Tarot History Forum

TAROT IN ITALY

Thank you. I suppose the Bolognese Tarot game, which is played with 62 cards, ensures that there are no cards left over when dealing, while the Tarot game, played in France with 78 cards, allows for cards left over to form the small packet called "chien". The ancient Tarot game was played with 78 cards in other places: Ferrara, Venice, Piedmont, Milan, Florence. It would be interesting to know if there were cards left over when dealing, to see a little about the possible evolution of the game's rules, which possibly evolved from Italy to France. It would be interesting to know what the Tarocchi distribution was like in Italy. I believe the oldest known Tarot rules were French, but I need to look that up. A princess from an Italian family was entrusted with writing the rules, if I recall correctly. Perhaps there is no information about the Tarot rules in Italy outside of Bologna.

Something that is conected with these question...

TAROCCHI IN FLORENCE

Tarot existed in Florence at the same time as the Minchiate Germini game during the 16th century, but I don't know what early records of "tarocchi" were in Florence. We know of a poem that mentions the game by the name, and I think there were tarot-type poems appropriate to the tarot structure (21+1) in Florence, but Germini seems more important than Tarocchi in Florence. We do know of records of Trionfi decks being sold in Florence in the 15th century, but I suppose that the records of sales in 16th century Florence did not mention Trionfi but Tarocchi. Perhaps no records of Tarocchi sales in Florence in the first half of the 16th century have yet been discovered.

The question of the Tarocchi deck in Florence during the first half of the 16th century seems interesting to me, even in trying to resolve the doubts we raised about the mention of the Minchiate or Sminchiate game. Berni's text raises some doubts. It mention: Tarocchi, Trionfi, Sminchiate. Pratesi say that Sminchiate is Minchiate in this time. It seems logic but, which deck was called Sminchiate/Minchiate in these period, when the deck with 96 cards was called Germini? We do not know if Minchiate was Germini or if it was the same mallet used early with that name since 1466.

Possibly, those three names correspond to different decks, but we're not sure. The translation of "che si sia" (that were) seems dubious. Perhaps that expression helps to determine if they were three different decks, but the text seems insufficient to obtain details (picture bottom). If we have documents of Trionfi decks sold in Florence in 1449, perhaps there are also documents of Tarot decks sold in Florence or Rome in the early years of the 16th century.

We've already talked a bit about this issue, which is why I studied Esch and Pratesi's records. These documents are prior to 1481. Now I've learned from texts (trionfi.com) and from your explanations (THF). At this point, I think there's still some doubt, which is why I've reformulated the approach to the question.

Magic Moon wrote,

I suppose the Bolognese Tarot game, which is played with 62 cards, ensures that there are no cards left over when dealing, while the Tarot game, played in France with 78 cards, allows for cards left over to form the small packet called "chien".

This is true, but you have left out something: the dealer discards two cards, which form a small packet to be collected at the end of the hand. This is the "discard" which might be at the origin of the word "tarocchi," if the origin is the Arabic "taraha" (independently of whether it also meant "fool" as someone with a deficient mind). So the main difference between the French game you describe and the Bolognese game, besides the number of cards in the packet, is that the dealer picks which cards will be in this packet, from his hand.

That this rule goes back before the 18th century can be seen from the way in which the manuscript by Pedini - from 1746 or a little later - describes his source, as from "diuerse scritture antiche" - various very old writings. See https://www.tarocchinobolognese.it/page ... Pedini.php. The rule itself is in chapter XX, which specifies that after the deal, "Chi hà dispensate le Carte, ne scarta due ad arbitrio . . ." the one who has dealt the cards discards two at will. . .

Magic Moon wrote,

Berni's text raises some doubts. It mention: Tarocchi, Trionfi, Sminchiate. Pratesi say that Sminchiate is Minchiate in this time. It seems logic but, which deck was called Sminchiate/Minchiate in these period, when the deck with 96 cards was called Germini? We do not know if Minchiate was Germini or if it was the same mallet used early with that name since 1466.

It is important to consult more of Berni's text than that which Dummett and Pratesi quoted, namely, the end of the same sentence. I have already done so in a previous post, viewtopic.php?p=27294#p27294 giving a link to the source,https://iapsop.com/ssoc/1816__singer___ ... _cards.pdf, but to emphasize it graphically I will use screenshots. Here is what Singer says, in his pioneering work, pp. 27-28: In the footnote on p. 27, Singer gives data about the book; he also gives the original for the passage he quotes (if the screenshot appears twice, as it does in the preview, I am not responsible): My point is that in describing the cards of this "Sminchiate," he mentions "the twelve" [Dodici], i.e. the zodiac. I infer that these twelve cards were part of the deck in 1526 Florence. It is true that this text does not use the word "Germini". For that we have the poem about the prostitutes and that by Bronzini (for which see my screenshot at viewtopic.php?p=23763#p23763).

