One of Franco's Pratesi's 2023 essays seems to me to raise issues of broad interest, both to those of us concerned with tarot origins as well as collectors, in general, how to tell from the cards, in the case of a partial deck, what city a minchiate comes from and when it was made. This is of course of interest to the collector. It relates to tarot origins in that minchiate designs have many affinities with the early Bolognese cards and the 15th century luxury cards. However, they differ among themselves, not only from "early pattern" to "late pattern", but among different cities. On this forum we have discussed Lucca and Savona extensively; I am not sure about Florence and Bologna, which were the main producers: "minchiate" is not an allowed search term on this Forum. How do their productions differ? Since there are small differences among various productions, which may or may not be correlated with the city where they were produced, we have to be careful about generalizing. Added a few hours later: although "minchiate" is considered too common to track, "Germini" yields 347 matches; so far I have not found anything duplicating the topic of this thread, but I haven't looked at them all yet.

So with that preamble, I present a translation of Franco's essay "Quattordici minchiate del Settecento," in Italian at https://www.naibi.net/A/14MINC.pdf, published there on August 20, 2023. It concerns 14 cards attributed by some to Bologna, and to the first half of the eighteenth century. Whether either of these claims is right is subject to his examination. Comments in brackets are mine. Franco has reviewed this translation, and I have adopted the few corrections that were needed. I would add here one other comment. He does not footnote his quotation in section 1, since the Yale catalog (as opposed to the Beinecke, where I could not find it) is readily available online: simply search "minchiate" at https://orbis.library.yale.edu/vwebv/searchBasic.

After presenting Franco, I will add, in another post, some reflections of my own, if only to continue the discussion. I am hopeful that other members of this forum will add something, too. The "early pattern" minchiate images seem to me worth looking at.

Fourteen minchiate cards from the eighteenth century

Franco Pratesi

1. Introduction

The fourteen cards that I describe and comment on in this note are preserved in the Beinecke Rare Books and Manuscript Library with the same signature as the booklet Regole sopra il Gioco delle Minchiate [Rules of the Game of Minchiate], which I transcribed and commented on recently. [note 1] I take the library catalog entry from there.

Title on cover of rules: Regole sopra il Gioco delle Minchiate. In Italian.
Purchased from Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., on the Mary Flagler Cary Fund, 2010.
Collection that includes manuscript rules by an unidentified author, possibly in Florence, Italy, for playing the card game minchiate, circa 1700-1750, as well as fourteen contemporary hand-tinted printed playing cards made by “Al Poverone,” a card maker active in Bologna, Italy, during the eighteenth century.

For these playing cards, I think it is necessary to go into more detail in the description. First of all, it is said that the set only entered the library in 2010, which may explain why no specific studies have yet been carried out on the subject.

A fund established by Mary Flagler Cary (1901-1967), granddaughter of Henry Morrison Flagler, [note 2] one of the founders of Standard Oil, was used for the purchase; it is not surprising that this lady was able to leave a fund of 72 million dollars for charity. It seems that she was particularly passionate about parks and music, so that a large part of the funds were allocated to those two activities; but different cultural initiatives were not neglected either, with assistance to cultural institutes, museums and libraries.

More important for us is the provenance, because the antiquarian bookshop Bernard Quaritch Ltd of London is famous, having been in business for almost two hundred years. [note 3] I thought that the provenance of these objects could be traced from the archives of the London bookshop, and I asked for information; they kindly sent me one of their pages from 2010 in which the material was illustrated in greater detail, but as to the origin, they wrote that it was a private purchase, so they could not tell me the provenance.

2. The two backs of the cards

As regards the backs, only two of the fourteen cards have at the bottom the writing POVERINO, while all the others read POVERONE (see figure) [both mean “poor person,” although the former suggests more a person of unfortunate destiny than meager economic condition]. They are two "trademarks" that are encountered quite often - especially the second - and are usually attributed to Bolognese card makers of the eighteenth century, including some dating back to its first twenty years. It is therefore not surprising if the Beinecke Library suggests a dating window of 1700-1750, which is also quite wide, and a provenance from Bologna, as was also indicated in the description of the bookshop from which they had purchased them.

Since these cards were found together with the pamphlet of Regole sopra il giooco delle minchiate, which has been indicated as having a probable Florentine origin, it would be assumed that in Florence they had used a minchiate obviously of the Florentine type, but produced in Bologna. This wouldn't be too strange, because in fact there were many minchiate products from Bologna that arrived in Florence, even regularly paying the requisite taxes if local production wasn't sufficient, or perhaps if slightly different models were preferred. [note 4]
____________________
1. https://naibi.net/A/REGMIN.pdf
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Flagler
3. https://www.quaritch.com/about/our-history/
4. F. Pratesi, Playing-Card Production in Florence. Tricase (LE) 2018.

2 From: Rules and Playing Cards for Minchiate.
General Collections, Beinecke Rare and Manuscript Library,
Yale University ‒ The two different backs of the 14 cards

Overall, these backs represented a challenge for my memory, because they were familiar to me in the Florentine context, and I did not remember where I had encountered them; in fact, I had seen them in a distant time, but in a nearby place: the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale [National Central Library] of Florence. [Note 5]

However, let us think about what we observe here. If on the back we move from the name to the figure, in the case of POVERINO, what is indicated is in itself ambiguous: it is "simply" a young man standing leaning against a pillar, and his clothing, although elegant enough, I don't think can safely be connected to a given location. In short, either we know other examples with certain provenance with which to associate decks and cities, or we remain vague. However, if we move on to the twelve backs of POVERONE, the figure is extremely indicative: it is none other than the grand-ducal coat of arms of the Habsburg-Lorraine of Tuscany.

Coat of arms - Habsburg-Lorraine-Tuscany - On the smooth shield the coat of arms is depicted in three parts: on the left the Habsburg arms with a red transverse band on a solid gold background; in the center the Lorraine coat of arms with a red stripe divided by white in its center; on the right the Medici coat of arms with six balls, three of them on a solid gold background. [Note 6]

We know that the Medici dynasty died out in 1737 and was followed by the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty. In short, as regards the date, this coat of arms can make us exclude a dating of our
________________
5. https://www.naibi.net/A/06-BURGUN-Z.pdf da: The Playing-Card World, No. 50 (1987) 3-4.
6. https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detai ... 0900157573

3
cards prior to 1737, but it does not provide us with a second useful date to close the window of possible dates.

