Re: Le Tarot arithmologique - la séquence 1+4+7+10 = 22

#541
It is not enough that he referred to a book for him to have read it, any more than my referring to a book written in Latn implies that I have read it or even know Latin. He was a dealer in used printed material. Also, there were certain legendary or historical figures always cited as predecessors in the mystical properties of number, Pythagoras, Trismegistus, Philolaus, Plato, etc. The question, at least for me, is whether there was a substantive Pythagorean tradition that Etteilla actually drew on. Also, it is a certain way of using Pythagorean properties of numbers that is relevant. For example. d'Etaples seems to have written a work on the properties of numbers as illustrated by the game of Rithmomachia, part of a work that as a reprint may well have been in the first book printed in Scotland, 1496 (http://www.presscom.co.uk/printing/scott.html), a work that talked about "the properties of numbers". Rithmomachia uses progressions of numbers. Etteilla also uses progressions of numbers. But is there any correlation between d'Etaples and Etteilla here, or Rithmomachia and Etteilla?

As far as Agrippa, it does seem that he knows something of him, as is evident on the next page after the one you cite, on which Etteilla calls him a sophist with a very shallow knowledge of numbers. Agrippa had already been translated into French, 1727: https://www.worldcat.org/title/philosop ... ef_results

I have found where Etteilla talks about 5 and 6: it is in a footnote on p. 19 of the First Cahier (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6 ... angEN.zoom). He says:
Que ceux que veulent écrire la Haute Science des nombres, entendent bien, que chaque nombre a sa propriété comme sa valeur; que supposé: 5 est la sacrée, embrassant l'Universe par l'appui de l'unité & étant placé entre l'Universe 4 et la perfection 6...&c. La propriété connue donne les effets physiques.

(Let those who wish to write the High Science of Numbers, understand that each number has its property as its value; that supposed: 5 is the sacred, embracing the Universe by the support of the Unity and being placed between the Universe 4 and Perfection 6 ... & c. The property known gives its physical effects.
This is quite in harmony with Christianized Pythagoreanism. He makes no attempt to apply these ideas to the cards, however. The only relationship I see is that Etteilla applies the idea of the 6 days of creation to the cards, with the 6th day that in which creation is completed or perfected. (The word "parfectus" in Latin means "complete" as well as "perfect"; see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perfectus#Latin).

Then again, footnote p. 30 (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6 ... angEN.zoom) he repeats what he has said for 1, 2, 5, and 6 but gives for 3, "3 principles: sulphur, salt and mercury", and 4 is the 4 elements, as well as his preferred (au mieux) "Universe". He then has 7 as "science et sagesse humane" - knowledge and human wisdom. This is in accord with the Theologumena, which gives this number to Athena. 8 is then "multiplication, etendu" (multiplication, extension) and 9 "perfection des hommes simplement, suivant nature" (perfection of man simply, following nature), 10 "sceau divin" (divine seal), i.e. the completion of a cycle, 11 discord et defectuosité (discord and defect), 12 "appel et réunion" (call and reunion). He adds on p. 41 that 10 is the divine circle, 12 the human circle, and 11 the gap between them--i.e. defect, sin (this last p. 58, citing Augustine). That is nice to know, but how it relates to the tarot he doesn't say. Then 13 is the sign of destruction and death, he adds (p. 41). Oddly enough, his Death card is 17, the number that Ross said was the number of Death in Italy.

I have also found where Etteilla speaks of the tarot in terms of 1, 4, and 7, on p. 21 and following of his work just cited and often thereafter. It is not a division into groups of those numbers of cards, but rather of different ways of dividing all 78: taken as a whole (1), in four parts (12, 5, 5, 56) and seven parts (not yet explained). Notice here that the Fool is included as number 22. He explicitly says that the Fool is just after the World in the sequence--despite the numbers "78" and "0" on the card. Given the rather arbitrary division of the 10 last tarots into two groups of 5 (Death is the divider, but the high side is not about the afterlife), I would expect that there is some particular reason for 4. I am not sure about the division into 7 groups. Perhaps he means (7x3) + 14x4), for 3 + 4 groups. That would appear to leave out the Fool. But on p. 38 he gives that card the number 0, or maybe O: it has no number.

It seems to me that one could divide the 22 into groups of 1, 4, 7, and 10 in his conception of the cards: 1 for the Etteilla/Consultant; 4 for the cardinal virtues (cards 9-12), 7 for the days of creation (cards 2-8), and 10 for the rest, including the Fool. But I have not found where he says that in so many words.

That is in general the problem with Etteilla. He uses Pythagoreanism in his books, but how it fits his cards remains a mystery. My view is that his books reflect the intellectual sentiments of his time; but the cards are something else. Their very lack of rationale gives them an air of authenticity--if not as far back as ancient Egypt, at least further back than him.

