I add this chapter because it is the background for chapter 13, and also because there may be more material in at least one of the sources, one of 1856 Vienna abbreviated
KW (see p. 227 below), relating to the Lombard game described by Pratesi in a series of notes reproduced elsewhere on this forum (he mentions this Viennese text in his note at
viewtopic.php?p=26565#p26565). ). As background for chapter 13, only the first paragraph below and the description of the specific game starting at the bottom of the first column on p. 227, going to the second column of p. 228, are relevant. For a further examination of the KW text, and perhaps of the other two German-language texts cited , all or part of the rest may be helpful. In the rest of the chapter, Dummett goes on to consider other texts, starting with de Gebelin, 1781, on a two-handed game and then back to other German as well as Dutch texts of dates later than that.
Occasionally in this transcription you will see parenthetical comments marked off with { and } instead of the usual ( and ). For some reason the Forum software would occasionally not allow the regular parentheses, but would the other ones: a message would appear saying "internal server error. They are merely a device to get around this problem.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Classic Eighteenth-century Tarot Outside Italy
Two games, a three-handed and a four-handed
one, are to be regarded as the fundamental forms
of the game of Tarot. In both, the full 78-card
pack is used; in both, the Fool serves as Excuse,
each honour counts 5 points, each Queen 4, each
Cavalier 3 and each Jack 2, the honours being the
four Kings, the XXI, the I and the Fool. In
neither game are there any bids, declarations or
special bonuses: the only way of scoring points is
on cards won in tricks. In the three-handed form,
each plays for himself in each round; the dealer
receives twenty-eight cards in the deal and
discards three, the others receive twenty-five
cards. The dealer's discard counts for him at the
end of the round, and he may not discard
honours. The cards are counted in threes, so that
there are 78 points altogether. In the four-handed
game, the players form two fixed partnerships,
partners facing each other across the table. The
dealer receives twenty-one cards and discards
two, the others receive nineteen each. The
discarded cards may not include honours, and
count for the dealer's side at the end of the round.
The cards are counted in sets of four, the two
discarded cards being treated as a complete set,
so that there are 72 points altogether.
Of these two fundamental forms of Tarot, we
can recognise the modern Swiss four-handed
game as diverging from the fundamental four-
handed one only in a few respects, such as the
rule allowing one who plays a King to the first
trick in its suit to demand the Jack; and we can
recognise the seventeenth-century Swiss game as
being essentially the fundamental three-handed
form, save that the Fool was valued at only 3
points (and possibly also that the jacks were
treated as low cards). We shail meet repeatedly
with other games that diverge only slightly from
one or other of these two fundamental forms.
They are fundamental to the entire evolution of
Tarot outside Italy, with the sole exception of the
French games described in the
Maison Académique:
every Tarot game developed anywhere but in
Italy from the eighteenth century onwards may
be seen as constructed on one or other of the two
fundamental forms as a basis (unless it be true
that Belgian players continued the tradition of
the
Maison Académique games). Since the
Bolognese and Sicilian forms of Tarocchi, and
the game of Minchiate, cannot be viewed in this
way, there is good reason to regard all Tarot
games played outside Italy, save those we have
conjectured to have been played before 1700 in
Paris and Normandy, as stemming from a single
source, namely the tradition of play established
at some early date in eastern France and its
immediate neighbours, including the French-
speaking part of Switzerland. Very often, indeed,
the further developments were extremely far-
reaching, and involved not merely additions to,
but radical modifications of, the fundamental
games. Nevertheless, the history of Tarot, from
the eighteenth century to the present day, can be
understood only by taking the two fundamental
forms to be the starting-point.
The hundred years between about 1730 and
1830 were the heyday of the game of Tarot; it
was played not only in northern Italy, eastern
France, Switzerland, Germany and Austro-
Hungary, but also in Belgium, the Netherlands,
Denmark, Sweden and even Russia. Not only
was it, in these areas, a famous game with many
226
devotees: it was also, during that period, more
truly an international game than it had ever been
before or than it has ever been since. At no stage
in its history has it ever been an international
game in the sense that Bridge and chess are
international games, namely that there are
international competitions and internationally
agreed rules; it has always been one played at
home or in the local tavern, coffeehouse or club,
and therefore constantly liable to develop local
variations. But international games in this sense
area fairly modern phenomenon, and it is rare
for card games to achieve that status. During the
century that begins in about 1730, however, there
was less variation in the manner of playing Tarot
with the 78-card pack from one country to
another than at any other time. The game
assumed more or less the same general form
wherever it was played, with countless small
local variations in the exact rules or method of
scoring, but little deviation in the broad
principles of play from one country to another.
The substitution, in some areas, of the French-
suited for the Italian-suited Tarot pack made no
difference whatever in the manner of playing the
game, any more than it made a difference to the
game of Ombre whether it was played with a
Spanish-suited or French-suited pack. The type
of Italian-suited pack used in Germany and
Central Europe, namely one deriving from the
Tarot de Marseille and with inscriptions in
French, provides one reason for regarding the
game of Tarot as having travelled there via
French-speaking lands and not, say, direct from
Italy; a second reason is the conclusion argued
for above, that virtually all non-Italian games
have a common source. Just when the game
reached Germany is problematic. The
affirmation of its great popularity there by the
Maison Académique of 1659 sets an upper bound.
