foolish
And let's just throw every argument or theory which isn't supported with absolute proof into the same box. They're all the same nonsense, and equally deserving of ridicule.Teheuti said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
reconsidering a cathar connection
Debra
Ok, Mary, I see what you mean. I thought you were looking for more specific criteria for historical plausibility. I see how these links on the more general question of "evidence and lack thereof" could be considered a starting point.
I only meant that your challenge question may be of interest to people not following the Cathars thread.
I believe in academic rigor. I also enjoy the speculative approach that's often been hosted by this part of the forum. Given strong hostility toward these more speculative discussions, I once set up a thread exactly for this purpose--I think Rosanne did, also. They seem to have died away--leaving those whose intellectual orientation toward history is more "what if" than "here's proof" on uneven ground. [Removed by moderator]
I only meant that your challenge question may be of interest to people not following the Cathars thread.
I believe in academic rigor. I also enjoy the speculative approach that's often been hosted by this part of the forum. Given strong hostility toward these more speculative discussions, I once set up a thread exactly for this purpose--I think Rosanne did, also. They seem to have died away--leaving those whose intellectual orientation toward history is more "what if" than "here's proof" on uneven ground. [Removed by moderator]
Teheuti
Robert - This thread is not about your book but about the possibility of there being an historical connection between the Cathars and tarot (as proposed by quite a few people in addition to yourself). You began it with:
I am also arguing that not all theories are equal and that in "Historical Research" there are criteria for evaluating them. There seem to be people here who feel that it is not proper to critique a theory or ask for evidence, but that each idea should be valued equally. I don't agree that that is what historical research is all about.
If we are to consider an historical connection then actual research on that connection would be significant.
So, we are considering it.we should consider the possibility that the tarot trumps were created not necessarily by the cathars themselves, but by other sympathizers who may have decided to preserve their story.
I am also arguing that not all theories are equal and that in "Historical Research" there are criteria for evaluating them. There seem to be people here who feel that it is not proper to critique a theory or ask for evidence, but that each idea should be valued equally. I don't agree that that is what historical research is all about.
If we are to consider an historical connection then actual research on that connection would be significant.
Teheuti
[Removed by Moderator]Debra said:I wish there was a corner of the history forum specifically for playing in the sandbox--I think that's what Rosanne called it.
Personally, I learned a lot about scholarly rigor from those who've stood up for it on the various lists. And, I've also stood up for the importance of myth and speculation. They just shouldn't be jumbled up and confused for each other (directly or indirectly).
Teheuti
Please! Have you read anything about historical research and logic? The above statement suggests a complete lack of education on the subject.foolish said:And let's just throw every argument or theory which isn't supported with absolute proof into the same box. They're all the same nonsense, and equally deserving of ridicule.
Debra
Teheuti said:There seem to be people here who feel that it is not proper to critique a theory or ask for evidence, but that each idea should be valued equally.
I don't see this. Where can we see someone advocating that each idea should be valued equally?
I see that some conflate critique and ridicule, and try to make other people and their ideas as small as possible, apparently in order to stomp on them more thoroughly.
This is not an academically or intellectually sound approach to knowledge.
Professional social scientists, historians, philosophers acknowledge that people make mistakes and even the best efforts are imperfect. So--if you see that a piece of an argument is missing, suggest what it is and how it might be integrated. If the evidence for X or Y is weak, show how, and how might the necessary evidence be uncovered. Apart from sarcastic and vitriolic phrasing that I see as gratuitous and distracting, I think there's been pretty good give and take in this regard.
People can critique others in whatever terms they like--but we (I) have no obligation to respect all approaches to criticism. I am not saying all ideas are of equal value; that's absurd and, again, I can't see who defends it here. I am saying, "civility counts"--and not just because it's "nicer." Civil discourse is important because knowledge advances in a community context, and the health of the community that's involved is important for insuring that ideas are neither accepted too easily nor rejected too quickly.
After all the discussion, I think the main issue with Robert's idea of a Cathar connection as a historical hypothesis is the problem of timing--a question brought up at the start of the discussion, and a problem which he has acknowledged and accommodated by re-contextualizing his intellectual exploration of Cathar philosophy and tarot imagery as an imaginative exercise.
