Aeclectic Tarot
Tarot Cards & Reviews Tarot Card Meanings Tarot Books Free Tarot Readings Forum Community What's New

  Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Tarot Special Interest > Tarot History & Development

Welcome to the Aeclectic Tarot Forum!

We are the oldest and largest Tarot forum community on the Internet. If you have any questions about any aspect of Tarot or using your Tarot cards, or you just want to connect with other Tarot lovers, you've found the right place!

Registering your account is completely free, and allows you to post your thoughts, share readings, search, save threads, view extra boards and more.


  post a reply
 
Thread Tools
Huck 
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Chess as a factor in the origin of Tarot(Hucks post 5 =software hitch)


Originally Posted by Rosanne in Artist and Patron

Quote:
Nah maybe not 20/21 steps to start with anyway. I think the game was devised from chess as Huck has always tried to show. I guess, if I was devising something that would interest the elite I would use something that was already understand as a frame work. My brother uses a card game for his business effectiveness programmes. He nicked the idea off me with Tarot. The people to be entertained by a patron's family were not likely to play dice against the church wall.
Interesting thought though this political agenda via a game.
I am not sure if it would run really though...have to think about it some more.
~Rosanne

.. .-) ... Huck didn't always try to show, that the game was devised from chess.

Research has a development. From the beginnings of Trionfi.com on (2003, actually the theory is based on developments in May 1989) it was suspected, that the Cary-Yale Tarocchi had been a construction influenced by chess. The article of 2003 is still untouched there ...

http://trionfi.com/0/c/30/

... though modificated in the outfit, as the old geocities page has disappeared.

Well, the situation of the Cary-Yale was difficult to get sure about it. As it was assumed, that one could relative clearly say, that the original Bembo game had a 5x14-structure, it became a logical idea, that the Cary-Cale, a little bit earlier than the Bembo cards, had a 5x16-structure. As Filippo Maria Visconti was said to have loved chess, this seemed a plausible idea.
However, the Cary-Yale has only 11 trumps surviving, so 5 must have been reconstructed ... an naturally, the result was, that one could only suggest ideas, "how it might have been", with many insecurities, not really strong hypotheses.
In the personal evaluation of the chances, that all this was true, something of 20-30% was calculated for the reconstruction of the Cary-Yale in it's basis form (less in its specifications), which is nothing comparable to the 5x14-theory related to the Bembo cards, which was calculated with 99% and better.
The 5x14-theory was - as expected - further confirmed (only the major points) ...

1. when the note of 1.1.1441 was found ("14 figure")
2. when the note of 1457 was found (70 cards)
3. When it turned out, that the terminus "Ludus triumphorum" could be used in the context of the Michelino deck in 1449 and so also with decks, which hadn't the structure 4x14+22

... and with each other peace of researched information, which didn't contradict the basis hypothesis.

The Cary-Yale theory made less progress, only in side points ...

1. the Michelino deck had 16 trumps, could be called somehow a Trionfi deck (though very different) and could be considered a forerunner of Cary-Yale, as it was produced by the same man and court. As the Michelino deck clearly had 16 special catds, why shouldn't it be plausible, that Cary-Yale had an orientation towards a 5x16-structure?
2. the Ingold deck, described 1432, had 8 trumps, one of the 8 figures a woman ... as it appears in chess.
3. The Imperatori cards in Ferrara 1423 had 8 trumps.
4. The Karnöffel game seemed to have a relative clear relation
5. The enthusiasm of Johannes of Rheinfelden clearly relates to the condition that Johannes sees parallels to the chess game.

... till the point, when it became clear, that the Charles VI, considered earlier to be generally from "Ferrara and from ca. 1470" possibly was "from Florence and earlier than 1470". This happened winter 2008/2009.
If it was earlier, then securely it should relate to the oldest decks and the probability was rather high, that it hadn't 22 special cards.

So it got a new focus, and then it was easy to recognize, that there were 16 special cards and the easiest solution for this was ... this was a complete trump set with one additional court card figure to give an orientation, how the small arcana might look like.
The "number 16" had with this 3 examples in the early Trionfi card world: Michelino deck, Cary-Yale and Michelino deck, somehow a true opponent to that what was known about the 4x14-theory: note from 1.1.1441 (14 figure), note from 1457 (70 cards) and the 70 cards from the Bembo cards itself ... both appearing in 3 versions, all "with some evidence" either appearing in real cards or as notes in documents.

