Is the Bologna cartomancy sheet really pre-1750?
Posted: 24 May 2020, 12:33
In 1989 Franco Pratesi reported on a sheet he had found in the University of Bologna Library, with a list of words on one side recognizable as the titles of 35 cards of the traditional tarocchini deck of Bologna; next to each was what appeared to be a divinatory meaning for that card. (Franco Pratesi, “Tarot Bolonais et Cartomancie,” L’As de Trèfle, no. 37, May 1989, pp. 10-11. Online at http://naibi.net/A/22-BODIVADT-Z.pdf.
Pratesi reported that the sheet was included among pages of a diverse nature dating between 1760 and 1783, with an important part of them specific to 1772-1773. Among them were several letters and notes of a Masonic ambience, and in certain cases, specifically linked to France (“d’ambiance maçonnique et, dans certains cas, précisément liés à la France”), although not the sheet in question.
Such papers and dates correlate well with the known milieu of French cartomancy of that time, specifically the publication of Etteilla’s first book on cartomancy in 1770 and then the 1781 essays by de Gébelin and de Mellet. As far as Freemasonry went, Etteilla denied belonging to any Masonic lodge and held their degrees in some contempt (Decker, Depaulis and Dummett, Wicked Pack of Cards, 1996, p. 89, although he was invited to speak at the “Philalèthes’” second congress of 1787). They at least were interested in him, and de Gébelin certainly was a Mason.
Moreover, since Etteilla was a reseller of old prints (DDD p. 80), it is a reasonable possibility that Etteilla might have had, through his business, a Masonic informant who wished to be kept confidential, for which purpose Etteilla would have asserted other sources of information (i.e. an "Alexis Piemontese" and 3 old people arrested 1751-1753).
One aspect of the Bolognese tarot meanings suggested to Pratesi a date for the sheet even earlier than 1760: two of the card-titles were the Fantesca of Denari and the Fantesca of Coppe, cards that according to Dummett had appeared only for a brief period of some decades. Dummett noted that that the non-standard pack by Mittelli, 1664, had only male Fanti, and that “accounts of the game in 1753 and 1754 refer only to Fanti (Jacks) and not to Fantine or the like.” These accounts are Il Guioco Pratica, by R. Bisteghi, 1753, and Istruzione necessari per che si volesse imparare il dilettevole giuoco dei Tarocchini, written anonymously but by Carlo Pisarri, 1754. The latter is now online, and the occurrences of "fante" can be seen at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Is ... ni%20fante. It is especially telling that in giving the order of cards by trick-taking ability in Coppe and Denari, in contrast to Bastoni and Spade, he uses the word "Fante" rather than "Fantesca" or "fantina", search terms for which no occurrences are found in this book.
Dummett knew of only two decks with Fantine, one “in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris from the end of the 17th century” and “a single-ended one made after 1725 in the British Museum.” He suggested 1690-1730 for the period in which the Fantine would have been in the deck. Pratesi gave 1650-1750. Dummett in 2003 said "first half of the 18th century," for the same reason as before, adding that since cartomantic meanings for the papi would be more likely than for the Mori, none of which are on the list, it would be most likely after 1725 ("Tarot Cartomancy in Bologna, The Playing Card 32:2, pp. 79-88). Caldwell in "A Brief History of Cartomancy" (https://www.academia.edu/6477311/Brief_ ... cartomancy) says only "before 1750". The Bologna University library currently dates the sheet at 1730-1740, Andrea Vitali tells me (personal communication).
The problem is that Vitali and Zanetti in Il Tarocchino di Bologna: Stia, Iconografia, Divinazione del XV al XX secolo, 2005, reproduce (albeit without commenting the the feature of interest here) cards from a deck that seems to date from 1770 and which also has Fantine in Coppe and Denari (as well as, of course, the 4 Mori). The deck in question, we are told on the 10 of Denari, is "CARTE FINE ALLA LEONE".
The date of 1770 is derived from a notation on the shield on the Fante of Spade. Next to it i have put the Fantesca of Denari:
These are on (pp. 52-53 of Vitali and Zanetti. The Fantesca of Coppe is on p. 54. It was not I who noticed this date. I asked Andrea why he did not say in the book, "1725-1750" or "1725-1740" for the deck, as opposed to what he did say, "sec. XVIII", since it had the fantine. He said, "One of the cards has the date 1770 on it." He added that perhaps it was a reprint of something earlier. But if so, that only shows that there was a market for such decks in 1770, for whatever reason (I mean, whether for feminine purchasers or fortune-tellers).
So we must ask: although Dummett's conclusion, and Pratesi's after that, were reasonable, is it definitive? It seems to me that the mere fact that Bisteghi and Pisarri do not mention Fantesche/Fantini explicitly does not exclude their presence in decks of tarocchini or tarocchi at any time before 1800. They were talking about the rules, and for that purpose it makes no difference whether the cards in question were of males or females; only the suit is relevant. "Fante" might merely be a generic term.
Nor can we draw any conclusion about when the practice (of having female fanti) started from the Mitelli deck, as Dummett did. It is non-standard, and moreover if both types of deck were produced, with and without fantesche, the presence of one type does not exclude the other. Even in the sixteenth century there were decks with female pages, for example in the sheets of the Budapest groups, in particular https://www.printsanddrawings.hu/search/prints/5045, which has a female page of coins in the top row. On the same website we can see another sheet with all four as male, http://printsanddrawings.hu/search/prints/5050/. It is possible that this last is not a tarocchi; but there is another, https://www.printsanddrawings.hu/search/prints/5044, with the same cup-drinking male fante of cups on a sheet that clearly is a tarocchi, as is the one with the female fante of coins. These of course are from the B region, which includes Ferrara and Venice. But evidently there was no problem printing decks of both types (i.e. all male and half and half) at the same time, in the same region.
