PDA

View Full Version : CHESS and Tarot?


firemaiden
15-08-2003, 01:49
Huck wrote in evolution of the tarot (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16579), the Tarot "stands in a long row with other objects in history, which also once had use as divination tool and some of these are still alive. Astrology, Geomancy, I-Ching etc. are well known examples nowadays, but creativity did lead mankind to use more or less anything in this way. The Bible (together with a knife), the left hand, the flying of birds, the rest of the coffee, dreams, throwing chess figures on a chess-board.."

Chess! Chess has

King
Queen
Knight
Pawn
Castle (Tower?)
Bishop (Pope?)


and of course, "Schach mat"

Well? Do you think that the game of chess played a role in the evolution of tarot??

Huck
15-08-2003, 10:07
Chess diviation was done in China, as far I remember.

Chess in context with Tarot?

autorbis in his complicated world keeps it as a strong possibility, that the Cary-Yale, done rather early (perhaps 1428, perhaps 1441) for Filippo Maria Visconti, was influenced in its original form by Chess and the same notorious Chess-player Filippo Visconti (had an own chess-club at his court in 1427, and there was a visit of a master-player in 1429) in that way, that it had originally 64 pip and court cards and 16 trumps. 64 cause the 64 fields of a chess-board and 16 trump cards cause the 16 figures used by one player. This is only a suggestion by autorbis, he himself sees also other possibilites, but according to his analyses this is most likely.

http://geocities.com/autorbis/VMnew.html

Further he mentioned in personal talk, that the Goldchmidt and Guildhall cards have strange figures and the presence of a bishop there + the chequered ground (also in another deck, I forgot the name) point in the same direction: Chess took an influence. autorbis sees it as an early version, that was overcome by the later development, autorbis assumes, that the 5x14-deck (not related to chess) were much more farspread than any 5x16-version in the early phase (which happened before the idea to a deck with 22 special cards was born). See his opinion at:

http://geocities.com/autorbis/pbm14new.html

Pratesi, who is known for his studies and explorations about the Michelino-deck and the card sitution in Florence made also suggestions in direction to chess (Pratesi is a general game-researcher, not fixed upon Tarot, who also made some worthful explorations in the field of Chess, Checkers and Go), although based on other considerations, the backgrounds are not totally clear to me.

An excessive visit to

http://games.rengeekcentral.com/

(please detect the Appendix) might show you, that the interest in Chess and other games was very high and full of experiments, they didn't play only in one way with a game and explored also variants. This spirit should also assumed for the development of playing card decks. Although this book is of Spain and of King Alfonso and of 13th century, it might well tell something about Filippo Visconti's habits and ways to experiment with games.

firemaiden
15-08-2003, 11:15
Fantastically interesting, Huck, thank you. What an encyclopaedia you are!

Rusty Neon
15-08-2003, 15:31
This is not something I'm into, but, as it's sort of on topic, here's a link about an Enochian chess set and its use in divination:

http://www.multi.co.uk/echess.html

However, the Enochian chess system described in the Golden Dawn manuscripts has more express correspondences with tarot.

catlin
15-08-2003, 17:16
maybe you can find some more information on that subject in the Nigel Pennick book about games (sorry I don't know the Enlish title as I only got the German edition).

pan
22-10-2003, 13:29
the one to one numeric correlation of chess to tarot seems to be unlikely as a mere accident. 16
court cards and 16 peices per player.

Trying to grasp the exact correspondence seems a bit more difficult, but i think its best to run
with occams razor as far as one can go. The castles are obvious earth element, leaving air, fire, water, to everything else.For some reason i am partial to thinking of knights as fire, but i could be swayed also to go for them as air. Bishops seem water to me, that would leave air for
king and queen.

What seems more important to my mind is the numerology of the board itself. 8 times 8 = 64
squares, 24 major arcana plus 40 numeric cards is
also 64. The tarot cycle or wheel of the year is expressed as three rings around a solid center,
take your pencil and make the rings. Theres just enough room for it.

I play a lot of chess, and sometimes loose when
i start "reading" the game...lol

pan
22-10-2003, 13:30
Well? Do you think that the game of chess played a role in the evolution of tarot??
----------
No, the reverse.
chess is derivative of tarot.

Huck
22-10-2003, 14:13
Yes :-)
---------
No :-(

... as long you do follow the rules of our standard imagination about time.

pan
23-10-2003, 08:14
thanks rusty neon...now i have yet another thing
i want to buy...
you folks will make me into a good capitalist yet!

pan
23-10-2003, 08:22
thanks huck, that was fascinating.
i like the way that the chess/tarot correspondence
is worked out.

Huck
23-10-2003, 11:01
Originally posted by pan
thanks huck, that was fascinating.
i like the way that the chess/tarot correspondence
is worked out.

It isn't ready ... other evidence will turn out. First they played chess, then cards ... Chess could influence cards, not vice versa. Chess was more or less established.
Filippo played Chess and had a Chess club at his court in 1427. Niccolo III d'Este prefered Chess.

pan
23-10-2003, 11:26
some days its best to shake hands, eat chocolate cake, and agree to disagree.

tarot started as humans externalized their ideas
through images. This became quickly more complex
and evolved far faster than phonetic language
for a variety of reasons. Hieroglyphic symbols
are by virtue of existing outside of us and being somewhat temporally permanent capable of holding
quite simply more "bits" of information than lingua code. Chess started as each individual on
two sides of a table trying to express themselves
manipulating physical external symbols. Chess and Tarot can thus be seen as existing as two primary and early branches of externalized physical symbolic discourse. A few generations go by, and
the chess objects become codified into a game as
the tarot image method becomes the communication
tool.

If you believe that tarot started in the 14th century, then of course chess predates that.
Since i know better, things are different from my perspective.

:)

pan
23-10-2003, 11:42
the following is from a site i found on yahoo...
http://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/chaturanga.html




Chaturanga

Scientists generally assume that Chaturanga, played in India, in or before the 7th
century after Christ, is the oldest known form of chess. Resemblances, both with
the current chess, and with Chinese chess are remarkable. The rules below are after
Murray and Gollon.
Moves of pieces

The king moves as usual king, but additionally has the right to make one
knight-move during the game, provided that he hasn't been checked before he
makes his knight-move. Castling doesn't exist.

The counsellor moves one square diagonally.

The elephant moves two squares diagonally, but may jump the intervening square.

The knight moves as a usual knight.

The rook or chariot moves as usual rook.

The pawn or soldier moves and takes as a usual pawn, but may not make a double step on its first move.

Promotion

Pawns can promote when they arrive at the last rank of the board, but only to the type of piece that was on the
promotion-square in the opening setup, e.g., a white pawn that moves to b8 can only promote to a knight. Additionally,
promotion is only possible when the player already lost a piece of the type, so the pawn moving to b8 will only promote
to a knight, when the white player already lost a knight during the game. A consequence is that pawns never promote
on e1 or d8.

Mate and stalemate

Object of the game is to mate the opponents king. The player that stalemates its opponent loses the game.

Play It!

Use Zillions of Games to play this game! If you have Zillions of Games installed, you can download this game and play it.

augursWell
23-10-2003, 12:49
Mark Filipas, in his eBook Alphabetic Masquerade(available at tarot.com), suggests that chess is symbolized in the Major Arcana as follows...

I - the game of chess(board usually shown with the magician)
III - the Queen
IV - the King
V - 2 Bishops
VII - 2 War Horses
XII - Checkmate or capture
XVIII - 2 Rooks or Castles(either side of the moon)
XX - a pawn that has reached the other side
XXI - the chess player

The following cards usually have two figures which are the pawns:
XVI - 2 Pawns
VI - 2 Pawns
XV - 2 Pawns
XIX - 2 Pawns

You generally have to use a Marseilles deck in order to find these symbols but it's strange how it makes sense.

pan
23-10-2003, 13:30
of the explanations for correspondence we have perused so far, the one offered by ummm...
whoever it was...with the site...
seemed to me to be the best.

thanks for throwing more wood on the fire tho...

pan
23-10-2003, 13:33
it was huck.

http://geocities.com/autorbis/VMnew.html

Huck
24-10-2003, 08:49
Originally posted by pan
it was huck.

http://geocities.com/autorbis/VMnew.html


The article at the URL is from Lothar using as publishing name autorbis.
He discusses his various theories about the origin of Tarot only at LTarot.

http://geocities.com/autorbis/LTarot.html

But it might be recommended to read a little bit at

http://trionfi.com

first. In the case that I interpreted him too personally, so this was on the base of various private exchanges we had in the past.

trionfi.com is done by various researchers, I've chosen the function to do a little bit "public relation" that the project becomes known at the outside, also I do a little bit about German playing cards.

http://geocities.com/tarocchi7/info.html

Other researchers, which are interested to join their energies with ours, are invited.
There are lots of open projects. The idea of the group is to build up a solide base for all theories about the origin of Tarot. Documentary evidence, if necessary and possible, pictures of decks and persons, biographies of related persons, other mterial to Italy in 15th century, when necessary.
Theories and projectures, when it becomes necessary to interprete existent contradictions in the documents or to existing theories, which had their value in the past but lost their value according new insights.
The main engagement is for the 5x14-theory

http://geocities.com/autorbis/pbm14new.html

which states, that there is NO reason to assume, that the Tarot started with 22 trumps, but various reasons to assume, that there once was a 5x14-state, which knew only 14 "special cards". Compare also:

http://trionfi.com/01/e/r71/

especially document 16.

