Latin Suit Systems

TREVOR DENNING

In his issue of last February, the Editor of Playing-Card World raised the matter of
the names attached by the IPCS to the various western suit-systems. In particular, he
drew attention to the one "which we have elected to call 'Italo-Portuguese'", and
asked whether Minchiate belongs to this system or not. Before this query could be
answered, a more fundamental one had to be settled - namely, what do we mean by
the 'Italo-Portuguese suit-system'? Even those with a long memory of IPCS proceed-
ings will have difficulty in locating a watertight definition of some of these terms, for
although individual writers (including myself) have from time to time summarised
them in print, it is questionable whether any 'official' version exists which can be
relied upon for arbitration when doubts arise. Furthermore, the naming of such
groups is fraught with difficulties, and, as will be shown later, the names chosen
offer imperfect clues to the histories they conceal.
The present discussion arose from Minchiate being said to have 'smooth' batons
while others in the 'Italo-Portuguese' category were 'jagged' or 'knotty'. I submitted
a reply to Playing-Card World which attempts to resolve the question, pointing out
that although we have granted the Latin suit-system the luxury of sub-divisions based
on the position of its symbols over and above their identities, it would be taking
things to absurd lengths to create yet more categories arising from variations in their
texture. This was not to belittle the importance of such details, but to insist that they
fall well outside the realm of suit-systems as such and into that of individual patterns.
Because words are not the best way to describe graphic detail, I provided a diagram
to show the arrangements on which the Latin suit-systems are based. Plain black
lines are used with the object of confining the illustration strictly to this one point
(Fig.l).

20
 Briefly, within the 'Latin' system, the most commonly quoted division is that
between the so-called 'Spanish' and 'Italian' types, usually defined in terms of the
Swords and Batons of the first being laid out individually and the others crossed or
interlaced (with curved Swords). This distinction is well-known because it can be
observed in contemporary cards as well as in ancient ones (see Fig.2). However, it is
only a rough and ready formula and it bristles with exceptions which illustrate how
difficult it is to frame definitions or to choose names which are beyond reproach.
Crossed suits, for example, are not unique to cards of the Italian persuasion, and
indeed to confuse matters further the majority of modern 'Italian' cards conform to
what we have defined as 'Spanish'. That is because Italy in its present form is a rela-
tively modern concept, much of its territory having previously been part of Spain.

2 a (left): Spanish clubs (c.1800) familiar today,

b (centre): Typical Italian clubs (c.1900) found in parts of Italy,
c (right): From an Italian minchiate pack of c.l 830
Overall, the Latin suit-system houses two further groups which fall outside the defi-
nitions quoted above. One of these is 'Archaic Italian', in which the Swords remain
curved but do not cross. The other has been called 'Italo-Portuguese' and has crossed
swords, though straight not curved. The last variation found its way to several
Mediterranean areas and it was not until its localised dual name had been assigned to it
that its earliest examples were found to have come from Spain. The majority of the
illustrations here are from packs of that general type. It is the suit arrangement most
commonly associated with cards of the 'dragon' pattern, and few accounts of it can
resist going on to describe dragons, maids, and other fascinating details which, strictly
speaking, are not part of suit-systems at all. Even if the intention is to imply that this
suit system exists solely for that particular pattern, that claim too is found to be false.
All this goes to show that the nationalistic labels we have applied to basic groups of
playing-cards must not be taken very seriously. Secondly, it is all too easy to blur the
edges between suit-systems and the individual patterns residing within them. If I have
succeeded in showing that suit-systems are differentiated by the identity and position-
ing of their symbols alone, perhaps it is now possible to discuss the more intricate
21
details of those symbols without threatening the integrity of suit-systems themselves.

3 a (left) Catalan 'Moorish' 2 of clubs, possibly 14th century.

b (centre): Italian-type 10 of clubs, 15—16th century.
c (right): Typical Italian club arrangement - 18th century, but also found today,
e.g. in Tarot de Marseille.

As it was playing-card Batons which sparked this discussion, I decided to look at

different examples of them side by side. This would make it easier to decide whether
the terms 'smooth', 'jagged', 'knotty', etc. really sum up their differences, and might
provide a suitable context in which to detect whether significant family relationships
can be seen to exist. I have to confess that I have ended up no more enlightened than

4 a (left): (said to be) Portugal, 19th century,

b (centre): Rome, 1613.
c (right): S.A. Müller & Cie, Switzerland; tarot, c.1950.

22
before, though the illustrations may enable others to detect information which has
escaped me.
If clubs had to be divided into two distinct categories, 'smooth' and 'jagged' do
not seem to be the most obvious choice of adjectives by which to do it. If anything,
a more fundamental distinction exists between those drawings in which the clubs
appear to have been freshly hewn from a tree and those which have been fashioned
on a lathe or otherwise transformed from their natural state. Unfortunately, some
fall between the two.
There are those in which a 'natural' lopped branch has been formalised to
become something else - lozenge-shaped tops like those in the Roman example in
Fig.4 also appear in the cards of the Infirrera type and those in the Pitre Museum.
Likewise, the distinctive clubs associated with the earliest 'dragon' cards (Figs 4a,
5a, 5b) taper to thin handles with such regularly spaced knobs that they appear to
have been lathe-turned (or could the reference be to the natural joints in a growth
such as bamboo?). A general point to note is that the type of club used in numeral
cards often differs from that found in the courts of the same pack.

5 a (left): Francisco Flores, Spain, c. 1560.

b (centre): Japan, c.1570.
c (right): Japan, c.1570.
A common feature of 'natural' clubs, persisting until modern times, is the
formalised 'heel' symbol, used to suggest that a branch has been torn off at that
point. The earliest example shown here, from the mid-16th century, is seen in Fig.6a
beside two others from the century which followed. In all three, the 'torn' effect
occurs at both ends of the stave*. In other clubs appearing during this period (Figs
5a, 5b) the effect is confined to the head only. From almost a century later are three
examples (Fig.7) historically related to the previous ones but this time all sprouting
flowers from their heads. (These flowers are distinct from those commonly decorat-
ing the empty spaces in such cards.) Fig.8 shows 19th and 20th century examples of
cards which have returned to 'natural' clubs yet which are smooth, showing little
signs of the timberman's tearing or lopping.
 Surveying this range of clubs spanning almost seven centuries, the most conspicu-
ous contrast remains between the 'laid out' modern Spanish arrangement (2a) and all
the others - which are crossed. Even this is a poor guide to their 'nationality', since

6 a (left): Provence, c. 1545.

b (centre): Ciliberto, ?Sicily, 1597.
c (right): Sicily, 1639.
some of the crossed ones originated in Spain and, as I remarked earlier, those con-
forming to the 'Spanish' arrangement are prevalent in Italy. As for their precise
shapes or textures, it would be difficult to divide them into less than six basic types,
and those would not be easy to explain in terms of simple genealogical development.

a (left): A.lnfirrera ?Malta, 1693.

b (centre): a similar pack, end of 17th century.
c (right): Japan, c. 1790.

7/1
Most difficult of all, I think, would be the original objective of placing them into
two categories depending on whether they are 'smooth' or not, and I think the visual
evidence now shows this to be a fruitless aim to pursue.
Even if my own findings appear disappointingly negative, the illustrations remain
a means of making visual comparisons between a wide range of clubs. Perhaps other
observations will notice significant connections which I have missed.
* This device also appeared on the club or stave held by the English jack of Hearts into the early 19th
century, after which it changed into a leaf.

8 a (left): H. Bosio, Genoa, c. 1840.

b (centre): Real Fabrica, Lisbon, c.1850.
c (right): Campione, Sicily, c.l950.

Source References to Cards Illustrated

2a, 2b, 2c: author's collection.
3a: WINTLE, The Playing-Card, Vol.XV, No.4.
3b, 3c: KAPLAN, The Encyclopaedia of Tarot, Vol.II.
4a: HOFFMANN, Die Welt der Spielkarte.
4b: SCHREIBER, Playing Cards... (Brit. Museum).
4c: (maker) S.A. MÜLLER & Cie, Schaffhausen.
5a: DENNING, Spanish Playing-Cards.
5b: Kobe Museum (Japan).
5c: Tekisui Museum (Japan).
6a: Deutsches Spielkarten Museum, Leinfelden; Inv. No. 1288.
6b: Sylvia Mann's collection.
6c: DUMMETT, The Game of Tarot.
7a: Bib. Nationale, Paris.
7b: USPCC collection, Cincinnati.
7c: MANN, All Cards on the Table.
8a, 8b, 8c: author's collection.
25