1. Introduction

This blog is a five part essay on the woodcut minchiate decks of the late 17th-early 19th century, focusing on the visual imagery in the production in two centers, Florence and Bologna, comparing and contrasting the contributions of the two cities and elsewhere, to the extent they are similar. 

I should warn you in advance that some of the decks I am focusing on, almost all of the woodcut decks from Florence in fact, are not very pretty, at least the ones that ended up in museums and research libraries. For one thing, some of them have clearly seen some use. For another, the cards would seem to have been made as cheaply as possible, probably to maximize profits in a situation where the sale prices were fixed in advance by the concession holder or government agency. The colors added by stencil are often like those applied by children before they learn to color inside the lines, and those lines themselves are from woodblocks either crudely cut or so worn out that impressions are illegible. As long as they could tell one card from another, it didn't seem to matter to the players. Hence these decks, except for a few cards have been generally ignored in the literature, even in studies specifically devoted to the minchiate of Florence. There are not even "reconstructions" available for purchase, much less reproductions. Most museums and libraries offer only limited views of the decks in their possession, whether online or in catalogs, in low resolution online and black and white in catalogs, and of just a few cards. Gallica and the British Museum are the major exceptions, for which we must be grateful. If there are higher quality specimens in private collections, they are not being shared with the rest of us.

Bologna produced better looking cards. There the game was not played much, players preferring their own game of tarocchini, with 22 tarocchi and 40 suit cards, the 2s through 6s being removed. Their minchiates were mainly for export elsewhere, even to Florence if the supply there ran short. The decks viewable online seem to have had little use, so probably were purchased by foreigners who had little idea of how to play the game.

The difference between minchiate decks and tarocchi decks is that minchiate (also called germini for part of its history) adds twenty trumps to the tarocchi decks and subtracts one. The twenty are Prudence, the three theological virtues, the four elements, and the twelve signs of the zodiac. The one subtracted is that which tarocchi called the Popess, which seems also to have been absent from the tarocchi in Florence by at least 1500, judging from a poem written around that time cited by Thierry Depaulis in his "Early Italian Lists of Tarot Trumps" (on the website academia, originally published in The Playing-Card, 36, no. 1, July-Sept. 2007, pp. 39-50, on pp. 40-41).

There are also some differences in nomenclature. We know what the cards were called at this time, the 18th century, mainly from the books written then about how to play the game, which I know mainly through the summaries given by Franco Pratesi (for a list, with links to both the Italian originals and my translations reviewed by him, see http://pratesitranslations.blogspot.com/). These books invariably refer to the cards just by number, except for the first five and the last five. Earlier at least some of the first five had the same names as in tarocchi. (Here see Nazario Renzoni, "Some remarks on Germini in Bronzino's Capitole in lode della Zanzara," The Playing-Card 41, No. 2 [Oct.-Dec. 2012], for "Empress," "Emperor," and "Pope" in the 1530s-40s.) But by the eighteenth century they were simply "Papa" plus the number from one to five: "Papa One," etc. The last five were called Star, Moon, Sun, World, and Trumpets. Since I am focusing on what is depicted on the cards rather than the game itself, I will use the generally accepted names, typically those of the tarocchi, for the cards the two decks have in common plus the usual names for the virtues, elements, and zodiacal signs, except for the first four and the last one, Trumpets.

My essay is divided into five sections, with all but the first two on different web-pages. The Introduction, which presents the issue to be examined, is here. Then comes "2. Bologna," again here but also accessible directly at https://earlypatternminchiate.blogspot.com/2024/08/bologna.html. Then comes "3. Florence," accessible directly at https://earlypatternminchiate.blogspot.com/2024/08/florence.html, or by clicking on one of the options at the bottom of the present page. For "4. Bologna and Florence," you click on one of the options at the bottom, or go to https://earlypatternminchiate.blogspot.com/2024/08/bologna-and-florence.html. "5. History," is at https://earlypatternminchiate.blogspot.com/2024/08/history.html. There I get into sources and interpretations, as opposed to just comparing visual details. Each section is complete in itself, but it is best to read them in succession.