Open discussion is desired at LTarot, conflicts in opinion or theory are not regarded as problem - but just as energies, which naturally accompany the process of development in "real research".

pan
24-10-2003, 09:56
the axoim that these decks are more original
forms of tarot decks seems unfounded to me.
I understand that these decks existed, and i
appreciate that a timeline can be created in
which changes in the decks can be observed over
time, until we arrive at the decks we are more familiar with.

I understand and appreciate that scholarship,
and i think it is very valuable to have somebody around who can point to that stuff.

It is still my position that what is being
viewed as the evolution of Tarot is a very small
chapter in the total history, and that the driving
force most primary behind that evolutionary sequence was in fact the obvious holes created
by omissions.

I have noticed that this conversation seems to have bled over into chess.

I hope that we can return this thread back to its rightful topic.

on that note, it seems that we have a couple of
versions of chess to tarot correspondences, and,
i would like to point out that the one i favor
right now is the one you provided.

I think chess is post feudal and tarot prefeudal,
at least at the level of development that we end
up with. Of course, some people would argue and i might be one of them that the feudal influence on tarot is precisely the most markedly cancerous
influence, but i think the agrarian pre feudal spirituality still shines through.

Huck
24-10-2003, 12:15
Originally posted by pan
the axoim that these decks are more original
forms of tarot decks seems unfounded to me.
I understand that these decks existed, and i
appreciate that a timeline can be created in
which changes in the decks can be observed over
time, until we arrive at the decks we are more familiar with.


**** Well, any deck is "original" that, what it is and had been in time. Some were earlier, some were later. Some, which are later, has similarities with that, which are earlier, then we can speak of a special relation, which we might express with "more original than ..." but that's just language, actually there is only history or the "story of the decks" and no axiom. Just our trial to understand, what had happened.


I understand and appreciate that scholarship,
and i think it is very valuable to have somebody around who can point to that stuff.

It is still my position that what is being
viewed as the evolution of Tarot is a very small
chapter in the total history,

**** I agree

and that the driving
force most primary behind that evolutionary sequence was in fact the obvious holes created
by omissions.

**** ..."holes created by omissions". ...in the case I understand you correctly, then you take a position like "the kids were already there, before the parents went to bed." Alright, somehow it's true. All what we know about DNS ... it seems, when the potential is there, then it somehow exists. The seed of a tree has the idea to become a tree and somehow the tree is already there, before it started to grow, anybody with someexperience knows that feeling and view .. when I've the idea to build a house, it's only an idea, but if I'm enduring in my plan, then it realizes.

Well, that are processes inside actual history, which is a play between past-now-future. But history, when it had happened, is understood as "already done choice out of many possibilities" - which not all became true and "history". That's "our" common time-modell - there are others, of course. But in the wish to understand our partners in communication and to be understood, we should tell them, what modell we're using in the moment.


I have noticed that this conversation seems to have bled over into chess.

I hope that we can return this thread back to its rightful topic.


*** What - in your opinion - is the "rightful topic"?


on that note, it seems that we have a couple of
versions of chess to tarot correspondences, and,
i would like to point out that the one i favor
right now is the one you provided.

I think chess is post feudal and tarot prefeudal,
at least at the level of development that we end
up with.

*** The easiest way to change to that object what is "prefeudal" and legitimately called "Tarot" would be to call it by name, point to the relevant time-space-context and say, there it is. Then we all can enjoy its existence. What is it?


Of course, some people would argue and i might be one of them that the feudal influence on tarot is precisely the most markedly cancerous
influence, but i think the agrarian pre feudal spirituality still shines through.

*** The Pawn's Tarot? :-)

***Joke aside, most people were farmers in earlier times, also at the time, when Tarot was generated. Why not some agrarian spirituality ... most motifs of Tarot are much older than the Tarot, nobody has doubts about that. But the complete composition ... or anything, what is similar, that's the thing, which is searched for.

pan
24-10-2003, 12:52
of the decks" and no axiom. Just our trial to understand, what had happened.
---------
right. and in the end, we can only ever know
some small part of what actually happened, and in
the end, even the best "proofs" and so forth are
just points in time where somebody did or said or wrote something and thus are themselves conjectural.
---------
**** I agree
---------
okay, i'd like some elaboration on that.
if you agree as i understand that you are that
the party mainline story is only one fraction of the total history of tarot, then what do you see
as the potential other parts of that story?
----------

created
by omissions.

--------
thats all very zen and holistic of you, and thats one way to understand part of what happened, but
my position is a bit more outlandish than that.
I think that the tarot as it existed previous to
the roman influence was at least as complex and enumerated as the deck that we ended up with...plus at least two cards.
To me, when i think of tarot, i see three wheels
spinning in my mind, and those wheels could not be
complete without the rest of the deck. If somebody were to ommit a card, i would in some alternate universe come to tarot in ignorance of it and experience that gap in the pattern.

People reading tarot get books that talk about
meanings of specific cards. Taken at that bit level, its easy to get confused. But a circle is
perfected. If its out of balance, you feel the tilt. When you look at the larger pattern (which most people don't seem to be capable of doing) Theres no way for the circles to work much any other way. You could pull a few things...you could
say pull numeric cards and find a balance point,
but again, it would take an eye for the whole pattern to do that. When people make changes to the tarot without an eye for the whole pattern,
it looks...off kilt...out of whack.
------------


choice out of many possibilities" - which not all became true and "history". That's
"our" common time-modell - there are others, of course. But in the wish to
understand our partners in communication and to be understood, we should tell
them, what modell we're using in the moment.
----------
I'm not sure how i have failed to be explicit in
terms of what model i am using. When we say the word "history" most people seem to think thats
a solid tangible thing. They forget that politics
is constantly rewriting revisionist histories.
That can make determining the truth value of a
given version of history very difficult to determine. In this case, my assertion is that
Tarot is at least 30 thousand years old. Thats
a wild assertion considering the party line that
its only 600. Thats two different versions of history. Which one is correct? Of course as a single lone voice speaking only from the truth
of what more or less amounts to personal insight,
the "proofs" are stacked against me...if we choose
to read the proofs in a certain way. But then again, just because we know a deck of cards x and a deck of cards y and another deck of cards z existed in time frames x,y,and z, that does not
logically prohibit time frames a and b from having
decks that we don't have record of. The thing is,
lack of a record is not proof. Mere absence of proof is not itself proof to the inverse. The question then becomes, why make the assumption?
Why exclude, irrationally, the possibility that
there are tarot time frames a and b? Unless there is some other motivation...which there seems to
be quite clearly.
---------

*** What - in your opinion - is the "rightful topic"?
-----
CHESS??
---------



*** The easiest way to change to that object what is "prefeudal" and legitimately
called "Tarot" would be to call it by name, point to the relevant time-space-context
and say, there it is. Then we all can enjoy its existence. What is it?
--------
pre- feudal means the tribal cultures which
existed before the big adventures of wars became
a plague on the planet. There was a time, believe
it or not, when humans were scarce enough that
they just competed with nature and not so much with each other.
---------


*** The Pawn's Tarot? :-)
----------
ha ha
--------
***Joke aside, most people were farmers in earlier times, also at the time, when
Tarot was generated. Why not some agrarian spirituality ... most motifs of Tarot are
much older than the Tarot, nobody has doubts about that. But the complete
composition ... or anything, what is similar, that's the thing, which is searched for.
------
yes, the question of what is the true identity of tarot, and how far back can anything resembling that identity go? and the answer is...as far as
we can Proove, the roman era of book burnings. But
then again, so what? it was after all the roman era of book burnings.
--------
__________________

augursWell
24-10-2003, 14:09
To me, when i think of tarot, i see three wheels spinning in my mind, and those wheels could not be complete without the rest of the deck.

pan,

I am interested in this three wheels image that you mentioned. What is this pattern and the number of cards?

Huck
24-10-2003, 22:58
edited for brevity

Originally posted by pan

I think that the tarot as it existed previous to
the roman influence was at least as complex and enumerated as the deck that we ended up with...plus at least two cards.
....

People reading tarot get books that talk about
meanings of specific cards. Taken at that bit level, its easy to get confused. But a circle is
perfected. If its out of balance, you feel the tilt. When you look at the larger pattern (which most people don't seem to be capable of doing) Theres no way for the circles to work much any other way. You could pull a few things...you could
say pull numeric cards and find a balance point,
but again, it would take an eye for the whole pattern to do that. When people make changes to the tarot without an eye for the whole pattern,
it looks...off kilt...out of whack.

....

In this case, my assertion is that
Tarot is at least 30 thousand years old. Thats
a wild assertion considering the party line that
its only 600. Thats two different versions of history. Which one is correct? Of course as a single lone voice speaking only from the truth
of what more or less amounts to personal insight,
the "proofs" are stacked against me...pre- feudal means the tribal cultures which
existed before the big adventures of wars became
a plague on the planet. There was a time, believe
it or not, when humans were scarce enough that
they just competed with nature and not so much with each other.

....

yes, the question of what is the true identity of tarot, and how far back can anything resembling that identity go? and the answer is...as far as
we can Proove, the roman era of book burnings. But
then again, so what? it was after all the roman era of book burnings.
--------
__________________


Hi Pan,

let me summarize a little bit, what you said.

You say, there is something similar to Tarot, something even more complex as the medieval Tarot and that's the REAL TAROT, what is presented in RENAISSANCE Tarot. This real object is displeased with the version of RENAISSANCE Tarot, but was more satisfied, when the RENAISANCE TAROT not only had 5x14 cards, but 4x14+22. This REAL TAROT might have been even 30 000 years old, at least it have been around 400 AD, when CFhristian burnt books.

I do interprete your words this way, if I was wrong in my summarization, please tell me.

