Huck wrote,

When I went through various versions of Pulci's life (some years ago meanwhile), there were many contradictions, I remember. It took long, till I realized the crisis between Pulci and Ficino and its importance, not every researcher had realized it. Pulci's function for the Medici since 1460 seems to have had gained its force by the condition, that Pulci's mill was close to the Medici villa-castle in Caffaggiolo. Michelozzo started in Medici commission to work on Caffagiolo about 1452/53 and 1458 it seems to have been the time, when the villa became of some use, but more for Lucretia Tornuabuoni and the children than for the older male Medici ... Caffaggiolo is about 40 km from Florence, and the Medici were often sick then. 40 km is a lot in mountain regions, especially if you don't have a good health. Careggi is only about 7 km.
That are rather practical conditions, which say, that the Medici-Pulci relations likely depended on the stays in the Mugello. But all the biographies and the Morgante versions didn't tell anything about this detail.

According to the 1989 introduction to the English translation, with extensive citations, in 1459 Luigi "entered into service as a trusted secretary and accountant to Francesco Castellani, a wealthy Florentine gentleman and personal friend of Florence's ruling family." He then met the Medici and was a frequent visitor at the Via Large Palace, Cosimo's Florentine residence.

Huck wrote

Around 1463 something like 15 and a half canto (or something like this) were ready, and then the production was stopped and proceeded in very low steps only. Somehow this must refer to the condition, that Lorenzo had reached an appropriate age, in which he got more responsibilities, and the childish poetical experiment with "Morgante" went to the background. I've for the moment no idea, where the link to this very good research has gone to.

According to many sources, including the poem itself, Luigi started Morgante at the urging of Lorenzo's mother Lucrezia Tornabuoni, who wanted Pulci to "write a poem which, by celebrating the figure of Charlemagne, would extol all the good deeds the emperor had done to defend and promote the faith" (Lebano's introduction, p. xiv). It's like Ariosto's poem, written for Isabella. These things were written for women. He probably stopped writing because of the financial matters that caused his exile in late 1465. His brother Luca had gone bankrupt in Rome and returned to Florence--Lebano doesn't say when. There he contracted even more debts, and the creditors went after Luca's brothers, who had shared in their father's inheritance. The "exile" was only a few months. From a letter of March 12, we learn that Pulci was already back in Florence.

Matteo Franco" and "Pulci" had a fight with sonnets, which was published as a selection in 1759.
"Sonetti di Matteo Franco e di Luigi Pulci assieme con la Confessione ." This was part of the aggression between Ficino and Pulci, Matteo Franco stood on the side of Ficino.

Lebano says

From a letter written in February of 1474 and addressed by Luigi to Lorenzo to complain about the latest degrading sonnet Franco had composed against Pulci, it appears that until Febrary 1474, Ficino had not overtly sided with Franco in the latter's quarrel with the author of the Morgante.

Then Ficino sided with Franco, and the quarrel with Ficino began, lasting far longer than the one with Franco.

Huck wrote,

Pulci stood more for "the man from the country, who had difficulties to get some Latin together". But although Pulci's bad financial conditions and his lower stand in the society by the family debts he gained some influence on the young Lorenzo, and when Lorenzo surprizingly became a man of power, others got envy about Pulci and his close relation to Lorenzo, especially from the side of the noble and intellectual Platonic academy and all their fine words, who wished to gain Lorenzo for the high aims of Renaissance. That's also the story.

Pulci was envious of Lorenzo's growing closeness with Ficino, whom he thought over-intellectual, for sure. In the sonnets, they quarrel about religion. Pulci ridicules the idea of pilgrims going to Rome for the Jubilee. While Ficino is lecturing on the immortality of the soul, Pulci writes that there is no reward for the just,after death, nothing but a "huge, dark abyss". And the soul is just--well, I can't find the exact words, but something the opposite of what Ficino says. In his next sonnet he scorns and denies all the miracles of the Bible. Everyone in Florence is shocked. Then he calls Ficino "God of the cicadas", "Fool's face", and "Venerable Syrian owl". Ficino asks Giuliano and Lorenzo to intervene. They do so at the end of 1476. In 1479 Pulci writes an unconvincing, formulaic religious sonnet. Then comes his Confessione, the sincerity of which "is a matter of speculation" (xxi). After all, even after the "conversion" in Morgante, he still feels a spark of the Sibyl, as I quoted before.