In what follows, I have sometimes squeezed a lot of reproductions of cards in one row, as many as seven. Fortunately, the template allows for enlargement of the page on your computer. And I ask your forgiveness for the way many of them appear on the page. For those from the British Museum site (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?keyword=minchiate), I simply took screen-shots of what was there without trying to straighten them. Someday I may have time to fix them, but at the moment I do not.

THE BUSINESS AT HAND

In 2019 Nicola Antonio De Giorgio wrote an article on the playing cards of Lucca that, almost as a kind of aside, also offered five criteria for distinguishing minchiates made in Florence from the same in Bologna.[1] These, plus a recent desire on my part to identify the provenance of a partial deck of 18th-century minchiate,[2] got me thinking: could these criteria be part of a larger, more general way in which minchiate woodcut decks made in Florence differ from those of Bologna, in the sense of a Bologna pattern and a Florence pattern, similar to how Tarot of Marseille decks differ between TdM 1 and TdM 2?[3]

The International Playing Card Society (IPCS) already has two pattern sheets, called “earlier” and “later” minchiate patterns.[4] But the sheet for the “earlier” uses a deck from Bologna and so does not distinguish Florence from Bologna. As for the “later,” it uses a deck of 1926 made in Genoa from a version there, although the design, in its “later” version, is one that was manufactured earlier in Florence starting around 1820;[5] this "later pattern" also had an earlier version, also made in Florence, which the pattern sheet credits to “the second quarter of the 18^th century,” but in fact began earlier.[6] The "later pattern," both late but especially the early, stylistically has little in common with most woodcut decks of the 18^th century, even if it does fulfill four of De Giorgio’s five criteria for Florence (about which more later in this section). It offers more detail and sharper lines than the woodcuts, and its colored versions pay closer attention to using those lines to delineate differences in color.

As opposed to the "later pattern," what I am focusing on is the Florentine version of the “earlier” pattern, stylistically very similar to that put out in Bologna around the same time. Is there a distinct pattern in Florence that distinguishes it from Bologna’s woodcuts of the same period? I do not mean in every card, obviously, but similar to how the Marseille I and II differ, that is, in a significant portion of the cards, and not in every detail, but in commonalities across decks of two types.

I will start by summarizing De Giorgio. First, decks from Bologna feature the Bologna skyline on trump 40 (Trumpets). He shows an example of the card along with old illustrations of that skyline. There is an immensely tall tower rising in the center and another, shorter tower leaning to the left of vertical and crossing behind the other one. These correspond to the Asilelli and Garisenda towers in Bologna. Decks from Florence, at least of the “later” pattern, show the Florentine skyline, with the dome of the Duomo, Giotto's shorter tower, and the River Arno flowing at the bottom.

Second, in the middle of the 4 of Coins, Florence put an elephant, while Bologna had the writing "carte fine" and either the name of the card maker's insignia or nothing else. For Bologna, his card has "Carte fine alla Colomba" in an impressive setting resembling a coat of arms, while for Florence the card had an elephant and its rider. Third, the middle of the 3 of Cups has a "probable lion" while Bologna had the words "carte fine in Bologna" or perhaps just "carte fine." Fourth, the 4 of Cups, Florence had a monkey looking at a mirror, while Bologna had the image of an insignia of the card maker. Here are his illustrations of these points:

Fifth, none of Florence's Kings has a beard; in Bologna, two of them, those of Coins and Cups, wear beards. He illustrates the points with the relevant cards from the two cities. (This Poverone is not bad, as Florentine decks go.)

But how valid are these criteria? The last one rather obviously only applies to the “early pattern” decks, as all of the “later pattern” decks, also clearly of Florence, show all of the Kings bearded. Since there are two “later pattern” versions, I will show the kings of Cups and Coins from both.[7]

But the question can be raised again: do his criteria really work for all cases, even apart from the “later pattern” decks?

The criterion most obviously affected is the skyline, which De Giorgio says applies in the case of Florence only to “late pattern” decks. It is not hard to see why he would say that. Hardly anything can be made out on the Trumpets card of the deck ending in 41 on the British Museum (BM) website. [8] It is true that no high tower can be made out where the Bologna cards have one, nor a shorter "leaning tower" behind it (1st left below, BM deck ending in 39). but the lines of the skyline are so faint that it is hard to tell much of anything.

On Gallica there is a deck that satisfies all of De Giorgio’s other criteria and has a skyline on the Trumpets (second from left above) and where the lines left by the woodblock can be made out more clearly.[9] It seems to me evident that the dome on the far right is that of Florence’s Duomo, with its characteristic ribbing. Moreover, the tower to its left could be that of Florence’s Signoria - its tower emerges from a squarish building below; the only difference is that the tower has a peaked roof. The same might be on the first deck, except that the lines are obscured by paint. Another version, in a deck with "Etruria" on the back - suggesting the so-called Kingdom of Etruria of 1806-7 - gives a taller steeple to the Signoria's tower. Later, after the dissolution of the Kingdom of Etruria, something resembling that skyline (with an even bigger steeple) was used, such that Monzali could say of this one, “The skyline on the city of the trump of the Trumpets is the usual one found in the cards printed in Florence.”[10] That seems true enough, in a general sense. There are also the words "Fama Vola," never seen in Bologna.

But there can also be a skyline on the card that does not clearly denote either Florence of Bologna, for example the one at left, from Plate 17 of Romaine Merlin's Origine des Cartes a Jouer, in Google Books, no page number, but p. 191 of the pdf, if you download the book). There is no dome, just a peaked roof. Some, with the same "Fama Vola," have a skyline that refers us to Lucca. Or the card might be missing from a deck we wish to identify. So how can we be sure that a deck satisfying De Giorgio’s criteria is from Florence and not somewhere else? Why should an elephant, a monkey, and a lion-like animal signify Florence? 

One answer might be that if the same characteristics in other cards always fail to accompany the Bolognese skyline, and always accompany decks with no high tower, we can assume the same will be true when the requisite card is missing or obscure. Then we would have to find such characteristics. Another answer, perhaps more definite, is that Florence stamped its cards in characteristic ways on one of the trumps, the exact one varying only occasionally, when a new tax concession period started. Stuart Kaplan addressed this question in volume 2 of his Encyclopedia of Tarot; more recently, Giambattista Monzali has done the same.[11] Many of the decks with the elephant, monkey, and lion-like animal have characteristically Florentine stamps on the proper cards, even without the visible skyline. Neither author address the tax stamps of Bologna. From looking at decks with "in Bologna" on them, I find just one with a stamp on a trump card, and it is merely a "fuori per le case" - out for the houses (on Aries, card 27, at http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05114/d05114.htm. Many have no stamp at all; online, I see one with stamps on the 6 of Coins (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-40), and one with a stamp on the King of Batons (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105373422/f111.item).

The only difficulty with this second answer is that Florence, besides stamping its own cards, would have also put its tax stamp on cards it imported from Bologna. Franco Pratesi found a statement by the concession manager Domenico Aldini admitting to this recourse when Tuscany could not meet the demand itself, assuring his bosses that the tax was collected.[12] However, such imports would have been an exception rather than the rule; moreover, on many decks there was a second stamp on a different card, initially Libra, with the words “Stampa delle carte di Firenze,” or just the initials FCS.[13] Perhaps that was to guarantee that the deck was a Florentine production.

