Namadev
Namadev said:
Interesting comment by Ronald Decker
Namadev
Hi,
For those who have some difficulties to understand my point of view.
1)The arithmological strcuture of the 78 cards :
In English :
http://tarots.free.fr/strcuture-en/cadre.htm
In French (updated) :
http://www.lejournaldedemain.com/article.php3?id_article=736
The translation in English is in progree with mainly John Leod and can be seen at :
http://trionfi.com/0/p/1637.html
Alain
Nota bene
It is sufficient to give evidence of a neo-pythagorean disposition of the number 78 such as the initial page of the Ptolemy's Alagest in Venice 1515.
Because, there is no other necessary mathematical way to dispose the 78 cards in such a triangle that the one I've shown...
For those who have some difficulties to understand my point of view.
1)The arithmological strcuture of the 78 cards :
In English :
http://tarots.free.fr/strcuture-en/cadre.htm
In French (updated) :
http://www.lejournaldedemain.com/article.php3?id_article=736
The translation in English is in progree with mainly John Leod and can be seen at :
http://trionfi.com/0/p/1637.html
Alain
Nota bene
It is sufficient to give evidence of a neo-pythagorean disposition of the number 78 such as the initial page of the Ptolemy's Alagest in Venice 1515.
Because, there is no other necessary mathematical way to dispose the 78 cards in such a triangle that the one I've shown...
Namadev
Namadev said:
Namadev
Hi,
Why am I shouting in the desert since so many years?
Because i am convinced of the Byzantium neo-pythagorean specificity of the 78=22+16+40 structure of the Tarot ("taraux").
Many reaons explain why only a few like Stuart Kaplan (who plans to publish it in the scheduled Volume IV of his Encyclopedia of Tarot) has found this thesis interestng.
1)The data is fragmentary to the best. Researching evdence is a complex task.
2)The dominant opinion of historians of cards is so "scared" of any "esoterical" connection that they prefer to remain silent - even if, such a neo-pythagorean structure doesn't necessaraly conclude to a "occult" knowledge.
Neo-pythagorism is more about proportions even if it's deology, neo-platonism, infers a spiritual process.
3)Esoterists prefer the Qabbalah model and tend to find this neo-pythagorean theory , unnecessary, to the best.
3)The scholars who admit such a neo-pythagorean influence as a plausible hypothesis such as Bob O'Neill prefer to focus on Latin neo-platonism and consider the impact of Byzantium as contingent.
4)The "searchers" such as Ross or Lothar or Huck focus upon the 5x14 theory and it's defense.
Alain
Why am I shouting in the desert since so many years?
Because i am convinced of the Byzantium neo-pythagorean specificity of the 78=22+16+40 structure of the Tarot ("taraux").
Many reaons explain why only a few like Stuart Kaplan (who plans to publish it in the scheduled Volume IV of his Encyclopedia of Tarot) has found this thesis interestng.
1)The data is fragmentary to the best. Researching evdence is a complex task.
2)The dominant opinion of historians of cards is so "scared" of any "esoterical" connection that they prefer to remain silent - even if, such a neo-pythagorean structure doesn't necessaraly conclude to a "occult" knowledge.
Neo-pythagorism is more about proportions even if it's deology, neo-platonism, infers a spiritual process.
3)Esoterists prefer the Qabbalah model and tend to find this neo-pythagorean theory , unnecessary, to the best.
3)The scholars who admit such a neo-pythagorean influence as a plausible hypothesis such as Bob O'Neill prefer to focus on Latin neo-platonism and consider the impact of Byzantium as contingent.
4)The "searchers" such as Ross or Lothar or Huck focus upon the 5x14 theory and it's defense.
Alain
Ross G Caldwell
Namadev said:
Alain
I don't personally "focus" on the 5x14 theory and its defense - it was a by-product of my research. My research is open - I don't just look for data to confirm such-and-such a theory. I want to know everything.
You shouldn't regard my latest posts on the issue as a symptom of obsession with the 5x14 theory - you brought it up, if I remember correctly
As for the neo-pythagorean structure, I do leave that up to you; I have nothing to add, except to tell what I find in any area of general research.
Indeed, although the arithmological structure is there, it does not seem to attempt to explain the pictures on the cards - why those subjects were chosen. My main interest is to find out who chose these images, when, and why.
I have found no pythagorean text (I don't like the word "neo-pythagorean", since the fifteenth century didn't use it) which would seem to equate the two - the images on the trionfi cards, and number mysticism. It is fine to interest you, please continue. But it does not, yet, arouse my interest. When it does, I will be the first to tell you.
