Evolution of DM's: Possible Heritage from Curlicues in the Naibs?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 09 Jan 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Fudugazi	09 Jan 2005
Rusty Neon wrote: There is nothing to support that there is some expressly-inserted esoteric meaning in non-scenic layouts of the pip cards of the various antique tarot decks; yet it's certainly interesting to use relatively-modern-day aproaches such as number/suit/non-scenic characteristics to derive meaning from those layouts. :) Jodo reminds us in his book that in islam it is forbidden to depict human or animal figures, so ancient islamic art invested floral and other so-called "decorative" (to our Western eyes) illustrations with a great deal of meaning, based on sacred geometry and mathematics (which they borrowed from Pythagoras) and their own mystical traditions. As the Arabic naïbis were the model for our non-scenic pip cards, is it not reasonable to infer that those twirly flowers, cups, coins, clubs and curved scimitars held some sort of significance to those who designed them? I spent several days once with an Iraqi calligrapher who explained to me exactly what certain twirls meant. Before that they were just twirls to me. And that's not just on the facade of mosques - in plain books and on writing paper, too. The question in my mind is whether the inventors of the tarot de Marseille had those meanings in their mind. By the time Tarot found form (whenever and wherever that was), there had been a great deal of interaction between Islam and Christendom. Pythagorean numerology and geometry was well-known to European mathematicians, and one could speculate it would be known to master craftsmen who had to build cathedrals, paint and draw plans - and make tarot cards. But even if they didn't, the design was there already, as they simply adapted the naïbis. So, unlike you, I am not so sure about this "they only mean what we say it now means since 1930". And that makes the Tarot de Marseille - as other ancient tarots - a dynamic and meaningful pack of cards, for far longer than you give it credit for.

Rusty Neon	09 Jan 2005
Helvetica wrote: Jodo reminds us in his book that in islam it is forbidden to depict human or animal figures, so ancient islamic art invested floral and other so-called "decorative" (to our Western eyes) illustrations with a great deal of meaning, based on sacred geometry and mathematics (which they borrowed from Pythagoras) and their own mystical traditions. As the Arabic naïbis were the model for our non-scenic pip cards, is it not reasonable to infer that those twirly flowers, cups, coins, clubs and curved scimitars held some sort of significance to those who designed them? I don't dismiss the possibility, but you're making a bit of a logical jump. Even though Islamic art may from time to time have human or animal figures represented in non-animate manner, how can we automatically assume that the naïbi cards' pips in fact have such non-animate representations of various human or animal figures? Moreover, even if the reference manuals of Islamic art show that various swirls and flourishes found in the artwork of the naïbi cards' pips are consistent with non-animate representations of humans or animals, how do we know that those swirls and flourishes were added with esoteric intent (rather than decorative intent) to those pips' artwork? Moreover, even if we assume that some such non-animate representations were added with esoteric intent, perhaps they were added in a way that has nothing to do with number, suit, element, geometric and positional layout, etc. For example, one pip card might have encoded representations of cows to signify a card meaning and another pip card may have encoded representations of fish to signify a card meaning, almost like cartomancy meanings. How could we ever discover this with a number, suit, element, geometric and positional layout approach? A possible next step would be to camp out in a well-stocked university library and read all available books on Islamic art and iconography. Quote: The question in my mind is whether the inventors of the tarot de Marseille had those meanings in their mind. Indeed, how do we know?

Fudugazi	09 Jan 2005
Rusty Neon wrote: I don't dismiss the possibility, but you're making a bit of a logical jump. Even though Islamic art may from time to time have human or animal figures represented in non-animate manner, how can we automatically assume that the naïbi cards' pips in fact have such non-animate representations of various human or animal figures? No, that's not what I said. I was referring to the use of Pythagorean sacred geometry and mathematics and to Islamic mystical traditions (inspired in great part by Kabbalah), embedded in their art and thereby probably in the naïbis, not to human or animal figures represented in the pips. I don't think there are those, though there might be (firemaiden saw an Indian dancer in the III de Deniers, and a teddy bear in the VII de Deniers ;)) Rusty Neon wrote: Indeed, how do we know? We don't. They might - the knowledge was about - but we can't be sure. But does it matter? If they used the design of the naïbis as models, and the naïbis had certain meanings embedded in the pips, then those meanings would be carried into the Tarot pips, surely?