Detlef Hoffmann has argued that it must have
been known there as early as 1557, on the ground
that Catelin Geoffroy's Tarot pack of that year,
using as it does the non-standard suit-signs
introduced by Virgil Solis of Nuremberg, must
have been intended for export to Germany. The
argument is not conclusive. Non-standard suit-
signs were not unknown in France, though this is
the only recorded instance of their use, either in
France or Germany, in a Tarot pack. Moreover,
although D'Allemagne indeed states that
Geoffroy was principally concerned with making
cards for export, ‘export’ would include sending
[second column]
cards to Lorraine and D'Allemagne also remarks
that in the sixteenth century Lorraine obtained
playing cards chiefly from Lyons; the reference
by Duke Charles III to tarot cards made under
the name of Catelin Geoffroy has already been
quoted. There Is, however, further support for a
sixteenth-century date in the statement of Ivan
Honl, unfortunately without a precise reference,
that Tarot cards were first mentioned in
Bohemia in 1586.2 Nevertheless, a weighty
argument tells against a date earlier than 1600.
This is the fact that Fischart, the German
translator of Rabelais, very greatly extended
Rabelais’s list of the games played by
Gargantua, but omitted from it the game of
Tarot, which Rabelais had included. Fischart
was born in 1546 or 1547 in Strasbourg; he died
at the end of the year 1590. The first edition of his
version of Rabelais came out, under the title
Geschichtklitterung, in 1575, the second in 1582,
and the third, expanded, one, in which the list of
games was yet further enlarged, in the year of his
death, 1590. Fischart must have gone to
immense pains to discover the names of as many
games as possible to include in his list: his
omission of a game that appeared in Rabelais’s
list is powerful evidence that it was not played in
Alsace during his lifetime. This is particularly
strong evidence, in view ofthe fact that Alsace is
the obvious route for the game of Tarot to have
taken from France to Germany.
Were it not for Honl's Bohemian reference in
1586, the obvious conclusion would be that Tarot
did not reach Germany until around 1600; but
we can accept such a conclusion only by
dismissing Honl’s reference as spurious. There is,
however, one possibility of reconciling the
conflicting evidence, namely by supposing that
the game first reached Germany, not from
France, but from Switzerland. Even so, it is
surprising that it should have reached Bohemia
before Alsace; we shall therefore do well to leave
that precise route and date of its arrival in
Germany an as yet unresolved mystery.
____________
1. Both remarks are to be found in H.-R. D'Allemagne,
Les
Cartes à jouer, Paris, 1906, vol. II, p. 212.
2. Ivan Honl,
Z Minulostí karetní hry Cechách, Prague,1947,
p. 31.
3. A modern reprint of the third edition of the
Geschichtklitterung of Johann der Täufer Friedrich Fischart
was published in Düsseldorf in 1963, edited by Ute Nyssen.
The chapter on games is chap. 25, pp. 238-51, in the 1963
edition, the list of games being on pp. 239-49.
227
However the mystery is to be resolved, the
game must have become well established in
southern Germany in the early seventeenth
century; and, even if it did not originally enter
from France via Alsace, direct French influence
must have made itself felt at an early stage. By
the eighteenth century, Tarot de Besançon packs
were being made not only in Kempten, Augsburg
and Mannheim, but also in Alsace, in
Strasbourg and Colmar. The most striking
evidence of French influence is the French
terminology used by German Tarot players.
We have seen that in the
Maison académique
the mode of playing the
Fou was expressed
by saying that
'Ie Fou sert d'excuse'. In the
eighteenth century French Tarot players
began calling the Fool
l’Excuse, as they do to this
day. In German-speaking countries this name
was corrupted to
der Schkis, der Skys, der Scüs, etc.,
the form now in general use in Austria being
der
Sküs; and the derivation must be from the French
word rather than from Italian
scusa, which was
not in the same way used as the name of the card.
Likewise, we have already seen that the XXI is
regularly known by German-speaking Tarot
players as
der Mond, or, in earlier times,
occasionally as
der Mongue or
der Mongur,
corruptions of French
le Monde. This could,
indeed, equally well be thought to be derived
from Italian
il Mondo, while the term
sans prendre
could be taken from French Ombre players, and
the term
à trois instead of
zu dritt for a three-
handed game regarded as a part of a general
Frenchified card player's vocabulary. But we can
only see the term
Kavallerie, for a set of court
cards in one suit, as an adaptation of the French
chevalerie, especially as there was no cognate term
in Italian, and can only take as based on a
French original the practice of saying
'avec'
(with) or
'sans' (without) to indicate whether or
not the trump was included in a declaration of
ten trumps. The most striking example is the
term
Trull or
Troule,a corruption of French
tous
les trois, used in both Austria and Germany, for
the set of all three Tarot honours (the XXI, the I
and the Fool).
