Roman numbering on 1JJ Swiss.

I got a copy of the 1JJ Swiss today in the mail, it is an old copy from the 70's with French titles. As I separated the cards into suits/trumps major in order to check that all of the cards were there, I became aware of the strange Roman numbering system of this deck, specifically, that some suits employ the newer subtractive system of Roman numbering, and other suits and the majors employ the older additive numbering system. I did a quick search on the forums for a question of this type and didn't find one, hence this thread.

What on earth is the purpose of this strange numbering system? For those of you that don't have the deck, here is what the numbering looks like:

Majors: Fool, I, II, III, IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII, VIIII, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XVIIII, XX, XXI.

Swords: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, P, Kn, Q, K.

Wands: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, P, Kn, Q, K.

Coins: I, II, III, IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, P, Kn, Q, K.

Cups: I, II, III, IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII, VIIII, X, P, Kn, Q, K.

You can see that the variation is in the 9 of Coins and 9 of Cups, and also in the 4's; a strange mixture of additive and subtractive numbering. I'm just curious. (this strange numbering is identical on both of my copies of the 1JJ, old and new, so it has to be intentional.)


Bob

Hi Bob,

This a fantastic little puzzle you've discovered!

I wonder if it might refer to the practice of inverse value in the Cups and Coins (i.e. feminine) suits. In some games, perhaps for that which the Swiss Juno-Jupiter deck was made, the Batons and Swords are male, and are valued from 1 low -10 high; the Cups and Coins are female, and valued 10 low - 1 high. Or, it could be the other way around, but still the same pairs of suits.

Thus, the additive method of Roman counting might refer to a direct suit, and the subtractive to a indirect suit.

Purely a guess, of course.

Ross

Of the top of my head, I strongly suspect that it is because some of the cards were earlier without numbering.

When Roman numerals were added, the 'artist' who added these probably just used the subtractive, without taking into account what was used one those which already had numerals showing...

The suits of Swords and Wands thus, from having no numeration showing, possibly acquired numbers... though it is traditionally the Coins which are not numbered in Marseilles decks.

It could, of course, be for other reasons - such as that the pips were given to different apprentices to make, hence the variation.

It would be nice to have some more detailed historical background to the 1jj, including its artists...

Coins employs the strangest numbering in the deck, employing both additive (IIII) and subtractive! (IX)

Bob

Yes, and it was this specific suit - of Coins, with its mix of additive and subtractive IIII & IX - that made me think that perhaps, just perhaps, they were later added by another hand... for this may account for inconsistancies... the IIII being copied from other cards, and the IX being written upon - if the distinction makes sense.

I wonder if this has before been investigated elsewhere?...

Does Kaplan say anything about it in his encyclopedia? I don't have a copy, or I wouldn't ask!

Bob

And besides, I think that the 1JJ is a neglected and forgotten deck these days, which is a shame, because some of the cards are lovely; Key 13, Death, is one of my favorite images of the Reaper. It would be nice if we studied the deck in a little more detail.

Bob

I had a look in volume II of the Encyclopedia, and though a variety of 1jj type decks are displayed and discussed, the specific point you bring is not mentioned. I'll have to check volumes I & III tomorrow... though I again suspect that the specific point is not there included.

I agree that this is too a deck well worth discussing, and what strikes mne the most is the non-consistent manner in which either the right or the left foot of the hanged man is the one attached...