Earlier I cited Walser's book as the most dogged but careful exposer of Pulci's magical and heretical side (including mention of a threat of excommunication). It's in German and I can't get it. It might be worth looking at.

mikeh wrote: According to the 1989 introduction to the English translation, with extensive citations, in 1459 Luigi "entered into service as a trusted secretary and accountant to Francesco Castellani, a wealthy Florentine gentleman and personal friend of Florence's ruling family." He then met the Medici and was a frequent visitor at the Via Large Palace, Cosimo's Florentine residence.

Well, that's right, that this was observed there. As I already noted, I saw no hint in all the Pulci literature, that the Pulci possession in the Mugello had been about 5 km distance to the Medici castle in Caffagioli, which the Medici developed since 1452 to become a major residence for Medici. As the restorations and improvements took their time, one likely can assume, that around 1458 the location got some real function for the family.

It's not really possible, that the Medici totally overlooked the existence of the Pulci family (which once came from France, and likely for this reason was of interest to Francesco Castellano, who had made business in France). It seems plausible, that the Medici didn't show much interest in the Pulci, cause their critical financial conditions didn't look very attractive.
But: Piero di Medici took the cultural function of the Medici in the family concept, which earlier was under the guidance of his uncle Lorenzo (brother of Cosimo), who had so much merits that he caused, that the council came from Ferrara to Florence. Lorenzo died short after at 23 September 1440, 7 days, after the first recorded Trionfi deck is noted, and just a few months before we hear from the letter exchange between Piero di Medici and Matteo de' Pasti in January 1441 about the production of the first known illuminated "Trionfi" poem. Well, that was in the hot time of Trionfi card production.

Lucrezia Tornabuoni was married in 1444, and she seems to have taken some function for the local literature in the family concept of the Medici, so for instance the production of used poetry during the Giovanni festivities ... comparable to the function in other later cases, where the "salons" of rich ladies took a great role in the production of oher early literature. Naturally such ladies knew the local poets, and the local poets know them. The Pulci had not only one poet Luigi, but there was a whole series.

So I think, that the whole branch of Pulci biographers overlooked to care for the location of the Pulci family in the Mugello. So they may state their theories, how Pulci found to the Medici's, but by looking at some natural facts another view of the conditions develops. Surely their theories will be not completely wrong. It may be right, that Luigi Pulci wasn't interesting enough for the Medici before 1459.

According to many sources, including the poem itself, Luigi started Morgante at the urging of Lorenzo's mother Lucrezia Tornabuoni, who wanted Pulci to "write a poem which, by celebrating the figure of Charlemagne, would extol all the good deeds the emperor had done to defend and promote the faith" (Lebano's introduction, p. xiv). It's like Ariosto's poem, written for Isabella. These things were written for women. He probably stopped writing because of the financial matters that caused his exile in late 1465. His brother Luca had gone bankrupt in Rome and returned to Florence--Lebano doesn't say when. There he contracted even more debts, and the creditors went after Luca's brothers, who had shared in their father's inheritance. The "exile" was only a few months. From a letter of March 12, we learn that Pulci was already back in Florence.

The intensive work on the Morgante stopped in 1463, so much I remember. The sudden interest in French literature from the side of the Medici surely had something to do with the business interests of the Medici's in France, which surely had observed, that Louis IX would soon become king of France, and that it might be interesting to secure good relations to him. The number of Italians living in Lyon increased and Lyon became for some time more capital of France instead of Paris in the development.
A part of this development was, that Alfnso V. had died in Naples in 1458. Cosimo thought it first a good idea to take side of Renee and his rights to Naples. But Sforza pointed to the danger of French invasions. A weak Ferrante in Naples with not much help from the Spanish side seemed the better alternative. And Sforza helped Ferrante against the attacks of the Anjou armies. Dauphin Louis in exile in Burgundy looked like a weak future king in France with some trouble in his own country to solve, so better for the state of the Italian affairs.

Pulci as descendent of a French family looked like a suitable producer of a hero poem with French background.

Lebano says
From a letter written in February of 1474 and addressed by Luigi to Lorenzo to complain about the latest degrading sonnet Franco had composed against Pulci, it appears that until Febrary 1474, Ficino had not overtly sided with Franco in the latter's quarrel with the author of the Morgante.
Then Ficino sided with Franco, and the quarrel with Ficino began, lasting far longer than the one with Franco.

I think, that there was already some general pressure before, that Lorenzo should take some influence from members of the Platonic academy instead of Pulci, who just stood for a class of some people in Florence, which hadn't real advantage from the Academy.
The contact to Sanseverino already started in 1473 (wiki stats "1470", but I doubt this), I think, in any case earlier than the 1474 affair. Sanseverino sponsored a mockery collection of 50 Naples stories in 1476 ("Novellino" by Masuccio), organized in a 5x10-scheme, which was arranged posthumus by Sanseverino (... well, possibly with the help of Pulci ?). At least it tells, what sort of spirit Sanseverino had, who was also a member in a French knight order. Sanseverino was capable to take a risk, and he could also endure the danger caused by a Milanese rebellion in April/May 1477 and later the danger caused by the antipathy of Ludovico Sforza.

At some time Pulci was ready with the first full version of Morgante. The d'Este got a version in 1474 and as a long-time result we have that Boiardo made his own different Orlando version, which was proceeded by Ariost. And with that a work of highest level of world literature. Pulci's Morgante wasn't printed first, but must have distributed by the slow ways of handwritten copies. Nonetheless, with that step Pulci naturally had become attackable. Likely not all poets in Florence had loved, that Pulci got the commission to describe the Lorenzo festivities in 1469. Pulci was an underdog, with not enough dangerous background, one could attack him. And he was attacked.

Pulci's return to some merits in 1479 in Florence likely has the background, that the situation in Milan was settled - for that moment in peace with Sanseverino.

Thanks, Huck. Yes, the location of Pulci's property might have played a role in the Medici's interest in him, and that investigators haven't looked for the evidence. Pulci's French ancestry is rather distant, with no connection to France in his time, but it, too, might have played a role. Lebano says (xii):

Called "Gigi" by friend and foe alike, Luigi Pulci was born in Florence in August of 1432 (35). He was one of nine children born to Iacopo Puci and Brigida de' Bardi, both members of ancient and noble Florentine families. At the time of Luigi's birth, however, the traditionally Guelph Pulci family, believed to be of French descent, had lost almost all of its former wealth and political influence.

I would add to my previous post that while the parts of Lebano's introduction to the English translation of Morgante I cited are not included in Google books, some of the related footnotes are, which have some information I didn't quote, at http://books.google.com/books?id=CIICQp ... ve&f=false. Just click on their "page x" for the whole page.

I have another loose end to tie up. I will start with a very dense but brief summary of something I said earlier, at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1019&p=15470&hilit=Maffei#p15470. Against Dummett in Game of Tarot I cited the 1544 edition of Maffai's Commentari as evidence that cartomancy was generally known about at that time (1544), because it corrects Maffai (by removing one of two ampersands) to read that "divinatory card games" were a new invention, instead of what was in the 1506 and 1511 editions, that "games of divination and of cards" were a new invention. And if the 1506 and 1511 editions were merely misprints, failing to put in a second ampersand that Maffai had intended, then it is possible that even when Maffai wrote these words, sometime between 1480 and 1506, he was speaking about divinatory card games as new inventions.