We know that the Germini deck existed in the 16th century and had a similar or identical length to the Minchiate-II deck that we have known since the 17th century. On other hand, Pratesi calls the one that existed in 1466: Minchiate-I. I suppose that the Germini deck mentioned since 1506 already had that length, which is reflected in the poem about whores published in 1553.

Bronzino's poem from 1530 is also consistent with this. By the way, I don't know what Broncino means when he writes "Valtre" but I imagine it could mean "You" in plural, which in Catalan is "vosaltres." I believe that in English it is said "all of you" to differentiate it from "you" which is usually singular. In any case, the High Priestess is not mentioned in Bronzino's Germini, which is consistent with the Minchiate-II deck, which was like the Germini deck. In my opinion, there's no reason to imagine that the Germini deck included a Magician card, but I don't think anyone takes this into account, or perhaps I'm mistaken.

Mikeh's observation about the part about Berni that Dummett omitted is interesting. Berni mentions Tarocchi, Trionfi and Sminchiate before mentioning cards from the Germini deck. Berni doesn't say that these cards are from a deck called Sminchiate, but Mikeh sees that connection clearly. I have doubts about that connection. I don't deny that Mikeh is right, but I would like to have some clue that gives us more security. I think the text is insufficient, but perhaps it would be helpful to know exactly what "che si sia" means.

The usual English translation invents the word "any." Let me explain. The Italian text says: "a Tarocchi, o a Trionfi, o a Sminchiate che si sia." The usual translation is: "al Tarocchi, or at Trionfi, or any Sminchiate whatever." I have doubts about the exact meaning of the Old Tuscan: "che si sia." It is similar to: "what were." The word "any" doesn't exist in the original text. The usual translation mean that Trionfi and Tarocchi are forms of Minchiate? Or it suggests that there are several forms of Sminchiate? Answer: this point is confusing in the translation.

Tarocchi and Trionfi are mentioned, but we don't know if they were the same. I believe in the 5x14 theory and therefore think they were different decks: Trionfi was older and had less trionfi cards than Tarocchi. However, it's possible that they were different games played with the same Tarocchi deck. Pratesi says that "sminchiate" in the 16th century refers to "minchiate." That's fine, but I don't know if Sminchiate (Minchiate) was the Minchiate-I deck of 1466 (which I think still had no more than 22 trumps in total) or if in the 16th century they called the Germini deck Minchiate, as scholars generally think. It's possible that Tarocchi, Trionfi, and Minchiate were three possible forms of play or betting with the Germini deck or perhaps also with the Tarot deck. I proposed that "minchiate" could be a form of betting or play that consisted of winning with low trump cards, especially the Fool card. Mikeh denied this suggestion. In spanish Mus game, we say: "jugar a chica" (to play small points).


**********

In a conversation with Mikeh, we were surprised to find that Germini is defined as a game with cards called Terrestrial Trionfi in John Florio's 1598 dictionary. Mikeh was surprised by this designation because the trumps specific to the Germini game include 12 zodiac signs that seem celestial, not earthly. He suggested that perhaps it's due to the Earth element card. I thought the connection to the earthly could be in the name Germini, since germination and sprouting occur on Earth. However, I now notice that this dictionary also mentions Terrestrial Trionfi when defining the Tarocchi card game, which is the common Tarot, without the special Germini trumps. Now I don't know how to explain the designation of "earthly trumps," but it seems our theories weren't accurate. Nevertheless, it seems the Fool was in both decks.

*****

Huck made a brief comment that took me a while to understand. I'll explain what I understood Huck to suggest. The Italians insulted the French following the Battle of Taro River in 1495. The French were fools to the Italians. The word "Milanese" was similar to the name of the river. That insult changed its meaning when the French invaded Milan and Piedmont in 1499: the insult came to mean triumph because the French were no longer fools but won by invading. In other words, the word that meant fool came to mean triumph. Then, the game of trumps was renamed Taro, which had meant fool but now meant a triumph of the French over the Italians. The fool's card was the lowest, but it had some special power. That is, there was a play or a form of play in which the fool was a card beneficial to the players who held it.

******

But reciently we were speaking about "chien" cards.