Almost the earliest account in the German
language of any form of Tarot game is that
given in a book entitled
Die Kunst, die Welt
erlaubst mit zunehmen in den verschiedenen Arten
der Spiele (
KW), published in Vienna and
Nuremberg in 1756; and the second edition,
of 1769, contains the earliest account of a game
(second column)
specifically said to be played in Austria. This
game is said to be the newest form of four-
handed Taroc played in Vienna, and employs the
Italian terms
reale and
doppio. It proves in fact to
be precisely the type of four-handed game played
in Lombardy, which was then one of the Austrian
dominions, a game very close to the fundamental
four-handed form described at the beginning of
this chapter. We should therefore certainly see
this game as an importation from Lombardy;
but that in no way takes us outside the circle of
the ‘international’ form of Tarot that flourished
during that period, because, as we have seen, the
games played with the 78-card pack in
Lombardy and also in Piedmont during the
eighteenth century had probably themselves been
imported from France. Despite the vogue in
Vienna for a Milanese form of Tarot, the game of
Tarot in general must have been known in Vienna
before the Austrian acquisition of Milan in 1713,
at least if it was known in Bohemia by 1586; and,
in any case, the influence of the German form of
the game soon proved greater than any influences
from Italy, and, at least in the second half of our
international century, Tarot as played in
Germany and in Austria are not to be
distinguished from one another. In the very book
already referred to,
KW, there is also described a
game of the characteristic classic international
eighteenth-century type. The mutual influence
was certainly very much assisted by the shared
language: KW was only the first of many card-
game books in German to be published
simultaneously in Vienna and in some German
city, books which must have helped to introduce
players to new modes of play which had
originated elsewhere and to maintain a common
tradition in German-speaking lands.
Before describing the developments that went
to form the classic international type of Tarot
game, it is best to set out the straightforward
four-handed Viennese game imported from
Lombardy, a game included in other German
card-game books up to the early nineteenth
century, and in Dutch ones up to 1836. From the
eighteenth century on, despite the great variety
of games played, the values of the counting cards
are, except in Italy, almost always the same,
namely those given for the fundamental games
described at the beginning of the chapter: 5
points each for the XXI, the I and the Fool; 5
points for each King; 4 points for each Queen; 3
points for each Cavalier; and 2 points for each
228
jack. The method of counting points — whether in
twos, threes or fours, or in some other way —
varies considerably; but the actual values are
almost always constant (with, as it happens, one
exception in the game about to be described). It
will therefore save space henceforth, when,
describing non-Italian games, to refer to these
values as '
standard', noting any divergences. In
describing Italian games, however, the values
will still be stated explicitly, because there is
great variation.
Viennese four-handed Taroc (mid-eighteenth century)
Terminology
Trumps are called
Tarocs, the XXI is called the
Mongue, the I the
Pagat and the Fool the
Scüs. The suits
are referred to by their Italian names, the discard is
called der
Scar and a slam is called
Volata.
Play
The four players form two fixed partnerships, the
partners facing each other across the table. The full
78-card Italian-suited pack is used; the cards rank in
their original order. The dealer gives nineteen cards to
each player, and takes the last two for himself. It is
not stated how the cards are to be dealt. The last card
dealt to each player is turned face up by the dealer; he
himself turns face up the extra two cards that he is to
take, and, if either of them is a trump or a King, he
continues to turn his cards face up, beginning with
those last dealt, until two cards neither of which is a
trump or a King are visible. (Presumably the Scüs
counts for this purpose as a trump, though this is not
stated.) Then all pick up their hands, and the dealer
discards two cards, which may not be Kings or
trumps, but, if counting cards, count for his side at
the end of the round. The counting cards have their
standard values, save that the XXI (Mongue) counts
6 points. The player to the dealer's right leads to the
first trick, the direction of play being counter-
clockwise, and the hands are played out under the
usual rules of play; the Scüs serves as Excuse. If the
opponents of the player who has the Scüs win the trick
to which it is played, they receive a card in exchange
for it. {By analogy with the Lombard game, they do so
either immediately or as soon as possible, and the
Scüs is surrendered if the side who played it win no
tricks, but this is not stated.} At the end of the round,
the cards are counted in fours; the two cards of the
dealer’s discard count nothing if both are low cards,
and one less than the value of each counting card
otherwise. There are thus altogether 72 points. The
winning side scores the difference between its point-
total and 36 points. A game {
Partie} consists of four
rounds. The winning side is that which has the higher
cumulative point-total; they score 1 game point for
the win plus one more - {for
Doppio} if the opponents
have scored no points - {i.e. have not won a round}; the
winners also receive a bonus of 1 game point (for
{
Reale} if they have scored 36 or more points more than
the losers. The bonus to be paid when, in any round,
one side gives
Volata to the other, i.e. wins all the
tricks, is to be settled by agreement; but, if a side wins
all the tricks in one round, but fails to win the game as
a whole, neither side pays the other. Usually six
games are played two each with each possible
selection of partners but sometimes the same
partners play together for all six games this being
called a
partita ferma.
Probably quite early in the eighteenth century,
Tarot players in France and Germany
introduced two new complications into the
fundamental three- and four-handed games.
These two new features were already well
established by 1755, on the testimony of the
Palamedes Redivivus (
PR) published in Leipzig in
that year; and, to judge by the French
vocabulary of that and other early German
accounts, it was in France that these new ideas
originated. The first new feature was that of
bonus scores for declarations or melds, before
play, of particular combinations of cards in the
hand of a single player. This was not, indeed, a
wholly new idea; not only was it well known in
other games, but it had characterised certain
Italian forms of Tarocco from as early as the
sixteenth century. But, as we shall see, the typical
Italian rule was that one scored
both for having
these special combinations in one's hand before
play began, and for having them among the cards
one had won in tricks at the end of play; and in
four-handed games with partners, these bonuses
tended to swamp the points won on individual
cards. In the classic games played outside Italy,
on the. other hand, the bonuses applied only to
combinations of cards held in hand before play.
