What's the 5x14-theory

Huck

The 5x14-theory is a new concept and it should be explained.

The 5x14-theory claims, that once the Tarot was generated by adding a 5th suit of trumps to the normal already known deck with 4 suits, coins-cups-batons-swords. The number of trumps was 14, not 22. From this comes the name 5x14-theory. 5 suits, each with 14 cards. In the 5x14-theory the number of trumps later was increased to the now common standard form with 21 trumps and 1 Fool.

The (or one) opposing theory is the head-start-theory, which assumes, that already at the beginning the Tarotdeck had its later general structure, 4x14 suit cards + 21 trumps and a Fool. It indirectly assumes, that there once was a mother-deck to all known variants of Tarot deck, which had been testified in the past. This theory was more or less the Credo of many Tarot-researchers and it did govern the process of research, quietly accompanying earlier, now long overruled results like "Prince Fibbia invented the Tarot", "Gringonneur invented the Tarot", "the Gypsies brought Tarot to Europe", "the Tarot was the mother-deck to the normal card-deck", "the Templer invented the Tarot", "the Egyptians invented the Tarot" and "the Tarot was constructed according to a scheme of Kabbala and related to Hebrew letters".
Occasionally it was considered, that the number of trumps (so for instance Decker in 1974) might have been different than 22 (or 21 + Fool), but as far we now the process, it never was seriously investigated.

The 5x14-theory was developed by autorbis in May 1989 within 2 weeks, after having got the present "Kaplan, Encyclopedia 1" without previous knowledge about 15th century playing card research and much renaissance history. Observing a special fact of the socalled Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi (the existing 20 trumps are painted by 2 different artists, one painted 14 trumps and the other 6 trumps), he builded the hypothesis, that the 14 trumps were in the original form meant as a complete deck with a 5x14-structure and that the 6 other trumps were added later (the common card research - the head-start-theory assumed, that there first were 22 trumps, from which some were lost and these were replaced and then 2 - Tower and Devil - were lost again).
Autorbis simply investigated the group of the 14 and also of the 6 additional cards and experienced, that they included special signs, which did open the possibility, that both were really independant groups of cards and appeared to be complete compositions. He calculated the probability, how great the accidently occurence of such observable compositions might be and ended in the conclusion, that the idea "this deck had originally 22 trumps, some were lost and replaced" had a probability of less than 1 % and according to that the probability of "this deck originally had only 14 trumps (13 trumps + Fool)" should be considered with better than 99 %.
Autorbis, as explained before not a card researcher at that time, took contact to various accepted card researchers to inform them about his observation. However, communication is not always easy and he had no success to make them follow him in his complicated thinking operations.

Now the situation has changed.

Autorbis thinks, that he has gathered enough material and knowledge about early playing cards, to claim, that there is NOTHING, that supports the early existence of decks with a structure of 4x14+22 cards beside a general somehow legitimated assertion, that, when an object later has a special quality, it (with some probability) earlier also had the same quality (21 trumps + 1 Fool).

In the contrary, autorbis can point to various objects and documents in early playing card research. which supports the idea of decks with 5x13, 5x14 or 5x16-structure before the
famous and well-known Tarot deck with 21 trumps + 1 Fool composition.
On top of all his arguments is a clear document from Ferrara from 1457 , in which it is said, that "Trionfi decks with 70 cards" (= 5x14 decks) are produced. It is the oldest document, which tells anything about the structure of the early Trionfi-decks beside the really proved existence of some early card decks, which doesn't contradict the 5x14-theory.
Autorbis lists his arguments at:

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

What does the adaptation of the 5x14-theory mean?

It's a revolution inside playing card research. Michael J. Hurst, who tries gather all documents of early playing card research in the internet, called it a new paradigm. All data known in playing card research and earlier interpreted in the common view of the head-start-theory, must now reinvestigated again according to this second very strong possibility, which is rather likely to be the simply true analysis of the facts.
The question, when the Tarot got its 22 special cards is thrown in time some decades ahead, now much nearer to the date, when Kabbala might have influenced the iconographical decision. A lot of ideas around the origin of Tarot, which is a rather long development of Pros and Cons, will simply disappear and instead a complete new field of research will show much more detailed and interesting historical questions.

Time has changed in playing card research.
 

Diana

Huck, your above post is quite fascinating. I'm on holiday in the States at the moment, and have little time for internet browsing and Tarot studies, but I know what awaits me on my return to Europe in three weeks time. 5x14...... Indeed, why not?
 

jmd

I find it wonderfully reassuring to have more recently read this now older research which is gaining broader support and awareness.