The situation regarding provenance is more precise. In theory, one might think that a card maker from Bologna, when producing minchiate for the Tuscan market, would consider it suitable, if not also respectful, to print that coat of arms on the back. Nowadays there are many such operations; however, I don't think that this would have been accepted in Tuscany at the time. In short, I believe that that coat of arms was hardly compatible with a Bolognese production; indeed, I go so far as to hypothesize that if POVERONE was the trademark of a Florentine card maker, POVERINO should be too, at least for these cards.

3. The depictions on the cards

Before examining the cards one by one, some general observations can be made. The description of the bookseller who sold the cards to the library provides several details taken from specialist literature; perhaps what most precisely identifies the type of minchiate is the reference to Pattern Sheet 28 of the International Playing Card Society. International Playing Card Society – Pattern Sheet 28 – Partial reproduction.

4

From: Rules and Playing Cards for Minchiate.
General Collections, Beinecke Rare and Manuscript Library, Yale University ‒ first nine cards


5
From: Rules and Playing Cards for Minchiate.
General Collections, Beinecke Rare and Manuscript Library, Yale University ‒ last five cards

The following table lists all the cards with their identification; the progressive numbering is arbitrary and simply follows the order in which they were digitized.
6
Of the fourteen cards, nine are tarocchi [trumps, major arcana] and five belong to the four suits - one of each suit and one of spades. The sequence of tarocchi present is 2, 7, 19, 21, 24, 27, 32, 34, (39) and appears completely random. As a general type of these cards, we can agree with the London bookseller's presentation and follow the lead of Pattern Sheet 28 of the IPCS; in the figure, I have presented half of the cards selected there. The general type is this; let us review them one by one.

1. The position of the Bull, which seems to be sitting, is strange, but it is typical of this minchiate card.
2. Here too, the fist holding the sword and the crown are typical.
3. The coloring in Aquarius appears rough, but this is not uncommon.
4. It belongs to the Zodiac series, absent in standard tarot cards.
5. The most notable thing is the central beam. This card was indeed used for the stamp, from 1701 to 1706, but that was different. From here, I couldn't indicate a date.
6. Capricorn belongs to the Zodiac series, absent in standard tarot cards.
7. To represent Strength you could not make a thicker column to break or choose an animal more ferocious than the lion as an opponent.
8. I don't know if the faces drawn inside the coins were intended to give the idea of the heads on the coins, or if it was a decoration in itself, but this was the common way of indicating the suit. The ten "coins" are grouped five above and as many below.
9. This card was also called The Grand Duke; it has no exact correspondent in standard tarot.
10, The batons designed as batons of command, linear and intertwined, were still typical of the Italian-Portuguese model.
11, Intertwined swords were also typical of the Italian-Portuguese model. I can't imagine a route from Lisbon to Florence, instead of the opposite.
12, The cup with the flower on it is a common variant of the suit emblem. This card and the previous one belong to the Poverino deck, different, but you wouldn't notice the difference without seeing the back.
13, Water, one of the four elements. Here the stamp is very indicative, as is the signature on the side, by Domenico Aldini, and will be used in the following.
14, The World was part of the “Arie,” with no number indicated, and was the second-highest card in the deck.

The presence of the stamp on card XXI should allow for a more precise dating, but with my data one can only conclude from the signature that the deck dates to after 1751, when Aldini had his first contract. [note 7] However, I found that Alberto Milano had already studied the question a few years earlier, and his results can be used: the range of possible dates is wide and goes from 06.30.1752 to 12.30.1780. [note 8] While waiting for further information, we can meanwhile use an average value and tentatively date these cards to 1765; if evidence is later found to attribute them to a different year, it will not be by much.

5. Conclusion

Fourteen minchiate cards preserved in the Beinecke Rare and Manuscript Library were shown and discussed, and several clues were highlighted that lead to the correct assumption of a Florentine provenance and a dating around the year 1765.

The general model corresponds to the first minchiate model, the oldest known, the one that remained in use for centuries. I have not been able to indicate possible original ideas in the
_____________________
7. https://i-p-c-s.org/pattern/ps-28.html PATTERN SHEET 28 Suit System: IPT. Recommended Name: the Earlier Minchiate pattern. This pattern was originally classified as IPT-1. This pattern is found on the earliest known Minchiate cards, dating from the 17th century, and may well have been used for them from the first invention of the game.
8. A. Milano, The Playing-Card, 10 (1982) 102-106.

7
individual cards; possibly a specialist will be able to point out other useful details; for example, Nazario Renzoni has already pointed out to me that in the last card, the angel standing above the world appears here, unusually, female. The question is that within a current typology any card maker was free to introduce his own detailed adjustments, precisely those small differences that could make one production more appreciated than another.

Changing the general model was more difficult due to the known resistance to changes of players who usually remain faithful to traditional models for a long time. However, it is known that, even for minchiate, different general models were introduced in subsequent times. It is no coincidence that Pattern Sheet 28 also corresponds to the name of Earlier Minchiate pattern, which will be followed by at least one that is different, but this circumstance goes beyond my current commitment.

Florence, 08.20.2023

I want to pursue several issues raised by Franco's essay of the previous post. One is, what is the date range for the production of these 14 cards? I suspect that it can be narrowed further. (2) What do the backs of the cards - "Poverone," "Poverino," and the Medici arms - say about the place of production? (3) What information can be gleaned from the fronts of the cards, both in general and in the individual cards, as to where they were produced?

On (1), the date range, Franco says 1751-1780, based on the signature by Domenico Aldini. I suspect, but cannot as yet prove, that the date range can be restricted even further, to 1765-1780. This is because the Hapsburg-Lorraine dynasty for Tuscany was only created in 1763, in the marriage contract for Peter Leopold, son of Francis Stephen. Here is Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Tuscany, :

In 1763, when nuptial agreements for the marriage of the imperial couple's second surviving son, Leopold, and the Infanta of Spain, Maria Luisa of Bourbon, were stipulated, Tuscany was erected into a secundogeniture.[50] Thus, upon the death of Francis I, it was Leopold who directly succeeded him on the throne of the Grand Duchy.[51]

It is true that the latter, the former duke of Lorraine, became grand duke of Tuscany in 1737 and was founder of the Hapsburg-Lorraine line in Tuscany, but that is in hindsight. Before the marriage contract, Tuscany it was simply the dukedom of Francis Stephen, one of many states titularly ruled over him as Holy Roman Emperor. His coat of arms reflects that status (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_I ... an_Emperor). A version of that same coat of arms also appears on his Tuscan coins, as shown in the Wikipedia article previously cited. Accounts of the Hapsburg-Lorraine coats of arms in Tuscany date its characteristic dynastic coat of arms, one version of which is on the backs of some of the 14 cards, only to 1765, the year that the son, Peter Leopold, became duke. The first Wikipedia article cited is rather good on the time periods for the various coats of arms and flags, and one coin. These can be confirmed on other sites.