Another helpful clue is that certain trade-names were only used in one of the two cities: “Poverino,” for example, is characteristically Florentine. However, in many cases similar names were used in both cities: “alla Fortuna” in Bologna, “Fortuna” in Florence, etc.[14] 

There is also the fact that Florentine cards have dotted borders, while Bolognese cards do not. The dots are in most cases printed on the backs of the cards, made larger than the fronts so that their edges can be folded over and glued to the front: it is the part folded over that has the dots. This of course will not be of any use for cards that have come down to us without back - "unmounted" is the technical term. But it is useful in many cases. However, to know how reliable this criterion is, we have to be able to identify decks as Florentine or Bolognese by other means.

For Bologna, there remains a problem with that skyline in relation to its place of origin. The British Museum (BM) has online scans of a deck with that same high tower, but also the peaked tower and ribbed dome characteristic of Florence; (2nd from left above, BM deck ending in 42); on its 4 of Coins we see the the words “carte fine di Roma (1st from left above), inside the same elaborate coat-of-arms-like setting as the ones with "in Bologna."[15] This deck meets all of De Giorgio’s criteria for Bologna otherwise. Another "di Roma" deck at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. (https://collection.cooperhewitt.org/search?query=minchiate) again satisfies all the criteria. Its 4 of Coins (3rd above) is identical to one shown in Yale's catalog of the Cary Collection that does have that card, again with the Bologna skyline (third and fourth below, from vol. 4, p. 47, deck ITA 61). Notice in particular what appears to be a date, "1803," more or less, below the word Roma in all three cards. Yet two of them have the Bologna skyline and the third likely did, too. Perhaps these decks, too, can be said to be of the “Bologna early pattern.” A deck doesn’t have to be made in one particular city to conform to a pattern, as the Tarot of Marseille I and II abundantly show. Alternatively, these decks might have been made in Bologna for export to Rome. Are these decks variants of a Bologna pattern or a different pattern altogether? We have to look.

 

These examples also put into question the decks meeting De Giorgio’s other criteria but with just “carte fine” on their 4 of Coins (second from right above, from https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-1600). I have only found two online with the necessary cards, the other being Peter Endebrock's at http://www.endebrock.de/coll/pages/i31.html, far right above. In the latter case, the pattern inside the Coins is different from the rest - I will call it, for reference, the "cogwheel pattern," because that is what it looks like to me. Both of these decks have their Trumpets card online, and it is the Bologna skyline. Are these of the “di Roma” (on the 4 of Coins) pattern, or variant of a pattern, or the "in Bologna" (on the 3 of Cups) pattern or variant? We have to look. I will return to this question in the next section.  

Then there are the Kings of Coins and Cups. There are two problems. First, how many of the kings need to be in a partial deck in order to satisfy the criterion? One bearded king of Cups or Coins is not enough to say a deck is from Bologna. Decks of the “later” pattern, or that of other cities, have to be excluded. Perhaps it will be enough to specify a certain kind of look, pose, and style of execution. For Florence perhaps even one unbearded king of Cups or Coins is enough. We have to look.

The other problem is how to distinguish a robed, unbearded king with long hair from a queen with the same attributes? It will not be a very helpful criterion if there is no consistent distinction between the two in a Florentine pattern deck. But of course the players would need to be able to distinguish them, too. The  problem is easy to solve. If you look online at decks with an unbearded King of Cups or Coins that also have Queens present, you will see that the Queens of Cups and Coins have their elbows out and their Kings don’t (the two at left below are from Florence, Bologna the two at right.)[16] The Kings of Batons do have their elbows out, but in those suits only the Queens wear robes. Hopefully, that will be enough to identify these cards correctly.

To proceed further, I will start by identifying decks that have “in Bologna” on their 4 of Coins and a Bolognese skyline; then I will compare them with decks that have “in Roma” on that card and decks with just “carte fine” and no city. Are they enough alike that we can say that they are of the same pattern, variants of the same pattern, or of different patterns? Then I will do the same with Florence. And then compare the two, bearing in mind the variants.

---

[1] “Le Carte da Gioco a Lucca,” The Playing Card 48, no. 1 (July-Sept. 2019), pp. 14-30, on pp. 24-26.

[2] https://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=26479#p26479 and following, responding to the previous post, my translation of a note by Franco Pratesi concerning a partial deck of uncertain provenance.

[3] Thierry Depaulis, “The Tarot de Marseille – Facts and Fallacies, Part 2,” The Playing-Card 42, no. 2 (Oct.-Dec. 2013), pp. 106-120, on pp. 106-107. Online in Academia.

[4] https://i-p-c-s.org/pattern/ps-28.html, https://i-p-c-s.org/pattern/ps-29.html.

[5] For 1820, see Giambattista Monzali, “Minchiate Toscane, Part Two, The Playing-Card 50, no. 2 (Oct.-Dec. 2021), pp. 50-66, on p. 56. “An edict dated 20 March 1820 changes the card bearing the duty stamp, no longer the XXX but the XXIIII (Libra). From this moment on, the iconography changes, almost all decks are of the LMP type, giving the impression of being a simplified version” – meaning a simplification of the earlier LMP (Later Minchiate Pattern).

[6] See Giambattista Monzali, “Minchiate Toscane, Part One, The Playing-Card 50, no. 1 (July-Sept. 2021), pp. 11-26, on pp. 23-24.

[7] The two on the left are from https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10336508z.r=jeucart%20minchiate?rk=64378;0, said there to be from ca. 1715. The British Museum (BM) has others online that seem to be from the same plates: at https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?keyword=minchiate see those whose museum numbers end in 97, 48, 133, and 47. The other two Kings are from the “Minchiate Fiorentine” deck published by Meneghello, 1986, online at http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05113/d05113.htm.

[8] https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-41

[9] https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105109802/f28.item.r=jeucart%20minchiate

[10] Monzali, part 2, p. 55. The card is on p. 54, from a deck with “L. Mauriv-“ on its Knight of Coins, for Luigi Mauri.

[11] Stuart R. Kaplan, Encyclopedia of Tarot, vol. 2, pp. 247-249 for Tuscany; Monzali, part 1, pp. 19-22, the same. Neither says anything about Bologna. Many of the decks in museums have no stamp; those that do have it on the 6 of Coins.

[12] “Firenze 1766 - Domenico Aldini sotto inchiesta,” https://www.naibi.net/A/ALDINI.pdf, p. 2.

[13] Monzali, part 2, p. 50.

[14] Monzali, part 1, p. 22; Kaplan, vol. 2, pp. 219-225; Sylvia Mann, « At the Sign of …Italian style,” The Playing-Card 13, no. 2, pp. 52-55.

[15] https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-42, https://collection.cooperhewitt.org/search?query=minchiate

[16] https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-41, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-39

2. Bologna

An unresolved question from the previous section concerns decks with "Carte fine di Roma" on their 4 of Coins, bearded Kings of Cups and Coins, unbearded Kings of Swords and Batons, "Carte Fine" on their 3 of Cups, an insignia suggesting a trademark on the 4 of Cups, and, when present, the Bolognese skyline on their Trumpets card. Among those I have found online, there is one of 97 cards that fits all of these criteria, one of 96 cards showing that fits four of them and is missing its Trumpets card, and one with only three cards showing, but one is trumpets and another is a 4s of Coins nearly identical to that of the other two decks. 

R1.  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-42. Lily on 4 of Cups, “apolto 1823” stamped on 3 Co. Multiple stamps on 6 of Coins. Floral Coins. 96 cards shown, lacking Leo. High tower on Trumpets plus ribbed dome on right.

R2.  https://collection.cooperhewitt.org/search/collection?query=minchiate Lily on 4 of Cups, floral Coins. “Carte Fine” stamped on 3 of Cups. Monogram-style stamp on 6 Co. Missing Trumpets. 94 cards shown. The Cooper-Hewitt Collection is a branch of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

R3.  William Keller, The Cary Collection of Playing Cards at Yale University (vol. 2 online at Beinecke Library website), ITA 61, showing (in vol. 4, not online) only the 4 of Coins (floral pattern Coins), Trumpets (Bologna skyline), Fool. Black and white photos of the first two appear in my previous section

Do these constitute a "Rome" pattern or a variant of the "Bologna" pattern?

Against these are those which have the most indications of Bologna, namely all of the previous criteria but with "Carte Fine in Bologna" on their 3 of Cups and a trade-name on their 4 of Coins after "Carte Fine."

B1.  http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks07/d05114/d05114.htm. 4 of Coins has “Al Leone,” the  4 of Cups, a phoenix (recognizable by the tuft on its head); Bologna skyline. “Al Mondo” backs. 97 cards shown. Coins have heads. 9 cards of this deck, the same based on the description given, are also at https://museotik.euskadi.eus/coleccion/-/titulo-tarot-florentino-minchiate-al-mondo/objeto-baraja/museotik-ca-64159/.

B2.  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-40, 97 cards pictured. 4 of Coins has “Al Soldato” and heads on Coins; 4 of Cups, horseman; Bologna skyline. “Alla Fama” back.

B3.  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-39, 97 cards pictured. 4 of Coins has “Imperador” and heads, 4 of Cups a Roman emperor; Bologna. “Alla Fortuna” back with Medici arms. 97 cards.

B4. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1896-0501-51. 84 cards shown, all of De Giorgio's cards missing except the four Kings. I give it to Bologna because the BM says that the extant cards are identical to those of B2 above. No stamps. Coins have heads.

B5. Christie's catalog of the Kaplan Collection, 2006, p. 103. 73 cards extant, 13 shown in low-resolution color plus back. "Alla Colomba" both on backs and the 4 of Coins (with heads). https://askalexander.org/display/22146/Christie's+New+York:+Historic+Cards+and+Games:+The+Stuart+and+Marilyn+Kaplan+Collection+Wednesday+21+June+2006/105.

Then there are those in between. These have blank spaces on their 4 of Coins after "carte fine," no "in Bologna" after "carte fine" on the 3 of Cups, but all of the other criteria. These are (using "C" for "carte fine"):

C1. http://www.endebrock.de/coll/pages/i31.html. Peter Endebrock's site, with what I term a "cogwheel" pattern on its Coins (4 of Coins shown in the previous section).

C2. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?keyword=minchiate, sheets with object numbers ending in 1597 through 1602. Six sheets, uncolored. Floral pattern on Coins.

C3. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105373422/f129. "ALL AQUILA" on back. 4 of Coins has "CARTE FINE ALL AQUILA" and date 1763. Stamp with "Gaetano dalla casa all' Aquila in Via Clavature in Bologna" on 2 of Coins. Floral Coins.

C4. "Minchiate al Cigno" put out by Lo Scarabeo, full deck in color, with floral backs and "AL CIGNO below." Producer said to be Pellegrino Torre, card maker of Bologna. Floral Coins.

C5. "Minchiate al Cigno," 60 cards pictured (out of 97) in the 1988 Deutsches Spielkartenmuseum (DSM) exhibition catalog Tarot, Tarock, Tarocchi; back has "mann mit zipfelmütze" (man with pointed cap) and "AL CIGNO." Producer: "Angelo Dallacasa (?)." Fronts look identical to deck 4, but the black and white reproductions are poor. Floral Coins

C6. https://museotik.euskadi.eus/coleccion/-/autoria-germano-natali/titulo-tarot-florentino-minchiate/objeto-baraja/museotik-ca-50631/. "Tarot Florentino Minchiate" (not the museum's title, but that of whoever uploaded the pictures). 8 cards shown plus back, of a man in a pointed cap and "AL CIGNO." Producer: "Germani Natali." Book citation on webpage. The fronts look identical to the Lo Scarabeo deck. No Coins number cards shown. 