But really, I am not "focused" on the 5x14 theory; I am focused on a time and a place, and everything that happened in it, more or less.
Namadev
Hi,
Ross wrote :
"Indeed, although the arithmological structure is there, it does not seem to attempt to explain the pictures on the cards - why those subjects were chosen. My main interest is to find out who chose these images, when, and why.
I have found no pythagorean text (I don't like the word "neo-pythagorean", since the fifteenth century didn't use it) which would seem to equate the two - the images on the trionfi cards, and number mysticism"
Hi,
(Acknowlegment for the "focus on the 5x14" theory.)
True.
This is why, I consider only the structural model independently of it's iconography.
In the Venise 1515 initial page of the Almagest (possibly 1451 with George Trezibond translation for Nicolas V), the "arithmological" structure of the number 78, triangular of 12, is there with dots and letters.
I see the "Tarot" an elaborated expression of such a primary structure but with 22 allegorical subjects and 4 emblematic "paintings"composed of figures and numerical decades.
Alain
Ross wrote :
"Indeed, although the arithmological structure is there, it does not seem to attempt to explain the pictures on the cards - why those subjects were chosen. My main interest is to find out who chose these images, when, and why.
I have found no pythagorean text (I don't like the word "neo-pythagorean", since the fifteenth century didn't use it) which would seem to equate the two - the images on the trionfi cards, and number mysticism"
Hi,
(Acknowlegment for the "focus on the 5x14" theory.)
True.
This is why, I consider only the structural model independently of it's iconography.
In the Venise 1515 initial page of the Almagest (possibly 1451 with George Trezibond translation for Nicolas V), the "arithmological" structure of the number 78, triangular of 12, is there with dots and letters.
I see the "Tarot" an elaborated expression of such a primary structure but with 22 allegorical subjects and 4 emblematic "paintings"composed of figures and numerical decades.
Alain
Huck
Namadev said:
there are counter arguments ... for instance the 5x14-theory
It's not a defense, it's an attack ...
on a somewhat stupid standard believe, that the Tarot had 22 trumps from beginning on "without any real evidence" .... which should and could be open to all reading eyes since we started to collect the material and made it available in the web. The material, on which earlier researchers stated this long believed theory ... and as we suspected already earlier and know now more or less with some security: there was nothing, which gave a reason to do so.And remember, it's not long ago, that the table was turned. January 2003 Lothar published his thesis.
Before a lot of discussion was done without knowing this material or on the base of rudimentary knowledge only .... somewhat baseless discussions. Now anybody can reach and take the easy available material into consideration - and evaluate it how it confirms with his own ideas of the process or with our offered hypotheses.
The material is not perfect ... we didn't reach in all points the depth we wished. And we would need some help to do so from all this famous playing card research, which dominated the earlier publical opinion in this matter, but there is not much input from this side. ... it's a sleeping world.
But there is until now no contradiction to the 5x14-theory. And when .... we always like to hear real critique.
It's true, as you earlier mentioned, that Boiardo was known by the Viti brothers and that Raphael had to do with one of them. But this communicative process is too late .. a late comment to a development which took place earlier (in the case, that it is really relevant). There is no causeal chain in it, which went from Pythagoras ideas to the Tarot.
The visit of Emperor John in 1424 caused perhaps that sleeping Greek interests in Filippo Maria were opened and he took the choice to paint Greek gods in his first Trionfi deck with Greek gods (very different from the earlier prognosted 22-trumps-Ur-Tarocchi). A second visit 1438/1439 raised a second time the Greek interests now for all Italy, but we don't see much of Pythagoras; much more of Platonism. But the Tarot, which develops probably around 1441/1442, seems to offer Italian specialities now, not Byzantian motifs. Or do you know a Hanging Man from Byzanz?
Well, a good question ... The Greek wouldn't paint a pope for instance. Are the 7 virtues a Byzantine motif? Boethius, who worked about the virtues, was an Italian. I don't know the answer. Were the virtues of the same value in the Greek world as in the West?
Fulgour
Namadev said:
Thanks for re-posting this very interesting site! Namadev
Huck said:there are counter arguments ... for instance the 5x14-theory
It's not a defense, it's an attack ...
And remember, it's not long ago, that the table was turned. January 2003 Lothar published his thesis.
Before a lot of discussion was done without knowing this material or on the base of rudimentary knowledge only .... somewhat baseless discussions. Now anybody can reach and take the easy available material into consideration - and evaluate it how it confirms with his own ideas of the process or with our offered hypotheses.