I agree with you. I wouldn't call the object "TAROT", as Tarot seems to be a name developed rather lately, but that's only word definition.
There was something, it was similar to that, what later was called Tarot and cause that similarity one might call it Tarot. It's okay to act so, but in communication it might drive people crazy, when a term - in this case "Tarot" - is not specified to that
use one is interested to talk about. Nobody is interested to become crazy, so let's define "Renn. Tarot" for Renaissance-Tarot and "Real Tarot" for that, what has been before and was similar to it., perhaps even more complex.

Renaissance generally meant "remember that, what was before the book burning", which - of course - was not only book-burning, but the wandering of the nations also, which caused, that the Western Roman Empire broke down in great dimensions, people starting to forget how to write and to read and also, how to build houses with stones and to organize greater cities.

Renaissance was the phase of recovery of this blow to culture and people like Petrarca and Bocacchio essentially "remembered", that there was a culture before and that it might have some value to know about the past. This started "Renaissance", book-gathering, libraries, finally progress in book-printing, new arts, remembering of the earlier gods and systems, a lot of things.
In this struggle of "remembering" the old mystical systems also reappeared and were reinterpreted in a new way. One of the "reinterpretations" was the Tarot.
Of course, naturally, the early Tarot (Renn-Tarot) missed the earlier elegance and complexity of the earlier Real Tarot (as defined above).
So one has to understand the development of Renn-Tarot in itself, its motifs, its system just by that, what it was, a playing card riddle and experiment, innocent and without too big intentions, a very special case of "remembering" just by playing in various steps.
A real phenomen and the dimensions of this phenomen are totally unexplored, cause researchers already have serious troubles to understand the first part of it, and that's how Renn.-Tarot really turned to new life and that was, as we can perceive it now, in stages of Imperatori-decks, Chess-Tarots, 5x14-decks, Boiardo-poems etc.. Research had been fixed at an easy modell of remembering ...like, there was a text or a tradition, which was complete and that gave base to the development of Tarot without great switches.
"The original had 22 trumps" was the exspectation of them and that idea was simply too stupid, the hope, that it happened "easy", they didn't like to expand their mind too much about this question.
Renn. Tarot in all his various forms couldn't and doesn't touch any integrity of earlier and more complex systems - how could it. These systems existed before and history can't be changed really, only the perception of it can be changed (and this is often done).

If your inner eye sees there wheels turning or whatever picture your mind prefers, that's "remembering". Remembering the real system.
The "Real System" had something to do with "Memory culture" and mankind had a long phase, when written culture wasn't implanted, and memory culture had it's high time. "Writing and reading" attacked memory culture, and that attack was already successful in a high degree in Roman time and started to win already in Greek times (Socrates already was a man between memory culture and writing culture), Hesiod was the (Greek) prototype of memory culture. Before Hesiod not much written reports exist (naturally).

We should realize, that we are the real biological descendants of these "memory culture persons", we really "remember" them, at least their DNS, but perhaps even their minds, not only by the technique of the writing culture. From me to Hesiod are estimated only around 80-90 generations. And memory culture was a factor perhaps more than 80-90 generations ...

Of course, remembering is not always "in" ... so most people don't. But some see wheels or other objects, in dreams, visions, etc...
Then they see Tarot and hear some theories ... then they think, they've found. But the theories are full of errors, of course, cause the authors of their books also didn't find the real base and blubber about various things but not reality. So a deep forest started to exist talking of "Tarot" without knowing, what they're really talking of. Phantasies, short-sighted ideals ... and a deep-rooted desire to understand the discrepance and confusion with a lot of half-way solutions.

Well, it's time to start to think a little more precise. Read trionfi.com, it's a fair try to look into the face of desillusion.

This medieval Tarot only hides the real object, which we perhaps better do not call "Real Tarot" just not to confuse anybody, cause the aim is just only "remember correctly", meeting perhaps a little bit of "Pan", old farmer's identity.

Cerulean
26-10-2003, 16:13
Catlin mentioned one book The title might be

Game of the Gods: the origin of board games in magic and divination. In one appendix here are some old games:

Grid--Points----Game using the Grid
3x3--9---Nine holes, noughts and crosses
4x4--16--Five men's morris
5x5--25--Sadurangam, Thyyam
6x6--36--Nine Men's Morris
7x7--49--Brandubh, Ashta-Kashta
8x8--64--Ashtapada, Chaaturanga, Shatranj, Chess
9x9--81--Tablut, Sakurankam
10x10--100--Great Chess, Gala, Polish Draughts
11x11--121--Tawlbwrdd (16th century)
13x13--169--olafs, Kongs Tafl
16x16--256--Halma
19x19--361--Hnefatafl, Go
-------------------------------------

Two medieval/renaissance games I'm looking into that might help me understand medieval/renaissance minds include rithmatica (with links to astrology and chess) that might have been from 1100 to 1600 (8x12) and the later Mantegna of the 1400s (5x10). Both of these games had links to clergy, at least in popular mentions (Mantegna mention in the book Pagan Dream of the Renaissance; Rithmatica in the book called the Philosopher's Game).

So along with art history, mentions of games of old are a hopeful link to tracing some of the Renaissance tarot patterns.

Best wishes,

Mari Hoshizaki

pan
28-10-2003, 08:57
wow huck.
wow wow wow.

right.

the thing that drives my interpretation more than
anything is a very clear sense that i am simply
remembering something which to my mind seems
clear and obvious, as if everybody should grasp it. But i know that this is not the case, and this is sometimes strange to me until i think back to
existing inside of the box and my own release from it.

i find that individuals very rarely were as sinister in obfuscating the truth as entire groups
of people were and that usually the group agendas
seem to have driven people to do thing they may have thought were for the best at the time.

So i don't blame any one person, but i have to try to sort out for myself this discrepancy between
things i clearly see and things i clearly see projected as a false image.

The "real tarot" is imprinted as racial or genetic memory because it is in some senses how the mammalian mind evolved. It was through the use
of pictographic/imagerial/movie-esque symbologies
that we first began to use symbols. Visual imagerial symbols must predate phonetic symbols;
its a longer vaster leap. The word "box" symbolizes a box. But the image created by a dozen lines symbolizes a box more graphically and more directly. Its a no brainer which form of language came first when you think about it.

So if this is true, and if the underlying principles hold, then tarot is a symbolic and non phonetic alphabet of dreamspeak images.
"real" tarot exists not on a bunch of cards, but
as a now hardwired genetically encoded aspect of
the mammalian brain.

Chess (to get back on topic) is the version of this which is grappled and contaminated by the reptillian instincts for competition and conflict.
Another way of putting it is that chess is the result of the interpretation of those (mammalian complex) symbols by
the reptillian complex.

pan
28-10-2003, 09:13
mari, your post didn't go unoticed, i'll get to it.






Hi Pan,

let me summarize a little bit, what you said.

You say, there is something similar to Tarot, something even more complex as the
medieval Tarot and that's the REAL TAROT, what is presented in RENAISSANCE
Tarot. This real object is displeased with the version of RENAISSANCE Tarot, but
was more satisfied, when the RENAISANCE TAROT not only had 5x14 cards, but
4x14+22. This REAL TAROT might have been even 30 000 years old, at least it have
been around 400 AD, when CFhristian burnt books.
------------
yes, thats it. thanks for mirroring so well!
-------------


I agree with you. I wouldn't call the object "TAROT", as Tarot seems to be a name
developed rather lately,
------------
taro arot rota otar
"the wheel of tarot speaks the mysteries of hathor"

If so, the name is very old.
----------
so let's
define "Renn. Tarot" for Renaissance-Tarot and "Real Tarot" for that, what has been
----------
I would hate to commit the kind of lingual
bias so often commited in politics. "real" seems
too political to me. RennTarot is good,
I'd go maybe MamTarot GypTarot, GnosTarot, RennTarot, and ModTarot. (Mammalian Metacode Tarot, Egyptian and Gypsy Tarot, Gnostic/Masonic
Tarot, Rennaisaunce Tarot, and Modern Tarot.)

Chess they say started in A. China, or B India.
I favor the India idea personally.
------------


before and was similar to it., perhaps even more complex.

Renaissance generally meant "remember that, what was before the book burning",
which - of course - was not only book-burning, but the wandering of the nations
also, which caused, that the Western Roman Empire broke down in great dimensions,
people starting to forget how to write and to read and also, how to build houses
with stones and to organize greater cities.
----------
right, so we know that the effect of all that
warfare against information had very dire consequences, and that eventually for civilization
to survive they had to buck the nonsense and get
back into the "old ways."
---------
book-gathering, libraries, finally progress in book-printing, new arts,
remembering of the earlier gods and systems, a lot of things.
In this struggle of "remembering" the old mystical systems also reappeared and were
reinterpreted in a new way. One of the "reinterpretations" was the Tarot.
Of course, naturally, the early Tarot (Renn-Tarot) missed the earlier elegance and
complexity of the earlier Real Tarot (as defined above).
---------
Right, well imagine taking a textbook and removing
all of the words and then trying to make sense of
the book using only the diagrams.
----------


So one has to understand the development of Renn-Tarot in itself, its motifs, its
system just by that, what it was, a playing card riddle and experiment, innocent and
without too big intentions, a very special case of "remembering" just by playing in
various steps.
--------
right. the Renn tarot in some senses saved tarot
from extinction; we have to thank it and appreciate it but also know it for what it was, and look beyond it.
----------

pan
28-10-2003, 09:23
so very quickly as i look at the trionfi deck i remember what i thought about it the las time i bothered. Whats going on here is actually greek
renassaunce; the author of the deck is bringing
the greek pantheon forward in time to present it
to the population...

a noble cause.

trying to go back to the more original deck would
only have been throwing out confusing and strange
images that the people of the time would have little ability to make cultural links to.

pan
28-10-2003, 09:26
mari;

some of these games i am vaguely familiar with and others i have never heard of. Its a very good list, and well appreciated.