Well, and it was assumed, that, if Cary-Yale was related to chess, then it should likely be possible to arrange the Charles VI trumps in a similar way.

Well ... it was possible.

Since then some further development took place, and already it's considered (and likely it will take place) to alter the major line of the Trionfi.com exploration: Instead of "5x14-theory" one should speak of "Chess Tarot".

Meanwhile the "5x14-theory" itself, somehow hampered by general scepticism about theories, which didn't appear in books, and generally missing interests in the English language world, had found some acceptance in Italy. "Among other things I believe in the validity of his 5x14 theory on the number of original Trionfi", Andrea Vitali noted, in Italian "Fra l'altro, ritengo valida la sua teoria del 5 X 14 riguardante il numero dei Trionfi in origine"

So things develop ...



__________________
Huck

"getting it home to the writing desk"

Last edited by Huck; 04-08-2010 at 22:57.
Huck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #1
Ross G Caldwell 
Citizen
 
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649

Hi Huck,

I just want to add a dissenting opinion to the security you think exists for the 5x14 theory, now the "Chess Cards" theory, and correct a few overstatements.

The simplest solution to the problem of the lack of trumps in some early, luxury decks, is that they have been lost. Lost cards are a fact, since no luxury deck is complete. In some cases, nearly all the suit cards have been lost - Charles VI for instance. In some cases, nearly all the trumps have been lost - Brambilla for instance. In all cases, the trump subjects that remain are the standard subjects. Loss is the default theory to account for why decks vary in their number of surviving trumps.

Cary-Yale is a unique deck with both two extra court cards per suit, and three extra trumps. The simplest theory is that it is an expanded deck, expanded in both the number of suit cards and trump cards.

There is no ordered list of trumps that lists a shortened deck of 14 or 16 trumps, and shortened lists that do exist are shortened from the 22 standard subjects. The lists cover a wide geographical area and always list the same subjects, but in different orders. The lists match surviving sheets of uncut cards. It is inconceivable that everbody adopted the same set of subjects and number of trumps all over the place, if the subject-matter and number of subjects were continuously and independently evolving. If a secret central authority was guiding the process, why so many different orders of the same set of trumps, by about 1500?

The simplest solution - the game began with the standard subjects, in which form it spread to different locales, where some of the order was rearranged. The luxurious decks had the standard subjects but have, over time, lost more or less of their cards. This is the only plausible theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck
3. When it turned out, that the terminus "Ludus triumphorum" could be used in the context of the Michelino deck in 1449 and so also with decks, which hadn't the structure 4x14+22
You can't make the leap that because Marcello compared Marziano's deck to a Ludus Triumphorum, then the term was devoid of all meaning and could refer to any kinds of cards at all.

The most obvious and simple answer is: since he had a standard Ludus Triumphorum already, he saw a similarity between it and Michelino's deck.
He describes what he saw as: "Sixteen celestial princes and barons, to which were added four kings presiding over different kinds of birds."

So why did he call this a "new kind of Triumphs"? It didn't resemble the "old" kind in its content, so the only other option is that it resembled it in structure. That is, it was apparent to Marcello that the deck had trumps, a court, and suits, structurally like a Triumphs deck. But it was completely different in its subject-matter, which made it "a new kind".

Marcello's use of the term only shows that he saw a similarity in the structures of the two decks of cards; it doesn't mean that "Ludus Triumphorum" was a loose term that meant any pretty cards and any kind of card game.

Quote:
The Cary-Yale theory made less progress, only in side points ...

1. the Michelino deck had 16 trumps, could be called somehow a Trionfi deck (though very different) and could be considered a forerunner of Cary-Yale, as it was produced by the same man and court. As the Michelino deck clearly had 16 special catds, why shouldn't it be plausible, that Cary-Yale had an orientation towards a 5x16-structure?
It's implausible because the Cary-Yale's surviving trumps are all standard subjects, with a coherent group added (the three Theological Virtues); the suit cards are all standard, with the addition of two extra court cards. The deck is expanded in both the suits and the trumps. The better theory is that the other standard subjects have been lost.