Moreover, that this coat of arms is on the back of the cards is in itself no guarantee that the deck was made in Tuscany. The Medici arms can be seen on one Bologna-made deck in the British Museum: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-39, the back seen on their fifth scan, with the words "Alla Fortuna" beneath them (from the left in the lower part of the page). It is also in the so-called "del Prado" deck, at http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05114/d05114.htm. These are Medici arms, not Hapsburg-Lorraine, but decks with such backs continued to be produced in both cities long after the Medici had ceased to rule Tuscany.

Nor is the signature of Aldini, the concession manager for Tuscany, on the requisite card, in this case that for Water, any guarantee. As Franco points out, when there was a shortage of cards in Florence, they were imported from Bologna, and of course taxed by Tuscany. Why would there be any objection to such cards having on their backs the arms of the Duchy? In fact the "del Prado" has a stamp of some sort on its Aries card, saying "fuori in case". This is not a tax stamp - perhaps it signifies an exemption from tax? - but that it occurs precisely where Tuscany put its tax stamp in the years 1781-1800 suggests that it was done by Tuscany and not Emilia-Romagna. There are hardly any Bolognese decks with visible tax stamps; I only know one, and it is on the 6 of Coins or some other number card.

Then there are the labels "Poverino" and "Poverone," attributed to Bologna by the IPCS pattern sheet. The problem is that these trademarks have been attributed to manufacturers in both Bologna and Florence, among others. Sylvia Mann in 1974 (Journal of the IPCS, 13:2, p. 54) described a "Poverone" deck with the words "carte fine Bologna" on its 3 of Cups, as well as a "Poverino" from "presumably Florence." Exactly where "Dal Piave Francia" is, is not totally clear. Stuart Kaplan in his list of card makers (vol. 2) leaves off the "Francia, presumably Florence" part of Mann's entry. Likewise, Catherine Hargrave in 1930 (History of Playing Cards, p. 230) shows us a "Poverino" back and ascribes it to "a deck of Bolognese tarots." https://archive.org/details/historyofpl ... 0/mode/2up. Note the backwards N and the Medici arms. Why anyone would produce a deck with Medici arms for a deck not known to be used at that time in Florence, or in fact anywhere except the Bologna area, is beyond me. It only shows the unreliability of making attributions without giving justification. "Expertise" is not enough. To her credit, Mann does so.

On the other hand, the catalog of the Schreiber collection at the British Museum, p. 14, has the entries:
Unlike Mann, this catalog does not explain why the deck is assigned to Florence. Scans of Schreiber 53, a complete deck, are online, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-41, and of 54 at https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-43; but the word "Firenze" nowhere appears.

There is also this, from The Celebrated de la Rue Collection of Playing Cards, 1970, p. 14: Again, why Florence?

Recent authors are not much more helpful, even if agreeing with the assessments of 1901 and 1970. In the July-Sept. 2021 issue (50:1) of The Playing Card, Giambattista Monzali says, p. 22:

Also in Florence there was the use of the signs by manufacturers. These included Colomba, Fortuna, Meschino, Paragone, Poverino and Poverone.

He does not give sources for this information, but he does show us a "Poverone" back - it is identical to the one that Hargrave attributed to Bologna, with the same backwards N. (He says, p. 23, that it is from a deck in the British Museum. I wish he had given an accession number, because I have not been able to locate it online. Perhaps someone else can find it.) But if the only source of that information is the backs of the cards, how do we know they are from Florence and not Bologna?

Nicola Antonio De Giorgio, writing in The Playing Card 48:1 (July-Sept. 2019), p. 26, unlike Monzali, does include Bologna in the discussion and mentions some differences between the two cities, having to do with the World card (the two cities' skylines), the 3 and 4 of Cups and the 4 of Coins - cards unfortunately missing from Franco's 14. But another difference, even the most substantial, he says, p. 25, is that in Florence all the Kings are clean-shaven, while in Bologna those of Cups and Coins have beards (in that way, I would observe, like the tarocchini versions of those cards).

Ma la distinzione più sostanziale tra le Minchiate delle due città è la rappresentazione dei RE. Nessuno dei quattro RE delle Minchiate di Firenze è rappresentato con la barba [Fig. 18], mentre nelle Minchiate di Bologna i due Re dei semi lunghi (Spade e Bastoni) sono senza barba, mentre i due Re dei semi corti (Denari e Coppe) sono con la barba [Fig. 19].

De Giorgio gives us an example of each. His Florentine example happens to come precisely from what he says is a "Poverone." You will notice that his "King of Cups" is much like what Franco called a "Queen of Cups." I put that card to the right of the row.
To convince us that his Kings of Coins and Cups are really Kings, however, he would need to have shown us the Queens in that same deck, or ones with similar Kings. To convince us that such Kings inevitably indicate Florence would require considerably more evidence. This is not to say that it is not a correct generalization. To have adequately defended it would have taken considerably more space, or at least an link to online decks - such as the complete deck in the British Museum linked to above, which justifies his claim, at least for that particular "Poverino" woodblock (as opposed to "Poverone," although perhaps the same), wherever it is from and whatever other woodblocks had. Here are that Poverino's court cards in Cups: And it would help if there were more decks, and more identifying features, since card makers cannot be relied on to follow the general rule in every case - especially one that makes kings and queens look much the same.

So it is a matter of finding the identifying characteristics of Florentine vs. Bolognese decks of this period, including decks with the words "Firenze" or "Bologna" on them, so that we can know where they were made, even if they are missing some cards. In other words, what are the characteristics of the Bologna-type vs. the Florence-type, in sufficient numbers of cases to include some of the 14 Franco has found? We may not be able to find characteristics that apply in every case, as card makers cannot be expected to be totally consistent in either city - but at least those that are predominantly in one or the other. And even if we did find characteristics applying to all, there may be unknown decks, lost or unshared by their owners, without that one. But we can still say what done "as a rule." This requires surveying a large but hopefully representative number of decks, including some that are more or less complete. More next time.