A history of these games, their points of origin,
and description of play seems in order.

at this very moment i don't have the time and energy, but if somebody else doesn't, i'll go do the research and try to make the presentation in the next couple of days.

Thanks for keeping this conversation on track.

thanks again.

Huck
28-10-2003, 21:29
Yes, I think, you get the track.

The great story of Renaissance was remembering better and remember other times, of course using new media or that media, what was appropriate for the new time: Playing cards (for instance), but also oil paintings and other material in art.

One point: The break down of Western Roman Empire was not caused by book-burning, but book burning was an effect of other deeper reasons.
The main reason was a change of the climate. This caused a population increase in middle Asia, probably caused it, that the city Rome already in 3rd and 4th century lost rapidely inhabitants, and comparatively smaller cities like Mediolanum (Milano), Lyon and Treveres became the capital cities of Western Roman Empire (all north of Rome, so climate became more hot). Treveres had 70 000 inhabitants, Rome at its best time around 700 000 - this tells a lot.
Then these irregularities in 3rd century: More then 30 Imperators in one century, that's a sign of political instability already then.

In Middle Asia too much people started to live and caused a snowball effect. They took other countries, and other peoples started to flee, searching for new places. Some of them reached Europe and caused war, crime, instability. This already started in 2nd century. Rome could withstand that a long time, it was a great Empire, it lasted in great dimensions 7,6,5 centuries and even after it lived still as the eastern Empire, Byzantium. The final break down was 1204 and 1453, it's just our West-European view, that we see it happen already in 410, 450 and around that time.
The book-burning was only a small step in the whole development. The social crisis in 4th century was the reason, and the win of Christianity was, that its religion offered a politic against poverty, it organised the poor, the victims of social change. In 312 Constantantin tolerated Christianity, in ound 380 Christianity was strong enough to take pressure at all other forms of religion with help of the Imperator.

So the win of Christianity took place in this century. Book-burning was a final clue of this win and a long development, not the cause. The Platonic academy still persisted till early 6th century, there were not only books and scriptures in Alexandria.

Real Tarot: We know old pictures (from Egyptia, from Greece, from Rome) and we know, that they look different to Tarotcards of the Renaissance. The Real Tarot doesn't depend on pictures.

So, what's the content, which could be remembered (in longer steps) by Renaissance people? Which was the context, which could raise out of hidden backgound to consciousness in 15th century?

It was the content of a whole world, which existed before their time, it was the remembering, that before there were other gods, there were more culture, a greater importance for the whole region of the Western world, there were scriptures, which were gathered in libraries, there was a reading movement in 15th century, people started to learn Latin and Greek to adapt just this common trivial knowledge of earlier time, which we do learn in our schools as "our history".
15th century saw a development, when "history" was generally born. Of course "history" can't be born, it exists, but the individual mind discovered: "There was something and I can learn about it". And this function was in greater parts dead in centuries before. Well, there were people, who knew about it, but ... these was only the small group of intellectuals which survived in cloisters under very special conditions, which we wouldn't call"free mind"... even kings and higher persons had difficulties to read. With the birth of new cities in 12th and 13th century reading ability increased ... and that's the revolution.

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. It incorpated in early forms of Tarot just by accident or by "normal logic", as Chess was a common game to people of Renaissance and when constructing early card decks, they used chess. A very normal development, not very surprizing, but naturally it was not a "deep mystery", it was just playing a bit with symbols .

So what was the content of Real Tarot?

... autorbis calls it the 1x2x3x4-system, the easiest way to organize memory in a good functioning mental system, a "natural" system, which is born by sorting units in groups of 2,3 and 4 and by combinations of the basic elements to greater units, so that "great systems" could be constructed. .... there are no smaller numbers than 2,3,4, so this system naturally is the basic system, there is actual no wonder about it or mystery .... the mystery is only: "How could you forget it?" One of the more complex systems generated this way was the Sepher Yetzirah, which took a strong influence much later upon Kabbala.

If anybody reaches "inner journey" to the basics of his/her mind, he/she naturally explores the sorting and he meets the great mandala ... but the received content is not mysterious, but logical .

pan
15-11-2003, 08:44
and so there we are at the great mandala,
of which tarot is one expression, and the i ching
another.

What is constant is the mandala; and to understand
the mandala once exposed to its simple keys is
very basic.

As you said the numbers are very simple, the organizing structures are based on 2, 3, and 4.
(2x3=6, 2x4=8, 3x4=12 12x2=24) The 2x4 connection
being what dominated the math of the face cards,
and the actual total of 24 trumps. The four suits,
and so forth...

the biggest question is whats up with 10?
but even the ten is really 1-4 and 1-4 plus2.
why the plus 2? i can only guess it was fingers.

The mythical arena seems like it couldn't shrink
too much smaller.

Thats an interesting idea for the chess tie in,
certainly not the way my mind would put it together. I do know that "kings and queens" are
not original to tarot and the same with knights so
suddenly it might make some sense as to why and
how we ended up with feudalism imprinted on tarot.

i still think going into a depth study of all
regional board games might be interesting.

Huck
16-11-2003, 03:42
Originally posted by pan
and so there we are at the great mandala,
of which tarot is one expression, and the i ching
another.

What is constant is the mandala; and to understand
the mandala once exposed to its simple keys is
very basic.

As you said the numbers are very simple, the organizing structures are based on 2, 3, and 4.

A mandala is always a divided whole. There are no simpler numbers than 2-3-4 to divide.


(2x3=6, 2x4=8, 3x4=12 12x2=24) The 2x4 connection
being what dominated the math of the face cards,
and the actual total of 24 trumps. The four suits,
and so forth...

We've historical relicts of such number-experiments. There were creative in their way.
The Chinese with their solution (I-Ching) got 4096 possibilities for an oracle, their math is a little bit more complex as just multiplating 2x3x4, but there are only these 3 numbers involved.


the biggest question is whats up with 10?
but even the ten is really 1-4 and 1-4 plus2.
why the plus 2? i can only guess it was fingers.

The fascination of the ten of course was related to the 10 fingers, naturally they needed a 4+1-scheme (thumb + 4 fingers) for that (5 chinese elements). The 2x5 is used in China and is also mentioned in the SY.
But the actual most used idea was not the decadic system, but the binary system. They tried to mix both orders, often enough a little contradicting in itself, as it just were different systems.



The mythical arena seems like it couldn't shrink
too much smaller.

Thats an interesting idea for the chess tie in,
certainly not the way my mind would put it together. I do know that "kings and queens" are
not original to tarot and the same with knights so
suddenly it might make some sense as to why and
how we ended up with feudalism imprinted on tarot.



The card play development obviously took feudalistic influences. The Tarot development took it from the card play development.

The 2x3x4-order is the real interesting object, Tarot is just a playing for it. The 2x3x4-system contains the answer, that, whatever the objects looks like, it is the mind, who organises them. And mind loves to turn things into simple patterns, easy to memorize them. So mind generally works to form simple groups of them. Groups of 2 or 3 or 4 elements. Above 4 things world becomes "too complicated", so mind tends to give them an easier structure. So 12 astrological signs are 3x4, and 12 monthes have 4 seasons. And the day has 24 hours. And the year has 360 days (Egyptians), organised in monthes with 30 days, and the 30 days are splitted in decanates.
The logic of the mind forms the archetypes, what it defines at "deep level" appears at normal level as mystery :--). His logic naturally models in groups of 2 and 3 and 4.

The contents of the system are variables, but tend to follow some intern logic, so appear as similar. Chinese thought defined the 2 as Yin and Yang, the 3 as heaven-earth-man, the 4 as seasons.
Philosophical ideas consider analyses (2), dialectic (3) and 4 as a model of time.

pan
20-11-2003, 09:39
the nice thing about the chinese system is that
its completely mathematical and the math is still
directly in front of us. The binary code that we
see and the yin and yang symbology are a-b-c simple.

When one further understands that the trigrams
represent elemental matter phase states, the crossover from tarot to I-ching becomes undeniable; its the same pie with wo different cultures cutting it in similar but different ways.

It was in studying the I-ching that i really began
to see balancing harmonics of polarizations as
the genuine underlying archetypical theme; and
how different archetypes are derivated from the
simplest possible binary system.

The problem with the I-ching for me is that it,
like tarot has gone through several modes of dissemination, some of which were not at all motivated by integrity or informational purity.

Retracing and reconnecting past the "fortune telling" movements oversimplifications and simple
errors is much easier than doing that same feat with tarot because as i said; the trigrams are still absolute simplicity and wholly intact as binary code.

Huck
20-11-2003, 11:23
Originally posted by pan
the nice thing about the chinese system is that
its completely mathematical and the math is still
directly in front of us. The binary code that we
see and the yin and yang symbology are a-b-c simple.

When one further understands that the trigrams
represent elemental matter phase states, the crossover from tarot to I-ching becomes undeniable; its the same pie with wo different cultures cutting it in similar but different ways.

It was in studying the I-ching that i really began
to see balancing harmonics of polarizations as
the genuine underlying archetypical theme; and
how different archetypes are derivated from the
simplest possible binary system.

The problem with the I-ching for me is that it,
like tarot has gone through several modes of dissemination, some of which were not at all motivated by integrity or informational purity.