So I am left with the conclusion that the "pre-1750 Bolognese cartomancy sheet" is, compared to pre-1750, considerably more likely to be from the period 1760-1783.
Pratesi reported that the sheet was included among pages of a diverse nature dating between 1760 and 1783, with an important part of them specific to 1772-1773. Among them were several letters and notes of a Masonic ambience, and in certain cases, specifically linked to France (“d’ambiance maçonnique et, dans certains cas, précisément liés à la France”), although not the sheet in question.
Such papers and dates correlate well with the known milieu of French cartomancy of that time, specifically the publication of Etteilla’s first book on cartomancy in 1770 and then the 1781 essays by de Gébelin and de Mellet. As far as Freemasonry went, Etteilla denied belonging to any Masonic lodge and held their degrees in some contempt (Decker, Depaulis and Dummett, Wicked Pack of Cards, 1996, p. 89, although he was invited to speak at the “Philalèthes’” second congress of 1787). They at least were interested in him, and de Gébelin certainly was a Mason.
Moreover, since Etteilla was a reseller of old prints (DDD p. 80), it is a reasonable possibility that Etteilla might have had, through his business, a Masonic informant who wished to be kept confidential, for which purpose Etteilla would have asserted other sources of information (i.e. an "Alexis Piemontese" and 3 old people arrested 1751-1753).
One aspect of the Bolognese tarot meanings suggested to Pratesi a date for the sheet even earlier than 1760: two of the card-titles were the Fantesca of Denari and the Fantesca of Coppe, cards that according to Dummett had appeared only for a brief period of some decades. Dummett noted that that the non-standard pack by Mittelli, 1664, had only male Fanti, and that “accounts of the game in 1753 and 1754 refer only to Fanti (Jacks) and not to Fantine or the like.” These accounts are Il Guioco Pratica, by R. Bisteghi, 1753, and Istruzione necessari per che si volesse imparare il dilettevole giuoco dei Tarocchini, written anonymously but by Carlo Pisarri, 1754. The latter is now online, and the occurrences of "fante" can be seen at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Is ... ni%20fante. It is especially telling that in giving the order of cards by trick-taking ability in Coppe and Denari, in contrast to Bastoni and Spade, he uses the word "Fante" rather than "Fantesca" or "fantina", search terms for which no occurrences are found in this book.
Dummett knew of only two decks with Fantine, one “in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris from the end of the 17th century” and “a single-ended one made after 1725 in the British Museum.” He suggested 1690-1730 for the period in which the Fantine would have been in the deck. Pratesi gave 1650-1750. Dummett in 2003 said "first half of the 18th century," for the same reason as before, adding that since cartomantic meanings for the papi would be more likely than for the Mori, none of which are on the list, it would be most likely after 1725 ("Tarot Cartomancy in Bologna, The Playing Card 32:2, pp. 79-88). Caldwell in "A Brief History of Cartomancy" (https://www.academia.edu/6477311/Brief_ ... cartomancy) says only "before 1750". The Bologna University library currently dates the sheet at 1730-1740, Andrea Vitali tells me (personal communication).
The problem is that Vitali and Zanetti in Il Tarocchino di Bologna: Stia, Iconografia, Divinazione del XV al XX secolo, 2005, reproduce (albeit without commenting the the feature of interest here) cards from a deck that seems to date from 1770 and which also has Fantine in Coppe and Denari (as well as, of course, the 4 Mori). The deck in question, we are told on the 10 of Denari, is "CARTE FINE ALLA LEONE".
The date of 1770 is derived from a notation on the shield on the Fante of Spade. Next to it i have put the Fantesca of Denari:
These are on (pp. 52-53 of Vitali and Zanetti. The Fantesca of Coppe is on p. 54. It was not I who noticed this date. I asked Andrea why he did not say in the book, "1725-1750" or "1725-1740" for the deck, as opposed to what he did say, "sec. XVIII", since it had the fantine. He said, "One of the cards has the date 1770 on it." He added that perhaps it was a reprint of something earlier. But if so, that only shows that there was a market for such decks in 1770, for whatever reason (I mean, whether for feminine purchasers or fortune-tellers).
So we must ask: although Dummett's conclusion, and Pratesi's after that, were reasonable, is it definitive? It seems to me that the mere fact that Bisteghi and Pisarri do not mention Fantesche/Fantini explicitly does not exclude their presence in decks of tarocchini or tarocchi at any time before 1800. They were talking about the rules, and for that purpose it makes no difference whether the cards in question were of males or females; only the suit is relevant. "Fante" might merely be a generic term.
Nor can we draw any conclusion about when the practice (of having female fanti) started from the Mitelli deck, as Dummett did. It is non-standard, and moreover if both types of deck were produced, with and without fantesche, the presence of one type does not exclude the other. Even in the sixteenth century there were decks with female pages, for example in the sheets of the Budapest groups, in particular https://www.printsanddrawings.hu/search/prints/5045, which has a female page of coins in the top row. On the same website we can see another sheet with all four as male, http://printsanddrawings.hu/search/prints/5050/. It is possible that this last is not a tarocchi; but there is another, https://www.printsanddrawings.hu/search/prints/5044, with the same cup-drinking male fante of cups on a sheet that clearly is a tarocchi, as is the one with the female fante of coins. These of course are from the B region, which includes Ferrara and Venice. But evidently there was no problem printing decks of both types (i.e. all male and half and half) at the same time, in the same region.
So I am left with the conclusion that the "pre-1750 Bolognese cartomancy sheet" is, compared to pre-1750, considerably more likely to be from the period 1760-1783.