Re: Moakley's book: text and discussion
Posted: 11 Mar 2017, 14:36
... :-) ... Well, the 56 combinations in the old Greek lot oracle are from the times of Pythagoras.
Over 500 years of history in 78 cards
There are likely more than 10.000 known rules for card games. I would guess, that at least 95% of them have some practical use of the suit system, maybe exotic games like "memory with cards" or "Schwarzer Peter" don't use them, but only identical pairs. Counting games possibly use only the numbers independent from the suits.
I don't know a card game, which uses the 1-3-6-10-15-21 system. Do you know one?
Moakley is correct, when she links 21 and 56 to (popular) dice games. There are 21 result possibilities for throws with 2 dice and 56 results for throws with 3 dice. There is also an influence on lot book systems. As dice games had been popular, it's a plausible suspicion, that this condition might have influenced the structure of Tarot. But that is naturally not secure, and I guess, there is no way to prove this ... or the contrary.BOUGEAREL Alain wrote:
Moakley considers 21 as a Triangular number
She considers 56 as a Pyramidal number.
She links these numbers to dices games.
Nevertheless I noted that stricto sensu 56 would be a tetraedral pyramidal number that is : 1+3+6+10+15+21
But the 56 are not a serie such as the 22(see NB)
The 56 are to be divided in 4.
That is 14x4
In the Arithmological structure, the 56 correspond to
(40 : 4) + (16 : 4)
So the 14 are 10+4
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Hg6j ... FmdTg/view
The 22 are a serie corresponding to the Pentagonal Number 22 = 1+4+7+10
Well, if Moakley did need Dr Kendall to realize, that there are 21 possibilities of two throws with dice, then she tells us, that she wasn't an expert in matters of games.BOUGEAREL Alain wrote:
[note originally p. 42]
9. It was Professor Maurice G. Kendall who pointed out to me that fifty-six is the number of throws with three dice. See Kendall ("Studies" p 1-14). He mentions the dice game of fifty-six throws which Bishop Wibold recommended to his clergy as a spiritual exercise in the year 970. Burckhardt (Civilization, p 409) mistakenly refers to this as a game of cards. The original source is Mon Germ SS. vii, p 433."
I spoke about 48 and 52 cards, and I had my own reasons, I needn't Moakley. This card deck structures (48, 52) were clearly more popular than the decks with 56 cards. I guess, that it is a reason. The most successful deck form in history is not Tarot, but the normal card deck.Point 1 : she is not speaking about 48 or 52 suits cards but 56 "suit cards of the tarocchi"
Consequence : your last argument misses it's objectf -"But there are other decks with 4x13 and 4x12, which also were very popular (more than 4x14) and these don't work with a hidden tetraktys structure. The system "4 suits" and "somehow a number of cards in each suit" is a standard with enough freedom to create just decks in variants. And also the number of suits wasn't written in stone."
Well, you - urgently - need to study the Mitelli games ...Point 2 . she, not I, gives 21 - "Twenty-one is a triangular number with a base of six that is, 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1= 21."
Point 3 : she, not I, gives 56 - "Fifty-six is a pyramidal number' with a base of twenty-one (a pyramid of fifty-six balls may be raised with the former triangle of twenty-one as its base)"
I, not she, explained that this is a tetrahedral pyramidal number that is : 1+3+6+10+15+21
To make it clearer, 21 at the basis, then, 15, then 10, then 6, then, 3, then 1.
A throw with 7 astragali would have 120 possibilities:There is a fragment of a system of astragalomancy with seven astragali from Termessos,^ but the normal code is constructed for five astragali.