The material is not perfect ... we didn't reach in all points the depth we wished. And we would need some help to do so from all this famous playing card research, which dominated the earlier publical opinion in this matter, but there is not much input from this side. ... it's a sleeping world.
But there is until now no contradiction to the 5x14-theory. And when .... we always like to hear real critique.
***Yes Huck I am aware of all this as you know. I was, am and will be along with this research. My presence at Trionfi.com and the debates I've had with opponents of the 5x14 theory proove my implication -even if I adopt the position of defense of the specific data discoved by Ross and Lothar and not the position of an attackant...
It's true, as you earlier mentioned, that Boiardo was known by the Viti brothers and that Raphael had to do with one of them. But this communicative process is too late .. a late comment to a development which took place earlier (in the case, that it is really relevant). There is no causeal chain in it, which went from Pythagoras ideas to the Tarot.
***This first link wasn't known before I put it in evidence.
It is maybe not pertinent but it's there all right.
Throwing light on this isn't irrelevant.
It's a beginning...
The visit of Emperor John in 1424 caused perhaps that sleeping Greek interests in Filippo Maria were opened and he took the choice to paint Greek gods in his first Trionfi deck with Greek gods (very different from the earlier prognosted 22-trumps-Ur-Tarocchi). A second visit 1438/1439 raised a second time the Greek interests now for all Italy, but we don't see much of Pythagoras; much more of Platonism.
***Yes again.
But the presence of the Basileus and the Concil of Ferrare-Florence and the presence of many Greek scholars in Northen Italy is an historical back-ground indicating at least a revival of neo-platonism by Hellenistist scholars. Why should platonism snip pythagorism?
Cf Theory of proportions in arts including musicology, painting,etc
But the Tarot, which develops probably around 1441/1442, seems to offer Italian specialities now, not Byzantian motifs. Or do you know a Hanging Man from Byzanz?
Well, a good question ... The Greek wouldn't paint a pope for instance. Are the 7 virtues a Byzantine motif? Boethius, who worked about the virtues, was an Italian. I don't know the answer. Were the virtues of the same value in the Greek world as in the West?
***Now, this is the lign I don't intend to cross.
Whether there are neo-platonic elemenst in the Quattrocento miniatures or tarocchi such as the Chariot linked to Plato's Phaedus is a point of interest when studiying it's iconography.
The debate is open.
But I focus exclusively on the numerical structure INDEPENDENTLY of it's iconography, neo-platonic or not, partially or totally.
The structure is completely in it's whole and in it'sinherent parts PYTHAGOREAN.
Alain
Yatima
Namadev wrote:
"Was it already influencial in 1451 (when Geroge Trebizond made the translation for Pope Nicolas V : was the intial page of the Almagest of Ptolemyidentical to the later edition : Venice edition of 1515)?
In this case, the VS could have been an attempt towards a 78 structure
Was it influential only at the time of Boïardo (inference from the brotherhood between the two Viti's: Raphael's Protagoras)?"
Now, if Boiardo is the first declared 22-structure but is not exhibiting the Tarot-imaginary, it would be really about the 22 entering the Tarot.
When was this connection between Boiardo and neo-pythagorean knowledge? Was it at 1461 or later, as he wrote his poems?
It really could be considered that the 22 came in even later (although it was thought to be established by Boiardo, it could have other recources adding depth to this structure). And even if it does not say anything about the imaginary itself, its interprets the 22 as an entity in its own right, entering the Tarot with other elements (as the images) to grow to what it was after 1500.
I do like your idea.
Yatima
"Was it already influencial in 1451 (when Geroge Trebizond made the translation for Pope Nicolas V : was the intial page of the Almagest of Ptolemyidentical to the later edition : Venice edition of 1515)?
In this case, the VS could have been an attempt towards a 78 structure
Was it influential only at the time of Boïardo (inference from the brotherhood between the two Viti's: Raphael's Protagoras)?"
Now, if Boiardo is the first declared 22-structure but is not exhibiting the Tarot-imaginary, it would be really about the 22 entering the Tarot.
When was this connection between Boiardo and neo-pythagorean knowledge? Was it at 1461 or later, as he wrote his poems?
It really could be considered that the 22 came in even later (although it was thought to be established by Boiardo, it could have other recources adding depth to this structure). And even if it does not say anything about the imaginary itself, its interprets the 22 as an entity in its own right, entering the Tarot with other elements (as the images) to grow to what it was after 1500.
I do like your idea.
Yatima
