Tarot History Forum

Hello

That phrase by Alciato in Latin is really ambiguous and confusing:

"Cedit amor forti et iusto, regemque"
(Love yields to the strong and just, and to the king)

The verb "cedit" suggests that love is subordinate to strength and justice, and also to the king. The poem lists the trumps in descending order, but I understand that the players and the poet knew that the poem begins with the most powerful cards. That is, the enumeration is reversed compared to the later numbering of trumps (I-XXI), but the hierarchy is the same as always, regardless of the direction of the enumeration. If love is subordinate to strength, justice, and the king, then it seems that love should be ranked between the Pope (priest) and the Emperor (king), where the King is higher than Love. That would be very strange.

The other option is the one proposed by Filesi, who may not be mistaken. The verb "cedit" could be understood simply as: gives way to. In this case, love is not subordinate but follows the natural order of descending enumeration. That option seems logical to me according to the poem. Love above two virtues. You say that this interpretation is not right.

However, I wish what you said a few posts ago were true. That is, I would like Love to be between the King and a virtue. This is similar in other sequences from Lombardy and Piedmont. Pratesi raises the possibility that Love is between the Pope and a virtue. I don't understand Pratesi's logic in defending this order. It seems there are more than two ways to interpret this fragment of the poem. The matter is more complicated than I expected. I only understand Filesi's logic. I don't understand the other options, but I would like Love to be subordinate to the virtues because that would be simpler. Only the Type B order has a virtue subordinate to love. Typically, love is placed directly above the Popes.

Is there a logic in the text that I can't understand? I'm trying to understand Pratesi and Mikeh, but I don't see the details of their reasoning. Perhaps you're interpreting "regemque; sacerdos" as having the hidden meaning of "cedit," and therefore the Pope is more powerful than the Emperor, as we'd like to obtain a conventional sequence?

Mikeh proposes that "regemq" were "regem quam" (as a king). This option is possible? In this case, I understand that the poem say that a king is strong and just. In this case, then Love is between virtues and Emperor (king). But you say that (in the poem) Pope is more powerful than Emperor.

Ups! Now I understand what Nathaniel say. The idea is to conect "regemque" with the next verb: "praeit". Ok. May be correct. Itvseems a litle strange but I hope that it were right. We interpret that this verb (precedes) does not follow the descending description of the poem but rather indicates that the one who precedes is inferior. Then I understand one of the two Pratesi options: fortis, justus, amor, sacerdos, rex, regina, flaminica (popess). This option is similar to other sequences that we know. Nice!

Thank you.

Magic Moon wrote: 11 May 2025, 22:37 Hello

That phrase by Alciato in Latin is really ambiguous and confusing:

"Cedit amor forti et iusto, regemque"
(Love yields to the strong and just, and to the king)

Mikeh proposes that "regemq" were "regem quam" (as a king). This option is possible? In this case, I understand that the poem say that a king is strong and just. In this case, then Love is between virtues and Emperor (king). But you say that (in the poem) Pope is more powerful than Emperor.

Ups! Now I understand what Nathaniel say. The idea is to conect "regemque" with the next verb: "praeit". Ok. May be correct. Itvseems a litle strange but I hope that it were right. We interpret that this verb (precedes) does not follow the descending description of the poem but rather indicates that the one who precedes is inferior. Then I understand one of the two Pratesi options: fortis, justus, amor, sacerdos, rex, regina, flaminica (popess). This option is similar to other sequences that we know. Nice!

Regemq is a contraction of Regemque.

Regem = accusative singular of rex, meaning "king".

que = enclitic conjunction meaning "and".

Thus, Regemq = "Regemque" = "and (the) King".

Maybe I don't need to write this because you seem to have reached the right conclusion anyway, and Steve has already replied now too. But the poem really is perfectly clear:

Cedit amor forti et iusto

"Cedit" does mean "gives way to". "Amor" is the subject of that verb because it is in the nominative case. "Forti et iusto" are in the dative case, so they are the things that Amor is giving way to. There is no other possible meaning.

Because the trumps are listed primarily in order of rank, and especially because the poem seems to be intended as a mnemonic to help people remember the trump order, we must conclude that Fortitude (forti) ranks above Justice (iusto) – not because of the Latin grammar but because of the structure and purpose of the entire poem. So that seems perfectly clear too.

regemq; sacerdos;

The semicolon at the end of "regemq;" does not function as punctuation here. Instead, it is part of the abbreviation of "regemque". The abbreviation "q;" for the suffix "que" is very old: it is found in early medieval manuscripts. It was a very common and very standard abbreviation, so there is no possibility of this word meaning anything other than "regemque" (in fact, I don't think it's even possible for anything else to come after "regemq" in Latin except "ue").
(see: http://hist.msu.ru/departments/8823/pro ... LLI-30.HTM)

As Steve has already pointed out, "regem" is in the accusative case so it cannot be part of the same phrase as "forti et iusto", which are in the dative case. So Love does not also give way to the king. "Regemque" must be the start of a new phrase, linked to the following words.

As for the verb "praeit" being used for both "regem sacerdos" and also "Flaminicam regina", this is another very common thing in Latin poetry, and also appears in poetry in many other European languages too. It is a type of ellipsis.

Magic Moon wrote: 11 May 2025, 22:37
Ups! Now I understand what Nathaniel say. The idea is to conect "regemque" with the next verb: "praeit". Ok. May be correct. Itvseems a litle strange but I hope that it were right. We interpret that this verb (precedes) does not follow the descending description of the poem but rather indicates that the one who precedes is inferior. Then I understand one of the two Pratesi options: fortis, justus, amor, sacerdos, rex, regina, flaminica (popess). This option is similar to other sequences that we know. Nice!

My own latin is very basic, I recall that I too had a problem parsing this section, but resolved it with a little help from Ross. So thank you Nathaniel for reminding me of the solution to my problem with the parsing, as I had forgotten it and was struggling with it again!


Mundus habet primas, croceas dein Angelus alis:
"The World holds first place; then the golden-winged Angel:"

Tum Phoebus, luna, & stellæ, cum fulmine dæmon:
"Then Phoebus, the Moon, and the Stars, with Lightning, (then) the Demon:"

Fama necem, Crux ante senem, fortuna quadrigas:
"Fame (before) death; the Cross before the old man; Fortune (before) the chariot:"

Cedit amor forti & justo: regemq; sacerdos,
Love yields to the strong and the just; the priest precedes the king,"

Flaminicam regina præit que is caupo propinat
"The Queen precedes the priestess, and that innkeeper serves"

Omnibus, extremo stultus discernitur actu.
"All, at the end, the Fool is revealed by his act."

--------------------------------------------------

Alciato’s Order of the Trumps

1 Mundus
2 Angelus
3 Phoebus
4 Luna
5 Stellæ
6 Fulmine
7 Dæmon
8 Fama
9 Necem
10 Crux
11 Senem
12 Fortuna
13 quadrigas
14 Forti
15 Justo
16 Amor
17 Sacerdos
18 Regem
19 Regina
20 Flaminica
21 Caupo
22 Stultus

Reading 1:
(Note / Warning : This his how many machine translations will translate it)

Main verb: cedit governs both clauses.

Cedit amor forti & justo: regemq; sacerdos,

cedit = 3rd person singular present active of cedere – “yields”

amor = nominative singular – “love” (subject)

forti & justo = dative singulars of fortis (“the strong”) and justus (“the just”) – “to the strong and just”

regemque = accusative singular of rex with enclitic -que = “and the king”

sacerdos = nominative singular – “the priest”

[amor] cedit [forti & justo]; [sacerdos] cedit [regemq;]


“Love yields to the strong and the just; the priest yields to the king.”

Up until this point in the poem, the sequence of the trumps have appeared in their order, but in these two lines things get inverted with Love before Strength and Justice, , with King before Priest (regemq; sacerdos,) & Priestess before Queen (Flaminicam regina), adding to the potential for confusion, as with also Alciati's mixed usage of the dative and accusative forms.



Reading 2:

Main verb: praeit

... regemque sacerdos,
Flaminicam regina præit...

1. "Regemq(ue) sacerdos (præit)"

sacerdos = nominative singular = subject ("the priest")

regemque = accusative singular = object ("the king")

praeit = 3rd person singular present of praeire = "goes before," "precedes"

"The priest precedes the king."
.

2. "Flaminicam regina præit"

regina = nominative singular = subject ("the queen")

flaminicam = accusative singular = object ("the priestess")


"The queen precedes the priestess."

The literal, word for word sense , as I think Ross once explained it, is:

"and the King the Priest, the Priestess the Queen he/she precedes... "
object / subject object / subject ( subject) / verb

Another possible source of error & confusion may be to parse Regemq(ue) sacerdos flaminicam as all accusative, governed by praeit regina: i.e., the queen precedes all three of them (priestess, priest, and king)! That is what one machine translation did, confusing me mightily! lol

Magic Moon wrote

Mikeh proposes that "regemq" were "regem quam" (as a king). This option is possible?

I was not seriously suggesting "regemquam" as an alternative: it's just that I don't know medieval Latin abbreviations, and I didn't want to rule out an alternative without better grounds than my own ignorance. I didn't understand how "regemque", which is accusative, would work in the implied sentence. But Nathaniel has explained it well: yes, the implied verb is "praeit", and in this case, the grammatical direct object precedes the subject, the opposite of what would be said in modern languages without such declensions. Thanks to you for posing the query, and to Nathaniel for answering. I had not understood this point before; or perhaps I once did, and have since forgotten it. I also had not understood the semicolon, so thanks for that. And thanks to Steve for the whole jingle.

Nathaniel: About the "equal papi" in Piedmont coming from Bologna via traders. Well, that is one hypothesis. Perhaps it comes down to what the situation was when the Piedmontese first learned the game. Most likely, it was from their neighbors in Lombardy, far more numerous and lasting than any itinerant trader. If so, why would they have changed a complete hierarchy to one that excepted four cards, just on the basis of some traders from Bologna who likely would have had little interest in how people used their unnumbered cards? For me, it is easier to imagine players holding onto an idiosyncratic rule that they learned as part of the original game than that they changed an existing practice of hierarchy into one of equality for four cards. It is that very idiosyncrasy that makes it unlikely to be a change adopted after the game was established, and also something unlikely to survive except in a few places.

SteveM wrote: 12 May 2025, 10:24 Fama necem, Crux ante senem, fortuna quadrigas:
"Fame (before) death; the Cross before the old man; Fortune (before) the chariot:"

Omnibus, extremo stultus discernitur actu.
"All, at the end, the Fool is revealed by his act."

Quite a good translation Steve, but there are a couple of places where it can be improved:

"Crux" is best translated here as "gallows". The Romans used the word to refer to a whole variety of wooden constructions on which criminals were punished, not just crosses. In fact, this seems to have been the basic meaning ("wooden frame or instrument for punishing criminals") and the meaning "cross" was later derived from that.
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/crux

"extremo ... actu" means literally "in the final act" (of a play). This phrase was used metaphorically by many Latin authors, notably Cicero, to mean "in the end", "finally". So the verse about the Fool means "the Fool is revealed/discerned/set apart at the end of it all".

This could have been intended not only to mean "at the end we see who the fool is" but also as a reference to the rule in the game that after you play the Fool card to a trick, that player who won that trick must take the card out of the cards won and give it back to you so that it counts towards your points at the end.

Nathaniel wrote: 12 May 2025, 14:39
"Crux" is best translated here as "gallows". The Romans used the word to refer to a whole variety of wooden constructions on which criminals were punished, not just crosses. In fact, this seems to have been the basic meaning ("wooden frame or instrument for punishing criminals") and the meaning "cross" was later derived from that.
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/crux

"extremo ... actu" means literally "in the final act" (of a play). This phrase was used metaphorically by many Latin authors, notably Cicero, to mean "in the end", "finally". So the verse about the Fool means "the Fool is revealed/discerned/set apart at the end of it all".

This could have been intended not only to mean "at the end we see who the fool is" but also as a reference to the rule in the game that after you play the Fool card to a trick, that player who won that trick must take the card out of the cards won and give it back to you so that it counts towards your points at the end.

Thanks for the suggestions Nathaniel - is this any better (or worse!)

Mundus habet primas, croceas dein Angelus alis:
The World stands first, then the Angel with golden wings;

Tum Phoebus, luna, & stellæ, cum fulmine dæmon:
Next come Phoebus the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars —
Then Lightning strikes, and the Demon follows.

Fama necem, Crux ante senem, fortuna quadrigas:
After Fame comes Death; the Gallows before the Old Man,
Then Fortune before the Chariot.

Cedit amor forti & justo: regemq; sacerdos,
Love yields to the Strong, and to the Just;
The King is outranked* by the Priest; *or, surpassed

Flaminicam regina præit que is caupo propinat omnibus,
extremo stultus discernitur actu.

the Priestess by the Queen & the Innkeeper pours a toast for all,
In the final act, the Fool is revealed. or, distinguished?

I've tried to keep the sequence of Trumps as in the Latin, while their maintaining hierarchy.
Alternative could maintain my previous version :

Cedit amor forti & justo: regemq; sacerdos,
Love yields to the strong and the just; the priest precedes the king,"

Flaminicam regina præit que is caupo propinat
"The Queen precedes the priestess, and that innkeeper serves"

Looks fine to me. That's a pretty good way of keeping all the names in the same order of appearance.

Outranked is probably better than surpassed.

Revealed is better than distinguished (and it's probably impossible to find a way of rendering discernitur in English that retains the range of possible meanings of the Latin).

Hello.

You have analyzed the text wonderfully. Last night I was thinking all night and realized that "regem" is an accusative, that is, a direct object (I'm using the Spanish term, but I don't know if you understand the automatic translation in English... I'm referring to the object of the transitive verb). Discovering this accusative was enlightening, but it seemed strange to me that there is a comma (,) before "regemq" and a semicolon (;) after it. The explanation about the ; sign as an abbreviation allows "sacerdos" to actually be linked to "regemq." That reassures me a lot. I thought the sign above the letter "q" was sufficient for abbreviation, and I wasn't familiar with the use of ";," but I accept that it was a resource, and it seems especially logical to me that it existed in print.

I thought of a similar variant. I thought that perhaps the verb that imaginarily linked "regemq" and "sacerdos" wasn't "praeit" but "cedit." In that case, I think the order of the cards is the same. I think perhaps this interpretation of the text is valid, considering that the reader would understand it more easily, since it's a verb that has already been read, in the same verse or line! I hope I'm not mistaken in some detail. The option you propose with the verb "praeit" makes sense because in Latin (and in German) the verb normally came at the end of the sentence. However, I think perhaps the writer was thinking of the verb "cedit." In any case, the important thing is that we now have the order of the cards!

Thank you very much!

Nathaniel wrote: 12 May 2025, 16:47 Revealed is better than distinguished (and it's probably impossible to find a way of rendering discernitur in English that retains the range of possible meanings of the Latin).

I can't think of anything with the semantic range of ' discernitur' but on reflection 'appears' is far to weak, 'revealed' is better.

Alternatively, "unmasked" has the feel of the theatrical about it, in keeping with 'the final act". Or "exposed", playing on the visual pun of the fool being 'exposed' due to his ragged and ripped clothing ?

Andrea Alciato’s Parergon juris libri tres (1543), page 90, in Book 3, Chapter 16:

On the games of our time, and whether winnings from games may be lawfully retained, in light of Jason’s decision in the Consilia futura, and what is meant by Magis in the writings of Paulus.

Chapter 16

I have been asked very often whether the ancients had a card game of the sort by which idle people nowadays commonly pass the time.

I replied that I have never read of such a thing: though they certainly had other games, which Julius Pollux lists in Book IX.

But as for this one — so far as I know — no one ever reported it. Even though the game commonly called Tarochi seems to have a Greek etymology, for the word ταρώχοι (tarōchoi) could mean “companions” who gather for food and play, and they tend to play with cards typically in this order*:

The World stands first, then the Angel with golden wings;
Next come Phoebus the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars—
Then Lightning strikes, and the Demon follows.
Fame comes before Death; the Gallows before the Old Man;
And then Fortune before the Chariot.
Love yields to the Strong, and to the Just;
The King is outranked by the Priest; the Priestess by the Queen.
The Innkeeper serves a drink to everyone:
And in the final act, the Fool is revealed.*



* "hoc ferè ordine" "in this typical order", or "commonly in this order" -
** exposed, unmasked? Or possibly set apart, reflecting the fool's differing role to the trumps as excuse

Magic Moon wrote: 12 May 2025, 20:19 The option you propose with the verb "praeit" makes sense because in Latin (and in German) the verb normally came at the end of the sentence.

In Turkish too, the verb usually comes at the end of a sentence. Subject-Object-Verb is usual, but any order can be used, it won't change the meaning (as that is determined by suffix), but does alter the emphasis. Nonetheless, when it comes to understanding, SOV (subject-object-verb) is standard enough to be dependable: when I learnt the 'trick' of understanding a sentence in Turkish was to read it backwards helped a lot! My Turkish is still piss poor, my reading is better than my conversation, my inability to pronounce vowels properly leads to the constant response of "Ne?" (What?) followed by "speak in english".

I find myself saying most often "yavaş yavaş" (slowly slowly), which usually results in them speaking even quicker but louder*, and "aynısından", which does I'm pleased to say get me the same again, but probably more due to the barman's familiarity than my pronunciation.

* I am very sensitive to noise and wear ear-plugs most of the time when I am out, as me going suddenly crazy and yelling at everyone to "shut the fuck up" doesn't go down very well. Unfortunately, people occasionally mistake my ear-plugs for hearing-aids, with the counter-productive result of them speaking louder