What's the 5x14-theory

[jmd]

Just in terms of gaming, it doesn't really matter how many Major Arcana cards there are, for their Trumping remains as per the game.

Where differences would result include how many each player is distributed, and the kitty (or the 'dog' - 'chien', in French).

As mentioned elsewhere, the scoring may have been influential in the numeration of the Majors - though I personally tend to think that deeper concerns were at hand. In the gaming sense, it may be that certain cards acquired a particular value higher than may sequentially be expected.

Irrespective of these possibilities, the 5 X 14 possibility for the Visconti-Sforza type decks remains not only quite likely, but hints that the Tarot has either precursors or cousins which share only part of its full 4 X 14 + 22 structure.

 

[Huck]

This is all very interesting BUT.. I have a concern.

If the Tarot Trumps only number 14, the game doesn't work. Anybody here tried the game of Tarocchi? If so, which ones? You will see that when it comes to scoring and playing the game, most Tarocchi games require 22 Trumps. (Other than those with 36 cards, but that's less than the 5x14 theory.)

Why did the Duke originally order that Tarot deck? I find it very shakey to say he was th eone who invented it. So, it must have been around before that, even if only for a few years. And why was it around? What was it's purpose? Most likely, gaming. It seems that's what the Duke wanted it for anyway, since he asks that if the Tarocchi deck cannot be found, he wanted playing cards.

But if it really only had 70 cards, how would the game be played? It wouldn't work.

Now, this is based on assumptions, but I have tried to play Tarocchi with different rules and I've played around with the scoring, and there is no way I can see to make any kind of scoring fit with 70 cards. So, we can either assume:

a) The Duke invented Tarot
b) Tarot wasn't used as a game then
c) The game that we know now was totally different before the Duke ordered his decks.
d) Or there was a mistake in the Duke's letter that said 70 cards, and there really were 78.

And '8', if the hand is shakey, can easily look like a '0'. Or maybe the Duke just didn't know that much about the Triumphs, and got the numbering wrong, just as people do today when Tarot is so popular. (Usually I see people saying there are 72 cards in a deck.)

Anybody got any insights on this?

Kiama

Hi Kiama,

the actual state of discussion is given at

http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/trionfidoc.html

There were decks of various structures at the beginning,

5x14
http://geocities.com/autorbis/pbm14new.html

5x16
http://geocities.com/autorbis/VMnew.html

60 cards with 16 gods as trumps
http://geocities.com/autorbis/marcello1.html

and no note about a deck with a "4x14 + 22 - structure" before 1460.

Whatever one concludes from these facts, is a second stage in development of Tarot-theory. The first stage simply is: See. what is there and drag your conclusion from it.

To your specific argument: "I have tried to play Tarocchi with different rules and I've played around with the scoring, and there is no way I can see to make any kind of scoring fit with 70 cards"

Tarock (+ variants) is played usually with this scoring:

Kings = 4 points
Queens = 3 points
Knights = 2 points
Pages = 1 point

Trump: Mondo (World) = 4 points
Pagat (Magician) = 4 points
Fool = 4 point

Together 52 points

To this comes a scoring of "tricks", mostly either 1/4 or 1/3 or 1/2 point per captured card.

1/4 of 70 cards gives 17 1/2 points,

52 (basic points)+ 17 1/2 (trick points)
= 69 1/2 points (nearly 70)

this consideration makes it likely, that the main original deck had only 70 cards. I don't understand your argument, that the game wouldn't work under this condition.

The "duke" of Milano, Filippo of Visconti, was not related to the 5x14-deck, but to other experiments with cards.

 

[Kiama]

Huck: 69 points? It's still not 70, and I think that 78 cards still works better scoring-wise.

BTW: The version of Tarocchi I play (French Tarot) traditionally uses 5 point for the three Trump scoring cards. But that's for 3 players: is the scoring variant you refer to for 4 players?

Kiama

 

[Huck]

Huck: 69 points? It's still not 70, and I think that 78 cards still works better scoring-wise.

BTW: The version of Tarocchi I play (French Tarot) traditionally uses 5 point for the three Trump scoring cards. But that's for 3 players: is the scoring variant you refer to for 4 players?

Kiama

69 + 1/2 point would be the logical result (not 69), but from other games it is known, how such number-problems are solved, for instance by giving a point for the last trick or raising the worth of one of the special cards.
There are reasons to assume, that this 5x14-deck originally had 70 points, and that this idea (sum of points = number of Cards) jumped from the 70 cards deck to the 78 - cards - version by modifying the trick-counting-system (from 1/4 point to 1/3 point).

Yes, there are versions, which have the point-sum of 78, but there are also other various versions, which still result in 70:

See: http://geocities.com/autorbis/suitscourts.html

Tarot versions, which count 5 points for Mondo, Pagat and Fool and for kings, usually subtract these additional points by a special counting system.

A 1/4-point / trick -version (you're right, the "normal" counting is 1/3) is given in the 4-players-version from 1756:

See:

http://www.tarock.info/Tarock_1756.htm

(at the bottom of the page)

This is a version, in which the sum of points is 72.

 

[Huck]

Remember ...

It's an old thread, and I thought it might be of interest to bring it on the surface again (just in reflection of the "feast of fools" article), although some arguments of the earlier time might be not totally uptodate with the current research situation.

 

[DoctorArcanus]

It's an old thread, and I thought it might be of interest to bring it on the surface again (just in reflection of the "feast of fools" article), although some arguments of the earlier time might be not totally uptodate with the current research situation.

Thank you Huck! I had not seen this thread before!
I think the illustration by Cristoforo de Predis pointed out by Ross is of the greatest interest. And it is a beautiful work of art...

Marco

 

[Huck]

Thank you Huck! I had not seen this thread before!
I think the illustration by Cristoforo de Predis pointed out by Ross is of the greatest interest. And it is a beautiful work of art...

Marco

The original context of this picture is given at

http://www.cedoc.mo.it/estense/mss/desphaera/


Why do you think, that it is of specific interest in regard of the 5x14-theory?

 

[DoctorArcanus]

The original context of this picture is given at

http://www.cedoc.mo.it/estense/mss/desphaera/


Why do you think, that it is of specific interest in regard of the 5x14-theory?

Thanks for the link to the complete set of illustrations!

I think the image is relevant to Tarot history, because it looks so similar to Bembo's Bagatto and it is chronologically close to it. This suggests a connection between the De Sphera text and Tarot, but I have no knowledge of this text so I am not sure this hypotesis makes any sense.

The image per se is not connected to the 5x14 theory, but I think the theory could be validated if a satisfactory explanation for the meaning of the hyconographic cycle formed by the 14 trumps could be provided. Do you know of any attempt to this task? Do you have any hypothesis about the meaning of the 14 trumps as a whole?

I think that none of the attemps to explain the 22 trumps of XVI Century Tarot is completely satisfying.

Marco

 

[Huck]

Hi Marco,

Thanks for the link to the complete set of illustrations!

I think the image is relevant to Tarot history, because it looks so similar to Bembo's Bagatto and it is chronologically close to it. This suggests a connection between the De Sphera text and Tarot, but I have no knowledge of this text so I am not sure this hypotesis makes any sense.

The image per se is not connected to the 5x14 theory, but I think the theory could be validated if a satisfactory explanation for the meaning of the hyconographic cycle formed by the 14 trumps could be provided. Do you know of any attempt to this task? Do you have any hypothesis about the meaning of the 14 trumps as a whole?

I think that none of the attemps to explain the 22 trumps of XVI Century Tarot is completely satisfying.

Marco

... As far I see it, this figure doesn't look like the magician which normally is given to Bembo ... it has similarity with a lot of magicians, for instance with the Marseille type cause the specific game played ... but not really with the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-figure for the Magician. Perhaps there are similarities in the colours generally ...both objects have the same commissioner, the Sforza family, probably this makes them similar.

The 5x14-theory is shown with some of its arguments at

http://trionfi.com/0/f/ (use the menu)

also with an interpretation of the cards as a deck

a lot of other material is given at trionfi.com generally, of specific interest in this question should be the document-section

http://trionfi.com/0/e1/

specifically the documents B, 3 and 16 (in regard to the 5x14-theory) are of interest

The theory assumes, that the figures were sorted originally in a number row 1-14 with

1-5 / 6-10 / 11-14

whereby the groups with 5 elements center the "1" (the Ace) and the "10" (occasionally in playing cards systems the "banner")

1-5 are persons
- (Magician = Ace, Popess, Empress, Emperor, Pope)

6-10 is the wheel together with 4 states
- (Wheel = 10, Love = Spring, Chariot = summer, Justice = autumn, Hermit = winter)

1-14 are regarded as contrasting "bad elements" in the deck - this are

stupidity - Fool
treachery - Hanging Man
death - Death
final judgment - Angel

******

A German monk, Johannes of Rheinfelden, already in 1377 knew a deck, which counted its cards (no trumps) from 1 till 15, so 1-14 should be a logical continuation.

However, we believe, that the inventer of this deck decided finally to be not lucky with this solution and he changed the Fool (Nr. 11 in the above solution) with the number "0" and the Angel (14) with the number 20.

His reason was (our opinion), that the inventer didn't like, that the sequence 1-14 has the final sum "105" ... so the inventer exchanged 11 for 0 and 14 for 20 and reached the final sum "100". This was much more elegant and this solution has the preference, that 0 + 20 are easy to count, when you count in a card game and far better to count than 11 and 14.

Later (our opinion again), when the game developed and got some more cards, the 0-position for the Fool and 20-position for Angel were already "tradition" and were proceeded.

But this all is presented at
http://trionfi.com/0/f/

For the common Tarot, how it later developed to its now traditional number of Major Arcana (22) and sequence, we offer the following picture and order (from which we think, that it is satisfying):

http://trionfi.com/0/g/61/

however, this chapter is still in development and not very complete.

Thanks or your interest.

 

[DoctorArcanus]

Huck, thanks again for your posts and the links they provide.
I think both "Interpretation of the 14 trumps of Bembo" and "Genesis of Standard Tarot" on trionfi.com are very interesting. In particular, the idea of the Visconti snake being the origin of the devil is completely new to me! I definitely have to study more of the material you suggest

Ciao
Marco