Moreover, the combinations recognised were
different. It is thus probable that the introduction
of this feature into international eighteenth-
century Tarot did not result from the imitation of
any Italian prototype, but from the independent
application to the game of Tarot of an idea
generally familiar in card play.
The bonuses for such declarations were an
extraneous feature superimposed upon the basic
229
game: the payments for them were made
immediately, but a player who had made such a
declaration did not usually gain points which
counted towards the winning of the round, which
was determined in the ordinary way solely by the
number of points each player had on the cards he
had won in tricks. The most usual combinations
of cards that could be declared were: ten or more
trumps; all three of the trump XXI, trump I and
the Fool; all four Kings; and a Chevalerie, that is, a
set of all four court cards in one suit. This was
very often complicated by the use of the Fool as a
wild card for purposes of declarations: it could
substitute for any one missing card in a
declaration, save, of course, that of the XXI, I
and Fool, in which it figured in its own right.
Usually however, it was held that a declaration
made only by treating the Fool as a substitute for
a missing card was worth less than one entirely
made up of genuine cards. A further
complication arose from an imitation of the idea
of Matadors from Ombre. In Ombre the
Matadors consisted of an unbroken sequence of
trumps from the top trump down held in the
hand of a single player. In Germany, however,
this idea was, in Tarock, grafted on to the
declaration of ‘all three’ of the XXI, the I and the
Fool. These three cards were called the principal
Matadors; but, if a player was lucky enough, he
could add to a declaration of three Matadors any
further trumps in unbroken sequence from the
XX down, thus increasing his bonus for the
declaration.
The second new feature was that of a bonus for
a particular feat effected in play, or a penalty for
a particular misfortune suffered in play.
Originally, such bonuses and penalties related
only to the trump I or Pagat; the word
Pagat is, of
course, a corruption of
Bagatto, and since it, or
some very similar word, was almost universally
used for the trump I, we shall henceforth refer to
that card as the Pagat save in connection with
Italian games. Indeed, it seems probable that the
idea of a penalty antedated that of a bonus. If, in
the three-handed game, the Pagat was beaten by
a higher trump in the trick to which it was
played, and so lost, the player who had the Pagat
had to pay a penalty of 5 game points to each of
the other players. It should be noted that this can
be construed only as a penalty for losing the
Pagat, not as a bonus for capturing it. If it had
been a bonus for capturing the Pagat, then we
Should have expected only the player who
captured it to be paid, perhaps by each of the
other players, or perhaps by the one who lost it
alone. The rule was, however, that the player
who host it paid
both the one who captured it, and
the third player. If the Pagat was lost in the last
trick, the penalty was doubled. If there was a
stage at which only these penalties existed,
without any corresponding bonus, we have no
record of it. If there was such a stage, it must
quickly have come to seem unsatisfactory to
make possession of the Pagat so dangerous,
without the chance of a compensatory reward;
and hence the rule was introduced which we
actually find in the accounts, namely that, if the
last trick was won by the Pagat, the player
received a bonus payment of 10 game points from
each of the other two. It is quite likely, however,
that there was a preliminary stage in which only
the penalties, and not the bonus, existed, since,
in the earliest accounts, we find no bonus for
winning any trick before the last one with the
Pagat. Later, the rule was made symmetrical, so
That a player who brought the Pagat home by
winning a trick other than the last one with it was
paid by each of the other two players a bonus of 5
game points. Like the bonuses for declarations,
these bonuses and penalties were superimposed
upon the basic game: except, of course, in so far as
the actual possession of the Pagat, as a counting
card, was concerned, they did not affect the
determination, at the end of the round, of who
had won the round and by how much, which still
depended solely on the cards won in tricks. A
subsequent development was to extend the same
principle to the four Kings, with bonuses of 5
game points for bringing them home and
corresponding penalties for losing them, again
doubled if it happened in the last trick. Usually,
when this was done, the bonus for winning the
last trick with the Pagat was increased to 15
game points, as being harder to achieve than to
win the last trick with a King.
Thus was conceived what was to become of the
most characteristic and interesting features of
many of the later varieties of Tarot, the bonus for
Pagat ultimo, that is, for winning the last trick
with the Pagat; this survived, and developed into
one of the most important elements of many
forms of the game, long after special bonuses and
penalties for bringing home or losing the Pagat,
or a King, in tricks earlier than the last, had been
dropped. It was certainly not in Italy that this
important invention occurred, but either in
captured it to be paid, perhaps by each of the
other players, or perhaps by the one who lost it
alone. The rule was, however, that the player
who host it paid
both the one who captured it, and
the third player. If the Pagat was lost in the last
trick, the penalty was doubled. If there was a
stage at which only these penalties existed,
without any corresponding bonus, we have no
record of it. If there was such a stage, it must
quickly have come to seem unsatisfactory to
make possession of the Pagat so dangerous,
without the chance of a compensatory reward;
and hence the rule was introduced which we
actually find in the accounts, namely that, if the
last trick was won by the Pagat, the player
received a bonus payment of 10 game points from
each of the other two. It is quite likely, however,
that there was a preliminary stage in which only
the penalties, and not the bonus, existed, since,
in the earliest accounts, we find no bonus for
winning any trick before the last one with the
Pagat. Later, the rule was made symmetrical, so
That a player who brought the Pagat home by
winning a trick other than the last one with it was
paid by each of the other two players a bonus of 5
game points. Like the bonuses for declarations,
these bonuses and penalties were superimposed
upon the basic game: except, of course, in so far as
the actual possession of the Pagat, as a counting
card, was concerned, they did not affect the
determination, at the end of the round, of who
had won the round and by how much, which still
depended solely on the cards won in tricks. A
subsequent development was to extend the same
principle to the four Kings, with bonuses of 5
game points for bringing them home and
corresponding penalties for losing them, again
doubled if it happened in the last trick. Usually,
when this was done, the bonus for winning the
last trick with the Pagat was increased to 15
game points, as being harder to achieve than to
win the last trick with a King.