Since then I have been in correspondence with Andrea Vitali, who has written on this subject, about the correct translation of Maffai's Latin, not only the words that Dummett quotes (including his translation of the 1506 and 1511 wording), but also the rest of the sentence, which Dummett does not quote but refers to obliquely as confirming his view. (That sentence is given in Kaplan Vol. 1, and Andrea tells me that he has confirmed it in three sources.)

Also, I have found where in Il Mondo e l'Angelo he discusses the same issue. So I will start with that (p. 183f, footnote 7). The occasion is the question of what by Maffai was Garzoni referring to when he said that tarocchi were a new invention (a question I will consider briefly at the end of this post)

L’espressione «di nuoua inuentione, secondo il Volteranno» di Garzoni non si riferisce, né alla lista, né all’invenzione dei tarocchi, ma a quella delle carte da gioco in generaleÈ un’allusione all’osservazione del Volterrano che «ai giochi antichi sono stati aggiunti quelli delle carte e della predizione della sorte, inventati da uomini avari e dissoluti» («Chartarum vero & sortium divinationis ludi priscis additi sunt ah avaris ac perditis inventi»): Raffaele Maffei Volterrano, Commentario urbana, libro XXIX, sezione ‘De ludo diverso quo summi viri quandoque occupati fuerunt’, Roma, 1506, folio 313 verso, Parigi, 1511, folio 313 verso, Basilea, [end of 183] 1559, p. 694. Il Volterrano vuol dire solo che giochi di carte e altri giochi d’azzardo non erano noti nei tempi classici.

(The words "new invention, according to Volteranno" of Garzoni refers neither to the list, nor the invention, of tarot cards, but to that of playing cards in general. This is an allusion to the observation of Volterra that "to the ancient games were added those of cards and of the prediction of fate, invented by men greedy and profligate" ("Chartarum vero & sortium divinationis ludi priscis additi sunt ah avaris ac perditis inventi"): Raffaele Maffei of Volterra, urban Commentary, Book XXIX, section 'De ludo different quo summi viri quandoque occupati fuerunt', Rome, 1506, folio 313 verso, Paris, 1511, folio 313 verso, Basel, [end of 183] 1559 p. 694. Volterrano just means that card games and other games of chance were not known in classical times.)

Here in 1993 he has adopted the Latin of 1559 (with one ampersand--also in 1544, not mentioned by Dummett) instead of 1506 and 1511 (which had 2 ampersands), treating them all as having the same later wording, And for the translation, instead of "to the ancient games were added those of cards and of divination and of fate" he has "to the ancient games were added those of cards and of the prediction [i.e. divination] of fate", thereby omitting the second "and". The result is the same: no divination with cards. But is that the right translation? I turn to Andrea.

I will start by quote again the two originals, but this time in the context of the sentence as a whole. The original is (with the 1544 correction in brackets):

Chartarum vero et sortium [et]* divinationis ludi priscis additi sunt, ab avaris ac perditis inventi, non solum nostro dogmati, sed publicis veterum moribus una cum alea reiecti, ceteri cessationis gratia viros vel summos quandoque occupatos habuere.

Andrea translates the earlier version (with "Chartarum vero et sortium et divinationis ludi") as:

Furono poi aggiunti a quelli antichi i giochi delle carte, delle sorti e della predizione del futuro, inventati da persone malvagie e avide di denaro, giochi - non solo dai nostri princìpi morali ma anche dalla morale comune degli antichi - condannati al pari del gioco d’azzardo; altri giochi, come momento di riposo dalle fatiche, tennero occupati uomini anche di altissima condizione sociale.

Or in English (here words in brackets are mine for explanatory purposes):

Were then added to those ancient [ones], games of cards, of fate [meaning, tiles picked at random], and of the prediction of the future, invented by evil people greedy for money, games - not only by our moral principles but also by the morality of the ancients - condemned like gambling games [or, games of chance]; other games, as a moment of rest from labors, kept busy even men of the highest social status.