Quote:
2. the Ingold deck, described 1432, had 8 trumps, one of the 8 figures a woman ... as it appears in chess.
Ingold does not call his professions/estates "trumps". This is your theory, not a statement of fact.

Quote:
3. The Imperatori cards in Ferrara 1423 had 8 trumps.
We don't know that at all. We have a name "VIII Imperatori", and later and always only "Imperatori". We don't know what it looked like. We don't know it had 8 trumps, or only if it was a kind of Karnöffel, with some normal cards serving as "chosen". An early German name for Tarock was "Siebenkönigsspiel" - Seven-Kings-Game. This was normal Tarot, it didn't have 7 Kings or 7 trumps. It was named this way because the 7 highest scoring cards - 4 Kings, Fool, Bagat, and World - had the same number of points, and the players somewhere decided to call them all "Kings". But the deck had 78 normal Tarot cards, including 22 trumps.

Again, you are presenting as fact something that is only your belief, and it is easy for people who don't know the facts to be misled by such a presentation.

Quote:

... till the point, when it became clear, that the Charles VI, considered earlier to be generally from "Ferrara and from ca. 1470" possibly was "from Florence and earlier than 1470". This happened winter 2008/2009.
If it was earlier, then securely it should relate to the oldest decks and the probability was rather high, that it hadn't 22 special cards.
The best I can do to sum up is to quote an older post I made on both the Charles VI and the improbability of the 5x14 theory in general:

Hi Huck,

The lost card argument alone isn’t strong enough for you. Here’s another way to prove that Bembo, extended-Bembo (PMB), and Charles VI both descend from a common group of 22 subjects.

You claim that the Bembo 14 and Charles VI are independent and self-contained, complete series. What are the chances of these two decks being invented around the same time, as independent realizations of the theme of “triumphs”?

On the other hand, what are the chances they are derived from a common group of standard subjects and have lost some cards?

Bembo and Charles VI share 10 of the same subjects:
Fool
Emperor
Pope
Love
Chariot
Justice
Hermit
Hanged Man
Death
Judgement

That is, already 71% of Bembo’s cards are in Charles VI, and 62.5% of Charles VI’s cards are in Bembo. In other words, they share most of their subjects. If trionfi subjects are supposed to be random, freely created according to occasion, calculate the odds. The odds of independent invention and unrelatedness are further reduced when you consider that these 10 are in the same order in both sets (I believe the Tarot de Marseille order being applied to the Bembo 14 is a big part of your argument; and taking the numbers on the Charles VI as correctly being of the A or southern type, since that is the style of the iconography).

When the second painter is added to make the PMB, they share an additional 5 cards, for 15 total:
Fortitude
Temperance
Moon
Sun
World

That is, now 75% of PMB is in Charles VI, and 93% of Charles VI is in PMB. In other words, they share a huge amount of their cards. If PMB had a Tower, 100% of Charles VI would be in the PMB. The only reason that Charles VI and PMB are not identical (besides the Tower), is that Charles VI only has 16 cards, while PMB has 20. Otherwise, the subjects are identical. Another way to put it is that, minus the Tower, Charles VI is exactly 75% of PMB, because 15 cards is 75% of 20 cards.

If trionfi subjects are random and these decks do not derive from a common pool of subjects, in already standard orders, calculate the odds of this perfect level of agreement in subjects and near-perfect in terms of order.

It would be quite a coincidence that the second artist in PMB added cards already in the Charles VI, all in the standard series of 22, and not other subjects not in the standard series of 22. And what a coincidence that Charles VI knew a Tower, which would “later” be part of the standard series. Did the second artist of the PMB just use Charles VI subjects, invent a Star, and drop the Tower as well?

What are the odds that, once increased, Bembo's deck would now have all the remaining subjects of the Charles VI, except for the Tower?

Of course the simplest and only plausible explanation is that both series originally shared the same subjects and the same number of subjects, and both lost some cards. Neither has subjects not in the standard series, and both have the identical subjects, with the exception of PMB lacking a Tower, and Charles VI a Star. Is it more likely that Charles VI never had a Star, nor PMB a Tower, or that both lost one of these cards along the way?

Given that loss is a fact, I think reasonable people will see what the most reasonable answer is.

All of the cards of both sets are in the standard series, so the most logical position is that both sets of cards are based on the imagery common to the standard 22, and have suffered loss of cards.