I too had written that it seemed to me that maybe the Visconti-type decks consisted of less than 22 Trumps, but did not have the evidence - again this was based on Kaplan's works.

What is liberating with this research is to consider the various interweavings of various impulses and uses occuring in various places along the Mediterranean coastal regions from Spain, France and northern Italy. When one also considers the movement and results of, for example, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in the late 15th century, and the important port of Marseille as one of the possible - but certainly not only - place where the Mamluk deck may have landed, a vast and not so narrow historical research opens up.

Here what may emerge is not that the Tarot emerged in only one place in any fixed state, but that seeds planted in various locations, and having similar influences - including Jewish, Muslim, Bogomil and Christian - resulted in growths with various similarities and differences.

The 5 X 14 insight into the Visconti decks is more than interesting, for other questions also arise, as to why the iconic Major Arcana in what came to be known as the Tarot has twenty-two.

Again, to preclude that people with esoteric interests - even Kabalistic ones - may have been somehow influential in this is to not be willing to look at all possible influences with open eyes. I suppose I mention this with, amongst other considerations, the work of Mark Filipas in mind.

With regards to the Visconti, it may also be useful to have a look at one of Aeclectic's member's site...

Thankyou Huck for this important discussion.
 

Major Tom

This is absolutely fascinating.

I'd like to know what the 14 trumps were according to the 5x14 theory. And which 8 cards were added to make 22?

Was the Fool one of the 14 trumps or an extra card to make a 71 card deck?
 

Ross G Caldwell

Thanks for the shout out, jmd!

"With regards to the Visconti, it may also be useful to have a look at one of Aeclectic's member's site..."

Thanks for giving a shout out for my little page on Hercules, jmd!

It's over six months old now, so I could fill in some details, make it somewhat more accurate with regards to Visconti and Este history, literary tastes, etc. , but the main point was that this card is based on an astrological depiction.

I also have a page showing that the Magician is without doubt based on the figure of the Conjurer in the "Children of the Moon" pictures -
http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot/bagatella.html

it is unfinished, but gets the point across. Our tarot Magician is part of the 15th century tradition depicting the Conjurer as a child of Luna, as explained by the quote by Charles Zika on the page.

There is also a page on the Papessa - forgot the URL now, sorry.

As for the 5x14 theory, Lothar and I have been discussing it for a while. I too came to it independently, by looking at the Bembo Visconti-Sforza, and realized that the 14 trumps could be seen as self-contained unit, as well as being logically related to the 14 cards in each suit. I know also of another person on TarotL who came to the same conclusion independently for the same reasons. But of all of us, Lothar has worked out the problems associated with it. I think we think differently about some aspects, particularly the placement of the Fool, but on the whole it seems right.

The evidence that there is, with those other considerations, is mentioned at his website.

For the most part, I'm focussing on a few areas, doing background research (essentially educating myself on 14th-15th century northern Italy), and trying to come up with reasonable hypotheses that lead to fruitful documentary sources. So far there have been several discoveries :)

Ross
 

Huck

Major Tom said:
This is absolutely fascinating.

I'd like to know what the 14 trumps were according to the 5x14 theory. And which 8 cards were added to make 22?

Was the Fool one of the 14 trumps or an extra card to make a 71 card deck?

Hi Major Tom,

The 14 trumps from probably Bembo, here given with the numbers, are:

0 Fool

1 Magician
2 Papessa
3 Empress
4 Emperor
5 Pope

6 Love
7 Chariot
8 Justice
9 Hermit
10 Wheel

...

12 Hanging Man
13 Death

...

20 Angel

According to autorbis suggestions the numbers were arranged to
receive the total sum 100:

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

in the aim to avoid

1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14 = 105

By this 2 "difficult-to-add"-numbers (11+14) were changed to "pleasant-to-add"-numbers (0+20).

Autorbis arguments, that an essential problem at the card-table is to count points, and the row and numbering in the Bembo-14 resulted in the aim to keep things easy and can be perceived as totally logical.
Later, when other trumps were added, the original numbering was kept and the added trumps simply got "free places". The original "point-value" played no role in later rules, counting this way was too complicated and easier, more practical ways to count were explored.

Inside the Bembo we've only 6 trumps added by a second artist.