Retracing and reconnecting past the "fortune telling" movements oversimplifications and simple
errors is much easier than doing that same feat with tarot because as i said; the trigrams are still absolute simplicity and wholly intact as binary code.

The I-Ching is written in Chinese and partly bad and unsensible translated, often additionally privately overinterpretated. And, of course, a little transformed by history.
But it's worth is: It openly shows: "I'm only mathematic" :-)
Many other systems are also in their center only mathematical systems, but they disguise it with many words and complications.
For instance: Kronos and Rhea have 6 children, 3 male and 3 female. Or: Noah had 3 sons (and all had wifes).
The Chinese tell a similar story (father, mother, 3 sons, 3 daughters), but it is clear: This are mathematical symbols, not gods.

Zeus lives on a mountain, youngest son = chinese mountain
Hades lives deep in earth = chinese abyss
Poseidon can cause earthquakes = chinese thunder

Hera, partner of Zeus, bathes in the sea = Chinese Lake
Hestia, fire, cooking etc. = Chinese Fire
Demeter, indirect partner of Poseidon, vegetation
= Chinese Wind, Wood

The Greek gods are a little modified and specialised, but essentially, they are formed after trigrams, based on a special Greek model of the cosmos: earth swims above the water and above is heaven (Thales said so). So their trigram reads like this:

3rd line: mountain, heaven, above
2nd line: in the middle of earth, earth, middle
1st line: water below earth, below

Although there are differences between Chinese trigrams and Greek trigrams or gods, there are STRONG similarities.

Well, there is a very special trick and one should know it, otherwise one doesn't understand the symmetry:

Western thinking:

Fire is high, Water is low, Air is the communication between Fire and Water, so air is middle. Trigram:

3rd line: Fire
2nd line: Air
1st line: Water

Chinese thinking:

3rd line: Mountain (belongs to air) and Lake (belongs to water)
2nd line: Water, Abyss (belongs to Water) and Fire (fire)
3rd line: Thunder (part of Fire and lightning) and Wind (air)

so you have in composition:

Western Chinese
3rd line: Fire Air + Water
2nd line: Air Water + Fire
1st line: Water Fire + Air

So at each line you've all 3 elements. Which means: Western element-thinking is Chinese I-Ching-thinking, .... however, I-Ching uses the alternative sight (the base element is broken in the two alternative elements) and Western thinking uses the unified form. The basic idea is identical, but the presentation differs.

Well, it's not easy to get it and in the historical process many confusing alternative ideas appeared, which didn't realise the original concept.
Western "Earth" is the mixing of all 3 elements forms, rather similar to Chinese Kun= earth
Western "Aither" is more or less Chinese-Kien= Heaven. In the Chinese 5-elements-system some confusion appeared, and metal (aither) and earth were treated as being on the same level as the other 3 elements, but this .... is just another school of thinking and the appearance of alternative forms is the history of modification, it doesn't hinder, that the original basic idea was more or less identical ... and simple.

Welcome in a new world .... the identity was found by autorbis perhaps 15 years ago or so, it didn't spread far, most people have to much knots in their heads to understand it.
At other places it's rather unknown. But its rather interesting to think in this way about it, give it a try.

It's the key to Sepher Yetzirah or the begin of the key (just to understand some sentences about the "mothers").

Shin is Fire and head = "above"
Aleph is Air and breast = "middle"
Mem is water and belly = "below"

Sepher Yetzirah (Saadia version, translation Aryeh Kaplan"): "AMSh (= aleph, mem, schin)" is sealed with 6 rings and cocooned in male and female in male and female. Know, think and depict, that fire upholds water."

Explain the 6 rings - there are only 3 elements involved.

In the end of it the SY is just another I-Ching, and the 32 ways of wisdom just another view at the 64 hexagrams. And Greek mythology becomes a wonderful playing ground for Chinese mathematical structures, which are not very Chinese, but rather international.

The Tarot plays here only a minor role, more the part of "having not really understood, what this is all about".

It's a historical card-game. The collective unconsciousness played a trick there.

pan
21-11-2003, 13:15
wow!!
I hadn't personally put together the greek
mythical archetype connection... in fact i had discarded the whole thing... this really turns
me on to it and i would be fascinated to learn
more. Of course it makes sense since after all the archetypes are universal not cultural and exist
inside of the genetic coding of the entire species.

I suddenly find myself wondering how many other
systems might fit similarly.
Just when i thought i had found all of the correspondences...up crops a whole new direction...

thanks so much!
I'll have to read and ponder that and research it some!
:)

Huck
21-11-2003, 16:37
Originally posted by pan
wow!!
I hadn't personally put together the greek
mythical archetype connection... in fact i had discarded the whole thing... this really turns
me on to it and i would be fascinated to learn
more. Of course it makes sense since after all the archetypes are universal not cultural and exist
inside of the genetic coding of the entire species.

Genetic code only uses the same logic ... It's just more trivial. It's just logic. It's (1), 2, 3, 4 ... there are no easier numbers. The genetic also did like an easy way.


I suddenly find myself wondering how many other
systems might fit similarly.
Just when i thought i had found all of the correspondences...up crops a whole new direction...

There is a whole bunch of it ... the trouble is to find correct historical data ...

thanks so much!
I'll have to read and ponder that and research it some!
:)

Well, do so. It's fun ... :-)

If you follow this question:

If 3 of 32 are identified correctly, what is about the other 29, which are 7 (= 6+1)double and 12 simple letters, and 10 Sephiroth with a structure, which looks 3-6-1 or 1-3-6 (as the SY prefers)?

..., your logic should find something similar as mine ... well, there are smaller difficulties, but ... :-)

Huck
04-12-2003, 07:24
Recently from autorbis in the group LTarot, see

http://trionfi.com/01/m/


"This is not more or less not about Tarot, but I-Ching and Chess.

Chess, probably younger than I-Ching, mirrors the structure of I-Ching, as shown below.
If this is accidently so, or cause an inner logical relation between I-Ching and Chess or cause an historical relation of the kind, that Chess was constructed by somebody, who knew the I-Ching, can't be said.

It just is a fact. Chess mirrors I-Ching.

Chess uses a board with 64 fields, 8x8.

The I-Ching manifests itself with its 64 possibilities by the multiplication of 8 socalled trigrams with the same 8 trigrams, calling the first group "outer trigram" and the second "inner trigram".

Chess is played with 16 figures at each side. There are under these 6 different types: 1 King, 1 Queen, 2 Bishops, 2 Knights, 2 Rooks, 8 Pawns.

The I-Ching is constructed by 16 elements: 8 different trigrams on the "outer" or "upper position", and the same 8 different trigrams on the "inner" or "lower" position.

If we assume, that there is a relation between these 16 figures of Chess and these 16 trigrams of I-Ching, then there is a solution for this humble mathematical riddle:

1. One has to assume, that the "inner" or "lower" trigram presents the 8 pawns. This is also logical regarding the philosophic contents of both systems. The "pawns" are regarded in Chess as the "folk" and in I-Ching the inner trigram presents the "lower people".

2. Now one has to consider the 8 trigrams as equation to the 8 main figures. Chess has 5 types of figures and 8 figures, I-Ching has 8 trigrams, which are sortable in 5 groups.

Group 1: the youngest children
Group 2: The middle children
Group 3: the oldest children
Group 4: the mother
Group 5: the father

For information the mathematical sign of each trigrams, the Chinese name with translation and position in the family:

001 = Gen, mountain - youngest son
110 = Tui, lake - youngest daughter

010 = Kan, water - middle son
101 = Li, fire - middle daughter

100 = Dschen, thunder - oldest son
011 = Sun, wind - oldest daughter

000 = Kun, earth - mother

111 = Kien, heaven - father

3. And who is who in the Chess-system?

111: King, of course

000: Queen, of course

001, 110 = Bishops or Rooks, one can't decide it

010, 101 = Knights, can't be different

100, 011 = Rooks or Bishops, one can't decide it


Both systems follow their own way, Chess is a game and I-Ching is used for divination.

Chess, as one can observe it, follows in its rules simple principles, one could say archetypical principles (you cannot really find other sort of possible movements of the same "easy" rank):

King: can move in each direction one step
Queen: can move in each direction endless steps (as far as possible)
Bishops: Endless diagonals
Rooks: Endless in vertical and horizonatal direction
Knight: Can reach just that near field, that all other figures can't reach.

Quite interesting, one can observe by these rules, that Bishop's and Rooks are considered "somehow" complementary, and that Knights are special. The same could be said from the trigrams 010, 101 = water + fire (special) and also from 100, 011 and 001, 110 ("somehow" complementary).

What does it tell us about the observed situation of 14th/15th century, when Chess was a "loved" game, before Tarot was invented?

It tells us, that somebody who played Chess in this time could detect by meditating about the rules and features of Chess the mathematical basic of I-Ching.

Have we evidence, that somebody detected it? Unluckily not.

Are there ways, that somebody could have known the I-Ching by communication? Of course. For instance: The mongols were very near to us. Also: Marco Polo should have known the I-Ching. He might have told about it.

Have we evidence of any kind of communication, in which just this information was transported? Unluckily not.

Assuming, that they didn't know about it, we've a smaller relative of I-Ching and that's Geomantia. And Geomantia was known.

Our Western Geomantia knew 16 figures. Is there a mathematical way, that these 16 figures also are equatable to the 16 figures of Chess? Yes. It's this equation:

1111 King
0000 Queen

1000 Pawn
0100 Pawn
0010 Pawn
0001 Pawn

0111 Pawn
1011 Pawn
1101 Pawn
1110 Pawn

0011 Rook ?
1100 Rook ?

1001 Knight ?
0110 Knight ?

1010 Bishop ?
0101 Bishop ?

What does this tell us, when studying the situation of early Tarot, Trionfi and possible pre-Trionfi decks? It tells, that the possibility is there, that somebody with a little clever mind did know about just that, what I've shown above. It's really not that difficult to detect.

