reconsidering a cathar connection

Teheuti

I don't think it is wrong for someone inexperienced to come here either, but I don't think we should accept all ideas as equally good and without any critical evaluation. And, I am curious what Robert was hoping for since he seems to feel our responses are not helpful.

I learned more about critical reading and writing and historical method from my time (and arguments) on the forums than from all my academic studies (which are quite a lot). I think it's a great place to learn, develop and hone skills & to share ideas.

With this in mind, I've started a new thread on Historical Method and Evaluation - with an outline on critical evaluation of historical materials that was written for the layman. I hope others will offer their thoughts and links to basic, core materials so that we can build some good resources that might answer questions about what historical research is about.
 

Huck

Teheuti said:
I don't think it is wrong for someone inexperienced to come here either, but I don't think we should accept all ideas as equally good and without any critical evaluation. And, I am curious what Robert was hoping for since he seems to feel our responses are not helpful.

I learned more about critical reading and writing and historical method from my time (and arguments) on the forums than from all my academic studies (which are quite a lot). I think it's a great place to learn, develop and hone skills & to share ideas.

With this in mind, I've started a new thread on Historical Method and Evaluation - with an outline on critical evaluation of historical materials that was written for the layman. I hope others will offer their thoughts and links to basic, core materials so that we can build some good resources that might answer questions about what historical research is about.

Well, Robert didn't demand that his idea was taken without critique. And anyway, he found and will find critique, and the local dentists will take a lot of his teeth. .

It's true, internet and its lists and forums had taught us a lot. In Robert's case one has to see, that he even wrote a book about his idea and even published it ... WITHOUT using internet groups obviously. Well, that's at least personal energy, no doubt.
WITHOUT this 10-15 years group experience, that others here have, which taught us indeed a little bit diplomacy and keeping the nerves and some inner security, that our talking partner are usually humans.

... :) ... in our memory it leads a little bit to alt.tarot and our private starts to use internet and all its possibilities. All these furious debates ... :)

Yes, the new thread might be a good idea.
 

Yves Le Marseillais

Nobody is perfect except Cathars

HUck said:
So he's perfectly right at this place. Similar with Robert and with this Tarot History Forum. He needs such a place.
And Tarot History Forums need beginners, otherwise they die. Whatever reason sends them here ... well, it's mostly a genius theory they believe in. That's not a problem, that's normal. One needs a personal and private kick, that drives one into history.

... :) ... Best one observes this with a little more humor, that helps. Great journeys start always with a big Fool.

Hello all,

I bought Robert book by curiosity of course and will read it in due time.

Huck is very right and wise in his comments I listed above (and on most of his comments no problems ;)) ).

I suspect Robert Swirne to be..... very honnest and not at all materialist:

He don't want to make huge money with his little book and I am anyway very happy to have an english book who talks about Tarot de Marseille Pattern.

This is the main thing for me, regardless of his theory about Cathares and Tarot Connection.

Tarot historians can't admit his hypothesis and that's very normal.
He will face to endless fights if he still presist in debating with them.

More "genius theorys" will be issued in 2011 for sure (i.e Philippe Tourrasse AKA Camoin EBook for february 2011 last organised buzz on his site).
Giving hard job to our Tarot historians (are you ready my neighbour Calldwell ?).

We will laugh together for those who have some humour apetite let's say.

I wish to Robert a very welcome in our "Club" and will exchange with him and all of you with same pleasure all along this 22 /2011 Year.

Best from France Marseille City

Yves Le Marseillais
 

Teheuti

Yves Le Marseillais said:
Tarot historians can't admit his hypothesis and that's very normal.
He will face to endless fights if he still presist in debating with them.
I think everyone here has admitted that the Cathar hypothesis (in some sense) is a possibility. No one has closed the door. A 'fight' implies that the only way to judge such a thing is via who lasts longest in a "he said/she said" battle. Is it possible to evaluate this hypothesis as to its likelihood? Is it appropriate to use the historical research tools that have been developed and are used by people such as Dummett and Moakley to do so?
 

foolish

I think we've reached an interesting juncture in this thread. Besides debating the Cathar-tarot connection, we have now opened a larger conversation about the nature of this forum, the appropriateness of entries, and concerns as to how to attract, instead of deter, new people from becoming involved.

You might find it amusing, if you haven't figured it out already, that I have not been an active member of this or any other on-line forum before this thread was posted. I really was never interested in spending more time on the computer than I needed to, and thought (as was the case in my generation) that all the research information I needed was in printed books.

Actually, the reason I even "found" this forum was due to the coincidence that the editor of my book thought it would be a good idea if I passed this by her friend, Mary G. After emailing Mary to find out if she would be interested in reviewing a priliminary version of my book, she told me that she was skeptical about the theory and suggested I first throw it out to some of the people on the AT forum to see what kind of feedback I'd get. (Don't know if you remember my original email way back when, Mary).

After briefly skimming through some of the posts, I thought it would make sense to put the idea up in the history section. Let me explain: "History", to most non-academics like myself simply means that it happened in the past. I had not spent the time investigating the nature of the history forum, and was not familiar with your requirements or expectations for a certain level of "proof" before being an accepted topic for discussion. Our "fields" of interest overlapped, so I thought, since we were discussing tarot history.

It appears to me now that you may have assumed that, by presenting information into this forum, which has been evolving in a certain way for you in the last how-many years, I was also presenting myself as a tarot scholar (which I have never claimed), as was prepared to "argue" the idea soley based upon your methods of examimation.

In the first place, (as I have stated in my book) I understand that no real "proof" of this theory can be given. It's just another theory, which has been suggested by others in the past. Part II of my book, which covers the interpretation of the cards, is simply the way I imagine one might "see" the cards if this theory was in fact true. In other words, if I was "heretic" in 15th century France, and perhaps a descendant of a family of Cathars from a couple hundred years earlier, what would the images of the cards mean to me in that context? Would I be seeing the images in the same way that an orthodox Catholic would? And if I was interested in "telling" the story of my ancestors in this game of picture cards, would there be some images from the Italian deck which I might want to change in order to tell the story a little better from my point of view?