As cited in my previous post, De Giorgio's assertion that Florentine Kings of Coins and Cups are invariably unbearded, unlike those of Bologna, also invariably, provides the means to show that the Yale 14 minchiate cards are from Florence and not Bologna. But given the amount of misinformation that arises in our field, is it true? I will show shortly that, strictly speaking, it is not - it is only true for those minchiates of the "early" type, whereas so-called "late" minchiates (which in fact started being produced much earlier than Pratesi's) had only bearded Kings of Coins and Cups. Also, since we really don't have that many decks to generalize from - perhaps a few dozen survivors out of thousands produced - it would be nice to have confirmation of Florentine provenance from other cards of the 14.

De Giorgio gives several other ways of distinguishing Florence from Bologna: one is the Florentine skyline, with its Bruneleschi dome and Giotto tower, vs. Bologna's, from its very high tower in the center:

Tra le caratteristiche delle carte dei mazzi di Minchiate spesso è stato rilevato che il profilo della città presente nel trionfo delle Trombe può solitamente identificare la città di produzione del mazzo stesso. Effettivamente, in diversi mazzi di
Minchiate su questa carta, in basso sotto la figura dell’Angelo, si identificano chiaramente le due torri (degli Asinelli e della Garisenda) caratteristiche della città di Bologna [Fig. 13] e in altri mazzi invece la cupola del Duomo, il campanile di Giotto
e il corso di un fiume Secondo la mia opinione, questo è vero per tutti i mazzi di Minchiate prodotti a Bologna, per i mazzi
di Minchiate di Firenze che l’IPCS identifica come forma tardiva e per la successiva forma “Neoclassica” da questa derivata nell’Ottocento, ma non per tutti i mazzi di Minchiate che l’I.P.C.S. identifica come forma precoce. [note 37: I.P.C.S.: Pattern Sheet n. 28 e n. 29].

Among the characteristics of the cards in Minchiate decks, it has often been noted that the profile of the city present in the Triumph of the Trumpets can usually identify the city of production of the deck itself. Indeed, in several Minchiate decks, at the bottom of this card under the figure of the Angel, the two towers (of the Asinelli and of the Garisenda) characteristic of the city of Bologna are clearly identified [Fig. 13] and in other decks the dome of the Duomo, Giotto's bell tower and the course of a river. In my opinion, this is true for all the Minchiate decks produced in Bologna, for the Minchiate decks of Florence which the IPCS identifies as a late form and for the subsequent “Neoclassical” form derived from this in the nineteenth century, but not for all the Minchiate decks that the I.P.C.S. identifies as an early form. [37].

Unfortunately, on the Florentine side De Giorgio only claims this Florence skyline for the "late" and "neoclassical" forms, and with Yale's 14 cards we are presumably dealing with the "early" pattern. His example does not provide a dating. According to Giambattista Monzal (The Playing Card 50:1, July -Sept 2021, pp. 23-4) the British Museum has specimens, differing only in the tax stamps and signatures of the concessioner, from before 1751, perhaps even going back to the late 1600s. Looking at the BM's decks online, I see the signature of a Molinelli on the card of Cancer. See https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-34. That could be any time between 1682 and 1720 in Florence, or 1736-1751 in Livorno, according to Monzal's chart. The stamp may say more, but I cannot read it. Another, online in Gallica, has a Molinelli stamp on its Cancer indicating 1712-1716: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... rk=64378;0. It is true that these are all engravings, and the Yale 14 are woodcuts, but perhaps there were woodcut versions we don't know about.

De Giorgio also gives five other cards where there is a difference between Bologna and Florence. He does not say whether he is thinking of "early," "late," or both. Immediately after the foregoing, he continues:

Se si analizzano i diversi mazzi di Minchiate attribuibili rispettivamente a Firenze (FI) e a Bologna (BO), su alcune carte si notano anche altre differenze.
Sul 4 di Denari delle Minchiate prodotte a Bologna invece della caratteristica figura di un elefante, propria delle Minchiate di Firenze [Fig. 15 a], si trova un cartiglio con la scritta “carte fine” e il nome dell’insegna del fabbricante [Fig. 15b].
Sul 3 di Coppe delle Minchiate di Firenze vi è la figura di un probabile leone [Fig. 16a], su quelle di Bologna vi è ancora la scritta “CARTE FINE IN BOLOGNA” [Fig. 16b] o solo “CARTE FINE”.
Sul 4 di Coppe delle Minchiate di Firenze vi è la figura di una scimmietta che si guarda allo specchio [Fig. 17a], su quelle di Bologna vi è il disegno dell’insegna del fabbricante [Fig.17b].

If we analyze the different Minchiate decks attributable to Florence (FI) and Bologna (BO) respectively, other differences can also be seen on some cards.
On the 4 of Coins of the Minchiate produced in Bologna, instead of the characteristic figure of an elephant, typical of the Minchiate of Florence [Fig. 15a], there is a scroll with the writing “carte fine” and the name of the manufacturer's sign [Fig.
15b].
On the 3 of Cups of the Minchiate of Florence there is the figure of a probable lion [Fig. 16a], on those of Bologna there is still the writing “CARTE FINE IN BOLOGNA” [Fig. 16b] or just “CARTE FINE.”
On the 4 of Cups of the Minchiate in Florence there is the figure of a little monkey looking at himself in the mirror [Fig. 17a], on those of Bologna there is a drawing of the manufacturer's sign [Fig.17b].

In the article, the cards are overlaid onto one another so that they will fit on the page. In the case of the Bolognese 3 of Cups, I inadvertently cut off his caption. It is from a reproduction by the Museo Fournier, he says. (Online, it corresponds to an "Edicion del Prado," http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05114/d05114.htm.)