Thus was conceived what was to become of the
most characteristic and interesting features of
many of the later varieties of Tarot, the bonus for
Pagat ultimo, that is, for winning the last trick
with the Pagat; this survived, and developed into
one of the most important elements of many
forms of the game, long after special bonuses and
penalties for bringing home or losing the Pagat,
or a King, in tricks earlier than the last, had been
dropped. It was certainly not in Italy that this
important invention occurred, but either in
captured it to be paid, perhaps by each of the
other players, or perhaps by the one who lost it
alone. The rule was, however, that the player
who host it paid
both the one who captured it, and
the third player. If the Pagat was lost in the last
trick, the penalty was doubled. If there was a
stage at which only these penalties existed,
without any corresponding bonus, we have no
record of it. If there was such a stage, it must
quickly have come to seem unsatisfactory to
make possession of the Pagat so dangerous,
without the chance of a compensatory reward;
and hence the rule was introduced which we
actually find in the accounts, namely that, if the
last trick was won by the Pagat, the player
received a bonus payment of 10 game points from
each of the other two. It is quite likely, however,
that there was a preliminary stage in which only
the penalties, and not the bonus, existed, since,
in the earliest accounts, we find no bonus for
winning any trick before the last one with the
Pagat. Later, the rule was made symmetrical, so
That a player who brought the Pagat home by
winning a trick other than the last one with it was
paid by each of the other two players a bonus of 5
game points. Like the bonuses for declarations,
these bonuses and penalties were superimposed
upon the basic game: except, of course, in so far as
the actual possession of the Pagat, as a counting
card, was concerned, they did not affect the
determination, at the end of the round, of who
had won the round and by how much, which still
depended solely on the cards won in tricks. A
subsequent development was to extend the same
principle to the four Kings, with bonuses of 5
game points for bringing them home and
corresponding penalties for losing them, again
doubled if it happened in the last trick. Usually,
when this was done, the bonus for winning the
last trick with the Pagat was increased to 15
game points, as being harder to achieve than to
win the last trick with a King.
Thus was conceived what was to become of the
most characteristic and interesting features of
many of the later varieties of Tarot, the bonus for
Pagat ultimo, that is, for winning the last trick
with the Pagat; this survived, and developed into
one of the most important elements of many
forms of the game, long after special bonuses and
penalties for bringing home or losing the Pagat,
or a King, in tricks earlier than the last, had been
dropped. It was certainly not in Italy that this
important invention occurred, but either in
captured it to be paid, perhaps by each of the
other players, or perhaps by the one who lost it
alone. The rule was, however, that the player
who host it paid
both the one who captured it, and
the third player. If the Pagat was lost in the last
trick, the penalty was doubled. If there was a
stage at which only these penalties existed,
without any corresponding bonus, we have no
record of it. If there was such a stage, it must
quickly have come to seem unsatisfactory to
make possession of the Pagat so dangerous,
without the chance of a compensatory reward;
and hence the rule was introduced which we
actually find in the accounts, namely that, if the
last trick was won by the Pagat, the player
received a bonus payment of 10 game points from
each of the other two. It is quite likely, however,
that there was a preliminary stage in which only
the penalties, and not the bonus, existed, since,
in the earliest accounts, we find no bonus for
winning any trick before the last one with the
Pagat. Later, the rule was made symmetrical, so
That a player who brought the Pagat home by
winning a trick other than the last one with it was
paid by each of the other two players a bonus of 5
game points. Like the bonuses for declarations,
these bonuses and penalties were superimposed
upon the basic game: except, of course, in so far as
the actual possession of the Pagat, as a counting
card, was concerned, they did not affect the
determination, at the end of the round, of who
had won the round and by how much, which still
depended solely on the cards won in tricks. A
subsequent development was to extend the same
principle to the four Kings, with bonuses of 5
game points for bringing them home and
corresponding penalties for losing them, again
doubled if it happened in the last trick. Usually,
when this was done, the bonus for winning the
last trick with the Pagat was increased to 15
game points, as being harder to achieve than to
win the last trick with a King.
