Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:

SteveM wrote: The association I think is with the traitor at 12 (associated with betrayal through Judas, the 12th disciple), with which death is always paired?

Also, is he always the "12th" disciple, in every list?

St. Ireanius Against Heresies II.20:
For that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the Gospel.

Matthew x.2-4

Matthew 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these. The first Simon which is called(MT: also) Peter: and Andrew his brother. James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother.
Matthew 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew. Thomas and Matthew the publican. James the son of Alphe and Lebbeus, otherwise called Thaddeus.
Matthew 10:4 Simon of Chane, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him.

Mark iii. 13-19
Mark 3:13 And he went up into a mountain, and called unto him whom he would, and they came unto him.
Mark 3:14 And he ordained the twelve that they should be with him, and that he might send them to preach.
Mark 3:15 And that they might have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils.
Mark 3:16 And he gave Simon, to name, Peter.
Mark 3:17 And he called James the son of Zebedee, and John James brother, and gave them Bonargs to name, which is to say the sons of thunder.
Mark 3:18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartelemew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphey, and Taddeus, and Simon of Cane,
Mark 3:19 and Judas Iscarioth, which same also betrayed him.

Luke vi.12-17
Luke 6:12 (MT: And) It fortuned in those days,(MT: that) he went out into a mountain for to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
Luke 6:13 And as soon as it was day, he called his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, which also he called his apostles.
Luke 6:14 Simon, whom also he named Peter: and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartlemew;
Luke 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus and Simon called Zelotes,
Luke 6:16 and Judas James' son, and Judas Iscariot, which same was the traitor.

In connection with early representation of the traitor with purse bags, Judas was keeper of the purse bag:

John 13:29
Some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, buy those things that we have need of against the feast: or that he should give something to the poor.

It is also possible his name is derived from or plays upon the Syriac for purse sicariot.

"I am the peasant Sforza of Cotignola, traitor, who have committed XII treasons against my honour; promises, agreements, pacts I have broken."

Assum, Clemente Francesco Sforza, quoted by Gertrude Moakley in Tarot Cards Painted by Bembo p.95

Did the Pope specify the 12 treasons, or is the number symbolic, referencing Judas Iscariot the 12th apostle and traitor ~ as he is listed in all the gospel listings of the apostles? The connection with Judas the traitor seems the most simple and probable explanation for the Pope's use of the number 12 ~ unless there were in actual fact 12 counts of treason? Even if there were 12 counts, would it have been made intentional to relate through this count the traitor Sforza with the traitor Judas.

How ev’ry one? Said he. But twelve are chosen;
And yet there is a devil in the dozen.
Judas Iscariot was meant by Christ;
Him avarice to treachery entic’d.

Christologia by Elisha Coles 1671.

There is also the bloodline of Adam to Adam over 77 generations, traditionally split 21/56; that could be related to the 'original' being seen as (or developing into) a 'triumph' of Christ, and associated with the later given name of Tarocch (tree of life, bloodline).

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Please elaborate. What traditions make this kind of split?

The line from God / first Adam to second Adam / Christ emphasises the universality of Christ; that from Abraham and David his Jewishness, Royal Descent and the promises made by God, his covenant. Another manner of exegesis reads it:

“Both our human need for and our hope of salvation relate to our origin. As a consequence of sin in our natural state, we are earthy sons and daughters of Adam and offspring of the serpent. By grace we are lifted out of that lowly, sinful position to be joined in Christ to the promised Seed of the woman and declared to be true children of Abraham”. Dictionary of biblical imagery.

Such interpretations arise out of conflicting geneologies between the gospels, and the account in one starting with Abraham and the other with God/Adam (the 77, in which Abraham appears as 22 to Jesus at 77).

OnePotato wrote: Perhaps I should soften the language a little:
12. When the single person who invented the tarot did so, there was but One singularly true defining "meaning" to the trumps, without roots, subtext, allusion, or multiplicity, and having only One singular purpose, (gaming) to the exclusion of all others.

I wrote:12. The inventor of the trump series intended the images to be clearly understood in a hierarchical sequence. The cultural context of this order must therefore have been one in which a specific order of such images made sense.

Not in the "building blocks" -

Nobody can claim it is a single person who invented tarot, but all of the attested invented games in Tarot's time are by single individuals who dedicate their creations to other specific individuals. They usually don't cite sources or "roots", but nobody again would ever claim there are not any.

If the "meaning" of the trump series is explained by its order (this is (?) a tautology), then yes, presumably, the inventor had one idea in mind, and the images, whatever their origins (near or distant) and usage in other contexts, had one meaning in their place in the trump sequence (or more accurately, one, clearly definable, meaning).

"Without roots" is nonsense, and obviously sarcastic. The images are not invented, only their use in this particular sequence.

"Without subtext" - this is arguable, and every interpretation involves some degree of assumed "subtext" or subtle interpretation - the best are based on placement in the hierarchy, which hierarchy to choose is itself an arguable point. The best argument would derive a series from a pre-Tarot text with an identical list of subjects to the trumps. Since this doesn't exist, arguments become complex and all of them involve implicit or subtextual readings.

"Allusion" makes no sense as a negation of meaning. Every conventional image "alludes" to other contexts - the point is whether the author using "Justice" intended to allude to every possible connotation of Justice, from the fall of Adam to the Last Judgment. What is important is the context of the virtue Justice in this hierarchy, not its abstracted meanings.

"Multiplicity" - I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I will guess it means that author might have intended for the image to be read in multiple ways, and not in a single, contextual and hierarchical way in relation to the cards before and after it, or within its group, if groups are admited (which we haven't gotten to yet). This doesn't seem necessary or particularly attractive for an image in a hierarchy (although it should be recognized that images were read differently, i.e. with multiplicity, which is the only thing that can explain the various meaningful orders).

"One single purpose (gaming)". Sure - if you can agree that "gaming" meant an atmosphere where the value of eutrapelia could be developed, along with a passive absorption of moral lessons through the eyes, in a game that did not encourage base passions but rather excited the spirit and the mind to the highest philosophical and moral ideas - then yes, I would agree that was its only purpose.

Ross

SteveM wrote: Judas Iscariot the 12th apostle and traitor ~ as he is listed in all the gospel listings of the apostles:

...

Also, to picture someone hanging by their heel could be a simple representation of the classical idiom 'to lift up one's heels' against someone, meaning to betray them. It is found in classical Greek and Roman sources, and in the bible in reference to Judas. So to lift up a traitor by his heel was possibly in allusion to the traitor Judas, who 'lifted up his heel' against Christ:

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Christ here is quoting Psalms 41:9:

Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

So hanging someone by their heel could be seen as fitting punishment for one who 'lifted up his heel' against his master.

So we have image (to lift up one's heel as image of treachery), concept (betrayal), and number (12th disciple).

OnePotato wrote: Perhaps I should soften the language a little:
12. When the single person who invented the tarot did so, there was but One singularly true defining "meaning" to the trumps, without roots, subtext, allusion, or multiplicity, and having only One singular purpose, (gaming) to the exclusion of all others.

Hullo Ross.
So can you re-word this, in order to include it in the list?

Ross wrote: "Without roots" is nonsense, and obviously sarcastic. The images are not invented, only their use in this particular sequence.

I did not particularly intend this as sarcasm.
By "without roots" I meant that the root meanings of the images outside of the context of the hierarchical sequence are rendered null by their inclusion within the sequence. In other words, the fact that a Justice figure appears solo in other places, whether they be contemporaneous or in antiquity, is disregarded. In other other words, if the hierarchical sequence is disrupted, the elements no longer have meaning or purpose.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Steve, you seem to be proposing the following:

Late in the 15th century or early 16th century, somebody came along and divined that the game represented the 56+21 generations from Adam to Christ (the New Adam). He decided to rename the game to make that connection clear, calling it "tarocch", which meant "bloodline" (the generations) and "tree of life" (the New Adam, Christ).

I don't find it unfeasable that someone was able to see in the series an allegory of Christian salvation, and recognising the significance of the numeration in that (77/56+21) renamed it tarocch - in a similar way that someone may see in it an allegory of Egyptian mysteries and renames it say 'the book of Thoth'.

Or that someone could simply arrange the 21 trumps in a triangle and put the fool at the bottom in the centre in a Christmas tree like pattern and observed 'Aha! The tarocch (fool) is the tarocch (trunk).'

This name was adopted by all happily, without ever mentioning the meaning.

Well that is what appears to have happened doesn't it? The name of the game spread with very few if any beyond the circle of the original namer knowing the meaning of the name; with a few exceptions perhaps of some making a possible link with folly, the fool.

Why don't any tarot cards show some or any of the figures of this genealogy ...

There are 22 books of the Alexandrian canon, 22 chapters of revelations, 22 books in Augustine's 'City of God' and these are related to the symbolism of there being 22 letters of the hebrew alphabet, this does not necessitate however that there be a one to one correlation between each letter, book or chapter; neither does a symbolic relationship with the 77 generations to second Adam necessitate a one to one correlation between each card and each figure of the geneology.

and which card is the first Adam?

See previous post as to how juggler may be read as old Adam in connection with Paul's letter to the Ephesians.

Okay, so you would agree with "It was designed by a genius with the most obscure and recondite knowledge..."

I think it perfectly reasonable to take those we know who did design such games, such as a Torre or a Boairdo, as exemplars of our designer, with expectations of having no more and no less erudition or capacity for multi-level meaning and wordplay as they. My reading is no more recondite than an orthodox religious theme of the nature of love in the context of Christian salvation, with texts required no more obscure than the gospels, the acts and letters of paul and the revelations, Augustine's 'City of God' which was hugely popular and commentated upon throughout the middle ages and of great influence up until at least the 17th century; and possibly an awareness of the two venus motif as emblems of earthly and abstract love which was a continually developing and popular motif from the 12th century on. So no, I would not agree with the above statement.

* Tarot trump sequence is not hypothetical in its order ?
Are not many orders suggested ?

- Early tarots are neither numbered nor named.
So when tarot cards were numbered and named ?

- I think this is not a minor point,because the whole trump cycle meaning if it exists one as Mr. Dummett said,fall in a nonsense.

I'm OK with #1. Tarot was played as a game in the 15th century.
Unless it's meant to be all-exclusive?

Anyway, at #2 I diverge from the group.

I disagree with #2 Tarot was invented to play a game.
Of course there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support this, but there is still plenty of room for me to doubt the absoluteness of this statement.
Moakley states in footnote 9, chapter 4, "No one seems to have noticed that playing cards originated at a time when pictures in general were becoming portable...... ....As soon as you have a set of little pictures you can hold in your hand, especially if they belong to a series, a game is almost inevitable....." (While she could just as easily have said that the possibility of little pictures will inevitably lead to the creation of a set INTENDED as a game, I believe she meant that a set of little images that has been made for one "purpose" can have a set of rules added in order to play with them as a game. She goes on to mention children playing games with bubblegum cards.)
It is entirely possible that the cards were produced as a set of images, (among many sets of images at the time,) and put to use for several different purposes, gaming being among them. If gaming was the most popular use, it is not unreasonable to presume that other uses would fall away, and become quickly forgotten.

I point to the Mantegna series.
The fact that it is not a tarot is more interesting than if it WAS one.
The fact that we do not absolutely know it's original intention is also interesting.
We seem to be ok presuming that IT was not "invented as a game".

The lack of numbers on early cards is contrary to ascribing any ABSOLUTE basis in game play HIERARCHY. What designer would leave off a numbering system, if that was the root purpose of the individual cards? Why allow for both the variation in the ordering of decks, AND the total reliance on the image content as a means to play the game? It supposes that the people using the cards were so completely familiar with the meanings, that they could instantly recognize which image was "higher" in value, without disagreement, and without the need for a simple number to confirm it. Why rely on that if you don't have to? Numbering would have eliminated that issue from the start, and if nothing else, added convenience to play. The fact that several variations in order DID occur begs the question of whether the hierarchy of the images was the ONLY original concept/intention, and suggests to me that it was not.

In other words, perhaps the ambiguity (of not numbering) the set of elements was intentional, and necessary in order to allow variable functions. To allow one to employ those elements in varying orders, combinations, or disorders.
Suppose the variable ordering of the images could serve some other function(s)?
Suppose different ways of organizing your cards could serve a purpose?

The tack holes on the Visconte Sforza cards suggest an obvious decorative use, presumably after one no longer used them for play.
What if there is another functional explanation that complies with some variable aspect of the original intent?
What if it is apart from game play?

As to #3 The trump series originally had a coherent meaning...
I think this is misleading.
I see no evidence to exclude the possibility of its having a number of coherent meanings, as did so many works of art of the time. Even within the context of an overall work. (THIS IS NOT LICENSE TO ASCRIBE "RANDOM" MEANINGS TO IMAGES.)
I think it is no accident that tarot is presented as a series of pictures, rather than as words.
I think that "meaning" does NOT have to be a linear hierarchy.
I think this may be a modern bias that obscures other possibilities.

4. There are three families of orders for the trump series.
Sure, but I'd suggest wording it as "Under the theory of hierarchical sequence, there are three known families of orders for the trump series."

5. Every one of the original orders has a coherent symbolic meaning.
Which orders are "original"?
How do we determine what the order WAS at the time, if the cards are not numbered?
Is Moakley's ordering, based upon her reading of the historical evidence, one of these "originals"?

9. There is no esoteric, alchemical, kabbalistic, numerological, geomantic, astrological, heretical, magical, or any other message than what an averagely educated 15th century Italian would recognize, in the narrative of the trumps.
This presumes a lot. Is this considered sound historical study?


So?
I live outside the wall.

One Potato said and I am agree with him : " How do we determine what the order WAS at the time, if the cards are not numbered? "

- If there was an order known as a fact by the players,so was unnecessary to number the cards.
Who first decided it ?

Ok. Good.

Back to #2.

I can see that the trumps may have developed for non-gaming purposes, especially since they lack numbers whereas the pips depend on numbering. (For example, if I were developing a hierarchical game in a highly stratified society, I'd have more social classes represented, from lowliest peasant to lordiest lord and bunches in between. Or why not go from youngest to oldest, babe to corpse? Etc.).

And where do the Mamluk cards fit in?

As for #5, "coherent symbolic meaning" in the various orderings. I don't see the point of this item, actually. I am on the verge of concluding that imaginative people can construct a "coherent symbolic meaning" for any ordering of elements. That's generally what tarot card reading for divination or insight requires.

Hi Debbie ...

-I ask : Could be at least the possibility that those 22 images pack of Artwork was used " then " for game purpose ?
I mean after the pack was created ?.