July 11, 2023: The game of tarocchi - Milan 1789 and 1792

 Here I post the third in a series of four notes on 18th century books, or rather booklets or sections of almanacs, on playing tarocchi. (The others are just below and above this one in the list that appears on the sidebar for July 2024.) This one is the translation of "Il Giuoco de’ tarocchi ‒ Milano 1789 e 1792," posted July 11, 2023, at https://www.naibi.net/A/MILA178992.pdf.

While the book is reputedly 1789, reprinted 1792, that is only by report, by the author in the same book of 1793 that was the subject of Franco's previous note, translated in the post immediately above this one. That book contains extensive quotations from the predecessor books, to which the 1793 author adds his own comments.

Again, comments in brackets are mine, in consultation with Franco, mostly for clarification to make up for differences between Italian readers (of Italian) and readers (of various nationalities) of English. There will also be a certain amount of explanation of technical terms in the game. However, for some more complicated ones, you will have to go back to the translation of the previous note.

The Game of Tarot - Milan 1789 and 1792

Franco Pratesi

1. Introduction

The book in question is a Milanese almanac published in 1789 and reprinted in 1792. I approached it from the outside, based on what those who saw it wrote about it. I've already described an unknown book, but this is the first time I've described one that I don't even know. What convinced me that I could risk such an unusual undertaking was the fact that the author of a subsequent almanac not only criticized this one but reported several passages verbatim, even with the relevant paragraph numbers.

My main task will then be to transcribe the literal quotes and comments into separate columns, while in the original, they are read with the change of [print] characters, respectively from italic to normal, without interruptions. [In this translation, the quotes will be in italics in one paragraph, then the comments in regular type in the next paragraph.]


2. Preface about dates

A notable part of the first books printed in Milan on tarocchi were [in] almanacs [annuari = literally, annual publications, in this case in almanacchi, almanacs, rather than being the “annuals” or “yearbooks” of modern English, which are published in the year following the year they summarize], in which the part on tarocchi preceded the calendar of the year and other pages with various contents. As a rule, the date of printing is never indicated. These are cases where the uncertainty is fortunately limited to just one year, but this may be enough to cause some confusion.

2
If one looks at an almanac from year x today, taking x as the printing date is the immediate conclusion. However, it is enough to reflect on the practice of the sector to understand that all these almanacs actually saw the light in the second half of the previous year. So I followed the habit of systematically associating the previous year as the printing date of each almanac. However, it is important to be consistent, because there can be notable differences between the production of one year and the next.

In this study, the question of dates requires greater attention than usual because nearby years are involved: the almanac for 1794, printed in 1793, has the majority of the pieces of information on those [almanacs] of interest here: the almanac for 1793, printed in 1792, [which in turn is] an augmented reprint of the almanac for 1790, printed in 1789. I will not keep the 1789 and 1792 editions separate, because the latter would only have one additional, clearly distinct appendix.

3. Information from Alfredo Lensi

The most important reference is found in the well-known Bibliografia of Alfredo Lensi [note 1]. As can be seen, Lensi also suggests in brackets the correct date of the year preceding the calendar, with spaces for daily entries, of 1790.

Game of Tarocchi and its rules. Treatise attached to the giornale [daily, meaning entries and/or blank spaces for every day] for the current year 1790. Milan, Giambattista Bianchi, s.a. (1789), in -16, pp. 48, 24 and 36 nn.

______________
1. A. Lensi, Bibliografia Italiana dei giuochi di carte. Ravenna: Longo 1985.


3

In the preface it is said that this booklet is the translation of a Latin treatise published by Eutrapelius Manfridius. It speaks of the general practice of playing tarocchi in those times, divides the games into those of fortune and those of skill, mentions the meaning of the cards of tarocco, and finally, gives the rules. The second part entitled giornale is nothing more than a calendar.

The parts into which the Treatise is divided are actually three, of which the third - and not the second - would seem to be formed by the calendar. Then perhaps both the first two parts would be related to tarocchi, the first with general considerations and the second with the rules. Alternatively, the initial 48 pages would be dedicated overall to the tarocchi, followed by the second part (thus confirming Lensi!) of 24 calendar pages and the final 36 pages which in this case would not only be unnumbered but probably also blank, for notes and various annotations, as we find in other almanacs.

There is no explicit reference to penalties for fouls, which will instead be the main, if not the only, part of many subsequent reprints. However, it appears clear that this part is included in "his rules." The mention of the meaning of the tarocchi cards also appears particularly important because in terms of date, it would be very close to the original text by Court de Gébelin, as I will discuss at the end.

The introductory part on "the general practice in those times of playing tarocchi" and on the division of "games into those of fortune and those of skill" appears uncommon, especially if the description was rather extensive. The reference to the Latin treatise that would have been translated here is certainly completely unusual - in no other treatise on tarocchi do we encounter such a fantasy, but the involvement and name of this elusive Eutrapelius are confirmed by subsequent testimony.

4
4. Copies and comments from the author of the following year

Thanks to the author of the Milanese almanac [containing] Per chi tarocca, preserved in the Trivulzian and Bodleian Libraries, [note 2] I can benefit from the testimony of another reader [besides Lensi] of this Treatise, who, however, turns the pages of a reprint from three years later, of which we would otherwise have found no indication. Of the 1789 edition, he only says that it was known as a preceding one almost identical to the one he is commenting on: it did not contain an appendix, added only in the reprint, entitled De arte levandi [Of the art of cutting]. It can be assumed that the shared part on tarocchi in the two almanacs was the same, because it is stated that the printer was induced to publish the text again "to please various people." [What follows is from the 1793 book, citing the 1792 book, saying it is an augmented reprint of the 1789-1790 book]

In passing through some Notebooks in my hands this winter, one came to my attention, which had the title of the game of Tarocchi: as an enthusiast of that game I wanted to see what it said, and I found at first, that this was a reprint of the Almanac entitled the game of Tarocchi and its rules, already published in 1790, which the author, to please various people, reproduced again, with the addition of some conclusions taken from the treatise, and from an appendix de arte levandi [of the art of cutting]: my curiosity then grew so much that I would have devoured it all in a moment; but having read just a few pages of an inane nonsense, which talked about everything other than the rules of Tarocchi, I felt so filled with boredom that I wouldn't have gone any further if it hadn't occurred to me that before finishing the little treatise, perhaps I would have found these rules, as in fact I found some; but since they are only a confusion of things, I will only mention a few that seemed to me the most ridiculous and extravagant.

____________
2. https://www.naibi.net/A/MILA1793.pdf.


5

Listen to what he says in §13. Error of only one card, if it is discovered at the beginning of the game, the cards already been taken to the face [into the hands of the players], no one remembering the discoveries, it will be at the discretion of the first to the right of the discarder, therefore the chosen one, male or female, to repair it by passing one at random from the one in excess to the one lacking [a card], or by abandoning the hand.

Oh, this is beautiful. What do you think, Gentlemen Enthusiasts of Tarot? Do you think this is a rule that you can support? That can be practiced nowadays?

But let's move on with the same §. However, in the middle or at the end of the game the end is awaited, and at around the last two or three [tricks], having removed the honors from the excess, one [card] is drawn from the resto [the residual] by lot.

Well done! He wants a card to be removed by lot, without first knowing who made a mistake in dealing the cards, and he wants the honors to be removed from the surplus? He must have copied these rules from some book printed at the time when King Pippin played. I would have liked to know what Sig. Author would have decreed, if by accident these last three cards had been three honors.

In §14 the author of the little treatise says: If this error of one card is discovered in the dealer [scartante, literally, discarder], because he had discarded more or less than two of the ordinary ones [after picking up the two cards left over from the deal], either the game is abandoned or the offender is condemned to the loss of one game [i.e. the number of points fixed for a simple game].

Who has ever heard that it is ordinarily practiced like this? In truth it must be said, he dreamed it.

6

Let's see what he says in §17. Despite the fact that modern practice prohibits discarding honors, and consequently the Bagatto, although it was only (it would be, however, his opinion) to stick to ancient practice, which allows the discarding of the Bagatto (he indeed adds) which even nature and the rationale of the game decide in his favor.

If there were yet in the world a certain man, who had so much passion and attachment for the Bagatto that once playing with his son, because he took it away from him, afterwards ill-treating him badly, he chased him out of the house, and he didn't want to see him again for a long time; if he were still in the world, I would like to say: he is the author of the little treatise; but the poor man has died. Sig. Author, however, takes so much the side of the Bagatto, he must absolutely be of the same school.

In §22, speaking of invitations, he says: Usually the first person to play a low card, for example a low tarocco or the inferior of any suit, is not always [doing] an invitation, but mostly disengagement, giving rise to conflict in explaining.

Oh yes, here Sig. Author will find some badly practiced player who will prove him right, but he will not flatter himself with finding a single one of his opinion who knows how to play well: indeed all the good players will unanimously tell him that the first play must be the strongest and best invitation.

In §24, the author is confused about calculating the winnings and losses of the games to the point that almost all of them are faulty. It is clear that he is as much a calculator as he is a tarocchi player.

7

In a note under the same §, speaking of the capotto [one partnership capturing all the tricks], he says: In the playing rooms, the capotto is given a different value: Ordinarily, however, only two games are the value given:

Indeed, ordinarily, and according to the practice accepted today in almost all conversations [social gatherings], it is given a value of four games, and not two, as Sig. Author says.

Further on in the same note, speaking of the capottone [one player capturing all the tricks], he follows thus: Ordinarily, the capotto is made to count double; for what reason, however, is not known; while this cannot happen: other than attempted mishmash, very little prevails, either reality or industry; therefore it does not seem necessary to reward with a double amount those who contribute nothing or very little of their probity and ingenuity. Ubi parum aut nihil probi ingenii lumen eluceat. [Where little or nothing, let the light of a pure character shine forth – the second part is from Cicero De Oficiis 1.103].

If I could talk to the Author, I would want to ask some things about the capottone. I would like him to tell me if he absolutely believes it cannot be done without an artificial mishmash, as appears from his text; because I could answer him in practice that he is deceived, but very much so; having happened to me, receiving my only capottone after my companion, as a joke, had carefully shuffled the cards of the dealer [scartante]. I would also like him to tell me if he has seen many of them done, and if he has done them himself, which I must not believe, both because of the difficulty of the combinations and because of the turning around [regiro] which is required most of the time to be able to do it [the capottone]. Due to the difficulties with the combinations, there occurred (and this I can say with certainty) [the situation of] being unable to make a capottone with nineteen tarocchi in one's hand, including the two highest: because of the turning that is required; having happened several times to not be able to do it due to the mistake of the partner, who inadvertently keeping a winning card that he was able to give [poteva dare], also made a trick. So if there

8

are many difficulties in making this capottone, so that the majority of tarocchi players do not manage to make one in their whole life, although among these there are many who do not take too much pleasure in shuffling the cards. Why does this Sig. Author make the claim that the prize for the capottone is too excessive, since it is such a difficult thing that it can very rarely be done?

In the conclusion of his treatise there are seven further paragraphs. In the second, and in the fourth, Sig. Author does not explain himself enough, nor too well: in the discourse I will give on fouls with the cards, I will give a clearer explanation. I will only speak of the seventh (leaving aside the others, which mean little or nothing), in which he writes thus: that no signal nor indication can be made to the ally, of either the number of [suit] cards or number of triumphs played; and by doing this, the offending party will be obliged to pay damages of at least one game.

In this §, as in some others, the Author does not speak entirely badly; because when it comes to speaking, there are players who take great liberties, and there should be a penalty to contain them; but how can you ever fix it? How ever to establish the boundaries of discourses and words? There would be a thousand questions every moment. In this article, I would certainly like to be severe and rigorous, but at least one game, as Sig. Author says, it seems to me a penalty that is a little too excessive.

9

In the Appendix, where he speaks de arte levandi [of the art of cutting], what I have found of note to us is the following. There are, however, some who seek artificial mishmashes made by combining (given work) the best cards in the act of enumerating the points, and making one or two piles of them, with dexterity of hand, distributing them in such a way in their shuffle that, if you cut the deck in any way, the cards will appear distributed in such a way that they are not dealt to anyone but himself and his partner.

As much as I have thought about it, and thought about it again, I have never been able to understand, nor will I ever understand, how it is possible to give a shuffled deck, after which, if you cut the deck in any way, says Sig. Author, the cards will be distributed in such a way as to be given only to himself and his partner. Here, of course, either he must have explained himself badly, or he must have an ability which, from his discourse, I certainly would never have believed that Sig. Author could have.

Further on, in the same Appendix, he writes as follows: If you can see where the discarder in shuffling has placed the best cards, address yourself to those and take them for yourself.

Good, very good. This is the best piece that I have found in the entire treatise. Gentlemen Tarocchi Enthusiasts, know how to take advantage.

After reading and re-reading this great treatise, seeing that the Sig. Author (who I believe, barely knows the cards, or has always been playing in a hermitage); seeing, I say, that with these ill-conceived and lacking rules of his, he was only increasingly embarrassing the Enthusiast Tarot Gentlemen, and also hearing that continuous and lively questions occur daily, especially among the quibblers, who always want to make people play the practice according to their particular interest, I determined to truncate them as best as possible, to produce some, the majority of which are already accepted by the public and by practice, by means of which any of the players, if disputes arise, will be able to easily resolve them.

10
The reading is sometimes a little tiring, but less so that of the criticism than of the previous text. You can feel the distance both in time and from Tuscany, but here my ear is only annoyed by the use of "ci" instead of "gli" to say "to him."

I thought I should check to see if the same phrases that were copied from our Treatise could be found in other almanacs or pamphlets on tarocchi printed in Milan in subsequent years. These are concepts that are found again, but I have not found any cases of literal repetition.

5. The meaning of the tarocchi

At the beginning, we read in Lensi's report that the book in question "mentions the meaning of tarocchi." I recently described a tarot-calendar almanac which already in the title, Per chi tarocca [For one who plays tarocco], was addressed to tarocchi players, but then had nothing to report on the game of tarocchi other than the possible meaning of the relevant cards. [note 3] I subsequently realized that that almanac was present among the additions to Lensi's Bibliografia already cited

77.1. Idee di un egiziano sul giuoco del tarocco [Ideas of an Egyptian on the game of tarocco.] Almanac for the leap year 1796. Joseph Feraboli, Cremona, s.a. [1795], in 32°, pp. 8 nos
According to Mauro Barchielli (“La Provincia”, Cremona, 13 December 1983), this pamphlet could be attributed to Isidoro Bianchi (1731-1805) of Cremona. The final reference to “Court de Gebelin” is notable. Fourteen years earlier Antoine Court de Gébelin (1719-1784), in the VIII vol. of his work Le Monde primitif (9 vols., 1773-1782) had linked the deck

__________
3. http://www.naibi.net/A/CREM1795.pdf


11

of tarocchi to esoteric traditions and had attributed its invention to the Egyptians. See n. 7 of this bibliography.

So let's go and see that too, and then the comment added in the Essay of Integration [Saggio di Integrazione]:

7. Almanac published by Monsignor Antonio Dragoni. Cremona, 1814.
Cicognara, in his Storia della calcografia [History of copperplate engraving], on p. 131, cites this almanac and says that it contains an interesting article on the meaning of the tarocchi.
7* Almanac.
It is probable that this booklet (of which no copy has yet been found) constitutes further evidence of the diffusion of Court de Gébelin's fantasies in certain Cremonese circles. See n. 77.1. of the present bibliography. Information on Antonio Antonino Dragoni in G. Biffi, Diario (1777-1781) edited by G. Dossena, Milan, Bompiani, 1976, p. 137.

In short, as far as Cremona is concerned, it can be seen that all the tracks have been followed, and this is not surprising considering that the great expert Giampaolo Dossena was actually from Cremona. Our problem, however, is not to delve into the connections between Cremona and Paris through Freemasonry, but rather to understand whether the capital of Lombardy had also been involved. The question is based on the possible presence of Parisian echoes in this Treatise; in fact, it is not clear in what other context the "meaning of the cards" could be inserted. Thus, moving from Cremona to Milan, the reported "fourteen years" from the printing of Court de Gébelin could be reduced to eight.


12
The possibility of a further anticipation on the basis of the oldest known Milanese edition of this genre appears less promising. Saying “known” in this case is an understatement because we know, thanks to Thierry Depaulis, only the following indication. [note 4]

Le regole per ben giuocare a tarocco [almanacco]. [The rules for playing tarocchi well [almanac].] Milan, 1786. Review in Corriere di Gabinetto. Literary notices (Gazzetta di Milano), Milan, 1787

I do not dare advance hypotheses or proposals regarding this probable prototype of other Milanese texts on tarocchi; I have already risked too much by describing here a book that I don't know.

Florence, 11.07.2023

_______________
4. Th. Depaulis, The Playing Card. Vol. 38, N.1 (2009) pp. 9-13.