22 Revelations' Chapters

Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Tarot Special Interest > Tarot History & Development > 22 Revelations' Chapters
Log in
View Full Version : 22 Revelations' Chapters
BemboBimbo
10-08-2005, 01:56
Is there any information on correspondences between the 22 Trumps and 22 Revelations' chapters? I know that many images
and concepts are undoubtedly from Revelations, but I mean specifically chapter-by-chapter, trump-by-trump correlations.
Some require tedious mental acrobatics, but others are too brazen to ignore: Chap. 1, John as Magician introducing his
vision; Chap. 20 is the Last Judgement; Chap. 21 is the New Jerusalem as Bride; and others somewhat more subtle yet powerful.
Bembo Bimbo
Huck
10-08-2005, 03:27
The interest in the time, when the Relevations were written, in the number 22 was already existent. The Hebrew Alphabet
had 22 letters. This interest was somehow manifested by a specific psalm, called the golden AbC, in which each passage
started with a different letter according to the row of the alphabet.
The revelations were a book of great interest in 14th/15th century. The Visconti library around 1420
http://trionfi.com/0/l/0701/
had about 1000 books and was the second greatest library in Europe. It had about 20 "Revelations" - so it definitely was
really a favoured topic at the relevant time, and really also at the right place, that's in Milan - where very old Trionfi
decks were produced.
Nonetheless there are various possible reasons, why the number 22 finally was chosen as number of the Major Arcana.
22 - is a number in the dice-game, which has 21 possibilities in a throw with 2 dices. This is the reason, which most
researchers seem to prefer
22 - letters has the Hebrew alphabet - this hypothesis was a time long very prefered, and it somehow also presents the
Revelation-thesis ... now it looks a little bit deranged in its importance, that the earlier suggestions of Eliphas Levi
and Golden Dawn were a little blue-eyed.
22 - years Galeazzo Maria Sforza was in the year 1466, when his father died and he became duke of Milano. 22 years old
was Maria Bianca Sforza, Galeazzo's mother, when her father, Filippo Maria Visconti died, in the year 1447.
Filippo Visconti is a "great man" in the theories about the origin of Tarot, see:
http://trionfi.com/0/b/
Bianca Maria is a "great Tarot woman" in the early documents, in which the name "Trionfi" appeared or cards appeared(1425
as babe, 1.1.1441 in preparation of a marriage, Oktober 1441 as bride in a marriage, 1452 in a letter, which signifies
her as "Trionfi-deck-commissioner".)
http://trionfi.com/0/d/
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/00b
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/08
22 years old was Galeazzo Maria's father, the famous condottieri Francesco Sforza, when his father Muzio Attendola, himself
also a famous condottieri and a legend, drowned in a river near Aquila.
So in 1466, three accidently 22's in near context to each other (father-mother-sun) run together, and Galeazzo Maria on
his step "out of youth" to become a mature "duke of Milano", could see them all - and was personally involved.
Later historians stated, that Galeazzo was very superstitious. Could he haven't seen this with all the astrologers around
him, who thought about such details?
The Visconti-Sforza's became famous as Trionfi card producers. If the Tarot already had 22 cards in this moment of time,
the familiary 22-accident would be really crazy. Then Francesco Sforza - a man who was known as not very superstitious
- would have died on a sort of "playing card command". This seems not really realistical.
Much more likely it is, that this relation of four "22's" at one spot evolved, cause there is a hidden logic in it. Which
means: The familiary Tarot got 22 cards, cause Galeazzo Maria had this crazy accident of three "22's" before in the year
1466.
Galeazzo Maria was rich enough and had influence enough to cause that.
Trionfi decks existed already, and we know from the document of 1457, that Galeazzo Maria played with them, but these
decks are reported to have 70 cards, not 78.
In general Tarot history - just at this moment - some people don't stop to speculate, that the origin of the Tarot in
a 22-trumps-version (or 21 trumps + fool) took place 1420 - 1440 and that it existed already, although we at trionfi.com
had made it obvious that not a single document gives really evidence for this assumption, but in the contrary all points
to decks with a 5x14-structure or 5x16 or other creative compositions, and between them a 4x14+22-version (standard Tarot)
has the quality "not detectable".
In the contrary we offer the suggestion that Galeazzo Maria ordered a deck with the mentioned 4x14+22-structure in the
year 1468 at he occasion of his marriage with Bona of Savoia. A provisional page to this:
http://trionfi.com/0/g/61/
This "reconstructed, speculated" deck in our opinion was in choice of the motifs and inner structure very near to that,
what later evolved as Tarot, however, some details were different: it had no devil and also likely no tower. Instead of
the devil it likely had a Visconti snake, that is a card with familiary heraldic.
Returning back to your question .. why got the Tarot 22 trumps.
Galeazzo's action ... in the case, that we've analysed the historical conditions correctly ... alone doesn't explain the
"why" completely. Galeazzo Maria could make a creative impulse by inventing this form of deck, but others must have taken
the proposal and imitated it, so that the "successful farspread Tarot" could get reality. And the collective player, who
accepted and adapted the game, possibly modificating it by new productions, surely was not specifically interested in
Galeazzo's story, why he choose 22 trumps or 21 trumps and a fool.
These persons were in their decision for acceptance probably much nearer to the other explanations, that is 21 possibilities
of the roll the 2 dices, 22 chapters of the relevation, 22 letters of Hebre alphabet, probably each of the factor played
a role in the "acceptance and imitation process".
So all suggestions to the "why" of the 22 finally run together in one process, each of the answers is "somehow right",
as not only the inventor is of part of the process, but also the public, which agrees occasionally to an invention - and
mostly disagrees .... another story, about which lots of game inventors could sing complex aries.
nigromancer700
10-08-2005, 07:19
If I remember rightly it was Eliphas levi who first posited a connection between the 22 chapters of the Revelation of
St John and the 22 tarot trumps - I think that is really a coincidence which Levi made the most of ( as with the 22 Hebrew
letters).
However the final trumps are heavily eschatological in nature so it is not at all unreasonable to say that they have a
relation to the Apocalyptic vision, the final Judgement. Trump XX illustrates Corinthians’ 15:52 : ‘Behold, I shew you
a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.’ Amid a blaze of
radiance the great archangel Michael, the ‘Arch-Priest of Heaven’, sounds his trumpet, waking the dead who rise naked
from their tombs, as it is written: ‘For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality’
And then trump XXI which is either Christ in Glory surrounded by the tetramorphs/beasts of the evangelists or the New
Heaven and New Earth, the Mundus Archetypus, the Platonic Realm of Ideal being, the City of God, Sion.
best,
Nigel
Fulgour
11-08-2005, 01:48
Amid a blaze of radiance the great archangel Michael, the ‘Arch-Priest of Heaven’, sounds his trumpet, waking the dead
who rise naked from their tombs...Hello Nigel. Excuse me, but you link Michael with this quotation,
and yes I agree with this being the Angel seen on Judgement.
You may find yourself among a minority viewpoint. :) Welcome!
Parzival
11-08-2005, 03:10
Paul Huson, in his Mystical Origins of the Tarot, indicates that the "cross- emblazoned banner floating from the trumpet"
identifies the angel as Michael. Usually, however, Michael is identified by his scales of justice or by his spear with
which he slays the dragon. Here, he is the Awakener of the soul into the higher world or the Transformer of the earth-bound
consciousness into the "cosmic consciousness." Is the image only biblically eschatological to the Renaissance originators,
or Neoplatonic as well, about the Christian Omega as well as the Neoplatonic shift from lower to higher planes of existence?
nigromancer700
11-08-2005, 08:46
Fulgour, Frank et al. hello,
Well in medieval angelology St Michael was known as the 'Arch-Priest of Heaven' seperating the souls from the bodies and
offering them up as a holy oblation to the Most High as well as presiding over the weighing of souls with his scales as
in the carvings in Chartres Cathedral and elsewhere. Interesting too that in Greek Christianity the Archangel Michael
assimilated the figure of Hermes (Thoth-Hermes presiding over the weighing of the heart?).
Anyway as regards the eschatological mysteries of Trump XX, interpreted at the anagogical layer of deeper esoteric meanings
let's recall what the alchemist Basil Valentine in the fourth of his Twelve Keys says:
‘At the end of the world, the world shall be judged by fire, and all those things that God has made of nothing shall
by fire be reduced to ashes, from which ashes the Phoenix is to produce her young…After the conflagration, there shall
be formed a new heaven and a new earth, and the new man will be more noble in his glorified state than he was before’.
Valentine goes on to use the simile of glass being produced by great heat from sand and ashes, ’ripened by fire’, to
allude to the ‘great mystery’ of the immortal ‘glorified body’ which ‘resembles a crystal stone’.
Writing in 1336 Petrus Bonus of Ferrara in his work ‘Pretiosa Margarita Novella’ states that:
‘The ancient alchemists knew through their art about the approaching end of the world and the resurrection of the dead…The
body becomes totally glorified and incorruptible, incredibly subtle, penetrating every density. Its nature will be both
spiritual and bodily. Ancient philosophers have seen the Last Judgement in this Art…’
cordially,
Nigel
Rosanne
11-08-2005, 15:22
Interesting that I always thought that the Angel on the Judgement card, was
Midrash/Metatron who assists those who 'cross over'. So after this thread I asked my mother who named my brother Michael.
She said that God rewarded Michael by allowing him to receive souls as they entered Heaven. God also allowed Archangel
Michael to blow the Heavenly Trumpet and raise the Banner on the Day of Judgement. The biblical references are Psalms
62.9 and Daniel 5.27.
I found all the posts fascinating on this thread and especially loved all the correspondances and History from Huck. Thanks
BemboBimbo for starting the thread. ~~Rosanne
Namadev
12-08-2005, 02:31
Hi
Interesting post .
Another theory would be that Pythagorean mathematics would have given the final state of the 22, leading to a predominant
78 structure in the late second half on the XVth century.
22 is a pentagonal number divided into :

1+4+7+10=22
Specific data is available on : LTarot.
LTarot-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Alain Bougearel
The interest in the time, when the Relevations were written, in the number 22 was already existent. The Hebrew Alphabet
had 22 letters. This interest was somehow manifested by a specific psalm, called the golden AbC, in which each passage
started with a different letter according to the row of the alphabet.
The revelations were a book of great interest in 14th/15th century. The Visconti library around 1420
http://trionfi.com/0/l/0701/
had about 1000 books and was the second greatest library in Europe. It had about 20 "Revelations" - so it definitely was
really a favoured topic at the relevant time, and really also at the right place, that's in Milan - where very old Trionfi
decks were produced.
Nonetheless there are various possible reasons, why the number 22 finally was chosen as number of the Major Arcana.
22 - is a number in the dice-game, which has 21 possibilities in a throw with 2 dices. This is the reason, which most
researchers seem to prefer
22 - letters has the Hebrew alphabet - this hypothesis was a time long very prefered, and it somehow also presents the
Revelation-thesis ... now it looks a little bit deranged in its importance, that the earlier suggestions of Eliphas Levi
and Golden Dawn were a little blue-eyed.
22 - years Galeazzo Maria Sforza was in the year 1466, when his father died and he became duke of Milano. 22 years old
was Maria Bianca Sforza, Galeazzo's mother, when her father, Filippo Maria Visconti died, in the year 1447.
Filippo Visconti is a "great man" in the theories about the origin of Tarot, see:
Bianca Maria is a "great Tarot woman" in the early documents, in which the name "Trionfi" appeared or cards appeared(1425
as babe, 1.1.1441 in preparation of a marriage, Oktober 1441 as bride in a marriage, 1452 in a letter, which signifies
her as "Trionfi-deck-commissioner".)
http://trionfi.com/0/d/
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/00b
http://trionfi.com/0/e2/08
22 years old was Galeazzo Maria's father, the famous condottieri Francesco Sforza, when his father Muzio Attendola, himself
also a famous condottieri and a legend, drowned in a river near Aquila.
So in 1466, three accidently 22's in near context to each other (father-mother-sun) run together, and Galeazzo Maria on
his step "out of youth" to become a mature "duke of Milano", could see them all - and was personally involved.
Later historians stated, that Galeazzo was very superstitious. Could he haven't seen this with all the astrologers around
him, who thought about such details?
The Visconti-Sforza's became famous as Trionfi card producers. If the Tarot already had 22 cards in this moment of time,
the familiary 22-accident would be really crazy. Then Francesco Sforza - a man who was known as not very superstitious
- would have died on a sort of "playing card command". This seems not really realistical.
Much more likely it is, that this relation of four "22's" at one spot evolved, cause there is a hidden logic in it. Which
means: The familiary Tarot got 22 cards, cause Galeazzo Maria had this crazy accident of three "22's" before in the year
1466.
Galeazzo Maria was rich enough and had influence enough to cause that.
Trionfi decks existed already, and we know from the document of 1457, that Galeazzo Maria played with them, but these
decks are reported to have 70 cards, not 78.
In general Tarot history - just at this moment - some people don't stop to speculate, that the origin of the Tarot in
a 22-trumps-version (or 21 trumps + fool) took place 1420 - 1440 and that it existed already, although we at trionfi.com
had made it obvious that not a single document gives really evidence for this assumption, but in the contrary all points
to decks with a 5x14-structure or 5x16 or other creative compositions, and between them a 4x14+22-version (standard Tarot)
has the quality "not detectable".
In the contrary we offer the suggestion that Galeazzo Maria ordered a deck with the mentioned 4x14+22-structure in the
year 1468 at he occasion of his marriage with Bona of Savoia. A provisional page to this:
This "reconstructed, speculated" deck in our opinion was in choice of the motifs and inner structure very near to that,
what later evolved as Tarot, however, some details were different: it had no devil and also likely no tower. Instead of
the devil it likely had a Visconti snake, that is a card with familiary heraldic.
Returning back to your question .. why got the Tarot 22 trumps.
Galeazzo's action ... in the case, that we've analysed the historical conditions correctly ... alone doesn't explain the
"why" completely. Galeazzo Maria could make a creative impulse by inventing this form of deck, but others must have taken
the proposal and imitated it, so that the "successful farspread Tarot" could get reality. And the collective player, who
accepted and adapted the game, possibly modificating it by new productions, surely was not specifically interested in
Galeazzo's story, why he choose 22 trumps or 21 trumps and a fool.
These persons were in their decision for acceptance probably much nearer to the other explanations, that is 21 possibilities
of the roll the 2 dices, 22 chapters of the relevation, 22 letters of Hebre alphabet, probably each of the factor played
a role in the "acceptance and imitation process".
So all suggestions to the "why" of the 22 finally run together in one process, each of the answers is "somehow right",
as not only the inventor is of part of the process, but also the public, which agrees occasionally to an invention - and
mostly disagrees .... another story, about which lots of game inventors could sing complex aries.
BemboBimbo
17-08-2005, 01:18
Thank you, Rosanne. And thanks to everyone - I have also found these posts very informative and helpful. However, no one
has yet answered my original, and central question - has their been any research done, equating each of the 22 Revelations'
chapters to the corresponding numbered Trumps? I realize the 22 issue is very complicated, and that Revelations used 22
chapters based upon the 22 Hebrew letters. But that sort of begs my question.
Thanks,
Bembo Bimbo
Rosanne wrote:
... I found all the posts fascinating on this thread and especially loved all the correspondances and History from Huck.
Thanks BemboBimbo for starting the thread. ~~Rosanne[/QUOTE]
Huck
17-08-2005, 03:35
Thank you, Rosanne. And thanks to everyone - I have also found these posts very informative and helpful. However, no one
has yet answered my original, and central question - has their been any research done, equating each of the 22 Revelations'
chapters to the corresponding numbered Trumps? I realize the 22 issue is very complicated, and that Revelations used 22
chapters based upon the 22 Hebrew letters. But that sort of begs my question.
Thanks,
Bembo Bimbo
I understood, that this was your question. But this your question runs back - for logical reasons - to the question, who
and how Tarot developed. And how and why it got 22 trumps. If it hadn't 22 trumps, your question of a concrete precise
relation between sequence of Tarot cards and sequence of the chapters of revelation wouldn't exist.
To the question how Tarot developed there are in the moment two answers, exaggerated presented as
A. "it dropped from heaven as a unique idea"

B. "it developed in various steps -an evolutionary process with many changes"
The possibility A. leaves the chance, that somebody took the older book of relevation and formed in view of the chapters
the Tarot iconography. In this case the research, that you requested, might have taken place and had reasonable chances
to succeed with its research idea, finding a key or some indices, which make a connection look reliable.
The possibility B. doesn't leave to much chances, the research might have taken place, but actually, whatever the result
was and how good the author felt with it, the conditions to understand something really, are not given.
To your question, if this research have taken place ... I would say yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, 100x and more ... cause
I guess, that surely a lot of people took the book of revelation, looked in it and tried to find a Tarot connection and
said, "I don't see it". Also there were others, which a little more energetic, tried to identify Tarot iconography in
renaissance bookpainting productions to the Apocalypse, but these also came to the insight: "I don't see it." ... I do
know not, that somebody did came to a positive answer and even if he would say so, that "he found", I wouldn't easily
believe him, as I also took the book of relevation and I also looked for apocalyptic Tarot iconography.
It's undenyable, that single Tarot-motifs were used in apocalyptic context - but not all and not as a precise mirrored
sequence
From the above mentioned possibilities A. and B. I personally prefer possibility B. and this doesn't give the
relevation-thesis a great chance to have had reality in 15th century.
See: http://trionfi.com/0/f
Btw: There were more than one sequence of Tarot cards in 15th century. If the relevation-thesis would be correct, it can
satisfy only one of the Tarot-sequences.
venicebard
17-08-2005, 17:59
Huck, your long bit is interesting history mixed with erroneous conception based on an understandable blind-spot: your
theory of Visconti origin of tarot leaves two unanswered questions of great import according to what can be deduced
concerning tarot’s structure and its individual cards’ designs, by which I mean Marseille and Cary-sheet types (block-cut),
which I take as an established norm that must have had a period of development (in Provence?) of the occasional variants
within the traditional meanings (LeDiable, LeMonde) by the time the Cary sheet (circa 1500?) or even the earlier hand-painted
ones appear, the commonest type by its nature disappearing, being most replaceable. The questions are:
(1.) What evidence is there of British bardic knowledge there at that time (I know Arthurian lore did penetrate the region)?
(2) What evidence is there of confluence of Judaic esotericism WITH that knowledge to produce such extraordinary embodiment
of seemingly ancient tradition forcing itself to the surface of society as mere ‘cardplay’ yet by its pattern betraying
deeply powerful esoteric roots?
The fact that I can demonstrate the basis on which these questions are asked does not, I am sure, make them sound any
less strange to any not privy to that demonstration. I throw them out anyway just in case some answer may actually materialize,
for which I would thank the god Luck/Lugh for prompting said tongue.
As of now, much as I would love to see that you had pinned down the decade tarot (as I define it) emerged, I have not
as yet seen anything to dissuade me from a Provencal origin: it embodies clearly definable reconstruction of a very old
tradition of letter- and number-symbolism made possible only by studying two decayed surviving relics of it, bardic
(Irish/Welsh) and Judaic (‘Work of the Chariot’, Jewish-Gnostic). Today we have an added tool (since these two have
decayed even further) in surviving fragments of the previous reconstruction, Qabbalah, as well as some several alphabets
of related traditions that can be studied for their pictographic iconography: tifinag, Libyan, Meroitic, and the Germanic
runes, these last based on Keltic tree-letters.
Now if you could turn up concrete evidence that the new flowering of both Jewish esotericism and British poetic lore that
graced both 12th-century Provence and the Tarot of Marseilles had its germ slightly earlier in NW Italy, or more to the
point that the fruit of that flowering – bardo-Qabbalistic Gnosis, for want of a better term – was brought to NW Italy...
leaving some actual relic of its arrival sufficient to ‘take the heat off’ Provence as its probable place-of-germination...
you would have something indeed!
ON TO REVELATIONS ITSELF
Now, to the question commencing this thread. Let’s consider things in some detail and make a study of our own, what say
you, in honor of Isaac Newton’s deep interest in it.
I was struck by the theme of winds at the outset of Ch.7: VII LeChariot represents wind-in-one’s-face upon forward motion
(in part deducible from Sefer Yetzirah). Yet Ch.4 starts out with the theme of the door, meaning Hebrew dalet (‘door’),
whose actual trump though (by bardic numbering) is XII LePendu. A very pronounced NON-fit would be Ch.6, to my ear, as
it appears to reflect neither VI L’Amoureux’s amity nor vau’s and-ness (conjoining). And Ch.8 makes for harsh ‘justice’,
although one might make a case for some connexion to chet.
So far, it seems uneven, leading me to postpone further study till the morrow. But I shall return, to make renewed onslaught
with ‘energy reinforcements’. Glad to finally be driven to follow in Newton’s wake (we're in good company).
Huck
18-08-2005, 02:40
venice,
Huck, your long bit is interesting history mixed with erroneous conception based on an understandable blind-spot: your
theory of Visconti origin of tarot leaves two unanswered questions of great import according to what can be deduced
concerning tarot’s structure and its individual cards’ designs, by which I mean Marseille and Cary-sheet types (block-cut),
which I take as an established norm that must have had a period of development (in Provence?) of the occasional variants
within the traditional meanings (LeDiable, LeMonde) by the time the Cary sheet (circa 1500?) or even the earlier hand-painted
ones appear, the commonest type by its nature disappearing, being most replaceable.
I don't know, if you're aware of the 5x14-theory ... it explains (or tries to argue), that the 14 Bembo cards (as part
of the socalled Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck) are as part of a deck with a 5x14-structure in use (perhaps together with
other games with other iconographical content) at least till 1457 (when in a Ferrarese document "70 cards" are noted).
Till this time the number "22" is never noted in context to playing card decks or documents, also the structure of older
decks doesn't give a definite clue, that "22" trumps (or 21 + Fool) are used.
The theory suggests in detail, that a "good opportunity" exists in the year 1468, when the number of the trumps might
have been raised to 21+Fool - the opportunity is the marriage of Galeazzo Sforza and Bona of Savoyen.
In provisional form the theory is given at

