CHESS and Tarot?

[Huck]

The chessfigures-professions equation is quite an "own tarot". In the origin it is assumable, that the 8 pawns were attributed to 7 planets, as professions were attributed to planets. As there are 8 chessfigures and only 7 planets, the eight place is for the "player".
This earlier chess tradition - the 8. figure - should have given the basic idea for the card of the magician, I guess.

I doubt, that all "chess-tarots" of this kind used the same professions-pawns equation. The chess-literature in 14th centuries is described as very rich, and it is assumable, that the different authors - which almost were parted by great distances - developed their own phantasies.

Chess reflected society and that was the same idea, that Johannes of Rheinfelden did lead to enthusiasm, when he detected a cardgame with similar qualities (the pips became professions, the courts were the court) in the variants, that he knew 1377 - simply a forerunner to the Hofämterspiel.

http://http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/Hofaemterspiel/index.html

(The Sola-Busca-Tarocchi was praised for its "original idea", to give some content to the pips, but in German decks this was a rather common feature, see for instance Master of the Bandelore, Floetner and Schauefelein.)

http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/bandalore/index.html
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/Floetner/
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/schaeuf/

The Tarot in its development jumped on this already 1377 existent trend, but replaced professions with "highest professions" (Emperor -Empress - Pope - Popess) and allegories.

 

[Yatima]

Huck wrote:
"In 14th century chess was a bestselling theme - more than other. Perhaps beside the Apocalypse."

))

Yatima

 

[Yatima]

Huck wrote:
"To the REAL Tarot ... not individual pictures were important, it was the way to sort things. This scheme - more or less mathematical, an intriguing abstract formula, which could the say, but live in thousands of forms (and Renn. Tarot is only one of them) - was the deep root in human mind, and it was laid in human mind by memory culture thousands of years before the new way to "write it down and forget it" was developed. Of course memory culture had found the most elegant and simpliest way to memorize ... and this was, what was reimplanted in Renn-Tarot, when "just by playing" people again "expressed and resorted" the world and the basic archetypes - curiously near to that, how it earlier was done.
Part of this jumped into Tarot, and the way it did is the riddle of Tarot.
And I guess, we can only clear it up with accurate history.
Chess as real influence is not that important."

Although I do not, personally, see any interesting point in relating Chess to Tarot (besides of the fascinating game of seeking correpondences of which we may find indefinitely many...), the wider mathematical background, Huck talks about, is of great importance.

Nevertheless, the wonder (some would say, just the riddle...) of the Tarot seems to be (or at least one of them) that its substructure (with all its pre-development), namely 4x14+22(=21+1), is realy not to bring to terms with any basic system without leaving us startled by its boggling rest that seems not to be "rational" in any given system we might be inclined to apply, as e.g. Chess...

2x3x4=24, not 22
3x7=21, not 22
16 figures (Chess), not 22
22 letters, but not 21+1
22 chapters (Apocalypse), but nor 21+1

There may be some exceptions, like the 22+16+40 neopythagorean structure, and, as I believe, the Fibonacci-series (I will publish an article upon soon)...

Its not only the basic structur of mind that jumped also in the tarot, but the singularity of its trump-structure that startles us (and may be found only by seeking beyond the obvious...).

Yatima

 

[Huck]

2x3x4=24, not 22

You don't understand the system.

3x7=21, not 22

You don't understand the system.

16 figures (Chess), not 22

The Cary-Yale had probably 5x16 cards, so this is not a problem.

22 letters, but not 21+1

You don't understand the system.

22 chapters (Apocalypse), but nor 21+1

It doesn't matter, if the Apocalypse is organised in a similar way or not. Any writer or artist could incorporate a "22" in his system or personal writing just cause he loved the Hebrew alphabet, as for instance it is the case with the Psalm "Golden ABC". Such an artistic behaviour doesn't change the world, even when the related text becomes a famous bestseller.

There may be some exceptions, like the 22+16+40 neopythagorean structure ...

I respect Alain in his opinion, but this is not the system I talked about.

and, as I believe, the Fibonacci-series (I will publish an article upon soon)...