These are

star - sun - moon = 3 signs at heaven
temperance - strength - "world" = 3 virtues*

Autorbis arguments, that the 2nd "adding artist" perceived a single cardinal virtue inside the Bembo-14 (Justice) and wished to complete the group by adding 3 other cardinal virtues, from which two are undoubtly unrecognizable (temperance and strength) and the 3rd is troublesome, cause it was mistaken as "world".
But Prudentia knows in medieval iconography many variants in her presentations. One key element is the mirror.
So Autorbis assumes, that the two putti have a mirror in their hands, and perhaps the city on it refers to Sforzinda (a "city in plan" in the mind of Francesco Sforza), and that the idea of the card was Prudentia (and "Sforzinda" was the personal prudence of Sforza).
By this argumentation the added 6 trumps also could be perceived as a "complete new group". It looks rather doubtable, that anybody missed "devil and tower", so the possibility exists, that not only 5x14-decks existed, but also decks with 4x14 + 20 - strucure before the final state of 4x14 + 22 was reached.

Autorbis arguments, that the Iustitia in the Bembo-14 probably was not meant as "Iustitia", in his opinion Bembo didn't want to include virtues at all. The Iustitia is painted with a knight in the background, which is unusual for Iustitia. Autorbis assumes that it is a "courting symbol", which could be easily mistaken as Iustitia.
 

jmd

Great to see you have also joined Aeclectic, Ross Caldwell! Welcome...

With regards to the Magician, I posted another connection in relation to a little book I mention in my last post on the page of this link:

The depiction is in 'JJG Alexander's Italian Renaissance Illuminations (p36) which takes a page from a small manuscript located in the Biblioteca Estense in Modena (De Sphera, Biblioteca Estense ref. A.2.14 (lat.209)). It contains a number of diagrammes related to astrology, supposedly made for the young Count Sforza'. There, depicting Mercury, is a virtual identical representation of the card painted... albeit much smaller, and in the upper central section.

I still to scan this at some stage - and need to soon obtain my own scanner!

The link you give and discussions would certainly be wonderful as additions to the individual discussion of the respective cards (I give links to the discussions in this Forum's Table of Contents - which is a little out of date). This would also allow discussion to maintain its more un-mixed aspect, for ease of reference for the future... as well as reviving earlier discussions ;)
_____

The discussion on the possible sequence (and numeration) of the Bembo sequence is again highly interesting. Personally, I recall that when I first read it (must have been on one of the sites, I tended to think that the numbering was a little forced
 

Ross G Caldwell

Thank you for the welcome jmd!

You can see the whole of this particular manuscript of De Sphaera online at http://www.cedoc.mo.it/estense/

check the left margin frame, about four entries down, for De Sphaera.

The photographs of the folios come up on the right hand side.

The Children of Mercury page is fol. 11r

The Children of Luna page is fol. 12r

The Conjurer figure on the Children of Luna page 12r is the one that I have given on my own page, to show the similarity with the Bagatino of tarocchi.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot/bagatella.html , top row, second from left.

Although Mercury's figures are at tables, you can see that they are not as clearly reminiscent of our Bagatino, who is always manipulating Cups and Balls, and holds a wand. The Children of Mercury are artisans and merchants - not the same as the Conjurer. He really is a Conjurer, not a merchant or artisan.

I think there developed a strong tradition linking Mercury with the Magician since the 18th century, which influenced my thinking for a long time, but this image made me change my mind. The Sleight of hand, the illusion, the trickster - all these are qualities which made the 15th century identify the Magician with the Moon, not with Mercury.

Ross
 

Ross G Caldwell

The link http://www.cedoc.mo.it/estense/ is not as easy to navigate as that -

you must go to the bottom of the page, right hand side, where there is a link to immagini/images

click on that, and it brings up the page where the left hand frame has a link to De Sphaera

hope that works! :)
 

Ross G Caldwell

jmd said:
The discussion on the possible sequence (and numeration) of the Bembo sequence is again highly interesting. Personally, I recall that when I first read it (must have been on one of the sites, I tended to think that the numbering was a little forced

I think autorbis' arrangement is informed by, and constrained by, point-counting values that I do not fully understand the weight of. He may be right. It has to be noted that he has the logical idea that *all* of the trump cards originally counted for points, their points being equal to their ordinal sequence.

The logic also seems to apply to the structure of the later deck, since the sum of 1-13=78.

But until I understand his arguments better, for my part I believe the Bembo ordering was roughly (without committing completely to that between Il Papa and Morte-Angelo):-

(0)Matto
(1)Bagatto
(2)Imperatrice
(3)Imperadore
(4)Papessa
(5)Papa
(6)Amore
(7)Carro
(8)Giustizia
(9)Fortuna
(10)Vecchio
(11)Appeso
(12)Morte
(13)Angelo

This order keeps Death as the thirteenth *ordinal* number (Matto-first, Bagatto-second, Imperatrice-third... etc.), while recognizing that the earliest cards probably had no numbers, thus making the dreaded 13 superfluous. It is only in the extended pack, when they added numbers to keep track of play in the new game, that the position of Morte as *number* 13 became some kind of necessity.

Ross