http://trionfi.com/0/f/
and also the suggestion to 1468 (also provisional) at:
The pages are provisional, as the research is still running.
In context to this theory the question, that you above raise, looks different. It's for instance so, that the numerology
of the Marseille is part of the 5x14-deck, of course only in rudimentary form, as the deck has only 14 trumps - by this
the 5x14-deck can be interpreted as the mother-deck, from which the Marseilled deck and order developed.
The questions are:
(1.) What evidence is there of British bardic knowledge there at that time (I know Arthurian lore did penetrate the region)?
(2) What evidence is there of confluence of Judaic esotericism WITH that knowledge to produce such extraordinary embodiment
of seemingly ancient tradition forcing itself to the surface of society as mere ‘cardplay’ yet by its pattern betraying
deeply powerful esoteric roots?
The fact that I can demonstrate the basis on which these questions are asked does not, I am sure, make them sound any
less strange to any not privy to that demonstration. I throw them out anyway just in case some answer may actually materialize,
for which I would thank the god Luck/Lugh for prompting said tongue.
As of now, much as I would love to see that you had pinned down the decade tarot (as I define it) emerged, I have not
as yet seen anything to dissuade me from a Provencal origin: it embodies clearly definable reconstruction of a very old
tradition of letter- and number-symbolism made possible only by studying two decayed surviving relics of it, bardic
(Irish/Welsh) and Judaic (‘Work of the Chariot’, Jewish-Gnostic). Today we have an added tool (since these two have
decayed even further) in surviving fragments of the previous reconstruction, Qabbalah, as well as some several alphabets
of related traditions that can be studied for their pictographic iconography: tifinag, Libyan, Meroitic, and the Germanic
runes, these last based on Keltic tree-letters.
Now if you could turn up concrete evidence that the new flowering of both Jewish esotericism and British poetic lore that
graced both 12th-century Provence and the Tarot of Marseilles had its germ slightly earlier in NW Italy, or more to the
point that the fruit of that flowering – bardo-Qabbalistic Gnosis, for want of a better term – was brought to NW Italy...
leaving some actual relic of its arrival sufficient to ‘take the heat off’ Provence as its probable place-of-germination...
you would have something indeed!
I guess, that these questions only make really sense, when the deck had from its beginning 22 cards. This seems to be
- in the light of the 5x14-theory - not likely.
If you wish to save the basic idea of these questions, you should think about the possibility, if somebody transformed
some existing Tarot (Trionfi card) iconography to something, which made it look similar to that what you interprete as
bardic tradition or "bardo-Qabbalistic Gnosis" - just my neutral advice, as this possibility simply exist ... but I
personally simply see a "normal" Italian development, of course taking some influences from outside.
Regards
venicebard
18-08-2005, 04:33
Huck, thanx for receiving my challenge in the friendly spirit in which it was intended.
I don't know, if you're aware of the 5x14-theory ... it explains (or tries to argue), that the 14 Bembo cards (as part
of the socalled Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck) are as part of a deck with a 5x14-structure in use (perhaps together with
other games with other iconographical content) at least till 1457 (when in a Ferrarese document "70 cards" are noted).
Till this time the number "22" is never noted in context to playing card decks or documents, also the structure of older
decks doesn't give a definite clue, that "22" trumps (or 21 + Fool) are used.This seems to me to point more to the 22
being of foreign (i.e. Provencal) origin, as does the apparent jump Provence got on paper manufacture (over the rest of
Christian Europe). The greater turmoil on many levels in Provence can explain, methinks, the general lack of physical
evidence for this (but the intricate, amazing structure of the Marseilles remains).
If you wish to save the basic idea of these questions, you should think about the possibility, if somebody transformed
some existing Tarot (Trionfi card) iconography to something, which made it look similar to that what you interprete as
bardic tradition or "bardo-Qabbalistic Gnosis" - just my neutral advice, as this possibility simply exist ... I've thought
of something similar, that the Marseilles designs evolved over time, with gradual refinement in terms of detail. But the
main point where you and I differ is that I see the basic pattern of 22 as having had a period of evolution preceding
the earliest extant examples. In other words, even if refinement over time occurred (and I do not by any means rule this
out completely, though it does create difficulties), the basic 22 categories seem well-established by the time of the
versions we have. Difference of perspective.
Of course there were other forms of cards around: some argue that the pips and an all-male court came from the East originally
and were then altered, and so on. But the one amazing structure (that dwarfs the others) remains, a gem in the mud of
evidence's dirth.
Huck
18-08-2005, 08:27
Huck, thanx for receiving my challenge in the friendly spirit in which it was intended.
No problem. We do research, and that's a constant meeting with a foreign opinion. And communication is really difficult,
especially when the topic is complicated and often accompanied by "emotions", which often result, when researchers are
very engaged.
This seems to me to point more to the 22 being of foreign (i.e. Provencal) origin, as does the apparent jump Provence
got on paper manufacture (over the rest of Christian Europe). The greater turmoil on many levels in Provence can explain,
methinks, the general lack of physical evidence for this (but the intricate, amazing structure of the Marseilles remains).
I've thought of something similar, that the Marseilles designs evolved over time, with gradual refinement in terms of
detail. But the main point where you and I differ is that I see the basic pattern of 22 as having had a period of evolution
preceding the earliest extant examples. In other words, even if refinement over time occurred (and I do not by any means
rule this out completely, though it does create difficulties), the basic 22 categories seem well-established by the time
of the versions we have. Difference of perspective.
We have no difficulty with any old "22", which are real and in existence much longer than Tarot. And if you don't believe,
you may study
http://trionfi.com/tarot/new-themes/sepher-yetzirah/
which on first view may look strange to you, but if you try to understand, you will see, that there is a indeed a very
old "22" in it and indeed also the simple 21 combinations of the throw of two dices.
And if you've further interests just in these specific points, you may read an almost interesting discussion between "Pan"
and me a longer time ago in the thread "chess and tarot" here in the Forum
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=16731&page=1&pp=10&highlight=chess
I can't help, you've to read the complete thread and read in the dynamic of it, leaving that out, what doesn't focus the
theme.
But all these old "22"'s doesn't change, that there is in iconographical nearness, also in nearness of time, locality
and social conditions nothing nearer to the desired "end result" "fixation of 22 trumps in a specific order with specific
iconographcal details" (as it is found in Marseille Tarot later) as just this 20 trumps in the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-deck,
so, when you're not interested to follow blind suggestions like a 22 here and a 22 there and wonderful, another one, you've
to look at this deck and understand, what's in it. And just that does the 5x14-theory, which is a result of this study.
And if you know about something, what in all these above noted conditions is nearer, there is an easy way: Just state
what.
Celtic bards are not near, when 15th century is connected. Also a French production is not near, when Italy knows 300
and more old cards of 15th century and a relevant number of documents and French more or less none - or only documents,
in which from Italian side it becomes clear: in France was also something - as in the case of the Michelino-deck , which
is mainly known, cause we made a big and thick internet page about it (on the base of the work of Franco Pratesi, who
should be mentioned here).
inclusive a translation from a letter and a small "oldest Tarot book" from Latin to English (translation by Ross Gregory
Caldwell)
http://trionfi.com/0/b/10/
http://trionfi.com/0/b/11/
by which it becomes clear: there wandered a strange sort of Trionfi deck to France.
Recently it was stated, not here, but in inner circles, that specific cards, the socalled Goldschmidt + Guildhall cards,
came from "West of Milan" and the whole suggestion has chances to be true, also by us.
You can see the cards, the article is in preparation and incomplete
http://trionfi.com/0/c/50/
Also recently we did a research about a French Feast of Fools, which might have had a very small influence, but possible
fine influence, on the Frerrarese court, where at 1.1.1441 a possible deciding situation is recorded. We did all what
was possible to make this point clear. It's only a suspicion ...
http://trionfi.com/0/d/91/
http://trionfi.com/0/d/93/
It's just matrial to a research, not a finished article. We're used to the condition to develop ideas, which possibly
later become important.
So nobody has an interest to exclude French influence, if anything has "real" good arguments ... .but naturally no researcher
has interest to follow vague speculations, which break in pieces, if you look longer than 5 minutes on them. You simply
find nothing, where you can't find nothing, that's a natural
condition in life. If the easter-egg is not there, it's not there. If you start to lie to yourself, cause you've too much
"favoured" theories ... you're lost. It's not easy to recover from "favoured theories". Always you look on the wrong places.
Of course there were other forms of cards around: some argue that the pips and an all-male court came from the East originally
and were then altered, and so on. But the one amazing structure (that dwarfs the others) remains, a gem in the mud of
evidence's dirth.
What is a "gem" for you? Has it similarity to a specific mathematical form? Gems often has geometrical structures. Is
it the Marseille deck? Or is it similar to what I call "favoured theory"?
jmd
18-08-2005, 12:29
I have been trying to locate an essay I once read from someone who has made correlations between the chapters of Revelation
and the 22 Atouts, but cannot locate it.
In any case, it was, in my view, quite contrived. Although a few rather poignant images can and do fit, these tend to
be, in my personal opinion, the exception rather than the norm.
Of course, one can redesign the images in such a manner as for them to reflect more aspects of Revelation - but then,
it usually means adding details that are not intrinsically in certainly any early Tarot (such as having a woman pregnant
crowned by stars standing on the Moon - despite the fact that some modern artists have chosen to add these details to
either card II or III).
Actually, from memory, the essay made a connection between the opening of Revelation 12 with card XVII.
Huck
18-08-2005, 14:17
I have been trying to locate an essay I once read from someone who has made correlations between the chapters of Revelation
and the 22 Atouts, but cannot locate it.
In any case, it was, in my view, quite contrived. Although a few rather poignant images can and do fit, these tend to
be, in my personal opinion, the exception rather than the norm.
Of course, one can redesign the images in such a manner as for them to reflect more aspects of Revelation - but then,
it usually means adding details that are not intrinsically in certainly any early Tarot (such as having a woman pregnant
crowned by stars standing on the Moon - despite the fact that some modern artists have chosen to add these details to
either card II or III).
Actually, from memory, the essay made a connection between the opening of Revelation 12 with card XVII.
The most easiest thing is to look at old relevations - 15th century. When you see iconography in the bookpaintings - enough
iconography - of Tarot cards, the thesis has a chance, if not, not. I was at book fair, where one has chance to look at
faksimile editions, and by luck there were one or two of them, I don't remember, at least one. I opened one, took some
impressions, and closed it. At least that was rather different ... :-)
Also you can search the picture search engines. "Apocalypse" "Relevation" "Johannes" "Patmos"
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/zgothic/miniatur/1200-250/
this was what I found in a quick search, what was most nearest to Tarot cards: Michael as Justice
Not bad, but you find more and much better, when you type "Iustitia"
venicebard
20-08-2005, 07:11
you will see, that there is a indeed a very old "22" in it... Truly amazing and wonderful stuff concerning the hexagrams!
It is also (forgive me if I missed you mentioning it) interesting that 64 is the middle term of the cluster of 15 ‘rare
earth metals’ (57-71). The other nearby squares (except 36) are ‘mothers’ of planetary metals (25 of iron-26, 49 of
tin-50, 81 of lead-82, all active planets, that is, outside earth’s orbit). This pattern you and I are investigating
runs to the very heart of matter, both nature- and intelligent-matter (self-aware beings)... but I am stoked to see the
connexion to I Ching! It makes it a little less unsettling and a little more intriguing that pips themselves may have
come from the Far East.
I do pose to you that the full (secret) answer to the Riddle of the Sphinx is man’s conscious self or daimon (with apologies
to Plato):
3 parts...
- - - knower, for what is eternal (knowable),
- - - thinker, for what has finite duration (subject to opinion),
- - - doer, acting in fleeting present instant (of which it is ignorant)
Each is a part (itself), a breath (activity), and an atmosphere (realm of activity)
- - - 3 x 3 = 9
Each has an active and passive (determinative and determined) side
- - - 9 x 2 = 18
And each such aspect has reflected in it all the others
- - - 18 x 18 = 324
Read from lowest to highest (starting with units), this ‘number of facets’ yields the result observed in life (i.e.
man’s outer nature).
...and indeed also the simple 21 combinations of the throw of two dices....yes, the extension of the tetraktys two layers,
I suppose to tell us that in addition to the four cardinal points (elemental pointers) there are the poles of the axle
of the wheel.
But all these old "22"'s doesn't change, that there is in iconographical nearness, also in nearness of time, locality
and social conditions nothing nearer to the desired "end result" "fixation of 22 trumps in a specific order with specific
iconographcal details" (as it is found in Marseille Tarot later) as just this 20 trumps in the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-deck,
so, when you're not interested to follow blind suggestions like a 22 here and a 22 there and wonderful, another one, you've
to look at this deck and understand, what's in it. And just that does the 5x14-theory, which is a result of this study.
Interesting as these evidences of nobles’ flirtations with cards are, they do not appear to fill in the picture of what
had currency in more common circles. I am much more interested in the origin of mass-produced cards, as I think that would
have been the catalyst needed to prompt the creators of Tarot of Marseilles to ‘come out of the woodwork’ and try to
affect the world.
A note: how do you know the suggestions I follow are blind? I will admit I think that somewhat of the 5 x 14 theory (since
4 suits predate and since I consider tarot late medieval, not renaissance), but you and I are perhaps looking for different
things, I for the origin of something we already have, you for a supposed precursor that is ‘similar’: one person’s
precursor is another’s offshoot, and I think the painted cards are just that, however reluctant of admission in writing
of having ‘copied the peasants’ such nobles might have been. I’m not being flippant, just realistic as I see it.
And if you know about something, what in all these above noted conditions is nearer, there is an easy way: Just state
what.Oh: the trumps conformance – too close for coincidence – to the symbolic meanings of the Irish tree-letters matching
them in number as well as by number (sacrificial oak LePendu, martial holly LaForce, hazel of wisdom ‘in a nutshell’
L’Hermite, elder ‘to burn which brings the devil’ LeDiable, uplifting fir LeBateleur, palm tree LeMonde of far-off
locales, and so on), and conformance of the deck as a whole (including the 3-male/1-female structure in the letters of
the Name) to my careful (pathologically so) reconstruction of what the ancient trunk looks like when you put tree-alphabet
together with Hebrew alphabet (yod being mistletoe) together with the surviving Kabbalah, enhanced by insights concerning
Ezekiel’s wheels – an explanation self-evident once pictured, since it explains the 4 worlds or suits (will expound
if asked).
Celtic bards are not near, when 15th century is connected.Bardic influence hit the Continent in the 12-13th centuries,
Tarot of Marseilles perhaps 14th or so, not too awfully far, perhaps a reaction to the deteriorating situation for ‘freedom
of expression’ in those parts. Could have appeared in Italy first, but ‘twould have to have been refugees from Provence
as I see it, since that was where the confluence of Judaic and British traditions occurred (judging from Qabbalah and
Tristram).
... by which it becomes clear: there wandered a strange sort of Trionfi deck to France.Having read the letter and much
of your evidence, it does not seem to me quite so clear: she could simply have been ignorant of the fact that it was only
‘new’ in the sense of being a ‘new twist’, not new in the sense of a ‘new creation’. What is occurring amongst commoners
is, unfortunately, absent except in the early examples of block-printed cards (Cary sheet, etc.) Sorry, I wish we could
agree on more.
So nobody has an interest to exclude French influence, if anything has "real" good arguments ... .but naturally no researcher
has interest to follow vague speculations, which break in pieces, if you look longer than 5 minutes on them... If you
start to lie to yourself, cause you've too much "favoured" theories ... you're lost. It's not easy to recover from "favoured
theories".There is one ‘favoured theory’, of course, from which one would not want (nor need) to recover... (a correct
one, to which one might add but from which there is no ‘recovery’ save death or amnesia)
jmd
20-08-2005, 10:13
Though this is totally moving away from the focus of this thread, in reference to a possible connection bertween the pips
and far eastern 'origins', another thread from quite some time back may be interesting to some: the Chinese connection
and the Polo stick (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=15836).
Huck
20-08-2005, 14:24
Venice wrote:
Bardic influence hit the Continent in the 12-13th centuries, Tarot of Marseilles perhaps 14th or so, not too awfully far,
perhaps a reaction to the deteriorating situation for ‘freedom of expression’ in those parts. Could have appeared in
Italy first, but ‘twould have to have been refugees from Provence as I see it, since that was where the confluence of
Judaic and British traditions occurred (judging from Qabbalah and Tristram).
### With a little nothing of Tarot of Marseille in 14th and 15th century you cannot make a big deal with in research.
How do you intend to reseach the nothing? Where will you start? What's your idea? Shall everybody wait till you found
it? Shall everybody believe, that Quabbala or Tristram already contained full developed Marseille motifs, just cause it
is a nice idea? ... is this a religious question, if playing cards developed this way or that way?
Sorry, research needs some reality, some things, which are there, which can be touched, looked on or read. Cards or documents
or trustable reports about cards or documents. ... just something. "Nothing" is bad. It will likely don't find development.
##
Having read the letter and much of your evidence, it does not seem to me quite so clear: she could simply have been ignorant
of the fact that it was only ‘new’ in the sense of being a ‘new twist’, not new in the sense of a ‘new creation’.
What is occurring amongst commoners is, unfortunately, absent except in the early examples of block-printed cards (Cary
sheet, etc.) Sorry, I wish we could agree on more.
## Perhaps you should offer a way to get some basic knowledge about block-printing in France for the early time - just
you would give it a sort of realism. An experts opinion, how it was in this time. Recently I requested info about card-playing
facts in France in 15th century in the Marseille group. Nobody replied. I already listed a few things there. If you know
more, I would like to see it added.
... :-) also we could open a thread: "nice ideas around the Tarot game without any evidence till late 15th century, which
explain all and everything and especially each detail of the Marseille Tarot".
You've the problem, that in Tarot research development ideas of that sort constantly had appeared and finally were selected
as "nothing" and directed to another door. Even in the case, that you're totally right with your opinion this likely would
happen ... It's much easier to be content with a nice celtian system, that you like, as it is .. as to try to mingle it
with Tarot ideas. You need a lot of patience, before any of the qualified researchers takes you serious ... and some will
never do .. It's simply not their theme.
Even when you're right with a specific unusual idea of comparition between two - on first view - very different systems,
and it's "only" possibly a little too complicated or you express yourself a little funny, that already may cause, that
nobody listens. That's reality ..
So it's really a good advice to keep things simple ... you for instance use words, as it seems, only understandable in
your system, where everybody gets a lots of "I didn't understand" and "never heard's" in their heads, how shall this work
in a argumentation, which seriously tries to transfer a complex message ... Do you assume, that everybody has read
Ranke-Graves, knows specific-elements by heart, best in your specific "personal expressions" ... when he simply is
interested in Tarot?
That you don't agree in specific points, as you indicate above, for instance to the Michelino deck, is not a problem ...
it's "normal", not specific. When you offer complex articles and opinions, "agreement" is a very rare guest. But the theme
wins, the reader gets the impression, that there is a complex world and perhaps once he has enough time and background
to think about an argument really. .. .-) writers need patience .. .-)
Parzival
20-08-2005, 20:25
I only have a simple question to try to get back on topic, although I appreciate Huck's comments on verification versus
speculation in historic matters -- the Shakespeare biographers are strong on the latter and weak on the former, but they
have their believers who relish thousand-page biographies based on a few pages of actual facts. But I digress. Back to
Tarot ; are there key images/metaphors in Revelations that appear in the trumps of the Renaissance Tarot, or not? ( Not
by chapter number to Tarot sequence, but by images here as well as there.)
Huck
20-08-2005, 22:35
There is Sun, Moon and Star as Trio-attribut. The rising of the death may be generally considered as such. As Jesus earlier
was presented with the 4 evangelists, one could see it as "world". Other relevant figures may appear too, perhaps only
with goodwill of the interpreter (devil as the beast), but it seems, that the late triumphs (star - world) are somehow
near - which makes logic, as the revelation is about last things. As the revelation is obviously a great influence of
the time, it doesn't surprize, that elements of it appears in symbolic form in Tarot.
In hstory it is remarked and as a global statement given, that around the year 1500 "world is ending" - theories had amuch
larger appearance than usually. This is especially mentioned for literature of Jewish cabala, which changed topic from
explanations "how world developed" to "how world would end", analysed by Gerschom Scholem. As specific reason is assumed
the expulsion of the Jews in Spain. Savonaroila was another sign, Luther and the sacco di Roma 1527 another, the reports
from America, the great technical changes ... all this worked together. Colombus for instance, knew precisely, that world
would end in 1667 (? or around this year).
venicebard
21-08-2005, 07:30
it?I already have. Rhetorical question: what's your point?
Shall everybody believe, that Quabbala or Tristram already contained full developed Marseille motifs...Qabbalah contained
the exact structure of the Tarot of Marseilles, yes, though the latter is a pictorial representation of an esoteric tradition,
these two being slightly (if only slightly) different categories of being.
Perhaps you should offer a way to get some basic knowledge about block-printing in France for the early time...Absolutely:
I need to research it more thoroughly. My focus till recently has been on the internal structure of TdM once tree-alphabet
and Qabbalah are combined to explain it.
happen ... You need a lot of patience, before any of the qualified researchers takes you serious ... and some will never
do .. It's simply not their theme.Your subsequent suggestions towards my better expression of the idea are appreciated,
but here you make it sound as if it were better to conform to popular untruths (as so much of academia unknowingly has
in many fields, in my opinion) than to continue to carry a lighted torch unto the darkness.
Huck, by the emotionalism of your response I take it you discount the idea that card-printing even existed in Provence
prior to introduction of Italian cards in the 1440s? I don’t think that even conforms to the evidence, does it? Given
cardmaking but lacking surviving example you want to tell me what they were not manufacturing? This rests on much flimsier
scaffold, methinks, than my ‘internal evidence’, by a long stretch.
BACK TO REVELATIONS
1:7 – “Behold, he cometh with clouds... they also which pierced him [etc.]” – suggests XX LeJugement (whose trumpet
is in 1:10). 1:16 mentions the 7 stars of trump XVII (and the 2-edged sword from the mouth refers to its letter vav’s
direct association with the suit of Swords through its placement in the Name). 1:20 mentions them again and links them
to the menorah (whose shape is suggested by old-Semitic vav), setting the theme for 2:1. Indeed vav (meaning love, vav
being Hebrew for ‘and’) did leave its “first love,” 5, for 17, or 5th-from-the-end. (7 stars/candlesticks are mentioned
repeatedly throughout.) The candlestick 2:5 would remove “out of his place” is R, that of the 7 Hebrew doubles that
is not one of a voiced-unvoiced pair: it stands for the body-mind (libra, straight down) and thus 2:5 means, ‘Lest you
repent, die (or worse).’ (2:7 refers to 'tree of life': I include Qabbalah's references here because I take TdM to be
its pictorial representation.)
Satan’s mentioned in: 2:9 (his synagogue contrasted with Jews), 2:13, 2:24, 3:9...
2-edged sword: 1:16, 2:12...
And ”sword of my mouth”: 2:16...
2:10 mentions 10 (10 days)... 2:19 says last is more than first (just thinking out loud here). 2:27 a ‘”rod of iron,”
shattering of vessels “received of my Father” (i.e. Sefirot 4-10?). 2:28 refers to “morning star” (which is what links
reysh-as-Venus to 15-R-elder-alias-XVLeDiable). White raiment of 3:4-5 suggests birch (V LePape).
3:7 connects David (ogham's name for D) to opening and shutting, the ‘door’ (dalet) mentioned in the next verse. 4 commences
(4:1) with a door opened in heaven (dalet is Hebrew 4), 4:2 referring to its royalty (being oak, duir). 4:3 refers to
the emerald (the beryllium in beryl being atomic number 4) over IIII L’Empereur’s heart, that is, in association with
the 'throne'.
4:5 connects lightning (trump XVI, shin), the 7 lamps (trump XVII, vav), the throne, and 7 “Spirits of God,” a very
important set of connexions. 4:6 includes a “sea of glass” before one and the “four beasts,” which sounds an awful
lot to me like the two early versions of XXI LeMonde: porthole of commuter plane looking out on small village, and
wreath-containing-dancer surrounded by the 4 ‘living creatures’ (listed in the following verse).
It takes 5:1 through 5:5 to get the book open (could this refer to pages being white like the birch, bardic 5?), whereupon
in 5:6 (seeing the Lamb as ‘fixed there’ rather than ‘slain’) we have aries the ram or head (on the Egg or body) planted
in the midst of the 7 doubles (Throne world or Cauldron of surroundings). Book opened at 5:5 is taken from the hand in
5:7: there are 7 manifested signs and 5 unmanifested, looking from beneath, where man is. 5:8 has the four beasts and
24 elders (hours-of-the-day or runes, take your pick) given harps (sounds): XXI LeMonde stands for teyt (alchemical symbol
for earth in Phoenician), whose runic counterpart is called ‘day’ (verse would refer to a teaching related to runes’
origin, not runes themselves methinks). 5:12’s power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing sound
suspiciously like Sefer Yetzirah’s life, wealth, wisdom, peace, well-being, fruitfulness, and grace (assigned the 7
doubles).
The four horsemen would seem to evoke the Knights, n’est ce pas? (even though the colors don't match)
The rider of the 3rd horse has a pair of balances in his hand (6:5), linked (6:6) to the market place (weighing grain),
and the rider of the 4th (6:8) is of course Death. 6:12 mentions trump XVI's earthquake, 6:13 identifying as stars those
little round things falling all about while also mentioning trump XVI's early counterpart in the form of a tree (meaning
the balls could also be figs).
(...to be continued...)
Huck
21-08-2005, 08:23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck
it?
venice: I already have. Rhetorical question: what's your point?