He is well aware that the sum of the first 12 numbers equals 78, and that the sum of the first 6 equals 21 (p.35) Their difference is 57, a number he has some difficulty interpreting. 56 is easier: for Augustine it was the sign of tribulation (p. 59). How that differentiates the suit cards from some of the 21 he does not say.

Re: Le Tarot arithmologique - la séquence 1+4+7+10 = 22

#542
mikeh wrote:Their difference is 57, a number he has some difficulty interpreting. 56 is easier: for Augustine it was the sign of tribulation (p. 59). How that differentiates the suit cards from some of the 21 he does not say.
Doesn't he say somewhere there that there are 21/22 cards, 56/57 cards and 77/78 cards (I presume he means that there are 21 trumps plus the math, 56 minor cards plus the math, 77 cards in total plus the math?) - so he consider the math as part of the majors and of the minors?
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Le Tarot arithmologique - la séquence 1+4+7+10 = 22

#544
SteveM wrote
Doesn't he say somewhere there that there are 21/22 cards, 56/57 cards and 77/78 cards (I presume he means that there are 21 trumps plus the math, 56 minor cards plus the math, 77 cards in total plus the math?) - so he consider the math as part of the majors and of the minors?
Yes, good point, Steve. The Fool is last of the majors from one perspective and the last of the minors from another perspective. I wonder whether it might also be considered the first of the majors from another perspective, a circular one, in which it is 0. There is the enigmatic paragraph on pp. 57-58 (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6 ... angEN.zoom):
Cette chaîne ou liaison entre des trois derniers livres, est d'autant plus admirable qu'on la voit physiquement, encore qu'on ne puisse la dire intellectuelle, puisque le feuillet qui circule en faisant directement la roue, & occupant indistinctement à son choix 65 des places, ou fixement la dixième, (où l'homme a quelquefois l'orgueil de vouloir se placer, ou arrêter ces yeux), il n'est qu'un zéro; les Sages ont donc eu la raison d'y mettre la Folie, je dis ici la dixième, parce que je prends le second e le troisieme Livre pour le nombre de l'homme 2, car entrement les Sages l'ont encore placé au nombre 22, a celui de 13, et enfin a 78; Je dis bien placé dans la vérité, en égard aux hommes justes, & à ceux qui manquent de vertus. La Folle n'est donc point en elle-même une vérité, mais une absence de vérité, ce qui a certainement engagé les Egyptiens à ne lui assigner aucun nombre, mais intellectuellement ce caractere O.

(This chain or connection between the last three books is all the more admirable in that it is physically seen, although it cannot be said to be intellectual, since the sheet which circulates by making the wheel directly, occupying indiscriminately at its choice 65 places, or fixedly the tenth, (where man sometimes has the pride of placing himself, or arresting those eyes), he is only a zero; The Sages had reason to place Folly there, I say here the tenth, because I take the second and the third Book for the number of man 2, because the Sages have still placed him at number 22, at that of 13, and finally at 78; I say well placed in truth, in regard to righteous men, and to those who lack virtues. The Fool, then, is not in itself a truth, but an absence of truth, which has certainly induced the Egyptians not to assign to it any number, but intellectually this character O. (1)
I do not think the footnote (1) adds anything.

By the 65, I think he means those after the first 12 (the first 12 are the first "book" out of four). These 65 are all places of folly. By the tenth, I think he means the tenth after the first 12. By zero, he might mean before the Bagat, as a zero, and so making a circle. By the number of man, he means the second card, the male/female. By the 13 I guess he means Death, but I am not sure. Then at the end, in saying that the Egyptians did not assign it any number, he says that it has no number at all. .

Re: Le Tarot arithmologique - la séquence 1+4+7+10 = 22

#545
mikeh wrote: By the 65, I think he means those after the first 12 (the first 12 are the first "book" out of four). These 65 are all places of folly. By the tenth, I think he means the tenth after the first 12. By zero, he might mean before the Bagat, as a zero, and so making a circle. By the number of man, he means the second card, the male/female. By the 13 I guess he means Death, but I am not sure. Then at the end, in saying that the Egyptians did not assign it any number, he says that it has no number at all. .
Good job Mike of making some sense of that -- I must admit after attempting to translate that section myself it left me scratching my head -- and wondering if there was something wrong with my translation -- :)
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Le Tarot arithmologique - la séquence 1+4+7+10 = 22

#546
mikeh wrote:S
I do not think the footnote (1) adds anything...
Probably not - perhaps, in that the note connects 0 with tohu, rien, and neant - it is relevant to the following paragraph, in which he describes death as being closest to nothing (neant), connection with your point -
...By the 13 I guess he means Death, but I am not sure.
which somehow, also establishes a right to 'change its position' which it does by forcing (as the Sages have rendered to us) 14, 15, 16, 17 to descend or retrograde (??)

[La mort qui est le plus approchant du neant, a aussi le droit de permuer sa place, ce qu'elle fait en forcant, comme les Sages nous l'ont rendu, les nombres 14, 15, 16, & 17 (ce dernier ou elle demeure plus volontiers qu'au nombre 13) de descendre ou de retrograder]

I am not sure what he means either by those numbers descending or moving retrograde, unless he is referring to them, as he does elsewhere as being the chain between birth and death, indicated by the additional numbers the last (17 - death) of which returns, cycle like (0), to the beginning (13 - union/birth)*

The signs of death cycle (13 - 17) forms a loop in the greater fool cycle (78/0) - like a 'retrograde' planetary loop in the (geocentric) cycle of the planets ---

SteveM

*From Marriage/Union (13) comes birth; the double numbers on these set of five cards 13, 14; 14, 15; 15, 16; 16, 17; 17, 13 (which according to Etteilla's division of the cards form the 'third book') represent "the chain of birth to death, the connection which exists between the aspiration and expiration of all beings, & c." [As Etteilla wrote: "Que les doubles nombres du troisieme livre 13, 14; 14, 15; 15, 16; 16, 17; 17, 13, are afin d'indiquer, suivant le livre de Thot, la chaîne de la naissance à la mort, la liaison qui existe entre l'aspiration & l'expiration de tous les êtres, etc."] -- With the numbering of death 17 with 13, the beginning (birth) and ending (17) of this 'chain' are linked as if by a clasp to represent the cyclical nature of birth and death, from generation to generation -- These five cards Etteilla also describes as belonging to 'physical nature' (Nature physique), and 'All that belongs to man, and depends on man, by order, permission, and divine goodness, in the circle of man' (tout ce qui est à l'homme & dépend de l'homme, par order, permission & bonté divine, dans le cercle de l'homme)
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Le Tarot arithmologique - la séquence 1+4+7+10 = 22

#548
Offhand, I would think, looking at the "descend and retrogade" passage on p. 39 (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6 ... angEN.zoom), means not going in a circle but going backwards, so from 17 to 13.

For the rest, "Que les doubles nombres du troisieme livre 13, 14; 14, 15; 15, 16; 16, 17; 17, 13, are afin d'indiquer, suivant le livre de Thot, la chaîne de la naissance à la mort, la liaison qui existe entre l'aspiration & l'expiration de tous les êtres, etc." and "tout ce qui est à l'homme & dépend de l'homme, par order, permission & bonté divine, dans le cercle de l'homme", I don't know where you are quoting this from, to see what he is saying in context. What page?

Re: Le Tarot arithmologique - la séquence 1+4+7+10 = 22

#549
The second quote from 'elsewhere' is from the third cahier, I was trying to put together what he says about the 'signs of death' to try and understand the passage --

I agree by descend/retrograde he is referring to going backwards - I was thinking the reference to death being closest to nothing, on the following page to his note about zero 0 and nothing (neant), arose from or may indicate an association of retrograde and cirular motion, as in the epicycle explanation for retrograde motion in geocentric astrology, which as a practicing astrologer Etteilla was familiar with:

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/ufhatch/pages ... etro-2.htm

SteveM

Talking about Etteilla - by coincidence I heard some noise at the front door while writing the above, and went out to find a parcel on the step - opened it up to find it contains Etteilla's Petit Etteilla, art of drawing the cards (french version, fascimile of copy in the BnF), from the Book Depository in the UK - an anonymous gift (presumably from someone who has heard about the fire) --

So thank you anonymous gifter! (I do have a clue, it was paid for in Australian Dollars)
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Le Tarot arithmologique - la séquence 1+4+7+10 = 22

#550
If it's in the second or third cahier, then it's probably something I translated and commented on, and I can find it by a Google search. Ah, yes. I have the "la liaison qui existe entre l'aspiration & l'expiration" quote at
http://etteillastrumps.blogspot.com/201 ... whole.html
in the 2nd Cahier Supplement, pp. 161-2, comment to p. 12 of the 2nd Cahier.. Yes, what you say fits what I said and makes sense.

The other quote is at the same link, but from the 2nd Cahier itself, p. 136, a little earlier in my blog. Hmm. Actually, what belongs to "Nature physique" are the 5 next cards, 18-21 plus 0. 13-21 pertain to "Nature sensible". It seems to be the difference between appearance and reality, possibly "apparent defect in general motions" (for 13-17) vs. "real defect in particular movements", 18-21, 0, and probably also 22-77. Both groups seem to be in physical reality. I am not at all sure what "cercle d'homme" refers to, whether the big circle or the little epicycle.

I am not sure that Etteilla was a practicing astrologer. Holbronn says his "astrology" bears no relation to anyone else's. He did know about the 7 planets, 12 zodiacal signs, and parts of fortune. Whether he knew about epicycles I don't know, but probably so, why not? I will check the 4th cahier.

That's great about your anonymous gift.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron