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

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

#631
Just to make sure I understand.

"jeu" should be "game" everywhere it appears in the part of your essay I translated.

opuscule -= little book ("Pamphlet" is not so polemical in English, but does have a slight connotation to that effect; also, it, and perhaps also "booklet", suggests lack of a binding, which should not be assumed here). Another possibility would be "little work". "Opuscule" is in fact a word in English, too, meaning just what the French means, but rarely used, so I didn't.

"converted to the Christian religion" should be "converted to Chrisian hermetism"

I have edited the post with my translation in it to ireflect the above.

"

### The Arithmological Tarot : for English readers

#632
The articles and essays available in English translated by Michael Howard

Introduction:
Tarot and Neo-Pythagoreanism
The numerogical structure of the Tarots

http://letarot.it/page.aspx?id=83&lng=ENG

Part I

1.The 22 allegorical subjects
http://letarot.it/page.aspx?id=603
2. In Appreciation of Alain Bougearel's "1+4+7+10=22"
An essay by Michael S. Howard : http://letarot.it/page.aspx?id=608

Part II : The 56 card dack
Article still at work not completely translated yet

Mikeh? Thanks for your help and skill. Without you, English readers and seekers could simply not read me.
French readers already are living a storm brain with me, so...in English !
Eventual better reformulation and translation welcomed!

Unnecessary connections ...
BTW : i do not follow for the 22, neither the triangular 1+2+3+4+5+6 = 21 or the simplified 'pythagorean"(?) numerology of 10 + 10 +2
And for the 56, I don't follow any dices throws matrix..
I do not validate any qabbalististic correspondences with the 10 Sephoroth and the 22 paths connecting them. The only concession I make is the implicite that means not explicit relation between the 22 chapters of the Bible and the 22 letters numbers of the mosaic alphabet that could have made a Pic of the Mrandola
Furter inquiry about Lazarelli died 1500 and the mysterious "Mercurio" present with Louis XII and Champier in 1505 may bring some lights...maybe
Anyway, revival of neopythagorism in France via D'Etaples Champier should be interesting for the Tarot de Marseille 's...I believe
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

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

#633
In French
Je crois que les 22 existent préablement à la standartisation finale .
En tous cas, arithmologiquement, on trouve cette structure du nombre pentagonal 22 = 1+4+7+10 chez Boethius et idéologiquement, le nombre 22 est en connection avec les 22 chapitres de la Bible
La thèse de Lothar dite 5x14 explique bien me semble t il les fluctuations avant la standartisation à 22+56 : http://letarot.it/page.aspx?id=166
Ma théorie, à mon sens, rend corrctement compte du modèle final à 22+56.
A suivre
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

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

#634
"Message in a bottle" to Ross Caldwell
You were right about catharism and Tarots iconography.
O Neill finally made the demonstration.
Nevertheless, though you seem to give faith to a 3x7 model for the 22, you and I believe, without being able to proove it, of a prexisting matrix of the 22.
Time has come to share our ignorances and knowlegdes
I would appreciate your opinion...
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

### Guillaume D’Oncieu in 1584 Savoy,

#636
Mikeh
At work, French presentation of Vitali and your transcriptions and translations
http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page. ... 93&lng=ENG

Before going on, I would prefer to have your POINT OF VIEW in English
This way, I ll eventually insert into bracelets or in a Preface or Postface my comments

Tarotica - 1584
La Quaterna dei Tarocchi fra Mistica e Gioco
http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=293

Mikeh wrote :
In relation to the tarot, a Pythagorean analysis of the deck was given by Guillaume D’Oncieu in 1584 Savoy, part of a lengthy presentation on each of the ten primary numbers and the groups of things falling under them (see Andrea Vitali at http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=293). When D’Oncieu speaks of a “quaternary” of 56 cards being made “ternary’ by the addition of the 21 trick-taking cards and the Fool, he has in mind the Pythagorean meanings of these terms, the mundane world including the divine. Also, his reference to the number 27 as a quaternary number is a Pythagorean notion; it is the fourth in the series 1, 3, 9, 27, as enumerated by the Pythagorean teacher Timaeus in Plato’s dialogue of that name (I thank Steve Mangan for this last, at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17204&hilit=Lambda#p17204).

On THF, I found :

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&hilit=Lambda&start=120#p17183
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17204&hilit=Lambda#p17189
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17204&hilit=Lambda#p17199
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17204&hilit=Lambda#p17200
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17204&hilit=Lambda#p17201
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

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

#637
3 different translations : Girolomo Zorli, Marco Ponzi, and Andrea Vitali. Thanks to Andrea for showing it's philosophical and also numerologocal aspects ; thanks to Zorli for unearthing in a clear manner the way the game could have been played. This said, it appears to me that we are in front of a specifically Pythagorean analysis of the game of tarot as Michael Howard noted " In relation to the tarot, a Pythagorean analysis of the deck was given by Guillaume D’Oncieu in 1584 Savoy, part of a lengthy presentation on each of the ten primary numbers and the groups of things falling under them (see Andrea Vitali at http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=293). When D’Oncieu speaks of a “quaternary” of 56 cards being made “ternary’ by the addition of the 21 trick-taking cards and the Fool, he has in mind the Pythagorean meanings of these terms, the mundane world including the divine. Also, his reference to the number 27 as a quaternary number is a Pythagorean notion; it is the fourth in the series 1, 3, 9, 27, as enumerated by the Pythagorean teacher Timaeus in Plato’s dialogue of that name (I thank Steve Mangan for this last, at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=17204&hilit=Lambda#p17204).". To be continued
http://www.sgdl-auteurs.org/alain-bouge ... Biographie

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

#638
BOUGEAREL Alain wrote:
21 Aug 2018, 15:02
"Message in a bottle" to Ross Caldwell
You were right about catharism and Tarots iconography.
O Neill finally made the demonstration.
Nevertheless, though you seem to give faith to a 3x7 model for the 22, you and I believe, without being able to proove it, of a prexisting matrix of the 22.
Time has come to share our ignorances and knowlegdes
I would appreciate your opinion...
It's been a long time since I've thought about Catharism and O'Neill's essay on the subject, probably more than 15 years. I may have written a critique of it, since my memory suggests that I found his understanding of Catharism superficial at best, with many errors. Nevertheless, Catharism has nothing to do with Tarot.