Huck now: The point was presented in the now reduced text of mine: Reseach needs something to research, it cannot research
nothing.
Quote:
Shall everybody believe, that Quabbala or Tristram already contained full developed Marseille motifs...
Qabbalah contained the exact structure of the Tarot of Marseilles, yes, though the latter is a pictorial representation
of an esoteric tradition, these two being slightly (if only slightly) different categories of being.
As there is evidence for Marseille Tarot in 17th century only, there is not a real problem with your statement. As I'm
not interested too much in Marseille myself and in no way present myself as competent in Marseille matters and generally
not about playing card development in 17th century ... perhaps you're right, perhaps not, I can't judge it.
Quote:
Perhaps you should offer a way to get some basic knowledge about block-printing in France for the early time...
Absolutely: I need to research it more thoroughly. My focus till recently has been on the internal structure of TdM once
tree-alphabet and Qabbalah are combined to explain it.
Quote:
happen ... You need a lot of patience, before any of the qualified researchers takes you serious ... and some will never
do .. It's simply not their theme.
Your subsequent suggestions towards my better expression of the idea are appreciated, but here you make it sound as if
it were better to conform to popular untruths (as so much of academia unknowingly has in many fields, in my opinion) than
to continue to carry a lighted torch unto the darkness.
Huck: No, I don't suggest this ... I just point to general difficulties .. it's up to you to decide what you want or not
and what you think is correct analysed and what not.
Huck, by the emotionalism of your response I take it you discount the idea that card-printing even existed in Provence
prior to introduction of Italian cards in the 1440s? I don’t think that even conforms to the evidence, does it? Given
cardmaking but lacking surviving example you want to tell me what they were not manufacturing? This rests on much flimsier
scaffold, methinks, than my ‘internal evidence’, by a long stretch.
Depaulis knew about a first cardmaker 1444 in Lyon (I don't know, if his researches improved in the moment) and I don't
remember if it was connected to card-printing. .. cardmakers are earlier in France, of course, for instance Gringonneur
1393. In the case, you've analysed emotionalism in my reply, no, thanks, I feel well .. :-)
But France is not the great early card production, as far it is known. Generally Germany is considered as such. France,
especially Lyon, had its great time 1490 - 1510 as known from Depaulis. Also it seems, that all early examples of
woodblock-printing point to Germany as center for it, Italy following in large distance. I really don't know, which position
France has. This is about comparition of Italian development and German development and spcecially focussed on Italy
http://www.gilbooks.com/exhibit.htm
Bennett Gilbert. The Art of the Woodcut in the Italian Renaissance Book: A Catalogue and Historical Essay from the Grolier
Club/University of California, Los Angeles Department of Special Collections Exhibit. (New York: The Grolier Club; Los
Angeles: UCLA, 1995).
BACK TO REVELATIONS
is in 1:10).
Huck: Please don't invest energies, I do not accept this sort of argument. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption,
that Marseille Tarot is old, reaching back to 14th century. This argument is not accepted by me, so any argumentation
which uses this idea drops in the water.
If you argument with a controllable similarity between Marseille Tarot and Quabbalah and relevation, and if you really
think it necessary, also Celtic poets, I can always counter in the way, that it was not difficult for the cardmaker to
make his pictures similar to Relevation and Quabbalah in 17th century. So detailed argumentation might have its worth
in itself, but it is not my topic and I'm not specialised in this question, so my judgment is worthless ... and it says
nothing to 15th century and "my" topic is there.
jmd
21-08-2005, 11:50
The kinds of possible correlations that can be made between Revelation and the Atouts of the Tarot seem to be very much
of the type presented by venicebard above: one can 'force' a seeming resemblance or correlation, but the two simply do
not appear to have either surface nor inner correlation.
I still say 'seeming', for there may indeed be a key that unlocks a coded correlation between a specific early deck and
this book - but I personally doubt it.
Incidentally, a similar possible correlation may also be suggested for the Tanak(h) - though in that case leaving the
first and final books as 'containers' of the twenty-two (the Tanakh is usually viewed as having 24 books - though some
claim a 'proper' 22, the book of Esther and, if I recall, the Song of Solomon not being considered canonical - whilst
others point to early redactions that show Ezra & Nehemiah being one book).
However, again, the correlations seem a little 'forced', though on the whole less so if one considers the meanings behind
the names of the books.
venicebard
22-08-2005, 08:04
The point was presented in the now reduced text of mine: Reseach needs something to research, it cannot research
nothing.(‘reduced’ only to save you embarrassment)
As there is evidence for Marseille Tarot in 17th century only, there is not a real problem with your statement. As I'm
not interested too much in Marseille myself and in no way present myself as competent in Marseille matters and generally
not about playing card development in 17th century ... perhaps you're right, perhaps not, I can't judge it.What are you,
obtuse? So the trumps, and their order, and their theme, just suddenly cropped up in the 17th century? What a novel theory!
... cardmakers are earlier [than 1444] in France, of course, for instance Gringonneur 1393. ... But France is not the
great early card production, as far it is known. Never said it was, only that it pioneered printing, influenced by the
Moors. My point was simply that there was card production there before the 1440s: the question remains, what cards did
they produce? You seem to be certain (based on no evidence whatsoever) exactly what they did not produce, and I simply
do not agree (based on quite a bit of evidence).
BACK TO REVELATIONS
is in 1:10).
Huck: Please don't invest energies, I do not accept this sort of argument. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption,
that Marseille Tarot is old, reaching back to 14th century. This argument is not accepted by me, so any argumentation
which uses this idea drops in the water. How kingly of you.
If you argument with a controllable similarity between Marseille Tarot and Quabbalah and relevation, and if you really
think it necessary, also Celtic poets, I can always counter in the way, that it was not difficult for the cardmaker to
make his pictures similar to Relevation and Quabbalah in 17th century. So detailed argumentation might have its worth
in itself, but it is not my topic and I'm not specialised in this question, so my judgment is worthless ... and it says
nothing to 15th century and "my" topic is there.Too bad reality is not as neatly compartmentalized as you seem to be.
I do not discount in the least the work you have done and do. But your arguments here just do not hold water (the Titanic
was also, I believe, compartmentalized)
The kinds of possible correlations that can be made between Revelation and the Atouts of the Tarot seem to be very much
of the type presented by venicebard above: one can 'force' a seeming resemblance or correlation, but the two simply do
not appear to have either surface nor inner correlation.
I still say 'seeming', for there may indeed be a key that unlocks a coded correlation between a specific early deck and
this book - but I personally doubt it.I tend to agree (so far), though there do seem to be some inner (bardo-Qabbalistic)
correlations. I expend time on it in the first place out of deference to Isaac Newton’s interest in it, frankly, he being
an alchemist and scientist I respect immensely... and the fact that someone brought it up.
BACK TO REVELATIONS (part deux)
My quandary begins with noting that the theme of the door beginning chapter 4 bases itself on Hebrew numbering (dalet
= 4), whereas the theme of wind commencing chapter 7 links it to its trump and to bardic 7, P. Peh is a mouth speaking,
old Semitic peh an ear (spiral), and 7 the atomic number of nitrogen, the air’s ‘body’ (~4/5 of it, oxygen or 8 being
the other 1/5, its quintessence or soul) which we feel as wind. The theme of LeChariot is the wind produced when we move
(and poetic or bardic mysteries’ link to Merkabhah or throne-chariot ‘mysticism’, indicated by the masks of tragedy
and comedy worn as ‘epaulettes’). [7:14’s “made white in the blood of the Lamb” I am sure has alchemical, deep symbolic
meaning, since blood is meym and the Lamb the young of aries the ram, making it alef – “alpha tetragrammaton,” to quote
Taliesin, one of the 3 great bards of Britain (the other two being the two Merlins).]
Chapter 8’s starting out concerned wholly with 7 (7 angels, 7th seal) has deep overtones: P is 7 and F is 8 in ‘bardic’,
and these are melded back into their single source, peh and peh-sofit (intermediate and final forms of peh), in Hebrew
– I just realized this is the tikkun (‘restoration’) of 7, which was broken into 7-8 in Isaac Luria’s ‘shattering
of vessels’ and is now being gathered in Hebrew 8 in order to be restored to bardic 7 (by me, apparently). The golden
censor is mention in 8:3 and 8:5, VIII being LaJustice and 3 and 5 – male pillar Jachin/yew/3 and female pillar Boaz/birch/5
– are what its scales equilibrate between (i.e. test the balance of), and 3 + 5 = 8. Mind you, I do not know if verse
numberings were implied in the original or not, I’m just making observations as to ‘fit’. Yet it seems they must have
been here in chapter 8 at least: 8:7 has 1/3 of the trees all burnt up, depleting the air of oxygen and thus turning it
into nitrogen, 7, then 8:8 talks about the blood, which is our cell’s source of oxygen, the “great mountain burning
with fire” that is cast into it clearly referring to oxygen, 8 (F, fearn-the-alder, spirit of vegetation, oxygen’s ultimate
source), the principle of fire placed by Qabbalah atop the ‘mountain’ of the upper half of the Egg (the alchemical vessel
or anatomical zodiac).
In 8:10 is something linking the two halogens, XVII Star (chlorine) and VIIII Hermit (fluorine): “...and there fell a
great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp [the one in VIIII L’Hermite?], and it fell upon... the rivers...”
(Chapter 9 starting with a star falling from heaven and the bottomless pit it seemed to bore in the earth suggests fluorine
in the form of hydrofluoric acid.) 9:3: power to the scorpions (scorpio symbolizes desire). (9:6’s “and in those days
shall men seek death...” is a little more understandable these days, eh?) 9:9 mentions chariots in battle. Recurrent
mention of scorpions in chapter 9 would be the tension in 9, Cauldron’s virgo, arising from its polarity with 10, its
scorpio, the root polarity whence derives both the sexes and the Name. 8:11 names the angel of the pit (in Greek) Apollyon,
which has the same calendar associations as Apollwn (the god Apollo, w=omega). Chapter 10 is all about the book.
Chapter 11 begins with a measuring rod: bardic 11 is T-tav which occupies the same symbolic place as the ‘square’ of
Masonry’s ‘square and compass’. Tav is a cross in old Semitic, and sure enough 11:8 links Sodom, Egypt, and crucifixion,
all symbols of the sensual, fourfold body of nature (there being four senses, to those with understanding). 11:12’s
“ascended up to heaven in a cloud” links to trump XX (calcium), numerological equivalent of 11 that share’s 12’s
(magnesium’s) valence (+2)... for what it’s worth. The earthquake is mentioned in 11:13 (XIII?) but the elders don’t
fall on their faces till 11:16 (XVI?), while 11:19 adds in the temple, the ark, lightnings, and great hail: indeed there
is intimate connexion betwixt T, 11, and S, 16, the latter Sophia the former the side of her that knows right from wrong
(to use ‘symbolic shorthand’).
12:1 mentions sun, moon, and stars: D, 12, represents the outer horizon, where these bodies enter and exit our realm,
to which we are linked via sight (LePendu being the inverted image on the back of the eye). (There are 12 stars, so chapter
numbers do appear to be implied in text here and there.) 12:2 has the pangs of birth, when the child assumes the upside-down
position. The dragon waiting to devour the child is teyt, who resides right at libra (where the birth canal is, i.e. straight
down). This overcoming of the dragon in chapter 12 is quite consistent with the bardic myth: 12 is D, oak, midsummer solstice,
when the heroic, the god of the waxing year, is sacrificed. In heroic epic, this often involves struggle with the demonic
or beastly but at any rate represents the hero overcoming the beastly in himself (fear)... as it says in 12:11, “and
they loved not their lives unto death.” “And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle” (12:14): those on
trumps III and IIII, the former embracing her and the latter ‘embracing the earth’ beneath his feat?
13:1 opens with “sands of the sea,” symbolizing the temporary (swept away by Arcanum XIII). (13:10 states the law of
karma.) 13:18 yields the number of the beast, 18 being 3 x 6. Fitting that the beast XIII has only a number as well, albeit
a different one. 13:18 solves itself, actually: three 6s denote man in that each part of the self is a part, a breath,
and an atmosphere, each of which has an active and passive side (18 x 18 =324, the full answer to the Sphinx’s riddle).
The 7 heads and 10 horns, by the way, are 7 manifested signs as 7 ‘double letters’ forming the Cauldron standing for
the 7 minds of the thinker (whose wheel they are on), and 10 Sefirot (tines on our horns, meaning steps we’ve traversed
to get here).
Chapter 14 starting with a Lamb standing on the mount Sion is highly significant: the remaining ‘hill-side’ or
quarter-circle beyond self or capricorn that must be climbed to return to aries (the upright or exalted) and complete
the round are those simples whose bardic numbers correspond to the three most common atom-types of earth’s crust, and
the first of these – our commencing the climb, so to speak – is XIIII Temperance, L the rowan (for taming bewitched
horses), symbolizing learning. (14 is silicon, as in quartz, for you crystal nuts out there.) Indeed 14:2 introduces the
harps of the poet (teacher) and 14:3 says theirs was a “new song” and “no man could learn that song” (save 144,000).
The “wine of the wrath of [Babylon’s] fornication” in 14:8 is the lower or intermediate meym (muin the vine), signifying
wasted seed. If there is a version of XIII with sickle and [i]crowned (haven’t I seen one?), he’s introduced in 14:14,
the rest of chapter 14 dedicated to the sickle being thrust into the earth and the result likened to a wine-press issuing
blood (14:20), since muin-the-vine = meym = blood.
16:13’s three unclean spirits issuing from mouths of dragon, beast, and false prophet would be the three minds of the
doer (body-mind, feeling-mind, and desire-mind, respectively), which have usurped the roles of doer, thinker, and knower,
feeling replacing thought and desire replacing knowledge. (They must issue out the three windows of the Tower, in the
Marseilles version.) 16:16 introduces Armageddon: need I say more? Whereupon (16:17) the last angel poured, “and there
came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.” 16:18 has lightnings and the great
earthquake. In 16:19, “the cities of the nations fell” (mentions Babylon, and a cup), in 16:20 “mountains were not
found,” and finally 16:21 has the “great hail” out of heaven (little round things in trump XVI).
17 begins with “the judgment of the great whore that sitteth on many waters,” thus identifying trump XVII (vav) as Prunikos
(Sophia as Whore, the ‘fallen’ Sophia). [The moon rules vav/cancer and is exalted in tzaddi/taurus or XX Judgement.]
17:3 connects her to scarlet, bardic U (vav) being the red of love’s consummation and the full moon. It also mentions
again the 7 head and 10 horns that add up to 17. Unfortunately 17:4 says she is dressed and has but one cup in her hand.
17:5 stamps her with BABYLON etc. on her forhead, identifying her with the Queen of Heaven, surely. Oh wow! 17:10 says
7 kings: 5 fallen, the present one, and one to come, meaning Sophia is (correctly) associated with the thinker, whose
especial seat is the sixth sign on the Cauldron of doubles, sagittary. 17:11 says the beast is 8th but “of the 7,” once
again pressing these two numbers together: this places the beast with the scorpion in the 8th sign (scorpio), meaning
the privates – what is ‘tamed’ by the covenant circumcision, on the 8th day. The 8th sign is “of the 7” in that it
is the 5th manifested sign, the 5th sign of the Cauldron. According to 17:15, “The waters..., where the whore sitteth,
are peoples,” meaning Hebrew intermediate meym (‘seas’) is in the form of prostrate human and resides “where the whore
sitteth,” i.e. at the crotch, libra (where meym replaces reysh when the latter deserts its guttural station to become
rolled on the tip of the tongue, the body-mind given undeserved dominion over feeling-and-desire (the chained figures
in reysh’s trump, XV). She is finally made naked in 17:16 (just in time for 17:17).
18:2’s “habitation of devils” that Babylon (the whore) is become seems to describe the landscape in trump XVIII, if
we take the dogs as hell-hounds. 18:6 refers to doubling (the 2 towers?). “And the fruits thy soul lusted after” (18:14)
refers to XVIII’s letter, Q the apple (fruit of the womb or qof). 18:15-17 appear to be talking about the docks of the
city, thus explaining the regular-shaped pool in the trump and suggesting the crustacean may represent a galley with oars
(just now thought of this!)... while 18:18’s “cried when they saw the smoke of her burning” sounds an awful lot like
the fire Caesar started that spread to the Library at Alexandria. (18:20, then, is perhaps justifying the destruction,
sowing the seed that reached fruition when Christians later destroyed the library remnants.) There is an ancient
(measurement-related) meaning to 18:21’s casting a great millstone into the sea, which can be found somewhere in Hamlet’s
Mill. (Is 18:22 an escape from the wheel of samsara? just joking)
19:15: “out of his mouth a sharp sword.” 19 clearly describes the festivities pictured in XVIIII LeSoleil and deals
with the Name (19:12f) and the Word of God (19:13), both of which start with yod, the mistletoe or loranthus that is this
trump. 19:18 mentions “the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them,” suggesting the alternative (Vieville, I believe)
‘Marseilles’ LeSoleil, which, since 19:19 mentions “mak war against him that sat on the horse,” may well be the reason
someone (Vieville?) altered the design of XVIIII to [i[make it someone sitting on a horse. 19:21: “And the remnant were
slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled
with their flesh” (meaning the crows and ravens, the ‘clean-up crew’ after a battle).
Chapter 20 begins “And I saw an angel come down from heaven” and deals with the resurrection of the dead: trump XX,
in other words. 20:8 gathers Gog and Magog for battle, 20 being straif (‘strife’) the blackthorn. 20:9: “...and fire
came down from God out of heaven,” the cloud of battle in the trump? or rather 20’s or Ss’s link to 16 or S, of which
it is the double.
Chapter 21 of course describes the older extant form of XXI LeMonde, the ‘new Jerusalem’. The 12-fold nature of the
round is the theme, and 21:13 makes it clear we are quartering it (3 gates E, N, S, and W): XXI is teyt, whose old Semitic
and early Greek form was a crossed circle, alchemical symbol for the earth. And when 21:23 says “the city had no need
of the sun, neither of the moon,” perhaps it is telling us why it trumps those cards: because it doesn’t need them.
The only things linking 22 to LeMat might be 22:7: “Behold, I come quickly,” repeated in 22:12, 22:13’s mention of
Alpha and Omega, which could be a reference to the ‘journey of the fool’ (for enthusiasts therein), and 22:15’s “For
without are dogs, and sorcerers,” the latter a reference to LeBateleur no doubt. Perhaps 22 is just a summing up, saying,
‘put this in your bag and take it with you as you walk away’ or some such.
It seemeth to me that there is more evidence of Revelations having influenced tarot than the other way around. Still,
there are clear references to bardo-Qabbalistic landmarks throughout, which does make one pause. If appearances were to
bear out upon examination of the original (i.e. more allusions found), perhaps one could say that the pattern is one in
which at chapter 4 Hebrew numbering prevails but by chapter 7 bardic numbering has taken over, hence greater conformance
to trump imagery. But I shall remain agnostic for now, simply throwing these matters out for others to consider. Sorry
it takes up so much space.
Carry on.
Huck
22-08-2005, 11:12
(‘reduced’ only to save you embarrassment)

What are you, obtuse? So the trumps, and their order, and their theme, just suddenly cropped up in the 17th century? What
a novel theory!
According to the 5x14-theory at least part of the order was already present with the 5x14-deck of Bembo. This is estimated
on 1451/52/53/54 with some probability. The trumps as a theme also were partly as idea given, although not with the details
of the Marseille. They were also already called trumps. But it was not the Marseille, it were Italian cards. So nothing
dropped from heaven in 17th century, but the designer of the Marseille was able to change the outfit to something, which
made it look like revelations or, if you want, hebraic letters or, if you want that bardic context, that you prefer to
assume.
Never said it was, only that it pioneered printing, influenced by the Moors. My point was simply that there was card
production there before the 1440s: the question remains, what cards did they produce? You seem to be certain (based on
no evidence whatsoever) exactly what they did not produce, and I simply do not agree (based on quite a bit of evidence).
I pointed already in a recent post to a specific thread in the Marseille group, and from which you can see, what is known
and not known in France. Perhaps it keeps you away from misinterpreting me.
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=45894
Hm ... you think printing wandered from China via the moors via Spain via France?
How kingly of you.

Too bad reality is not as neatly compartmentalized as you seem to be. I do not discount in the least the work you have
done and do. But your arguments here just do not hold water (the Titanic was also, I believe, compartmentalized)
... :-) as far I remember, I used a simple logical pattern, not something, what I would call an argument. As it seems
evident, that the revelation is older, the only thing, that the Marseille designer could do, was to make his product look
similar to the chapters of the revelation. Not a specific difficult task - if he really desired, he could have easily
done so. If he really did, as you seem to suggest, nice ... considering the popularity of the revelation, it wouldn't
be a wonder. If he didn't act so ... the pictures still are the same, not better or worse. But if you're right, then it's
a little surprizing, that he did hide it so well.
Same with Bardic theory, same with Quabbalah, I guess, anywhere the same problem. If the designer liked a specific code
to appear, he was able to do so, and it was not a big problem for him to realize it. When he used some energy in hiding
his code and you was successful to decode it and you're also able to bring it in the form of an explanation, which makes
your interpretation understandable by others, then it's certainly good work and I congratulate you .. then. When you then
could tell, who was the likely designer or the real designer, it would be better. If you could even tell about the when
and where, when it happened or was produced, wonderful. And a few details about surrounding of the action, you're going
to be perfect. Such things have real worth.
From our research we can tell you, that you likely run in serious difficulties when you assume 22 (21+ Fool) trumps before
1468, and that you get less difficulties but still difficulties when you assume the existence of devil and tower before
1477.
Since 1477 in France ... we see no problem in the moment, in the contrary, we see a logical line specifically for this
year.
Before 1477 .. you defintely need a document which gives this a background.
From Michael Hurst's page:
1482 France
According to the Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française, “…the earliest recorded use of the word [triumphe] in
French as the name of a card game dates from as early as 1482. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain that these references
are to games played with the Tarot pack.” Dummett considers it likely that this reference does refer to Tarot, which
would thereby have been in France by about 1480. Another probable early reference to Tarot in France is from Lorraine,
1496, and one of the earliest unambiguous mentions of Tarot in France is to their manufacture at Lyons, in 1507. (GT 84;
TT 50.)
Trionfi 1496: http://trionfi.com/0/k/marc/37/
1507 is old and overcome, 1505 is correct now, see short note at:
http://trionfi.com/0/n/0403/
As already mentioned, two very specific decks

were (likely) transported by Giovanni Cossa to France in 1449 and real send by Iacopo Antonio Marcello.
The assumption exist (on our side) that the Guildhall/Goldschmidt cards had either Savoy or Dauphine origin, estimated
1451/1457 (by us)
article is unfinished, page under construction
Various normal playing cards still exist in France, produced ca. 1485 upwards, no early tarot cards
Depaulis in private communication knew a card producer in Lyon 1444, knew of many Italian (mainly Florentian) in Lyon
since Louis developed Lyon to his capital and in Lyon developed an European center for card production with many exports
1490 - 1510. A relative explosive development, it became the greatest European production, a development, which accompanied
general advances in book printing process.
venicebard
23-08-2005, 08:28
Never said it was, only that it pioneered printing, influenced by the Moors. My point was simply that there was card
production there before the 1440s: the question remains, what cards did they produce?Very sorry indeed! I misspoke: I
meant “pioneered paper-making,” sorry.
Huck: Mongols, Liegnitz, 1241 – ingenious (thanx much for the links). And Mamluks later stopped them advancing SW. One
of these two was the source of suit cards. Both scholarship and polo-stick ‘staves’ indicate that the Mamluk deck itself
(4 x 13 with no queen) came from the Mongols. Since Mongols penetrated Europe and Mamluks did not, it would appear Mongols
are our most likely source.
I should say, Huck, I appreciate you are trying to keep discussion mostly to ‘known historical events’. Yet to my way
of thinking, constructing theories of what important influences may have actually brought about a certain pattern,
especially where concrete evidence is lacking yet cards of some kind existed – or as you did, in suggesting a Mongol
origin that trickled down to later times – is part of placing things in context. That is, without perspective provided
by the bigger picture of what is possible, the physical evidence will inevitably get misinterpreted.
I offer a pilsner to our common interest, despite a difference of approach, and append my current working hypothesis here:
According to:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2241/page31.html ,
Jean Montgolfier produced paper after his return to France from crusade in 1157... though not in commercial quantity
evidently. Much has been lost in the Languedoc from the cultural genocide by the French in the 13th century and by the
Inquisition thereafter, yet this region in the 12th century was so close in spirit and culture to kingdoms on the other
side of the Pyrenees that it would have been odd for them not to have had knowledge of the paper-making of the Moors,
whose love-poetry they emulated. And while Italian merchants, I am sure, were great catalysts in the commercial spread
and record of many things, it was not renaissance Italian Neoplatonism that created tarot but rather a late-medieval
Judeo-Keltic bardo-‘mystical’ hybrid with its precious understanding of things alphabetical and metaphysical (basis
of the physical).
I put paper-making as arising in south-southwest Europe and being present more or less by the time of the aftermath of
the Albigensian Crusade. I suppose the real stumbling block in my ‘ideal theory’ is the supposed much-later introduction
of printing itself and my consequent uncertainty how the earliest cards would have been made, if not by block-printing.
We don’t know exactly when this technique appeared. Printing had been known in China for many centuries: could it not
possibly have been introduced along with the playing cards brought by the Mongols? If they had cards, they probably also
had knowledge of their production – after all, they had Chinese siege engineers.
So cards appear... and where, as you say, they were introduced to a Europe generally lacking in paper, I suggest it may
well have been in the Languedoc-Provence region that cards met paper and began to flourish – remember, it was this rich
(before France ‘looted’ it) region that had been hugely influential in music, poetry, and romance in the 12th century.
And certainly possessors of the knowledge behind trumps and a 3M/1F court existed there in the 13th-to-14th. They would,
in addition, have felt acute need to embody their understanding for the ages – what with ‘politics’ creating instability
and Inquisition in its birth-throes – for they possessed an accurate map of both psyche and matter. These persons,
possessors of actual knowledge or gnosis – a rare thing in any age (simply demonstrable, being self-evident) – had to
be the ones who added to the received deck the 22 letter-symbols in pictorial form and perhaps gave the court a queen
(as IHVH has but one letter from the female side, vav). They thus created the key with which their ‘spiritual descendents’
(me and those who come after) might unlock ancient mysteries. Fatal to the hypothesis that the 22 are late and derivative
is the fact that this key works and thus can hardly be a hodge-podge.
Allowing time between possible 13th-century appearance of cards in eastern Europe and their drifting all the way to Languedoc
paper mills, with some added time for invention, appearance of the essential Marseilles pattern, even if not at first
called ‘triumphs’, was surely some time in the 14th. Perhaps there was some refinement over time, yet I cannot conceive
of it not having had from the beginning the mother’s arm entering LePape behind her twin sons, or the shield-eagle’s
tail-feathers embracing L’Imperatrise, as without these the symbols become grossly distorted from their intended meaning.
I am of course judging from context, that is, from the pattern the 22 symbols make by their ranking, as this is clearly
of bardic origin.
Something like that letter of Jacopo Antonio Marcello showing “that neither the motives nor the number of trumps... had
a canonical form” in 1449 shows me not that the 22 had not yet evolved but that much had degenerated by that time in
Italy. I suppose a slight possibility exists that the Marseilles pattern was just one of several competing types in the
15th century (rather than their source), yet it ultimately won out because of its deep resonance with the human psyche,
based on a profound structure that can only have been given it by design. But this is the less likely possibility, because
of time elapsed since Qabbalah’s birth in Provence and because the order of the 22 has a traceable origin different from
mere ‘tweaking’ of a quasi-Bembo 20 or fleshing-out of Bembo’s own 14. And Italians’ experiments with expanded forms
certainly did not contribute to development of the 22 but suggest, rather, 22’s influence (10 added on, etc.)
Even you should agree, if you’re being objective, that if a pattern stands out as of interest to a school of thought
also temporally and geographically placed where it could have had direct influence on the earliest cards, then that pattern
is a likely prototype, and if other patterns lack such historical reinforcement they are less likely so: in other words,
proof of an earlier extant example of a version does not in itself prove the version itself earlier.
That pips and the idea of court cards were introduced to Europe from abroad points to the more universal nature of that
part of Qabbalah and Merkabhah that treat of 10 Sefirot (the pips) and of a fourfold expression following suit (court
cards, the Name). For they are based on a great vision, inadequately recorded in Ezekiel but undoubtedly held by many
a sage: four great wheels of decreasing diameter one within another on each of which self – the individual – is the
tenth sign as one counts from ‘straight up’ proceeding to ‘out’ (ahead), to ‘down’, and then ‘in’ (behind us),
leaving one quarter-circle of each wheel yet untraversed, namely from straight back or ‘in’, to straight up. (It is
just possible the Mamluk’s 3 court cards were the remaining three steps or angles: the 2 remaining signs, plus the
return-to-the-start.)
The existence of the four wheels is determined by considerations common to all human beings, the 1st centered atop a standing
figure, the 2nd atop a figure seated in meditation, the 3rd centered at the heart of this seated figure, and the 4th resting
in its belly and representing the womb of time (physical universe or present instant, which is the instant of creation).
And these four, which share the same libra, suggest a sense in which each wheel, as a ‘world’, possesses individual
aspects relating to each of the four worlds, aspects represented in Tarot of Marseilles by the four court cards in each
suit. It is even possible (heck, probable) that Mongol cards had a queen in each suit, which the Muslim Mamluks removed:
this would suggest a similar tradition of the Name occurring way to the east... I wonder, could this point perhaps to
some remnant of the Khazars of the steppe, who became Jewry in the 8th century? An intriguing question.
Huck
23-08-2005, 13:22
Very sorry indeed! I misspoke: I meant “pioneered paper-making,” sorry.
Huck: Mongols, Liegnitz, 1241 – ingenious (thanx much for the links). And Mamluks later stopped them advancing SW. One
of these two was the source of suit cards. Both scholarship and polo-stick ‘staves’ indicate that the Mamluk deck itself
(4 x 13 with no queen) came from the Mongols. Since Mongols penetrated Europe and Mamluks did not, it would appear Mongols
are our most likely source.
The possibility exists at least. The mongols berserked around and depopularized many regions where there were, so "the
friendly talk" where they transfered card-playing possibly, should have been a rare moment. But what happened then ...
no paper, the idea would have died soon (likely, but with no guarantee). Perhaps some very early documents, which are
currently interpreted as "not realistic" are simply true. The game - when it existed - was simply not a mass-phenomenon,
so his existence is not really deciding.
Really interesting is Bern 1367 - a document, which was discussed as "from later", but then confirmed again. It already
knows prohibition, which gives reason to assume a longe run before. Johannes of Rheinfelden, writing 1377 (also once doubted,
also now confirmed), says, that the game has recently arrived and is very popular (children play on the street) and he
knows nothing of prohibition tendencies, but is himself positively enjoyed about the object (likely he loves playing
generally with a positive tendency towards the very common chess).
Bern is not far away from Freiburg im Breisgau (near Strasbourg; local conditions like mountains and political-social
differences between the regions indicate, that it is more "far than the land-map shows") - although this is true, Johannes
does not know it. How should one interprete it?
It indicates a thin stream of products at that time, which come not from North (Johannes says, it's new) and also not
from South (Italy has paper long enough and already some writing culture, so if it had been there in stronger dimensions
- it should've been noted. From West - a way through Spain - seems also unlikely, they also have a longer time paper.
The German first paper mill is from 1390, but imports existed (rumour about an earlier paper mill already 50 years earlier
in the Rhineland, if I remember correctly). Paper imports existed also in the East of Bern - the Emperor sits in Praha
and needs administration paper etc..). From Praha or Austria-Hungary the way to the Balkan is not too far - militaric
reasons existed to show some presence on the frontiers. Not too much writing culture in the East (cause then the import-way
would have been reported), but already paper to produce cards - this might make an early wandering of the cards via Balkan
likely. Spain ... earliest record 1371, Italy 1377 ... this tells, it comes later to this places.
If we want to interprete it: Not Venetian ships transport the game, but it takes a longer way through North Africa. Strange,
but the dates speak this language. Paper also is earlier in Spain than in Italy. Spain is also the bridge for Arabian
books in the early intellectual life of Europpe. As reason is assumed, that Spanish Jews bridge between Moslems and
Christians. Perhaps this is still the same phenomenon, although the time of 1370 surely has different conditions as that
of 1250 or earlier.
But Bern is earlier. So perhaps we conclude a center in the east, which in 3 different waves reaches Europe. One via Balkan
is the shortest, the second reaches Spain and the last is surprizingly the Venetian way.
Following this result, one should assume, that Bern or the region around it has the best chances to reach early production
methodes. And that is, what precisely happens. Southern Germany (especially Nurremberg), which is near to Praha and the
Emperor and had as city special political importance for the emperor knows about the best production methodes (and gets
the earliest German paper mill, which strengthens the tendency). And - perhaps as a consequence of this "being involved
a little earlier" - Germany develops the earliest "best printing strategies" in various field (woodblock-printing,
copperplate-printing, letterprinting, probably in many small technical details).
The great prohibition wave seems to start in Italy ... according to which logic? We've a pope in Italy ... .-) It's near
to Rome. Prohibition in Germany Germany seems to have stayed more tolerant than ... logically, they earned money with
it. Others, who not produced, got the negative experience of gambling and not-working farmers.
An additional point and argument in this question can be seen in the observation, that "kanjifah" has similarites to German
"Karnöffel" ... I don't know, if you found this:
I should say, Huck, I appreciate you are trying to keep discussion mostly to ‘known historical events’. Yet to my way
of thinking, constructing theories of what important influences may have actually brought about a certain pattern,
especially where concrete evidence is lacking yet cards of some kind existed – or as you did, in suggesting a Mongol
origin that trickled down to later times – is part of placing things in context. That is, without perspective provided
by the bigger picture of what is possible, the physical evidence will inevitably get misinterpreted.
Generally I at least try to see as many ideas as my small mind allows to see, so I also try to simply to be open for any
idea. The general Quabbalah thesis earlier was also mine, although likely a little diffferent to yours, for instance not
connected to a bardic thesis - but the 5x14-thesis has cured me. But ... an after 1477 development, by which Quabbalah
contents were transformed to Italian basis-models with great freedom in the representation - is not touched by the current
state of development of the theory.
I offer a pilsner to our common interest, despite a difference of approach, and append my current working hypothesis here:
:-) .. It's always god to see the interests, which are common, and to give them some value ... :-)
According to:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2241/page31.html ,
[/QUOTE]
The thesis that paper entered Europe by Spain is not doubted by us ... nor do we explain, that we do know too much about
it. We just trust common informative sorces in this question. We've reached some specialisation in Tarot development in
15th century and in this topic we offer rather revolutionary, far reaching alternatives to currently farspread opinions
- in other fields we do not touch the opinions of experts. Which not nessarily means, that we are playing cards specialists,
the whole 5x14-thesis is not a matter of having very much information, but just a matter of logical thinking -in our humble
opinion, as one likes to say.
Alright, I argument a little bit about development of playing cards in 14th century - so outside of 15th century, but
this is also more about logical reading of certain conditions.
Jean Montgolfier produced paper after his return to France from crusade in 1157... though not in commercial quantity
evidently. Much has been lost in the Languedoc from the cultural genocide by the French in the 13th century and by the
Inquisition thereafter, yet this region in the 12th century was so close in spirit and culture to kingdoms on the other
side of the Pyrenees that it would have been odd for them not to have had knowledge of the paper-making of the Moors,
whose love-poetry they emulated. And while Italian merchants, I am sure, were great catalysts in the commercial spread
and record of many things, it was not renaissance Italian Neoplatonism that created tarot but rather a late-medieval
Judeo-Keltic bardo-‘mystical’ hybrid with its precious understanding of things alphabetical and metaphysical (basis
of the physical).
I put paper-making as arising in south-southwest Europe and being present more or less by the time of the aftermath of
the Albigensian Crusade. I suppose the real stumbling block in my ‘ideal theory’ is the supposed much-later introduction
of printing itself and my consequent uncertainty how the earliest cards would have been made, if not by block-printing.
We don’t know exactly when this technique appeared. Printing had been known in China for many centuries: could it not
possibly have been introduced along with the playing cards brought by the Mongols? If they had cards, they probably also
had knowledge of their production – after all, they had Chinese siege engineers.
Which certainly spoke an interesting Chinese slang language to explain all and everthing ... :-) I would say, itt's
unlikely. ... but it's not my special topic. I guess the certain product was easier transported than "communicated in
details in its production ", and the question, how did they realize it, did stand up by itself and demanded practical
solutions. And it's not difficult - take some stronger paper, a pencil or colours, something to cut the paper and maybe
you're ready in a few minutes, when you do not demand great details. Quality cards needed more time and development -
as any other art-product.
To the other argument, which somehow start "it might have been, that a 22 was involved in early playing card we generally
resume
"that there is no evidence of a 22 in connection to playing card decks in Europe till the Boiardo-poem"
(if you know the Wilkinson article, you know, that a "22" - the domino-22 - , was connected to playing cards in China.)
In our own suggestion the 4x14+22-system was first used by Galeazzo Maria Sforza and Bona of Savoyen in 1468. However
.. it cannot be excluded with 100% security -
1. that a deck with 4x14+22 structure existed earlier