Is there evidence that this was done? No. Case closed. We don't need to beat a dead horse. But as someone not limited to the scope of "historian" I found the journey of associating the images on the cards to the history and spritual messages of the Cathars an interesting one. Can this association be done with many other contextual subjects? Sure. That's why people have done so. Does this beg the fact that some of the images need to be made to "fit" the theory? Sure. The question that remains for the non-strict historian is whether there is enough information and meaningful associations being made to make it interesting, or even possible. And this is what I am trying to do. This is the audience I am presenting this to.

As part of this process, the basic question of whether the cards should even be considered to be seen in this way, or in any way other than its straight-forward, traditionally accepted manner, comes into play. Not to rehash the arguments already presented, but in my defense to this question, I feel that 1) the Cathars had a different way of seeing the "resurrection" as depicted in Judgment than the standard orthodox way. 2) The Cathars had a different concept of the Devil, which was an important part of their dualist theology. 3) the Cathars - and the "hetero-heretics" who followed - had a different sense of the Pope. To the Cathars, the pope was not the leader of the Christian world who took his authority from God, but was rather the enemy, in charge of persecution and oppression. (To the Beguins of early 14th century Languedoc, the pope was the "mystical antichrist.") Therefore, why would it be unreasonable to think that the other cards could not also be seen from the heretic's viewpoint? In addition, since some of the people in the tarot were apparently meant to represent historical figures (Visconti and Sforza in The Lovers and Manfreda in The Popess), would it be unreasonable to think that the heretic sympathizer mentioned above would not try to introduce his own characters in order to help tell the story? After all, some of the cards in the TdM were changed from the Italian deck (still using traditional imagery of course), and not just adopted as-is.

This is the crux of what Part II is about. Does it assume alot of "if this, then that"? Of course. Getting back to an older post, this may be likened to the theory of aliens landing on earth. I just watched a couple of episodes of "Ancient Aliens" (I believe this might have actually been on The History channel -gasp!). I thought it was a very fascinating series. They interviewed all kinds of "experts" and presented many bits of "evidence" which probably raised more questions than answers. You could always come up with some idea to debunk their interpretation of the evidence, given our traditional, scientific way of looking at things. The point here is that (just like the heretic looking at orthodox imagery), these same bits of evidence are seen differently from the viewpoint of those who believe in the alien theory. In the end, they were unable to proove their case. But it still made for an interesting idea, and many of the "facts" being presented were somewhat intellegent.

So, in relation to what I expected from this forum, I really started, not as much with a goal to convince everyone of the Cathar-tarot connection, but with the idea of getting some feedback from a group of people who obviously knew more than I did about tarot history. At that time, I hadn't published the book yet, and wanted to know what the main objections were, and whether I had made errors in the historical secion of the book. In fact, the main reason I included the "historical" section of the book was to offer a brief background for people who may not be familiar with the history of the Cathars or the tarot. How would someone know what I was talking about in the description of The Devil, for example, if they didn't know about Cathr dualism. I also had the opportunity to read Dr. O'Neill's arguments against the Cathar-tarot connection (some of them brought up in this thread), and tried to address them in the book. I thought the forum would give me another opportunity to address some of these issues up front and avoid including some "innocent" mistakes.

In this sense, I feel that I got some good information. I was able to see what your main objections were, and was also able to correct some errors in the pre-publication stage (although some others did slip through). I think one of the biggest problems for the forum was found in the wording I had used in the subtitle of the book, and also on the back cover. The wording was apparently taken to mean that I was offering proof of a way of looking at the cards. For this, I accept responsibility. I got that, and as I explained to Michael, I changed the statement on the back cover from "how the Cathars ... managed to preserve their history and spritiual messages in the TdM" to how they "MAY HAVE managed..." I don't know if this was enough to lower the assumption of my claims.

However, I still feel that the subtitle makes sense to me. It does not say, "How the Cathars Concealed their Story in the Tarot of Marseilles", but rather "How the Story of the Cathars was Concealed...." This might seem like a minor difference in wording, but it points to the idea that the greatest possiblity of this theory making sense would be, not that the Cathars did this themselves, but that the introduction of Cathar ideas and history into the tarot would probalby have been done by someone within the world of the "post-Cathar heresy" at the time the tarot was created. Actually, this may have also been a point of misunderstanding in the forum as to what I was trying to present.

Later generations of "heretics" were probably not Cathars per se. But we should keep in mind that although the theology of Catharism may not have survived intact, the basic theme of medieval heresy - choosing to go beyond the strict orthodox framework with their insistence on "No salvation outside the Church," choosing to live a simple lifestyle of poverty, and seeking a personal relationship with God without the need for priest or sacrament, was maintained by other heretical groups. The life-stlye of the heretics was probably much more important to them than their individual theologies, of which the inquisitors were often focussed. So, my premise is that the "story" about the Cathars could well have been written by some other group of heretics, who, although they didn't share same theology, shared some other, more imortant practical traits. Why would someone in Languedoc bother to do this? Perhaps to recognize or pay tribute the importance of their heretic forefathers, who were so brutally persecuted for some of the same things they were dealing with. (People in the area are still talking about it today, and it provides one of their best tourist industries). Perhaps a far-fetched idea, but I'm sticking to it.

All in all, I am happy with what I've learned in this forum. I'm also quite pleased to accept Mary's concession that it could remain a "possibility." In the realm of this possiblity, I have tried to imagine how the images on the cards could be "read." Sorry if my subtitle doesn't say that explicitly. I reserve the right of artistic license.

Getting back to Huck's concerns for the future of your history section, I might suggest that you all take a less "agressive" approach to your feedback. You obviously have some valuable information to share. As the experts in this field, you should probably look at your position as less of feeling attacked and having to fight back, and more of how you would normally act if you had a friend over for dinner and entered into a discussion about some tarot theory which they need to bounce off you. If you were conducting a class in tarot history, for example, you should realize that your students are not always there to challenge you, but are also looking for encouragement and perhaps support to corrrect their errors and move forward with their ideas.

