Hi, Rosanne,
In the previous episode of
Tarot is Pagan, you noted that earlier decks
might provide insight into the supposedly anti-Christian character of Sola Busca. You failed, however, to offer even a single example of a particular earlier deck nor a single comparison with any cards from Sola Busca that might support this thesis. You also failed to offer any justification for your assumption that the Sola Busca trumps reflect the same subject matter, theme, sensibilities, or even general world view as the standard Tarot trumps. And you refused to discuss any specifics that might support your unsubstantiated hunch.
You offered nothing beyond a statement of your (apparently devout) belief in traditional occultist preconceptions about Tarot being, in some undefined sense, Pagan. When I pointed this out and asked for specifics you started this thread, only to resurrect some of the same bogus examples with which the previous thread began. As I had pointed out early in that thread, most of these false examples are not Tarot at all, and only a couple of them reflect the standard Tarot trumps. But we'll get to that... let's start with your first mistake of
this post:
Rosanne said:
OK I guess it is hard to see what someone like NorthBrook saw, when his words are of another agenda in the main;
On the contrary, it is easy to understand Northbrooke's
agenda with regard to dice and playing cards. Northbrooke explained that dice were terribly bad; he enumerated the reasons for that in considerable detail; and he said that cards were almost as bad as dice.
His agenda was to denounce games of chance like dice and cards and, to a lesser extent, board games as well. He really didn't like games, and his denunciation was very much like that of other anti-gaming preachers. How hard was that?
These things are not subtle, complex, obscure, sophisticated, or otherwise difficult to understand. He only seems difficult to you because what he said isn't what you wanted him to say. No doubt that can be difficult, but it has nothing to do with Northbrooke per se.
Northbrooke did admit that card games require more thought than dice and rely less on pure chance, but he insisted that they lead to the same evil ends, and that they are just as susceptible to cheating. Northbrooke added a passage to his argument based on a translation of pseudo Cyprian, one that included a fantasy about the French court cards having once shown Pagan gods. And notably, he wrote nothing about Tarot, despite your attachment to the idea that he was referring to Tarot. This seems particularly difficult for you to grasp, so I will emphasize it again:
Northbrooke was NOT talking about Tarot.
Northbrooke was writing about a French-suited deck, whereas standard Tarot decks used Latin-suited cards. This presents a couple of problems for your thesis. First, Northbrooke's argument about idolatry and Pagan gods was based on the 12 named court cards of the French decks, a feature which the 16 court cards of the earlier Latin suited Tarot decks did not share.
The second problem is the converse of that. What is Pagan about the Latin-suited deck? To pursue your thesis with regard to Tarot requires imputing Pagan symbolism (whatever you might twist that to mean) to the Islamic decks after which the Tarot suit cards were modeled. Is that the argument you wish to make?
Rosanne said:
so I will go in another direction to answer this question of whether Cards and thence Tarot is Pagan(as in Non Christian) at it's heart.
You've already announced your answer, repeatedly and emphatically. Your answer is the same one that has been promoted by generations of trendy esoteric writers throughout the 20th century. In these threads you are promoting that preconceived conclusion and hoping to stumble across some historical justifications for it, but your answer has already been given.
In this particular case, you argue from false premises (regular cards are Pagan) to false conclusions (Tarot is Pagan) via the assumption that all decks are the same so if one is Pagan then all are. That line of reasoning is explicit in your question: "whether Cards
and thence Tarot is Pagan". As noted above, the Latin-suited cards of Tarot are closely modeled on the so-called Saracen decks, so that's where you need to begin if you want to actually say something about Tarot.
Rosanne said:
In sometime around 1440 Decembrio wrote of Filippo Maria Visconti that the Duke enjoyed playing a game that had painted Figures. He also relates that the Duke paid 1500 gold pieces for a pack of cards decorated with images of Gods, animals and stylised birds.
Of course, Decembrio wasn't referring to Tarot, so you are again talking completely beside the point.
Rosanne said:
There are two codices in 1471 illustrated with Tarrochi of Mategna series. One of the codices has a poem describing classical Gods based on Tarrochi figures; apparently the writer has seen in a shop with the figures of Antique Gods and liberal Arts of Tarrochi prints.