etc...
but all this not very likely. And even if such a deck existed in Europe, why should it have looked like the Marseille?
Are there not 1.000000000 etc other ways how it might have looked?
Perhaps you see, what I mean.

venicebard
23-08-2005, 16:52
The possibility exists at least. The mongols berserked around and depopularized many regions where there were, so "the
friendly talk" where they transfered card-playing possibly, should have been a rare moment. You know, this got me thinking,
and I realized that there was a portion of Russia – Alexander Nyevski’s (sp?) – that submitted to the Mongols to avoid
annihilation, so cards may perhaps have sprung up there first, who knows.
In our own suggestion the 4x14+22-system was first used by Galeazzo Maria Sforza and Bona of Savoyen in 1468. However
.. it cannot be excluded with 100% security -

...
etc...
but all this not very likely. ...until you realize that there was a reason for one of the above to have sprung up (namely
Qaballah, and the bardic numbering in the trumps). I think you are simply too committed to the 5x14 theory at the present
moment to see clearly (no offense)
And even if such a deck existed in Europe, why should it have looked like the Marseille? Are there not 1.000000000 etc
other ways how it might have looked?
Perhaps you see, what I mean.We know how it ended up: the Marseilles, a coherent, systematic whole with demonstrable links
to traditional letter-symbolism. It is your assumption that that is not the way it started. I merely say that what we
see is actually a survival, which is much less ‘far fetched’ than you make my view out to be, I think. Don’t get me
wrong, though: I appreciate your feedback!
Huck
24-08-2005, 00:24
You know, this got me thinking, and I realized that there was a portion of Russia – Alexander Nyevski’s (sp?) – that
submitted to the Mongols to avoid annihilation, so cards may perhaps have sprung up there first, who knows.!
There is evidence of complex material to Tibetan religious cards or pictures on paper, very early - before European playing
card development. John Meador once presented a link list here in the Forum with rich material. Perhaps you find it by
using the Forum search engine
...until you realize that there was a reason for one of the above to have sprung up (namely Qaballah, and the bardic numbering
in the trumps). I think you are simply too committed to the 5x14 theory at the present moment to see clearly (no offense)
Of course somebody could have used kabbalistic material as a basic idea. But in my consideration you overestimate the
likeliness of such a development. Take a look in our playing card museum - 3600 decks
http://trionfi.com/0/s/
Observe, how much totally different backgrounds were used to create playing cards.
Kabbalism was in Provence in about 1170 AD, but in the follwing time it became concentrated in Spain. It was not a very
broad development (this it became later in 1500, when one can trust in Gerschom Scholem, although those people connected
to it were scholars and wrote a lot in their personal circles - with some intention to keep the mystery inside their own
circles). The kabbalistic movement was not accepted everywhere and occasionally it was fighted - by orthodox Jews.
Kabbalism in Italy at early 15th century is a rare, unlikely topic. Kabbalism and interest in Jewish culture in about
1475/1480 is intensified in the contrary. Christians started to learn the language - which before was not given.
We know how it ended up: the Marseilles, a coherent, systematic whole with demonstrable links to traditional
letter-symbolism. It is your assumption that that is not the way it started. I merely say that what we see is actually
a survival, which is much less ‘far fetched’ than you make my view out to be, I think. Don’t get me wrong, though:
I appreciate your feedback!
The argument against it: The 14 Bembo cards present itself so near to the Tarot de Marseilles form, that there MUST be
a context. The likely relation is, that these cards are the mother deck to the Marseille. Your assumption MUST suggest
a way, why these assumed 22 cards should have been reduced to 14 in Milan. This all accompanied by the condition, that
there is evidence for the the use of 5x12, 5x13, 5x14 and with some reconstruction - also for 5x16 structure, also 4x12,
4x13, 4x14, 4x15. But not much evidence for the general unusual structure (1423 Imperatori-deck - which is not clear,
1425 Michelino-deck - which is also not clear).
Your suggestion demands a complicated movement. From a complex form to an easier one and then returning back to the old
complex.
The other way around it's easier: An easy form develops some complications and evolves to a complex standard form, which
by increasement of printing abilities in the right time (1470 - 1480) is able to establish itself as standard, becoming
"successful" and with that able to make earlier forms forget.
Why are very early playing cards not existent? They were such cheap products, that they were thrown away once. It's likely,
that they were not woodblock printed, but very roughly had-painted. Not much energy could be spend to make them playable,
if they should stay cheap.
venicebard
24-08-2005, 02:24
After sleeping on it, I have to say there is some basis even in crude translation (KJV) for thinking the author of Revelations
had ‘bardo-Qabbalistic’ (Gnostic) connexions in mind. Some of what fits tarot itself, such as what suggests the Vieville
LeSoleil (child on horseback), undoubtedly derive from the book... but the book itself has a few too many coincidings
with deeper knowledge to dismiss out of hand. And the vast majority of these follow bardic numbering (perhaps because
that's what I was looking for but more likely because chapters run 1-22, not 1-9, 10-90, & 100-900, though ancients sometimes
used the alphabet for 'numbering' chapters).
Kabbalism was in Provence in about 1170 AD, but in the follwing time it became concentrated in Spain. It was not a very
broad development (this it became later in 1500, when one can trust in Gerschom Scholem, although those people connected
to it were scholars and wrote a lot in their personal circles - with some intention to keep the mystery inside their own
circles). You have entered the crux of our disagreement in this post. Here you are looking for a ‘broad development’
that might have influenced cardmakers, whereas I am looking at a result (TdM) wrought directly by individuals who were
themselves initiated into a great secret (if I were just out to sell something, I certainly wouldn't pick such a difficult
product to sell)
The kabbalistic movement was not accepted everywhere and occasionally it was [fought] - by orthodox Jews. It was itself
in part a reaction against philosophical (Aristotelian) Judaism.
Kabbalism in Italy at early 15th century is a rare, unlikely topic. Kabbalism and interest in Jewish culture in about
1475/1480 is intensified in the contrary. Christians started to learn the language - which before was not given. Having
to do with early printing of Kabbalistic works in Italy? but you are looking at effects, I at the cause. What filtered
up to the public (as printed works, as ‘Christian Cabala’, and eventually as Kabbalah, Qabbalah’s surviving flotsam)
was the effect, while what directly shaped TdM was the original understanding, created (as I said) by the confluence of
Jewish and Keltic currents in 12th-century Provence.
The argument against it: The 14 Bembo cards present itself so near to the Tarot de Marseilles form, that there MUST be
a context. The likely relation is, that these cards are the mother deck to the Marseille. Your assumption MUST suggest
a way, why these assumed 22 cards should have been reduced to 14 in Milan. You are the one ‘bucking the mainstream’
here I believe, in that Bembo’s 20 are normally taken as derived from 22, since the 14 were ‘filled out’ by another
artist (2 being omitted or perhaps removed), indicating 14 were seen as deficient.
This all accompanied by the condition, that there is evidence for the the use of 5x12, 5x13, 5x14 and with some reconstruction
- also for 5x16 structure, also 4x12, 4x13, 4x14, 4x15. But not much evidence for the general unusual structure (1423
Imperatori-deck - which is not clear, 1425 Michelino-deck - which is also not clear). (HERE is the complexity!)
Your suggestion demands a complicated movement. From a complex form to an easier one and then returning back to the old
complex.
The other way around it's easier: An easy form develops some complications and evolves to a complex standard form, which
by increasement of printing abilities in the right time (1470 - 1480) is able to establish itself as standard, becoming
"successful" and with that able to make earlier forms forget. The ironic thing is that I agree with you totally, except
that I define as ‘easy’ (simpler) what makes sense (in terms of having an internal rationale of more depth than “Oh,
here’s the Mongols’ 4 suits, let’s add a fifth!” which is a pretty shallow, cheap origin for such deep, rich color
in a gem (TdM)! Occam’s razor forces me to go with a theory that matches depth with depth.
Improved printing technique (cheapness) is what allowed the shallower to flourish, and the more divided-up (mountainous)
nature of Italy favored local variation. But if you look at the three types suggested by Dummet and others, it is the
western that is the most widespread, that 'caught on', the one with the properly ordered 22. It is true that this is generally
seen as originating in Milan, and I cannot prove otherwise (though I do not agree), but at least I agree with mainstream
scholarship on what was mainstream tarot. (I sympathize with your maverick status though, as you might well imagine!)
Huck
24-08-2005, 02:57
Huck wrote: The argument against it: The 14 Bembo cards present itself so near to the Tarot de Marseilles form, that there
MUST be a context. The likely relation is, that these cards are the mother deck to the Marseille. Your assumption MUST
suggest a way, why these assumed 22 cards should have been reduced to 14 in Milan.
Venice wrote: You are the one ‘bucking the mainstream’ here I believe, in that Bembo’s 20 are normally taken as derived
from 22, since the 14 were ‘filled out’ by another artist (2 being omitted or perhaps removed), indicating 14 were seen
as deficient.
Huck now: Here a specific technical misunderstanding between us becomes obvious. So we should try to get specific termini
defined.
There are 14 Bembo cards, not 20. This fact leads to the 5x14 theory, without it it wouldn't exist. So it's essential
in our communication, that we have similar insights about this.
If you really think, that he painted 20 trumps, then read Kaplan I, p. 106 or the articles to
There are two artists. One painted 6 trumps, and the rest was painted by an artist, who is considered to have been Bembo.
venicebard
24-08-2005, 16:09
Once again, my apologies: I don’t know how what I said ended up worded the way it was. What I originally typed (and then
evidently imperfectly changed) was (with my omissions in bold):
“You are the one ‘bucking the mainstream’ here I believe, in that the quasi-Bembo 20 are normally taken as derived
from 22 because Bembo’s 14 were ‘filled out’ by another artist (2 then being omitted or perhaps removed), indicating
that 14 were seen as deficient.”
(Nothing to add, just the correction)
Huck
24-08-2005, 19:25
Once again, my apologies: I don’t know how what I said ended up worded the way it was. What I originally typed (and then
evidently imperfectly changed) was (with my omissions in bold):
“You are the one ‘bucking the mainstream’ here I believe, in that the quasi-Bembo 20 are normally taken as derived
from 22 because Bembo’s 14 were ‘filled out’ by another artist (2 then being omitted or perhaps removed), indicating
that 14 were seen as deficient.”
(Nothing to add, just the correction)
It's just, that I must be sure, that you can differentiate the cards, otherwise
we start to live in our talk in two different worlds.
If mainstream or not mainstream, the mainstream doesn't decide, what's right and what's wrong. ... :-) And we're on the
way to train mankind, that there is a specific point to observe ... the assumption, that there are 22 (or 21 trumps +
fool), has nothing contemporary and nothing which is earlier, which give this conclusion evidence, in the contrary, a
document from 1457, in which is spoken from 2 Trionfi decks, notes 70 cards for these decks. As the
Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-deck usually is assumed to be from ca. 1452, there jumps up a contradiction and serious doubt.
A note from 1449 speaks from Ludus triumphorum, but has only 16 trumps and astonishingly has strange Greek gods as trumps.
And a document from 1.1.1441 again speaks of "14 figure", which are used for a party at night at a day which often was
determined for playing - and indicators seem to point out, that these figure are trionfi, cards. "14 figure" (and trionfi
motifs are called later figure), not 22, 14 Bembo-cards, 14 trumps and totally 70 cards in the year 1457 give a solid
lead from 3:0 in the soccer-game "5x14-theory versus 22-standard", especially as the 1449-Marcello-note indicates, that
the decks at this time simply do not know standard.
And if this would be all .... it would be harmless. But the 14-Bembo-cards itself suggest, that it is a complete deck.
It's simply a logical wrong assumption, that the cards were likely replaced or later repaired, likely is, that there were
not 22 but 14 cards. And analysing playing cards researchers have to assume the likely broad way, not the specific "small
possibilities" in their assumptions, otherwise they simply hurt their own technique. Then that's not usual research
technique, but wishful thinking. "I will that there are 22, cause I have this or that wonderful favoured theory... "
That's the wrong approach. There is once a 14, once a 16, another 14, and another 14.
This gives 75% for 14, 25% for 16 and 0% for 22 till 1457.
And you've evidence for standard-matrix-development:
4x12 Hofämterspiel (ca. 1455)

4x13 Johannes of Rheinfelden (1377)
4x14 Bernardino (1423)
4x15 Johannes of Rheinfelden
5x12 (ca. 1455 ?) Master of the playing cards)
5x13 Johannes
5x14 Master PW ca. 1500
5x16 Cary-Yale (reconstructed only) 1441
against
1423 Imperatori - 8 cards entry PERHAPS not matrix oriented

1425 Michelino - deck PERHAPS not matrix oriented
1441 Cary - PERHAPS not 5x16
You have 3 single PERHAPS entries against a broad stream of Matrix-deck-structures, and you talk of "mainstream" ...
you should think in categories of the mainstream of documentary evidence, not the mainstream of opinions - Or do you not
study playing cards, but human opinions ... :-)
And this translates as "there is no evidence for 22 trumps till 1457". Very simple.
mainstream ... the mainstream of people has no special knowledge about Tarot ... does this indicate, that there is nothing
to know about Tarot? Wrong conclusion. Just the few, which are not mainstream, have some knowledge. And if you wish to
know something about Tarot, you better ask the few, and not the many.
And do you think, that this already is all, what I could say to the correct analysis of the PMB-deck? No, it isn't ...
but you can read it at the website
0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 ... 12-13 ... 20
Does it look like an accidently loss of cards?
It minimizes your chance for "accidently loss" to 0.1 % or less. And that's in reality: Nearly "no chance". Turn the head
and go the other way around, assume the 5x14-deck and you've real mainstream-feeling. Cause you've turned the view and
have now with open eyes a chance to find in historical data the way how it really happened. And that's what we do and
have done ... and cause we've experienced success in this way to turn the things, we know, that it was right. For instance:
the 70 card - note was only found and interpreted, cause before the right theory already had turned the view. Others have
seen this note before us, but wondered, what that shall mean. And likely thought of an writing error ... as you seem to
believe in a reduced 22 just to save your theory ..
The 14 figure entry was only found, cause we've changed the view from 22 to "detect the 14". The hidden message that Trionfi
was not stabilised in 1449 ... only found via changing the perspective ... and other things.
Your favoured 22-system ... didn't you realize, that the 32-system is the real elegant one, not the 22? That the 22-form
is only a reduced form of the 32-system? Why bother about these imperfect forms? Why trying to forge historical data,
when somebody made a childish 5x14-system for some cards for some fun, why just not believe him, that he just wanted this,
what you definitely see? Why search difficult explanations, when it's just easy before your eyes - without great mystery?
venicebard
25-08-2005, 04:47
Huck, before critiquing your post I want to say that your idea about the organization of Bembo’s 14 trumps is interesting,
and for the most part plausible, though I'd call it a ‘chosen subset’ and you ‘an ancient venerable core from which
the trumps expanded’. Though I don’t buy Pope as Cavalier, and Papess as Knave is shaky, the idea of 5 persons followed
by 5 states of destiny, and the seasonal nature of the latter, has merit. I even intend to further consider application
of this to bardic tradition's numbering in the first place (my choice as trumps' origin): at first blush, it appears relevant,
because the ogham ‘alphabet’ is in staves of five each, based on trained poets using finger-code to secretly communicate
in the presence of others evidently. (The seasonal aspect presents the problem of running up against some contradiction
from the tree-calendar, but I still do not dismiss it completely and will consider it further.)
If mainstream or not mainstream, the mainstream doesn't decide, what's right and what's wrong.I heartily agree. I was
merely pointing out your 'PR' difficulty as you, early on, pointed out mine.
...3:0 in the soccer-game "5x14-theory versus 22-standard", especially as the 1449-Marcello-note indicates, that the decks
at this time simply do not know standard.Yes, there was obvious instability in the form of deck then, in Italy. Yet ranking
of trumps seems not in doubt, as no numbers appear on them.
... "I will that there are 22, cause I have this or that wonderful favoured theory... "
That's the wrong approach.I would hardly call what I found in the TdM ‘this or that woderful favoured theory’, but rather
‘an astonishing discovery’, but I certainly forgive you for not knowing this.
0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 ... 12-13 ... 20
Does it look like an accidentl[e] loss of cards?
It minimizes your chance for "accidentl[e] loss" to 0.1 % or less. And that's in reality: Nearly "no chance".Yet it does
not even dent the possibility of its being an extracted subset of the 22, however frustrating such a possibility may remain.
Your favoured 22-system ... didn't you realize, that the 32-system is the real elegant one, not the 22?The 32 ‘paths
of wisdom’ are the 22 plus the 10, duh.
That the 22-form is only a reduced form of the 32-system?No, apparently the 32 is derivative of (3+7+12=)22 + 10. Otherwise
32’s chief importance seems to be merely as the arithmetic transition from 16 (sulfur) to 64 (center of ‘rare earths’),
judging by the periodic table.
[Edited to say:] Well okay, it IS elegant that 22 and 10 add up to 32: it is a mystery to which I shall devote more attention
in future, having belittled it up till now.
Turn the head and go the other way around, assume the 5x14-deck and you've real mainstream-feeling. Cause you've turned
the view and have now with open eyes a chance to find in historical data the way how it really happened. And that's what
we do and have done ... and cause we've experienced success in this way to turn the things, we know, that it was right.
For instance: the 70 card - note was only found and interpreted, cause before the right theory already had turned the
view.
[...]
Why bother about these imperfect forms? Why trying to forge historical data, when somebody made a childish 5x14-system
for some cards for some fun, why just not believe him, that he just wanted this, what you definitely see? Why search difficult
explanations, when it's just easy before your eyes - without great mystery? Your over-sure-ness here betrays, I think,
your method. I feel like one offering a hand-up to one who is on a lower rung and having it rejected... but that’s alright,
the offer still stands...
venicebard
25-08-2005, 05:07
(That last remark of mine was meant as good-natured ribbing, not haughty condescension.)
kwaw
25-08-2005, 07:30
Thank you both for this discussion, and Huck for your patience in explaining your position. I know you have done so many
times before, all I can say is this time I think it is has 'clicked' and I think I understand it more than previous. That
is not to say I totally agree with it, but it certainly makes more sense to me now. No doubt we will come to argue over
some minor details that prove I haven't understood it at all! But for now, lets say I agree with the general scheme as
you present it.
Thanks
Kwaw
Huck
25-08-2005, 09:00
Thank you both for this discussion, and Huck for your patience in explaining your position. I know you have done so many
times before, all I can say is this time I think it is has 'clicked' and I think I understand it more than previous. That
is not to say I totally agree with it, but it certainly makes more sense to me now. No doubt we will come to argue over
some minor details that prove I haven't understood it at all! But for now, lets say I agree with the general scheme as
you present it.
Thanks
Kwaw
:-) Thanks, kwaw. ... let me express a personal word. You're really made of hard stuff .... no offense intended.
Huck
25-08-2005, 10:17
Huck, before critiquing your post I want to say that your idea about the organization of Bembo’s 14 trumps is interesting,
and for the most part plausible, though I'd call it a ‘chosen subset’ and you ‘an ancient venerable core from which
the trumps expanded’. Though I don’t buy Pope as Cavalier, and Papess as Knave is shaky, the idea of 5 persons followed
by 5 states of destiny, and the seasonal nature of the latter, has merit. ...
It's "shaky", I agree ... but it is an observation, how figures did likely move "historically", not our "personal" preference.
There is a 4-persons-group in the one world ("court cards") and a second 4-persons-expression in the 14-Bembo -trumps.
This "somehow" refers to each other, but not naturally with precision but according to preferences and possible mental
jumps of the designer. He's responsible and the interpreter can comment, "I understand" or "I think him a little
unreasonable". But finally - the responsible designer did what he did.
I even intend to further consider application of this to bardic tradition's numbering in the first place (my choice as
trumps' origin): at first blush, it appears relevant, because the ogham ‘alphabet’ is in staves of five each, based
on trained poets using finger-code to secretly communicate in the presence of others evidently. (The seasonal aspect
presents the problem of running up against some contradiction from the tree-calendar, but I still do not dismiss it
completely and will consider it further.)
I heartily agree. I was merely pointing out your 'PR' difficulty as you, early on, pointed out mine.
The 5x14-theory in its mathematical aspects, which is (private history) the begin of it and the really beating argument
in it, has real PR-difficulties. Nobody believes, nobody listens and you can do, what you want and you can be right as
you want, no chance to communicate it in its real value. Things started to become better, when the 70-cards-note was found.
This was easier to understand - so it's valuable; but on the "real level", there, where things are really counted and
"mainstreams does count nothing", this is nothing against the woirth of "analyses of the mathematical matters inside the
Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-deck", just raised by the fact, that 70 (68 still extant) cards were painted by one artist and
6 by somebody else.
Yes, there was obvious instability in the form of deck then, in Italy. Yet ranking of trumps seems not in doubt, as no
numbers appear on them.
This is not so easy, as you might perceive it. The 5x14-theory wins informations about the nature of the 14 Bembo cards
by comparing the motifs to the TdM-Numerology .. and this comparition results in a crazy accident, which likely is not
accidently, but created with natural intention.
So the 5x14-theory strikes in two directions:
a. there had been really only 14 cards