People don't want to hang out anywhere they don't feel welcome. If you insist on squashing the dreams of those who come into your forum and don't match your level of academia, you may find yourselves "taking your ball and going home," with only yourselves to play with. Fortunately for me, I am both thick-skinned and have another career.

This was probably a long-winded post, but I think certain things needed to be said. Now, I'm going to remind myself that I live in Hawaii, and the golf course is only 5 minutes down the road.

Aloha!
 

mjhurst

Hi, Robert,

Swiryn said:
Let me explain: "History", to most non-academics like myself simply means that it happened in the past. I had not spent the time investigating the nature of the history forum, and was not familiar with your requirements or expectations for a certain level of "proof" before being an accepted topic for discussion.
You continue to "explain" things which you simultaneously admit not knowing, and which others already understand better than you do. Here, you "explain" that you didn't know what "history" means when you wrote a history book. You don't need to explain that -- it is not news at this point, but is in fact something which others have been trying to explain to you.

Swiryn said:
It appears to me now that you may have assumed that, by presenting information into this forum, which has been evolving in a certain way for you in the last how-many years, I was also presenting myself as a tarot scholar (which I have never claimed), as was prepared to "argue" the idea soley based upon your methods of examimation.
You wrote a book, Robert, about Tarot history and the history of Cathars. It does not seem unreasonable to "assume" that someone who writes a history book about Cathars and Tarot would be familiar with the history of Cathars and Tarot. Naive and ignorant noobs usually read books rather than write them.

Swiryn said:
In the first place, (as I have stated in my book) I understand that no real "proof" of this theory can be given.
It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that no one has asked for proof. Go back through the posts if you don't believe me -- NO ONE has asked for proof. Words have meanings. Different words have different meanings. In the context of "demanding proof" versus "asking for evidence", proof means something different than evidence. Evidence is simply some factual reason to believe a claim. Proof is unrefutable, overwhelming, completely persuasive evidence. No one has asked for that, nor expected that.

To demand proof from you, when none of us can prove our own conclusions, would be a double standard. A double standard is exemplified by what you do, for example, when you dismiss good arguments and evidence without consideration and offer in their place mere opinion.

Swiryn said:
Is there evidence that this was done? No. Case closed. We don't need to beat a dead horse.
Quite right. Unless we have a great deal of time on our hands and nothing more productive to do with our adult lives. It was an implausible hunch from the start, mocked by its originator. It has been examined time and time again, and found to be without merit. Unless and until someone finds something NEW, which you have not, it is a waste of time to run around in circles, forever trying to salvage some of the worst ideas rather than building on the best. You say nothing new or interesting, except perhaps as background notes for a future novel.

One of the main reasons why online Tarot forums are generally worthless, why so little progress is made in the subject, is because most of the participants have little or no actual interest in history. They are interested in fantasies that have been concocted by generations of fools and charlatans, and this folklore is recycled endlessly. This universe of intriguing folklore is what draws most of them to Tarot. Many Tarot enthusiasts display an emotional attachment, spiritual involvement, divinatory practice, or other personal interest in esoteric Tarot that strongly colors how they read and what they write on the subject. More than a few are "recovering Catholics", neo-Pagans, and others who have passionate anti-Catholic sentiments. Some of them have their own crackpot theories which they promote year after year, theories which with which they personally identify and will embrace 'till they die. All these things, and more, make online Tarot forums a lousy place to learn about Tarot history, because the vast majority of posts are not historically defensible.

They are, in fact, the perfect place for your book. That is why there are dozens and dozens of fora to choose from which will embrace such unfounded ramblings, without being too concerned about nasty questions of evidence. As far as I know there are only two where someone will repeatedly ask you for evidence, and this is one of those two. Oops. Here, you have been asked repeatedly for evidence -- that's all. Even here, however, the question began very gently and with genuine interest, even hope, that you had something new and valuable to say. When it became clear that you knew very little about Tarot history, people offered suggestions about where you might begin to learn. When you refused to seriously consider the possibility that there was a world of actual historical fact and insight out there, instead merely restating your naive positions, you were asked more pointedly for supporting evidence. You sometimes take this as a personal attack, and you have now concluded that it is some weird cult phenomenon resulting from years of us not knowing what we're talking about.

You might try reading a few books on historiography before writing your next history book. Historical research may be a forbidden topic on this "historical research" forum, but nonetheless I'll recommend the one author I'm familiar with, Christopher Behan McCullagh. He may be a Christian apologist, but he is also a reasonably clear writer on historical method, and he directly addresses the bane of contemporary historiography, Postmodern relativism.

Swiryn said:
As part of this process, the basic question of whether the cards should even be considered to be seen in this way, or in any way other than its straight-forward, traditionally accepted manner, comes into play.
Again, you clearly don't have the first clue what you're talking about. The closest thing to a traditional view is probably something like the story you try to tell in your book. People believe, as you say in the title, that there is a great secret concealed in the Tarot cards. As you suggest throughout, it is a heretical secret about noble underdogs, a rag-tag group of devout spiritual rebels who were hunted down like dogs and destroyed by the Evil Empire, the despicable Church. This is tale of romantic fiction. If you want to know how popular this approach is, look where you got it: Dan Brown!

Lots of people on these fora like to call themselves "seekers", but most of them have in fact already found their "truth", and seek only to impose it on Tarot. Among the more historically inclined there is no traditional view, and certainly no generally accepted view. We are genuinely seeking to discover rather than impose. That is why something like the essays presented in Explaining the Tarot are so important and interesting. They are genuinely "period appropriate" narratives for the images and their sequence. The fact that we are seeking a still-unknown grail is precisely why wasting time rehashing nonsense like Cathars and Tarot is so counter-productive. It was never a good idea: it was a lame hunch when it was originated, which is why it was put forth as a joke about how gullible some people are. It was never plausible, there was never any evidence to support it, and it was thoroughly investigated long ago. This thread started months ago and has 240 posts. It has been a pastime, a way to get some laughs, an opportunity to post some facts, and so on. But at the end of the day the subject of Tarot history is just where it was. Such discussions, reviewing the failed but still popular ideas of the past 230 years, are the main reason why online Tarot forums fail to move the subject forward.