Here he seems to be saying that the new games are those of cards, of fate, and of the prediction of the future, which are to be condemned just as much as gambling games are to be condemned.

So now here is what it means if the second "et" is removed:

Furono poi aggiunti a quelli antichi i giochi di predizione del futuro delle carte e delle sorti (cioè “con” le carte e con le sorti), inventati ecc.

Or in English, my translation:

Were then added to those ancient [ones], games of predicting the future from the cards and from the fates [i.e, "with" the cards and “with” the tiles], invented etc.

Or in full

Were then added to those ancient [ones], games of predicting the future from cards and from fates [i.e, "with" cards and “with” tiles], invented by evil people greedy for money, games - not only by our moral principles but also by the morality of the ancients - condemned like gambling games [or, games of chance]; other games, as a moment of rest from labors, kept busy even men of the highest social status.

This reading of the Latin is consistent with the German translation I gave earlier:

die Wahrsagerspiele mit Karten und Loosen sind der frühern Spielen hinzugefügt worden.

which I translate as:

divination games with cards and lots have been added to the earlier games.

Unlike Dummett's translation, "divinationis"--i.e. "of predicting "-- is now read as qualifying both "cards" and "fates" rather than just "fates". Here is the Latin again:

Chartarum vero et sortium divinationis ludi priscis additi sunt ...

If Dummett is right, Maffai or his editor is saying nothing about cards as a divinatory tool. If Andrea and the German translation are right, then at least by the time of the 1544 edition--with only one ampersand or "et"--divination by means of cards is being assumed to exist. Although it is condemned just like gambling games, it is not itself in that category. As for the 1506 and 1511 editions, I am not sure even what the Latin was, although I think, based on Andrea's comparison of editions, that Dummett was right the first time.

Finally, there is the question of what Garzoni was referring to when he said that Maffei said that tarocchi was a new invention. In my previous post I hypothesized that he was using the 1544 or 1559 edition and misremembered Maffei, identifying Maffei's "games of divination with cards" with "tarocchi", because such games were in Garzoni's times usually done with a tarocchi deck. I still think that is a reasonable hypothesis. Andrea's opinion is that Garzoni probably was not referring to the Commentari at all, but rather some other work now lost. Since Garzoni does not specify what work of Maffei he meant, that is a possibility. Many things are lost, whole operas by Vivaldi, for example, Andrea says.

Another thought on the above: A problem with both the translations--Dummett's as well as Andrea's-- is that they have Maffei asserting that games of fate (or lots) have been added to the ancient ones. But surely Maffei would have known that games of fate or lots were common in ancient times, i.e. the soldiers dividing up Jesus's garments by lot, or, slighty differently, the Greeks at Troy deciding who should go on a dangerous mission by lot, as expressing the will of the gods. (The next sentence added Sept. 2). As for lots to predict the future, an example is Cicero, On Divination, Book 2, section 42 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... ne/2*.html. The translations fly in the face of what was obviously known.

The only way to avoid that would be if the sentence read ("vero" means "indeed" or "truly"):

To the ancient ones, games indeed of cards of divination and of fates are added.

Or, more clearly

To the ancient games, indeed card games of the divination of fates have been added.

The problem is that the "et" is in the wrong place for that translation. Here again is the Latin

Chartarum vero et sortium divinationis ludi priscis additi sunt...

Another possibility: the "and" might be superfluous, as the word "e" (meaning "and") in Italian sometimes is when translating adjectives or adjectival expressions (e.g. possessives) from Italian into English. So we would have:

To the ancient ones, games indeed of cards [and] of the divination of fates have been added.

meaning the same as before. "To the ancient games, card games of the divination of fates have indeed been added".

I wonder if this is a possible translation.

Back to the Sefer Yetzirah, carrying on from Huck's post at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1019&p=15484&hilit=bahir#p15484. I remembered that I have a copy of Kaplan's translation of the "gra" version, so I could check it against the Westcott that Huck posted. It's all pretty much there, just sometimes in a slightly different order, except for the end of V.3.

Westcott has, in chapter V:

3. Three mothers, seven double and twelve simple, these are the twenty-two letters with which I H V H Tetragrammaton, that is our Lord of Hosts, exalted, and existed in the ages, whose name is Holy, created three fathers, fire and spirit and water, progressing beyond them, seven heavens with their armies of angels; and twelve limits of the universe.

In front of "Three mothers, seven double and twelve simple" Kaplan has "Three Mothers, which are three Fathers, from which emanate fire, breath, and water." Then the rest is section 4. That's not a problem. But then after "whose name is Holy" he has none of what follows in Westcott.

As far as content, this next part in Westcott, "created three fathers, fire and spirit and water" and "progressing beyond them" is his version of Kaplan's "from which emanate" (which he omitted earlier), except that Westcott has the seven heavens and twelve limits coming from "fire and spirit and water" rather than from the "three fathers". This doesn't make a lot of difference.

The part in Westcott about "armies of angels" and "limits of the universe" isn't in Kaplan at all. Probably it is in some other historical version of the Sefer Yetzirah. I don't know why you put that last part in red, Huck. The "twelve limits" part seems like just another reference to the twelve signs of the zodiac. If there is something else that you wanted to call attention to, I will continue looking.

Then, about my question of where there were 64 in the Sefer Yetzirah, you said:

Likely you're inspired about the second 32, which watch about the other 32 in the quote of the Bahir. But the Bahir is no the SY. The SY knew, how one could reduce the 64 to 32 (which is obvious by the structure of letters and Sephiroth), but it talks only about the 32 pairs, not about the 64. The Bahir in its quote gives an indication, that there was something with a 64 in context to the 32 ways of wisdom ... that's all. Other texts with some direction to Kabbala forget about a "64" as far I know.

In other words, the Sefer Yetzirah only has 32, unless you count 32 "pairs" as 64. If so, I don't know where you get "pairs"; it speaks of "paths".

Also, I can see where the Bahir has 64, in the quote you gave (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1019&p=15484&hilit=bahir#p15484, after your "coffee break"). But I don't see how the SY 32 derive from the Bahir 64 ("the 64 knew how to reduce the 64 to 32" is what you say, in the quote from your post that I just reproduced). Actually, it would be the other way around, since the SY was earlier. The Bahir 64 is 12 diagonals (explained, sort of, if you postulate that they are the 12 diagonals of the "Tree") plus 12 functionaries on the Tree (not explained) plus 12 functionaries in the Spheres (not explained) minus 4 (not explained, except as "left over") plus 32 (the number of the heart, not otherwise explained). I can see how the 12 diagonals on the "Tree" might correspond to the 12 signs of the zodiac in the SY, which might be the "spheres" of the Bahir and might have "functionaries". But why 4 are then subtracted I don't know. And the 32 of the Bahir isn't the 32 "paths" of the SY; it's merely the 12 zodiac signs seen in three ways, minus 4.

But if you just mean that the Bahir decided to go one level further than the SY, then OK.

mikeh wrote:Back to the Sefer Yetzirah, carrying on from Huck's post at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1019&p=15484&hilit=bahir#p15484. I remembered that I have a copy of Kaplan's translation of the "gra" version, so I could check it against the Westcott that Huck posted. It's all pretty much there, just sometimes in a slightly different order, except for the end of V.3.

Westcott has, in chapter V:

3. Three mothers, seven double and twelve simple, these are the twenty-two letters with which I H V H Tetragrammaton, that is our Lord of Hosts, exalted, and existed in the ages, whose name is Holy, created three fathers, fire and spirit and water, progressing beyond them, seven heavens with their armies of angels; and twelve limits of the universe.

In front of "Three mothers, seven double and twelve simple" Kaplan has "Three Mothers, which are three Fathers, from which emanate fire, breath, and water." Then the rest is section 4. That's not a problem. But then after "whose name is Holy" he has none of what follows in Westcott.

