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

#242
mikeh wrote: One thing I am not sure about is "familierement" as "clearly". But I think that is what must be meant. make clear = make familiar; but adding the "-ly", as is needed with "explain", doesn't work in English.

What do people think?

I'm not sure about "clearly".

"Familièrement" could be translated by "commonly"

http://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/ ... 3%A8rement

Suggestion : "clearly' for "familièrement" may be better translated by "commonly"
Remark : I say "suggestion" because, in Gosselin's mind, I think , it also meant, the most simply and clearly as possible ..
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

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

#243
QUOTE : I have also restored the original punctuation, which seems to me necessary:


Yes, you're right if we want an exact reproduction of the text as it is written by Gosselin.
So I agree with you.


Conséquence : viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17459#p17459

Remarks :

His use of ponctuation is in conformity with the manner of using ponctuation at his time.

Yet, in my rough transcriptions of his essay, I aimed to give it in modernized French.
The ponctuation he used (classical French) is not the same as the modern French.
[I personnaly distinguish the Classical French - grosso modo XVIth and XVIIth centuries - in at least deux periods (XVIth and XVIIth), if not three:
Low Classical French (first part XVIth)
Medium Classical French (second part XVIth)
High Classical French (XVIIth)
inside the XVIth cnerury classical French, I see there are differences inside a Rabelais (before 1550 : Pantagruel 1532 and a Gosselin (after 1550 : Le jeu des chartes pythagoriques 1582]
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ais_classique

In modern French (XVIIIth- nowdays), the linguistic unity of the phrase is clearly established..
It is not the case un the XVIth century

"La ponctuation moderne se met en place à partir du xviiie siècle"

The ponctuation in the XVI th century is not the one of the XVIIIth century.
It has more an oral finction as in the following XVIIth century so as to facilitate the lecture aloud.
"Au xviie siècle, on continue à considérer que la ponctuation n'a qu'une fonction orale, destinée exclusivement à faciliter la lecture à voix haute. Aussi les grammairiens, tel Vaugelas, l'ignorent, sauf Antoine Furetière qui, dans son Essay d'un dictionnaire universel (1684), donne une définition assez complète des signes de ponctuation anciens et modernes. Les imprimeurs et leurs typographes s'emparent de cette « petite science » que les grammairiens délaissent, et ils en conserveront la maîtrise jusqu'à l'époque moderne, tantôt avec l'assentiment des auteurs, tantôt malgré leur opposition."
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponctuation

References :
(1) LA PONCTUATION ET L'ÉNONCÉ COMPLEXE AU XVIe SIÈCLE
Bien qu’il soit difficile de dater avec précision ce type d'évolution. C'est sans doute dans le courant du XVIe siècle que l'on commence à percevoir l'émergence, à la fois dans l'usage et dans la pensée linguistique, de cette unité que l'usage moderne a peu à peu définie comme une « phrase ». Parmi bien d'autres champs d'observation, les tendances que l'on relève dans le domaine de la ponctuation peuvent apporter des indices plus ou moins directs, de cette structuration progressive.
http://testjc.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/doc ... hp?id=5836

(2) La ponctuation des imprimés au XVIe siècle, p.13
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal ... 2/document
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

Gosselin 1582 : draft article under construction

#244
The article about Gosselin is still under construction and should be considerated as a draft version
It needs a much better editing with credits.


I believe that it's worth calling your attention upon it.

"La signification de l 'ancien jeu des chartes pythagoriques..." - La plus ancienne référence française connue d' une analyse pythagoricienne du Jeu de cartes ordinaires?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MTP ... mCoA8Y/pub


PS :
You can also write to me in mp.
I'll be grateful to read your remarks
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

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

#246
With original punctuation, here is the sentence in question:
Après avoir expliqué le plus familièrement qu'il nous a été possible, les proportions des nombres, les consonances et Harmonies qui en proviennent: il convient declarer les secrets qui sont cachés en ce jeu des cartes - lequel a été inventé et mis en usage par quelques hommes savants en Philosophie Pythagorique: Attendu que les Pythagoriques affirmaient qu'il y a de très grands secrets de nature cachés sous les nombres; Et aussi, [31]que la plus grande victoire du jeu des cartes consiste au nombre de trente et un, lequel selon ses parties contient une très excellente Harmonie comme nous le démontrons présentement.
In a transcription, I do not think the punctuation should be changed, because it is a clue to how it should be punctuated in a translation. I do not know how the punctuation would go in modern French, only modern English. It would be something like this:
After having explained, as clearly as has been possible for us, the proportions of numbers and the consonances and Harmonies that arise from them, it is appropriate to declare the secrets hidden in this game of cards - which was invented and put into use by a few men learned in Pythagorean philosophy, considering that the Pythagoreans say that there are very great secrets of nature hidden in numbers, and also that the greatest victory in the game of cards consists in the number thirty-one, which by its parts contains a most excellent Harmony, as we demonstrate presently.
The two dependent clauses at the end cannot, grammatically, be considered separate sentences, even if in modern English that is sometimes done. It does not seem to be Gosselin's intention. In English the result is a very long sentence, but not impossibly so. I think it is clearer in the original punctuation myself, although I might remove the capital letters. But given that I have not removed the capital letters elsewhere in the text, I leave them here. It seems to me that in transcribing Gosselin's text, one should say it is with modernized spelling, but otherwise the same as the original. It is the spelling that confounds me as a reader and translator.

As far as justifying the four elements as part of Pythagorean philosophy, a referral to the Timaeus is not enough, because there has always been a distinction between "Platonism" and "Pythagoreanism". even if the two philosophies borrowed from each other, and even if it is Gosselin's likely source. Here is what V. F. Hooper says in Medieval Number Theory, with his references (pp. 42-43), in his chapter ""Pythagorean Number Theory":
Four is also the number of the square (60), and is represented in the elements, the seasons, the 4 elements of man, the 4 principles of a reasonable animal, the lunar phases, and the 4 virtues. (61)
________________
60. Plutarch, De animae procreatique, 1.
61. Diogenes Laertius, Biography of Pythagoras, 19, 7; Theolog. Arith., 22. Enneads, VI, 6, 16. Capella, op. cit. VII.
Of these, the Theolgumena Arithmeticae, although clearly including the four elements among the manifestations of the tetrad (Waterfield translation, p. 58) and in print then from a Parisian publisher, was available only in Greek. The Enneads had been translated by Ficino; it is not Pythagorean, but perhaps refers to the Pythagoreans explicitly here, I don't know. The other two were readily available in Latin. Diogenes was originally in Greek, but I see on WorldCat that a Latin translation was published in 1490 Venice; then in the 1550s and 1560s there were multiple reprintings in various places. (https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A ... dblist=638)

I do not have Diogenes 19, unless it is the same as what the Loeb edition calls Book VIII, Ch. 1, section 25 (pp. 240-243 of Loeb edition). Here is the translation, pp. 241 and 243 (the Greek is on pp. 240 and 242)
Alexander in his Successions of Philosophers says that he found in the Pythagorean memoirs the following tenets as well. ... from the monad and the undefined dyad spring numbers, points; from points, lines; from lines, plane figures, from plane figures, solid figures; from solid figures, sensible bodies, the elements of which are four, fire, water, earth, and air...
The "Alexander" referred to is Alexander Polyhistor, 1st century b.c., the translator tells us in a note, p. 241. You can read this with the note, at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... hapter%3D1.

I find Martianus Capella, Marriage of Philology and Mercury referring to the four elements in the section on Arithmetic, p. 278, and again on p. 279, of Stahl and Johnson translation,
https://books.google.com/books?id=nZ-Z9 ... ts&f=false, in much the same way as Diogenes Laertius. This book was in Latin and well known. Whether it explicitly says that this doctrine is Pythagorean, I don't know, as the page it would be on (275 or 276) is omitted from Google's selection. You might find it in a French translation. But it would be understood as Pythagorean.

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

#247
mikeh wrote:With original punctuation, here is the sentence in question:
Après avoir expliqué le plus familièrement qu'il nous a été possible, les proportions des nombres, les consonances et Harmonies qui en proviennent: il convient declarer les secrets qui sont cachés en ce jeu des cartes - lequel a été inventé et mis en usage par quelques hommes savants en Philosophie Pythagorique: Attendu que les Pythagoriques affirmaient qu'il y a de très grands secrets de nature cachés sous les nombres; Et aussi, [31]que la plus grande victoire du jeu des cartes consiste au nombre de trente et un, lequel selon ses parties contient une très excellente Harmonie comme nous le démontrons présentement.
In a transcription, I do not think the punctuation should be changed, because it is a clue to how it should be punctuated in a translation. I do not know how the punctuation would go in modern French, only modern English. It would be something like this:
After having explained, as clearly as has been possible for us, the proportions of numbers and the consonances and Harmonies that arise from them, it is appropriate to declare the secrets hidden in this game of cards - which was invented and put into use by a few men learned in Pythagorean philosophy, considering that the Pythagoreans say that there are very great secrets of nature hidden in numbers, and also that the greatest victory in the game of cards consists in the number thirty-one, which by its parts contains a most excellent Harmony, as we demonstrate presently.
The two dependent clauses at the end cannot, grammatically, be considered separate sentences, even if in modern English that is sometimes done. It does not seem to be Gosselin's intention. In English the result is a very long sentence, but not impossibly so. I think it is clearer in the original punctuation myself, although I might remove the capital letters. But given that I have not removed the capital letters elsewhere in the text, I leave them here. It seems to me that in transcribing Gosselin's text, one should say it is with modernized spelling, but otherwise the same as the original. It is the spelling that confounds me as a reader and translator.



As far as justifying the four elements as part of Pythagorean philosophy, a referral to the Timaeus is not enough, because there has always been a distinction between "Platonism" and "Pythagoreanism". even if the two philosophies borrowed from each other, and even if it is Gosselin's likely source. Here is what V. F. Hooper says in Medieval Number Theory, with his references (pp. 42-43), in his chapter ""Pythagorean Number Theory":
Four is also the number of the square (60), and is represented in the elements, the seasons, the 4 elements of man, the 4 principles of a reasonable animal, the lunar phases, and the 4 virtues. (61)
________________
60. Plutarch, De animae procreatique, 1.
61. Diogenes Laertius, Biography of Pythagoras, 19, 7; Theolog. Arith., 22. Enneads, VI, 6, 16. Capella, op. cit. VII.
Of these, the Theolgumena Arithmeticae, although clearly including the four elements among the manifestations of the tetrad (Waterfield translation, p. 58) and in print then from a Parisian publisher, was available only in Greek. The Enneads had been translated by Ficino; it is not Pythagorean, but perhaps refers to the Pythagoreans explicitly here, I don't know. The other two were readily available in Latin. Diogenes was originally in Greek, but I see on WorldCat that a Latin translation was published in 1490 Venice; then in the 1550s and 1560s there were multiple reprintings in various places. (https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A ... dblist=638)

I do not have Diogenes 19, unless it is the same as what the Loeb edition calls Book VIII, Ch. 1, section 25 (pp. 240-243 of Loeb edition). Here is the translation, pp. 241 and 243 (the Greek is on pp. 240 and 242)
Alexander in his Successions of Philosophers says that he found in the Pythagorean memoirs the following tenets as well. ... from the monad and the undefined dyad spring numbers, points; from points, lines; from lines, plane figures, from plane figures, solid figures; from solid figures, sensible bodies, the elements of which are four, fire, water, earth, and air...
The "Alexander" referred to is Alexander Polyhistor, 1st century b.c., the translator tells us in a note, p. 241. You can read this with the note, at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... hapter%3D1.