Swiryn said:
Not to rehash the arguments already presented, but in my defense to this question, I feel that 1) the Cathars had a different way of seeing the "resurrection" as depicted in Judgment than the standard orthodox way.
Yes they did. In fact, that is an understatement of the differences, but... so what? Does anyone dispute your brave assertion of the bleeding obvious? The question is, what does this have to do with Tarot? What is there about the depiction of Judgment in Tarot that is unique to Cathar depictions of Judgment, and how do you know that? Have you seen or read about any Cathar depictions of Judgment? Even one? Or are you just making stuff up?

Doesn't it make more sense that a reasonably conventional depiction of Judgment in a popular card game, made by and for Roman Catholics to play cards with, and later made by and for Protestants to play cards with, means what it shows? That it represents exactly what countless hundreds of other illustrations depict? You are offering a wildly far-fetched alternative, with absolutely zero evidence, and you have yet to even acknowledge that fact. Instead, you simply ignore the facts, apparently just because you like the romantic fiction better.

Swiryn said:
2) The Cathars had a different concept of the Devil, which was an important part of their dualist theology.
Great. What about it? Show us pictures of how they depicted the Devil. Oh wait -- they didn't. Tell us what there is about the Devil in Tarot that rules out an orthodox interpretation. Oh wait -- there isn't anything distinctive about it.

Swiryn said:
3) the Cathars - and the "hetero-heretics" who followed - had a different sense of the Pope. To the Cathars, the pope was not the leader of the Christian world who took his authority from God, but was rather the enemy, in charge of persecution and oppression. (To the Beguins of early 14th century Languedoc, the pope was the "mystical antichrist.")
Again, as time and time before, so what? "Amongst the eschatologically minded in the later Middle Ages the idea was already a commonplace. Even such a champion of the Church as St. Bernard could come to believe, in his tense expectation of the final drama, that many of the clergy belonged to the hosts of Antichrist.... Any Millenarian movement was in fact almost compelled by the situation in which it found itself to see the clergy as a demonic fraternity." This is not in any sense a distinctively Cathar belief and, worse yet, you have made no case whatsoever that any particular Tarot deck reflected some heterodox belief.

All you do is state unsubstantiated opinion.

Swiryn said:
Therefore, why would it be unreasonable to think that the other cards could not also be seen from the heretic's viewpoint?
As has been pointed out to you, time and again, anything -- absolutely anything -- can be connected with the Tarot trump cards. This is especially true if we reject the obvious and freely impose alternatives without a shred of evidence.

Swiryn said:
In addition, since some of the people in the tarot were apparently meant to represent historical figures (Visconti and Sforza in The Lovers and Manfreda in The Popess), would it be unreasonable to think that the heretic sympathizer mentioned above would not try to introduce his own characters in order to help tell the story? After all, some of the cards in the TdM were changed from the Italian deck (still using traditional imagery of course), and not just adopted as-is.
You are making assumptions here which are may or may not be sound. First, it is perfectly plausible that the French added nothing but names and numbers to the cards they got from Milan. There is no persuasive evidence that TdM was not essentially the same deck as the 15th-century Milanese standard pattern, and parsimony argues that it was. Second, within Italy, changes to both the iconography and order of the trumps was the norm. As far as we know,every locale changed the cards a bit and changed the order a bit. So the answer to the question of "why would they change the deck" must be expanded to include every deck variant we know about, and the question becomes, "why did everyone want their own version of Tarot?" Third, the assumption that figures in one particular hand-painted luxury deck have been positively identified is false. None of those things you assume are actually known to be true, so none of them constitute a basis for further speculation. You can't pile one guess on top of another and call it history -- again, this is fiction writing.

But most importantly, even if those assumptions were established as definitive conclusions, they would add nothing to your thesis. You suggest that a hypothetical heretic would introduce heretical characters in order to help tell a heretical story. Your heresy thesis may be true regardless of whether your assumptions are or not, and it may be false in either case. So your argument is a non-sequitur. To support your conclusion, only one thing is required: there needs to be something identifiably heretical in the trump cards. You haven't offered anything.

Swiryn said:
This is the crux of what Part II is about. Does it assume alot of "if this, then that"? Of course. Getting back to an older post, this may be likened to the theory of aliens landing on earth. I just watched a couple of episodes of "Ancient Aliens" (I believe this might have actually been on The History channel -gasp!). I thought it was a very fascinating series. They interviewed all kinds of "experts" and presented many bits of "evidence" which probably raised more questions than answers. You could always come up with some idea to debunk their interpretation of the evidence, given our traditional, scientific way of looking at things. The point here is that (just like the heretic looking at orthodox imagery), these same bits of evidence are seen differently from the viewpoint of those who believe in the alien theory. In the end, they were unable to proove their case. But it still made for an interesting idea, and many of the "facts" being presented were somewhat intellegent.
First, when the best analogy you can come up with is synonymous with "crackpot theory" and "lunatic fringe", that is tragic. Apparently you expected that everyone interested in Tarot was naively credulous, and that no one would feel that you were insulting their intelligence with the Tarot equivalent of alien encounters. That may be true of many, including some prominent posters. Some of us, however, are interested in the actual history of the subject rather than traditional fantasies.

Your argument, however, is even worse than you suggest; worse than "little green men" and UFOs. The case for UFOs, as the name implies, is based on ignorance. We don't know what a particular "unidentified" flying object might be. Space aliens are an extremely far-fetched hypothesis for unidentified visual phenomenon, (many turn out to not even be "flying objects"), particularly given what physicists know about the possibilities for space travel and the likely cost and utility of such journeys. Nonetheless, in at least some cases the unidentified visual phenomenon remain unidentified. That isn't the case with the Tarot trump subjects.

I'll outline that in the next post.

