Re: Problems with positing the Papi in the ur-Tarot
Posted: 05 Jul 2020, 11:20
Marziano explicitly declared the suits unranked.
Over 500 years of history in 78 cards
https://forum.tarothistory.com/
Marziano explicitly declared the suits unranked.
Nathaniel, it's the principle that's important, not the degree to which the analogy with textual criticism is valid. If you don't like the Latin phrase and its connection to manuscripts, just understand me to be saying that it is impossible for both Bolognese players and Piedmont/Savoy players to have independently invented these rules, Therefore they were at the origin of one or both games. Since it is highly implausible that the Bolognese game jumped to Piedmont at some point and took over the whole state, the only plausible conclusion is that this rule was in the common origin of the games played in both places. Since Bologna is on the main road between Florence and Ferrara, and the game is known in Florence in 1440 and Ferrara in 1442, and since a Bolognese merchant had one in 1442, we can say that Bologna knew the game at the same time. Therefore, the rule was present at the beginning of the game. It does not take two years to go from Florence to Bologna.Nathaniel wrote: 05 Jul 2020, 04:19
Ross, card games are not manuscripts, and their rules don't work the way language does. This idea of yours seems to imply that we should expect card games to start out full of strange complicated rules, and then become simpler over time, as they spread to other places. I'm not exactly an expert on card games, but I think that's basically the exact opposite of how card games usually evolve, isn't it?
The temptation to number and order the papi is strong. Dummett and McLeod observed it around Bologna itself (HGT p. 264) –
"In some twons outside of Bologna, such as Loiano, Marzabotto, Monterenzio and Sasso Marconi – but not in Porretta Terme or Monzuno – the practice has developed of inscribing the numerals 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Moors, so as to impose a fixed sequence on them (higher-numbered Moors of course beating lower-numbered ones). This practice, disapproved of in Bologna and contrary to ancient Bolognese tradition, is a fairly recent development. The antiquity of the traditional rule is demonstrated by its adoption in Piedmont."
It's a possible game development direction, that games start "too complicated" and are improved by inventing easier rules (and leaving old details aside). For instance we have at the start of Trionfi decks and other games the rule, that 2 of the suits rank the number cards according 1-2-3- etc. and the remaining 2 number suits are ranked from 10-9-8-7- etc.. This is for instance clear in the text of Martiano da Tortona ( -1425) ...Nathaniel wrote: 05 Jul 2020, 04:19 Ross, card games are not manuscripts, and their rules don't work the way language does. This idea of yours seems to imply that we should expect card games to start out full of strange complicated rules, and then become simpler over time, as they spread to other places. I'm not exactly an expert on card games, but I think that's basically the exact opposite of how card games usually evolve, isn't it?
However, the order of these Birds is, although none of their type has right over another, yet this arrangement they have alternately – Eagles and Turtledoves lead from many to few: that is to say it goes better for us when many cultivate virtue and continence; but for Phoenices and Doves, the few rule over the many, which is to say that, the more the followers of riches and pleasure are visible, the more they lead to the deterioration of our station.
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: 05 Jul 2020, 09:30 But the crowns were what mattered (with cross and keys, orb and scepter), since they distinguish the papi. Everything else is artistic embellishment.
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: 05 Jul 2020, 09:30 Added: some dictionaries of Provençal-Français give "papo" and "papou" as the singular form of "pape.". So far I haven't found the plural.
Let me clarify: I don't disagree with you on anything in the (edited!) lines I quote above. Yes, it seems obvious that the rule must have a common origin, and that it would have been present very early. My view is that it emerged very shortly after the game arrived in Bologna, when the game was still in that novel stage where changes to the trump order are most likely to be made, before it becomes established. This is what seems to have happened all over Italy: There seems to have been an early stage when the trump order was malleable to some degree and subject to change, and then after that it became established and was very resistant to change from that point on. That's what we seem to see in every region. So we should naturally assume the Bolognese made their alteration to the papi ranking very early, when they were still in the stage of adopting the game. This could very easily have occurred before 1440.Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: 05 Jul 2020, 11:54
... it is impossible for both Bolognese players and Piedmont/Savoy players to have independently invented these rules, Therefore they were at the origin of one or both games. ... the only plausible conclusion is that this rule was in the common origin of the games played in both places. Since Bologna is on the main road between Florence and Ferrara, and the game is known in Florence in 1440 and Ferrara in 1442, and since a Bolognese merchant had one in 1442, we can say that Bologna knew the game at the same time.
I am glad you are willing to at least concede the theoretical possibility that the rule was a Bolognese invention and that it was the Bolognese form of the game that spread westward. But it is certainly not the "simplest solution" to suggest that it was in the original Florentine game, for the several reasons I have stated previously, most egregiously the total lack of any trace of the rule anywhere outside the regions of Piedmont/Savoy and Bologna. If traces of it managed to remain in Piedmont even after centuries of them playing with numbered papi cards, then you would expect to see at least some small hint of it appearing in the historical record somewhere, anywhere, other than just those two areas. But there is absolutely nothing, and that makes your solution anything but simple.Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: 05 Jul 2020, 11:54
Was it perhaps not in the original Florentine game, but was a Bolognese invention, and it was the Bolognese form of the game that spread westward? That is one way to speculate about it. But we know that Florence exported their cards northward too, so it seems unnecessary to propose this scenario. Rather, the simplest solution is that the equal-papi rule was in the original Florentine game as well.
Why do you insist that the designer just specified "two popes and two emperors"? I subscribe to the "fossil" theory, as you call it, specifically one with 8 Imperatori, of which 4 would have been emperors and 4 empresses, with the females of lesser power than the males, if they were in the same trick, just as queens were of lesser power than kings. "VIII Imperadori" was the recorded name of a game in Ferrara and presumably Florence, where the deck was made. To reduce 8 to 4 there are two ways of doing it: take 4 males or 2 of each gender, with males and females now equal. How can you be sure the designer didn't specify which way to do it? The term "papi" might then simply have been the collective term, just as "imperadori" had been, and "papa" adopted in the singular as a convenience, in consequence of their equality, just as queens ruling alone were considered kings in relation to the laws concerning monarchs, which would have used the term "king" in a way that it was understood applied to female monarchs as well.For the iconography, obviously I can't say what the original Florentine or Bolognese papi looked like. The artist, or engraver, could have decided to distinguish two of them as feminine, and two as males. In my view, though, the designer did not specify the iconography beyond "two popes and two emperors." If you stick an imperial crown on a woman, you can call her an empress; if you stick a papal crown on a woman, you can call her a popess. But the crowns were what mattered (with cross and keys, orb and scepter), since they distinguish the papi. Everything else is artistic embellishment.
For reasons I have already stated: The rule seems to have been extremely stable in Bologna and Piedmont, so it is extremely unlikely for it to have been removed everywhere else within a relatively short space of time in this way (as I said before: why would anyone want to make the trump order harder to remember?) and even less likely for it to have left no trace at all anywhere; and it would be extremely strange to invent a sequence of 21 cards in a precise hierarchical order except for four, which are all on one rank. Thinking about it again now, this would be especially unlikely to occur to the late medieval-early Renaissance mind, which tended to love putting everything into ordered hierarchies. So it really is very hard to believe that someone would invent a game at that time with such a weirdly interrupted hierarchy as a central feature. But it is considerably easier to imagine it being a modification of an existing hierarchy, introduced to solve a tricky problem.mikeh wrote: 06 Jul 2020, 00:48
For Nathaniel: why is it not just as likely that the disorder among dignitaries, rather than as a cause of the "equal papi" rule, occurred as a result of it, the later ranking of dignitaries everywhere except in Bologna and Piedmont done differently in different places because earlier there was no specific order?
I don't see Piscina mentioning this. Are you confusing him with Anonymous? If so, the text says "due papi, uno col Regno, e l'altro senza", "two popes, one with the Reign, and the other without," We decided to interpret the "Regno" as if it meant "triregno," the papal crown, and put that gloss in brackets, but I would not base a strong iconographic argument on it. It could be that one was seated, to indicate being "seated," i.e. in power, and the other standing, or otherwise clearly not in power.Phaeded wrote: 05 Jul 2020, 21:45 And yet Piscina, the oldest reference to Papi, distinguishes his two popes by noting one wears no crown.
I don't know if "pejorative," but maybe "diminutive," or familiar and cute, at least in the French and Provençal Savoy-Piedmontese term.Which begs the question: why would the term Papi not be considered a pejorative? Apparently that was the case in Provençal-Français which avoided the term altogether.Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: 05 Jul 2020, 09:30 Added: some dictionaries of Provençal-Français give "papo" and "papou" as the singular form of "pape.". So far I haven't found the plural.
It's just my view, I won't insist on it (i.e. as if it's the best view, or the most common-sense view, or whatever. I can't insist that people see it this way, unlike some other conclusions like the dating in the late 1430s for the invention, which I do insist on).mikeh wrote: 06 Jul 2020, 00:48
Ross wrote (my highlighting, to pick out what I want to question):Why do you insist that the designer just specified "two popes and two emperors"?For the iconography, obviously I can't say what the original Florentine or Bolognese papi looked like. The artist, or engraver, could have decided to distinguish two of them as feminine, and two as males. In my view, though, the designer did not specify the iconography beyond "two popes and two emperors." If you stick an imperial crown on a woman, you can call her an empress; if you stick a papal crown on a woman, you can call her a popess. But the crowns were what mattered (with cross and keys, orb and scepter), since they distinguish the papi. Everything else is artistic embellishment.
I think "papi" and "imperadori" were collective terms that did not necessarily exclude females, yes. But for the reasons above, and because in Bologna, which is the closest thing to the original design in my view, they were all male, at least judging by Mitelli (Alla Torre a century later has both popes looking female, because unbearded; I think this demonstrates my contention that the ambiguity of woodcut led to the invention of the explicitly female versions), I think that the designer imagined and intended all men in these places, and to illustrate the equal-papi rule.I subscribe to the "fossil" theory, as you call it, specifically one with 8 Imperatori, of which 4 would have been emperors and 4 empresses, with the females of lesser power than the males, if they were in the same trick, just as queens were of lesser power than kings. "VIII Imperadori" was the recorded name of a game in Ferrara and presumably Florence, where the deck was made. To reduce 8 to 4 there are two ways of doing it: take 4 males or 2 of each gender, with males and females now equal. How can you be sure the designer didn't specify which way to do it? The term "papi" might then simply have been the collective term, just as "imperadori" had been, and "papa" adopted in the singular as a convenience, in consequence of their equality, just as queens ruling alone were considered kings in relation to the laws concerning monarchs, which would have used the term "king" in a way that it was understood applied to female monarchs as well.
But if the four cards are already part of a hierarchy in Bologna, there is no "tricky problem." It's already been solved. There is no reason to invent an elliptical, or otherwise noncircular wheel if you've already got a circular one that is doing the job.So it really is very hard to believe that someone would invent a game at that time with such a weirdly interrupted hierarchy as a central feature. But it is considerably easier to imagine it being a modification of an existing hierarchy, introduced to solve a tricky problem.