Oldest numerological listing

TemperanceAngel

Sermones de Ludo Cum Aliis, 15th Century:

1. The Magician or Juggler
2. The Empress
3. The Emporer
4. The Popess
5. The Pope
6. Temperance
7. Love
8. The Triumphal Car
9. Strength or Fortitude
10. The Wheel
11. The Hunchback or Hermit
12. The Hanged Man
13. Death
14. The Devil
15. The Arrow or Tower
16. The Star
17. The Moon
18. The Sun
19. The Angel or Judgement
20. Justice
21. The World
0. The Fool

XTAX
 

Huck

:) please excuse ..

Actually there are two other earlier listings:

Johannes von Rheinfelden tells in 1377, that a King has 15 points, a queen, 14, an upper marshall 13, a maid 12 and a lower marshall 11. And probably all number-cards that, what it is painted on them, a number from 1 - 10. That's also an hierarchical list.

Martianus da Tortona, who wrote the "first Tarot book" as the accompaxing book to the perhaps oldest Tarot cards, gives a listing of 16 gods, which have a trump-similar function and an hierarchical order between them:

Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Venus etc. with 16th trumps, Eros is lowest.

A very indirect "sign" of listing is given with the 14 Bembo-cards.

The existing 14 cards (painted by Bembo, not by the second artist) would have - if the Marseille order existed at that time - the numbers:

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

which would mean it would be a rather straight row from 0 to13 with only one missing element.

From this observation the consideration rises, if it is likely, that this phenomen appears just accidently.

I don't try to prove it here, but its probability is at least below 1:1000. It would be a rather strange accident - and as historian
one is advised to believe the probable, not the unprobable. In history you can't really prove anything, always an alternative to your current opinion exists and will never cease.

The probable answer says: It's very simple, the Marseille order or something similar to it existed already, so the straight way from 0 to 13 with only one break is not a strange accident, but just a natural result of this unproven, but with good reason assumable condition.

Going so far with speculation - well, somehow solid speculation - one may ask for the reason of the break in the otherwise straight line of 0 - 13. Is there any logic in this break?

It is.

Johannes of Rheinfelden counted from 1 - 15 in his playing cards modell, Martiano da Toortona "somehow" straight from 1 to 16. What should the inventer of the 5x14-modell logically have done? Of course, very easy, he counted from 1 to 14, just following earlier traditions.

Then the break occured.
Somebody had an idea, and when somebody has a new idea, then before he had a problem.

The problem was "counting". In card playing there is much counting - in many rules - and game evolution is normal in its trend to avoid too much complications. If counting was too difficult, then a trick was thought out to reduce counting - a very normal step in game development.

In the given situation counting 11-12-13-14 causes problems. Numbers till 10 are easy to count, above life gets difficult. So the game inventer had his idea and the idea is the break in the development.

He dropped the 11 to 0 and increased 14 to 20. The "0" is most easy count (no counting at all) and the 20 is not difficult in addition processes. Then he had the row that we know:

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

Now there is still the counting complication with the values 12 and 13 .... but our game inventer detected a pleasant side-effect. The pleasant side effect was this:

1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14 had the result 105, but the new row:

0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10... +12+13 ... +20 = 100

100 is a "nice number". The game inventer found this "elegant" and prefered this version .... and didn't further try to make counting easier. 12 and 13 stayed what they had been.
This was the state of a special moment in time and we don't know, how long it endured.

Finally game evolution turned out, that a totally different way to count in Tarot games was established, the "elegant solution" of the earlier game inventer died with it. But the once generated row survived and became part of the new concept and as such we do meet it finally in the Marseille Tarot.

Going back to the begin of speculation. The unlikely "accident" caused us to think about the "break in the row" and it turned out, that it explains as completely logical, just in its brevity it proved as the shortest and easiest way to answer to a given problem. That it reached "100" - is against any idea, that this was accidently so - it was intention. If in history anything would be as sure as that, we would know a lot more about our past. Total security in historical matters is impossible.

The Marseille-row existed to a special part with the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo Tarocchi. It existed only in a special part, as there were only 14 trumps.

Johannes von Rheinfelden: http://trionfi.com/01/e/ (see menu)
Martiano da Tortona: http://trionfi.com/01/b/ (see: point "introduction" in the head menu)
The 5x14-theory and its backgrounds: http://trionfi.com/01/f/
 

TemperanceAngel

Thanks Huck, knew I was probably off track there, but also knew someone in here would have a very imformative response for me and you did :D XTAX
 

Ross G Caldwell

There are also the numbers written on the cards, on three handpainted decks -

Este (1473)........De Gaignières (<1475)......Catania (1455)

Bagato 1............Emperor III
........................Pope ...
........................Lovers V
........................Temperance VI
........................Fortitude VII
........................Justice VIII
........................Chariot X........................Chariot 10
........................Hermit XI........................Hermit 11
........................Hanged Man XII
........................Death XIII
........................Tower X...
........................Moon XVII
Sun 18...............Sun XVIII
........................World XVIIII
........................Judgement XX

This is a consistent 20 trump list, from packs with the same "Ferrara" style.

It is difficult to judge exactly when the numbers were written on the cards, but there is no reason why they should not be seen as 15th century, hence contemporary to or earlier than the Steele Sermon.

Ross