The Papi and the Duplicate Cards of the Trump Suit
Posted: 06 Jun 2019, 14:07
Here I am assuming that the Bolognese treatment of the four papi was borrowed from Florence as part of the original game. I follow Ross’s theory, that the original game was intended for four people in 2 fixed partnerships and that the number of trump cards was determined mathematically as the number of cards needing to take the counting cards of the court (16), in addition to positing 4 new counting cards from the trump suit itself. This resulted in only 20 trump cards, which of course leaves the last two to account for. I find Ross’s proposal that the cards accounted for the concept of dealer’s privilege to be a sound one, although I think the idea occurred to the inventor(s) after the sequence of the trumps in order A had already been determined, though not yet released or published. I cannot escape the conclusion that the cards of the Popesse and the Empress were an afterthought, one that occurred after the sequence of the trump suit had been set. I base this assumption on the following points:
1). The term “papi” very likely relates or was derived from the term, “papi ed imperatori,” or “popes and emperors.” Even if the terms are unrelated, the “papi” would still carry the connotation of male gender, which I bring up because every example we have of Italian decks from the 15th and 16th century shows gendered pairs of rulers (when present). For example, the Popesse and the Empress in the Visconti-Sforza Tarot, the Rosenwald Sheet, and the Budapest Sheet. Even our earliest Bolognese example, the Fine dalla Torre (c. 1660), shows depictions of the Empress and the Popesse, which makes me think that the original symbolic convention for differentiating the papi was gender, and only later, perhaps in the 17th century with Mitelli, did other means of differentiation arise.
2). The trends in further Bolognese differentiation maintained the original symbolic separation of secular and religious power inherent in the figures of the Emperor and the Pope, which suggests that it was part of the original conception. For example, in the 18th century Tarocchino by Al Mondo, housed in the British Museum, the four moors are symbolically situated into two groups by use of a shared symbolic theme that also differentiated them in terms of secular or religious power. The first pair holds either a bow or an arrow, martial instruments, referencing secular concerns. The second pair holds a staff topped with either a moon or a sun, symbols of the celestial sphere, and thereby of the religious realm. In the 19th century, this secular/religious split disappeared, leaving four female rulers, all without any hint of religious symbolism, which were eventually reduced to just three, akin to the three secular rulers of the Minchiate.
3). In those areas that either did not adopt, or else quickly abandoned the originating concept of the papi, these initial symbolic differentiations settled into distinct and separate cards - the Empress and the Emperor and the Popesse and the Pope.
4). Of all the cards in the trump suit, the only two that lack an established artistic or iconographic presence in the 14th century, especially when considered in relation to the remaining twenty cards, are the Popesse and the Empress. The Pope Joan legend carries no weight because her iconographic presence was almost universally ear-marked by the presence of a baby, which is absent from all known depictions of the Popesse. It is also difficult to imagine selecting such a controversial, and seemingly heretical figure on purpose and then failing to add her most distinguishing symbolic attribute. Additionally, since the Tarot increasingly seems to have originated in Florence, the idea that the Popesse may have somehow reflected the personage of Manfreda Visconti fails to hold water. I can think of no relevant depictions of a female Empress, which would have been apparent to 15th century Italians, which would have served as a possible source for that card.
5). Every other card of the trump suit carries a unique symbolic theme. The Popesse and the Empress are the only cards to repeat symbolic themes, mainly those of the Emperor and Pope. And if we posit that the Empress or the Popesse, for example, carry a symbolic theme that differs from the Emperor or Pope, we then have a unique situation among the trump cards: a symbol with no apparent presence or precedent in the artistic milieu of late medieval Italy, which seems to undermine one of the fundamental assumptions regarding the selection of the symbols in the trump suit.
6). The only way in which to add two additional cards to an already completed sequence (here taken at 20 cards), without disturbing its meaning, would have been to duplicate two of those cards and to then place them all within an undifferentiated grouping. Since the Emperor and the Pope already possessed their well-attested and established symbolic attributes, and thereby the split of secular and religious rule, the initial solution may have been to visually differentiate the duplicate cards in a way that maintained the general symbolic attributes of the Emperor and the Pope, without altering their theme. The result was a female Emperor and a female Pope.
7). For those who believe the trump suit to contain a sequential allegory, we might also say that the allegory was established with the original twenty cards, since the duplicate cards do not alter the meaning of the sequence.
Given the preceding information, I find it difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that the Empress and the Popesse were duplicate cards, introduced after the sequence had been determined. The burning question, for me at least, is why the duplicate cards were deemed necessary?
While I agree that it may have been to account for dealer’s privilege, one wonders why this was not a consideration from the beginning?
1). The term “papi” very likely relates or was derived from the term, “papi ed imperatori,” or “popes and emperors.” Even if the terms are unrelated, the “papi” would still carry the connotation of male gender, which I bring up because every example we have of Italian decks from the 15th and 16th century shows gendered pairs of rulers (when present). For example, the Popesse and the Empress in the Visconti-Sforza Tarot, the Rosenwald Sheet, and the Budapest Sheet. Even our earliest Bolognese example, the Fine dalla Torre (c. 1660), shows depictions of the Empress and the Popesse, which makes me think that the original symbolic convention for differentiating the papi was gender, and only later, perhaps in the 17th century with Mitelli, did other means of differentiation arise.
2). The trends in further Bolognese differentiation maintained the original symbolic separation of secular and religious power inherent in the figures of the Emperor and the Pope, which suggests that it was part of the original conception. For example, in the 18th century Tarocchino by Al Mondo, housed in the British Museum, the four moors are symbolically situated into two groups by use of a shared symbolic theme that also differentiated them in terms of secular or religious power. The first pair holds either a bow or an arrow, martial instruments, referencing secular concerns. The second pair holds a staff topped with either a moon or a sun, symbols of the celestial sphere, and thereby of the religious realm. In the 19th century, this secular/religious split disappeared, leaving four female rulers, all without any hint of religious symbolism, which were eventually reduced to just three, akin to the three secular rulers of the Minchiate.
3). In those areas that either did not adopt, or else quickly abandoned the originating concept of the papi, these initial symbolic differentiations settled into distinct and separate cards - the Empress and the Emperor and the Popesse and the Pope.
4). Of all the cards in the trump suit, the only two that lack an established artistic or iconographic presence in the 14th century, especially when considered in relation to the remaining twenty cards, are the Popesse and the Empress. The Pope Joan legend carries no weight because her iconographic presence was almost universally ear-marked by the presence of a baby, which is absent from all known depictions of the Popesse. It is also difficult to imagine selecting such a controversial, and seemingly heretical figure on purpose and then failing to add her most distinguishing symbolic attribute. Additionally, since the Tarot increasingly seems to have originated in Florence, the idea that the Popesse may have somehow reflected the personage of Manfreda Visconti fails to hold water. I can think of no relevant depictions of a female Empress, which would have been apparent to 15th century Italians, which would have served as a possible source for that card.
5). Every other card of the trump suit carries a unique symbolic theme. The Popesse and the Empress are the only cards to repeat symbolic themes, mainly those of the Emperor and Pope. And if we posit that the Empress or the Popesse, for example, carry a symbolic theme that differs from the Emperor or Pope, we then have a unique situation among the trump cards: a symbol with no apparent presence or precedent in the artistic milieu of late medieval Italy, which seems to undermine one of the fundamental assumptions regarding the selection of the symbols in the trump suit.
6). The only way in which to add two additional cards to an already completed sequence (here taken at 20 cards), without disturbing its meaning, would have been to duplicate two of those cards and to then place them all within an undifferentiated grouping. Since the Emperor and the Pope already possessed their well-attested and established symbolic attributes, and thereby the split of secular and religious rule, the initial solution may have been to visually differentiate the duplicate cards in a way that maintained the general symbolic attributes of the Emperor and the Pope, without altering their theme. The result was a female Emperor and a female Pope.
7). For those who believe the trump suit to contain a sequential allegory, we might also say that the allegory was established with the original twenty cards, since the duplicate cards do not alter the meaning of the sequence.
Given the preceding information, I find it difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that the Empress and the Popesse were duplicate cards, introduced after the sequence had been determined. The burning question, for me at least, is why the duplicate cards were deemed necessary?
While I agree that it may have been to account for dealer’s privilege, one wonders why this was not a consideration from the beginning?