Thus was conceived what was to become of the
most characteristic and interesting features of
many of the later varieties of Tarot, the bonus for
Pagat ultimo, that is, for winning the last trick
with the Pagat; this survived, and developed into
one of the most important elements of many
forms of the game, long after special bonuses and
penalties for bringing home or losing the Pagat,
or a King, in tricks earlier than the last, had been
dropped. It was certainly not in Italy that this
important invention occurred, but either in
captured it to be paid, perhaps by each of the
other players, or perhaps by the one who lost it
alone. The rule was, however, that the player
who host it paid
both the one who captured it, and
the third player. If the Pagat was lost in the last
trick, the penalty was doubled. If there was a
stage at which only these penalties existed,
without any corresponding bonus, we have no
record of it. If there was such a stage, it must
quickly have come to seem unsatisfactory to
make possession of the Pagat so dangerous,
without the chance of a compensatory reward;
and hence the rule was introduced which we
actually find in the accounts, namely that, if the
last trick was won by the Pagat, the player
received a bonus payment of 10 game points from
each of the other two. It is quite likely, however,
that there was a preliminary stage in which only
the penalties, and not the bonus, existed, since,
in the earliest accounts, we find no bonus for
winning any trick before the last one with the
Pagat. Later, the rule was made symmetrical, so
That a player who brought the Pagat home by
winning a trick other than the last one with it was
paid by each of the other two players a bonus of 5
game points. Like the bonuses for declarations,
these bonuses and penalties were superimposed
upon the basic game: except, of course, in so far as
the actual possession of the Pagat, as a counting
card, was concerned, they did not affect the
determination, at the end of the round, of who
had won the round and by how much, which still
depended solely on the cards won in tricks. A
subsequent development was to extend the same
principle to the four Kings, with bonuses of 5
game points for bringing them home and
corresponding penalties for losing them, again
doubled if it happened in the last trick. Usually,
when this was done, the bonus for winning the
last trick with the Pagat was increased to 15
game points, as being harder to achieve than to
win the last trick with a King.
Thus was conceived what was to become of the
most characteristic and interesting features of
many of the later varieties of Tarot, the bonus for
Pagat ultimo, that is, for winning the last trick
with the Pagat; this survived, and developed into
one of the most important elements of many
forms of the game, long after special bonuses and
penalties for bringing home or losing the Pagat,
or a King, in tricks earlier than the last, had been
dropped. It was certainly not in Italy that this
important invention occurred, but either in
captured it to be paid, perhaps by each of the
other players, or perhaps by the one who lost it
alone. The rule was, however, that the player
who host it paid
both the one who captured it, and
the third player. If the Pagat was lost in the last
trick, the penalty was doubled. If there was a
stage at which only these penalties existed,
without any corresponding bonus, we have no
record of it. If there was such a stage, it must
quickly have come to seem unsatisfactory to
make possession of the Pagat so dangerous,
without the chance of a compensatory reward;
and hence the rule was introduced which we
actually find in the accounts, namely that, if the
last trick was won by the Pagat, the player
received a bonus payment of 10 game points from
each of the other two. It is quite likely, however,
that there was a preliminary stage in which only
the penalties, and not the bonus, existed, since,
in the earliest accounts, we find no bonus for
winning any trick before the last one with the
Pagat. Later, the rule was made symmetrical, so
That a player who brought the Pagat home by
winning a trick other than the last one with it was
paid by each of the other two players a bonus of 5
game points. Like the bonuses for declarations,
these bonuses and penalties were superimposed
upon the basic game: except, of course, in so far as
the actual possession of the Pagat, as a counting
card, was concerned, they did not affect the
determination, at the end of the round, of who
had won the round and by how much, which still
depended solely on the cards won in tricks. A
subsequent development was to extend the same
principle to the four Kings, with bonuses of 5
game points for bringing them home and
corresponding penalties for losing them, again
doubled if it happened in the last trick. Usually,
when this was done, the bonus for winning the
last trick with the Pagat was increased to 15
game points, as being harder to achieve than to
win the last trick with a King.
Thus was conceived what was to become of the
most characteristic and interesting features of
many of the later varieties of Tarot, the bonus for
Pagat ultimo, that is, for winning the last trick
with the Pagat; this survived, and developed into
one of the most important elements of many
forms of the game, long after special bonuses and
penalties for bringing home or losing the Pagat,
or a King, in tricks earlier than the last, had been
dropped. It was certainly not in Italy that this
important invention occurred, but either in
captured it to be paid, perhaps by each of the
other players, or perhaps by the one who lost it
alone. The rule was, however, that the player
who host it paid
both the one who captured it, and
the third player. If the Pagat was lost in the last
trick, the penalty was doubled. If there was a
stage at which only these penalties existed,
without any corresponding bonus, we have no
record of it. If there was such a stage, it must
quickly have come to seem unsatisfactory to
make possession of the Pagat so dangerous,
without the chance of a compensatory reward;
and hence the rule was introduced which we
actually find in the accounts, namely that, if the
last trick was won by the Pagat, the player
received a bonus payment of 10 game points from
each of the other two. It is quite likely, however,
that there was a preliminary stage in which only
the penalties, and not the bonus, existed, since,
in the earliest accounts, we find no bonus for
winning any trick before the last one with the
Pagat. Later, the rule was made symmetrical, so
That a player who brought the Pagat home by
winning a trick other than the last one with it was
paid by each of the other two players a bonus of 5
game points. Like the bonuses for declarations,
these bonuses and penalties were superimposed
upon the basic game: except, of course, in so far as
the actual possession of the Pagat, as a counting
card, was concerned, they did not affect the
determination, at the end of the round, of who
had won the round and by how much, which still
depended solely on the cards won in tricks. A
subsequent development was to extend the same
principle to the four Kings, with bonuses of 5
game points for bringing them home and
corresponding penalties for losing them, again
doubled if it happened in the last trick. Usually,
when this was done, the bonus for winning the
last trick with the Pagat was increased to 15
game points, as being harder to achieve than to
win the last trick with a King.