I thought O'Neill's discussion of the PMB Popess' habit was more enlightening. He showed that it was not an Umilati habit, if I remember correctly.

I haven't thought of the trumps as a 3x7 structure for some time as well, probably a decade or more.

As for an original 22 trumps in the game called Trionfi, I do hold that opinion. I think it is proven suffuciently by the preponderance of evidence, even beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, the same set of standard subjects, appearing together with the Latin suits, Italian style, from the 1440s to the early 16th century, in diverse areas of Italy. The Cary Yale or Visconti di Modrone is clearly an isolated experiment, with gender balance in the court cards and a set of Theological Virtues added to the standard subjects. It is neither earlier than 1440 nor from Florence, so it has no claim to priority in any case.

As for my general theory about the meaning of the sequence, my position, argued here over about two weeks from 24 December 2013 to 5 January 2014, remains unchanged. I’ve read through a couple of times this year, including today, and the thread I began posting below says just about everything I could say.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=975&p=14766&hilit=arch#p14766
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=975&hilit=arch&start=80#p14773
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=975&hilit=arch&start=80#p14781
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=975&hilit=arch&start=80#p14784

Michael Hurst read it the most closely, and responded with a post (and follow ups) worth reading –
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=975&hilit=arch&start=80#p14793

And me again –
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=975&hilit=arch&start=80#p14795
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=975&hilit=arch&start=100#p14815
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=975&hilit=arch&start=110#p14837

In oversimplified terms, I hold that the number of trumps was determined by the purpose in the game, and the number of players in the hypothetical designer's original conception. This part is probably not fully provable to any legal standard. It remains speculative, but not implausible.

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

#640
Another example of Pythagoreanism being used in relation to the tarot, I think, is in Piscina's Discorso, 1565 Piedmont, although only about the four suits of Swords, Batons, Cups, and Coins. It sounds more Pythagorean in the original than in the published translation. He says:
ora perchè più presto in numero quadernario che in altro potremo dire come in più perfetto anzi perfettissimo de gl'altri si come fra tutti & ispetialmente moderni il dottissimo Ficino ha scritto nel argomento fatto sopra il Timeo di Platone dal XX. Fino al 24. Cap.
And the published translation
Now why in the number of four and not another we can say because it is more perfect than all the others. Among all, and especially modern writers, this has been explained by the very learned Ficino in his discussion on Plato's Timaeus from chapters XX to 24.
A literal reading of "numero quadernario" would be "quaternary number", a Pythagorean way of talking although not exclusively so, since it is seen in Euclid, etc. But in the number theory handed down from Euclid four is decidedly not a perfect number. A perfect number is one that is the sum of its divisors, including 1or half the sum of its divisors if the number itself is included. So the first perfect number is 6, which is 1 + 2 + 3, or half of 1+2 +3+6. The next one is 28, which is 1+2+4+7+14. The divisors of 10 are 1+2+5 = 8, which falls short.

Why would Piscina call 4 a perfect number? To my knowledge Plato does not say anything of the sort in the Timaeus, however much otherwise that work shows much Pythagorean influence. But Ficino in his commentaries brings to bear all of his learning to the text in question. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in Ficino's book. There is an English translation of Ficino's Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, but it is not available in any library near me. I am hoping to get it from Interlibrary Loan. Until then, I offer the following speculation.

Aristotle in his Metaphysics Book 1 Section 5 discusses the Pythagoreans. Among other things he makes fun of them, saying they invent things when their theory requires it. So we have, in the medieval Latin translation available online (http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors ... #Chapter_5:
Dico autem puta quoniam perfectus denarius esse videtur et omnem comprehendere numerorum naturam, et quae secundum celum feruntur decem quidem esse dicunt. Solum autem novem existentibus manifestis, ideo antixthonam decimam faciunt.
In W. D. Ross's translation:
E.g. as the number 10 is thought to be perfect and to comprise the whole nature of numbers, they say that the bodies which move through the heavens are ten, but as the visible bodies are only nine, to meet this they invent a tenth—the ‘counter-earth’.
Aristotle is no mathematician, and the Greek word translated as "perfect", τέλειον, teleios, also means "brought to its end, finished", which is surely the sense here (https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... leios.html). After ten (deka), the next number is "10+1", in Greek deka + en, or 'hendeka", and so on (http://phrontistery.info/numbers.html). Actually, twenty was not a compound of "two" and something meaning "tens", but something new, "eikosi". But that is a small point. The numbers in Greek did repeat one through nine every ten of them.

Piscina does not say that ten is a perfect number; he says "four". My hypothesis is that he is thinking of the "tetraktys", a uniquely Pythagorean notion, a triangle made of dots that shows ten as the sum of the first four numbers. While the tetraktys is 10, it also contains within it "tetra", meaning 4 (what -ktys meant, I have no idea). According to Wikipedia the Pythagoreans also called the tetraktys "the Mystical Tetrad".

That is my hypothesis for how 4 becomes a perfect number, an eminently Pythagorean notion somewhat lost in translation. If I am able to get the Ficino, I will say more.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests