← Language
ES EN FR IT PT DE NL SV
HomeArticlesHistory and curiosities

Sabio Tarot · History and curiosities

The Fool as a Historical Game Card

By Sabio Tarot

A wooden press, floral printing block and printed cards in an imagined workshop.
Imagined printing press and floral block; this is not a documentary photograph. Original illustrative image; it does not document a real reading or reproduce a historical deck.

In a contemporary reading, The Fool can represent beginning, freedom, or a leap into the unknown. These associations are part of a living interpretive tradition. When we study old cards, the first question is different: what object survives, and what role did it have within the game? The answer does not make a modern reading incorrect; it prevents us from attributing to the fifteenth century the language we use now.

The Morgan Library & Museum holds a Fool card within its Visconti-Sforza group and identifies it in its digital catalogue. In describing the historical structure, the museum separates twenty-one trumps from a singular card called the Fool, alongside fifty-six cards of four suits. That count matters: the card does not appear simply as the first of twenty-two numbered steps in a universal sequence. It was a particular piece in a game system. The Met also places early tarot in trick-taking games, although its general descriptions do not replace complete rules for each city.

What the Surviving Piece Shows

A photograph of the card allows examination of the figure, clothing, composition, and visible condition. The institutional record identifies the object, its collection, and its relationship to the other cards. The Morgan's text on trump images interprets the figure as part of a Renaissance visual culture of social hierarchies and marginality. That curatorial commentary helps read the iconography within its context. It does not by itself prove every move of the Fool in all historical games.

Here it is worth separating three levels. The first is the original surviving object. The second is the description the museum proposes after comparing it with other pieces and documents. The third is our later readings, including those of a modern deck. A digital reproduction makes the first level accessible, but it is still an image of an object, not the object itself. An edition that reprints The Fool on new paper adds another layer of decisions about size, color, and back.

Was It a Wild Card?

Some explanations call the Fool a “wild card” to convey its singularity. It can be a quick analogy, but it is dangerous if the reader imagines the joker of a modern deck with identical rules. In its catalogue, the Morgan uses the English term wild card in a concise explanation of the deck's composition. That does not mean that all historical variants of the game applied the same rule we now associate with the wild card. To know precise rules, one would need manuals, game descriptions, or specialized studies indicating place and period.

A prudent sentence is: “The historical set distinguished the Fool from the twenty-one trumps; some museum explanations describe it as a special card.” A sentence that is too strong would be: “In 1450 the Fool could substitute for any card, like today's joker.” The second adds a concrete rule that does not follow from the simple count in the record. If we later find a source of rules for a specific variant, we can explain it with its date and territory. We do not need to invent it to make the card interesting.

The “Zero” Position Does Not Explain the Whole Story Either

Many contemporary decks print 0 on The Fool, and their guides read it as the beginning of the journey. It is a useful interpretive convention. The Morgan piece should be described by its own image and record, not as automatic confirmation of everything that appears in a current edition. The order of the trumps varied historically, and some old cards carried no numbering. Turning “zero” into a timeless essence erases precisely the changes that allow us to study the history of playing cards.

When an exhibition arranges old cards in a display case, that order may reflect the curators' criteria, a documented sequence, or an exhibition design solution. One must read the label. The Morgan's collection page numbers the images in its digital interface; that navigation number should not simply be confused with a numeral printed on the object or with its rank in a game. The individual record and the images of the front help verify this.

The Fool in a Responsible Reading Today

Knowing that the card had a game function does not oblige you to do a reading as if you were playing a historical trick. You can ask yourself what “beginning without all the information,” “trusting too much,” or “allowing yourself to learn” means within your situation. These are reflection questions, not claims about medieval rules. A reading gains clarity when you state the frame: “In this contemporary reading I interpret The Fool as an invitation to examine a beginning.” Do not say, “the Renaissance painter promised that you must travel tomorrow.”

If you read for another person, avoid turning the card into an order to take a risk. An image that suggests movement does not verify resources, obligations, or real consequences. You can ask the person to name a reversible first step, a piece of missing information, and a condition for stopping. That method resembles asking the tarot better before a decision: the card opens a conversation, the decision requires external data.

An Exercise with Two Columns

Open the Morgan's record for the Fool and write on the left only what you can document: institution, identifier, set, proposed dating, and visible description. On the right write current interpretations that you have read or that your deck suggests to you. Then label each sentence: “object,” “curatorial commentary,” “contemporary reading,” or “hypothesis.” If a sentence does not fit any of them, it may contain a mixture you need to undo.

Also try comparing the historical card with a Fool from a deck you own. Do not look for the “true” Fool. Observe what is preserved, what is omitted, and what the modern editor adds. The comparison of painted and printed playing cards shows why a similar image may come from materially very different objects. The guide to what a museum preserves helps cite the correct piece.

A Card with Several Lives

The Fool does not need a legend of secret origin to interest us. It was a distinguishable card within historical decks; its figure occupied a place in a visual culture; later it was copied, renamed, and read in new ways. The available history is partial, and that is precisely why it is worth learning to formulate the questions well. What piece are we looking at? What rule is documented for a place and a period? What meaning belongs to the edition or to the person reading today? Keeping those levels separate leaves room for both rigor and imagination.

Sources Consulted