b. The numerology of Marseille was total identical (as far it could, only14 cards existed) or at least in parts identical
already known with the 14 Bembo - before the numbers were on the cards.
The alternative to the 5x14-theory is not impossible, but simply rather unlikely, so unlikely, that one is simply either
a little stupid or rather adventurous, not to follow its suggestion.
I would hardly call what I found in the TdM ‘this or that woderful favoured theory’, but rather ‘an astonishing discovery’,
but I certainly forgive you for not knowing this.
Yet it does not even dent the possibility of its being an extracted subset of the 22, however frustrating such a possibility
may remain.
The 32 ‘paths of wisdom’ are the 22 plus the 10, duh.
I think it respectable that you keep up the results of your earlier research. Surely it's based on a complex mental adventure
and naturally you have a well-developed defense system to protect youself against too radical changes etc.. which at least
should be regarded as "mentally healthy". No problem ....
22 + 10 = 32 .... if your primary impression of the considered object is a sort of summary of two different groups of
elements (including subgroups in the two groups), then I would guess, that you didn't completely read and understood or
accepted the article I recently pointed upon:
http://trionfi.com/tarot/new-themes/sepher-yetzirah/i-ching.html
From this point of view it becomes apperent, that it not a summary or an addition, but a "whole", which parted by certain
cuts in different singular elements, which by their natural mathematical quality can be classifiued in different groups.
This understanding should give a solid chance to lose any fixation upon the the substructures of this whole, for instance
the "22"-group.
It's not a problem, that you didn't follow in that way, but I just think, that I should point out, that we have there
a difference in our "inner vision" of it. In mine is's clear, that the 22 is not the important object, but the "whole"
and that might be expresed with "32".
No, apparently the 32 is derivative of (3+7+12=)22 + 10. Otherwise 32’s chief importance seems to be merely as the arithmetic
transition from 16 (sulfur) to 64 (center of ‘rare earths’), judging by the periodic table.
[Edited to say:] Well okay, it IS elegant that 22 and 10 add up to 32: it is a mystery to which I shall devote more attention
in future, having belittled it up till now.
Your over-sure-ness here betrays, I think, your method. I feel like one offering a hand-up to one who is on a lower rung
and having it rejected... but that’s alright, the offer still stands...
Hm ... what's "low", what's "rung" and to which system of different heights your friendly act refered to in our free
democratic internet world, where anybody has any right and any possibility to fill electronic rooms with idleness, wise
words or stupid assertions, just with that what he's momentary interested in, just as a king in his kingdom beside other
kings with the same individual freedom? ... Of course, I'm always for friendly acts between the spirits in this new media.
venicebard
25-08-2005, 17:47
22 + 10 = 32 .... if your primary impression of the considered object is a sort of summary of two different groups of
elements (including subgroups in the two groups), then I would guess, that you didn't completely read and understood or
accepted the article I recently pointed upon:
http://trionfi.com/tarot/new-themes/sepher-yetzirah/i-ching.html
From this point of view it becomes apperent, that it not a summary or an addition, but a "whole", which parted by certain
cuts in different singular elements, which by their natural mathematical quality can be classifiued in different groups.
This understanding should give a solid chance to lose any fixation upon the the substructures of this whole, for instance
the "22"-group.
It's not a problem, that you didn't follow in that way, but I just think, that I should point out, that we have there
a difference in our "inner vision" of it. In mine is's clear, that the 22 is not the important object, but the "whole"
and that might be expresed with "32". No, I understood. But in your model as well there turn out to be 10 forms that are
balanced yin to yang, 22 that are not. That 'fit' is what makes it so interesting and is why I said I would think further
about it. I mean you are certainly right that 32 stands as a unifying principle between the 10 and the 22. But still,
they are pulled apart and examined as distinct in Sefer Yetzirah, and I am saying that was for a reason and valid even
with knowledge of the unifying 32. It is the 10, though, that mark our progress on the round, the great wheel of life,
and the 22 which correlate to physiological stations in man, this perhaps because man is out of balance (being male or
female), while the 10, our 'roots', remain in balance to lure us back (to balance).
Hm ... what's "low", what's "rung" and to which system of different heights your friendly act refered to in our free
democratic internet world, where anybody has any right and any possibility to fill electronic rooms with idleness, wise
words or stupid assertions, just with that what he's momentary interested in, just as a king in his kingdom beside other
kings with the same individual freedom? ... Of course, I'm always for friendly acts between the spirits in this new media.Of
course I agree and was just expressing an honest feeling, my impression your focus is too close to the ground in the sense
that you have the academic's strong desire to equate the extant with what was. An example of this method 'run amok' in
another field is the current sad state of evolution theory, where we are to believe the actual pattern of species follows
roughly the fossil record and at the same time to provide our own links between species. I'm not saying your theory is
that far gone, only that I sense it cannot be the right one and have tried to inform you why I think so. The crux, really,
is that you believe tarot began with nobles and drifted down, while I believe it began amongst commoners and filtered
up. But you defend with facts, and I cannot fault you for that. Hopefully we are both the stronger for having 'jousted'.
Huck
25-08-2005, 21:15
No, I understood. But in your model as well there turn out to be 10 forms that are balanced yin to yang, 22 that are not.
That 'fit' is what makes it so interesting and is why I said I would think further about it. I mean you are certainly
right that 32 stands as a unifying principle between the 10 and the 22. But still, they are pulled apart and examined
as distinct in Sefer Yetzirah, and I am saying that was for a reason and valid even with knowledge of the unifying 32.
It is the 10, though, that mark our progress on the round, the great wheel of life, and the 22 which correlate to physiological
stations in man, this perhaps because man is out of balance (being male or female), while the 10, our 'roots', remain
in balance to lure us back (to balance).
GOOD. ... :-) I'm really very satisfied, that we found a good reader for this article. In our opinion this theme surpasses
more or less all , what we can do in matters of Tarot ... which is a nice theme, no question, but there are simply differences.
This theme has philosophical depth. Tarot has more of a Sherlock-Holmes-Game. Who did what and why.
And this specific article is a key to many other things ... which hopefully, perhaps will once become our new topics.
So I'm enjoyed. But to your position: Let's the object regard from two sides and let's the sides call "quality" and "quantity".
Quantity is just the mathematical structure and "quality-free". No quality definitions, nothing, which is not essentially
necessary.
Quality is all other stuff, it's the flesh, it's the definitions of the single elements, which "create" the world of the
hexagrams (either in I-Ching-style, but other, very different styles are imaginable, a round-sequential for instance,
the Star of David, the cube-style, there are many ways and orders, how one could show 6 elements), it's the words that
are made to describe the hexagram or its other ways to show it, the pictures that developed to transport meaning in it
etc. "Quality".
In the case of I-Ching for instance these short statements, which are given with chinese signs by a chinese mind 3000
years ago build "quality". In the Sepher Yetzira for instance the mind was surely not chinese - so there is one great
difference to I-Ching and other differences will follow, as longer and more intensive one compares the different quality
creations.
So we have two sides. Quantity is that, what is always identical in both systems, and quality is that, what's always different,
perhaps different only in small nuances, but necessarily always different.
So we can talk about the considered object in two different ways. Above you stated : "I mean you are certainly right that
32 stands as a unifying principle between the 10 and the 22. " And this was the quantity statement.
And then: "But still, they are pulled apart and examined as distinct in Sefer Yetzirah, and I am saying that was for a
reason and valid even with knowledge of the unifying 32." And this was the quality-statement.
Your quality-statement is of course correct for Sepher Yetzirah, but only in minor sense applyable to the I-Ching. Let's
ask for the reason.
The system was by the author of Sepher Yetzirah and likely some tradition, which was before him, connected to an artificial
system called alphabet and this and the first 10 numbers builded a specifical added body ... which was impressive and
historically of great importance for all Western culture and especially proved to be very practical and it was variated
to systems, which more or less had with the 22+10-question nothing but nothing to do, Greek alphabet, Roman alphabet etc. ...
but the Chinese never used an alphabet. What a big difference. The 22+10-feature was surely detected by Chinese persons
with some favour for I-Ching and some mathematical understanding ... but it was not that important. They had other ways
and turned the whole, that other qualities was on top. I-Ching as a mathematical world, in which you can run around and
capture soime destiny - also an interesting idea.
And now you again: "It is the 10, though, that mark our progress on the round, the great wheel of life, and the 22 which
correlate to physiological stations in man, this perhaps because man is out of balance (being male or female), while the
10, our 'roots', remain in balance to lure us back (to balance)."
What are you doing there? Adding new qualities? Not enough? Well, the balance idea is good, surely it was part of the
early I-Ching-connsiderations and in the mind of the interpretors. "Physiological stations in man". Are you sure that
this is necessary. Do you think it good, when our current physiologic advisers have to restart their study, just cause
you love this system? Isn't that demanded a little too much? But - of course - you're not the first, learn acupuncture
and you will find, that there were already some who made something like this. The "10" is now "our roots, interesting ...
we've 10 fingers, if we had 8 or 12 we would know better.
Of course I agree and was just expressing an honest feeling, my impression your focus is too close to the ground in the
sense that you have the academic's strong desire to equate the extant with what was. An example of this method 'run amok'
in another field is the current sad state of evolution theory, where we are to believe the actual pattern of species follows
roughly the fossil record and at the same time to provide our own links between species. I'm not saying your theory is
that far gone, only that I sense it cannot be the right one and have tried to inform you why I think so.
That's friendly, true ... .-) Could you imagine, that I think different about it?
The crux, really, is that you believe tarot began with nobles and drifted down, while I believe it began amongst commoners
and filtered up. But you defend with facts, and I cannot fault you for that. Hopefully we are both the stronger for having
'jousted'.
Indeed I would say, that Tarot developed in a player's mind, and it's rather unclear who did, could have been a poor or
rich one, all rather democratic, who has a good player's mind. Often good players aren't so rich, cause they spend too
much time to become a good player.
But as far "colorful pictures" are concerned, we have there a money problem. The usual price for such luxury decks was
5 lira marchesana and that's about 3-5 monthes of work for a humble man, so let's say, this is unlikely. Good players
don't need good cards, it's the game, which must be good, not the cards. Good players developed good recognizable symbols
on the cards, which made playing easy and practical. And these cards were easy and cheap to produce. These cards didn't
survive, cause nobody detected any special worth in them. And they needed no special cards, there were other ways to play,
which were at least similar good.
These Trionfi cards were mainly for women, you know. And for rich kids. Men had another taste.
venicebard
26-08-2005, 04:16
So we can talk about the considered object in two different ways. Above you stated : "I mean you are certainly right that
32 stands as a unifying principle between the 10 and the 22. " And this was the quantity statement.
And then: "But still, they are pulled apart and examined as distinct in Sefer Yetzirah, and I am saying that was for a
reason and valid even with knowledge of the unifying 32." And this was the quality-statement.Yes, quality versus quantity.
But the very thing that makes it so fascinating is that the 10+22 also arise quantitatively in a sense. Generation of
the 22 and the 10 relate directly to the universal human condition in a precise way. The 10 could not be 9, nor 11, for
they are the steps we have traversed on the universal round to arrive at being conscious selves: the 10 are fixed and
cannot be amended. It is with the 22 that slight fog might remain in a sense, though I can make the argument for the 3
mother-wheels being represented rather than all 4: the three mothers result in the fourth, the 3 therefore being powers,
the 4th mere effect. But this logic is subtle and could use ‘bucking up’ by influence ‘bleeding over’ from the 64,
and this is what I wish to consider further.
Certainly there is hexadal (is that a word?) resonance in the round: the two hexads called male and female in astrology
actually do divide the round, but into macrocosmic signs and microcosmic signs. Consider the fundamental stations on the
round we have traversed to become individual conscious selves (best seen in poetic terms):
There is ‘straight up’ – the upright, the exalted, the origin (that is, the round takes its meaning from the fact that
we are upright beings). Then, there is departure from ‘straight up’. Then, there is approach to ‘straight out’. Then,
there is ‘straight out’ itself – which the Bahir calls Lovingkindness. Then there is departure from ‘straight out’
(this is the great fire, in the Bahir, and in Cups is called din, Judgment, because it is the veering away from Lovingkindness).
Then, there is approach to ‘straight down’. Then, there is ‘straight down’ itself, one’s ‘base’ (the Holy Palace,
in the Bahir). Finally, there are: departure from ‘straight down’, approach to ‘straight in’, and ‘straight in’
(straight back being back towards self), where we, as conscious selves, ARE: the Shekhinah or ‘Presence’ (of the divine).
Now the vertical axis is unlimited: up remains up however far up we take it. The horizontal axis, however, is limited:
immediately upon departure from the torso the horizontal begins slanting away from the horizontal, limiting its effect
to the region of the body (limited by the horizon). It is the expandability of the vertical axis that is the source of
our ability to affect the macrocosm and its ability to affect us. And there are six-stations that resonate with the
‘expandable’ vertical axis: up, approaching out, departing out, down, approaching in, and departing in. The fifth of
these is the middle term of the conscious self, which has three aspects: the (inward-seeking) departure-from-down, the
approach-to-within, and within (self-knowledge). But 'they' are all one self, a 'Trinity'. Self’s two microcosmic aspects
(resonating with horizontal axis) act, then, on the middle term, whose resonance with the expandable vertical axis allows
it to carry this stamp to the macrocosm (by resonance principles). And this is the basis of all true magic – life itself
is magic – and of the karma it generates.
It could be that the 64 hexagrams somehow arise from this resonance principle in the round. It would be a way to trace
the quantitative’s ultimate quality, not just a quality, as you seem to hint when you say:
Quality is all other stuff, it's the flesh, it's the definitions of the single elements, which "create" the world of the
hexagrams (either in I-Ching-style, but other, very different styles are imaginable, a round-sequential for instance,
the Star of David, the cube-style, there are many ways and orders, how one could show 6 elements), it's the words that
are made to describe the hexagram or its other ways to show it, the pictures that developed to transport meaning in it
etc. "Quality".For the round is the ultimate arbiter of things (which is the reason one does better to live in a round
lodge, like a tipi, or an ancient British Kelt’s cottage).
To conclude, the 22 stations of the Hebrew alef-bet are not arbitrary, meaning it does matter that we not choose the 23
of Latin or the 24 of Greek without carefully relating these to their origin, the 22. The 24 runes, for instance, relate
directly to the 22, giving two versions of G, the desire-mind – ‘harvest’ and ‘gift’, or will-to-acquire and
will-to-bestow – and including both the P of the P-Kelt and the Ng of the Q-Kelt, which are two different versions of
the same month (the ‘P’ version the mere subdivision of Hebrew peh into runic P and F).
But as far [as] "colorful pictures" are concerned, we have there a money problem. The usual price for such luxury decks
was 5 lira marchesana and that's about 3-5 monthes of work for a humble man, so let's say, this is unlikely. Good players
don't need good cards, it's the game, which must be good, not the cards. Good players developed good recognizable symbols
on the cards, which made playing easy and practical. And these cards were easy and cheap to produce. These cards didn't
survive, cause nobody detected any special worth in them. And they needed no special cards, there were other ways to play,
which were at least similar good. Much depends on when block printing came on the scene. Perhaps the earliest Marseilles
were in black-and-white! but I imagine mass production techniques evolved with the cards themselves, not some time after,
and we know cards were around at least since the late 1300s: they were probably primarily the pastime of the emerging
middle class, rather than of peasants or nobles, nobles being (casually) drawn to them only after their popularity, not
before.
Huck
26-08-2005, 09:10
Much depends on when block printing came on the scene. Perhaps the earliest Marseilles were in black-and-white! but I
imagine mass production techniques evolved with the cards themselves, not some time after, and we know cards were around
at least since the late 1300s: they were probably primarily the pastime of the emerging middle class, rather than of peasants
or nobles, nobles being (casually) drawn to them only after their popularity, not before.
As earliest surviving woodcut print is given St. Christopher, ca. 1418 - 1420. Perhaps this an old "first". And it's likely
that perhaps not woodcut, but other printing techniques existed before.
The earliest very cheap playing cards: You painted them yourself. When Johannes observed "children en masse playing cards
in the streets" ... this is the time for a dominance of this technique.
The second step: There were prepared forms, which had holes, where the colours should be placed. You filled with colour
and a usable quick tool the holes, perhaps first only one form was used (cheap), later some more forms for more than one
colour (more expensive). The profession "Formschneider" appears rather early.
Very rough technique demands to have not much figures. Trionfi cards have much figures. Without numbers ... how can you
in quick play identify the figure "quick"? So figures with suit sign above = "Ober" and figure with suit sign below =
Unter - that's easy to recognize. Then a special design for Kings and your technical problem is solved without much detailed
work.
In playing cards history often it's said, that the French abstract suit developed late (ca. 1480 usually). It's unclear
to me, how they should know that? Just cause they've no evidence for early cheap cards? I guess, that in the first stage
already existed abstract signs, which made production easy, just not much details. In the selfpainting phase.
It was a sign of higher culture to use complex suits ... and "higher culture" has a better chance to survive as a playing
card. So our picture made from "evidence" is necessarily forged by simple laws of human collectors behaviour.
But low cheap production technique and Trionfi cards exclude each other - too much figures. And for the game and that
what we know about the rules, the figures are absolutely not necessary. So your theory is not realistic.
Much woodcut printing for Italy seems to be realistic for "since 1465 increasing" - not totally unknown before, but not
a great phenomenon.
"Since 1465 increasing" means that the technique accompanied the book printing revolution.
And what I know from France and its general printing techniques: France came later (I'm not a specialist). Spain developed
much later. England's first note about playing cards is from 1463 - very much behind all others.
http://trionfi.com/0/e1/04/
at the bottom of the page is a listing of links, mostly to German texts. This is not accidently so. If we had found good
English links, we would have taken them. Cause Germans invented this art, they nowadays have reason and also opportunity
to study early printing technique, ergo more internet documents just to this point. If you're interested to find some
good English links or also French or Italian resources, please do. The list was done 2 years ago, perhaps internet has
improved since then. If you find something of value which makes early printing understandible, please tell me, I'll add
it.
The movement of early printing technique is not easy to decipher by history. Centuries different hypotheses were discussed,
before Gutenberg was generally excepted as the "great man".
Parzival
26-08-2005, 10:48
Huck wrote: ....
There are 14 Bembo cards, not 20. This fact leads to the 5x14 theory, without it it wouldn't exist. So it's essential
in our communication, that we have similar insights about this.
If you really think, that he painted 20 trumps, then read Kaplan I, p. 106 or the articles to
There are two artists. One painted 6 trumps, and the rest was painted by an artist, who is considered to have been Bembo.
Please excuse my two simple questions here, from someone curious but in the dark about origins. I understand the Bembo
deck originates in the 1440s, that Bembo lived about 1420-1480, and that the Bembo deck's trump set is a compound of two
artists. One, possibly Bembo, painted 14 trumps : Fool, Magician, Papessa, Empress, Emperor, Pope, Love, Chariot, Justice,
Hermit, Wheel, Hanged Man, Death, Judgment. The other artist, unknown, painted 6 trumps : Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance,
Star, Moon, Sun. That adds to 22 trumps, painted by two artists. (The Devil and Tower were missing.) Why couldn't the
intention be to have 22 trumps, using the two artists because they shared the work, the 6-trump painter possibly wanting
to paint those 6 thematic images because he was inspired and gifted to do so? Why not a collaborative 22-trump set of
trumps, 22 trumps being the goal for a complete set at this time? Don't references to 70-card decks come after the Bembo
deck, in the 1450's? (I know this formative phase was alive with freedom and variation, so why couldn't some makers want
the 22-trump set, others different-numbered trump-sets?)
Huck
26-08-2005, 13:32
Please excuse my two simple questions here, from someone curious but in the dark about origins. I understand the Bembo
deck originates in the 1440s, that Bembo lived about 1420-1480, and that the Bembo deck's trump set is a compound of two
artists. One, possibly Bembo, painted 14 trumps : Fool, Magician, Papessa, Empress, Emperor, Pope, Love, Chariot, Justice,
Hermit, Wheel, Hanged Man, Death, Judgment. The other artist, unknown, painted 6 trumps : Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance,
Star, Moon, Sun. That adds to 22 trumps, painted by two artists. Why couldn't the intention be to have 22 trumps, using
the two artists because they shared the work, the 6-trump painter possibly wanting to paint those 6 thematic images because
he was inspired and gifted to do so? Why not a collaborative 22-trump set of trumps, 22 trumps being the goal for a complete
set at this time? Don't references to 70-card decks come after the Bembo deck, in the 1450's? (I know this formative phase
was alive with freedom and variation, so why couldn't some makers want the 22-trump set, others different-numbered
trump-sets?)
... :-) I count 4 questions and a "likely a writing error". Which are the socalled 2 simple questions?
... there is no evidence for a 4x14+22-structure till 1457 and till Boiardo deck (which has 1461 - 1494). In history always
everything is possible, for instance decks with 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 26 etc trumps, and for instance 101 small arcana.
Also the 22-version can't be excluded.
It's wise to keep to that, what really is observable. 22 trumps are observable, but with evidence only in the later time.
This later appearance as deck forms a positive argument for the former existence ... but no evidence. The 5x14-theory
is simply stronger and has more evidence.
The theme is the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-deck, which is dated as "after 1450" and "suggested for 1452" cause a letter
of Sigismond Malatesta (not for 1440's). The "70 card" notes is from 1457.
here is an argumentation, not complete
here is a (provisonally) suggestion, how and when it came to the 22 structure. By recent further exploration the date
1468 was confirmed in the manner, that some of us believe it to be good enough (not published), but the suggestion (on
the page) must be in minor points refined. It will be published and refined, when the research had reached its finishing
state.
Parzival
26-08-2005, 20:20
Sorry. Let me try again, for what it's worth. Two questions : Could there not have been an intention to include a 22-trump
set, using two painters, with the Bembo?-- Not as an added after-thought second sub-set of 6, but as an intended compound
of two sub-sets. (The two missing cards considered in the total of 22.) And did not the Bembo pre-date 70-card decks?
A third question in the end -- in the formative free-flow of decks, 1440s through 1470s (approximate) why not
different-numbered sets of trumps, including a 22, a 14, etc, based upon varying purposes and practicalities?
venicebard
27-08-2005, 05:17
different-numbered sets of trumps, including a 22, a 14, etc, based upon varying purposes and practicalities?Just a comment:
never forget that even this deals only with what is extant, what has survived, and that we moderns can only interpolate
or project from this what actually was.
I would like to make my main problem with the 5x14 theory ‘clear’ (or at least explicit), so that no-one think me dense
for respecting it but not accepting it.
Considering the burgeoning of alchemy between the great (though later cut down) blossoming of culture in 12th-century
Provence-Languedoc and our circa-1400+ mark for earliest European block-printing – I don’t see why block-print
illustrating couldn’t have occurred some earlier (late 1300s?) than the earliest extant example (1418) – considering
this (how developed alchemical science, science of the interplay of matter and man, was by the time trumps were formed),
how realistic is it to hypothesize that the form of cards we inherit – the metaphysically, bardically sound 4x14+22 –
began by having someone bunglingly add to the already-existing four suits (elements) a ‘quintessence’ (fifth essence
extracted from the four) in the form of a mere fifth element, like unto the other four? Perhaps someone ignorantly added
the ‘fifth element’ but was then ‘corrected’ by real alchemists? The real quintessence is intertwined with speech
(22 letter-forms), not mimicry of one of the four (14 suit cards). Indeed if the idea was to simply add a fifth suit,
why was it not designed like the other four but with a fifth suit-symbol? (Answer: because trumps were not intended to
be a fifth suit but rather related to the four as quintessence to elements.) I’m not saying bunglers don’t exist, only
that they are miscast as creators of the gem that is tarot, but typecast as makers of cheap spin-offs.
The content of the TdM or 4x14+22 version is alchemically and bardically sound (or I at least consider this established).
Therefore, it is much more logical to believe it (or at least its prototype) the original invention. It is not that things
that are born wrong aren’t sometimes twisted closer to an undistorted form (as with cosmetic surgery), but they do not
usually achieve TdM’s perfect representation: it embodies with no discrepancies the bardo-Qabbalistic ‘model’ of
underlying human truth. The problem some will have with this statement, of course, is failure to acknowledge there is
any ‘underlying human truth’, since ‘everything is relative’. Huck himself, though, has at least shown how the 10
+ 22 structure is unified and contained in the 32 complementary pairs of hexagrams in I Ching: this, I should think, refutes
the ‘everything is relative’ bit. His conclusions are at:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=46008&page=4&pp=10 .
(I tout it because I consider it a major contribution to human knowledge.)
Huck
27-08-2005, 08:34
Sorry. Let me try again, for what it's worth. Two questions : Could there not have been an intention to include a 22-trump
set, using two painters, with the Bembo?-- Not as an added after-thought second sub-set of 6, but as an intended compound
of two sub-sets. (The two missing cards considered in the total of 22.) And did not the Bembo pre-date 70-card decks?
different-numbered sets of trumps, including a 22, a 14, etc, based upon varying purposes and practicalities?
.. :-) I count 3 questions now, the term "simple" has disappeared.
???? Could there not have been an intention to include a 22-trump set, using two painters, with the Bembo?--
### Include in what? Include 22 cards in 14 .. impossible. This is a wrong formulated question. Here you add an explanation:
!!! Not as an added after-thought second sub-set of 6, but as an intended compound of two sub-sets. (The two missing cards
considered in the total of 22.)
### You suggestion seems to mean, that commissioner meet two artists and said: You paint this and you paint that and finally
perhaps a third, who gets the command: And you paint devil and tower.
This is not logical, regarding historical conditions. Bembo painted at least 68 (70, two are really lost) cards. He didn't
die, so that the production might have broken by this occurence. He didn't fight with the commissioner (which might have
broken the work), and the comissioner had enough money and actually there was no haste and time enough, that Bembo could
paint all, which was intended.
Bembo painted 68 (70 cards) and this should actually be what the commissioner wanted from him. The alternative is, that
some cards are lost and replaced and this was considered by general playing card research long time as "the most logical
way" ... we contradict this idea and demonstrate, that it is not "the most logical way", but that there is an alternative
possibility, which by far is more logical, and this we call the "5x14-theory"
... By doing so, we found additional attributing data to our explanation, for instance the note to the 70 cards note,
which we didn't detect, but others - which had a mental focus on the other explanation - knew it already, but had no idea
and took it as "normal historical garbage" which does fit to nothing, which one can explain. In the contrary we - focused
on the other theory - precisely knew, what this note meant: A central evidence of that, what was the real situation.
Your suggestion is not, that it is totally impossible (nothing is really impossible) ... but it simply is not the "normal
way" and also "not likely". Indeed it somehow was as you indicated, but it were 3 (perhaps 4) different
commissioners, who acted, and the process from step 1 (commission Nr. 1) to step3 (devil and tower) took about 25 years
(which is the momentary discussed solution - not necessarily 100% secure)
???? And did not the Bembo pre-date 70-card decks?
No. The Bembo predates likely the 70 cards note in Ferrara 1457, not the 70 cards decks.
Cause: The Bembo is a 70 cards deck (with an estimated likeliness of