Mikeh, thanks for the observation about the two extra cards in the Bolognese game. It's possible that those two cards are the origin of the small packet of cards called "chien" in the French game. I think I understand the rules you posted a few days ago about the Bolognese game well. I'm going to try to say the same thing in different words.

Four players play. One of them is the one who will deal the cards, that is, they act as the croupier in that game. They deal five cards to each player over three rounds, but at the end they have seven cards left in their hand. That player (who acts as the dealer or croupier) will keep five of those seven cards, that is, they will discard two of those seven cards on the table.

I suppose those two discarded cards aren't the last ones in the deck, but rather they can choose whichever ones they want by looking at the seven cards or perhaps by looking at their 17 cards.

Mikeh says that these two cards are a discard pile that could be related to the Arabic term (tark), which is similar to the name of the Tarot game. Good idea!

Magic Moon wrote: 06 Jul 2025, 16:54 I think the text is insufficient, but perhaps it would be helpful to know exactly what "che si sia" means.

The usual English translation invents the word "any." Let me explain. The Italian text says: "a Tarocchi, o a Trionfi, o a Sminchiate che si sia." The usual translation is: "al Tarocchi, or at Trionfi, or any Sminchiate whatever." I have doubts about the exact meaning of the Old Tuscan: "che si sia." It is similar to: "what were." The word "any" doesn't exist in the original text. The usual translation mean that Trionfi and Tarocchi are forms of Minchiate? Or it suggests that there are several forms of Sminchiate? Answer: this point is confusing in the translation.

"....whatever it may be..." OR "....whatever kind it is..."

So:

"...“to wager at most a quarter of a Carlino at Tarocchi, or at Trionfi, or at Sminchiate or whatever (game) it may be.”

Also the translation Let him look to it... for viso proprio di Tarocco colui a chi piace questo gioco seems wrong to me: more like the proper/very/true face of a Tarocco:
=
The true face of a Fool is he who likes this game...

Very good, Steve. That's a different translation than the other one. There seem to be several interpretations of "che si sia" but I don't know which one is correct. I've asked Italians, and they don't know. Machine translators do not always offer the same translation, and I have also thought of some hypotheses. It seems to be an old expression. The text doesn't say "or," but perhaps you're right. So we have options to translate "o Sminchiate che si sia":

- or any Sminchiate whatever.
- or at Sminchiate or whatever (kind of game) it may be.
- or to Sminchiate even if it is.

In spanish we could try to translate as: "o al Sminchiate que sea". The word "al" is as "a el" (at the). I think this is similar to the first option on this list, which was posted by Mikeh. The definite article (the) isn't in the original text, but perhaps it was written that way in Tuscany. In that case, there are several types of sminchiate. Steve's proposal (the second option on this list) simply lists games, and the final expression indicates other games, as if we were writing "etc."

Thanks!

Magic Moon wrote: 06 Jul 2025, 21:01 Very good, Steve. That's a different translation than the other one. There seem to be several interpretations of "che si sia" but I don't know which one is correct. I've asked Italians, and they don't know. Machine translators do not always offer the same translation, and I have also thought of some hypotheses. It seems to be an old expression. The text doesn't say "or," but perhaps you're right. So we have options to translate "o Sminchiate che si sia":

- or any Sminchiate whatever.
- or at Sminchiate or whatever (kind of game) it may be.
- or to Sminchiate even if it is.

In spanish we could try to translate as: "o al Sminchiate que sea". The word "al" is as "a el" (at the). I think this is similar to the first option on this list, which was posted by Mikeh. The definite article (the) isn't in the original text, but perhaps it was written that way in Tuscany. In that case, there are several types of sminchiate. Steve's proposal (the second option on this list) simply lists games, and the final expression indicates other games, as if we were writing "etc."

Thanks!

It is usually translated as whoever/whatever (it/kind it) may be/is. See examples 30-36 (p18/19) in Free Choice Indefinites in Old and Modern Italian
By Olga Kellert.

It is available online here:
https://www.academia.edu/82980782/Free_ ... rn_Italian

In the context of our text : whatever (game) it may be.
At the end of the list, it functions as you say like etc.,
This, for me, is the most probable meaning.
However, technically, coming directly after Sminchiate, it could be read as modifying only Sminchiate and not the general category [games] of the list i.e., whatever Sminchiate it may be. Which would imply there are different kinds of 'sminchiate'?

Perhaps, as earlier in the text the author called a person who likes the game of Tarocchi the very face (perfect image) of a Fool (tarocchi), so sminchiate could be read as a pun, whatever nonsense, foolishness, bullshit, dick-games it may be.

