The Sola Busca tarot deck published by Lo Scarabeo is apparently not a direct reproduction of the 15th-century engravings, but instead reproduces a copy that was made about 1900. It is generally quite faithful to the original designs, although some discrepancies exist, particularly as regards the coloring.

Here's what's said in the preface to the book, written by Giordano Berti:

(first paragraph of preface): "The reasons for publishing this book arise from the the recent discovery of a deck of cards already known to historians as the Sola-Busca Tarot. Until now, other than the famous copy jealously guarded by the Milanese Sola-Busca family from which this work of art gets its name, it has been the belief that only a few prints of this deck existed, divided among various European collections."

(third paragraph): "However, I have carefully examined the cards recently discovered by a collector, which we are publishing here, and I have been able to ascertain that they are well-made reproductions, from paper dating back to the first decades of this century."

     In other words (I gather) the Lo Scarabeo deck is a copy of something drawn by one of Waite and Smith's contemporaries who had access to the cards or to the photographs of them. The prose is not very direct, though. A casual reader might presume that a new 15th-century printing of the original plates had been uncovered.

Regarding the coloring of the deck, Berti expounds:

"The cards, whose dimensions are 144 by 77 millimeters, were engraved with a burin on copper and later hand-painted by an unknown painter (from the Veneto area according to Hind). Perhaps on that same occasion, the numeric signs from 1 to 14 were added in ink to the numbered and court cards for each suit.

"According to Marzia Faietti (1991), it is quite probable that the color was retouched subsequent to its first drafting, as certain rather intense touch-ups in different areas would lead one to suppose. Since the cards are mounted on thin card stock at an unspecified period, but certainly much later with respect to their production and original coloring, it is possible that several touch-ups were made at that time in keeping with the original colors.

"With regard to the color implementation, Hind ventured the name of Mattia Serrati da Cosandola, an illuminator who worked between the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th at the convent of St. Bartholomew on the outskirts of Ferrara. This suggestion arose from the presence of the monogram "M.S." engraved on the Ace of Swords, the Ace of Chalices, and the Ace of Wands, but it is an hypothesis that still needs to be verified."

     At this point, Berti goes on to clarify that most of the inscriptions on the cards were added by "the illuminator who later colored the black and white deck", and he gives a run down of which inscriptions were on the original engraving and which were added by the illuminator.

     What may escape notice here is that Berti is *not* speaking of the cards that formed the basis for this reproductions, but rather to some museum pieces (originals). Hence the whole history of illuminators and touch-ups is related only indirectly, if at all, with the colors seen in this reproduction deck.

Further on, in the body of the book (written by Sofia Di Vincenzo), we find the following remark:

"It should be noted, however, that minor inconsistencies may exist between the descriptions and explanations given in this book and the actual deck of cards. This is due to the fact that this deck is a reproduction which is not a completely faithful reproduction of the original Sola-Busca deck, which also explains why in certain cases, the colors do not correspond: for example where violet is given in the text, the color on the card may tend to be more reddish."

     I've extracted for this posting the most pertinent passages, to make the story of the deck clear. I confess, though, that on first reading of the book I was quite misled--even though I have a particular interest in the integrity of reproductions and how they are made. I think the publisher gives the impression that the cards reproduce a surviving 15th-century deck. I don't mind that they used this c.1900 copy for their reproduction--it was probably the best available option. But I would have appreciated a clearer and more prominent explanation of the matter.

     A final note of disappointment: the book makes scarcely any attempt to identify the "ancient warrior" figures on the trump cards, instead launching quickly into metaphysical interpretations with little historical connection. Tea, our own tarot-l Sola Busca expert, has done a laudable job seeking out the trump subjects in classical literature. Her web site is worth at least as much as the book that is sold with the deck.

     As a tarot history buff, I'm delighted to have any copy of this fascinating ancient deck in hand. But I think the publisher could have done much better in explaining the source of the reproduction and providing "value added" in the form of a well-researched book.

06/03/99