about 99.99 %; the estimation is done by us, of course, only).
Other evidence is a note from 1.1.1441 - which might be regarded as insecure, cause neither playing cards nor Trionfi
cards are noted (but there are good arguments, why it is relevant). And a real still existent 5x14 deck is known from
German production - Master PW around 1500. And a handful of other decks and notes testify the existence of the matrix
5 x "x" generally. There is nothing unusual about it. Liechtensteinsches deck-fragment, Master of the playing cards,
Johannes of Rheinfelden - all are "early".
http://trionfi.com/0/d/ - for 1.1.1441

http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/masterPW/index.html - Master PW
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/liechtenstein/index.html - Liechtenstein
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/mpc/index.html - Master of the playing cards
http://trionfi.com/0/c/01/ - Johannes of Rheinfelden
???? A third question in the end -- in the formative free-flow of decks, 1440s through 1470s (approximate) why not
different-numbered sets of trumps, including a 22, a 14, etc, based upon varying purposes and practicalities
### Good. You got it. That's more or less precisely, what is suggested by us. A normal creative movement at the beginning
with no-rules-of standard, as standard simply didn't exist.
The oldest cards, from which we know, the Michelino deck, already might have been departed from the common matrix-scheme
a little bit. It showed Greek gods. It's very far off "normal Tarot", 16 trumps. That is one great example of
Trionfi-creativity, and it might be, that it for ever stays the "oldest".
Standard developed when the base for it existed, in the 70ies of 15th century , when woodblock printing had reached a
relevant state. Before it was not really possible. Like in book printing. Nobody produced identical books, as long book
printing was not established. Each individual book had specific qualities and individual creativity (book-paintings for
instance) - till book-printing. Standard couldn't develop.
Huck
27-08-2005, 10:05
Just a comment: never forget that even this deals only with what is extant, what has survived, and that we moderns can
only interpolate or project from this what actually was.
I would like to make my main problem with the 5x14 theory ‘clear’ (or at least explicit), so that no-one think me dense
for respecting it but not accepting it.
Considering the burgeoning of alchemy between the great (though later cut down) blossoming of culture in 12th-century
Provence-Languedoc and our circa-1400+ mark for earliest European block-printing – I don’t see why block-print
illustrating couldn’t have occurred some earlier (late 1300s?) than the earliest extant example (1418) – considering
this (how developed alchemical science, science of the interplay of matter and man, was by the time trumps were formed),
how realistic is it to hypothesize that the form of cards we inherit – the metaphysically, bardically sound 4x14+22 –
began by having someone bunglingly add to the already-existing four suits (elements) a ‘quintessence’ (fifth essence
extracted from the four) in the form of a mere fifth element, like unto the other four? Perhaps someone ignorantly added
the ‘fifth element’ but was then ‘corrected’ by real alchemists?
Compare what you suggest and what's reality in 14th, even 15th century.
The greatest library of Europe is that of Charles V. in France. It has 1000 books. This state of the "greatest" still
is true perhaps about 1440 and 1450.
When I look in my own household, I detect likely a greater library than that of Charles V. and I'm really not the only
one. And in informative quality and in regard of "easy access" I would guess my library wins with 100:1 against Charles'
handwritten, difficult to read, of course really phantastic books.
Germany had about 3000 cities. Some of these cities had 100 inhabitants - this already could be a city. Perhaps some of
these cities had not a single book in their walls. Trithemius had a famous library around 1490. Monks from far distance
came to study ... 200 books.
Intellectual life must come from something, from ideas and from knowledge. If it isn't present, it must develop in small
steps which take times. The city-building process 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th century in Germany ... that needed energy. Life
jumped from the courts to the cities. A slow process.
I cannot compare Germany and France ... but things will have been similar.
Think about it, and you'll find out, that you've natural difficulties to find a logical base for your suggestions.
The real quintessence is intertwined with speech (22 letter-forms), not mimicry of one of the four (14 suit cards). Indeed
if the idea was to simply add a fifth suit, why was it not designed like the other four but with a fifth suit-symbol?
(Answer: because trumps were not intended to be a fifth suit but rather related to the four as quintessence to elements.)
Realize, that the simple 5th suit existed - and has evidence in form of surviving cards.
I’m not saying bunglers don’t exist, only that they are miscast as creators of the gem that is tarot, but typecast as
makers of cheap spin-offs.
The content of the TdM or 4x14+22 version is alchemically and bardically sound (or I at least consider this established).
Therefore, it is much more logical to believe it (or at least its prototype) the original invention. It is not that things
that are born wrong aren’t sometimes twisted closer to an undistorted form (as with cosmetic surgery), but they do not
usually achieve TdM’s perfect representation: it embodies with no discrepancies the bardo-Qabbalistic ‘model’ of
underlying human truth.
Nobody negates the existence of the Sepher Yetzirah model and also of quabbalistic models at the given time of 14th century.
Also not that of bardic models. To which degree a combination of both (bardic and quabbalistic) existed, is a question,
you suggest it, I cannot comment on, I'm not enough informed.
The situation is so, that it is not likely, that both influenced strongly early playing card production --- at least,
it has no evidence. The center of playing card production is southern Germany. Kabbalistic influences - very much not
likely. Another center: Flemish activities. As far I see it: Kabbalistic influences are not likely. Bardic infuence, of
course, but bards is not an expression for people using a single, detailed system with many complicated details, but a
broad expression, which fits in many contexts.
A general and proven farspread influence should be: Chess. Also a mysterious art.
French influence develops slowly, but finally with might and strong: since 1470/80 - which is precisely the time, that
we see as relevant for the development of standard Tarot.
Earlier French influence is given with some intellectual transport from and to the court of Rene d'Anjou and from the
young and elder Louis XI. --- the only existence of evidence are the 9 Goldschmidt cards and 4 Guildhall cards. When you
look at them ... that is not kabbalistical and all takes place in times, which you do not suggest.
The problem some will have with this statement, of course, is failure to acknowledge there is any ‘underlying human truth’,
since ‘everything is relative’. Huck himself, though, has at least shown how the 10 + 22 structure is unified and contained
in the 32 complementary pairs of hexagrams in I Ching: this, I should think, refutes the ‘everything is relative’ bit.
His conclusions are at:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=46008&page=4&pp=10 .
(I tout it because I consider it a major contribution to human knowledge.)
... :-) I agree with the last sentence completely. It's of another worth than our Tarot research - which is somehow "looking
into a kindergarten" ... :-)
Which perhaps is a little arrogant formulated, perhaps better expressed in "looking in Renaissance", which is a somehow
hectical process of re-detection of earlier intellectual ideas of mankind, now stimulated by revolutionary processes of
multiplying information with the result of "more reading for mankind" - and the naturally connected side-path that pictures
can illustrate texts and ideas (which earlier happened of course also, but now was real for many).
Intellectual advance and movement, expressed in numbers, between 1400 and 1500 may have the relation 1:100. And that's
the reason, why your suggestion for 14th century is likely wrong, but possibly right for ca. 1480.
Petrarca was good, but he was a lonely man. There were 100's of Petrarca's around 1500. They couldn't make the great show
as Petrarca, cause they weren't selected, naturally, as there were so much of them.
A normal "good man" of 2000 would also make a great show in 1900.
Intellectual advance. Mankind is a learning system.
And it will learn about the 5x14-theory ... .-) And about the hidden relation between Sepher Yetzirah and I-Ching. And
why it is. And what's behind it. Memory ... and why it was danced always around this structure and why they couldn't forget
it in all this "becoming something" and "becoming somebody" and that everything, which is complicated, had once an easy
start.
... some tears and some smile about human development ...
Perhaps some people learn a little bit of it. Perhaps "some balance in the world" in "real life". And that "simpleness"
is the key to it all.
Thanks.
venicebard
27-08-2005, 18:56
Huck, I've been enjoying and learning from our exchange and am much obliged for your time and expertise. If I attack what
I see as weaknesses, it is friendly sparring and attempt to strengthen BOTH our arguments, especially mine.Compare what
you suggest and what's reality in 14th, even 15th century.
The greatest library of Europe is that of Charles V. in France. It has 1000 books. This state of the "greatest" still
is true perhaps about 1440 and 1450. [etc.]You seem to ignore the possibility of an oral tradition existing beside the
written.
Intellectual life must come from something, from ideas and from knowledge. If it isn't present, it must develop in small
steps which take times. The city-building process 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th century in Germany ... that needed energy. Life
jumped from the courts to the cities. A slow process. This time line gives plenty of time for a burgeoning middle class
in the 14th and 15th centuries, which is what my theory needs.
Realize, that the simple 5th suit existed - and has evidence in form of surviving cards.Many off-the-wall variants existed.
It is hard to see any but the Marseilles as having enough structural merit, though, to be the possible creation that started
it all (the adding of triumphs to cards)
The center of playing card production is southern Germany. Kabbalistic influences - very much not likely.Funny, I recall
thinking Eleazer of Worms (13th century) an exceptional figure in Qabbalah, one who displayed more than usual grasp of
what I take to be its deeper precepts. Still, I do not necessarily buy that we know enough about Provence in those days
to set it aside in favor of southern Germany, as I suspect the Inquisition destroyed a great deal of evidence in
Provence-Languedoc, in the process turning those recurrent rebels into nice little sheep. It is this cultural genocide
over several centuries that offers even a slight possibility of tarot's creators having fled to northern Italy (or southern
Germany) since they would have originated in this tortured land.
Bardic infuence, of course, but bards is not an expression for people using a single, detailed system with many complicated
details, but a broad expression, which fits in many contexts.Somewhat true, but I have not been clear perhaps: the 'bardic'
I keep referring to (in this context) is that strand of poetic tradition that in Ireland and Wales preserved basic structures
from deep antiquity that were probably known to early Orphic cults, to Egyptian and Habiru priests, and so on. The specific
element that 'bardic' contributed to tarot was - and this is so clear as to be undeniable, if you ask me - the numbering
associated with tree-letters, key to trumps' ranking or numbering.
French influence develops slowly, but finally with might and strong: since 1470/80 - which is precisely the time, that
we see as relevant for the development of standard Tarot.Perhaps, but this for me would be a fall-back position of last
resort, as I think earlier Provence-Languedoc influence (not that of nobles but of the culture) is hard to gauge historically,
because of destruction of the culture, politically by the French and philosophically by Papists.
Intellectual advance and movement, expressed in numbers, between 1400 and 1500 may have the relation 1:100. And that's
the reason, why your suggestion for 14th century is likely wrong, but possibly right for ca. 1480. Yet the decline from
the great blossoming in 12th-century Provence-Languedoc to the beginning or even middle of the Renaissance was, from my
perspective, precipitous, maybe 10 items lost for every 1 salvaged? it was, as I said, cultural genocide.
... some tears and some smile about human development ...
Perhaps some people learn a little bit of it. Perhaps "some balance in the world" in "real life". And that "simpleness"
is the key to it all. Heartily agree with this last.
Parzival
27-08-2005, 21:47
The detailed (and heated) historic responses are appreciated. It takes heat to cook up something. I must agree that the
Devil and Tower cards may not be missing, but simply not intended, taking the so-called Bembo down to 70, two minors also
missing. Still, they could have been omitted or completed and not included due to the horrific strength of the imagery.
You are, Huck, the logical one here. I see "complete" sets of Visconti and Marseilles and find it difficult to accept
their fragmentary or incomplete formative forms. No Devil and Tower! Impossible! Added later? Oh my God. Not 22 to begin
with. No kabbalistic correlative symbols to start the journey 22 to 22 ; and yet what's logical and astute is as you indicate :
5x14. Along with other number schemes for trump and minor sets. So is the probable. No one Archetypal 22. Instead a building
or evolving of 14 to 22, approximately 1450 to 1500.
I thought it a strong view of the art scholars that the Bembo was the creation of two painters, not just Bembo, but an
additional and unknown painter responsible for Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, Sun, Moon, Star. One scholarly source
indicates World instead of Prudence as one of the 6. So 7 maybe by a different painter? (Not three but two painters, Devil
and Tower out of the picture.) I thought it debatable as to these 6 (7?) trumps being added later, or incorporated there
when the deck was created by way of a second painter. Has this been absolutely determined-- that the 6 were later add-on's ?
--A very important detail that makes or breaks the 5x14 theory. 20 trumps (Devil and Tower not included ) or 14 trumps,
about 1450, certain or uncertain? Difficult to get at this...
When I see the merely quantitative 5x14 I find this a little misleading, in that the trumps are qualitatively in a different
universe, not just a 5th suit, but a SUIT beyond the other suits. The difference between quintessence and the 4 elements,
not at all an equal suit among suits.
Where the original topic has gone, who knows? To be revealed.
To be continued...
Huck
27-08-2005, 22:39
The detailed (and heated) historic responses are appreciated. It takes heat to cook up something. I must agree that the
Devil and Tower cards may not be missing, but simply not intended, taking the so-called Bembo down to 70, two minors also
missing. Still, they could have been omitted or completed and not included due to the horrific strength of the imagery.
You are, Huck, the logical one here. I see "complete" sets of Visconti and Marseilles and find it difficult to accept
their fragmentary or incomplete formative forms. No Devil and Tower! Impossible! Added later? Oh my God. Not 22 to begin
with. No kabbalistic correlative symbols to start the journey 22 to 22 ; and yet what's logical and actual is as you indicate :
5x14. Along with other number schemes for trump and minor sets. So is the probable.
I thought it a strong view of the art scholars that the Bembo was the creation of two painters, not just Bembo, an unknown
painter responsible for Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, Sun, Moon, Star. I thought it debatable as to these 6 being added
later or there when the deck was created by way of a second painter. Has this been absolutely determined-- that the 6
were later add-on's? A very important detail that makes or breaks the 5x14 theory. 20 trumps or 14 trumps.
When I see 5x14 I find this a little misleading, in that the trumps are qualitatively in a different universe, not just
a 5th suit, but a SUIT beyond the other suits. The difference between quintessence and the 4 elements, not at all an equal
suit among suits. To be continued...
He, you're good! You start to realize things, without me having to explain them ... but 5x14 is not misleading, cause
the mystery of the Bembo is the game which was before. ... before it became colourful with extra pictures. The trick is,
that when you have a normal game 4x14 or 5x14 cards, that you can play tarot with it, by defining a trump row and 3 relevant
cards, that is fool, pagat and highest trump. If you like to try, take a normal set and define, how you would do it. Which
is the Fool, which is the Pagat and which is highest trump. Only the Fool is difficult, and you should know that the German
Unter was mostly funny ... Unter, that's the Italian Page
and then look at the number row
0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 ... 12 - 13 ... 20 and explain me the why ... :-)
DoctorArcanus
28-08-2005, 00:56
This thread is wonderful! :)

There is a book that is devoted to the connection between the book of Revelation and Tarot: TAROT and the MILLENNIUM:
The Story of Who's On the Cards and Why by Timothy Betts.
I did not read the book (which is out of print) but the reviews I found do not seem to be very positive (e.g.
http://www.tarotpassages.com/george3.htm )
I could not understand if this books answers the original question by BemboBimbo about a correspondence between the 22
Trumps and 22 chapters of the Revelation.
Anyone has read the book and has more information?
In general, I agree with the approach suggested by Huck

The easiest thing is to look at old relevations - 15th century. When you see iconography in the bookpaintings - enough
iconography - of Tarot cards, the thesis has a chance, if not, not.
I spent a few hours looking at The Cloisters Apocalypse An Early Fourteenth-Century Illustrated Manuscript
(http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/CloistersApocalypse.htm). I am fascinated by the Book of Revelation and I think these images
are beautiful.
My impression is that many tarot cards have a similar image in this text.
Consider for instance the following pages:

World TdM/Vieville (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_11r.jpg)
Judgement (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_13v.jpg)
Judgement, Sun, Moon, Stars (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_14r.jpg)
Devil (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_25r.jpg)
Tower (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_26v.jpg)
Visconti-Sforza World (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_36v.jpg)
Death with a Scythe (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_28r.jpg)
Justice (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_8v.jpg)
Death with a Bow (Visconti Sforza) (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_7v.jpg)
Do you know of any other single source that predates Visconti tarots and has so many images close or similar to tarot
iconography?
I also find interesting that different World cards have a good explanation in the book of Revelation: the New Jerusalem
(Visconti Sforza) the Celestial Bride (Cary-Yale Visconti) Christ with the symbols of the 4 Evangelists (Vieville).
Marco
venicebard
28-08-2005, 05:38
are beautiful.

Judgement (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_13v.jpg)
Judgement, Sun, Moon, Stars (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_14r.jpg)
Devil (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_25r.jpg)
Tower (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_26v.jpg)
Visconti-Sforza World (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_36v.jpg)
Death with a Scythe (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_28r.jpg)
Justice (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_8v.jpg)
Death with a Bow (Visconti Sforza) (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_7v.jpg)Beautiful stuff! The one
of Justice is especially interesting, in that it confirms something I have said all along: that Justice is the wielder,
aries, of the scales, libra. For here in this picture you post, the World, which I call libra (the actual scales themselves),
is above and to the left of the scales, as if to say the man on the horse, Justice, is the wielder of what is illustrated
by this lesser picture over there poised as a sort of footnote to the scales which Justice bears!
DoctorArcanus
28-08-2005, 21:35
Beautiful stuff! The one of Justice is especially interesting, in that it confirms something I have said all along: that
Justice is the wielder, aries, of the scales, libra. For here in this picture you post, the World, which I call libra
(the actual scales themselves), is above and to the left of the scales, as if to say the man on the horse, Justice, is
the wielder of what is illustrated by this lesser picture over there poised as a sort of footnote to the scales which
Justice bears!
I am glad you find these miniatures interesting!
The image I find more impressive is The Tower (http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Restricted/Cloister_Apoc_26v.jpg). I think this
XIV century image is quite convincing as a model for later Tower cards.
BTW this image is similar to the cover of the book by Timothy Betts (which I think is an illustration from another Medieval
Revelation).
Marco
Parzival
28-08-2005, 22:16
are beautiful.