Debra
Teheuti said:Please! Have you read anything about historical research and logic? The above statement suggests a complete lack of education on the subject.
I took his comment as sarcasm.
Teheuti
Here's my totally amateur suggestions for where I would put the items I listed.
In a "least likely" category and totally non-provable:
• Humans 'could have' been seeded by beings from another planet who left behind tarot cards as a road-map back to our source in outer space.
• The tarot 'could have' been a game of fate brought down from Mount Olympus by a fool who stole it from the gods.
Half a step up, I'd put the following, because some of the Bible has been found to have some historical accuracy, and because legends abound of MM coming to France and having a baby. But we aren't anywhere near provability and it's highly unlikely. I just 'like' it (oops!).
• Mary Magdalene 'could have' had Jesus' baby and founded a lineage of rulers in France, and the holders of this secret 'could have' left clues in the tarot deck.
A full step up (or two) from that, but still (though less) unlikely, is where I'd put the following two items because there are a few historical indications of the right people with the right background in the right place at the right time, but there are no direct evidentiary connections.
• Cathar sympathizers 'could have' perceived a Cathar history in the Tarot symbolism that they enhanced by modifying the deck.
• Mystical Judaism 'could have' inspired a set of pictorial scenes to expand on the sacred meanings of the 22-letter Hebrew alphabet, which became the trumps.
Another step or two up would be the following one that begins to appear somewhat likely, because we've have lots of examples of similar experiments and modifications by woodcut carvers, but the details are too vague to say more without additional evidence giving us a more specific direction. This statement is also more possible because it doesn't depend on our knowing the intent of the maker.
• A woodblock carver somewhere in Europe 'could have' experimented with a pictorial fifth/trump-suit for playing cards that others then modified until eventually a couple of versions became dominant.
Another step up is the last one. It is even more likely because we have all kinds of circumstantial evidence including decks from the Italian courts, accounts of decks being commissioned as educational tools or games, and examples of similar art used for similar purposes in the time and place. We are lacking a specific and reliable first person source saying, "I created this on such and such a day because . . ."
• An Italian noble 'could have' commissioned a permanent trump suit for playing cards with images designed by him to represent a hierarchy of life station and moral and cosmological triumphs.
In a "least likely" category and totally non-provable:
• Humans 'could have' been seeded by beings from another planet who left behind tarot cards as a road-map back to our source in outer space.
• The tarot 'could have' been a game of fate brought down from Mount Olympus by a fool who stole it from the gods.
Half a step up, I'd put the following, because some of the Bible has been found to have some historical accuracy, and because legends abound of MM coming to France and having a baby. But we aren't anywhere near provability and it's highly unlikely. I just 'like' it (oops!).
• Mary Magdalene 'could have' had Jesus' baby and founded a lineage of rulers in France, and the holders of this secret 'could have' left clues in the tarot deck.
A full step up (or two) from that, but still (though less) unlikely, is where I'd put the following two items because there are a few historical indications of the right people with the right background in the right place at the right time, but there are no direct evidentiary connections.
• Cathar sympathizers 'could have' perceived a Cathar history in the Tarot symbolism that they enhanced by modifying the deck.
• Mystical Judaism 'could have' inspired a set of pictorial scenes to expand on the sacred meanings of the 22-letter Hebrew alphabet, which became the trumps.
Another step or two up would be the following one that begins to appear somewhat likely, because we've have lots of examples of similar experiments and modifications by woodcut carvers, but the details are too vague to say more without additional evidence giving us a more specific direction. This statement is also more possible because it doesn't depend on our knowing the intent of the maker.
• A woodblock carver somewhere in Europe 'could have' experimented with a pictorial fifth/trump-suit for playing cards that others then modified until eventually a couple of versions became dominant.
Another step up is the last one. It is even more likely because we have all kinds of circumstantial evidence including decks from the Italian courts, accounts of decks being commissioned as educational tools or games, and examples of similar art used for similar purposes in the time and place. We are lacking a specific and reliable first person source saying, "I created this on such and such a day because . . ."