As far as content, this next part in Westcott, "created three fathers, fire and spirit and water" and "progressing beyond them" is his version of Kaplan's "from which emanate" (which he omitted earlier), except that Westcott has the seven heavens and twelve limits coming from "fire and spirit and water" rather than from the "three fathers". This doesn't make a lot of difference.

The part in Westcott about "armies of angels" and "limits of the universe" isn't in Kaplan at all. Probably it is in some other historical version of the Sefer Yetzirah. I don't know why you put that last part in red, Huck. The "twelve limits" part seems like just another reference to the twelve signs of the zodiac. If there is something else that you wanted to call attention to, I will continue looking.

Then, about my question of where there were 64 in the Sefer Yetzirah, you said:

Likely you're inspired about the second 32, which watch about the other 32 in the quote of the Bahir. But the Bahir is no the SY. The SY knew, how one could reduce the 64 to 32 (which is obvious by the structure of letters and Sephiroth), but it talks only about the 32 pairs, not about the 64. The Bahir in its quote gives an indication, that there was something with a 64 in context to the 32 ways of wisdom ... that's all. Other texts with some direction to Kabbala forget about a "64" as far I know.

In other words, the Sefer Yetzirah only has 32, unless you count 32 "pairs" as 64. If so, I don't know where you get "pairs"; it speaks of "paths".

Also, I can see where the Bahir has 64, in the quote you gave (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1019&p=15484&hilit=bahir#p15484, after your "coffee break"). But I don't see how the SY 32 derive from the Bahir 64 ("the 64 knew how to reduce the 64 to 32" is what you say, in the quote from your post that I just reproduced). Actually, it would be the other way around, since the SY was earlier. The Bahir 64 is 12 diagonals (explained, sort of, if you postulate that they are the 12 diagonals of the "Tree") plus 12 functionaries on the Tree (not explained) plus 12 functionaries in the Spheres (not explained) minus 4 (not explained, except as "left over") plus 32 (the number of the heart, not otherwise explained). I can see how the 12 diagonals on the "Tree" might correspond to the 12 signs of the zodiac in the SY, which might be the "spheres" of the Bahir and might have "functionaries". But why 4 are then subtracted I don't know. And the 32 of the Bahir isn't the 32 "paths" of the SY; it's merely the 12 zodiac signs seen in three ways, minus 4.

But if you just mean that the Bahir decided to go one level further than the SY, then OK.

Well, the text speaks probably not of "ways" or "paths" or "pairs", but about something in a foreign language, what some translators thought, that it would be best to translate it as "ways".
It's clear, that they spoke of "32", and these 32 were subdivided in a group of 22 and a group of 10 units. And the group of 22 was subdivided in 3+7+12, whereby the 7 has to be understood as 6+1, getting finally 3+(6+1)+12 = 22 units in this group. And the group of 10 was subdivided in groups with 4 and 6 units, whereby 4 must be interpreted as 1+3, so that you finally have (1+3)+6 = 10 units. And the whole is something connected to math, naturally also connected to a world explanation in the style of Neoplatonism.

As the whole is something connected to math, you must find something in math, which mirrors precisely these numbers. If you don't find this, you're actually hopeless to understand the text.

One place, where you can find PRECISELY the same numbers, is the mathematical body of the I-Ching, a book, which offers similar idealistic concepts as the SY, though mostly in Chinese, which is also a difficult language.
However, as the whole also is connected to mathematical signs you can find out through the way of the math about the relationship between the SY and I-Ching, which is actually just so, that the SY spoke more or less about the same object as the author of I-Ching, though both in different languages and in different cultural contexts naturally, and with differences in the expanded details and how the authors interpreted their work. The I-Ching author for instance had no alphabet, cause the Chinese had no alphabet. The I-Ching author wrote a divination book, which the SY author didn't. The I-Ching author had other religious concepts than the SY-author and so on.

All this didn't change the basic math, which was used by both. If you know this common background, you get a chance to understand both systems, if you don't understand the background, you just can gather information, and that's all, and the information collection complicates only, if the background isn' clear.

