Early Opinions to the Mantegna Tarocchi
- Lanzi, Zani and Duchesne

"It was by means of these methods that the fifty cards which are commonly called the game of Mantegna (jeu de Mantegna) were made; I saw it for the first time at the home of the majordomo of the ruler of Tuscany, the General Marquis Manfredi, who has a cabinet of extremely select prints. I saw another copy of it at the home of M. Father Boni, and I know that yet another one, which belonged beforehand to M. the Duke of Cassano, was bought by M. the Senator Prior Seratti, who added it to his precious collection.

There exists a copy of this deck of cards (jeu de cartes), in large, with some changes (for example, ‘Faith’ does not have a small cross, as in the original, but a large one). This copy is much later than its model; there is a second infinitely less rare, but in which one notes many more variations: the first card has, as an ensign, the Venetian lion, with the letters C and E interlaced; the card of the Doge carries this subscription: ‘il doxe’; on the others, one reads ‘artixan famejo’, and many other words which pertain equally to the Venetian idiom; which proves beyond any doubt that one should in no case seek outside of Venice, or the Venetian state, for the author of this work, so large and remarkable for its beauty. Who made it, is a veritable mystery. The design has much in common with Mantegna and the school of Padua; but the engraving is absolutely not that of Andrea nor of any known master of that time. A careful, but timid execution was observed in it, which announces the copyist of the work of another, rather than the work of an artist who executes what he himself has conceived; time will discover the truth regarding this matter."

“.

“Coming now to the old Italian game of taroc, we have to say at the beginning that the name of the engraver of this deck (jeu) remains unknown. It is certain that it is not the invention of Andrea Mantegna, as some have thought. Zani appears to believe that it was made at Padua [D. Pierre Zani, “Materiali per servire alla Storia dell’origine et de’progressi dell’incizioni in rame, in legno, etc.”, Parma, 1802 pp. 78-81, and 149-182]; but he cannot give the name of the author. The time when it was engraved is no more certain; but there exists a complete copy of it, of which one of the pieces carries the year 1485, written on the tablet which the figure ARITHMETICHA XXV carries. Now, one can think that the original deck should have an anteriority of 15 years or so; it would thus be engraved around 1470.

It is necessary to remark that Bartsch, in giving his description of the two series, made a great error [Bartsch, “Le Peintre-graveur”, Vienne, 1812, vol. X, pp. 70-120, and vol. XIII, pp. 120-138]; he cites the copy as the original, and the original as the copy. Despite the high estimation in which we hold this excellent author, we will not hesitate to say that on this occasion he any less excusable, since he confesses himself, in this regard, to be in contradiction with Father Zani, surely a very competent judge.

The undated deck is certainly the original: of a pleasing design, its engraving is fine, with the lines straight and clean, which is characteristic of the old Florentine printings. However, many of the inscriptions at the bottom are in the Venetian dialect. The ink on the impression of the exemplar in the Bibliothéque Royale de France is an ashy grey, and the proofs are taken from heavily used plates; but we have encountered scattered proofs in a very vigorous tone. Father Zani reports seeing in Naples, at the home of the Duke of Cassano Serra, a complete exemplar, in a state of perfect conservation, and of which the impression was very black.

It is difficult to understand how Bartsch was able to regard the original cards as being copies; he should have seen, on the contrary, that those he described as originals are evidently copied after the others. Their engraving is more rigid and more awkward; the look of the heads is often different and always less agreeable. Another proof of the priority of the game given as a copy is that, in this series, the figure Arithmetic, of whom we have already spoken, counts, in the original series, with tokens (jetons), whereas in the other series she holds a tablet on which are placed arabic numbers. However it is very certain that, when one wrote numbers with roman numerals, one could not count otherwise than with tokens. The use of arabic numbers, being more modern, would not have been able to have been indicated by the engraver than at the moment when this method of numbering had been generally adopted. It must also be noted that, in the original deck, the cards have a height of 9 and 3 to 4 sixths of an inch, and a width of 3 and 7 to 8 twelfths of an inch; while those of the copies are only 9 and 4 to 5 twelfths by 3 and 5 twelfths of an inch (... “les cartes ont de hauteur 9 pouces 6 à 8 lignes, et de largeur 3 pouces 7 à 8 lignes; tandis que les copies ont seulement 9 pouces 4 à 5 lignes sur 3 pouces 5 lignes”). One should naturally think that the cards made in the second place would be rather smaller than larger; furthermore, that these cards have a greater equality of dimension among them, is a perfection of fabrication which demonstrates their posteriority.

Although this deck has already been described, we think that it will agreeable to recapitulate it here, with aim of being more easily able to give an exact idea of the similarities and differences which exist among these cards and those of Charles VI [which Duchesne described earlier in the article]. The old game of taroc is divided into five series, each indicated by one of the first letters of the alphabet, ranged in the inverse sense to their numeric order, the no. 1 being part of the series E, while the the no. 50 is of series A.

Zani wanted to consider these letters as the initials of ATUTTO, BATTONI, COPPE, DENARI, and ESPADONE for Spadone, which is the real Italian word; perhaps also at this time, or in the Venetian dialect, this form existed.

The cards here are in the number of 50, which is not in rapport with any of our decks, since, given the number of players and the combinations adopted for each game, those are always in a number divisible by 4: so 20 for bouillotte, 28 for brelan, 32 for piquet and a great number of games, 36 for trappola, 40 for l’hombre, 48 for reversis, 52 for lansquenet and many others, 96 for comet, 104 for the lottery and 312 for thirty-one; the current taroc is however composed of 78 cards. It is played between two people, but one makes three parts, two of which have 25 and one of 28 for the player who deals the cards.

The old taroc cards were thus not made for mathematical games, but only for an instructive game. In this game, divided into five series, one finds the 7 planets, based on the celestial system; the 7 virtues, forming the principle of all morality; the sciences, which only man is capable of acquiring, and the knowledge of which raises him above the animals; the Muses, the cultivation of which spreads so much charm to life; at last, a series of the diverse stations in which man can find himself, from the most difficult situation, ‘the wretch’ (la misère), up to the most elevated of all, the sovereign pontificate.

One senses that in mixing the cards and distributing them randomly to several people, they would be able to offer combinations: pleasant, unique, bizarre or ridiculous, which, as in the ‘jeu d’oie’ and others, they would present situations amusing all of society. The numbers and the letters, then, would not serve except for recognition for those whose education was not finished enough to judge which association belonged to the cards they had in their hand.

After this explanation, we have no need to make it clear that the word ‘naipi’ would in fact suit such a collection of cards, since they were actually a child’s game. It will also be quite easy to see that a game of this type would offer relaxation to the prince who, by the weakness of his spirit, found himself returned to the state of an infant.”