• An Italian noble 'could have' commissioned a permanent trump suit for playing cards with images designed by him to represent a hierarchy of life station and moral and cosmological triumphs.
mjhurst
Sponsa and Sponsus
Hi, Robert,
That is precisely the essence of the "argument from ignorance": pointing out that we can't prove something with certainty and using that as the basis for some (usually absurd) conclusion. The alternative, which Mary keeps proposing and which you reject so emphatically, is to rely on evidence that does NOT rise to the level of "proof". Rather than demanding proof or insisting that Cathars remain a "possibility" as long at they can't be disproven, the alternative is to compare the evidence supporting alternative views.
It seems that you reject that approach precisely because it shows your thesis to be historically untenable. Even as you have backed away from so many of your central claims, the weak and ill-defined remaining thesis is still pretty silly. You now suggest that some unknown non-Cathar heretics at some unknown time and place made some changes that might represent some anti-Catholic dogma or history. But there is nothing to support even that weak, hand-waving "thesis".
Let me address one of your more dramatic blunders. Your most commonly and emphatically-argued point, that the Popess is indicative of this later heresy, fails completely and immediately because it was present in the Italian decks from the beginning of Tarot in the 1440s. It can't be a later alteration by heretics because it wasn't a later alteration.
Moreover, there are many dozen pre-Modern examples of a female figure with papal attributes being used to represent personified Catholic subjects. Tarot writers often mention Faith, but in reality the allegories were quite varied. These appear in such hotbeds of heresy as St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, as one of the examples Mary posted demonstrates.
Most significantly, it is easy to construct an interpretation of the Popess which is consistent with this external context of allegories, with the adjacent cards in the trump sequence, (the Papi), and with the overall design of the trump cycle. Not some random free-association about the card taken out of context, which is your preferred approach, but a fully coherent interpretation consistent with the mainstream Roman Catholic art, literature, sermons, treatises, theology, and sensibilities of 15th-century Italy.
The overall design of the trump cycle shows that the Emperor and Pope are the highest members of a ranks of mankind. This is the same role they play in literally hundreds of other works of art and literature related to the Gothic macabre, including the Dance of Death genre and various Triumph of Death works. The Empress and Popess are quite naturally interpreted as their subjects, over whom they rule just as a husband rules over his wife.
How hard was that? Seriously.
This idea is directly from the Bible, the Church Fathers, and medieval Catholic writers, as well as being reflected in Roman law. The terms sponsa and sponsus are naturally appropriate to the Empress and Emperor or Popess and Pope. This is analogous to the Church as the Bride of Christ, Sponsa-Ecclesia and Sponsus-Christi. In that guise the sponsa-sponsus motif was discussed in great detail during the Middle Ages by writers such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux. The popular Song of Solomon allegories were precisely on this subject. Just as the Virgin was equated with the Church, she was also the Bride of Christ. St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians (5:22-30) spells out the relationship between the "head" and the "body", a parallel metaphor:
This does not rely on anything obscure or far-fetched. This creates a neat and -- for someone of that era -- fairly obvious design for the lowest section of trumps. This fits perfectly with the overall design of the trump cycle as a whole. There is a world of external evidence regarding the use of female figures with papal attributes as allegories and regarding the sponsa-sponsus relationship in Roman and medieval law and in Christian theology. No heresy is needed to understand the significance of the Popess, but historical knowledge is required.
I realize that you reject historical knowledge in favor of anachronistic story telling based on 20th-century folklore. Three weeks ago you again claimed that you didn't need any knowledge of history because you are not talking about history. Yet here you are still, regurgitating your ignorance on a forum titled Historical Research. What's that about?
Best regards,
Michael
Hi, Robert,
Your sarcasm is completely unjustified. No one (except perhaps you) would suggest that.foolish said:And let's just throw every argument or theory which isn't supported with absolute proof into the same box. They're all the same nonsense, and equally deserving of ridicule.
That is precisely the essence of the "argument from ignorance": pointing out that we can't prove something with certainty and using that as the basis for some (usually absurd) conclusion. The alternative, which Mary keeps proposing and which you reject so emphatically, is to rely on evidence that does NOT rise to the level of "proof". Rather than demanding proof or insisting that Cathars remain a "possibility" as long at they can't be disproven, the alternative is to compare the evidence supporting alternative views.