Of course, the E-Series isn't even remotely related to Tarot, nor was it ever a card game of any kind, so you are again talking completely beside the point.
Rosanne said:
Between 1441 -1494 Boiardo wrote some verses describing Trionfi, describing states like grace and Wisdom, but the 16 Court cards were shown as persons from ancient times like Ptolemy, or mythological figures like Venus.
Of course, the subject matter of the Boiardo-Viti Tarot has virtually no relation to standard Tarot's iconography, so you are again talking beside the point. The same is true of the Sola Busca Tarot deck.
As everyone interested in Tarot history knows, several Renaissance variants classicized the deck, or at least mitigated the original Christian allegory. Contrary to the pervasive modern folklore which you repeat without question, the historical evidence shows that the original standard trump cycle was so jejune and so Christian in its subject matter that it was repeatedly defrocked, altered or replaced to be more congenial to sophisticated Renaissance tastes. Particular Christian subjects, including the Pope and Popess, the Devil, and Resurrection cards were altered, replaced, or simply removed. The Florentine Minchiate used every option -- add/change/delete -- and turned the standard Tarot's Stoic-Christian
Triumph of Fortune/Death into a Renaissance Humanist's
Triumph of Fame. As Dummett pointed out, "in Rome itself and throuhout the Papal States (except Bologna) it was Minchiate that, among the games of the Tarot family, became pre-eminently popular." Some decks completely replaced the standard trumps, including Boiardo's literary confection (along with Viti's deck and game) and the Sola Busca historical polemic on empire, republic, and Christian teleology.
Just as a regular deck of cards may be decorated with absolutely any subject matter whatsoever, so may a Tarot deck. Is that also too difficult to understand? This was always the case, from the 14th century with regular decks and from the 15th century with Tarot decks. The novelty decks, to be understood with regard to any iconographic content or program they might display, must be taken as the distinct works which they are, and not abused with traditional occultist impositions such as "Tarot is Pagan". Learning about one deck by comparing and contrasting with others does not mean mindlessly throwing around labels, insisting on a one-size-fits-all theory, forcing every deck into the same Procrustean bed.
As everyone interested in Tarot history knows, the standard Tarot trumps are full of traditional medieval allegorical and eschatological subjects, like the Emperor and Pope, Love, Time, Fortune, Death, Virtue, the Devil and Resurrection. These are missing from Boiardo, Sola Busca, the Sixteen Heroes deck in Marcello's gift, and so on. The original Tarot trumps and their hierarchy depict a medieval Christian allegory of the triumph of Fortune and Death over Mankind in this life and God's triumph over the Devil and Death in the next... that's why it has those subjects in that order. This is about as simple, obvious, and fundamental as one can get in terms of understanding the original meaning of Tarot. The contrast with later decks like Boiardo and Sola Busca could hardly be more dramatic, at least for those who can compare and contrast the decks with an open mind.
The only way in which Tarot was anti-Christian was in the eyes of the reformers, hell-fire and brimstone-preaching Catholics and Protestants who deplored gaming in general. In general, this had nothing to do with the iconography of the cards, i.e., the meaning of Tarot. Even the author of the
Steele Sermon, who did attack the subject matter of the trumps, attacked it because the cards showed noble Christian subjects which were defiled by their inclusion in a game.
Rosanne said:
Then there is a commentary by Berni in 1526 that has this passage..
...,to play at most for the fourth part of a Carlino, at Tarrochi, or at Trionfi, or any Sminchiate whatever; which in every way signifies only foolery and idleness, feasting the eye with the Sun, and the Moon, and twelve signs as Children do.
Which tells us that he considered Minchiate a childish game, but nothing about it being Pagan.
Rosanne said:
.....and so it goes. Of course there are comments on the Christian images of Triumphs as well- but not nearly the ones that describe the cards as ancient Gods etc.
Again your writing makes it difficult to decipher your point. Are you saying that there are more historical references to novelty Tarot decks with classical subjects than there are to standard decks with conventional Christian allegories? I doubt that anyone besides you cares whether that is true or not, but if you actually want to support that position then you need to catalog all the references to both types of subject matter, not just a few of the classical ones.
Of course, that would be a futile exercise. Everyone (perhaps excepting you) already knows that some Tarot decks had classical subjects, and that those decks are pretty interesting. So, what's your point? And what do comments about the classicized decks tell us about the standard decks?
Rosanne said:
From 'Fragments of Tarot history' comes this quote...
Michael said:
The Bible is an essential source for the study of Tarot. Much of the symbolism which people have attributed to Joachim of Flora, Dante, Petrarch, and so on, derives directly or indirectly from the Bible. (For example, finding a Triumph of Eternity motif in Tarot does not mean that it was based on Petrarch's I Trionfi, but that both were based on the Bible. Comparing the three works in detail, it can be seen that Petrarch followed the biblical motif only in the broadest sense, while Tarot followed Rev 21:23 directly and did not rely on Petrarch.
Maybe this is not true?
Really? Your writing again makes it difficult to discern your meaning -- are you saying that it isn't true that Joachim, Dante, and Petrarch have all been suggested as sources for the highest trumps? If that's your meaning, you are wrong. Are you saying that it isn't true that a Triumph of Eternity motif in Tarot is a reasonable reading, as proposed by various writers? If that's your meaning, then again you are wrong. Are you saying that there is no source in the Bible that explains those similarities between Joachim, Dante, Petrarch, and Tarot? If that's your meaning, then again you are wrong. But I can't quite tell what you mean.
Rosanne said:
Maybe Studying Ancient Greek and Roman myth and Legend would be more edifying as to Tarot.
Tarot? Sure.
But WHICH Tarot deck are you talking about?
Naturally when discussing the Boiardo-Viti deck we talk about the medieval and Renaissance fascination with 1) Stoic-Christian ethics and especially the Four Passions of the Soul along with 2) classical figures that were used as exemplars of those passions, etc. Naturally when discussing the Sola Busca deck we talk about figures from the Roman Republic along with the three rulers of Babylon/Rome, and so on. Have you been paying attention? These decks show classical subjects, so we study classical subjects to attempt to explain them.
On the other hand, the standard Tarot trumps don't have any of those subjects. Or perhaps you can tell us which Greco-Roman myth shows the Devil and resurrection of the dead. Tell us your alternative reading of the highest trumps, and compare it to Moakley's and mine and others. In that quoted passage, I was discussing writers like O'Neill (Joachim), Seabury (Dante), and Moakley (Petrarch). As you routinely do, you took my quote out of context and distorted it, falsely accusing me of a blunder I had not committed -- namely, ignoring classical content in Tarot. Unlike you, I actually look at each deck on its own terms and try to interpret what is there. You refuse to deal with individual decks, and by imposing a one-size-fits-all label like "Pagan" on all "Tarot", you bastardize all of them.
As Mary pointed out, the Devil is not a Pagan god but a Christian figure. Likewise the pairing of Emperor and Pope as protagonists in a moral allegory, symbolizing Mankind. Likewise the Last Resurrection. So many writers have pursued that anti-Christian Renaissance-Pagan angle (including variations of Platonic notions, Pythagorean, Old Religion, Greco-Roman, Celtic, Norse, etc. ad nauseum) that "Pagan" constitutes the most deeply ransacked approach to Tarot iconography. The problem is that the cards themselves don't match with any Pagan works of art or literature, but they do match with many related works of Christian art and literature. Study Greco-Roman mythology all you want, but it won't tell you squat about the standard Tarot trump cycle.
Rosanne said:
I am not questioning that Tarot originated in a Christian Country, but that it's base as a sequence was ancient myth and legend in images clothed in Renaissance style. This would somewhat disguise the image, I should think- just as Botticelli's Goddess Flora is Italian Renaissance clothed.
Great! But, as usual, you haven't actually said anything -- you've explained nothing at all! You seem to be throwing around more empty labels, buzzwords to which you haven't given any thought.
What ancient myth does the Tarot trump cycle represent?
Just tell us.
What ancient works of art or literature does the Tarot trump cycle reflect? What is the significance of the 22 subjects selected, and how does their arrangement convey this particular work? Tell us what it means when you say this particular narrative is clothed in Renaissance style: what changes have been made to which subjects? If you actually had anything in mind when you were typing those words, why not tell us what it was?
Best regards,
Michael
M