Additionally we have the numbering on the Charles VI cards, which prove that the person who numbered them had 21 cards in front of him. Given the perfect agreement of subject matter in the extant Charles VI with that of the PMB, I think we can guess what those missing cards were.



__________________
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

"Die Irrthümer grosser Männer sind verehrungswürdig, weil sie fruchtbarer sind als die Wahrheiten der kleinen." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Trionfi
http://trionfi.com

Tarot Essays
http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot

Last edited by Ross G Caldwell; 03-08-2010 at 21:58.
Ross G Caldwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #2
Rosanne 
Citizen
 
Rosanne's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08 Dec 2004
Location: North Auckland,New Zealand
Posts: 5,913

I am sorry Huck that I said "always tried to show" when that was incorrect.

To me it is not unimaginable that Chess influenced Tarot- there is the word- influenced. It seems to me that Astrology also influenced Tarot as did many other themes of the Time. You would say that Christianity was the strongest influence in the 22- but that the Arabic influence in the Minors was the strongest.
I also believe that that it is just as likely for the Visconti PMB 'lost' is just as strong as 'never there'.
As you say research develops and time will tell.
In regards to belief and influence it took many years to find the truth of the matter as far as esoteric Tarot is concerned. Ah yes research develops and it is getting faster and faster with the web.

~Rosanne



__________________
How happy is he born and taught,
That serveth not another's will;
Whose armour is his honest thought,
And simple truth his utmost skill! Sir Henry Wotton
Rosanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #3
Huck 
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682

delete



__________________
Huck

"getting it home to the writing desk"

Last edited by Huck; 05-08-2010 at 03:09.
Huck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #4
Rosanne 
Citizen
 
Rosanne's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08 Dec 2004
Location: North Auckland,New Zealand
Posts: 5,913

I have no idea what is going on, but I understood when looking at the other thread that you started a new one. That was the right thing to do as I threw in the comment about Chess as an 'aside' in the other thread. So indeed you made a new thread so as to be not off topic.

I guess to others it would seem a little Alice in Wonderland.... , but it did not seem that way to me.

So to continue.....
I do not fully understand how you have come to this idea of Chess and Tarot.
To me the Hats of the identities do sort of tell a story (apart from Straw hats).
I would be very pleased if you could perhaps give wee talk about the subject.
For example why would 5x14 indicate Chess?
Would not 5 X16 be more conclusive?
I tried putting the cards(Visconti PBM) down in a Chess pattern and I could not see the relationship between two sides of the game. I tried lots of patterns and the most interesting was Virtue(white) versus Vice(Black). I think I have totally missed the point, therefore, and that point may well be mathematical. Then of course I would miss the point.

~Rosanne



__________________
How happy is he born and taught,
That serveth not another's will;
Whose armour is his honest thought,
And simple truth his utmost skill! Sir Henry Wotton
Rosanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #5
Bernice 
Denizen of the Coalsack Nebula
 
Bernice's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07 Dec 2007
Location: Central England
Posts: 3,901

Quote:
Huck: I wasn't disturbed in any way, no problem ... but my post was changed, so the article above looks a little bit stupid with it's start .. What happened?

Rosanne: I have no idea what is going on,...
No changes were made to Hucks' post. This was a software glitch.

If using Cut and Paste, please do make sure your selected text is sucessfully transferred before clicking any buttons to continue.


Bernice.
Bernice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #6
Huck 
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosanne
I have no idea what is going on, but I understood when looking at the other thread that you started a new one. That was the right thing to do as I threw in the comment about Chess as an 'aside' in the other thread. So indeed you made a new thread so as to be not off topic.

I guess to others it would seem a little Alice in Wonderland.... , but it did not seem that way to me.
Yes, this was the point: keep the other thread intact and the new one addressed to a theme of its own.

Quote:
So to continue.....
I do not fully understand how you have come to this idea of Chess and Tarot.
This developed from the 5x14-theory as a fixed statement ... If the PBM had been parted in a group of 5x14-cards and six later added trumps (so a 22 in a relation to the deck didn't exist), it was natural to research the decks, which were attested by others to have existed before, and this were only Cary-Yale and Brera-Brambilla Tarocchi.

Brera-Brambilla had only 2 trumps and it was difficult to conclude anything about it. These two trumps could have been part of a 22-model, a 5x14 model or part of the Imperatori cards (8 trumps) or even of a deck addition with 4 special cards only.

Cary-Yale had 11 trumps and it's obvious, that each suit had 16 cards. 5x14 as explanation was no option cause these "16 cards in each suit", but a 5x16-model seemed plausible - if the 70 Bembo cards later were really intended as a complete deck with 5x14-structure.
If it had been plausible, that the Cary-Yale had been a 22 trumps version, probably the intensive research around the 5x14-theory wouldn't have started. Likely it would have been plausible, that the observation had found just an accidental correspondence (a lot of the later details weren't explored then).

Dummett's 24-trumps-suggestion wasn't known then.
But generally things develop from less complex structures to more complex structures.
So Dummett's 24-suggestion doesn't have the same level as the 5x16-suggestion, especially if we include the structure of the Michelino deck as forerunner of Cary-Yale in the calculation. But, accepted, it's a fair possibility, especially, if one doesn't know about the 5x14-suspicion about the later Bembo cards.

As it was reached, that 5x16 was a plausible idea, it was naturally attempted to reconstruct the missing 5 trumps and take an account of the "complete model". Chess, astrology and Petrarca's Trionfi model were intensively considered.
Nonetheless, the considerations stayed "not decided", as already told. But the chess-suspicion existed already 1989.

Quote:
To me the Hats of the identities do sort of tell a story (apart from Straw hats).
I would be very pleased if you could perhaps give wee talk about the subject.
For example why would 5x14 indicate Chess?
The structure 5x14 doesn't indicate chess, it indicates card-deck-structure, as it already was known and used in the times of Johannes of Rheinfelden.

So we have to see two groups of developments:

1. Michelino deck - Cary-Yale - Charles VI with an orientation towards the number 16

2. 14 figure Ferrara 1441 - 5x14 Bembo deck - 70 cards Ferrara with an orientation towards "usual card game".

Well, one has to calculate, that in the general behavior of the time we have, that card playing had to fight with prohibitions. Chess also had its times, when it was prohibited and it was astonishing long prohibited for the clergy, but the general view of 15th century had been, that chess was accepted object of "education" and recreation.
Playing cards were less prohibited than dice, but it fought with its prohibition. The social circle of high society hadn't much to do with the prohibition for lower circles, however, their behavior could find some critique. For instance Bernardino is said to have attacked Filippo Maria Visconti (I don't know, if playing cards played a role in this attack).
So .. making playing cards with chess-association in a moral manner was a way to escape the critique. Using playing cards for educative interests also.

Assuming this as a condition, we observed in winter 2010 a specific detail in the 5x14-Bembo cards and in the Hofämterspiel, which was earlier overlooked.

As above shown ...

Quote:
1. Michelino deck - Cary-Yale - Charles VI with an orientation towards the number 16

2. 14 figure Ferrara 1441 - 5x14 Bembo deck - 70 cards Ferrara with an orientation towards "usual card game".
... we have with the 14 Bembo cards only one deck, we could refer to the development Nr. 2.
The "14 figure Ferrara 1441" and the note "1457 70 cards Ferrara" are only documents with a few words, interesting for the information about the structure of the decks, but not interesting in "content questions".

The 14 Bembo trumps have a specific iconographic detail which parts the 14 cards in two groups.

6 elements group:
*********
1 Magician
6 Love
10 Wheel
11(= later 0) Fool
12 Hanging Man
13 Death

8 elements group
*********
2 Popess
3 Empress
4 Emperor
5 Pope
7 Chariot
8 Justice
9 Hermit
14(= later 20) Judgment

These groups come from the cliff at the bottom of the cards: the 6 elements have it, and the 8 elements have it not. Occasionally the cliff is not very well seen, for instance at the Fool card. You can control ...

Compare http://trionfi.com/m/d02046

Considering the content of the cards, it seems, that a cliff was thought to signify "danger" and "risk" or simply "bad" and the eight cards without cliff "security" and "good".

************

Now a look at the Hofämterspiel:

http://trionfi.com/m/d00360

It is a deck with 4x12-structure, 4x10 cards are numbered (1-10) and 4x2 cards are unnumbered (King + Queen). One might now consider King and Queen as court cards and the rest as number-suits-cards, however, at the number 10 (4 Hofmeisters), number 9 (4 Marshalls), number 6 (4 Junckfrauwe, "virgins") and 1 (4 "Fools") are arranged like court cards, so somehow "hidden court cards", which also serve as numbers.

If we give now Queen the number 11 and King the number 12, we see, that ..

1-6-9-10-11-12 are "hidden and not-hidden court cards"

... and that this arrangement is rather similar to the 6-element-group in the 14 Bembo cards.

6 Bembo cards: 1-6-10-11-12-13 with "risky cliff"

They are identical with the difference, that 9-10-11-12 are the highest four of 12 cards (so it couldn't contain a 13) and 10-11-12-13 are following an extended 14th card Judgment (with no cliff).

This a strange coincidence, which hardly can be called accidental and for this reason should have a sort of explanation. One of the explanation says, that early German decks preferred a 4x12-structure (at least for some time and this might explain the difference).

A basic deck (4x13) would have this feature:

Card Nr. 1 (Aces) would have special attention by the designer, 10 (Banners) would have special attention and 11-12-13 (the court cards).

This again is similar to the above shown rows:

4x13 ... 1-10-11-12-13
Bembo ... 1-(6)-10-11-12-13
Hofämterspiel ... 1-(6)-9-10-11-12

So both later versions (Bembo + Hofämterspiel) could have gotten their design idea from the playing card tradition, in other words earlier decks.
However, both variate with their definition of number "6", which is at Hofämter the "Junckfrauwe" and in Tarot simply that, what happens to the
virgins: Love, wedding, marriage etc. and this isn't found in other decks.

Now the tricky historical detail: The Bembo cards were made for the Sforza 1452, the Hofämterspiel in ca. 1455 for Ladislaus posthumus, young Bohemian king.
And: Galeazzo Maria, 8-years Milanese heir met (likely) Ladislaus posthumus (12-years-old) in 1452, when Galeazzo Maria was sent to meet the emperor, who married in Italy. Ladislaus posthumus accompanied the emperor.

Pizzagalli speaks of playing card production in Cremona in November 1452.

If we assume, that young Galeazzo returned from his likely first great journey with a clear desire "I WANT playing cards", as young boys can do it, a careful mother Bianca Maria might have taken this as an opportunity ... at least partly following impressions, which the young Galeazzo brought from his journey. If there were Junckfrauwe at the "6" of a deck from Bohemia with some sort of special function ... it might have entered Milanese customs.

Or it was the other way around: Ladislaus took an Italian virgin-on-six tradition, which he had learnt about in Italy.

*******

Returning back to chess:

Chess figures can be described by "six kinds of figures" (King, Queen, bishops, knights, rooks, pawns) or by position ("8 officers and each has a pawn, totally 16 figures" ... since Cessolis pawns had individuality, one of the knight pawns was a smith, cause the Knights need a smith, the Queen had a pharmacist pawn, cause she needs him for her health, etc.).

When I take now these simple and logical chess sorting systems and carry it to the recognizable-by-cliff card groups, and connect one system to the corresponding other, I get this ...

6 elements of Bembo cards correspond to 6 kind of chess figures
8 elements of Bembo cards correspond to 8 officer-pawn groups

... and I could attempt to go in detail to define, which single element should reflect which other.

********************************
The group with 8-elements:

3 Empress - Queen
4 Emperor - King

5 Pope + 2 Popess - Bishops

7 Chariot + 8 Justice with knight on horse in background - Knights

9 Time + 14 Judgment - Rooks; whereby Judgment seems to have been used also in Charles VI and in Cary-Yale as Rook, but Father Time seems to be used as Advisor/Bishop in Charles VI (the other rook in Charles VI seems to have been Tower).

********************************
The group with 6 elements:

First surprize: the 6-elements group seems to have been the characteristic of "risky".
In "real chess playing" bishop=bishop, pawn=pawn, knight=knight, rook=rook have similar worth. Real chess is an allegory on life and "really risky", you'll might lose the game.

In the moralized game of Cessolis (at least as far the pawns are considered, each figure is special and has a specific position in the order at the board ... "before the real game". Chess before the game is not "risky".