 Should the links to the British Museum and Gallica decks not work (as happens from time to time), all the BM decks online are at the link of C2 above, and you can reach all the Gallica decks by going to that site (https://gallica.bnf.fr/) and searching (rechercher) "jeu de cartes minchiate", which will take you to a list of them.

I will begin by comparing the "di Roma" (on the 4 of Coins) with the "in Bologna" (on the 3 of Cups).

Looking only at the lines and ignoring the color added by the stencils, there are some general differences in the amount of shading - it is in both of the Rome ones but may vary in the "in Bologna." Some of the differences are in the seven cards of Papa II, Love, Wheel, Hanged Man, Death, Faith, and the 2 of Swords. (In this essay, since I am concerned with what is depicted on the cards rather than the game that was played with them, I shall refer to the cards by name rather than number.) Below, I have put B3 on top and R1 on the bottom. Hopefully the relevant details will be visible if I squeeze all seven into one row. If not, clicking on the image will make it larger.

On Papa II, the difference is the bird sitting above the figure's hand; it is similar on the Wheel. On Love the difference is in the size of the crown. On the Hanged Man, there is of course no such minchiate card as IIX, in a game where a card's number is all-important. The British Museum assistant doing the scanning managed to get both of them upside down. Rotating the Roman one by 180 degrees, so that the number is XII, it would seem that he is meant to be standing on the ground on one foot, perhaps with a snake around his leg, preparing to juggle. The coloring on both, green next to his foot, aids the impression. On Death, there is a drafting error: the Roman horse has only one front leg. On Faith, we see an old, bearded man instead of a lady. On the 2 of Swords, the stag's mouth is exaggerated in Rome. 

Other differences, for which I didn't have room above, are in Aquarius, Leo, and World. I will compare these three in their "in Bologna" and "di Roma" manifestations later in the section, adding to them a representative deck with just "carte fine" and no city. 

To see how consistent these differences are, including the shading, it is perhaps worth comparing the first two through the other three decks: first, the "Al Leone," then BM 40, then the "di Roma" at the Smithsonian.

The differences in shading are fairly consistent. Whether the line is heavier is more a function of variations in presses and how worn the woodblock is.

So what about the decks that don't indicate a city, neither Bologna nor Rome, but satisfy de Giorgio's criteria? Now that we know what to look for, it is fairly clear that Endebrock's cards (my C1), although missing the 2 of Swords, are very much like those with "in Bologna" and a trade-name.

But it is a different story with the rest, at least those that show De Giorgio's cards. Here are the same seven cards as those shown second above, from the "Al Aquila" deck with just "Carte Fine" on its back. It has a floral pattern on its Coins, like the "di Roma" cards and unlike the "in Bologna" ones, which have heads. That its 2 of Coins is stamped "Gaetano dalla casa all' Aquila in Via Clavature in Bologna" is a fairly good indication that it was made in Bologna.
Papa II and the Wheel look fairly similar to the "di Roma." The crown on Love is a little large for the man's head, but not as much as in the "in Bologna" decks. The Hanged Man is in his normal position. Death's horse again has one front foot, and Faith is a bearded old man. The stag's mouth is still rather large and awkward.

The "Al Cigno" decks and the six uncolored sheets are identical to the above except in coloration. Given that these decks, at least as shown, differ from the "di Roma" in only a couple of details - the size of the crown on the Love card and the standing Hanged Man - it is hard to deny the "di Roma" decks the same status as a variant of a standard pattern - whether of Bologna only or both Bologna and Florence remains to be seen. 

The same is true of the three other cards I alluded to earlier, namely Aquarius, Leo, and Trumpets. At left are, on top, the "in Bologna" BM 40, the "di Roma" BM 42 (with the Cooper-Hewitt "di Roma" deck's Leo, missing from BM 42), and at the bottom the "Aquila" (my C3). The similarities of this deck's cards with the "di Roma" ones are undeniable: the same vertical lines instead of a lattice on Aquarius, unpatterned ground with plants on Leo instead of a double diamond, and the small dome at the right on Trumpets, with a minimal "leaning tower" on the left. The same similarities hold for the other decks with just "carte fine" on their 3 of Cups and 4 of Coins (C2, C4, C5). 