It seems that you reject that approach precisely because it shows your thesis to be historically untenable. Even as you have backed away from so many of your central claims, the weak and ill-defined remaining thesis is still pretty silly. You now suggest that some unknown non-Cathar heretics at some unknown time and place made some changes that might represent some anti-Catholic dogma or history. But there is nothing to support even that weak, hand-waving "thesis".
Let me address one of your more dramatic blunders. Your most commonly and emphatically-argued point, that the Popess is indicative of this later heresy, fails completely and immediately because it was present in the Italian decks from the beginning of Tarot in the 1440s. It can't be a later alteration by heretics because it wasn't a later alteration.
Moreover, there are many dozen pre-Modern examples of a female figure with papal attributes being used to represent personified Catholic subjects. Tarot writers often mention Faith, but in reality the allegories were quite varied. These appear in such hotbeds of heresy as St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, as one of the examples Mary posted demonstrates.
Most significantly, it is easy to construct an interpretation of the Popess which is consistent with this external context of allegories, with the adjacent cards in the trump sequence, (the Papi), and with the overall design of the trump cycle. Not some random free-association about the card taken out of context, which is your preferred approach, but a fully coherent interpretation consistent with the mainstream Roman Catholic art, literature, sermons, treatises, theology, and sensibilities of 15th-century Italy.
The overall design of the trump cycle shows that the Emperor and Pope are the highest members of a ranks of mankind. This is the same role they play in literally hundreds of other works of art and literature related to the Gothic macabre, including the Dance of Death genre and various Triumph of Death works. The Empress and Popess are quite naturally interpreted as their subjects, over whom they rule just as a husband rules over his wife.
How hard was that? Seriously.
This idea is directly from the Bible, the Church Fathers, and medieval Catholic writers, as well as being reflected in Roman law. The terms sponsa and sponsus are naturally appropriate to the Empress and Emperor or Popess and Pope. This is analogous to the Church as the Bride of Christ, Sponsa-Ecclesia and Sponsus-Christi. In that guise the sponsa-sponsus motif was discussed in great detail during the Middle Ages by writers such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux. The popular Song of Solomon allegories were precisely on this subject. Just as the Virgin was equated with the Church, she was also the Bride of Christ. St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians (5:22-30) spells out the relationship between the "head" and the "body", a parallel metaphor:
In terms of the lowest subjects of tarot's trump cycle, the allegory is reasonably simple. The Emperor and Pope are the heads of Imperium and Sacerdotum respectively. The Empress and Popess are the bodies, the subjects of those realms. Taken together, we have all members of Christendom. The Fool and Deceiver are outcasts, the damned, consistent with the Christian view of fools from Psalms and deceivers from various places including Proverbs and Revelation.Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
This does not rely on anything obscure or far-fetched. This creates a neat and -- for someone of that era -- fairly obvious design for the lowest section of trumps. This fits perfectly with the overall design of the trump cycle as a whole. There is a world of external evidence regarding the use of female figures with papal attributes as allegories and regarding the sponsa-sponsus relationship in Roman and medieval law and in Christian theology. No heresy is needed to understand the significance of the Popess, but historical knowledge is required.
I realize that you reject historical knowledge in favor of anachronistic story telling based on 20th-century folklore. Three weeks ago you again claimed that you didn't need any knowledge of history because you are not talking about history. Yet here you are still, regurgitating your ignorance on a forum titled Historical Research. What's that about?
Best regards,
Michael
foolish
I was really hoping this thread was going to be about the historical connection between the Cathars and the tarot, but obviously, some people have MADE it about the book. If the book is being attacked, I think I deserve the right to defend it. No?Teheuti said:Robert - This thread is not about your book but about the possibility of there being an historical connection between the Cathars and tarot (as proposed by quite a few people in addition to yourself).
I don't think I or anyone else has disagreed with your idea that there are different levels of evidence, or specific ways to evlauate them. I have presented some historical information and come up with a theory. Is it a water-tight concept? No. I think we covered that. Is is O.K. to critique it based on historical evidence? Sure. That's why I presented it here.I am also arguing that not all theories are equal and that in "Historical Research" there are criteria for evaluating them. There seem to be people here who feel that it is not proper to critique a theory or ask for evidence, but that each idea should be valued equally. I don't agree that that is what historical research is all about. If we are to consider an historical connection then actual research on that connection would be significant.