The risky figures:
1. Magician = king
6. Love = queen
10. Fortune, (which rules between pawns)
the rest is difficult to read:
11=0. Fool = bishop; French "fou" = bishop (?) But Fool with baton might present a foolish knight (?)
12. Hanging Man = the Traitor ... in the Charles VI the Hanging Man was probably used as "a bad advisor", so a "bishop" (?)
13. Death = with a bow (not with horse) in the Bembo cards ... in some chess version the bishop figure was presented with a bow (?), but a Death with horse seems to have been used in Cary-Yale and Charles VI as a "bad knight". In the Bembo cards the Death is second highest card and highest cards seem to have been used in the Charles VI and Visconti (both with Judgment and Fame, but also Tower) for the rooks ... so death = rook (?)

Each card of the last 3 cards might have been the bishop and all 3 positions are difficult to verify.
The problem is, that chess figures already differed at various locations: the bishop figure for instance could be an archer (as card death), a bishop (and so remembering a pope), an advisor (an aged man like father time), a fou - Fool in France language, this would be the fool, a courier (Läufer, Renner) in Germany, an elephant, although an elephant could be also a rook.

********

There are some insecurities according the described problems, but I see somehow an orientation towards chess on the side of 14-Bembo cards.

If I put now all points together:

1. Michelino deck ... cause the 16 trumps in suspicion to have some chess-dimension

2. Cary-Yale ... better relating to chess and the later Tarot and with number 16

3. Charles VI ... as already discussed, with 16 trumps

4. Now also involved, the 14-Bembo-cards model

5. In some distance the Hofämter-Spiel, indirectly involved

... then it's the question, what's left for a clear very early playing card deck with Tarot elements (with documentary evidence) and without chess involvement.

And the answer is NOTHING.

Or the Brera-Brambilla. But this has only two trumps. Or the Stuttgarter Jagd-Spiel of 1427-1431, or the Schloss-Ambass game, but this are not called Tarot cards.

Still there are Goldschmidt and Guildhall cards and this now show at many cards a chequered ground (why ? cause of chess?) and interestingly they include a real bishop.



Well, all this mentioned cards were games for the nobility and for this social class it was somehow duty to play chess or at least to know the game. So playing cards (even if used only as playing cards) should have been open to show chess motifs. Possibly this period was only relative short, maybe 20-30 years and automatically merged in something, in which the chess dimension simply was forgotten and the playing card use dominating ... perhaps it only had its background in an increased playing card prohibition during the 1440's under Pope Eugen in Italy, which had card players driven to react with "chess playing cards" to disguise their interests.



__________________
Huck

"getting it home to the writing desk"

Last edited by Huck; 05-08-2010 at 08:29.
Huck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #7
Rosanne 
Citizen
 
Rosanne's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08 Dec 2004
Location: North Auckland,New Zealand
Posts: 5,913

Thank you Huck.
I will consider what you have said and will come back here when I have something to ask.
Your final statement of...
Quote:
Well, all this mentioned cards were games for the nobility and for this social class it was somehow duty to play chess or at least to know the game. So playing cards (even if used only as playing cards) should have been open to show chess motifs. Possibly this period was only relative short, maybe 20-30 years and automatically merged in something, in which the chess dimension simply was forgotten and the playing card use ... perhaps it only had its background in an increased playing card prohibition during the 1440's under Pope Eugen in Italy, which had card players driven to react with "chess playing cards" to disguise their interests.
seems to indicate, at least to me, the 1420-1450 preoccupation with getting around things in a visual way. For example the complex rules of sacred versus secular images inside churches. Like tax rules today- the fine line between evasion and avoidance and how one can sidestep or hide things in plain sight or disguise them.

I hope others read and add to this very interesting idea.

~Rosanne



__________________
How happy is he born and taught,
That serveth not another's will;
Whose armour is his honest thought,
And simple truth his utmost skill! Sir Henry Wotton
Rosanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #8
Huck 
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682

Well, observing some period in time, let's say, 1440-1500, and building some theories, how life changed in this foreign context of Italy more than 500 years ago, one should draw a parallel to other knowledge, for instance in our time.

What a deep cut between 1995 and now, 2010, regarding our lived change of internet use. What rapid development this was and how much it moved.