For Florence, let us notice, his example for the 3 of Cups is from a deck he denotes as "Etruria." The problem is that at least some of the decks known by that title are of the "late" or engraved, variety (e.g. http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05115/d05115.htm), and we need the early. One example may not fit all. This is particularly true in his next paragraph, the one I quoted in my previous post about the Kings of Cups and Coins (his fourth and fifth examples of cards differing between Bologna and Florence). Even though from Florence, the "late" style invariably has bearded Kings of Cups and Coins (I'll give an example in a moment). And even if his point is valid for the "early" style - which still remains to be seen - none of these ways of distinguishing Florence from Bologna is of any use in the case of Franco's 14, because all four of these cards are missing. Nonetheless, it is a start.

So first, what qualifies Yale''s 14 as fitting the "early" pattern, as opposed to late? The IPCS Pattern sheet for the "late"/"neoclassical" minchiate, their number 29, https://i-p-c-s.org/pattern/ps-29.html, gives examples and steers us to three decks of varying completeness, in the Schreiber collection at the British Museum.

Going to the BM's site and searching for "minchiate", at https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... =minchiate, I get five decks that look fairly different from the rest. Wikipedia's entry on minchiate displays all 97 in an 1850 deck of that style (per Gallica, where they got it) on one page, nicely labeled. There are a few differences, but only one that relates to the 14 Yale cards, Strength, where the earlier engravings have her holding the broken pillar from her lap, as opposed to sitting next to an erect pillar. Wikipedia shows the two versions.

That the "late" seem all to be engravings (in the 18th century using metal plates) is one clue: the Yale cards are woodcuts. I think more can be said. Four "late" cards in particular seem not to correspond to their counterparts in Pratesi's 14. I will link to Pratesi's images and Wikipedia's.

• Taurus, which shows a full animal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minchiate ... l_Toro.jpg), whereas Pratesi's has half, rising from the ground (download/file.php?id=3080);
• Aquarius, where the "late" has one jug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minchiate ... quario.jpg), whereas Pratesi's has two (same link as before);
• Papa II, who looks down and has its globe on its lap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minchiate ... pa_due.jpg), whereas Pratesi's holds its globe high and looks at us (same link as before); and
• the King or Queen of Cups (whichever it is), sitting unbearded in Pratesi's 14 (download/file.php?id=3081), while the "late" King of Cups is bearded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minchiate ... -_King.jpg) and the "late" Queen is standing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minchiate ... _Queen.jpg).

Although my examples for "late" minchiate are from 1850 (or 1862, on the box when you buy it), they hold for the earlier "late" style (etchings from metal plates rather than wood, uncolored or hand-painted) as well. The example at http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05115/d05115.htm has the bearded King of Coins on the box.

In contrast, the other decks on the British Museum's web-page, whether Bolognese or Florentine, fit the depictions that Pratesi gives for these cards. I will give links to individual decks in a moment.

Now that we are sure that Pratesi's 14 are "early," what I propose to do is to see to what extent De Giorgio's generalizations are true of the "early" type of Minchiate, by looking at many decks as I can find on the Internet or in books that fit the images of IPCS pattern sheet 28. I will use the museums' designations of decks as Florence or Bologna as a guide (although at least one is wrong), to see whether they fit de Giorgio's five distinctions. But what I am really after is what other distinctions can be made between the products of the two cities, in hopes of finding some that will fit Pratesi's 14. For me these can include characteristics that may not be true in every case, but at least in a significant number of them, to be used along with other characteristics.

For a start, there is Huck's very useful post at viewtopic.php?p=5225#p5225, linking to sites with online reproductions. It is then a matter of finding specific urls and separate Bologna from Florence and make a few notes. Below is what I have come up with, along with my notes about features that seem to me significant. The links are for reference. If you prefer not to search for the cards I single out, I will have representative samples of the differences between Bologna and Florence after presenting the list.

First, Bologna:

• "Carte Fine al Leone" on 4 of Coins, "Al Mondo" on back, with floral pattern. Face on vase of Temperance, no face on bottom of Strength, Death with scythe, standing Devil, animals on Libra go in opposite directions, Gemini face each other; Aries is stamped twice with three intertwining rings and the words "fuori per le case;" "carte fine" is on 3 Cu, horseman on 4 Cu, stamp on 6 Co, bearded K Cu and Co in robes, unbearded K Sw Ba in breeches; all 4 Qu with left elbow bent and away from body; male on World and basilica with tower below; Bolognese skyline on Angel, http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05114/d05114.htm.
• "Alla Fama" and fleur-de-lys pattern on back, same as above for Temperance - Strength - Devil - Libra - Gemini - World - Angel - Kings -Queens; "carte fine" on 3 Cu, horseman on 4 Cu, "Carte Fine Soldato" on 4 Co, 2 stamps on 6 Co: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-40, Schreiber 44.
• "Alla Fortuna" with Medici arms; "carte fine Bologna" on 3 Cu, head with laurel crown on 4 Cu, "carte fine Imperador" on 4 Co; same as above for Temperance, Strength, Devil, Libra, Gemini World, Angel, Kings, Queens; no tax stamp: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-39. Schreiber 46.
• No description of back, 3 & 4 Cu and 4 Co missing. Temperance Strength Death Devil Gemini World Angel Kings, all same as immediately above, no tax stamp: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-51. Schreiber 45.
• "Al Mondo," on back with leaf pattern, "carte fine" on 3 of Cups and 4 of Coins, everything else as previous. http://www.endebrock.de/coll/pages/i31.html
• "Al Aquila" on back, "Gaetano dalla casa all' Aquila in Via Clavature in Bologna" stamped on 2 Co, "Carte Fine all Aquila 1763" on 4 Co, "Carte Fine" on 3 Cu, fleur-de-lys on 4 Co; "Carte de givoco B. P. G. [or G.P.B.]" in circle on K Ba; otherwise same as above. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105373422.item (cited by Depaulis, 1984, p. 60).
• The ICPS pattern sheet itself, said there from Bologna; cards shown conform to those in common above: https://i-p-c-s.org/pattern/ps-28.html
• Also, Rome, 1820, conforms to above (including Bolognese skyline), except that "1823 Apolto" stamped on 2 Co, "Carte fine di Roma" on 4 Co, several stamps on 6 Co, "Per Case" in a large S stamped on Ace Ba, "Carte Fine" stamped on 3 Cu.: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-42. Schreiber 58.
• In addition, the British Museum has some 19th-century drawings or woodcut sheets of cards, each sheet with its own web page, 64 cards in all, the suits conforming in all regards to above (minus stamps), with "carte fine" on 3 of Cups and 4 Co. and leaving white space for more. Unfortunately, they lack all the distinctive trumps. Scroll down at https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... =minchiate
• On Gallica there is a "Colombo" which they assign to Bologna with a question mark. Depaulis 1984 correctly assigns it to Florence - the conformity to that city will be evident - so it will be the first entry there.

All of these decks have strong colors stenciled very much inside the lines of the woodcut base. Backgrounds are orange to red, and no dotted borders on either front or back.

Now for Florence, excluding for the moment decks with "Etruria" as a trademark.

• "Colomba," Medici arms, no face on vase of Temperance, human face with lion body on Strength, female-looking, striding Devil with breasts, Gemini facing us, feminine-looking World with small breasts and edifice with columns below, Florentine skyline on Angel, unbearded K of Co, K Cu missing, Qu's left arm bent at elbow; elephant & rider on 4 Co; animal and blank banderole on 3 Cu; 3 and 4 of Cu have usual animals: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... ?rk=150215.
• "Firenze," Medici arms, stamp on Acqua, sig. Aldini, nothing on Libra, Gemini face each other: http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks05/d02057/d02057.htm. All suit cards and other distinctive trumps missing.
• "Fortuna" back, Medici arms, stamp on Aries, no extra face on either Temperance or Strength, striding Devil with nipples accented in red, Gemini face us, usual animals on 3 & 4 Cups, 2 Batons, and all Swords except Ace 7, 9: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... -1009-1073. from Molini. Wilshire Italian 256.
• Florence, lion on strength, "F.C.S." initials on libra, nothing on Acqua, Aries and Cancer missing, as well as distinctive number cards and Kings. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... -1074-1081. from Molini. Wilshire 257.
• "Firenze," Medici arms, no extra face on Temperance, Lion on Strength, unbearded K Co, feminine World with classical temple. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-37. Schreiber 51.
• "Poverino," Hapsburg-Lorraine arms. Complete deck. Attractive Devil with red-dotted breasts. Libra with monogram and both animals going same way. Tax stamp on Aries. Gemini facing us. Bottom of Strength obscure, no face visible. No face on Temp. Very feminine world, with square building below. Florence skyline. Usual animals on 3 and 4 of Cu, 4 Coins. Unbearded Kings Cu & Co. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-41, Schreiber 53.
• "Poverino," 31 cards, cow/tree/person back, unbearded King Cups & Co, spear-wielder on 4 Co; usual animals on 3 & 4 of Cups, all trumps missing: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-43. Schreiber 54.
• "Firenze", with unbearded K of Co, spear-wielder on elephant on 4 Co, usual animal on 4 Cups, tax stamp on Aries: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-50, Schreiber 55.
• 2 cards, floral backs, Temperance, no face on vase; K Ba: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 6-0501-152, Schreiber 61.
• Kaplan, Encyclopedia of Tarot, vol. 2 pp. 262-266 shows a full deck, identified by him, p. 257, as from Florence based on the tax stamp on Aries, so 1781-1800. This is not conclusive, because cards imported from Bologna into Florence were taxed, but there are other things: unbearded K of Co & Cu, elephant and spear-wielder on 4 Co; usual animals on 3 & 4 Cups; prominent breasts on World figure, squarish building below; Florence skyline; Gemini facing us; monogram on Libra and animals facing same direction (right); striding Devil with painted dots for breasts; painted over area on bottom of Strength probably with lion; no face on Temperance vase.

Now for the decks marked "Etruria." Here are the British Museum's examples, which I would say are of the "early" variety:

• "Etruria," Andromeda on back. Almost complete. "Lion" on 3 of Cu, with "carte fine" on surrounding banderole; monkey on 4 of Cu, unbearded Kings of Cu and Co, flower on 2 Co, elephant on 4 Co, no face on Temp, face on Strength, attractive Devil with breasts, Libra animals opposite directions, Gemini face each other, female World with square bldg below: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-38. Schreiber 52.
• "Etruria," 96 cards, arms of Spain with shield inside: Medici balls on right, fleur de lys on left. Flower on 2 Co. "Carte fine" on banderole with usual monkey on 3 Cups. Elephant and rider on 4 Coins. Red dots for breasts on striding Devil, feminine World with indeterminate square edifice with windows, Florence skyline. Unbearded K of Co. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-36. Schreiber 56.
• Mixture of 3 packs, all in uniform style and black backgrounds: "Backs of 23 printed in black with the arms of Austria between Lorrraine and Medici, and the word "Etruria"; those of 14 with the arms of France and Medici, and the word "Etruria"; and 11 with the arms of Medici, and the word "Columba."" Lion on 3 Cu, sphinx on 4 Cu, more definite lion on 6 Cu. Unbearded K Cu & Co, face with a mane on Strength, striding male Devil, small breasts on World figure, square bldg with tower below: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 0501-44-46. Schreiber 57.

To all these might be added:

• Another deck, identified by museum as just "Italy" seems to be Florence: unbearded King of Coins, face below Strength, monkey on 4 Cu. No tax stamp, but Acqua missing. Unusually, the borders have no dots; but they look to me newer than the cards they frame. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-74, Schreiber 62.
• Hargrave has pictures of what look like drawings of cards, or perhaps uncolored woodcuts, pp. 228-230 at https://archive.org/details/historyofpl ... 0/mode/2up. Kings of Cu and Co unbearded, a face at the bottom of Strength with a lion's body, and no face on Temperance; Devil striding with breasts but a male face; Florence skyline; ample breasts on World figure, with a possibly columned building below; usual animals on 3 and 4 of Cups; elephant and rider on 4 of Coins. The Gemini face each other, as in Bologna and sometimes also Florence.

There is also the "Orfeo." It has the elephant on the 4 of Coins, usual animals of the 3 (no mane, more doglike) & 4 Cu and 4 Co, a striding Devil with breasts, a World figure with breasts (and an unclear scene below), bearded Kings of Cu and Co. Deck now attributed to Lucca. Lucca is a special case. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-35, Schreiber 59.

These are by no means all the decks available in pictures. I hope to get vol 4 of Keller's 1981 catalog of the Cary Collection from interlibrary loan. So far I have not been able to find this collection's minchiates online, and they are numerous. I would especially like to see the deck of which Kaplan shows just one card, that of Acqua, with its stamp (in a different place than the Yale Acqua) and Aldini signature. And there are individual featured cards in various Playing Card articles, sometimes sourced and sometimes not.

But I hope this has been enough to make some generalizations. For one thing, De Giorgio's claim about the unbearded Kings of Coins and Cups in Florence has been borne out for all the decks fitting the "early" pattern. The same is true for his observations about the 4 of Coins and the 3 and 4 of Cups, and to a large extent for the different skylines. But more can be said. In general, Florentine "early" minchiates have dotted borders, typically already on the backs, which are then folded over onto the fronts. Cards with the word "Bologna" on them do not. Another thing is that Bologna's cards have bold, full colors that changed to another color at a place more or less closely corresponding to a black line in the woodcut: this is the "carte fine" style about which the cards themselves boast. Only a few Florentine decks meet this standard. As for the words "carte fine," I only found two decks with those words, just on their 3 of Cups, both with "Etruria" on the back (not great specimens, in my opinion); it is on the banderole that is frequently seen winding around the animal, the animal always absent in Bologna. The two Florentine examples are much the same as the deck owned by De Giorgio, also labeled "Etruria"; his 3 of Cups, however, has the animal and the banderole but lacks the words "carte fine." Below, for comparison, are Schreiber 52, Schreiber 56, and De Giorgio (with his Bolognese example, too). In addition, I discern a striding Devil in Florence as opposed to a standing one in Bologna, as well as a tendency to emphasize the Devil's breasts, even giving him/her an attractive face. There is also, sometimes, more of a turning to face the viewer in the Gemini of Florence than in Bologna, although not universally. I give the comparisons below, Schreiber 53 ("Poveroni") for Florence and Endebrock for Bologna. These differences do not help to identify the Yale cards, however. Another universal is the absence in Florence of the face that Bologna puts on Temperance's vase. Instead, Florence puts that face on the Strength card, absent in Bologna. That feature, sometimes with a lion's mane and/or body, helps to confirm a Florentine origin for the Yale Strength card, which also has that lion (far right above). The same is true for the female breasts on the World figure - far from being unusual, it is the commonest form of the card in Florence, even if it never occurs in Bologna. Below it in Bologna is clearly a Christian church of some sort; in Florence, it is sometimes neoclassical, as in the Palladian architecture adopted by the American founding fathers, and sometimes simply a building. That is what we have on the Yale World card. Below, Endebrock is first, then Schreiber 53, then Yale, then Schreiber 52. Our 14 cards likewise, of course, have the dotted borders typical of Florentine cards, absent from Bologna's.

Finally, there is the matter of the stamp on the Libra card. This is never seen in Bologna. According to Monzali in the Oct.-Dec., 2021 issue (50:2) of The Playing Card, p. 51, this occurs only after 1781, along with the tax stamp on Aries then.

From 1 January 1781 the management of the stamp duty passed directly to the Amministrazione Generale (General Administration). The stamp becomes the fairly arabesque AG monogram surrounded by the inscription Bollo delle carte di Toscana (Stamp of Tuscany Cards) and is affixed to the trump XXVII (Aries) Fig. 32.
The period of the Stampa delle Carte di Firenze (Florence’s Cards Printing) also begins, marked by a stamp on the trump XXIIII (Libra). There are two versions of this stamp. The first, more elaborate, has the monogram SCF intertwined and written in a mirror image in two semicircles surrounded by the words Stampa delle carte di Firenze. The later simplified version has the three letter FCS written in italics surmounted by the same initials written in small letters in block capitals Fig. 33.
All of the decks found so far are woodcut decks of the EMP type, the differences in the iconography of the various decks are minimal and are essentially reduced to a different level of detail.

He is concerned only with Tuscan decks in his article. The differences with Bologna remain untouched. Below are his figures 32 and 33, along with Yale's Libra card. While the stamp on the Yale Libra card is not very legible, it is reasonably of the same sort, and not a tax stamp, which would have been on Acqua, for a card of 1751-1781. (From 1781 to 1800. That stamp helps to confirm an at least Tuscan origin for the deck. And since at least one Libra in Florence with an Acqua stamp does not have the stamp, it seems to me that its presence confirms the 1765-1781 dating I proposed in my previous post, as a product close to the 1781 to which, except for these Yale cards, we would think the practice started.

Well, that is enough for now. Perhaps people will have things to add. The only thing that I want to discuss in another post is which is earlier, the Bolognese or the Florentine, and also why not the so-called "Etruria" engraved form, which is documented back at least to the second decade of the 18th century.

I have found another difference between early Bologna and early Florence: the aces are different. I checked all the decks I linked to. In Bologna, the hands holding the Baton and Sword come from the left, but from the right in Florence. For Swords, I give one from Bologna and three from Florence. Below the first from the left is Endebrock's, from Bologna, and then the Poverino, Schreiber 53, of Florence. Since Florence does have slight variations, especially on the sword hilt and the hand below it, I put the Colombo next, from Gallica, also from Florence. And far right, since this subject is also one of the Yale cards, I put Pratesi's image of it. The Yale has the Poverino's hand but also some of the Colombo's hilt. The contrast to Bologna, especially in the direction of the hand, gives additional confirmation that the Yale cards are Florentine. For links to the decks in question, see my previous post. The next row, below is Batons and Cups. First on the left is the Ace of Batons, Endebrock's of Bologna first and then the Poverino, of Florence. Again right vs. left, as well as a few other variations that are fairly typical, especially in the patterns of the tendrils above the crown, which seem to switch from one to the other suit between the two cities. Third is the Endebock Ace of Cups, followed by the Poverino. I am thinking again of the tendrils, this time on the sides. The patterns are typical for each city. Finally, Coins. Below far left is Endebrock's, Bologna. Here I noticed some variation in the center bottom "stem," or whatever it is, between decks in Bologna. So I also include, second from left, the Gaetano "Aquila" Ace of Coins, also of Bologna. After that comes the Poverino and one more from Florence, by Marisi, on Gallica, where the details on the woodblock may be clearer. Again, you can see the difference, in what is below the coin. I am not sure if the sun's head in the middle is always there in Florence. I just noticed it. There remains the question of which of the two would have been earlier. This is important for identifying archaic features that may reflect how some tarocchi cards may have looked in the 15th century. I am working on it.

I have trouble determining which is earlier, the Florentine early pattern or the Bolognese. The clearest differences that can be expected to be inherited from earlier versions are (1) the Aces: Bologna arms on Batons and Swords coming from left, Florence from right; and (2) the Kings: Bologna Cups and Coins bearded, Florence unbearded (Batons and Swords unbearded for both); (3) the 3 of Cups and 4 of Coins: words in middle and no animals; Florence, animals only.

On the one hand, the earliest surviving "early pattern" deck, in the form of an uncut sheet estimated to be from the 17th century, is clearly Florentine. I take the following from Depaulis's Tarot: Jeu et Magie, 1984, p. 60. A similar photo, higher resolution online, is in Monzali's 2021 Playing Card article (50:1, "Minchiate Toscane, Part One," p. 19). You will notice, upper right of the sheet, the three unbearded Kings; no face or suit-sign for the King of Coins is visible, as the upper right corner of the sheet is torn off. The bottom of the figure shows a seated, robed figure, like the King of Cups next to it, so probably it is the King of Cups and probably unbearded. So far, the sheet conforms to Florence rather than Bologna.
We can also observe that the arms on the Aces of Batons and Swords come from the left side instead of the right, which is the Bolognese way. However, the image is clearly a mirror image of the real cards, because the Kings should all be holding hold their suit objects in their right hands (see earlier posts in this thread). Monzali notes (p. 19) that the German Playing Card Museum Catalog's image of the sheet is the mirror-image of Depaulis's. Surely the picture in the German catalog, which I have not found on the Web, has the correct orientation. In that case, the arms on the Aces go in the Florentine manner and not the Bolognese.

However, a problem emerges, as far as which is earlier, if we compare the 17th-century sheet with Rosenwald sheet 2, dated to 1501-1510 Perugia, which has a good claim to being an example of suits done in a proto-minchiate way (whether or not it is actually part of a minchiate), because of the centaur knights: https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-obje ... 41320.html. There the arms on the Aces of Batons and Swords come from the left, as in Bologna, and it is not a mirror image. The arm is hard to see, but I think the hand wrapped around the sword is visible, and the left side is much more filled with lines than the right. A comparison with the "Elegant" sheet (2nd row below, from http://cards.old.no/irwpc/e1/), which shows a similar Ace of Swords, may help. Neither is a mirror image, because the suit objects are held in the right hand elsewhere on the sheet (none are centaurs). The Ace of Cups is comparable in all the decks in having three flowers coming out of the cup; so is "Elegant's" Ace of Coins, with both the Florentine and Bolognese versions; the Rosenwald's, however, is like that of the Bolognese tarocchini (far left 2nd row below, Alla Torre, on Gallica, late 17th century). On the Rosenwald sheet (as well as the "Elegant"), the King of Coins is surely bearded. Whether the King of Batons is bearded is not clear, due to damage. The lines on the left side of the Rosenwald figure's face, similar to ones on the King of Coins, suggest a beard, and the damage below the chin is where a beard would be, but it may be that the cutter realized his mistake and deliberately spoiled that area. Other early Kings of Batons, except the Rothschild, are almost invariably unbearded - for example the "Elegant," which I put below the Rosenwald.
The Assisi cards, similar to the Rosenwald, including the centaurs and the dog + hare Ace of Coins, tell a slightly different story. There the arms on the Aces of Swords and Batons clearly come from the right, as in Florence. But the Kings of Coins and Cups are clearly bearded, as in Bologna. For the images, see viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1105&p=18369#p18369, toward the end of Franco's essay.

Otherwise, the Rothschild (e.g. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1457073 ... 638740138/) and d'Este (e.g., https://tarotmeditations.wordpress.com/decks/deste/) Kings of Coins are clearly bearded; but the Rothschild Batons, as already mentioned, is also bearded (unlike in any minchiate); we do not have the d'Este Batons. I do not find surviving Aces in either deck. In the Bolognese tarocchini, which shares the same Ace of Coins design as the Rosenwald and Assisi decks, the Kings of both Coins and Cups are bearded, the other two unbearded. There are a few early examples where all the kings are unbearded - the Visconti-Sforza and perhaps the Budapest "tarot" sheets at http://cards.old.no/irwpc/t2/ - but these are otherwise not like the Florentine and Bolognese examples. Aces with arms extending from the sides have them coming from a variety of directions in northern Italian and early "Tarot of Marseille" French decks.

It might be thought that not having animals on the 3 of Cups and 4 of Coins, and having writing advertising the firm or its city, sometimes with the year, instead would show that the writing, in Bologna, has replaced what was originally animals, in Florence. The animals can be seen as early as the "Padovano" number cards that Depaulis found in the Petit Palace Museum in Paris, which have the year "1547" on a banderole on the 5 of Coins (from "Hidden Treasures in the Petit Palace, Paris," The Playing Card 45:3, Jan-March 2017), p. 67). But it could just as easily have been the other way around. Surviving early Spanish cards have similar writing on some of their number cards in Cups (https://www.wopc.co.uk/spain/flores/francisco-flores) and Coins (https://www.wopc.co.uk/portugal/portuguese-pattern), while one, an Indonesian version of the "Portuguese" pattern (originally probably Spanish) has an animal, probably a tiger (https://i-p-c-s.org/pattern/ps-33.html). It is possible that both practices - animals and writing - began in Italy under the influence of Spanish cards arriving by the early 16th century. (In this connection it is worth noticing the "panther" (leopard?) and lion holding the baton and sword in Budapest 5048, at http://cards.old.no/irwpc/t3.)

Finally, it is no help, for determining which of Bologna vs. Florence is earlier, to compare the minchiate trump designs with those of Rosenwald Sheet 3 (or 4, when possible). This sheet has lunettes similar to those on the Rothschild Queen of Batons, but an unbroken column on Strength (as in Bolognese tarocchini), whereas in both versions of minchiate the column is broken and stands diagonally in the figure's lap. Also, while the Rosenwald's number VIIII for Justice corresponds to Florence, the same number is on the Fortitude card, which would have had that number in Bologna, if Bologna had numbered its cards. The placement of the two cards on the sheet favors Bologna, but what discounts this evidence is that other cards in the same row seem clearly in the wrong order on that sheet.

So I can come to no conclusion as yet, as to whether the Bolognese or Florentine "early pattern" subtype is earlier. It is also possible that elements of the two always existed in one or another deck in one or another place where the game was played.