What do we know about Filippo Visconti?

1. He had a clever mind.
2. He had various books about Geomancy.
3. He had a love for chess.
4. Probably he invented Tarot-similar decks
5. Generally he was called an "inventor", although we don't really know, why.
6. He showed at least at one of his deck inventions a love for the 16 (16 gods in the Michelino deck), but probably in 2 (also in the Cary-Yale) of his decks.

Do we know, that the Chinese knew about the Geomantia-system? Yes, they used it as subsystem to interprete their hexagrams. It's called "nuclear trigrams" usually. Mathematically is is coded identicallý.

Western Geomantia is strongly connected to Western astrology, do we meet the same feature in this Chinese subsystem?

Not, as far I know. Western astrology strongly observed planets and the Chaldean row. This, as far my knowledge reaches, is not very dominant in the various different Chinese astrologies, that I know. Chinese astrologies have a love for simple counting, which in Western astrology also appears, but mostly in connection to the Chaldean row, which doesn't seem to have been a favoured system in China.

For the considerations to Filippo Viscontis first "16":

http://trionfi.com/01/b

For the considerations to Cary-Yale, Filippo's second 16:

http://trionfi.com/01/c point Cary-Yale

For general considerations to the theme Imperatori, which have a "suspicion-relation" to chess, also:

http://trionfi.com/01/c
generally, "some of the articles"

with permission of the author

jmd
04-12-2003, 10:16
Thankyou again, Huck and autorbis...

It shows again, apart from the wonderful reflections made of the various ways in which disparate system may be related, that there are many possibilities at play in the ways that decks or games may come to be.

You have again shown why to dismiss out of hand particular plausible connections, simply because of the apparent excesses of some later authors, or the unfortunate lack of historical document, diminishes potential wonderful research - research which needs to complement the also very important digs for historical documentation.

Huck
05-12-2003, 11:12
Very much systems are relatable to the I-Ching.

The reason for this is its very simple basic structure, which, however, can explode easily to very great and complicated systems with much details, but, if necessary or tired, can drop back to a handsome "in reality I did say nothing".
On its more complicated ways it develops en masse interesting schemes, and, as the curiosity of mankind had caused in the past they had been applied to philosophic systems, astronomies, poetic orders, gods genealogies, mandalas, games, as we have seen in the example of chess and even complete religions.

In this wordless universal I-Ching even the "real" I-Ching itself is only an application.

One could even apply it to Tarot in the Golden-Dawn interpretation ... in some aspects at least. But one could apply it also to the 5x14 deck ... :-)

filipas
18-01-2004, 13:02
augursWell wrote:
Mark Filipas, in his eBook Alphabetic Masquerade (available at tarot.com), suggests that chess is symbolized in the Major Arcana
I think there are persuasive clues that the trumps contain allusions to the game of Chess. Given Chess' popularity at the time, and the trump's depiction of the more popular themes of the day, a connection between the two should not be surprising. We also find that illustrators of the time were portraying Chess pieces as allegorical figures. The various pawns, for instance, were sometimes pictured in manuscripts and early books as each having different occupations.

It is interesting that by the 1400s more than one version of the game existed, including Courier Chess which was played with three additional pieces known as Jester, Sage, and Courier. Another variation at that time was Dice Chess, which used the roll of a die to determine the piece a player was allowed to move per turn (a roll of one might mean a pawn must be moved, a roll of two a knight, a roll of three a bishop, and so on). In some versions of the game, two or three dice were used per turn. The dice shown on the magician’s table in decks such as the Grimaud Marseilles may have been an allusion to these early variations of chess.

Trumps III and IV probably allude in part to the chesspieces of Queen and King respectively. This could explain the chessboard pattern shown behind the throne in Trump III (recognizable in the Conver editions). The cross atop each figure's scepter also echoes the device atop the King's chesspiece. The Hebrew words for Queen (GBYRH) and Duke (DVKVS), by the way, begin with gimel and daleth, the third and fourth letters of the alphabet.

More persuasive is the fact that each of the paired chesspieces can be found as pairs within the trumps: the two Bishops in Trump V, the two Horses in Trump VII, the two Rooks in Trump XVIII. Further, the particular movement of each piece seems represented by each figure:

• The two small figures on Trump V seem allusions to the Bishops; the movements allowed by Bishops are indicated by the arms of each figure being extended diagonally. It also happens that the Hebrew word for bishop (HGMVN) begins with the fifth Hebrew letter he.

• The horses on Trump VII seem allusions to the Knights; each horse's upraised foreleg suggests the Knight's ability to leap over other pieces in the game. Their unique pattern of movement seems hinted at by the horse which turns his head away from his headed direction. The suggestion that they are game pieces is strengthened by the fact that these Tarot creatures were traditionally shown without rear-ends. And again we find that the Hebrew word for war horses (ZRZYR) begins with the seventh Hebrew letter zayin.

• The two castles on Trump XVIII seem allusions to the Castles/Rooks; their placement in the Marseilles design recalls their placement at the far ends of the gameboard. Yet again, the Hebrew word for castles; rooks (TzRYChYM) begins with the eighteenth Hebrew letter tzaddi. The odds make it virtually impossible that two bishops, two horses, and two castles would appear on the trumps in alphabetical sequence by chance.

• That there are four other figural pairs in the Marseilles pattern suggests that all eight pawns are represented as well. These are the two lovers on Trump VI, the two captives on Trump XV, the falling figures on Trump XVI, and the two children on Trump XIX. The Hebrew word for pawn (ORBVN) begins with the sixteenth Hebrew letter ayin and seems an alphabetical correspondence to Trump XVI and its two figures.

• The two adult figures in Trump XX may allude in part to the player’s captured chess pieces, standing to the side of the gameboard; the smaller figure may be a pawn which has successfully reached the opponent’s side. This achievement of the pawn allowed the player to "resurrect" one piece previously captured. The very early Rosenwald Tarot even depicts these figures upon a checkered or chessboard pattern.

Thanks,
- Mark

firemaiden
20-01-2004, 10:20
Wow! that post was like a nourishing gourmet meal. I'm completely amazed.

Thank you, Mark!

jmd
20-01-2004, 17:05
This is one of those fascinating threads which I find is so worth revisiting from time to time, yet is a difficult one to make responses in.

Earlier, Huck writes that:'Chess as real influence is not that important. It incorpated in early forms of Tarot just by accident or by "normal logic", as Chess was a common game to people of Renaissance and when constructing early card decks, they used chess. A very normal development, not very surprizing, but naturally it was not a "deep mystery", it was just playing a bit with symbols'A statement mirrored in Mark's'Given Chess' popularity at the time, and the trump's depiction of the more popular themes of the day, a connection between the two should not be surprising[...]'These comments encourage and permit us to relook through the Major Arcana not to see how they may themselves be a derivative of chess, but how possibly this, amongst many other factors, may have formed part of the myriad imagery at the disposal of those who were influential in Tarot's early designs.

When I consider the deck in light of possible Chess imagery, it does become astounding how many areas of similitude there are...

For me, one of the most fascinating is also a linguistic one with the walking off, at the end of the game, of the possibly deposed Mat... a deposed Schah, or King, is as dead, or 'mat'.

Apart from the possibilities inherent in Major Arcana images, and some inevitable similarities arising out of common heritage, mathematical limits and constructs using small figures, and possible influences between the far east, the near east, ancient cultures and the west, one way in which Chess and Tarot also seem related is the possible ways in which the minor arcana may have been used as such a 'Chess' game.

Here, with the Mamluk cards, we already have some equivalent to the King and his advisors, but also not just ten cards at his disposal, but each with various 'strengths' (from 1 to 10). One can easily imagine how the cards may have been used by up to four players with battle rules.

That no document survives to legitimise this possibility may only be a reflection of the ambiguities in the gameS called chess. I insinuated such comment also in an earlier thread called Some interesting information pertaining to Tarot (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=82864#post82864).

To get back to Mark's post, however, it is fascinating not only that the Empress and Emperor can, in that order for the whites - interesting also having fair and darker sides considering the crusades - be seen as the Queen and King, but that each is flanked by its respective 'bishop' (and that one of these has two smaller figures).

I wonder how each may have been seen as related to chess - and it would certainly be interesting to have access to some of the literature which arose closer that time which took an allegorical view of the game of Chess. For example, what it may say of the Rook may give some clue as to why it may be depicted with precisely two figures falling - aside from the wonderful possibility given by Mark's reflections.

Glad to have not only Mark's contributions, but the wonderful dialogue between especially Huck and pan...

:):):)

augursWell
21-01-2004, 15:33
Greetings filipas (Mark),

It's nice to have your voice heard on these forums. I personally have been greatly persuaded by your book, the Hebrew letter correspondences for each of the Major Arcana that you describe make great sense to me. Interesting that Christian Cabala starts aleph with the Fool whereas the more likely correspondence has aleph starting with the Magician...

But, to get back on topic, as to the chess symbolism, I would be interested to determine if the original card artists had any intent of trying to use the cards in actually playing chess or perhaps combining tarocchi the game with chess the game. Anyone have ideas in that regard?

jmd
21-01-2004, 17:38
Great to have many voices joining this area of the Forums... and hope my immediate response encourages, rather than discourages others.