And 15th century also was surprised by changes, and the deepest cut probably had been book printing. As a collective movement we may take ca. 1470, but then it jumped on and moved, in revolutionary jumps, spreading side effects here and there.

Playing card printing and its increased development belongs to the side effects. When picture wood cutting became useful for book printing (this happened later than 1470), the industry was too strong to make much against card playing and the production of playing cards. So actually there is a time, when it was hopeless to forbid the game (although it was still tried here and there) ... but definitely, it was already hopeless. San Bernardino preached against playing cards and became a saint. St. Capistran preached against playing cards and became a saint. Savonarola preached against playing cards and was burnt.

Somehow this tells the difference. When mass-production arrived, the hand painted cards for very rich persons died, and even in cases, when it proceeded, then it had no future. Similar the Borso bible was the final dinosaurier ... also still other illuminated manuscripts were made, but the big time for this kind of production was gone.

So this Chess-Tarot had its time before the big change ... and standard Tarot (the most distributed version of the decks of the nobility) is a child of the time after the big change, and it seems not accidental, that we hear the word Tarot in 1505 for the first time and not earlier.



__________________
Huck

"getting it home to the writing desk"

Last edited by Huck; 05-08-2010 at 09:23.
Huck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #9
Rosanne 
Citizen
 
Rosanne's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08 Dec 2004
Location: North Auckland,New Zealand
Posts: 5,913

My reasoning takes another basis Huck.
The Catholic Church and life in general in the 1400-1550 was built on 'sequence'
and these sequences in pictorial things became set.
For example The Mass.... The Way (Stations of the Cross)...The Rosary.. The Liturgy of the Saints or the Catholic year.....
In The Way, the pictorial versions of sequence ranged from 11 - 30 steps and finally settled on 14 during this time.
The steps in the Mass 2 parts each with 7 progressions became settled in this time.
The Golden Sequence called dies irae poetry 57 lines and 19 stanzas was applied to the Missal during this time.
So sequence had development...it did not start out as confirmed- this number or that. I see this as naturally influencing games as well. The Humanist Fazio said that painting was like a silent poem and you can see sequence expand and contract and finally settle to a pattern during these hundred or so years. This concept would naturally apply to cards games.

~Rosanne



__________________
How happy is he born and taught,
That serveth not another's will;
Whose armour is his honest thought,
And simple truth his utmost skill! Sir Henry Wotton
Rosanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010 Need answers now? Get 50% off your first live Tarot session!     Top   #10
  post a reply

Latest Threads in Tarot Decks

Latest Threads in Talking Tarot

Latest Threads in Using Tarot Cards



Go ad-free and support us too - upgrade your account to subscriber today

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 16:57.

 


Tarot Forum Categories
· Tarot Decks
· Using Tarot Cards
· Tarot Trading
· Talking Tarot
· Reading Exchange
· Your Readings
· Tarot Games & Fun
· Tarot Deck Creation
· Marseilles
· Rider-Waite-Smith
· Thoth Tarot
· Tarot Study Groups
· Lenormand
· Oracles
· Divination
· Spirituality
· Chat
· New Members
· Advertisements
· Forum Help


Aeclectic Tarot Categories
· Dark & Gothic Decks
· Steampunk Decks
· Goddess Decks
· Angel Decks
· Fairy Decks
· Dragon Decks
· Beginner Decks
· Pagan & Wiccan Decks
· Ancient Egyptian Decks
· Celtic Decks
· Fantasy Decks
· Tarot Books
· Lenormand Decks
· Rider-Waite Decks
· Marseilles Decks
· Thoth Decks
· Oracle Decks
· Doreen Virtue Decks
· Popular Tarot Decks
· Available Decks
· Upcoming Decks
· Solandia's Top Ten
· Top Ten Decks
· List All Decks

Who is behind the Aeclectic Tarot Forum?

My name is Kate Hill (also known as Solandia) and I'm a Tarot reader, deck collector, and lifelong student of the beauty and diversity of Tarot cards.

I created Aeclectic in 1996 to share my passion for Tarot with the world, and started the forum in 2000 so others could share theirs too. Read more about me, contact me or connect in the forum.

  Contribute to Aeclectic

· Add your deck
· Advertise
· Write a review
· Join the community

  Aeclectic Tarot Resources

Copyright © 1996 - 2017 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us.