Magic Moon wrote,

In my opinion, there's no reason to imagine that the Germini deck included a Magician card, but I don't think anyone takes this into account, or perhaps I'm mistaken.

There was one, but it was not called "Bagatello" or anything but "Papa Uno" or just "the One", as the cards were referred to by number. It is included in the Florentine poem about the prostitutes, http://www.nuovorinascimento.org/n-rina ... ini_nr.pdf. The stanza begins,

I’ son di Boncio la povera Lena,
che sostento que’ bambini e non posso;...

(I am Boncio's poor Lena,
I support [or, who supported] these children and cannot;)

The person on the card was often associated with children in the appropriati, both in minchiate and tarocchini, because of the children on the card.

Then it ends:

...poi che l’Un mi chiamo
(...since I am called the One.)

About when "tarocchi" replaced "trionfi" it seems to me that for a while both terms would have been used, by different people, at least. It takes a while for one term to replace another.

Thanks Steve. I think you wrote a translation of the entire paragraph yesterday and then deleted it. In any case, your translation is clear.

---------

Mikeh, if Lena (I) is the Bagatto, then: where is the Matto in the poem about meretrize?

What I think:
In the introduction of the poem we have a paragraph (picture bottom) where we read :
"Io dico che vorrei che tu facessi
i Germini nel mo’ che ti diremo:
quaranta trionfi e col Pazzo in essi". The translation is: "I say that I would like you to do the Germini in the moment that we will tell you: forty triumphs and with the Pazzo in them". This means that the Matto (pazzo: fool) is included in the 40 allegorical cards of the poem, which reflects a deck of 96 cards (not 97 like the Minchiate we know).

Therefore, I think Lena is the Matto, who is as hungry as a dog, who perhaps accompanies him and is mentioned in the poem. By the way, I don't know why, but the card for the Pisces sign is also called Lena in this poem.

There were also children in the Matto buffoonesque of Florence (Charles VI deck and Ercole d'Este deck).

Magic Moon wrote,

In the introduction of the poem we have a paragraph (picture bottom) where we read :
"Io dico che vorrei che tu facessi
i Germini nel mo’ che ti diremo:
quaranta trionfi e col Pazzo in essi". The translation is: "I say that I would like you to do the Germini in the moment that we will tell you: forty triumphs and with the Pazzo in them". This means that the Matto (pazzo: fool) is included in the 40 allegorical cards of the poem, which reflects a deck of 96 cards (not 97 like the Minchiate we know).

Another reading of these lines would be that Germini has with its cards 40 triumphs and with the Fool in them also. The lines you cite did not bother the modern editor Danilo Romei, who says on p. 9, n. 9, "L’Uno è il Bagatto." and on p. 7, n. 5, "Manca alla serie lo zero (il Matto)." But maybe he didn't notice the line you point out.

It is true that the Fool also has children on the minchiate card. But "the One" was always the Bagatto in minchiate, not the Fool. See e.g. Wikipedia's article on minchiate. If there had been a stanza for the Fool, it would probably have been unnumbered and not called "the One."

However, the poet also says, next line, "I give a prostitute to each one," which would seem to include the Fool. It may be that he wanted to merge the two subjects, for purposes of the poem. Of the two figures, however, the Bagatto would be the one more likely to be expected to support children. Whether such a merger would imply a 96 card deck I do not know. There is also the lack of a Fool, but a Fool-attired Bagatto, in the Rosenwald. Interesting.

Pratesi (in some article) suggested that the difference between Germini and Minchiate might lie in a card or in the Fool's card. I don't remember exactly what Pratesi said, but it was something like that. I don't think he gave any details. He simply gave this diffuse idea. Perhaps some of you know what Pratesi was referring to, it is, what the small difference between Germini and Minchiate could be. Perhaps he meant that Minchiate-I didn't have a Fool and Germini did have a Fool. However, perhaps Germini didn't have a Fool either. That is, perhaps Minchiate-I and Germini lacked a Fool. However, we know that Minchiate-II has a Fool and a Magician. It seems possible to me that Germini had a fool without a table (Fool) and didn't have a Magus. However, I think I'd rather review the poem before fully stating my theory here. Now I've learned to translate a complete PDF, which is less work than translating page by page as I used to do. Let's see if I can find in the poem which card is missing to make 40, including the Fool. Let's see if the poem lets us know exactly what cards the Germini deck had. The Fool is a detail that doesn't seem to be resolved (with certainy) in this poem neither in Germini deck.