I find Martianus Capella, Marriage of Philology and Mercury referring to the four elements in the section on Arithmetic, p. 278, and again on p. 279, of Stahl and Johnson translation,
https://books.google.com/books?id=nZ-Z9 ... ts&f=false, in much the same way as Diogenes Laertius. This book was in Latin and well known. Whether it explicitly says that this doctrine is Pythagorean, I don't know, as the page it would be on (275 or 276) is omitted from Google's selection. You might find it in a French translation. But it would be understood as Pythagorean.

Hi Mikeh


As for your first point, and we talking about Classical French of the second period of the XVIth in France, I already wrote that if we want, and that is the case here, a definitive translation, we should do it with the ponctuation of origine - this means the use of letter in capital at it wa sin the text to translate. And if necessary, if it is uncomprhensible for a modern lector, offer the transcription in modernized French or Englsh in braklets...
Now, if we want only to have a fair idea of what is written, then a translation with the ponctuation in modernized French is quite good enough.

Now about Pythagorim and Platonism, total agreement.
Thank you very much for the references.
I'll study these with attention.

The quesstion about Gosselin is did he have access or had he the possibility to have access to them.
He's a learned person, Bibliothécaire of the King.
If one could find a catalogue of the King's Library at time should be also interesting to seek what if he had in this Library.

What did I write about Gosselin?

L’analyse minutieuse du texte me conduit à ‘déclarer” que l’essai est, explicitement, la plus ancienne référence littéraire française d’une interprétation pythagoricienne du jeu de cartes ordinaires - comme le souligne Michael S Howard dans son Addition :
(...)
Après avoir présenté les rudiments de la théorie musicale pythagoricienne, Gosselin dans son introduction affirme :

“Après avoir expliqué le plus familièrement qu'il nous a été possible, les proportions des nombres, les consonances et Harmonies qui en proviennent: il convient declarer les secrets qui sont cachés en ce jeu des cartes - lequel a été inventé et mis en usage par quelques hommes savants en Philosophie Pythagorique: Attendu que les Pythagoriques affirmaient qu'il y a de très grands secrets de nature cachés sous les nombres; Et aussi, que la plus grande victoire du jeu des cartes consiste au nombre de trente et un, lequel selon ses parties contient une très excellente Harmonie comme nous le démontrons présentement.”
Il observe ensuite qu'aucune carte n'excède en points le nombre 10 qui est 1+2+3+4, en d'autres mots composé de quatre parties n'excédant pas quatre.
(Cette relation entre 4 et 10 est celle de la Tetractys Pythagoricienne)

Parallèlement, il poursuit en notant qu'il y a quatre couleurs qui elles-mêmes correspondent aux quatre éléments du Timée de Platon.

Concernant "la plus excellente harmonie", il observe, qu'en musique, les séries des diapasons (que nous dénommerions octaves) sont constituées de notes en parfaite consonance les unes avec les autres. Il y a diapason dès lors que deux cordes vibrantes sont dans un rapport 2.1. Donc quatre diapasons à partir de l'unité totalisent 31 = 1+2+4+8+16, c'est à dire le plus grand nombre de points pouvant être obtenus au Jeu de Trente et Un.
C'est là une application de la théorie musicale pythagoricienne.
Dans l'esprit de Gosselin, et le jeu et la partie de cartes reflètent la philosophie pythagoricienne.
(http://tarotarithmologique.blogspot.fr/)
Je souscris pleinement à cette conclusion.


Je soulignerai seulement la correspondance platonicienne qu’établit Gosselin entre les les 4 Eléments et les 4 Couleurs.

Specifically , I note that his presenation of the Four Elements were in conformity with Plato's listing in the Timeus.
une correspondance indéniablement platonicienne[/i]

C’est cet ordre platonicien des 4 Eléments sur lequel se fonde Gosselin pour fonder les correspondances d’avec les 4 Couleurs du Jeu des cartes ordinaires.