I also find interesting that different World cards have a good explanation in the book of Revelation: the New Jerusalem
(Visconti Sforza) the Celestial Bride (Cary-Yale Visconti) Christ with the symbols of the 4 Evangelists (Vieville).
Marco[/QUOTE]
Magnificent 14th century images for the Revelations and significant precedent images for the Visconti Sforza and especially
the Marseilles. The World image, in particular the center of it (there may be similar manuscript variants), is a definite
basis for the "Christ with the symbols of the 4 evangelists." No doubt some of the finale Visconti Tarots are derived
from Revelations, directly from text or by prior artistic renderings. It amazes me that such profoundly eschatological
content would be used in games of entertainment, completely secularized from the sacred. We have multiple uses of Tarot
today; possibly meditative art merged with the Tarocchi game then, with divination joined in later. A little speculative,
admittedly. The important discovery here is the Art leading to the Art.
Huck
28-08-2005, 22:21
.... perhaps more good material to the same point ..
http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Apocalyptic_Links.htm
just a very good link list of the same site
DoctorArcanus
13-09-2005, 01:52
I found here on ATF (via Google) Solandia's review of Tarot of the Revelation
(http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/books/tarot-of-the-revelation/).
The Tarot of the Revelation is the companion book for a forthcoming set of cards. It links the 22 Tarot trumps with the
22 chapters of the Book of Revelation from the Bible, as decoded by Edgar Cayce.
By Christopher Earnshaw
Book - Self Published
Marco
venicebard
13-09-2005, 02:51
I found here on ATF (via Google) Solandia's review of Tarot of the Revelation
(http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/books/tarot-of-the-revelation/).A quick aside, after glancing a moment at this site and
noticing mention of a red dragon (which for some reason I did not remember from my reading of Revelations). The red dragon
standard is associated with the first (or Arthur's) Merlin, who was probably the great military leader Ambrosius Aurlienus.
The second 'Merlin' (for those who are curious) was Myrddin the mad prophet of the Caledonian forest (between the two
walls), who lived a century later and was a pagan driven mad by the slaughter (by the Christian army) of his fellow pagans
in the battle of Arderydd (in 573?).
The reason for this is that the prototype of Arthur's 'knights' in later romance turns out to have been the Sarmatian
cataphracts (super-heavy cavalry) Rome stationed there (and who stayed on after Rome left?), who wore tall pointy helmets,
mail (mostly plate, sewn into garments) from head to foot, and whose horses also wore armoured skirts: their standard
was a wind-sock dragon, whose primary purpose was to indicate the wind in order to increase the accuracy of their archery
(they fought with lance, bow, and broadsword and carried no shield).
And in the legend associated with this great leader Ambrosius's youth, the dragons that fought beneath Vortigern's tower
were red and white, the red indicating Britons and the white Saxons. So to Keltic Britain, the red dragon was a good thing!
but the white not so good... for what it's worth (probably not much). One author I read even speculated that St. George's
overcoming of the dragon (or at least iconographic obsession with same) symbolized overcoming the original Britons (by
the Germanics who later bowed to Rome), since the chief Briton (their 'overking') was termed Pendragon, or 'head dragon'.
NightWing
14-09-2005, 19:16
I'd like to return to the original question of this thread. Contrary to what several writers here seem to have assumed,
when the Revelation of St. John was first written down (in Greek, not Hebrew), the book did not have any chapter or verse
divisions. Nor did any other part of the Christian scriptures.
The gospels, the letters of Paul, and the others first appeared as separate hand-written scrolls, much like a Jewish Torah
or Roman "book". The greek script ran continuously from first word to last word, without breaks or divisions. Examples
of these early scriptures still exist. Centuries after first being written down, as the "canon" of Christian scripture
was taking form, and the copying format changed to codices, the texts were internally organized. But it was a long time
before Revelations emerged with 22 chapters as we now know it. Even today, this division is not universal. There are some
"brands" of Christianity that set it up differently, and kept it that way.
If there is any connection between the 22 chapters now in Revelation and the 22 images of the Major Arcana of the tarot,
it is a relatively recent one.
Ross G Caldwell
14-09-2005, 19:53
I'd like to return to the original question of this thread. Contrary to what several writers here seem to have assumed,
when the Revelation of St. John was first written down (in Greek, not Hebrew), the book did not have any chapter or verse
divisions. Nor did any other part of the Christian scriptures.
The gospels, the letters of Paul, and the others first appeared as separate hand-written scrolls, much like a Jewish Torah
or Roman "book". The greek script ran continuously from first word to last word, without breaks or divisions. Examples
of these early scriptures still exist. Centuries after first being written down, as the "canon" of Christian scripture
was taking form, and the copying format changed to codices, the texts were internally organized. But it was a long time
before Revelations emerged with 22 chapters as we now know it. Even today, this division is not universal. There are some
"brands" of Christianity that set it up differently, and kept it that way.
You are of course correct. The modern chapter divisions of all of the books of the Bible is believed to be the work of
Stephen Langdon in the 13th century :
"The modern division of the Bible into chapters is believed to have been the work of Stephen Langton, the famous Archbishop
of Canterbury (1207-1228) during the reign of the English King John. This system of chapters is found in many Latin Bibles,
but only a few of the most recent Greek manuscripts; it has no historical significance.
Our modern verses have even less importance; they were devised by Robert Estienne (Stephanus) for his edition of the Textus
Receptus, and have survived in printed editions ever since. They do not, however, occur in the manuscripts."
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Divisions.html
Before Langdon, Andreas of Caesarea in the sixth century divided the Apocalypse into 24 3-fold sections:
"In the Apocalypse, the leading system of divisions is that of Andreas of Cæsarea, who lived in the sixth century and
wrote the commentary that is found in so many of the Apocalypse manuscripts. Andreas's divisions are highly artificial
(and not very well preserved, as the variations in the Nestle margin will show). Andreas arbitrarily divided the book
into 24 sections (logoi); this seems to have been inspired by the 24 elders of Rev. 4:4. Each section was subdivided into
three kefalaia (these inspired, apparently, by body, soul, and spirit). Thus there are 72 divisions in all in the Apocalypse,
which the Nestle text numbers continuously though they are properly divided into groups of three.
Since these divisions were not invented until the sixth century, it will be evident that none of our oldest manuscripts
(P47, , A, C) contain them. Andreas summarized his sections, but since the number of divisions was arbitrarily set, it
will be observed that these sections do not really accord with the logic of the book's arrangement."
op. cit.
it is a relatively recent one.
Yes, it must have been within the last 780 years, at least after Langdon ;-)
Ross
NightWing
16-09-2005, 19:58
Ross: thank-you for the expansion on my point regarding the lack of ancient chapter divisions in the Christian scriptures.
Given the lack of mass printing and the general illiteracy of Europe in the 13th century, the "chapters" devised then
were probably known to very few. Not more than some scores of latin scripture scholars at the University of Paris over
150+ years, I suspect.
Not until the Geneva Bible of 1560 were chapter and verse designations used and widely circulated, that were fairly standard,
and remain so (more or less), at least for Protestants. In the Catholic world, which included tarot-rich Italy, France,
the Spanish Empire, and other nations, there were variants of the scriptures. Not only was the accepted canon different(the
Protestant Bible is shorter than the Catholic), but the content of some books varied, as did the translations from the
ancient languages, and even the chapter/verse designations in some cases. Catholics were NOT encouraged to own or read
a copy of the Bible, as were Protestants, even if they were able to handle latin. This only really began to change in
the 20th century.
It would be most interesting if a link could be shown between the emergence of tarot in the 15th century and the then
very narrow world of Biblical scholarship. Alas, I know of no such connection.
Most artists of the time only knew the biblical stories from hearing them read aloud to them in church. For example, I
understand that Michaelangelo was essentially illiterate, and dictated his notes to a secretary (Doesn't sound that
different from modern business practice!). He would have been unaware of anything other than the biblical "book" that
the material came from. There were medieval and early renaissance book collections that were the pride of their wealthy
owners...who often could not read them.
Thus I think it unlikely that a common tarot artist in Italy of the 14th or 15th century would have had any awareness
of the chapter divisions within Revelations, let alone any inkling of their supposed significance.
Interesting possibilities then include the tarot Majors being designed by an Italian (Catholic) biblical scholar to be
illustrated by a contracted painter, or the Majors being designed by a biblical scholar in Protestant northern Europe,
but after the Reformation started rolling in 1519. Neither of these seems all that likely.
I tend to think that the evolution of the 22 Majors, the chapterisation of the Revelation of St. John, and the number
of letters in the Hebrew alphabet are coincidental, and largely accidents of history. All numbers are repeated in various
places and over time; I was once 22 years of age, and owned exactly 22 books, both while living at #22 State Street. So
what?
Both Alexander the Great and Jesus of Nazareth are said to have lived 33 years, and there are 33 letters in the Ukrainian
alphabet. That alphabet is derived from the Greek one. Alexander spoke and spread the Greek language and the gospel accounts
of Jesus were thence written in Greek. There must be a connection! No, there doesn't.
venicebard
17-09-2005, 01:20
it is a relatively recent one.Of course! unless those who divided it were simply expressing what had been oral tradition
prior to that time. In support of this possibility, it did seem to me there was some direct correlation with letters,
but by bardic numeration (on which trumps are based) for the most part, rather than alef-bet order.
But where it crosses paths with tarot most closely is in having influenced the Vieville-type LeSoleil, methinks, which
would indicate its designer thought there was a direct correlation.
Ross G Caldwell
17-09-2005, 02:05
Hi NightWing,
of letters in the Hebrew alphabet are coincidental, and largely accidents of history.
I agree. For the Tarot and 22 that is.
However, Langdon's chapter divisions did affect illustrations of the Apocalypse. A very famous one is Dutch manuscript
3 [manuscrit néerlandais 3] in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris. There is an illustration for each chapter, plus a
"preface" with life of St. John (you can see all the illustrations here)-
http://www.moleiro.com/facsimile/AF/en/Flemish_Apocalypse.html
Another description -
"To introduce the narrative pictures from the Apocalypse, we have chosen an illumination from the first illustrated
Apocalypse produced in the Netherlands, a Flemish manuscript dating to about the year 1400. There are 23 full-page
illustrations; one for each of the book's 22 chapters and another at the beginning presenting scenes from the life of
St. John. Four distinct episodes are included in the illumination for Chapter 12. Reading from the right top to bottom,
we see the Woman in childbed presenting her child to an angel, who will take it to the one enthroned in heaven. She is
surrounded by rays as of the sun and at her feet are both the moon and the sun together. Just below this, an angel fits
a wing to her shoulder. At the bottom left, she appears once more in a grove of trees. The dragon pursues her there, vomiting
the water which the earth opens up to swallow, thus aiding the Woman. At the upper left, Michael wields his sword against
the dragon. The Manuscript is one of the treasures of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris."
http://www.udayton.edu/mary/resources/apocalypse1.html
Illustrated Apocalypses were "popular" in the late 14th and early 15th centuries; the inventories of libraries of the
Este, Visconti and René d'Anjou all have a few of them. These people were not illiterate, but they liked fine illumination
as well. So the chapter divisions did influence art, and since the trumps are art and were created long after the chapter
divisions of the apocalypse, the absence of such divisions in the early bible is not a sound counterargument.
But personally, I don't think the trumps - in number or subject - reflect a systematic illustration of the Apocalypse.
Ross
Huck
17-09-2005, 03:41
<quote>Originally Posted by NightWing

of letters in the Hebrew alphabet are coincidental, and largely accidents of history.</quote>
I agree not.
The Hebrew Alphabet is the oldest of the 3 objects. There are indices, that the number of letters was formed according
to a mathematical structure, which had similar (logical) conditions as the results of throw with two dices.
This is obvious by the existence of the Sepher Yetzirah, which explains the number of letters just in this way.
The chapterisation of the relevation was done, when the number of the
Hebrew letters had won strong influence. It's likely, that it got 22 chapters, cause there were 22 Hebrew letters. "Ideal
numbers" chosen for chapterisation are a common feature in old literature generally ... there is more than one example
of this interest. Of course this doesn't mean, that any chapterisation included such an idea - but in the special case
of relevation it looks likely.
For the development and acceptance of the Tarot in the public(the "success" of just this Tarot-version) it was relevant,
that Tarot had structure elements, which were already common by other popular games, which used dices (see above, Sepher
Yetzirah).
Again: not really accidently.
... :-) When sombody lives in a house with the number 22, and he lives all his life there, then it's naturally that he's
once 22 years old.
... :-) It looks a little unbelievable, that you only had 22 books.
Rosanne
17-09-2005, 10:49
The Hebrew Alphabet is the oldest of the 3 objects. There are indices, that the number of letters was formed according
to a mathematical structure, which had similar (logical) conditions as the results of throw with two dices.
This is obvious by the existence of the Sepher Yetzirah, which explains the number of letters just in this way.
Hmmm, maybe we forget the daily life of the peoples of the ancient Middle East. The Sun appeared in Taurus at the beginning
of Spring during the years 4000 BC -1800 BC. That was their New Year. That was the start of their year- that was their
symbol Aleph the Ox and The Ox/Bull was the symbol of the Phoenician God Baal- their own Magician and they had an 'Abjad'-
22 Consonant sounds without vowels- the first sound started with the sign of Spring -their first day of the year; I guess
how their year went was truely in some ways 'a fall of the dice' weatherwise. ~Rosanne
Rosanne
17-09-2005, 11:09
I forgot to add-what happened next. Moving counterclockwise of course through the year; rising on the horizon, on the
right shoulder of Orion is the Arabic 'yad al Jawza' the fixed star Betelguese. The Phoenician words are 'Beyt el Jooze'
the house of the Twins or Gemini (to us now) interesting- another fall of the dice in position number two. ~Rosanne
Huck
17-09-2005, 13:41
Hmmm, maybe we forget the daily life of the peoples of the ancient Middle East. The Sun appeared in Taurus at the beginning
of Spring during the years 4000 BC -1800 BC. That was their New Year. That was the start of their year- that was their
symbol Aleph the Ox and The Ox/Bull was the symbol of the Phoenician God Baal- their own Magician and they had an 'Abjad'-
22 Consonant sounds without vowels- the first sound started with the sign of Spring -their first day of the year; I guess
how their year went was truely in some ways 'a fall of the dice' weatherwise. ~Rosanne
We had an international bull cult at that time. Northern Egyptia in the Delta region (Apis), Phoenicia and Creta. Even
Persia found to a Mithras cult. Likely this was spread there, where it was possible, to have cows and bulls. In the upper
Nile, you've no bull cult, cause it didn't work there. Likely it took place in the sign of taurus, cause these guys made
the zodiac, so it's not really surprizing.
... :-) however, although the Phoenecian took aleph, the bull letter, as first letter, ... this alone doesn't explain
anything about the 22.
Rosanne
17-09-2005, 15:08
... :-) however, although the Phoenecian took aleph, the bull letter, as first letter, ... this alone doesn't explain
anything about the 22.
I absolutely agree with you Huck. I guess what I am saying is that maybe the 22 letters and numbers is more to do with
rising stars and astrological signs for the seasons and important days of their Gods- than to do with mathmatical structures.
My example would be He-(behold) Phoenician For Sirius is Hannabeah/Egyptian is Hesiri and sometimes Sati or Sed. Behold
Sirius rising- The Nile rises (the Summer soltice) in July. So maybe letter 5 is Sirius. Maybe later the rebus was used
by Mystics of Hebrew thought. I do not believe the 22 chapters of Revelations is in any way connected, other than by the
coincidental use of the number 22.~Rosanne
Huck
17-09-2005, 15:52
I absolutely agree with you Huck. I guess what I am saying is that maybe the 22 letters and numbers is more to do with
rising stars and astrological signs for the seasons and important days of their Gods- than to do with mathmatical structures.
My example would be He-(behold) Phoenician For Sirius is Hannabeah/Egyptian is Hesiri and sometimes Sati or Sed. Behold
Sirius rising- The Nile rises (the Summer soltice) in July. So maybe letter 5 is Sirius. Maybe later the rebus was used
by Mystics of Hebrew thought. I do not believe the 22 chapters of Revelations is in any way connected, other than by the
coincidental use of the number 22.~Rosanne
The Egyptian had an "ideal" "mythological" partition of their country - at least this is true around ca. 2400 BC and later.
42 regions, 20 for lower Egyptia, that's the delta of the Nile, and - 22 for the upper part, that's the region of the
Nile before the delta. Although this number not in each political situation was the practical real number, they kept the
system. Each of the region had a special sign, - a sort of Tarot card, if you want, or perhaps a better a sort of "heraldic
design" or Totem animal - usually an animal (lower Egyptia had various bulls or cows, they dominate there for natural
reasons) and each region had its own cultic system - mostly in connection to the sign.
When the people died, they met 42 underworld-gods, to which they had to explain: "I didn't do this and I didn't do that."
42 times, different this and that of course. So the 42 elements were used also as a moral law.
This structure was chosen according to an "ideal" system, it was not "accidently". The reason was, that 22 + 20 + 22 =
64. 64 was the ideal number, not 22, but the 22 was a sub-system of the 64. If you want to understand that, you can read:
It was the same system - or at least similar- , what's behind the Sepher Yetzirah.
In the Egyptian interpretation
22 - was the upper nile (the river)

20 - was the lower nile (the delta)
(22) - missing, but likely meant the river in the sea.
---
64
They wrote the Osiris-Mythos. Osiris reigned 28 years. Then he was cut to pieces by his brother Seth. 14 pieces. 28 +
14 = 42.
Ideal-number-games.
The alphabet was made after ca. 2400 BC.
In it's 22-form it was made according to the already existent "old system" - which was farspread and well known. This
had the effect, that the people could easily learn it - even stupid, not well leaned people. So it became a worldwide
success-story - cause it was easy. In comparition to it the old hieroglyphic scripture had about 600 signs to learn. This
was difficult - ergo people didn't learn it and the people stayed stupid and not educated.
Even when other people adapted the alphabet and changed it according to their specific language by adding letters (which
made the original "22" lost) .. it simply was a very practical tool, which created "cultural advance".
A very similar progress to the revolutionary advances caused by book-printing in 15th century.
Phoenicia was more or less Egyptia. The hidden stream of the Nile went to Byblos, which was an Osiris-center. This was
all part of the cult.
(Added later:)
The bull-cult with Baal and El had a response at Egyptian side: Isis was "mythological" beheaded and got the head of a
cow as replacement. A female Minostauros, if one sees the parallel.
The Greek identified Isis with Io, who was transformed by jealous Hera in a cow and then wandered as this in wild journey
from Greek to Egyptia, where she was honoured as goddess and gave birth to Apis, which became the bull god. "Real" Apis-cult
in the delta region of Egyptia.
Athen represented a development against the bull-cult. Their gods were Athena and Hephaistos, gods of industrial products.
Just a new form of society.
DoctorArcanus
18-09-2005, 07:29
of letters in the Hebrew alphabet are coincidental, and largely accidents of history.
But personally, I don't think the trumps - in number or subject - reflect a systematic illustration of the Apocalypse.
I agree with both NightWing and Ross.
This flemish apocalypse is beautiful. I find it particularly impressive because its international gothicic style is close
to Bembo's.
I think that the apocalypse was one of the sources that contributed to Tarot. Still, when I see an image like this
(http://www.moleiro.com/miniatura.v.php?codigo=680&idioma=en), with the Tower, the Moon, the Sun, the Stars, the Devil
and Death, predating the Visconti-Sforza deck of at least 20 years, I think that maybe the Revelation contributed heavily
to Tarot. But of course (XV century) Tarot is not a systematic illustration of Apocaplypse. I wonder if some text exists
that can provide a bridge between Tarot and the Book of Revaltion. Something that could account for the many elements
in Tarot that are difficult to connect to that Book (e.g. The Lovers).
Marco
NightWing
18-09-2005, 11:13
Huck, Ross, and others:
While I have no problem with the idea that tarot artists derived at least some of their imagery from the familiar scriptural
sources, I find it much less compelling that Stephen Langton in the 13th century was influenced in his chapter numbering
by the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. He was working on the Latin Vulgate Bible alone, and there is no proof that
he had access to a Greek version (The Septuagint), let alone had a set of Hebrew scriptures or even was familiar with
Hebrew. He was not a medieval Rabbi. He was a Catholic bishop in a very anti-semitic place and time. No records of the
Gospels nor the letters of Paul and the others existed in Hebrew for a church scholar to study. Even in Jesus' time it
was essentially a "dead" language. There was no reason for any Christian cleric to study Hebrew until nearly the time
of the Protestant Reformation. Even had he the access or the linguistic knowledge, surely that might more likely have
been applied to the Jewish scriptures("Old Testament") than to the Greek or Latin Christian scriptures("New Testament"),
such as the Revelation of St. John.
If Langton had decided on 24 chapters in Revelations rather than 22, I suppose then we might have ended up with 24 cards
in the Major Arcana(?). Oh, wait; there ARE versions like that! Given the incompleteness of early tarot decks, we can't
be absolutely sure of how many cards there actually were in all cases. My guess is that the number varied a good deal.
We of later times may be imposing our expectations on these earlier works, trying to standardise tarot in a period when
there actually wasn't any standardisation. And then finding connections where there never were any to begin with.
As to artists being inspired by previous works; of course they would be. That has always been the case. Note the similarity
in tarot between the Three of Cups of the RWS and part of the famous "Primavera" that was rediscovered in the mid-19th
century. The three woman depicted are all but identical. Pamela Colman Smith was undoubtedly familiar with the "Primavera",
as any art student of her time was.
P.S. Huck, there was a time in my life when as a poor student, I only owned 21, 22, and then 23 books. Since then of course
the number has somewhat increased. :-)
Huck
18-09-2005, 12:28
Huck, Ross, and others:
While I have no problem with the idea that tarot artists derived at least some of their imagery from the familiar scriptural
sources, I find it much less compelling that Stephen Langton in the 13th century was influenced in his chapter numbering
by the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. He was working on the Latin Vulgate Bible alone, and there is no proof that
he had access to a Greek version (The Septuagint), let alone had a set of Hebrew scriptures or even was familiar with
Hebrew.
...
P.S. Huck, there was a time in my life when as a poor student, I only owned 21, 22, and then 23 books. Since then of course
the number has somewhat increased. :-)
I don't know about this bishop and I don't know, which way it went. ... But I would say, that any bishop had the chance
to know the psalm "golden ABC" ... and this has 22 smaller parts and each started with another letter in the row of the
Hebrew alphabet ... I guess this had some fame between all this other writings in the bible. a bishop should have known
this.
So assuming that deep inside church they had lost any contact to the original ... I've difficulties.
There were Jews in England till ca. 1270, btw. Then they were expelled.
And there were crusaders visiting foreign countries with real impressions about other languages. English crusaders, which
really saw Jerusalem.
They even knew the priestking Johannes - although he not really existed.
And they had much more time than we have and less objects to be occupied with. I feel sure, he knew about this 22 letters ... :-)
They had not so much numbers as we do have nowadays, but those numbers that they had they took rather serious.
Just my impression ... I'm not really good with 13th century, you could tell me a lot of things, but not all ... :-)
Especially they believed, that in the year 1260 the world would end .. so the apocalyptic writings were highly important ...
and you think, they took an accidently number ????
... perhaps you still suffer from your "only 22 books" .... :-) just a joke, please excuse ... a lot of people would have
felt rich in 13th century, if they had so much. But just this condition caused, that the few books, that they had, they
knew very well ... as far they could read them or somebody told about it.
NightWing
18-09-2005, 13:42
Hello Huck:
I can share with you a few other things about the 13th century that are relevant here.
Most authorities agree that the chapters of the Bible (more or less) as we now know them, were set by Stephen of Langton
(or Langdon) about 1227 A.D., who was a 13th century priest and teacher at Paris, and later Archbishop of Canterbury.
Langton studied and then taught at the university of Paris, such as it was in those days. It bore very little resemblance
to a modern university and was more like a group of students who gathered around a few Mentors. Resources were very limited,
and books were few. Langton was promoted to be Archbishop in England, and in fact his bigoted beliefs and policies there
contributed to the expulsion of the Jews, under King Edward I. It was not just an expulsion, by the way. Edward essentially
"sold" his Jews, as in a form of slavery, to raise cash. Langton certainly would not have been socialising with them.
The apocalyptic writings have gone through many periods of "popularity" and subsequent obscurity. Langton's Catholic
theology didn't put much store in such things then, and Catholic theologians do not now. It was and is more of a fundamentalist
Protestant concern. However, there was always some popular interest in such things amongst the common people, usually
spurred on by some cleric treading close to heresy. But one doesn't need chapter numbers in any case, in order to get
excited about the material in Revelations and possible predictions about the world's end. The account given is vivid enough.
As to the Crusaders, remember that the middle east and especially Jerusalem were moslem by then. Finding a Hebrew speaking
Jew there would have been nearly impossible for many centuries.
Part of my previous post had to do with versions and translations available in Langton's time and place. My position is
that it is unlikely in the extreme that he had any access to Hebrew scriptures, including the psalms. His psalms were
in latin, with a latin alphabet. The western Church, based in Rome, used the latin "Vulgate" version and translation of
the Bible for almost 1000 years. The eastern church, based primarily in Constantinople, used a revision of the Greek
Septuagint(OT) and the Greek New Testament for even longer.
Christians didn't bother with the Hebrew "Old Testament" until nearly the eve of the Reformation, and not much even then.
After the Reformation of course, there were many scholars who wanted to return to the earliest languages of the Bible.
That meant Hebrew where possible for the OT, and Greek for the NT. Not all of what is now the Christian "Old Testament"
could be found in Hebrew, so they relied on the Greek "Septuagint" version, which actually dates from before the time
of Jesus Christ. The New Testament was never rendered in Hebrew, unless perhaps in the last 50 years. There was consequently
no ancient version of the "Revelation of St. John" in Hebrew.
Hopefully this has clarified my argument, at least a little bit. :-)
Huck
18-09-2005, 15:04
Hello Huck:
I can share with you a few other things about the 13th century that are relevant here.
Most authorities agree that the chapters of the Bible (more or less) as we now know them, were set by Stephen of Langton
(or Langdon) about 1227 A.D., who was a 13th century priest and teacher at Paris, and later Archbishop of Canterbury.
Langton studied and then taught at the university of Paris, such as it was in those days. It bore very little resemblance
to a modern university and was more like a group of students who gathered around a few Mentors. Resources were very limited,
and books were few. Langton was promoted to be Archbishop in England, and in fact his bigoted beliefs and policies there
contributed to the expulsion of the Jews, under King Edward I. It was not just an expulsion, by the way. Edward essentially
"sold" his Jews, as in a form of slavery, to raise cash. Langton certainly would not have been socialising with them.
The apocalyptic writings have gone through many periods of "popularity" and subsequent obscurity. Langton's Catholic
theology didn't put much store in such things then, and Catholic theologians do not now. It was and is more of a fundamentalist
Protestant concern. However, there was always some popular interest in such things amongst the common people, usually
spurred on by some cleric treading close to heresy. But one doesn't need chapter numbers in any case, in order to get
excited about the material in Revelations and possible predictions about the world's end. The account given is vivid enough.
As to the Crusaders, remember that the middle east and especially Jerusalem were moslem by then. Finding a Hebrew speaking
Jew there would have been nearly impossible for many centuries.
Part of my previous post had to do with versions and translations available in Langton's time and place. My position is
that it is unlikely in the extreme that he had any access to Hebrew scriptures, including the psalms. His psalms were
in latin, with a latin alphabet. The western Church, based in Rome, used the latin "Vulgate" version and translation of
the Bible for almost 1000 years. The eastern church, based primarily in Constantinople, used a revision of the Greek
Septuagint(OT) and the Greek New Testament for even longer.
That meant Hebrew where possible for the OT, and Greek for the NT. Not all of what is now the Christian "Old Testament"
could be found in Hebrew, so they relied on the Greek "Septuagint" version, which actually dates from before the time
of Jesus Christ. The New Testament was never rendered in Hebrew, unless perhaps in the last 50 years. There was consequently
no ancient version of the "Revelation of St. John" in Hebrew.
Hopefully this has clarified my argument, at least a little bit. :-)
Good ... you likely know more about 13th century than me. ... How many letters had the alphabet, that Langley used himself?
ABCDEFGHILMNOPQRSTVXZ
(JKUWY)
Was this his alphabet? Or had he something like "AE"? I don't know .., things might have been different in different countries.
Let's say ... about 22 ...
When Langton taught in France, he likely had opportunity to know Jews there ... they weren't expelled there. And you say,
that he acted as foe to them. Likely the foes know often a little more about them than the people, which are just not
very concerned about them. When the people didn't care about the old testament, from which source come then these farspread
pictures with King David, with Salomon, Adam and Eve , Samson etc.. Stuff of the old testament. Just by "not knowing"
them? France were not so bad in Europe, as far books are concerned: King Charles V. had the biggest library in Europe.
And, as far I remember, some historians judge that knowledge of literature and scriptures were better in 13th than in
14th century, likely due to some devastation by the peste of 1348/50 and to the social change from cloister-dominance
to city-dominance, which caused a structural reorganisation, which made earlier structures obsolete, a change not only
with good effects, but also some bad ... structure-change always has also negative aspects.
The apocalypse was by far the most important book of the time. The Visconti-library in 1426 had about 1000's books and
more than 20 of them were relevations. You really think, that it was accidently structured?
If Langton had this influence, as you suggest above, then he surely didn't have it "from knowing nothing". Thomas of Aquin
is contemporary, I guess. Albertus Magnus. All a little stupid and uninformed? I guess, both were also once in Paris.
Why didn't they've his influence?
We've just for 13th century a grandios ecstasy for the alphabet in Jewish cycles ... Kabbala. And it started in southern
France. Venice ... also writing
here in the history group ..., is himself full of ecstasy, that not only Jews, but also bardic cycles were involved in
similar speculation, giving the impression, that it was a collective and great movement. Now you try to convince me, that
this all was nothing and has no base at all. ... :-) aren't you both a little extreme in your points of view?
What about Raimundus Lullus? A Christian and full of divine spirit, that he didn't hesitate to become martyr. He experimented
with letter-combinations.
Surely it's not correct to say, that this was kabbala, but it had a similar idea. Just letters and the game with them.
Rosanne
18-09-2005, 15:22
Very interesting History in this thread- and while reading I thought of a relationship between John's Revelations Divided
into 22 Chapters 1260AD aprox- could it have had something to do with Numbers or the book of Moses? Chapter 22 speaks
of Yahwehs name in that chapter.
To add to Hucks view on the 20 nomes in the Delta and 22 in the Nile valley = 42. I thought they were originally chiefdoms
before the unification of Egypt and so were not a cohesive unit anyway. Maybe the 22 of Nile Valley used the magical number
22. I have not seen any History that the area of Phoenician influence was considered Egyptia- Biblos for example.I realise
it was a Bull cult area and so were other areas. It is interesting that port Biblos gave us the name 'Bible' as it was
a Phoenician port that exported paper~Rosanne
Ross G Caldwell
18-09-2005, 19:06
I don't know why Langton (I found this is the more common spelling of his name (instead of Langdon)) divided the Apocalypse
into 22 chapters.
But being familiar with Jews on the one hand, and knowing that the Hebrew alphabet had 22 letters, as well as the names
of those letters, are two different things. I can't show you that he knew Jews (although as (arch)bishop it would have
been his responsibility to know about the Jews of his diocese), but I think you can take for granted that he knew the
common Christian traditions about the Hebrew alphabet and words, which come from the ancient world via the Church fathers
like Eusebius, Jerome, etc.
Stephen Langton was the author of a list of Hebrew words and names in the Bible, with definitions of their meanings. It
is included in many manuscripts of the Vulgate. Look up "Aaz vel apprehendens" and "Interpretationes hebraicorum nominum".
Here is a good example of a 13th century bible with this text (and the names of the Hebrew letters with an interpretation
of their meaning)-
http://dpg.lib.berkeley.edu/webdb/dsheh/heh_brf?Description=&CallNumber=HM+26061
(scroll down to folio 348v - second image from bottom - and pick the medium or large size)
There are other examples of this book on the web, but I don't know of an English translation.
The Latin bible transmitted the names of the Hebrew letters in many places, that most English translations have omitted.
Of particular importance is Psalm 118 (119 in English bibles), with 22 verses, which in the Hebrew and Latin versions
names the letters before the verse. Many manuscripts of the Vulgate give the meaning of the letter after the name, such
as -
(see http://www.valenciennes.fr/bib/common/viewer/tifmpages.asp?TITRE=Ms+8&FILE=Ms0008%2Etif images number 204 and 205)
Aleph, doctrina (teaching)