Best regards,
Michael
 

mjhurst

Tarot as a Complex Allegory

Hi, Robert,

Newbies and clown-shoes poseurs think (or pretend) that we are starting from scratch with every discussion. They seem to believe that they are the first people to ever think about Tarot, so they just post their random thoughts as if the world really needs another brainstorming session among the ignoranti. It's a great time saver, as they don't need to learn anything before playing the game. However, the assumption that we're starting from zero with each new thread is false. Smart and knowledgable people have been learning, thinking, and writing about Tarot for a long time. First, the essays published in Explaining the Tarot, for example, are among the few genuinely helpful attempts to explain the Tarot trump cycle. They are VASTLY more period appropriate than any story of Cathars.

Second, in the 19th century there were a number of playing-card historians who glimpsed (albeit vaguely) the genre of the trump cycle as a whole. They compared the trump cycle to a Danse Macabre, which in its most famous form (Holbein) has biblical scenes, a ranks of mankind, and personified Death. Third, in 1926, Arthur E. Waite's "The Great Symbols of the Tarot" was published in The Occult Review. Waite categorized the trumps into four types of subject matter. In the first group he includes "Emperor and Empress, the Pope and Juggler", referring to them as representatives of "estates and types", a social hierarchy. He regarded a number of the cards as allegorical in the strict sense, such as Love, Death, Justice, Fortitude. Waite included a few cards (specifically the Devil and the Angel of resurrection), in the category of "doctrinal", referring to Christian eschatology. And finally, there were more than a few cards that he simply didn't understand at all, and chose to interpret "symbolically". These included the Popess, the Hanged Man, Chariot, Temperance, the Tower, the Star, the Sun and Moon, and the World. The Fool and the Wheel he considered complex and challenging.

With hindsight, the cards he assigned to the first three groups are all correct. Not coincidentally, these are the same three types of subject matter one finds in Holbein. The cards that he didn't understand, or wanted to redefine, were in some cases obvious. Temperance and the Wheel of Fortune, for example, are clearly allegorical subjects, conventionally represented. Waite admits the obvious "surface" significance of the Fool, belonging to the lowest estate, even while wanting to claim something more. Some of the so-called "symbolical cards", such as the Papess and Hanged Man, were identifiable historical images that Waite failed to recognize. Others, including the majority of the cards above the Devil, required a more systematic analysis than the card-by-card approach Waite took. But in general terms, he clearly had the right idea, and recognized three importantly different types of Tarot cards, as well as the catch-all category of "symbolical cards" for those he failed to recognize.

Fourth, in 1956 Gertrude Moakley's "The Tarot Trumps and Petrarch's Trionfi" was published in The Bulletin of The New York Public Library, and in 1966 her book was published. She discovered plausible readings for many of Waite's so-called "symbolical cards". These included the Papess as an unorthodox religious leader, (which Waite would have agree with, as the Secret Church), the Chariot as either Chastity (in V-S) or simply as a triumphal chariot, Temperance as Temperance, the Wheel of Fortune as the Wheel of Fortune, the Hanged Man as a traitor being executed, the Moon and Sun as elements of a larger design, (the Triumph of Eternity), and so on. The Tower and Star eluded her, but by the time her analysis was finished, these were really the only two cards left to decipher and categorize. Most of Waite's symbolical cards had been identified now as members of his other three categories. Not only were the subjects being identified and classified, but the classifications were in contiguous groups. The lowest ranking cards were *all* of the same kind, representatives of a social hierarchy. The highest ranking cards appeared to *all* be "doctrinal", eschatological in nature. And between the Pope and the Devil, the cards were *all* allegorical.

By this point, the trumps are not UFOs. (Unidentified Figurative Objects.)

This grouping into distinct sections of similar type is typical of the kinds of complex artistic programs typical of pre-Modern moral allegories. Over the years I have presented many examples of such allegories which combine representatives of Mankind, conventional allegorical subjects like Fortune, Death, and virtues, with biblical subjects -- sometimes from Genesis, sometimes from Revelation, sometimes from both. Even Bible illustrations sometimes included combinations of biblical and allegorical figures. An example I presented in the old Riddle of Tarot page was the 12th-century Floreffe Bible. Adolf Katzenellenbogen, (Allegories of the Virtues and Vices in Mediaeval Art) explains how an illustration of Job's children unites several spheres of interpretation. Typologically, the seven sons of Job are related to the twelve apostles (3+4=7 and 3x4=12), while morally they are associated with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Seven virtues which derive from these gifts (not the conventional seven Cardinal Virtues) are also shown, as are the three Theological Virtues, the latter associated with Job’s three daughters. Job, a type of Christ, prays for God’s mercy on his children, as Christ also pleads for them, and so on.

floreffe-bible-job-720.jpg

A great 14th-century example of such a complex cycle is the fresco at the Camposanto in Pisa. There is a Crucifixion on the south western side, then a Judgment scene on the southern side, Hell, then a Triumph of Death, and then the Egyptian hermits. Every section combines with the adjacent sections to amplify and elaborate the meaning of each. A detailed 15th-century example is presented in my series of posts on Costa's triumphs in the Bentivoglio Chapel. The Triumph of Fame panel includes the titular allegorical figure as well as representations of mankind, biblical scenes, historical scenes, and members of the patron's family. That is five (5) types of subject matter in one complex image, and that image is part of a cycle of two paired images (diptych), and part of a larger devotional complex. Cyclic art requires taking complexity and context into account.

Here is a pictorial summary of the Triumph of Death panel, highlighting the three main types of subject matter: Mankind, Death, and the soul rising to Judgment. (This panel also includes members of the patron's family, under the banner of Chastity.)

death-bologna-720.png

At some point you should note that I'm not bullshitting. I'm not making stuff up. I'm not imagining what some hypothetical person might have done in some hypothetical circumstance for some hypothetical purpose. The people of that time and place made countless works of art and literature, and many of them have parallels in the Tarot trump cycle. Tarot is a unique work of art but not without parallels, and those parallels are evidence of Tarot's meaning.