Rusty Neon	09 Jan 2005
Helvetica wrote: No, that's not what I said. I was referring to the use of Pythagorean sacred geometry and mathematics and to Islamic mystical traditions (inspired in great part by Kabbalah), embedded in their art and thereby probably in the naïbis , not to human or animal figures represented in the pips. I don't think there are those, though there might be ( firemaiden saw an Indian dancer in the III de Deniers, and a teddy bear in the VII de Deniers ;)) If you're referring then to Pyth sacred geometry and math and to Islamic mystical traditions embodied in the art of the naibi pips, please furnish proof of such embodiment and, furthermore, proof that such embodiment was done by the naibi designers with esoteric (rather than decorative) intent. If such proof is provided, it would show that the number/suit/element approach to TdM may be deficient and should be supplemented by recourse to Islamic art, iconography and mysticism. Quote: We don't. They might - the knowledge was about - but we can't be sure. But does it matter? If they used the design of the naïbis as models, and the naïbis had certain meanings embedded in the pips, then those meanings would be carried into the Tarot pips, surely? Absent proof, how do we know that the naibis had certain meanings embedded in the pips?

Fudugazi	09 Jan 2005
Rusty Neon wrote: If you're referring then to Pyth sacred geometry and math and to Islamic mystical traditions embodied in the art of the naibi pips, please furnish proof of such embodiment and, furthermore, proof that such embodiment was done by the naibi designers with esoteric (rather than decorative) intent. If such proof is provided, it would show that the number/suit/element approach to TdM may be deficient and should be supplemented by recourse to Islamic art, iconography and mysticism. Absent proof, how do we know that the naibis had certain meanings embedded in the pips? I was not making a polemic, Rusty Neon, so why look for one? I was trying to open the discussion, and going on my knowledge - limited but growing - of islamic art. Islamic art specialists and practitioners tell me that all these twirls and flowers we see as just twirls and flowers mean something. That geometry and mysticism are key to the understanding of islamic art. Given that, and given the obvious geometries of the pips (and the naïbis before them) - isn't it reasonable to deduce that naïbis might have such meanings embedded? This, of course, would be a discussion for another thread, and would need some research into the history of cards in the Middle East! One day I might throw myself into that, I am interested after all, but for the moment, I am simply positing the hypothesis. What do you think of it, as hypothesis? In any case, it appears to me absolutely essential to look at islamic art and design when studying Tarot de Marseille and the other ancient tarots, given the immediate dependence of their pips on the naïbis.

Rusty Neon	09 Jan 2005
[post snipped: please be courteous] Quote: Given that, and given the obvious geometries of the pips (and the naïbis before them) - isn't it reasonable to deduce that naïbis might have such meanings embedded? If so, another reasonable deduction is that the "obvious geometries" are decorative. Let's agree to disagree. If you can obtain proof for the various things you assert in your posts, that would be wonderful to tarot studies. I would welcome it. Quote: This, of course, would be a discussion for another thread, and would need some research into the history of cards in the Middle East! I look forwarding to seeing the results of any such research. Quote: In any case, it appears to me absolutely essential to look at islamic art and design when studying Tarot de Marseille and the other ancient tarots, given the immediate dependence of their pips on the naïbis. I look forward to reading your posts incorporating Islamic art and design considerations. :)

firemaiden	09 Jan 2005
Helvetica, it is fascinating what you say about the naïbs, and there being significance to every curlicue. That reminds me, my friend Pierre wrote a thesis on magic carpets. He taught me that a magic carpet is essentially a prayer rug, on which one meditates and "levitates" (hence the "flying" carpet image). They are considered to be magic, because every single knot of the rug was tied with a prayer. The rug is in fact, a sort of enormous rosary. In addition, all the designs on the rug have magico-religious significance. When we study a bit of ethnology, we learn that in traditional societies, daily life and communication with the divine were of a piece - they were not separate. Not just art, and music, but all crafts were essentially a form of prayer. As for the decors on the naïbs, of couse they were significant! I would not be surprised if they were magico-religious symbols, intended to facilitate communication with the divine. I do not think it is necessary for us to worry about what is a "correct" interpretation. In matters of divination, what can "correct" possibly mean? For me, "correctness" is of no importance, it only matters only that these cards were drawn meaningfully. Meaninglessness is a modern invention.

Fudugazi	10 Jan 2005
firemaiden wrote: As for the decors on the naïbs, of couse they were significant! I would not be surprised if they were magico-religious symbols, intended to facilitate communication with the divine. I do not think it is necessary for us to worry about what is a "correct" interpretation. In matters of divination, what can "correct" possibly mean? For me, "correctness" is of no importance, it only matters only that these cards were drawn meaningfully. Meaninglessness is a modern invention. No, not necessary - interesting, at any rate. For divination, of course, as has often been said, one can draw a couple of squiggles and decide it means a party in store - et voilà! But I was thinking more of the in-depth significance and spiritual breakthrough one might get from studying - and meditating on -geometries (e.g. I get that kind of significance from the volumes in certain buildings, unforunately I am too ignorant of geometry to be able to explain the correspondence - why does the Golden Mean give us such peace?). I would suggest this applies in divination when it is part of an initiatory process: then such significance - and prize of all prizes, spiritual breakthroughs -will enhance a reading beyond measure. I'd hesitate to use the word correct however. The only correctness to respect is that ifone does look at such aspects as geometry, mathematics, mysticism, then one learns to do so correctly. I do find it interesting to imagine (based on analogy withother islamic art) that naïbis, and therefore our own non-scenic pips, bore some significance beyond the mere decorative. jmd has been able to show, quite convincingly, the geometries in various of the Marseilles pip cards; such geometries were put there by the Arabs, as they were the ones to invent the design of the cards, based on older Chinese ideas of cards (which were, apparently, of different design- but should we be looking into Chinese geometry too?). Anyway, the point that I wanted to make is that to say that investing the pips with non-cartomancy meanings only dates back to Marteau in 1930 is manifestly reductive and probaby wrong, though one could regard the Marteau studies as a revival of sorts. Whether one wants to include the probability of naïbis meaning something or not is a question of personal taste and temperament, I imagine. Personally I have no problem with people thinking what they please of tarot, so long as the same respect is extended to me. But I do enjoy discussing these things!

Fudugazi	10 Jan 2005
Rusty Neon wrote: If so, another reasonable deduction is that the "obvious geometries" are decorative. Let's agree to disagree. I'm happy to. As I said, mine is a hypothesis, not a proof absolute. Don't you find the possibility of their meaning something beyond the decorative intriguing?

firemaiden	10 Jan 2005
Helvetica wrote: Anyway, the point that I wanted to make is that to say that investing the pips with non-cartomancy meanings only dates back to Marteau in 1930 is manifestly reductive and probaby wrong, though one could regard the Marteau studies as a revival of sorts. I suppose the next logical question is... where did the cartomancy meanings come from? If those meanings pre-existed the suit/number method, how might they have been derived. (They had to come from somewhere, so why not from the curliecues on the naibis?) But I guess these digressions deserve their own thread.

full deck	10 Jan 2005
firemaiden wrote: . . . Meaninglessness is a modern invention. That is a neat thought Firemaiden, one that I would have to agree with. That is one of the problems I have in learning a new piece of music in that I have to develop a concept of it first before it becomes a vehicle for me -- much like Tarot.

Fudugazi	12 Jan 2005
Vincent wrote: In short, tying oneself to the divinatory meaning, rather than the symbolic meaning, of Waite's cards, is a reflection of how poorly one understands the deck, rather than a reflection of any perceived limitation of the RWS. Here we have a deck that was created with the express intention of conveying specific occult dogma. It is basically a pictorial representation of the Qabalistic Tree of Life, yet most 'students' cannot get past the LWB divinatory meanings. Meanings which the author himself describes as 'arbitrary'. I agree with this statement - I am not a great fan of RWS for many reasons, but it is the Colman 3 of Swords that brought me to study the tarot in the first place, through its appearance in a reading. I was fascinated by those 3 swords and that heart. The reader was a very subtle woman who did not content herself to toss out divinatory meanings, but what she said paled beside the force of that image. With hindsight I think what happened in that moment was that I received the full symbolic charge of that card - which, presumably, was one of Waite's intentions. It created a shift in me, in my inner and outer life. As for the TdM not having significance for its creators - I shall agree to differ with you, Vincent: my history and history of ideas studies have led me to the conclusion that all imagery in the Middle Ages had significance; and in the Arab world of the same period, all so-called (by us) decorative imagery. Symbolic correspondences were ingrained in the artistic and popular imagination, and was the main form of hermetic teaching for a non-reading public - symbols were used as we use words. It's just another way of conceiving teaching and initiation. But you are right about making the distinction between that approach and an occultist making a revelation. My temperament draws me to a more popular hermetic, rather than occult, type of teaching, which I why I am drawn to the TdM.