Then, I mention, still evoking Plato and not Pythagoras, :
La corrélation établie par Gosselin est non seulement en accord avec l’ordre des Eléments donné par Platon dans le Timée mais davantage encore, l’explication qu’il offre pour justifier de ces correspondances des Eléments d’avec les Couleurs - la pesanteur ( du plus lourd “lourd”, la Terre , au moins “lourd”, le Feu) respective des Eléments hierarchisés depuis le plus stable (la Terre) jusqu’au plus léger (le Feu) est exactement celle classiquement admise pour la genèse des Corps platoniciens.
Timée, 55d

Finally, my conclusion is :

Je conclurai provisoirement en mettant en relief la remarquable identification faite par Gosselin entre le Feu et les Piques.
Gosselin écrit à ce propos :
Les piques qui sont peints sur les cartes nous représentent le Feu parce que le Feu est le plus pénétrant des quatre Eléments à l'instar de
s piques qui sont des instruments de guerre très pénétrants.
Or n’est-ce pa là textuellement la justification donnée à la correspondance FEU= Tétraèdre - pointu comme la flamme du Feu tel un poignard?


As far as here, no mixing about Pythagorism and Platonism.

....

It is in a final note, called REMARK that I write using the Conditionnel Mode :

Remarque :
L’identification des idées pythagoriciennes dans Platon ne fait pas consensus.
En effet, très peu de références à Pythagoras dans son oeuvre.
Toutefois, même si la théorie des Eléments n’est pas en soi explicitement pythagoricienne dans Platon, la formation des corps platoniciens à partir d’eux et notamment l’insistance sur le Triangle semblerait une confirmation implicite d’une influence sous-jacente pythagoricienne que l’on devrait pas sous-estimer ...
D’abord que le Feu, la Terre, l’Eau et l’Air soient des corps, cela est sans doute évident pour quiconque.
Or, l’essence du corps possède aussi toujours l’épaisseur.
Mais toute épaisseur enveloppe nécessairement la nature de la surface.
ET toute surface de formation rectiligne est composée de triangles

(Le Timée)



I appreciate from this last point the discussion and the possible references available you give that could have had access Gosselin.


Gratefully your's

Thank you again for reading me and answering ;
Your anwers are quite "utiles" to me!

Alain


My text
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MTP ... mCoA8Y/pub
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

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

#248
Note added later: this was written before Alain's last post, which I saw once I had posted this one.

Alain wrote,
I don't think that the main argument should be rejected.
But I do have a kind of intuition that :
- the Remark could be controversial
- the Extention judged speculative at best, audacious by some or farfetched by others
Le me see. The Remaque is this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MTP ... mCoA8Y/pub:
Remarque :

L’identification des idées pythagoriciennes dans Platon ne fait pas consensus.

En effet, très peu de références à Pythagoras dans son oeuvre.

Toutefois, même si la théorie des Eléments n’est pas en soi explicitement pythagoricienne dans Platon, la formation des corps platoniciens à partir d’eux et notamment l’insistance sur le Triangle semblerait une confirmation implicite d’une influence sous-jacente pythagoricienne que l’on devrait pas sous-estimer ...

D’abord que le Feu, la Terre, l’Eau et l’Air soient des corps, cela est sans doute évident pour quiconque.
Or, l’essence du corps possède aussi toujours l’épaisseur.
Mais toute épaisseur enveloppe nécessairement la nature de la surface.
ET toute surface de formation rectiligne est composée de triangles”
(Le Timée)
I.e.:
The identification of Pythagorean ideas in Pythagoras has no consensus.

Actually, very few reference to Pythagoras in his works.

However, just as the theory of the Elements is not in itself explicitly Pythagorean in Plato, the formation of the Platonic corpus departs from them; notably, the insistence on the Triangle would seem an implicit affirmation of an underlying Pythagorean influence that cannot be underestimated ...

First, Fire, Earth, Water and Air are the body, as is probably obvious to anyone.
But the essence of the body also still has thickness.
But any thickness necessarily involves the nature of surface.
And every surface of rectilinear formation is composed of triangles "
But this does not require there be fire, earth, air, and water. This justification is too speculative.

Now for your "speculation":
Sous la réserve d’établir une correspondance non sujette à discussion Couleurs du Jeu de cartes ordinaires / Emblèmes du Tarot, la conséquence sur la plan du Tarot Arithmologique :

posting.php?mode=edit&f=11&t=1102&p=17455

serait que les 4 Tetractys emblématiquss des 40 cartes numérales (4X10), à savoir les quatre Décades représentées géométriquement sous sous du nombres triangulaire figuré 10 :

1
2+3

4+5+6

7+8+9+10

seraient, dans cette hypothèse, à percevoir comme des Triangles platoniciens spécifiques des Eléments Terre Eau, Air, Feu.

Le Triangle Terre à la base de la formation du Cube (Jeu des 4 Couleurs : Décade des Carreaux)

Le Triangle Eau, celle de l’ Icosaèdre.(Jeu des 4 Couleurs : Décade des Trèfles)

Le Triangle Air, celle de l’ Octaèdre (Jeu des 4 Couleurs : Décade des Coeurs)

Le Triangle Feu, celle du Tétraèdre.(Jeu des 4 Couleurs :Décade des Trèfles)

Néanmoins, en l’état actuel de la recherche, ces correspondances sont uniquement celle du Jeu des Chartes Pythagoriques de Gosselin
I.e.:
With the reservation, not under discussion, of matching the elements with the suits of ordinary playing cards/ Emblems of the Tarot, the impact on the level of the arithmological Tarot:

posting.php?mode=edit&f=11&t=1102&p=17455

would be that the 4 emblematic Tetractys, 40 numeral cards (4X10), namely four Decades represented geometrically as in the triangular numbers figured as 10:

1

2 + 3

4 + 5 + 6

7 + 8 + 9 + 10

would, in this case, be to perceive as specific Platonic Triangles, the Elements Earth, Water, Air, Fire.

The Triangle Earth to the basic arrangement of the Cube (Deck of 4 Suits: Decade of Tiles)

The Triangle Water, that of the icosahedron (Deck of 4 Suits: Decade of Clovers).

The Triangle Air, that of the octahedron (Deck of 4 Suits: Decade of Hearts)

The Triangle Fire, that of the tetrahedron (Deck of 4 Suits: Decade of Clovers).

However, in the present state of research, these matches are uniquely only in the Jeu des Chartes Pythagoriques of Gosselin.
I haActually, the matches with the solids is only in Plato, neither Gosselin nor the Pythagoreans. Frankly, I see no reason to invoke Plato at all in relation to Gosselin. I cannot imagine that Gosselin is thinking about arrangements of triangles in relation to the four suits and their assignment to elements. He does give an allegorical justification, and it is neither Platonic nor Pythagorean. In your diagram, all the Tetratkyses look identical, with nothing suggesting different solids about them. Or am I missing your point?

TCould there be something about the suit signs that suggest a specific solid. So tiles are quadrilateral, suggesting the cube. Clovers are four lines emanating from a center. I don't know what solid that would suggest, perhaps half an octohedron. Spades are a bit like obelisks, in that they come to a point at the end, but that is not one of the solids. And none are heart-shaped. So I don't see this going anywhere either.

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

#249
Mikeh

You have to take the quotes not only one.
In the Remark, I suppose that the lector has read what I wrote before ...

My text
Gosselin expose ici une correspondance indéniablement platonicienne (Cf Remarque en bas de page) conforme à la Genèse du Corps du Cosmos par le Démiurge
"D'abord que le Feu, la Terre, l'Eau et l'Air soient des corps, cela est sans doute évident pour quiconque.
....
Le Démiurge a placé l' Air et l'Eau entre le Feu et la Terre.
Ces Eléments au nombre de quatre ont formé le corps du Cosmos.

Harmonisé proportionnellement, celui-ci est Amitié."

La hiérarchie des Eléments est donc :
Terre / Eau / Air / Feu

C’est cet ordre platonicien des 4 Eléments sur lequel se fonde Gosselin pour fonder les correspondances d’avec les 4 Couleurs du Jeu des cartes ordinaires.
La corrélation établie par Gosselin est non seulement en accord avec l’ordre des Eléments donné par Platon dans le Timée mais davantage encore, l’explication qu’il offre pour justifier de ces correspondances des Eléments d’avec les Couleurs - la pesanteur ( du plus lourd “lourd”, la Terre , au moins “lourd”, le Feu) respective des Eléments hierarchisés depuis le plus stable (la Terre) jusqu’au plus léger (le Feu) est exactement celle classiquement admise pour la genèse des Corps platoniciens.


"D’abord que le Feu, la Terre, l’Eau et l’Air soient des corps, cela est sans doute évident pour quiconque.
Or, l’essence du corps possède aussi toujours l’épaisseur.
Mais toute épaisseur enveloppe nécessairement la nature de la surface.
ET toute surface de formation rectiligne est composée de triangles”

(Le Timée)


La Terre est identifiée au Cube
Hexahedron.gif
L’ Eau à l’ Icosaèdre
Icosahedron.gif
L’ Air à l’ Octaèdre
Octahedron.gif
Le Feu au Tétraèdre
Tetrahedron.gif.
Platon, dans le dialogue Timée (env. 358 av. J.-C.), associait chacun des quatre éléments (la Terre, l'Air, l'Eau et le Feu) avec un solide régulier.
La Terre était associée avec le cube (Timée, 55d), l'Air avec l'octaèdre, l'Eau avec l'icosaèdre et le Feu avec le tétraèdre.
Il existait une justification pour ces associations : la chaleur du Feu semble pointue et comme un poignard (comme un peu le tétraèdre). L'Air est constitué de l'octaèdre ; ses composants minuscules sont si doux qu'on peut à peine les sentir. L'Eau, l'icosaèdre, s'échappe de la main lorsqu'on la saisit comme si elle était constituée de petites boules minuscules. Le solide le plus stable, l'hexaèdre (cube), représente la Terre. Ces petits solides font de la poussière lorsqu'ils sont émiettés et se cassent lorsqu'on s'en saisit, une grande différence avec l'écoulement doux de l'eau.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solide_de_Platon


Translation required : see your last post!

I sorry but you are missing my point ...

We'll talk about this maybe later ...

Good night Mokeh
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

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

#250
I have removed the reference to the Timaeus from my Addition, as it now seems to me irrelevant. However before it is added to yours on Andrea's site I want to make sure it is what I want to say. I have also added references to Capella and Diogenes Laertes earlier.

The doctrine of the four elements is attributed to Empedocles. I do not think he counts as a Pythagorean, but I'm not sure. The order of the elements - earth, water, air, fire - is part of the Ptolemaic worldview which most people took for granted without having any idea where it came from. As far as I know, it comes from noticing that beneath the water is earth, and above the water is air, and lightning comes from up high in the sky.

It seems to me highly unlikely that the king's library would not have had Capella--a major textbook about the liberal arts all through the Middle Ages, in Latin. WorldCat shows 33 extant printed editions between 1490 and 1580. This library would have had several manuscript editions as well. Diogenes Laertius was even more popular in the 16th century. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers was reprinted in Latin numerous times, I'm not sure how many; WorldCat lists 291 editions of Laertius's works before 1580. The majority would have been of the Lives. On WorldCat one 16th century editor of Laertius's Lives is shown as the famous Parisian printer Henry Estienne, who surely would have been known to Gosselin. In contrast, there are only 53 listed for the Timaeus for the same period, including those with only excerpts and those included as part of the "collected works" of Plato or Cicero (who had done a translation). Laertius would have been perfect for a librarian, as it is just easily read summaries of all the various classical philosophers and anecdotes about them. The only question for me is whether he knew Greek as well as Latin, something that might have been expected for a king of France's librarian. A few Pythagorean works were available only in Greek, notably the Theologumena Arithmeticae, in only one printed edition, Paris 1543.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BOUGEAREL Alain, Huck and 30 guests

cron