I think, you've to learn to think simple.

Perhaps this is a simple way ...
You know this figure, I'd already shown it.



The picture contains all 64 hexagrams of the I-Ging. It answers to a specific mathematical problem, that hexagrams with a similar structure should be presented close to each other, and hexagrams with big differences should be far from each other. The model starts with these hexagrams ...



... at the both ends of the figure, the center above presented as "Yang at six lines" and the center below as "Yin at six lines". The hexagram around them are arranged in a cycle according the row ...

"difference at first line"
"difference at second line"
"difference at third line"
"difference at 4th line"
"difference at 5th line"
"difference at 6th line"
and then cycling

Attempting to connect the both polar cycles leads more or less unavoidably to the given figure, which has to be seen as 3-dimensional.

In the picture we find the Sepher Yetzirah groups "Alphabet" with 3+(6+1)+12 = 22 units and "Sephiroth-tree" with (1+3)+6 = 10 units as "pairs of hexagrams". One just has to count: in the first picture the "Sephiroth-tree" is presented in blue colors in the middle of the globe. 1 hexagram pair as the center, 6 hexagrams cycling around it in a small circle, consisting of 3 pairs of hexagrams, and 12 hexagrams at six points cycling in a larger circle, consisting of 6 pairs (whereby the pairs are not formed at the same position).



Another view, just to remind you, that one has to see the figure as 3-dimensional:



The next view shows you in red colors the 12 zodiac signs or simple letters and the 3 elements, the latter all gathered at one point in the middle of the both zodiacs.
As the pairs are formed by opposing hexagrams, one finds the 12 zodiac signs and 3 elements above the middle and below the middle.



The last view shows you 6+1 pairs in yellow color above at the top and below at the bottom, used in the SY as "double letters".



Perhaps this color table helps to identify the groups:


larger view at http://trionfi.com/tarot/new-themes/sepher-yetzirah/
larger view at the basic picture: http://trionfi.com/001/ichingsphere.jpg

Huck wrote:

larger view at http://trionfi.com/tarot/new-themes/sepher-yetzirah/
larger view at the basic picture: http://trionfi.com/001/ichingsphere.jpg

They told me there would no math involved here...

Phaeded wrote:They told me there would no math involved here...

Occasionally one has to change the horses.

Huck wrote,

Well, the text speaks probably not of "ways" or "paths" or "pairs", but about something in a foreign language, what some translators thought, that it would be best to translate it as "ways".

Well, I've never heard of that word, whatever it is in Chinese, translated as "pairs". I can see "way" and "path" as equivalent, but not "pair". If you translate "32 paths" as "32 pairs" then, yes, you get 64. I can do that much math. But this odd translation needs to be defended.

Otherwise your pictures are quite an elegant way of making the I Ching and the Sefer Yetzirah correspond. However one of your images didn't post. So I'm missing some of your argument for why the hexagrams of the I Ching form the patterns the way you have them in your diagram. That is something I'm still not totally clear on.

Added later: and while you're at it, you might explain what all this has to do with the tarot. At most you've shown that 4 or 5 sentences in the Sefer Yetzirah tie in with the I Ching. But so what? Nobody in the Renaissance saw those sentences as fundamental to anything. When they thought of elements, there were usually 4 of them, and 7 planets, as opposed to 6 directions and 1 central palace, and 10 sefiroth and spheres. which were sometimes 7 + 3 but not 6 plus 3 plus 1. They did have 12 zodiac signs, but that's not much to build on. The only other area I can see any connection is by way of lot books, which were based on dice, which had 6 sides and then various numbers of combinations depending on how many dice you had. Simple, non-occult divination with cards was an extension of lot books with dice. Also, geomancy was a 2 to the 4th power set of binary arrays, similar otherwise to the I Ching's 2 to the 6th power, but unrelated that I can see to lot books or tarot. That's as far as I can get. No connection between the binary/hexagramatic structure of the Sefer Yetzirah and the tarot yet.