Thus was conceived what was to become of the
most characteristic and interesting features of
many of the later varieties of Tarot, the bonus for
Pagat ultimo, that is, for winning the last trick
with the Pagat; this survived, and developed into
one of the most important elements of many
forms of the game, long after special bonuses and
penalties for bringing home or losing the Pagat,
or a King, in tricks earlier than the last, had been
dropped. It was certainly not in Italy that this
important invention occurred, but either in
230
Germany or, with slightly less probability, in
France. We do indeed find the idea in some of the
games played in Piedmont, though not in those
played in Lombardy, in the eighteenth century,
and this may explain the use in Austria of the
Italian term ultimo; but, as already remarked, the
games played in northern Italy from the
eighteenth century on were not of Italian origin.
The idea of the Bagatto ultimo is wholly absent
from those Tarot games played in Italy which we
know to be free of foreign influence, that is, in the
Bolognese and Sicilian forms of the game and in
Minchiate; and there is no hint of it in any of the
early Italian references to Tarocco.
The bonuses and penalties relating to the
Pagat were originally developed for the three-
handed game. There was a problem in
transferring them to the four-handed game with
partners, for two reasons. One question that
arose was what was to happen when the trick to
which the Pagat was played was won by the
partner of the player who had the Pagat. Should
that side be awarded a bonus, since they had
after all saved their Pagat from capture? Or
should they pay a penalty, because the Pagat had
been beaten by a higher trump? No one felt that
such an easy feat, which could, after all, be
effected by leading the XXI towards one's
partner, merited a bonus. But it was generally
regarded as unfair to penalise that side; and so
such an event normally carried with it neither a
bonus nor a penalty. In later games, however, the
stricter interpretation has sometimes been
adopted. The second question was who deserved
the bonus or incurred the penalty: only the
individual player, or his partner as well? Here
the principle of collective responsibility
prevailed: the partner has assisted or hindered
his colleague by his play, and must be rewarded
or penalised along with him. Thus, in the four-
handed game, if a player won a trick with the
Pagat, he was paid 5 game points by one of the
opponents, or 10 if it was the last trick, and his
partner was paid the same by the other
opponent; and, if the Pagat was captured by the
opponents, the player who lost the Pagat paid 5
game points to one opponent, or 10 if it happened
in the last trick, and his partner paid the same to
the other opponent.
In Germany a third new feature was
introduced, a restriction on when the Fool,
Excuse or Scüs could be played. This usually
took the form of a prohibition on playing it to any
of the last three tricks; in later forms, this was
varied to a deprivation of the Scüs's immunity
from capture in the last three tricks, so that a
player might legally play it to one of those tricks.
but then lost it. This change was imitated, in a
muted manner, namely as applying only to the
last trick, in some French forms of Tarot,
including that now played, but did not have any
very general importance for the future
development of the game.
From the mid-eighteenth century onwards,
Germany was prolific of card-game books. The
two earliest accounts of classic eighteenth--
century Tarock known to me are from the two
books already mentioned, the first edition of
KW
(1756) and the 1755 edition of
PR. To these may
be added one in
L'Hombre Royal (
HR), a volume
published in Vienna and Prague in 1824, since,
although it is so very much later, the description
of Tarock that it contains must, save for one
footnote, have been copied from some much earlier
three-handed game; but one can still detect some
historical development. The
KW text consists of a
general description followed by a set of
numbered rules, and there is a little
inconsistency between these, notably over the
payment for a Cavallerie. It is therefore probable
that the first half is a reprint of some earlier
description to which a more up-to-date set of
rules has been appended, without eliminating the
contradictions; in the account that follows, I
shall accordingly indicate this by means of the
terms ‘earlier stratum’ and ‘later stratum’. The
HR account appears to be more archaic than
either of the other two. The use of French
terminology, particularly, in
PR, of the term
Excuse for the Fool, makes it very likely that an
identical or similar game was played in France.
It cannot be told from the
PR text whether the
game was to be played with an Italian- or
French-suited pack, but
KW and
HR specify a
French-suited one,
KW mentioning the animal
figures on the trump cards.
KW refers to the
Italiàn-suited pack, but says that it is mostly
used for a four-handed game, going on (in
the second edition) to explain the
Lombard/Viennese game described above. It
also says that the game of Taroc had only
recently been introduced into Germany, a
statement we know to be erroneous; it
presumably testifies to the spread of the game to
some new area.
231
German Taroc {mid-eighteenth Century}
Terminology
Trumps are called Tarocs (
PR and
KW) or
Taroks
(
HR). The XXI is called
der Mongue (
KW and
HR),
der
Mond (
HR) or simply no. 21 (
PR); the I is called
der
Pagat (all three),
der Bagat (
PR) or
der Pacat (
KW); the
Fool is called
der Excuse (
PR),
der Sckis (
PR and
KW),
der schkis (
KW), der
Skis (
KW). or
der Scüs (
HR). The
discard is called
der Skar (
KW).
Deal and Discard
There are three players. A full 78-card French-suited
pack is used. Deal and play are counter-clockwise.
The dealer gives twenty-five cards to each player, in
five rounds of five cards each, beginning with the
player on his right, and taking in addition the last
three cards for himself in the last round. He discards
three cards face down beside him, which count for
him at the end of the round. He may not discard
Kings. If he has exactly three trumps including the
Pagat, he may, if he wishes, discard all three of them;
if he has the Skis, the Pagat and exactly one other
trump, he may, if he wishes, discard these three cards.
In no other circumstances may he discard a trump.
HR states that some players allow that the deal is to
be cancelled, and the cards redealt by the same
dealer, if any player has only one or two trumps; but
PR and
KW do not mention this rule. Note that there is
no general prohibition on discarding the Skis.
Declarations
After the dealer has discarded, he makes any
declarations he chooses of combinations of cards in his
hand; the other two players then do the same in turn.
The dealer cannot declare any cards he has
discarded; according to
PR and
KW, all declared
cards must be shown to the other two players (
HR is
silent on this point). No player is obliged to make any
declaration even if he is able to. The possible
declarations are:
(i) Matadors.
HR and the earlier stratum of
KW
allow the declaration only of three of these, which
must consist of the Mongue (XXI), Pagat and Skis.
KW gives a value of 10 game points for this, but HN
says that some players value it at 10 and some at 20
game points, agreement being necessary before sitting
down to the game.
PR and the later stratum of
KW
allow a declaration of three or more Matadors,
consisting of the Mongue, Pagat and Skis and, in
addition, other trumps in consecutive sequence from
the XX down, with a value of 10 game points plus 5
more for each Matador in excess of three.
(ii) Cavallerie. This consists of all four court cards
in one suit, and is valued at 4 game points by
HR and
the earlier stratum of
KW, and at 10 game points by
PR and the later stratum of
KW.
PR and the later
stratum of
KW also allow the declaration of a half
Cavallerie, consisting of any three court cards of one
suit together with the Skis, with a value of 5 game
points;a whole Cavallerie and a half Cavallerie cannot
be declared in the same suit.
HR and the earlier
stratum of
KW do not recognise half Cavallerie
declarations.
(iii) Ten trumps.
HR says that this declaration is
recognised in many localities, and that the players
must agree on the value to be set on it.
KW allows the
declaration unreservedly, with a value of 10 game
points, which, however, are not to be paid
immediately, but only at the end of the round, and
then only if the player concerned has made more than
26 points on the cards he has won in tricks.
PR allows
a declaration of ten or more trumps, with a value of
game points plus 5 game points for each trump in
excess of ten; this is paid immediately, with no proviso
about points won on cards. In no case does the Skis
count for this purpose as a trump.
(iv)
PR, but not
KW or
HR, allows a declaration of
all four Kings, valued at 10 game points; alternatively,
one may declare three Kings with the Skis, with a
value of 5 game points. One may not, of course, make
both these declarations.
The payment for any declaration is made
immediately by the other two players, who each pay
its full value, save in the case of a declaration of ten
trumps under the
KW rule.
Play
When all three players have had a chance to make
declarations, the player to the right of the dealer leads
to the first trick. Play is under the usual rules. The
cards rank in their original order (i.e. in black suits K,
Q, C, J, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, A, in red suits K, Q, C,
J, A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). The Skis serves as
Excuse. The player takes it back from the trick to
which he played it, and, if he can, gives a low card in
exchange for it; otherwise he does so as soon as he
can. If he makes no tricks, however, he does not
surrender it. If a player has no more trumps in his
hand, then, according to
PR and
KW, he must play
the Skis, if he has it, as soon as a plain suit is led in
which he is void;
HR does not impose this obligation.
The Skis may not be played to any of the last three
tricks.
PR and
KW do not allow the Skis to be led to a
trick; if a player finds himself with the lead to the
twenty-second trick, and has the Skis, he must
surrender the lead to the player on his right, and must
play the Skis to that trick. According to
HR, however,
custom varies over whether the Skis may be led to a
trick, and, again, agreement over this must be reached
232
before playing: when the Skis is led to a trick, among
those who allow this, the other two players must play
trumps if they can. It is not explained what happens if
neither of them has any trumps left; presumably the
Bonuses and penalties
Apart from a passing reference to Pagat ultimo in a
sentence that appears to have been borrowed from
KW
in a misplaced attempt to bring the antiquated account
that was being copied up to date,
HR mentions only
penalties: the player who has the Pagat pays an
agreed sum to each opponent if it is captured, and
twice that sum to each if it is captured last trick.
According to
PR and
KW, 5 game points are paid to
each opponent if the Pagat is beaten by a higher
trump, and 10 game points if this happens in the last
trick; but a player who wins the last trick with the
Pagat is paid 10 game points by each opponent.
Scoring
The counting cards have their standard values. The
cards are counted in threes. If the player who had the
Skis made no tricks, he counts 4 points for his Skis,
while the player who won the trick to which he played
it counts his two odd cards as if they were three.
There are thus in all cases 78 points altogether. Each
player with fewer than 26 points pays, in all, as many
game points as he has card points short of 26; each
player with more than 26 points receives, in all, as
many game points as he has card points in excess of
26. {E.g. if A has 29 card points, B 24 and C 25, B
pays A 2 game points and C pays him 1 game point; if
A has 29 points, B 30 and C 19, C pays 3 game points
to A and 4 game points to B.}
[Dummett now turns to the 18th century French game, here omitted, based on de Gebelin]