Beth, domus (house)
Gimel, plenitudo (fullness, plenty)
Deleth, tabula (table)
He (meanings vary)
Vau, (and)
Zain, (himself)
Heth, vita (life)
Theth, bonum (the good)
Yoth, principium (beginning)
Caph, manus (hand)
Lamed, disciplina (discipline)
Mem, ex quo (from which)
Nun, foetus vel piscis (foetus or fish)
Samech, firmamentum, erectionem (prop or frame)
Ain, oculus (eye)
Phe, os (mouth)
Sade, justicia (justice)
Coph, vocatio (calling)
Res, caput (head)
Sin, dens (tooth)
Tau, signa (sign)
You can see that a lot of them are actually "correct" by today's standards. This was the Christian tradition (if you google
"aaz" and "hebraicorum" you'll get a few other examples).
There are eleven places in the Vulgate where the letters of the alphabet are named. I posted them here once.
In any case, we can assume that Langton, as a Churchman bound to study the bible and recite the psalms daily, knew as
much as any Christian about Hebrew; and since he wrote a dictionary of Hebrew words in the bible, we can bet he was probably
one of the most knowledgeable of his age.
So maybe the Hebrew alphabet did have something to do with his numeration of Revelations' chapters; I would have thought
the letters of Greek alphabet would have been more appropriate, however, since Jesus says "I am the alpha and the omega"
(not Aleph and Tau).
Huck
18-09-2005, 19:18
Very interesting History in this thread- and while reading I thought of a relationship between John's Revelations Divided
into 22 Chapters 1260AD aprox- could it have had something to do with Numbers or the book of Moses? Chapter 22 speaks
of Yahwehs name in that chapter.
To add to Hucks view on the 20 nomes in the Delta and 22 in the Nile valley = 42. I thought they were originally chiefdoms
before the unification of Egypt and so were not a cohesive unit anyway. Maybe the 22 of Nile Valley used the magical number
22. I have not seen any History that the area of Phoenician influence was considered Egyptia- Biblos for example.I realise
it was a Bull cult area and so were other areas. It is interesting that port Biblos gave us the name 'Bible' as it was
a Phoenician port that exported paper~Rosanne
Egyptia had foreign Pharaohs once in the Delta-region ... the people of the sea. This are believed to have been the
Joseph-friendly Pharaohs.
I just don't have it at hand for correct dates. Then (about 1550 BC) a series of upper-Egyptians pharaos with the Mosis-ending
(Kamosis, Thutmosis) fought the foreign pharaoh's and extended till Phoenicia. Then Phoenicia was Egyptia. This part got
then difficulties with nomadic tribes, socalled Habiru (one assumes that this had something to do with the Hebraic people).
Naturally the Egyptians developed only at the coast, not in the country behind it. So there something developed which
later did lead to the Kingdom of David and Salomo. Nomadic tribes, which took some cities and developed a social structure
between them without the force to take the coast. Inner difficulties in Egyptia (Echnaton) caused, that the once given
structure (Phoenicia = Egyptia) couldn't bewared too long. But trading connections etc.. had a reality of its own.
Mesopotamia and Egyptia communicated via this region.
The Pharaohs, that followed the Joseph-friendly (Mosis-type), were the bad Pharaohs of the bible. Surely they had an interest
to throw the nomadic guest workers (who by their tradition were bound to the wrong foreign pharaohs) with foreign customs
out. But likely they were interested to get them in the regions, where was enough place and country which needed to be
cultivated. So bible tells the story, that a Mosis guided them out. Which one, please ... .-).
A King's son (there were lot of ...-mosis), as we learn from bible, of course "of hidden Jewish origin" ... this must
be. Moses was accompanied by special priests, the Leviten. There is the speculation that this priest tribe were in reality
Egyptians, that means men with higher (Egyptic) education. Then the mission stranded somehow ... the idea to cultivate
the country was likely spoiled by people, who already lived there, where these foreign guest-workers should take the country
as an "Egyptian colony". So they had to run through the deserts and to find a humble living. Finally ... years after,
Moses already dead, nobody who had left Egyptia still living ... they were strong enough to take the cities, thanks to
a militaric leader with the name Josua, whose starting letters in Hebrew are written YHV... .
Nowadays it was analysed, that the 5 books of Mosis consists of (at least) two different reports, which were mixed with
each other. They can be differentiated by following the used God's name, either Elohim or Jahwe.
Elohim is the plural of El and El was the bull's god of the Kanaan people. Another group was lead by a man whose name
started with the same letters as the used God's name Jahwe and this group was militarical successful.
It's not totally uncommon in mythological history, that strong men - heroes - became gods. Herakles, just to name one.
Or relevant attempts in history, Alexander and Augustus tried such things.
Also it's a common strategy, that political leaders are glorified in an unhealthy manner ... if we look for instance to
North Korea and what was and is tried there. Contemporary glorifications of political leaders like Saddam, Mao, Stalin,
Hitler .. some less bad, others worse. We know the psychological action behind it - it's all younger history.
A strong leader took some country and left some signs of him. A state evolved and became successful, for a short period,
80, 90 years, David and Salomo. They did need a story of themselves. One story was written in the Elohim-perspective,
another in the Jahwe-perspective. The texts of the 5 books Mosis were written - somehow.
The state broke in two pieces, occasionally fighting each other, Juda and Israel. One piece lived not very long, the other
endured a little longer, but the times were not always good. A new king came, and wanted to restore something. He took
the both scriptures and formed "history" by mixing (at least) two sources.
So this is the story of two folks mixing which each other, and two traditions are mixed in the 5 books of Moses.
The Egyptian's had a not uncommon favour for the number 64. But they did hide it behind a 42, parted in 22+20. Not uncommon
means, you find this favour in old Greek (hidden), old India (not hidden, but not very dominant) and in old China (dominant
and not hidden) and there is reason to assume it also for Mespotamia (Zarathustra-cult).
The favour for it has normal mathematical reasons. 64 = 2x2x2x2x2x2

The scheme, which this mathematic generates is very useful for memory systems, also for divination (see I-Ching) and other
practical matters, for instance volume-measuring (Egyptian Hekat or Horus-eye) or weight-measuring (mathematic in doubling
steps, old India).
Also for computers, but this a modern development. Also for genetic code, but this known only since recently. Also
atomic-theories, but this is also "modern use".
A very practical number, connected to a not-decadic mathematic. Binary mathematic instead. On long run decadic mathematic
did win against binary mathematic, but in the moment binary mathematic shows, how practical it is for specific matters
(computer). And there is a 3rd component, time mathematic. 360 degree has a circle, 24 hours a day, 12 monthes a year,
60 seconds a minutes. Numbers, which contain the "3", which neither decadic numbers 10, 100, 1000 etc. or binary numbers,
2,4,8, 16, 32, 64 etc.. do.
Binary mathematic was very good for "genealogy", a major theme for the ancient people. Also for gods genealogies. So it
had a mystical component from begin on. As mystic tends to be "hidden", we've in the Western countries this "hiding tradition".
Missing in China, which is very liberal against religions.
China's country and region didn't offer so much place to develop individuality - the European region with high mountains
in the middle and a lot of regions, which could defend against the outside attack, favoured individuality. Ialien, a region
of its own, Balkan, Spain/Portugal etc. No individuality, no mysteries.
DoctorArcanus
18-09-2005, 19:22
However, there was always some popular interest in such things amongst the common people, usually spurred on by some cleric
treading close to heresy. But one doesn't need chapter numbers in any case, in order to get excited about the material
in Revelations and possible predictions about the world's end. The account given is vivid enough.
I count myself as one of such common people :)

I am fascinated by the images described in the book and I never noticed the numbering of the chapters until I read reference
to tarot here on ATF....
That meant Hebrew where possible for the OT, and Greek for the NT.
When the people didn't care about the old testament, from which source come then these farspread pictures with King David,
with Salomon, Adam and Eve , Samson etc.. Stuff of the old testament. Just by "not knowing" them? .
I think NightWing meant that there was no interest in the linguistic philological aspects of the Bible. Of course, the
content of the Old Testament was well known from the Latin Vulgate. Christians did not care about the original hebrew
version of the Old Testament because they could not read hebrew and they had no reason to learn hebrew. I think philology
was "invented" only later, in the XV Century, when the decline and fall of Bysantium brought to Europe a huge number of
greek manuscripts, and Marsilio Ficino & C. started working on translations.
Most of the New Testament (including the Revelation and the Gospel of John) was probably written in Greek right from the
start. If Hebrew (aramaic) versions existed, they are not known to us.
It would be interesting to know more about the composition of Medieval libraries. I think an Italian library of the second
half of the XIV century would include books in Latin, Italian and French. I would expect to find Greek books in Venice
only, since Venice controlled a few Greek speaking islands and had a number of contacts with Bysantium.
Marco
Ross G Caldwell
18-09-2005, 19:45
It's spelled out completely 12 times in the Vulgate, six times alone
in Lamentations, all in acrostic contexts - but you wouldn't know
this from reading English translations, especially the venerable
King James, which seems to have gone to great lengths to hide it
(except in psalm 119). The Psalms are numbered according to the
Vulgate and Septuagint - Hebrew and English Bibles use the number in
(parenthesis).
1) Psalm 36 (37)
2) Psalm 110 (111) - 10 verses/22
3) Psalm 111 (112) - 10 verses/22
4) Psalm 118 (119) - 176 verses/8
5) Psalm 144 (145) - this one is missing the NUN, so only 21 verses
6) Proverbs 31 - verses 10-31 are an acrostic
7) Lamentations 1
8) Lamentations 2 - Fe and Ain transposed
9,10,11) Lamentations 3 - 66 verses, each verse three lines
beginning with a letter, and this is spelled out each time in the
Vulgate; Fe and Ain transposed again
12) Lamentations 4 - Fe and Ain transposed
Scholars also point out that Lamentations 5 has 22 verses.
The latin spelling is (usually):

Aleph
Beth
Gimel
Deleth
He
Vav
Zai
Heth
Teth
Ioth
Caph
Lameth
Mem
Nun
Samech
Ain
Fe (or twice "Phe")
Sade
Coph
Res
Sen
Thav
NightWing
21-09-2005, 01:31
DoctorArcanus: Thank-you for helping to clarify my words. Yes, of course I was referring to very limited access and interest
in the Hebrew version of what Christians call the Old Testament. Christians naturally knew, and even revelled in, the
various stories of the OT, but sourced from the Greek and even more so in the west, the Latin versions. For what was a
rather monolithic Catholicism, the Vulgate was THE version, used in churches, seminaries, etc. for many centuries, to
the exclusion of all others. Even to this very day, the Catholic church officially recognises only a small handful of
translations as valid, like the Douay-Rheims in English. The Authorised King James and other Protestant versions are not
among them, lacking as they do a number of "books" seen as canonical by Catholicism.
It is worth noting that the most complete form of the OT existed in Greek from before the time of Jesus, and NOT in Hebrew.
This was the Septuagint from 3rd century BCE Alexandria in Hellenic Egypt. Given how few people in Palestine knew Hebrew
by the 1st century BCE, and how many knew Greek(and Aramaic), some have speculated that even the Torah and the Prophets
that Jesus heard and read in the synagogues of his day were in Greek, and not Hebrew at all.
Apparently, the canon of a Hebrew biblical text for the Jews was still being determined in Rabbinical schools some five
hundred years later, well after the NT writings were composed. Lamentations, Esther, and many psalms(among others) were
considered of questionable canonicity by the Jews, and would not necessarily have been available through Jewish sources,
such as a local synagogue. If Langton had them(in Hebrew), I wonder where he got them. Some of those books and parts are
still excluded by most Protestants.
I will have to check my sources on Langton. Thanks.
Ross G Caldwell
21-09-2005, 03:36
Before the thread diverges too much (Christian knowledge of the Hebrew bible in the middle ages is a very interesting
subject, but I don't know if it is too tangential to the thread - maybe, maybe not) - does anybody mind if I go back to
the original question? :
I think somebody (Shephard?) made the most systematic attempt at correspondences between the Apocalypse and the trumps.
I don't have his book so I can't say much about it.
I think you're right, some of the Book of Revelations' imagery is "too brazen to ignore". But I think it is explicable
more in a general sense than as a systematic attempt to correlate chapters.
My own opinion is that the imagery of the Book of Revelation was so much a part of the late-medieval consciousness that
that in itself explains why there may be textual-iconographic correspondences. The last seven (or eight if you include
Death) trumps show "Apocalyptic" subjects - Hell, the Heavens, Judgement. The trump XXI as it is portrayed in the
Visconti-Sforza pack brings to mind the Celestial city; but the 22 trumps don't need to systematically illustrate the
Apocalypse for such an image to be the last one - it is a fitting last image that everyone would understand. If it was
the highest card - which we don't know.
Symbols like the Devil, the, Star(s), Moon and the Sun are too generic to derive from a particular source. So too Death
and the Devil. Devil doesn't correspond to chapter 15 of Revelation, but 16 sounds good for the Tower. (Vials being poured
on the earth!)
I think calling John a "Magician" in chapter one is unjustified. A prophet is a very different thing from a magician in
medieval sources - one tells the truth, the other lies and deceives. John calls himself a servant who gives a prophecy
- not a magician who performs wonders or tricks.
Lastly, most importantly, we know how the Apocalypse was illustrated at the same time as the tarot, and they don't look
anything alike - even when there are twenty-two illustrations! (The Flemish Apocalypse is the best example, but there
are also popular books like Shepherd's Almanacs and other illustrated Apocalypses that don't necessarily have 22 subjects).
So by studying the Apocalypse, you are entering part of the late-medieval world-view; by studying the early tarots, you
are entering the late-medieval (some would say "renaissance", but it's a value-judgement) world-view; the Apocalypse
informs the tarot, not as a direct source, but as a background source - at least the last part of the trump series is
constructed according to a world-view deeply informed by the Apocalypse, with the expectation of a last Judgement and
resurrection, and (maybe, depending on how you interpret it) the descent of the New Paradise, the Celestial City.
In answer to whether the trumps, theoretically, *could* have been a systematic attempt to portray to 22 chapters of the
Book of Revelation, the answer is yes - this division of the book was widespread in Latin bibles by this time.
In answer to whether Christians knew the Hebrew alphabet had twenty-two letters, the answer is yes, it was basic education
(for those who were educated) and the Hebrew alphabet (the names of the letters, not the form) was present in the Latin
bible.
Whether Christians studied and knew Hebrew, the answer is - very seldomly (Ramon Llull for instance knew some Hebrew,
and so did Pierre Amiel (Ameilh) in the 14th century - one could find others). If I remember correctly, there is a good
article in the Jewish Encyclopedia about Christian knowledge of Hebrew in the middle ages and early 15th century.
Thanks to NightWing, Stephen Langton (Langdon) was brought up. He proves to have been a bad choice for ignorance of Hebrew!
He compiled a dictionary of Hebrew words from the Old Testament, with definitions. His dictionary is present in many
manuscripts of the Latin bible, as an appendix, quite often immediately following the Apocalypse.
So when we consider that Andrea of Caesarea divided the Apocalypse into 24 chapters in Greek, I am inclined to think the
Greek alphabet might have been on his mind (after all, he would have numbered his divisions with Greek letters in the
original in the sixth century); and when we consider that Langton had an interest in Hebrew words and divided his Apocalypse
into 22 chapters, it is not far-fetched to think he might have been thinking hebraically.
But who knows? ;-)
Ross
DoctorArcanus
23-09-2005, 05:07
....the Apocalypse informs the tarot, not as a direct source, but as a background source - at least the last part of the
trump series is constructed according to a world-view deeply informed by the Apocalypse, with the expectation of a last
Judgement and resurrection, and (maybe, depending on how you interpret it) the descent of the New Paradise, the Celestial
City.
I agree whith the "indirect source" point of view. My impression is that this point of view is shared by many people here
on ATF, and this is quite exceptional :)
Of course, the question of how this indirect influence reached tarot is open. Possibly whoever created tarot mixed different
sources (as suggested, for instance, by Robert LePendu). Or maybe the diffrent sources influenced a single text that was
the basis of Tarot. Or maybe Tarot was originally independent from the Revelation and it was later (i.e. after Bembo)
Revelationalized.
I know it's off topic, but I found in a book an illustration from this manuscript of a jewish juridic text by Jacob ben
Asher. The manuscript was written in Mantua in 1435....
http://www.kb.nl/gabriel/treasures/country/Vatican_City/vc04.html
Marco
Ross G Caldwell
23-09-2005, 21:41
I agree whith the "indirect source" point of view. My impression is that this point of view is shared by many people here
on ATF, and this is quite exceptional :)
Really? I hadn't noticed ;-)
Of course, the question of how this indirect influence reached tarot is open. Possibly whoever created tarot mixed different
sources (as suggested, for instance, by Robert LePendu). Or maybe the diffrent sources influenced a single text that was
the basis of Tarot. Or maybe Tarot was originally independent from the Revelation and it was later (i.e. after Bembo)
Revelationalized.
My loose idea is that the person who created the trumps wanted to add an additional level of "meaning" to an already present
allegorical interpretation of the regular deck. I think the idea that the four-fold regular deck represented 4 conditions
of life - whether four levels of society, bourgeois, peasants, clergy, elite (aristocrats) - or four virtues and/or vices,
was a common understanding.
Johannes of Rheinfelden called the deck a perfect representation of the world as it is, the "status mundi", and said two
suits represented good and two evil; preachers like Bernardino of Siena used the suits as symbols of vices. Even though
there is no proof that anybody saw four classes of people in the suits, I think it likely that somebody thought of it.
So all that is missing from the deck of cards is higher things. Marziano added 16 Roman gods to a four-suited deck (and
changed the suits to virtues and vices). I think the tarot-inventor wanted to add something as well - and chose things
higher than the "status mundi": the highest people in the world (higher than kings) Emperors and Popes, concepts like
Love, Triumph and the Virtues, Fortune, the reversal of fortune, Death and the otherworld, finally the highest of all
- whether Judgement or the New World.
But it is not the arrangement of the subjects that troubles me, but their number. The question becomes - did the subjects
decide the number, or the number the subjects?
If the first, we must assume there is a systematic logic that includes certain categories and excludes others - why no
Prudence among the virtues, why not all the planets, why two Popes and Emperors (or a male and female of each), etc. We
might ask, as in Marco's second option, if the series is based on a specific text (it is clear it is not the Apocalypse,
in any case); if it IS based on a specific text, this would explain the choice of subjects and their order. In the meantime,
we have to theorize what the original order and number was, and interpret that theoretical object.
Basically, if the number was incidental, and the allegory could follow its own logic, it would seem more logical to have
the three estates or four classes or whatnot represented by one each; all the virtues should be there (and maybe vices
too); all the planets, etc. Of course, the answer is "They didn't do this, so we have to explain what they did do, not
what we would have done" - yes, but we might try to ask a simpler question first, one without so many difficulties (the
worst of which is deciding the original order) - if the trumps had to have 21 (or 22) cards, or 14 or some other number,
or if the allegories could spin any way they wanted.
If it IS the first choice (a pre-decided number), then the "omissions" are more easily explained. Prudence is a "Cardinal"
Virtue, but it is also distinct in many ways from the other three (Aquinas makes the point, and it seems to be current,
if I can take the evidence of a manuscript in the Visconti library from 1403 as representative). The fact that all seven
planets are not present is also explained - Sun and Moon are the most important, and Star stands for the rest.
I personally favor this option, also for another reason - it explains the Bagatella or Bagattino card much better than
the first option. It seems the game HAD to have a "pittance", something which litterally means "the thing of least value";
this suggests to me that the idea of the game, and the number of allegorical subjects, was thought out in advance, and
then allegories were chosen (in a low-middle-high typology, common in iconography), and then they were fitted into the
pre-ordained scheme of number, cutting out some and keeping others as typical. The game had to start with "bagatella"
(B) and went to "angelo" (A) (basso and alto - low and high). The cards in between had to represent an ascending scale
(ascending in meaning, not simply physical, or he would have started with Hell).
Anyway, it's a rough theory, but that's why I think the number determined the *final* choice of subjects, and that's why
I don't think it is based directly on a text.
I know it's off topic, but I found in a book an illustration from this manuscript of a jewish juridic text by Jacob ben
Asher. The manuscript was written in Mantua in 1435....
http://www.kb.nl/gabriel/treasures/country/Vatican_City/vc04.html
Most of the 15th century in northern Italy was the best time for Jews in a long time.
Ross

22 Revelations' Chapters

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

22 Revelations' Chapters

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Tarot Special Interest > Tarot History & Development > 22 Revelations' Chapters

View Full Version : 22 Revelations' Chapters

Returning back to your question .. why got the Tarot 22 trumps.

Fulgour, Frank et al. hello,

22 is a pentagonal number divided into :

Specific data is available on : LTarot.

Returning back to your question .. why got the Tarot 22 trumps.

A. "it dropped from heaven as a unique idea"

In provisional form the theory is given at

The pages are provisional, as the research is still running.

The questions are:

2-edged sword: 1:16, 2:12...

And ”sword of my mouth”: 2:16...

venice: I already have. Rhetorical question: what's your point?

BACK TO REVELATIONS (part deux)

(‘reduced’ only to save you embarrassment)

How kingly of you.

Trionfi 1496: http://trionfi.com/0/k/marc/37/

As already mentioned, two very specific decks

Very sorry indeed! I misspoke: I meant “pioneered paper-making,” sorry.

.. it cannot be excluded with 100% security -

1. that a deck with 4x14+22 structure existed earlier

Perhaps you see, what I mean.

.. it cannot be excluded with 100% security -

1. that a deck with 4x14+22 structure existed earlier

(Nothing to add, just the correction)

(Nothing to add, just the correction)

And you've evidence for standard-matrix-development:

4x12 Hofämterspiel (ca. 1455)

1423 Imperatori - 8 cards entry PERHAPS not matrix oriented

0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 ... 12-13 ... 20

Does it look like an accidently loss of cards?

0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 ... 12-13 ... 20

Does it look like an accidentl[e] loss of cards?

So the 5x14-theory strikes in two directions:

a. there had been really only 14 cards

The 32 ‘paths of wisdom’ are the 22 plus the 10, duh.

Huck wrote: ....

here is an argumentation, not complete

(I tout it because I consider it a major contribution to human knowledge.)

.. :-) I count 3 questions now, the term "simple" has disappeared.

???? And did not the Bembo pre-date 70-card decks?

Cause: The Bembo is a 70 cards deck (with an estimated likeliness of

http://trionfi.com/0/d/ - for 1.1.1441

(I tout it because I consider it a major contribution to human knowledge.)

Intellectual advance. Mankind is a learning system.

and then look at the number row

0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 ... 12 - 13 ... 20 and explain me the why ... :-)

This thread is wonderful! :)

In general, I agree with the approach suggested by Huck

Consider for instance the following pages:

Consider for instance the following pages:

I am glad you find these miniatures interesting!

Consider for instance the following pages:

.... perhaps more good material to the same point ..

just a very good link list of the same site

I agree. For the Tarot and 22 that is.

<quote>Originally Posted by NightWing

22 - was the upper nile (the river)

The alphabet was made after ca. 2400 BC.

Huck, Ross, and others:

Huck, Ross, and others: