Unveiling the Renaissance Metaphor

An Investigation into the Meaning of Tarot, Part I

Apr 01, 2025

The idea of a moralized game had a long tradition in the middle ages going back to at least the 10^th century when the Bishop Wibold of Cambrai designed a dice game to encourage clergy not to gamble. Historian H. J. R. Murray devoted an entire chapter of his hallmark A History of Chess to discuss what he called the moralities. These were medieval works which attempted to give a symbolical or allegorical explanation of the game of chess broadly explaining it as an analogy of the social condition.

The oldest of such works, The Innocent Morality, written around the middle of the 13^th century by an anonymous author, explains the straight line moves - such as that of the rook - as ‘just’ and the slanted moves -such as that of the bishop or queen - as ‘underhanded’. It drew parallels between the game board and the world at large with the white and black tiles representing life and death. Even the bag that the chessman are kept in can’t escape the allegory as all pieces are equal in the bag - a king can be found below a pawn.

The most famous work of this genre was Liber de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium super ludo scacchorum, which translates as ‘Book of the customs of men and the duties of nobles or The Book of Chess’ which was written in the later part of the 13^th century by a Dominican Friar from the Piedmont region named Jacobus de Cessolis. In this book, which is a collection of sermons, Cessolis gives a wide range of different allegories. This was a widely influential work, of which historian Murray asserted its popularity to have rivaled that of the Bible itself.1

In 1377, shortly after playing cards arrived in Europe Johannes of Rheinfelden, a Domnican friar like Cessolis, wrote a moral allegory for them with Tractatus de moribus et disciplina humanae conversationis id est ludus cartularum. Johannes saw in card games not just a healthy diversion for those of means but a microcosm for the social order than could be used as a vehicle for moral teachings. He begins his Tractatus first by citing the authority of Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas implying that they would agree with him about playing cards (assuming they weren’t being used for gambling) before moving to outline his objectives:

“ First, to describe the game of cards in itself, as to the matter and mode of playing it; second, to moralize the game, or teach noblemen the rule of life; and third, to instruct the people themselves, or inform them of the way of labouring virtuously.”2

Throughout his Tractatus, Johannes uses his descriptions of the figures on the cards to form a broader metaphor of courtly life and the medieval social order, he relates comparisons between the game and warfare and draws analogies from the Bible as well as from classical literature.

Johannes’s Tractatus also provides descriptions of decks with 52, 60 and 72 cards. The 60 card deck consists of the common courts but also includes a queen and a lady-in-waiting for a total of 5. The 10 numeral cards in this deck represented common professions such as a farmer, baker, miller and so on. This description is similar to the German card game Hofämterspiel previously known from 1455, a game of complex design which included a Fool card as the lowest pip. Of the choice of 60 cards, Johannes states that it is a perfect number, citing Daniel Chapter 3 as evidence.3

While we do not have an early moralization for tarot we do have Marziano Da Tortona’s treatise on the game of 16 heroes which gives us a rare glimpse into the mindset of a XV century game developer. One thing Marziano made abundantly clear in his treatise was the need for an underlying moral allegory for his game. He wrote that such an allegory was needed to make the game more sophisticated and mentally stimulating as to be worthy of one such as the duke’s time.4

With the inclusion of what functioned as a dedicated trump suit, Marziano’s game is often thought to have been a prototype for trionfi, the game which would become known in the following century as tarot. Perhaps Marziano da Tortona was thinking of the chess game when he chose to go with 16 heroes for his game? Maybe chess was the impetus for the 16 card suits in the Visconti di Modrone pack or the inclusion of the checkerboard found on some of the older cards. We may never know for certain.

No one one knows who the creator of the game of tarot was but we do have a rough idea of when it was created. From the best estimates, tarot was originally created sometime during the first couple decades of the 14th century. From the physical evidence, in the late 1420’s/ early to mid 1430’s we have our oldest surviving packs. 5 It is not until the 1440’s that we have any verbal attestation of tarot, then called trionfi. And it’s not until the decade after that we have anything close to a complete deck that we can analyze. At that point over a generation has passed and who knows if what we are looking at retains any semblance of it’s original form.

THE STEELE SERMON

The oldest piece of editorial content we have about tarot comes from nearly a century after the game’s creation and is mostly negative as it records an angry friar railing against games of chance. Known as ‘The Steele Sermon’ the treatise takes its name from its discoverer, a librarian named Robert Steele, who first published his findings in an article in 1900. Steele originally dated the sermon to 1480 based on its content, but Ronald Decker has more recently dated it to around 1500, placing its origin in Venice based on the watermarks found on the original manuscript.6 It was later discovered that the Steele Sermon was part of a long tradition of oration against games as it contained much of the same material as a sermon from ~1460 by St. James of the Marches with the section on tarot being a new addition.7

In the sermon, tarot—still at this time referred to by the friar as trionfi—is condemned alongside dice and card games, though it is singled out as the worst among them. He writes, “There is nothing in the world pertaining to games as odious to God as this game of triumphs.” To the anonymous friar, the creation and naming of tarot were no mystery:

“It is said and believed that triumphs, so called, were named so by their inventor, the devil, because no other game triumphs over the soul’s destruction as this one does. In it, not only are God, the angels, planets, and the cardinal virtues disparagingly placed and named, but the true Lights of the World—that is, the Pope and Emperor—are also forced [into it], which is absurd, and it is the greatest disgrace to Christians to enter this game. The 21 triumphs are, in fact, the 21 steps of a ladder that lead one to the depths below.”8

While the sermon is amusing, it is not particularly illuminating. It is also questionable whether the preacher even understood the game well. However, there are a few interesting takeaways. First, before discussing Tarot, the friar makes a similar condemnation of dice games, calling them the “21 steps to hell.” More notably, this sermon is best known for containing the oldest known order of the trump cards.

Most interesting are the monk’s notes following the list of cards. Of the Juggler he writes “he is inferior to all” in reference to the card’s status as the lowest trump. Naturally, the monk rages against the Female Pope: “O wretches! That which the Christian faith denies!” Of the Pope’s inclusion in the game he laments: “Oh Pontifex, why?” But perhaps the most curious is his reference to the Chariot as the “little world.”9

XVI CENTURY

After the turn of the century the fad seemed to be over for tarot having lost it’s original name to upstart games.10 Of course, the game remained popular enough in some parts of Europe to sustain an industry for card makers for the next few centuries, but no longer were nobles commissioning beautifully gold-plated cards to be hand-painted by master artists. It is often stated that during this period the meaning of tarot was lost—both in the etymological sense and in the ability to discern the broader significance of its imagery. However, the frontispiece of The Triumph of Fortune, an early fortune-telling book no less, might suggest otherwise.

In this lavish scene, we see what appears to be a narrative reminiscent of the tarot deck: the Pope sits atop a sphere between two women labeled 'Virtue' and 'Pleasure.' The sphere resembles the Farnese Atlas, complete with an ecliptic band, while an angel and a devil crank it from opposing sides. In the foreground, a naked man prepares to roll the dice, looking toward another man holding a compass and an astrolabe perhaps awaiting his advice on how to proceed. In the right corner, figures disembark from a small row boat and enter into a tower with a clockface above the entrance that features the sun on its dial . Beyond the portcullis we can make out a great city reminiscent of Revelation 21 and the World card in the older tarot decks. Unfortunately, this book offers no further clues to the tarot allegory beyond its intriguing cover.

The cover of Sigismundo Fanti’s *Triompho di Fortuna* (1526), Metropolitan Museum

In his 1534 satire Capitolo del gioco della Primiera, Francesco Berni offered his opinion on many card games, including tarot:

“Another pleasure similar to this one, to entertain oneself a little more during the feast and to bring enjoyment to the group by looking at paintings, has found that tarocchi are an excellent game for those who are content to be in the kingdom when they have two hundred cards in hand, which are difficult to hold, and so as not to be caught, they shuffle them as best they can under the table. A true face of the fool belongs to the one who likes this game; for 'tarocco' means nothing other than a dullard, a simpleton, a plaything, fit to be among bakers, cobblers and the rabble, gambling away every last coin in a quarter of a denier, whether at trionfi or minchiate—it is all the same. For in every way, it is all trickery and nonsense, feeding the eye with the Sun, the Moon, and the twelve, just like children do.”11

In that excerpt, Berni also provided us with a meaning to the word tarot as a dullard, or simpleton - in short a fool. While he offers no etymology for this he at least said that it meant something.

Another satiric piece that is often cited regarding the confusion about tarot’s meaning and imagery is Alberto Lollio’s mid-century Invective Against the Game of Tarot:

“What else do the Bagatelle, and the Fool, mean But that he was a charlatan, and a cheat? What else do the Popess, the Chariot, the Traitor, the Wheel, the Hunchback mean: the Fortress, the Star, the Sun, the Moon, And Death, and Hell: and all the rest Of this bizarre spinning the bait, But that this one had his head sunk, Full of smoke, Pancucchi, and Fanfalucche? And that it is true, she who pours the bottles, Shows us clearly that he was a drunkard: And that fantastic and bizarre name Of Tarot, without etymology, Makes it clear to everyone, that his whims have been spoiled, and his brain crippled”12

There were a couple of more serious attempts at explaining tarot from later in this century that were both discovered by Franco Pratesi in 1987. The earlier and more substantial of these accounts dates to 1565, when a 20-year-old law student named Francesco Piscina gave a speech attempting to explain the moral allegory underlying tarot. This speech was later printed as Discorso sopra la significatione de' tarocchi (Discourse on the Meaning of the Tarot).

Unfortunately, Piscina’s speech was largely a cold take, as Pratesi noted that he was likely not up to the task. Piscina’s experience with tarot stemmed mainly from an afternoon observing ladies playing the game, after which he studied the cards in an attempt to explain them. Despite this, his essay offers a rare glimpse into how a Renaissance layman might have interpreted the tarot pack. His explanations are somewhat meandering but contain a few interesting points. Notably, Piscina assumes that the trumps are telling a moral allegory. Piscina interprets the virtues in a Platonic sense, views the Love card as a trial, and argues that victory over it—along with the virtue of Justice—is essential for good leadership.

Piscina bases his interpretations on an otherwise unknown tarot pack that blends elements of two of Dummett’s regional variants. Specifically, his deck features a second Pope and Emperor in place of their female counterparts, aligning with the so-called Papi of the southern Type A decks. At the same time, it places the Hermit as the 11th trump, a feature of some Type C Western decks. Given this arrangement, Piscina reasons that the Hermit is a wise counselor whose advice can overcome fate.

He views the Devil and Tower as intermediaries separating the mundane and celestial realms in line with the Platonic school of thought. He also explains that the astrology cards—Star, Moon, and Sun—appear in their order to demonstrate an increasing progression of light, forming a rising action in the third act that builds to the grand finale with Judgment.

What struck me most about Piscina’s discourse is his emphasis on order. Since tarot is a game, the higher cards are higher for a reason. We see a falling action leading to the Devil and Tower, followed by a rising action culminating in the Judgment and the World. From how Piscina reasons the ordering, the tarot allegory feels more akin to Give a Mouse a Cookie than it does Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

As for the rest of the deck, He gives a few different interpretations of the suits: the four seasons of the year, the four ages of man, the four parts of the world before settling on an analogy between war and peace. In this interpretation, since the clubs and swords are both weapons they thus represent war, whereas cups and coins are for peace as ‘peace is the ultimate goal of any war’. For the basis of this analogy he cites Marsilo Ficino's commentary on Plato’s Timaeus.

Piscina closes his dissertation with some humor, “I know that many will say that a Tarocco has tarotly spoken of tarot”. It has been suggested that his pun meant ‘a fool has foolishly spoken of tarot’ similar to how Berni had used the term. 13

The other essay, written by an unknown author and dated around 1570, though less substantial still offers some keen insights. The bulk of this account is devoted to the suit cards which it defines as follows: Coins - the means of acquiring wealth, Swords - military power, Staves - political power and Cups - the indulgence of wealth. The anonymous essayist than connects the suits to the trump cards explaining that tarot is not just a game with allegorical figures, but an allegorical game where the rules have significance to the metaphor. The author also refers to the cards as ‘hieroglyphs’.

Probably the biggest take away from the 2nd essay is their analysis of the fool:

“[The designer of Tarot] assigned the Fool as the Captain of the first group [the worldly cards], with such condition and privilege that whoever by chance receives it can never lose it, unless he loses the whole game; it can replace any other cards, it does not capture and it is not captured. This shows that all defects can be lost and left, except for folly: everyone keeps his own as long as he lives.”14

From what the author said, perhaps we could apply this metaphor to the Fool’s numbering as well since you cannot subtract zero.

Both of these essays would become the only accounts of tarot’s meaning printed for the next couple centuries. Within that time they would become lost until they were rediscovered in the 1980’s. The next time someone would publish any editorial content regarding the meaning of Tarot it would be Antoine Court de Gebellin in 1781.

CONTINUES IN PART II : OCCULTATION

Unveiling the Renaissance Metaphor

An Investigation into the Meaning of Tarot, Part I

Discussion about this post