Vincent	13 Jan 2005
Helvetica wrote: As for the TdM not having significance for its creators - I shall agree to differ with you, Vincent: Perhaps it might be better if you would quote me, because I don't believe I have ever made any suggestion that the TdM had no significance to its creators. Helvetica wrote: my history and history of ideas studies have led me to the conclusion that all imagery in the Middle Ages had significance; and in the Arab world of the same period, all so-called (by us) decorative imagery. This really is stating the obvious, and there is no need to confine the statement to the Middle Ages. All imagery has significance, whether a cave painting from Lascaux or a corporate logo from IBM, so what exactly are you saying is different about the Middle Ages in general, and the TdM in particular? Helvetica wrote: Symbolic correspondences were ingrained in the artistic and popular imagination, and was the main form of hermetic teaching for a non-reading public - symbols were used as we use words. It's just another way of conceiving teaching and initiation. This gets to the heart of what I am suggesting. Waite claims many times the existence of a Secret Doctrine, a hidden teaching that lies behind the cards, and with a bit of research concerning the symbols he used, this doctrine can not only be proved to exist, but also the nature of that doctrine can be examined in detail. The primary purpose of Tarot to Waite was originally confined to initiates of a secret society. So.. what was the primary purpose of Tarot for the creators of the TdM, and what evidence is there to support that contention? Was it used for a trick-taking game like Tarocchi, or was there some deeper mystical meaning they were used for, and again what evidence is there for either (or both). Speculation on such matters is not proof. Helvetica wrote: But you are right about making the distinction between that approach and an occultist making a revelation. My temperament draws me to a more popular hermetic, rather than occult, type of teaching, which I why I am drawn to the TdM. Ok, then what is the nature of this teaching, and what is the proof that it was intended by the creators of the TdM? What distinction are you drawing between "popular hermetic" and "occult"? Are you saying that the TdM had no 'occult' significance to its creators? Vincent

Fudugazi	15 Jan 2005
Vincent: all images in the Middles Ages, with the exception of tavern notices, were a form of teaching or initiation. Not into a "secret society" à la Waite. Teaching of doctrine that would have been intelligible to viewers (including in a comic fashion, if you remember the Reynard stories and engravings); inititation into a spiritual path, again not a closed one. The religious dominated the Middle ages - it's trite to repeat it, but for us in the 21st century it is hard to remember just how much it pervaded. Everything, Everywhere. There was no barrier between the religious and the profane. People sang religious songs to profane tunes, and vice-versa. Troubadours sang love to their dames, then joined a convent. Mystery plays were at the same time occasions for teaching, for profound religious encounter, and for more lighthearted entertainment. I am not speculating as whether images had a socio-spiritual function throughout the Christian Middle Ages. That is fact. What the meaning of each and every image was is now a matter for both theory and research. Historians of art don't even agree as to the exact meaning of a particular carving in a Cathedral. Yet will you say that it has no spiritual or teaching value? Of course you wouldn't (well, maybe you would?) Just as it is sometimes difficult to discover - or agree upon - the exact meaning of a cockerell or an inverted lance carved in a Romanesque cathedral column, it is also difficult to find out some of the meanings of the tarot symbols (why, for example, was the very well known figure of Christ in a Mandorla changed to dancing girl - or an androgyous creature? - this would have appeared shocking to many, and very frowned on by the Church - I don't think that such a bold step would have been taken for no reason.) But as I said, I'll agree to differ with you if you think the above is wrong and tarot were just playing cards (they where, of course, also playing cards). To me that contention seems absurd, given the intimate relation between image and spiritual meaning, and the indistiguishable overlapping of the religious and the profane. Indeed, I would say Tarot cards, just as mystery plays, are a perfect illustration of that overlapping.

Fudugazi	18 Jan 2005
Vincent wrote: As I said before you might like to quote me. Here you are: Vincent wrote: It has become the fashion lately to attribute all sorts of meanings and systems to the Marseilles, (ironically a lot of these come from Waite himself), and presumably this is what you mean when you say it is "more flexible", but these seem to be the results of wishful thinking and retroactive attribution, rather than anything that was originally intrinsic to the deck. You were talking to firemaiden. But it is not wishful thinking to see close correlations between, say, the XXI-Le Monde and the famous image of Christ in a Mandorla; or the Bateleur's rectangular table and the rectangular table (on of three on which reposed the Grail) used as a architectural/spiritual device by romanesque master masons. Or are you saying the meanings of symbols mysteriously disappear when they move from Cathedral to card deck?

tmgrl2	18 Jan 2005
Helvetica.... My understanding about what Vincent is saying about meanings being "intrinsic" to the deck, is.... Whose meanings or interpretations of meanings for the Tarot de Marseille tradition is "correct." Certainly, I look forward to O'Neill's re-issue of his book on iconology. When it comes to numbers and suits and meanings and especially colors...there are various "strands" of interpretations as applied to the Tarot de Maseille "style" decks.... e.g. Numbers....jmd once said...find a system that works for you and use it....sometimes, different systems are used by same reader. Even the suits have come to have different correspondences....e.g. Swords...Air? Intellect? or not? What I am loving about the book A Wicked Pack of Cards is that, ultimately, it is saying... Who knows for sure? Today we have evolved to modern versions...Camoin-Jodo and Hadar, two examples...both of which have elements supposedly "restored" to the "original." Unfortunately, their decks are lovely evolutions with marvelous results.... but different ....certainly Camoin's use of color is an example and Hadar's deniers with different numbers of petals...and the deniers that have the coin in space and others not on some of the court cards. It is interesting as a discussion to talk about elements in specific decks, but ultimately, Is there an "intrinsic" meaning given to TdM by any one person or group? Whenever I read something re: origins of card playing, use of cards for occult purposes, meanings of various traditions, I still see the words "speculation," misunderstandings due to language differences" and even "variations of images based on visual puns." I got these phrases from two links jmd gave in the Roy de Deniers - How May it Be Read thread.... We are gathering more information and data...but there is still much that is speculation....as to how variant decks came to have the images they do and the applied meanings. When I read, it's a whole different story again...as jmd says, sometimes, something in the image just pops out at you....and we say..."Where did that come from?" terri

Vincent	20 Jan 2005
[quote=Helvetica]Here you are: Thank you. Helvetica wrote: You were talking to firemaiden. But it is not wishful thinking to see close correlations between, say, the XXI-Le Monde and the famous image of Christ in a Mandorla; or the Bateleur's rectangular table and the rectangular table (on of three on which reposed the Grail) used as a architectural/spiritual device by romanesque master masons. Ok, but first let's get some clarification. What Romanesque master masons are you referring to? What exactly are you claiming? Are you saying that Grail symbolism was deliberately overlaid on the TdM by its makers? The interesting thing is that Waite definitely associated Grail symbolism with his deck, and this may indeed be an example of what you quoted me as saying, which was; It has become the fashion lately to attribute all sorts of meanings and systems to the Marseilles, (ironically a lot of these come from Waite himself) Helvetica wrote: Or are you saying the meanings of symbols mysteriously disappear when they move from Cathedral to card deck? I understand your sarcasm, but you may have a point. Context is important. And, it may well be that the meaning of a symbol does disappear, (though it doesn't seem all that mysterious) when it moves from cathedral to card deck. Of course that doesn't mean that there is no longer any meaning whatsoever. The original meaning might be replaced or complemented by another meaning. For example, an image of a rose when viewed in the context of natural history, might mean something else than if it were shown in a treatise about Christianity. If it moved to a coat of arms it might mean something else, and if it appeared on the ceiling of a Rosicrucian vault, yet another change in meaning. Vincent

The Evolution of DM's: Possible Heritage from Curlicues in the Naibs? thread was originally posted on 09 Jan 2005 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.