kwaw said:
If it is your belief that tarot originates primarily from work done by 'Moses de Leon and cronies', why do you not use the attributions of 'Moses de Leon and his cronies'? What is the historical source/tradition for your attributions? Surely if your system uses attributions that were totally alien to MdL and cronies then that would demonstrate that the tarot had nothing to do with MdL and cronies?
Firstly, I believe that the Tarot comes from the work done by MdL et al.
I do NOT say that MdL invented the Tarot. MdL was an influence on the concepts behind the Tarot, and he is prior to the Tarot. Hence he obviously could not have provided attributions for them.
The system of attribution is my own, but draws upon previous influences,
as I claim the Tarot draws on previous influences of MdL et al, (and later works also)
My influences include
Modern kabalistic meanings attributed to the Tree of Life (with small changes)
Various traditional meanings attached to the major arcana
Myths and Legends that show similarity to the major arcana.
The sequence of the Major Arcana (with small changes)
Correspondences of imagery and symbolism between the major arcana and alchemical images
and now I am attempting to work out how the concepts of Plato, through two waves of neo-platonism, might have influenced the concepts behind the major arcana. Naturally, I am basing this on my previous work. If this new exploration introduces changes to my theories, then so be it.
I have little or no interest in exact dates of documentary evidence of the cards, or who change the shape of a crown from one card to the next, except in the context of sequence of who influenced who, and how these changes modified our understanding of the meaning of the cards.
Consider the difference between my work and straight history as like the difference between archaeology and history. History may record when a certain person dug up a certain artifact or bone, but does not attempt to place meaning on the date and context of the artifact's origins.
Archeology tries to puzzle out the meaning behind the artifact.
Similarly, Semiotics studies the meaning behind imagery.
So my postings do not strictly belong in the history section of this board,
but there is not yet an appropriate section for them. I have discussed this with the moderator, and we are adopting a wait and see attitude, rather than creating a new section.
BTW, your last sentence is a non-sequitur.
Its like saying that the Space Shuttle uses heat resistant tiles which were completely alien to von Braun ( father of rockets from WWII through to the Saturn V), therefore the Space Shuttle had nothing to do with von Braun.
i.e. it is completely possible for the Tarot to contain much influence from MdL,
while also including work that has been added since.
The significance of MdL and his environment is that is the start of a period of merging of philosophies whose influence continues to this day. He was also only 150 years or so before the cards, and a few hundred kilometers from Italy. That is the historical bit.
The archaelogical/semiotic bit is :-
From that influence arose Kabalistic magic traditions (from MdL's Zohar) and a new phase of Alchemical traditions, evolving into Rosicrucianism. By comparing Tarot with these two traditions, it is possible to find many points of correspondence, indicating a likelihood that the design and evolution of the major arcana was also influenced by the same philosophical train of thought.
Several possibilities exist here,
1) The Tarot majors were developed individually, and adopted by the other two.
2) The other two were influence by the Tarot Majors
3) The Tarot Majors were influenced by the other two
etc.
The decisive factor for me in choosing between possibilities is that, if they developed individually and then were homogenised to fit the other two, then we would see a reasonably drastic change in the imagery at that point. I don't see such a change. It is possible, chronologically, that the images in renaissance alchemy are derived from Tarot, but there are two arguments against this. The first is that the alchemical images contain more than their corresponding tarot cards. This implies that the cards are a cut-down mnemonic for the alchemical images. The second is that if this were so, we should expect to see a dramatic change in alchemical philosophy at this point, and we don't.
In summary, modern Tree of Life, Alchemy, and Tarot Majors show strong levels of synergy indicating that they probably represent, or represented, one common philosophy. The most likely source for that philosophy is MdL et al.
Thus, it seems wise to investigate the Tarot Majors in light of that philosophy.
As a side issue, it appears that the common philosophy shows evidence of Platonic and neo-platonic concepts, which would have been well known to MdL, and to Llull especially, being a Christian scholar.
One way to investigate these links is through Tarot, in a Tarot forum, which is what I am doing.