With Christian Cabalah, it neither, of itself, assigns Alef to any card. Rather, the continental Christian Cabalists sharing Tarot interests would, if any correlations are made, allocate Alef to the Magician. Only those who derive their Kabalism via the Golden Dawn would alter the generally accepted view and opt for placing the Fool as Alef. Even Waite and Case, it should be remembered, who were both members of the GD at various stages, place a Shin upon the gown of their repsective Fools (one of the sequential places commonly found is the Fool as penultimate - though Mark tends to agree with meticulous strength with Falconnier in placing the Fool as 22nd). Also, even in his book, Waite places the Fool as second last, despite its numbering, in that deck, as '0'.

These are such important considerations for further reflections, in my opinion, that Kabalistic - or at least Hebrew letter associations, merits not only frequent re-visits, but looked at with differing fresh eyes (including, for those who dismiss it readily, GD correlations :))

Huck
21-01-2004, 21:14
Some Links to Chess

http://trionfi.com/01/c/ see menu, considerations to chess

A Link, how a 11th century chess-fugure could look like:

http://www.chez.com/cazaux/images/medieval/cat05-charlemagne-roi.jpg

Tarot cards were in this case not very different..

firemaiden
21-01-2004, 21:37
The links sound interesting Huck, but I can't get them to work, can you check the URL's please?

jmd
21-01-2004, 21:44
With the Trionfi link, on the left is a rubric titled 'Considerations on Chess'.

The second link works, but you may have to copy the url (on your Mac, hold the 'ctrl' key and choose 'Copy link to Clipboard', then in a new Tab, paste the address).

Thanks for that image, Huck :)

firemaiden
21-01-2004, 22:05
WOW!!!! that's a chess piece!!!

Reading that site, I learn that piece was the King from the "So called Charlemagne" set (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/charlemagne.htm) from the Saint-Denis Abby dating to the end of the 11th century...

Wow wow wow! See the VIII century "rukh" (rook?) at the bottom of the Archaeological findings (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/findings.htm) page -- a kind of chariot, pulled by bosomy sphinxes. [added later: this is a piece from the Afrasiab Chessmen (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/afrasiab.htm) page]

Oo oo oo, and on the Charlemagne page is an 11th century Chariot (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/images/medieval/chariot-bn.jpg)

So the "Chariot" is what became the rook? isn't the rook the castle?

So doesn't that make wonder if, when paper was made possible, tarot cards could have been an experiment in turning Chess into a card game?

jmd
21-01-2004, 22:31
I'm afraid I cannot see those links...

With regards to the Chariot and Castle, it is quite interesting that a number of early depictions seem to imply a close connection between a wheeled Tower and the Rooks.

It may be that the reason for the order on the game is that at its extremities - in the thick of it - is the Wheeled Tower (& its accompanying foot soldiers) which may come closest to the enemy fortress and breach its walls, followed by the Knights, followed by the King and his retinue of advisors (the Bishops), amongst whom is a general or Prince with the power and means to move quickly and efficiently across the whole field (what later became the Queen).

It makes me realise that here is another area I would like to find some ever so great reference on... without the vast disparate work one normally needs to do (I do realise that some books have so been written for Chess, by the way).

firemaiden
21-01-2004, 22:51
DRAT!!! The links to the images no longer work at all!! The site is under construction I guess. I should have downloaded them while I had the chance. Very very mad! They were so exciting. grr grr

But anyway, what you say about the wheeled tower is most amazing. hmmmmmm! Conversely, that would explain for the modern interpretation also of an immoveable chariot. ;)

(I sent an email to Monsieur Cazaux to ask him when the site will be back up and to invite him to come join us here. )

Ross G Caldwell
21-01-2004, 23:34
All of firemaiden's links worked for me...

firemaiden
21-01-2004, 23:35
Bibliothèque Nationale de France to the rescue: Here is a view of the entire collection "dit de Charlemagne" Vue d'ensemble (http://classes.bnf.fr/echecs/grand/1_01.htm)

The King is the second piece from the left in the back row, there is a crown atop his frame. There are three chariots (rooks) in the collection. I notice each is a quadriga (chariot drawn by four horses)

From bnf page echèc de Charlemagne (http://classes.bnf.fr/echecs/charle/intro.htm) I learned something interesting with respect to the possible relation to tarot -- translating, snipping and summarizing:
These chess-pieces are too large to be handled on the game board, they are meant to belong to the royal or ecclesiastical treasure. Their job is not enjoyment, but symbolism. The game itself is a way of showing by example the proper place of each person in society....

Reminding me of the "story board" theory of tarot -- symbols used for teaching... hmmmmmmmmm

firemaiden
21-01-2004, 23:38
Originally posted by Ross G Caldwell
All of firemaiden's links worked for me...

OH YES! They're all back up. Whew! that's fun. Now we can see the close ups. Is it not astounding how much the King looks like V - le Pape????

Does the Charlemagne set not remind you of a christmas crèche scene??

firemaiden
22-01-2004, 00:45
I've enjoyed looking at the Lewis set (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/lewis.htm) (XIIth century Norse). Have a look at these warders (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/images/medieval/lewis-warders.jpg) from the collection. ( Hermit ?)

filipas
22-01-2004, 05:08
augursWell wrote:
It's nice to have your voice heard on these forums. I personally have been greatly persuaded by your book, the Hebrew letter correspondences for each of the Major Arcana that you describe make great sense to me.
Hi augursWell,

I'm glad the book was interesting for you, thanks for the kind words. I've since been putting together what I think are very exciting new findings about alphabetism in the Marseilles pattern and am excited to present the material soon.

augursWell wrote:
as to the chess symbolism, I would be interested to determine if the original card artists had any intent of trying to use the cards in actually playing chess or perhaps combining tarocchi the game with chess the game. Anyone have ideas in that regard?
I am not really versed in the history of Chess and so can only offer an uneducated guess here! While players did use chess and dice in combination, and cards and dice in combination, I've not heard of players combining Chess and Tarot. It is certainly possible that some folks tried this out but I would be surprised if such a combination ever caught on anywhere.

Thanks,

- Mark

Huck
22-01-2004, 07:01
Originally posted by firemaiden
WOW!!!! that's a chess piece!!!

Reading that site, I learn that piece was the King from the "So called Charlemagne" set (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/charlemagne.htm) from the Saint-Denis Abby dating to the end of the 11th century...

Wow wow wow! See the VIII century "rukh" (rook?) at the bottom of the Archaeological findings (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/findings.htm) page -- a kind of chariot, pulled by bosomy sphinxes. [added later: this is a piece from the Afrasiab Chessmen (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/afrasiab.htm) page]

Oo oo oo, and on the Charlemagne page is an 11th century Chariot (http://www.chez.com/cazaux/images/medieval/chariot-bn.jpg)

So the "Chariot" is what became the rook? isn't the rook the castle?

So doesn't that make wonder if, when paper was made possible, tarot cards could have been an experiment in turning Chess into a card game?

The whole content of the page

http://trionfi.com/01/c/

is more or less aiming at "chess before Tarot" just by gathering what's there and demostrating a soft flow in various steps from humble experiments with chess-related cards to the Cary-Yale, which can be interpreted as a chess-cardplay, see

http://geocities.com/autorbis/VMnew.html
or point in the menu

From great meaning is the article to Johannes of Rheinfelden. (see menu or:
http://trionfi.com/01/c/karn/johannes.html )


There it turns out, that in 1377 Johannes has to do wit a 60 cards game, which in the iconography should have been very near to the Hofämterspie (ca. 1455) and a diversity of popular chess books around that time and later, using "professions" for number cards, which in concrete means, that in chess it was an intellectual play to compare single pawns with professions and the same habit was done with number cards. And the court cards had a natural "reigning" function above the others, so the card play was a mirror of society in four variants (the Hofämter took German, French, Bohemia, Hungary, the Johannes deck others).

http://geocities.com/tarocchi7 (Hofämter)

This sort of deck naturally had the "open question" for the Kaiser above the 4 Kings.

The development to "Imperatori" decks in the 1420ies was just the natural "next step" to complete the "incomplete" earlier decks.
It started probably with "8 special cards", perhaps to get the number 64 for all cards. 56 standard cards + 8 special cards.

See the first mention of Imperatori-cards in 1423 (menu)

The evolution to the 5x14-deck, which has a VERY GOOD CHANCE to have happened around the 1.1.1441

see: http://trionfi.com/01/d (which is in constant development)

short before the Cary-Yale came (probably) in existence, see opinion of autorbis at menu point "dating".

With this step it seems that the "professions-idea" took a step in the background and the greater allegories entered - somehow now it was Tarot, not longer chess-related. The preference of 5x14 against 5x16 was a second measurement to become independant from "chess-structure".
The later addition of some more allegories to reach structures like 4x14 + 22 or 4x14 + 41 were just final steps "before it reached us".

Summarizing:
The assertion "there were 22 trumps at the beginning ", also called "head start theory", had been blocking the mind for centuries. A deciding fact of the last decades of research was the "reigning" opinion, that the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo was interpreted as a nearly complete deck, without giving much space for the condition, that a second artist participated.

Breaking that seal meant definitely to open a complete other world of exploration and interpretation, much more interesting and also much more reliable than that, what existed before.

http://trionfi.com/01/f

augursWell
22-01-2004, 14:12
Originally posted by jmd
With Christian Cabalah, it neither, of itself, assigns Alef to any card. Rather, the continental Christian Cabalists sharing Tarot interests would, if any correlations are made, allocate Alef to the Magician. Only those who derive their Kabalism via the Golden Dawn would alter the generally accepted view and opt for placing the Fool as Alef. I must admit that my reference to "christian cabala" was a quick response made late at night after a long day. I have never really bothered to sort out for myself the various Cabala, Quabala, Kabballah varieties in any way that makes sense to me or anyone else. Thanks, jmd, for such a succint explanation.

augursWell
22-01-2004, 14:20
Originally posted by firemaiden
WOW!!!! that's a chess piece!!!

