories before Boiardo's poem, then I don't understand what point there is in noting that Pico and Boiardo worshipped the number 22 and studied Hebrew. I don't see the exact logic in either hypothesis. Perhaps there are details of the plot that I'm not taking into account.

Thanks

Mikeh

The issue of the Fool card being added to the Tarot sequence is confusing. The Visconti Pierpont deck had the Fool, but that card belonged to the 14 trump cards of that deck. That is, that deck doesn't have the Fool added to 21 trump cards. That's why I tried to say that the Fool card existed before the name Tarot arose, but I tried to say that the Fool wasn't yet an additional card to the 21 trump cards.

I take "Trump" to mean "card that beats any card of the four suits." In that sense, we don't know whether the Fool of the PMB was one of 14 trumps or played a different role. We don't know how the game with those cards was played. We also don't know what trumps might be missing from the cards that have survived. In the game as known later, it was not a trump. As to whether it was an "added card" or not, we don't know what came before. It is not one of the surviving cards of the Cary-Yale, so it consistent with what we know that it was added after then, at least in Lombardy. What it would have been added to is also unknown, although there are hypotheses. It does not even have to have been a number under 14, if other cards (the theologicals) were subtracted at the same time, or if the PMB had more than 13 trumps.