One of the earliest and most striking pictures related to this family of themes is a Roman mosaic which combines symbols of the highest and lowest estates (representing all Mankind via merism), with symbols of Fortune and Death and, via the butterfly (Psyche) even the triumph over death. If you fail to recognize that the various symbols represent different types of subject matter then you cannot understand the design. This kind of complexity is a commonplace, and this kind of analysis of Tarot is reflected in the 16th-century essays and in Waite's 1926 article. Their insights can be built upon, if we don't pretend that we're the first ones to look at this question.

Getting back to the earlier writers whom we either learn from or disparage and ignore, our fifth instructor is Michael Dummett. His 1980 The Game of Tarot examined and compared all the historical sequences of Tarot Trumps. The previous studies by Waite and Moakley were iconographic, assessing the subject matter of the images. However, a very different kind of analysis was possible. By comparing the different historical sequences, looking for commonalties and variations, Dummett revealed exactly the same division of the trump cycle as earlier iconographic studies had suggested. As the order of cards was changed during Tarot's early spread, cards were moved about within each of the three groups, but not between them. Cards below the Pope were never moved above him, while cards above the Devil were never demoted below him. The single (apparent) exception to this was Justice, which in the Ferrara sequence was placed between the Angel of resurrection and the World, showing New Jerusalem. However, given a moment's reflection, it is obvious that the Moral Virtue of Justice had in fact been redefined into the eschatological Last Judgment, and the integrity of the groups remained intact.

While many Tarot enthusiasts seem to believe that historical facts are worthless, rejecting them without cause and even presuming to write a book on Tarot history without bothering to learn that history first, facts often do tell their own story... whether we like it or not. Dummett's analysis of the variations in trump order reveals, or confirms, the existence of three types of subject matter. In 1985, Dummett wrote "Tarot Triumphant", an article published in the periodical FMR which precisely identified the three groups. "The individual subjects used for the trionfi appear to have been standardized early in the history of the pack; with few exceptions, all fifteenth century packs use the same set of subjects. The matto is not, strictly speaking, one of the trionfi.... The remaining twenty-one cards may be divided into three groups."

The first group consists of the "bagatella" (the "trifle", aka Mountebank or Magician) and the four "papal and imperial cards". Although not one of the trionfi proper, the Fool considered as an allegorical figure also belongs in this group, as the lowest of the lowly. These six cards are representative of the Ranks of Man, Waite's "estates and types", and show two representatives from each of the three estates of Medieval society. In every known ordering of the Tarot sequence, the Mountebank is the lowest of the trumps and the Pope is the highest. This clearly suggests that a meaningful design is present, even if the details are not obvious. A fool and a deceiver triumphed by an unorthodox religious leader, and the two highest Christian monarchs triumphed by the Pope, or else (in the Ferrarese order) the two representatives of each estate in order, commoners, nobles, and clergy. That is the place where subsequent analyses need to focus, figuring out the details.

Conversely, if you don't understand that didactic art routinely combined representatives of mankind, allegorical figures like Death personified, and biblical subjects from Genesis and Revelation, then you can't even understand something as simple and straightforward as Holbein's Dance of Death. It begins with biblical scenes from Genesis, (as do all moral allegories, at least implicitly), then has dozens of allegories combining personified Death with representatives of mankind, and ends with an eschatological scene from Revelation, (as do all moral allegories, at least implicitly).

From your posts it is clear that this complexity is baffling to you, so I'll offer one more example, one of my favorites. This drawing is not technically a Triumph of Death, although Death's triumph is at the heart of it. Rather than a personified Death, this allegory has a personification of Life, depicted as Homo Bulla. The Reaper and Homo Bulla are combined in various works of art, including funerary art, and in the so-called Dutch Tarot, Floskaartjes. Here, Homo Bulla takes the place of Death, making this a Vanitas rather than Triumph of Death, despite the floor being littered with bodies.

The title of the image, Mors Sceptra Ligonibus Aequat, is a traditional memento mori subject. Death knows no rank -- Death equalizes the scepter and the spade, more or less. This is an ancient idea, precisely the same one illustrated in the Roman mosaic discussed above. (This is also an idea embodied in the trump cycle as well as all other Triumph of Death works.) This print, however, shows an emphatically Christian version. The theme was discussed and illustrated in a series of posts in 2008, (Mors Omnia Aequat, Blunder and Bullshit, and A Pair of Emblems), and this print was discussed in a more recent post from last year, Complex Moral Allegories.

mors-omnia.jpg

The content of the drawing is comprehensive, from Genesis through Revelation. This is the actual scope of all the contemptu mundi works, although the biblical bookends are usually implicit. These works are all concerned with the triviality and enticements of the post-lapsarian world, which does little more than endanger one’s immortal soul. Why do we “remember death” or “remember the Last Things” (death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell)? Why do we meditate on Homo Bulla, the idea that mankind’s lot in this life is a fragile and transient as a soap bubble? The answer is because of the economy of salvation, which refers to the Fall as described in Genesis (introducing sin and its punishment, death), Redemption in the Gospels (the Crucifixion and Resurrection), and the End Times in Revelation (the final triumph over the Devil and death itself). This is what matters, and mortal life -- life in this world as opposed to the next -- is nothing in comparison. Hence, the requirement for a studied contempt toward this world and a continuing focus on the next.

This particular print explicitly includes all the elements of the story. In the upper-left medallion we see Adam and Eve being deceived by the Snake. In the upper-right we see the sacrifice of the Crucifixion. In the large panel under the canopy we see resurrection, the Last Judgment, and souls assigned to Heaven and Hell. This is the biblical context of Death allegories, what made the vast art and literature of Gothic macabre meaningful to period audiences. In the lower half of the image we have the allegory per se. We see a monarch and a peasant flanking an enthroned Homo Bulla, with his traditional motto from the famous Hendrick Goltzius print, Quis Evadet? No one escapes death, as surely as no bubble remains unbroken. The two figures, who combine to illustrate all the ranks of mankind, are shown below as corpses. Assorted other Vanitas symbols decorate the scene, such as an owl (symbolizing night and death), smoke, flowers, and the implements of the two men are shown broken and ruined (ubi sunt), under their dead bodies (memento mori). It is a rich constellation of conventional elements neatly arranged: a schematic of life, death, and the meaning of it all.

I'll wrap this up in the next post.

Best regards,
Michael
 

mjhurst

The Secret of the Tarot

To recap the previous post, we are now entering the fourth decade since The Game of Tarot was published. So far, it seems that I am the only person who has taken Dummett's findings, and earlier steps in that same direction, as a basis for further development. However, some people are now beginning to acknowledge the design I've outlined as plausible. The point here, however, is that none of the 22 trump subjects are particularly mysterious anymore. At least, not to anyone who actually cares enough about the subject to read the tiny shelf of serious books on the subject. They are not UFOs. We know the general outline of the trump cycle, and that tells us the context in which details must be understood. The general outline constrains the particulars.

Swiryn said:
I think one of the biggest problems for the forum was found in the wording I had used in the subtitle of the book, and also on the back cover. The wording was apparently taken to mean that I was offering proof of a way of looking at the cards. For this, I accept responsibility. I got that, and as I explained to Michael, I changed the statement on the back cover from "how the Cathars ... managed to preserve their history and spritiual messages in the TdM" to how they "MAY HAVE managed..." I don't know if this was enough to lower the assumption of my claims.
You wrote a book of fantasy, historical fiction, and you presented it as history. That is the source of the problems. It has nothing to do with whether or not you removed some blunders or added some weasel words. The bottom line is that it is an exercise in creative writing, imaginative and dramatically contra-factual rather than fact-based. Cathars are perhaps the worst possible candidates for Tarot designers, re-designers, or whatever you want to call them.

Swiryn said:
Getting back to Huck's concerns for the future of your history section, I might suggest that you all take a less "agressive" approach to your feedback. You obviously have some valuable information to share. As the experts in this field, you should probably look at your position as less of feeling attacked and having to fight back, and more of how you would normally act if you had a friend over for dinner and entered into a discussion about some tarot theory which they need to bounce off you. If you were conducting a class in tarot history, for example, you should realize that your students are not always there to challenge you, but are also looking for encouragement and perhaps support to corrrect their errors and move forward with their ideas.

People don't want to hang out anywhere they don't feel welcome. If you insist on squashing the dreams of those who come into your forum and don't match your level of academia, you may find yourselves "taking your ball and going home," with only yourselves to play with. Fortunately for me, I am both thick-skinned and have another career.
Holy crap!

So, your position is that "historical research" is hanging out with friends and cuddling each others' dreams? Really?! And those who ask rude questions should stop? And your repeated whining about how mean people are is an indication of how thick-skinned you are? Here is a sad fact for you to deal with: I've been asking Tarot questions online since 1998, and giving answers when I can since 2000. I'm not taking my ball and going home just yet.

Maybe an analogy would help. Creationists feel that their beliefs are not respected. They feel put upon by nasty old scientists. But the fact is that the scientists do NOT attempt to impose their views in churches. Just the opposite, the Creationists attempt to impose their views, recycled folklore just like yours, in science classrooms. That's where the conflict begins.

You are perfectly entitled to your fantasy world, just like the hundreds of millions of others who have some sort of comforting, security-blanket beliefs that they cling to while sucking their thumbs. (Cf. Charles Shultz.) Whether it is 3,000 year-old Jewish mythology or the latest 2012 crystal-skulls Mayan apocalypse, have at it. But if that feel-good folklore is presented as history, it is likely to be questioned in terms of evidence.

You don't seem to remember, so I will remind you once again: You wrote a book! That makes you the expert, the auctor. ("Related to the notion of legitimacy on the basis of publication.") It is a history book. It concerns the history of Cathars and the history of Tarot. You chose to present it on the Historical Research section of a Tarot site. You didn't come to this forum as a newbie asking questions, but as an authority with a book to promote. It does not seem unduly "aggressive" to thoroughly trash such a book if it completely fails to offer sound history regarding Tarot.

You had only one basis for your entire book but, if true, it was an astonishing finding. It would have revolutionized several areas of study. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a howling blunder and you apparently didn't even realize its importance in the first place. Your one "fact" vanished, so you were left with none. Yet whenever you are asked about the factual shortcomings of your book, about the complete absence of anything connecting Tarot with Cathars, you take umbrage. You imply that those who are questioning you must have some odd conception of "history", or they must be defensive about something. The truth is much simpler than that: your book is a sham, a fraud. It claims to reveal "The Secret of the Tarot" and to connect Tarot with the Cathars. It does neither of those things. It is just a badly written fictional account.

In that regard, let me close with a few more comments about your book, so that others might know what to expect. For the first 1/3rd of the book you ramble on about the history of the Cathars, including some rather suspect stuff. Anyone actually interested in that history should look elsewhere. In offering interpretations of the cards, you seem to be a typical 21st-century New Age enthusiast who hasn't even tried to envision an overall design, much less a period-appropriate one. You seem to be just tossing out a list of names/ideas vaguely associated with Cathar history or modern views of Cathar beliefs. Much of this comes from popular accounts written for the HBHG market, jumbled up with some numerological noise, Buddhism, and anything else that caught your attention.

It's an impressionistic shotgun approach in which you don't even bother picking a "best guess" interpretation and defend it. You repeatedly claim that every detail, (even the colors in a TdM deck), has intended symbolism, and yet you only address such details sporadically. The whole book is haphazard, consistent with what you've presented online. It seems like the work of a magpie, stealing bright things and collecting them into 22 piles, with no real plan or purpose.

Like other books tailored for that market, (and going back to the Freemasons who founded occult Tarot), your book assumes an anti-Catholic stance and adopts a lot of bigotry and bullshit from Protestant propaganda. While I dislike the Church as much as anybody, that doesn't make a perfectly respectful depiction of the Pope into an anti-Catholic satire. If you are interested in history rather than fantasy, then you have to accept the facts as you find them. I noticed that you felt obliged to make at least one disclaimer about being anti-Catholic, which indicates that even you are aware of how anti-Catholic you positions are. You assume, and occasionally express the view -- as do many writers -- that the early Gnostics were the true Christians, and also that they remained a secret, underground Christian movement.

The extent of your anti-Catholic orientation is emphasized by the "Epilogue" you include after the final chapter. It is an extended passage from Chapter VI, "The Wearing Out", of War with the Saints, (by a famous 19th-century anti-Catholic writer, Charlotte Elizabeth). In a sense it may be the best part of the book. It is reminiscent of Moakley's scene-setting "Undocumented Prelude", presenting a fictional narrative in which the interpretation comes to life. You didn't include the illustration from that chapter, but you should have -- it's a good one, and the saintly old "toil-worn traveller" could easily be imagined to have playing cards in his box of "humble wares". He could just as easily be imagined as a pervert offering the little girls a cheap trinket... I'll let you finish the narrative. We can always write a new story for an image, but the historical question concerns intended meaning. We get that from the context, in this guy's case, the text which he illustrated. I'll close with that picture. (BTW, the dark, disembodied face in the background is a spy of the Evil Church.) However, when the speculative set dressing "what if" portion, written by someone else, is the best part of a history book, the final conclusion must be that it's a terribly weak book.

You wrote a history book. If that was not your intent, then a lot more than the title needed to be changed. If it was your intent, then you needed to learn the history before you presumed to teach it.

Best regards,
Michael

war-with-the-saints-illustration.JPG
 

Teheuti

Robert -

You should know that Michael is, perhaps, one the most harsh and narrow defenders of historical authenticity and method we have. He pulls no punches in letting people know what he thinks (occasionally attacking the person rather than the material), and he has hurt and angered a lot of people in the past by doing so. He has often been a thorn in my side, since I am not so rigorous in my approach as he is, but he is also one of my greatest teachers for whom I have great admiration. He's one of the best iconographic researchers we have in the field. His work is brilliant and has been overlooked for far too long.

I understand that we can sound harsh, but if you came here to see if others doing tarot historical research would support your claims, then you really should be prepared that we might subject your material to standard historical methods and compare it to the knowledge we've spent years gathering. Otherwise, what value could an area called "historical research" provide for the tarot community? I'd hate to think we kept the lowest possible standards in order to have everyone feel that their theory was as historically valid as any other. For those who know better, that's a lie.

You are right that we need to constantly work at "being nice." I think we tried to be welcoming in the face of approaches and subjects that have been dealt with ad infinitum. There's a certain disappointment when we discover that an author hasn't brought us anything new in terms of the actual history but has merely perpetuated misconceptions. [Personally, I think there is something very important in the fact that this 'myth' never dies but is continually resurrected with a kind of religious fervour—but that's another subject that historians have trouble dealing with.]

Michael -

I stand in awe of the overview you've provided and hope that you will put it on your blog. Robert has done a great favor for us all, in pushing you to do this. It's a wonderful summary of the work done by you and others. It's one of your most cogent yet brief explanations for the tarot cycle and review of those who built the foundations for seeing it. And, it only touches on the fascinating discoveries you've been gathering on your blog.
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/

Even more, it's a great example of how you put together probable, well-documented histories derived from facts that show a true respect for the philosophy, ideas and artistic expression of the time. That kind of respect comes only from long and dedicated research and a close examination of primary materials.

I share your frustration—especially with the fact that the historical researchers here, on tarotL and on the tarot history forum have done so much to bring new knowledge to light, to advocate for sound methodology, and to set the record straight on the real tarot history with authors, publishers and tarot conference organizers. We have made a difference that we can be proud of.

If we don't speak up for standards in tarot history, and help teach and define them, then who will?
 

foolish

Teheuti said:
Robert -

You should know that Michael is, perhaps, one the most harsh and narrow defenders of historical authenticity and method we have. He pulls no punches in letting people know what he thinks (occasionally attacking the person rather than the material), and he has hurt and angered a lot of people in the past by doing so. He has often been a thorn in my side, since I am not so rigorous in my approach as he is, but he is also one of my greatest teachers for whom I have great admiration. He's one of the best iconographic researchers we have in the field. His work is brilliant and has been overlooked for far too long.

I'm sure this is true. But that doesn't give him the right to act like a jerk. Maybe you should ask yourselves if this is the way you want your forum represented, and whether this is appropriate for the level of academic professionalism you are attempting to maintain.

I have never questioned your expertise and knowledge of tarot history. I would challenge anyone to find something I said to the contrary. This doesn't mean we can't have a civil conversation about our differences of opinion.

from page 2 of this thread:
foolish:
let me first say that, as a new member of this forum, i am both excited about the amount of information being shared among seriously involved tarot enthusiasts around the world and humbled by the depth of knowledge i already can see exists at this site.

I have already stated that the posting of this topic in the history section may have been a mistake. The following quotes may have been partially responsible for the continued confusion:
p.5. Tehuti said
It's definitely not a closed issue
P. 10. Huck said
Robert Swiryn has the respected right to present his ideas and have them discussed

If one of your moderators came forward and make a judgment call one way or the other, we could at least stop debating that issue.

Another major point of confusion that seems to be continuously raising its head is in the use of the term "history".

from p. 19. Tehuti said
This is not history and should not be put about as history

Michael:
You wrote a book of fantasy, historical fiction, and you presented it as history

and,
It is a history book

No, I did not. And no, it is not. The fact that the book contains historical information doesn't make it a "history" book. It uses facts of history to introduce a theory. The focus of the book, however, is in the association or interpretation of the tarot images within a certain context. Of course, as historians, it is always natural to view things from your "scope of practice". It's wrong to assume others share the same view.

It is evident that the historian has a specific use and clear definition of the word. However, to the rest of us, the word is not always used in such a limited way. On dictionary.com, the word has at least 8 meanings, including "a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events." So, to say that I should have known whether or not to post this idea on this forum because it is called the "history" forum, is missing an understanding of how the term is more broadly used. And to insist I am presenting this book in the same field of history as those which are written strictly to recount historical events is false.

I will disregard the juvenile attempts at personal insult, and respond to Michael's "comments" a bit later.





[Personally, I think there is something very important in the fact that this 'myth' never dies but is continually resurrected with a kind of religious fervour—but that's another subject that historians have trouble dealing with.]