So doesn't that make wonder if, when paper was made possible, tarot cards could have been an experiment in turning Chess into a card game? Wow too! Who wouldn't want to play chess with pieces like those. I was just thinking, in a way the creators of these chess pieces, trionfi decks, etc. were the video/computer game designers of their day. Beautifully printed and colored cards would have had a lot of coolness at that point in time. Ditto the chess sets...

I think, as Huck points out with numbering systems and social symbolism, that there was a lot of cross creativity going on between card makers with people trying to come out with a new, better, card game.

augursWell
22-01-2004, 14:26
Originally posted by filipas
While players did use chess and dice in combination, and cards and dice in combination, I've not heard of players combining Chess and Tarot. It is certainly possible that some folks tried this out but I would be surprised if such a combination ever caught on anywhere. Well, it did catch on once, I think it was called Dungeons and Dragons, or Magic:The Gathering, or something like that. ;)

Huck
19-07-2004, 10:46
I just thought it of interest to revive this older thread again just in the discussion about the nearness of Nothelfer and Black death iconography to the theme - with chess we've a theme, which really was on vogue at the courts of Ferrara and Milan. Niccolo III. d'Este was a reknown chess-player, Filippo Maria Visconti loved chess and had a chess club at his court in 1427.
Cosimo di Medici "didn't play cards" according Bisticci, but Bisticci is a liar. But he played chess - also according Bisticci. Cosimo surely had influence on the playing card prohibitions in Florence.

Probably any intellectual played chess. Any person of the rank of a knight for instance was advised to play chess.

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

Huck
20-07-2004, 05:53
I had a visit in the library and found out, that one of the chess-professions-allegories had this structure:


rook = "administrator" - pawn = "farmer"
knight = " knight" - pawn = "smith"
bishop = "judge" - pawn = "writer"
King = "King" - pawn = "merchant"
Queen = "Queen" - pawn = "physician"
bishop = "old" - pawn = "innkeeper"
knight = "knight" - pawn = "bailiff"
rook = "administrator" - pawn = "player"

This should be the order from one of the "Schachzabel" books from 1461 or 1479 (my source has only second hand, "reporting" value).

http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.history.id_ko.i19.i2

There is no guarantee, that the systems didn't vary in other schachzabel books. Each figure was accompanied by a poem.
The Pawns obviously are related to the figure behind them, so the "smith" works for the knight, the merchant seems to be regarded as a "small king".

jmd
20-07-2004, 20:42
Thankyou Huck...

This information is the kind which I am certain will prove useful later, as further possible reflections are made as to the relation between not only with some of the Atouts, but with reflections pertaining to Tarot as holon or series.

Especially with regards reflections as to class structure and relations between various individuals, insights emerge.

For example, to have in front of the King/Emperor a merchant gives more credence to an understanding as to what a King of Coins may entail in reflection.

Huck
21-07-2004, 02:36
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
08-08-2004, 05:11
Huck wrote:
"In 14th century chess was a bestselling theme - more than other. Perhaps beside the Apocalypse."

:-)))

Yatima

Yatima
08-08-2004, 05:26
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
08-08-2004, 09:05
Originally posted by Yatima


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
08-08-2004, 09:38
Huck wrote:

"You don't understand the system."

You don't understand the system...

Yatima

Huck
08-08-2004, 21:15
Originally posted by Yatima
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
09-08-2004, 08:24
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
09-08-2004, 22:47
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
10-08-2004, 00:21
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
11-08-2004, 20:45
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.

Huck
11-08-2004, 22:21
Originally posted by Yatima

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

:-) ...

2x3x4 is the structure of the I-Ching

2 = Yin+Yang
3 = 3 positions: earth - man - heaven
4 = 4 states of change ("6", "7", "8", "9")

Although people have a specific view of the I-Ching, that it is "chinese" and "somehow strange" and "somehow difficult", it's just simply a mathematical scheme with universal character. The specific very simple character of this scheme was not used in China alone, but more or less everywhere. The purpose of using it was - depending on the historic situation - different, the authors of the past, from which we can draw nearer informations about the specific use, had in each case their personal interests, nonetheless we can see the similarities in the different approaches. This were -

practical approaches for instance:
- a system to determine the weight of things (ca. 1500 BC, India)
- a system to deal with the volume, the Egyptian hekat, which dealt with the Horus-eye

religious interests:
- calendars, astrology, which often takes elements of it
- gods genealogies
- oracle systems

mental interests
- poetical systems
- philosophical systems

.... the Steel order is completely uninteresting in this matter, I talk about the memory system, not about specific and humble Tarot interpretations of simple card designers of 15th century.

The universal 3x7+1 - structure appears on the trigram-level of
I-Ching:

There is one BASIC-trigram, which defines 3 positions and the 3 positions are earth - man - heaven. The yin+yang influence results in defining 3x7 lines, which are sorted by 7 other alternative trigrams.

1 - 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
1 - 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 - 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

Of course one could see this scheme as a 3x8-structure and indeed in "Chinese style" it's mostly interpreted this way (as the Chinese see Yin and Yang as balancing forces), but even them knows a proverb "3 times 7 gives 21" which is interpreted as "the true story of a matter or happening", probably indicating, that they see in this formula a deep understanding of nature and action.
In "Western Style" you've the feature, that it is monotheistic interpreted, there is one god and this god is counted as "one", so the one in 21+1 is the "defining god" and the "21 other elements" are the world, which is manifested by the defining god.

A similar feature is builded by the structure "49 + 1", which actually presents 64 possibilities (hexagrams of I-Ching), not 50, as might be understood.
The 49+1-structure is very common in Greek mythology, also it is the true content of the "50 doors of understanding" in kabbala, later forged in a 5x10-structure, which is medieval nonsense and misunderstanding.

In the older Jewish mythology 7 heavens and 7 earths build the world (that's 7x7=49) and there is one god, which manifests it (mathematically he drags with that 15 possibilities on himself ( - 15 = 1 (god) + 7 (heavens) + 7 (earths))

Chinese thinkers didn't play this Western mystery game, they've simply unhidden 64 hexagrams. But the true content - the memory-system - was used by both sources.

What did you say?
"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."

Hm ... :-) ... that's your problem - perhaps you can perceive, that there are people, who know the thinking problem a little longer than you.
Nobody claimed, that the late 22-version completely merges in the chess game.
All articles at trionfi.com aim at showing, that this type of deck ("standard version of Tarot") developed in various steps with different intentions of different people to the form, that it found finally. If you misunderstood that .... you should restart reading.

The article to the Cary-Yale, still in its old form

http://geoicities.com/autorbis/VMnew.html

displays were open, that this is a very complex problem and that analyses might know and find other solutions.

The document from Johannes of Rheinfelden is clear ... chess took an influence on early playing cards .... and, just quite humble, the chances, that chess took an influence on the early Tarot against the alternative, that Nothelfers took an influence are 1000:1 .....
:-) I would guess.

http://trionfi.com/0/c/01/

"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're not clear in this sentence.

"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)."

Black death and Apocalypse are common backgrounds of the Bembo-14, but a use of a death-card doesn't make the Bembo-14 to a "Black Death Tarot" and the use of a "Judgment"-card doesn't make it an Apocalypse-deck. If you've studied one of the Apocalypse-versions rich book paintings, you should know, that it doesn't contain enough Tarot-material.
Star, Moon and Sun are not object to the Bembo-14.

Betts (already dead ?), Hurst and Bob O'Neill can get their answers, when they're personally at the board.

"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…"

:-) ... what is a "living well"? A "living well" is man, who sorts his ideas, gives his conceptions, makes his words etc. ... You for instance, Yatima, are a living well, occasionally foolish, occasionally clever, occasionally boring ideas, occasionally interesting. These artists of 15th centuries had been living wells, now they are dead.
What's always there? The general sorting problem. The general wish to make of world a mandala, a "sorted, round world", the wish to show a great mental concept. Then man sets a system ... sometimes a cheap system, sometimes a very interesting system. Comparing all these "personal" systems one can find about the "general system" in all these differences in style, time and personal intention. This "general system" I call "memory system". Although it not really lives, it's somehow a living well, as it constantly reappears and is suddenly in the minds and used by somebody. This is interesting, cause it has logic, it follows the ways, how man sorts the world after "universal ideas".

The specific Tarot problems we discuss here are only "kindergarten".

Yatima
16-09-2004, 23:56
Huck wrote:
"Betts (already dead ?), Hurst and Bob O'Neill can get their answers, when they're personally at the board."

Let me know, I am curious!

Yatima

Huck
17-09-2004, 05:44
Yatima back from holidays ... :-)

Bob is retired more or less from internet and Michael Hurst seems to have a calm phase ...

Yatima
18-09-2004, 22:26
me too...
yatima

Cerulean
21-12-2004, 12:10
THE ROMANCE OF THE ROSE 239

Or captive stand, and none he sees
Around him save his enemies,
And thus doth he in check remain,
Escape debarred, resistance vain.
And thus saith Attalus the wise,
Who did the game of chess devise
With worthy wit; its subtle trick
He found when deep arithmetic
He taught, and Polycraticus,
Of John of Sarum, showeth us
How he the intricate movements set,
Wherewith the game is played e'en yet.

Guillaume de Lorris in 1237 (Orleans, France)