Neither of these differences on Aquarius and and Leo, unlike some of the others, will be of any use in distinguishing Florence from Bologna, as Florence's cards have the lattice and the double diamond. And since the Trumpets in Florence also has a dome on the right and no leaning tower on the left, what is decisive is presence or not of the high tower.

The issue remains of whether  the "in Roma" decks were made by a branch of a Bolognese manufacturer in Rome, or made in Bologna for export to Rome. On this issue, the official-looking stamps on the cards may be relevant. Below are all the ones I could find: the three on the left are "in Bologna," the four on the right "di Roma." The "per le case" (for the houses) of the "al Leone" on the far left matches the Cooper-Hewitt's "per case" (for houses) on the far right, but not precisely. The Gaetano, second from left, is not like any of the others. The BM 40 "in Bologna" deck, 3rd below, has stamps on the 6 of Coins, and so does the "di Roma" BM 42; but they are different stamps. "Appolto" just means "contract" and is no help. The stamps on the two "di Roma" 6 of Coins look similar, but that is not surprising. I can come to no conclusion about where the deck is made. All I can say is that both the "di Roma" and those decks without a city identified seem like a variant of the Bolognese pattern.

The strangest cases of this sort that I have found are two with "carte fine in Firenze" on their 4 of Coins. One, reported by William Keller in The Cary Collection of Playing Cards at Yale University, 1981 (vol. 2, p. 42, accessible online at Beinecke Library website), has "Alla Colomba" on its backs, a name we otherwise recognize as a trademark of Bologna. In volume 4 he shows three cards from that deck. None of them are among those singled out by De Giorgio. They are also not among the cards I have singled out as having alternative depictions within Bologna. As far as what pattern the three cards belong to, only if the criteria can be extended to include one or more of them can they be of use.

Another such deck is shown in the course of an essay by De Giorgio, “I Tarocchi in Italia, Tarocchini & Minchiate,” p. 53( in Lo Scarabeo, ed., Tarocchi dal Rinascimento a oggi, Turin, 2017, pp. 51-70). Seven cards plus a back - an abstract pattern without words - are shown; one of them happens to be the 4 of Coins, which is precisely as Keller described for the other deck.

Of course, according to De Giorgio's criteria, these decks are not from Florence, despite what they say on the 4 of Coins, because Florentine cards have an elephant there and no words. Or might these decks be exceptions to De Giorgio's criterion? 

If it should turn out that these decks conform to a general Bolognese pattern, there is also the issue of whether they would be of the standard "in Bologna" variety or one of the variants. Notice that what is inside the Coins of the 4 of Coins pictured are heads, like the "in Bologna" variety. and not the floral pattern of the "di Roma" cards. Moreover, one of the cards shown is Death: it shows two forelegs on the horse, which again conforms to the "in Bologna" pattern and not the "di Roma" or city unspecified variants. Perhaps we are dealing with a third variant, even if in only one card. I will return to these two decks at the end of section 4, when we have more information about what might distinguish a "Bologna pattern" from a "Florence pattern." 

It may well turn out that we cannot rule out that these decks were made in Florence but using a Bolognese woodblock and stencils - and so, most likely by a Bolognese card maker residing there. Alternatively, it might have been made in Bologna specifically for export to Florence; we know from archival sources that this was done. In that case, if it turns out that the rest of the cards also correspond to Bologna and not Florence, all we will be able say is, as in the case of the "di Roma," is that it fits the "Bologna pattern." A pattern does not require that the decks belonging to it have been made in a particular city, as we know from the two "Tarot of Marseille" patterns, whose production was not tied to any one city.

To go to the next section, click on "older posts" or on "3. Florence" below.