Major arcana sequence

John Opsopaus, the creator of the Pythagorean Tarot, puts the Major Arcana in a different sequence to that which is accepted today. He bases this choice on historical fact and the apparent congruence of the earlier number sequence with Pythagorean number theory.

Supported by Kaplan (Encyclopedia Of Tarot Volume 1, pp2 –3) Opsopaus states that the oldest list of standard trumps was contained in a sermon against gambling in 1500 and was a follows;

• 1. Magician
  2. Empress
  3. Emperor
  4. High Priestess
  5. Pope or Hierophant
  6. Temperance
  7. Lovers
  8. Chariot
  9. Strength
  10. Wheel of Fortune
  11. Hermit
  12. Hanged Man
  13. Death
  14. Devil
  15. Arrow (Tower)
  16. Star
  17. Moon
  18. Sun
  19. Angel (Judgment)
  20. Justice
  21. World
  22. Fool.

Opsopaus does explain why the above arrangement is more congruent with Pythagorean number theory and to be honest I don’t really understand this yet but I’m curious to know why and when the sequence changed, especially in relation to the first six trumps.

When Kaplan speaks about the other decks. Particularly the Italian decks a little ,later in the century, he reports them to be in the familiar sequence we generally acept today, noting the old Strength/Justice issue.
.
I understand there are a number of theories as to how the structure of the Major Arcana was established. The structure and sequence seems to be really important to some philosophical systems and I wonder whether anyone knows why the sequence changed from the one first recorded. Was it just an idiosyncratic list? How did things actually fall into their current form? I did an Aeclectic search but could not not find anything really.

Thanks for any information ~

Moongold

The fact, that this is the oldest list, from which we know, doesn't make this the "oldest order". Probably already at the time of the preacher existed other and different lists. The oldest list appears in the accompanying manuscript of the Michelino deck - probably 1424/1425. It contains 16 Greek gods.

http://trionfi.com/0/b/

We've knowledge of various orders. All together it is a big puzzle game with much possibilities.
Kaplan II gives a good overview about the complications in this question.

Art as Letterform (Part 2)
by Mark Filipas

Reminiscent of similar examples contemporaneous to it,
the Marseilles designs appear to allude visually to the Hebrew
letterforms themselves. In some cases the letterform seems
to have inspired the overall design of the card; in other cases
it seems to have been incorporated into the design in the form
of a pictorial element. These letterform parallels would be
irrelevant to a historical study of the Marseilles Tarot except
for the fact that—as with the linguistic links—a similar body
of parallels does not present itself when the letters and
trumps are arbitrarily paired.

Text and Images

Huck said:

The fact, that this is the oldest list, from which we know, doesn't make this the "oldest order". Probably already at the time of the preacher existed other and different lists. The oldest list appears in the accompanying manuscript of the Michelino deck - probably 1424/1425. It contains 16 Greek gods.

http://trionfi.com/0/b/

We've knowledge of various orders. All together it is a big puzzle game with much possibilities.
Kaplan II gives a good overview about the complications in this question.

Click to expand...

Don't forget lists that may be contemporary or older to the Steele Sermon - numbers on existing cards. The numbers are surely 15th century - perhaps not long after the cards were made.

Catania - c.1450 Chariot 10, Hermit 11.
Charles VI - c. 1475 Chariot 10, Hermit 11, Sun 18, World 19, three virtues 6-8.
Ercole d'Este - c. 1473 Temperance 8 (?) (hence probably all the virtues are together), Star 16, Sun 18.

One interesting feature these share is that there is no room for a numbered card above 20, the Angel/Judgement. World is 19, and Justice is already grouped with the virtues. So here we have decks which seem, for the moment, to have had 20 cards plus a Fool.

It's not the Devil or Tower which seems to be missing, but the Papessa or Imperatrice (in Charles VI, Bagatella is I, Imperator is III, and Papa is IIII; Amor is V). Of course, in the Bolognese game you have two of the four "Moors" who have identical value, and identical appearance (the Moors are the Bolognese positions of Papessa-Imperatrice-Imperator-Papa). So perhaps the missing "II" of the Charles VI deck hides two cards of identical value, which is why there does not need to be two spaces.

So these decks and their numberings perhaps reflect an early stage in the Bolognese version of the game. The Ferrara and Bolognese traditions are inextricably linked - I don't think they need to be regarded as entirely distinct traditions.

Moongold said:

... but I’m curious to know why and when the sequence changed, especially in relation to the first six trumps.

Moongold

Click to expand...

In my thinking, the four cards Imperatrice-Imperator-Papessa-Papa form a unit distinct from what comes before and what comes after - the invariably first Bagatella, and then either Temperace or Love.

So in these four, the only one who changes position is the Papessa. She can have any position but the highest. The earliest written list, the Steele Sermon you have quoted, puts her at her highest place, next to the Pope. In most lists through the 16th century, she is either there, or in the next place down, under the Emperor. In the French packs she seems to have found the lowest place, which is what we first find (I believe) in the Geoffrey Catelin tarot of 1557.

So there are three possible arrangements, all attested in some pack or another -

(I)
Pope
Papessa
Emperor
Empress

(II)
Pope
Emperor
Papessa
Empress

(III)
Pope
Emperor
Empress
Papessa

Why does the Papessa change place? My own explanation is that it is a feature of the logic of the time, based on the "meaning" of the four figures - that is, they represent male and female, worldly and spiritual powers. Her position represents the various answers to the ambiguity of "spiritual woman's" place in a symbolic cosmos divided between male and female, spiritual and worldly forces. Always below "spiritual male" (Pope) as is everybody else, the "spiritual female"'s place is nevertheless ambiguous in relation to the worldly male's (Emperor).

For the last arrangement, the TdM, she is below even worldly female (Empress), which is contrary to the logic I have laid out above. Several answers appear - TdM symmetry, distancing the Popess from the Pope, and jmd's apt note considering relations to chess (also pointed out frequently by Huck).

As others have also pointed out, however, that final sequence you list, and the one standardised in the Tarot de Marseille, does also suggest a similarity to Chess order, with both bishops (Papesse and Pope) on either side of King and Queen (Emperor and Empress)...

jmd said:

As others have also pointed out, however, that final sequence you list, and the one standardised in the Tarot de Marseille, does also suggest a similarity to Chess order, with both bishops (Papesse and Pope) on either side of King and Queen (Emperor and Empress)...

Click to expand...

Thanks jmd - I forgot to mention the various explanations for why TdM differs. I have edited the last part of my post accordingly.

I have the set by John Opsopaus, but find it merely curious.
For all his scholarship he never seems to come right out and
say what it is he goes on about forever as to why...
Anyone interested in using dice will find his work amusing.

Thank you for your comments and the valuable links to other siources of information. I've learned a huge amount just through following those links

I was interested in the correlations with the Hebrew Alphabet and also Ross Caldwell's comment that the order may simply have reflected the conventions of the times.

In Opsopaus, the first seven cards are all people (Fool through Lovers), the second group are concepts, Temperance through Death, and the third group relates to created worlds, starting with the Devil, who might be a gnostic Demiurge (Samael, first letter Samech=XIV). This fits with the Pythagorean Proclus metaphysics of intellectual/intelligible, intellectual, and intelligible. http://www.wbenjamin.org/baeck.html The World, as in the universe, stands above the divisions.
************
Perhaps the Empress/Emperor placement also relates to the Zohar tale of the choice of Aleph to lead the alphabet. http://philologos.org/__eb-lotj/vol1/one.htm#2 . Gimel and Dalet have to appear together, are "married", and the Empress must be the rich one, so is Gimel (III).
Do these speculations help answer your questions?

Regards,
Numbers