.... and I've nothing to do with this one.

Its not only the basic structur of mind that jumped also in the tarot, but the singularity of its trump-structure that startles us (and may be found only by seeking beyond the obvious...).

This is a detail question in the historic research of the Tarot development in 15th century. Iconography, perhaps questions about the hierarchy of specific ideas, etc., not really important.

Important is the real system, not the Tarot.

 

[Yatima]

Huck wrote:

"You don't understand the system."

You don't understand the system...

Yatima

 

[Huck]

Huck wrote:

"You don't understand the system."

You don't understand the system...

Yatima

Your sentence was:

"2x3x4=24, not 22
3x7=21, not 22
16 figures (Chess), not 22
22 letters, but not 21+1
22 chapters (Apocalypse), but nor 21+1"

You cited me, so I had reason to assume, that you spoke of the memorysystem, that I mentioned before.

This memorysystem I talked about includes a 2x3x4=24 - formula and also a specific group of 22 elements.
It includes a 3x7=21 - formula and also a 22th element, which fulfills the figure.
The 22 letters (I assume Hebrew alphabet) are structured in a way by Sepher Yetzirah and kaballistic interpretation, that a 21 +1 - formula describing it is possible.

All this I could demonstrate in detail.

As you formulated in your sentence these elements as "contradictions", the only logical conclusion at my end of the line was, that you simply don't understand the system and don't know, what I've been talking about. And the 16 figures of chess and the 22 chapters of Apocalypse doesn't touch the question.

So, your turn ... Which element of your system or which system do you think, that I didn't understand?

 

[Yatima]

Not everything is about you, Huck. When I made my statement, beginning by a quote of yours, I referred to your memory culture by saying that I find it important mathematically (not regarding chess, though). So much I said to “your” ideas, not more.

In my own reflection I said that I do not find any system that allows conquering the 22 trumps in their variable sub-structures, being 3x7+1 or 22 (plain) or 21+1. There are so many possible substructures alone of the TdM-order, not to speak of the other one’s (Dummett A and B).

So, I don’t care if you consider the 22 of the Apocalypse as irrelevant in “your” memory-system or whether “you” are talking about the Fibonacci-sequence; that is what you have commented from a point of view that has at least not tried to understand their introduction because you have interpreted them already as not important for your memory-thesis (or whatever you will name it). Therefore, my naming your reaction with your words for my reaction of your words…You have not understand the system...

It is about the impossibility to (1) exhibit Tarot trump sub-structures by a linear, obvious, basic division-system (if it is one at all) by naming it a memory system, because of their complexities related to order, iconography, number and the constant change of these elements in the first 100 years of their existence (or so), and (2) to install a basic number system, based on 2, 3, 4 as essential element of structuring it, because anything and everything can be connected by this basic “system”. It would be a flat coincidence or as every basic correspondence that is really possible to be seen as connection of everything you ever want.

As to the examples I named: Ok, go on and show me that you can override what I said. It was a list of abbreviated examples of how such connections would be too shallow to interpret the singularity of the trump structure.

Show me that your 2x3x4=24 structure can provide a 22 sub-set of importance and one that can relate to several of the sub-structures of the Tarot-trumps, their development, their relation to the suits.

Show me that the wide accepted 3x7+1 is really talking about the 22 trumps, in, say the Steel-order?

Show me that the 16 figures of Chess relate to the 22 of the Tarot? Don’t, please, come with Cary-Yale, I know these arguments, and they seem to me like fascinating imagination…nothing more, though; a 5x16 Structure will not do here.

Show me that the 22 letters related to the YS and to the time can be accounted for the sub-structures of the 22 or even really for the 22+1 in any order.

You may leave out the 22 of the Apocalypse, you interpret as irrelevant to “your” theory. I do not do so: Indeed, when the Bembo-14 and other early Tarots were related to Black Death and the Apocalypse (as, besides some of my allusions in the thread Star, Moon, Sun, was elaborated by Betts, Hurst and O’Neill), to introduce the 22 chapters or the 3x7 stages of Joachim of Fiore seems to me to have some merits (so, I am not disposing such thoughts generally).

But my statement was and is that it is not the “general” memory structure gained by cultural repetition through time but the singularity of the Tarot-structure that will lead us to its living well…

Yatima

 

[jmd]

So it seems that one of the consideration we have to reflect on is whether there is some kind of connection between Chess and Tarot.

As has been mentioned (by myself and others) in other places, having a quantitative correlation doesn't imply a qualitative one. Ie, having two 'systems' with the same number of items doesn't itself necessarily imply a deeper connection (a criticism I have of the Golden Dawn generally, by the way). Of course, it may also be the case that deep connections do in fact occur, even if not in Chess's and Tarot's proto-historical phase.

It could be, for example, that the very reflections (even if not the pieces themselves) made on contemplating Chess pieces may have been carried over into similar contemplations upon Tarot's iconography.

... and this irrespective as to whether there are similar 'parts' (16 vs 22).

To my eyes, each reflection adds to possible broader avenues of further investigations, and each critique leads to sharper reflections...

 

[tmgrl2]

Have to go over this thread again. It's amazing. May have missed the reference as I couldn't open some links and didn't read all yet...

but..

in our discussion of the origin of the word Le Mat...we had
echec et mat ...or "checkmate" from the French. ...

The King is dead, long live the new king...as though the Fool could be the traveler among boundaries bearing the news.

terri

 

[Huck]

Pocket chess

Well ... if you have 16 Trionfi-cards and I have 16 Trionfi-cards, and we define, which (playing card) figure is what chess-figure, we could play chess with too sets.
We define a board, place the cards on it, and the game may start.

If we look at curious inventions of the past, we are used to find strange things, a "pocket-chess with playing cards" is not very unlikely.
Indeed, even with a normal playing card set (4x14) we could play this game. The courts are the base-line-figures and some of the number-cards are chosen to present the coins.

14th century persons had been very fond of chess playing ... it's easily conceivable, that transporting chess-board and chess figures is not always possible, so in the scene of a party in a garden, a sort of picnic on the country or in the soldiers camp, that suddenly a card play mutated to be a chess-game. This mustn't have been a court idea, this could have happened by the creativity of anybody, and it was simply a practical solution to cross a boring time somewhere with no chess-board and chess figures nearby.

When we look at the book of King Alphonse the wise, we see, that specific playing ideas like backgammon for instance are explored with variations and variations ... these people had much different games - playing material was probably rare, but the game material, which existed, expanded in various games.

From the use of a common playing card as chess game easily the idea could jump up to paint the figures more chess-typical or to develop a little further the idea, that pawns present professions. It's likely, that only highstanding people could afford the necessary money to give these playing phantasies reality.

Well .... a visit of our playing card museum

http://trionfi.com/0/s/

gives - if visited with some patience - opportunity enough to observe great "creativity with playing cards" in various centuries. For our eyes the first 60 years of playing cards 1370 - 1430 are more or less unvisible, but I guess .... and I take that wisdom from that material, what is receivable from late 15th century .... that one should assume for the very early playing card history even "higher creativity", just, cause standards were missing, mass production hadn't developed it's uniting role, ways of trade weren't established, etc..
Many reasons to assume there a rich field ... totally unvisible to our eyes. Even Nothelfer decks are not impossible.

Nonetheless ... an early existence of the 4x14+22-version is unlikely ....

a. It's a strange number composition to add a "22"-group to a regular version, may it be 4x13, 4x14, 4x15, 4x16.
b. 21 has the quality to equate the 21 possibilities of two dices, 22 not.
c. ... and that's most important ... we can observe, how the 22-version developed ... it took its course via the 14 or 70 Bembo-cards.

A "general chess-influence" is likely.
We have the detail that papessa - empress - emperor - pope is similar to bishop - queen - king - bishop.
We've the great interest of Filippo Maria Visconti in chess and a proven interest of him in the number 16.
We've the proven fact, that Filippo Maria's daughter Bianca Maria was an influencing person on the Bembo deck.