15th Century Italy: How confident are you?

Book of Thoth's provenance

Baba Prague,
are you referring to the Demotic Book of Thoth as edited by Zauzich/Jasnow?
or are you referring to the "Corpus Hermeticum" in general? The Egyptian primacy of some of the Hermetica has been recently attested in such works as The Way of Hermes translated by Clement Salaman, Dorine van Oyen & William Wharton, & Jean-Pierre Mahé.
discussion:
http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/mailing_lists/BMCR-L/2006/0220.php

-John

Without wanting to derail the thread, I was (slightly jokingly and woefully inaccurately) referring to the works by Hermes Trismegistus, usually known as The Hermetica and described in this way by Frances Yates:

"The works which [were] believed to be of profound antiquity, were really written in the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD."

In other words they have been definitively - as far as I know - identified as much later works pretending to be ancient Egyptian. Yates goes into some detail about how this dating was arrived at. Not that I feel that devalues them, but it definitely casts a different light on any approach from a historical perspective.

It's late here but if you need more quotes tomorrow I can dig them out.The book I'm currently reading (and quoting from) is Yates' "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition" - first published in 1964, so quite old now. Incidentally I'm trying to combine this with reading Copenhaver's Cambridge University Press edition/translation of the Hermetica. Slow going to be honest.

Edited to add. I am surprised that anyone is bothering to attest the ancient Egyptian origin of the Hermetica nowadays. I thought it was established a very long time ago (I think Yates says in the 19th century? I could be wrong, I'll check) that the linguistics and various other characteristics indicate that it couldn't be an ancient Egyptian work. What I mean is that Yates is, even in 1964, drawing from much earlier work on the overwhelmingly likely date of the Hermetica. Please correct me if you feel this is not the case. I'll read the site you link to in the next couple of days - looks very interesting.

Edited to add - Oh, I see, it may depend on what one terms "ancient Egypt". Yates' assertion is quite simply that the book is much later than it purports to be, and much later than it was believed (in error) to be when it was at the height of its influence in Europe. But you probably know her whole thesis on that. Okay, later, better stop now!

derail! derail!

While I greatly admire Yates' works, there has been much development since then. As the link I provided demonstrates, provenance is under reconsideration. Yes, Copenhaver's edition tends to be dry. I'm still fond of my GRS Mead collection. The theosophic roccoco embellishments don't bother me...
BTW, my first post at TarotL aeons ago was about tsagli being the Grandmother of Tarot!


-John

Thanks. I'll read more (slowly no doubt ). Are researchers actually now saying that the work is significantly earlier than 2nd century AD? I didn't know that - very interesting, thank-you again for the link.

Edited to add. I think le Pendu can be very gracious about the odd derail

It seems to me that it has always been a habit of occult and esoteric writers to claim antiquity for their works. There is something in the human psyche that is more open to accepting ideas if they are from 'the ancient mystics', 'Biblical times' 'ancient Egypt' etc etc. This has become even more fashionable today among some 'New Age' teachers too.

It's a strange phenomenon but it works and has done for centuries with all kinds of sacred texts. The writers of the Bible did it, the writers of the Vedas did it, alchemists, Levi, Crowley, Mathers were all at it and they all got away with it because the truth was often very hard to find back then.

In the past, when I've discovered that alleged ancient texts were not nearly as ancient as claimed I've felt kind of cheated and had the urge to then dismiss them on the basis that if the writer was prepared to lie about the age of the text, what else was he prepared to lie about? Or was the writer so lacking in confidence about his own thoughts that he felt the need to justify them with age?

But once you begin to see that it was a standard practise particularly in this field of writing - however pointless it ultimately proves to be - then you can start to try and look at what the writings contain without that clouded judgement. All writings had to have been 'new' at some point but that newness doesn't make them any less valid if they are insightful and useful in their own right. So what if there is no Book of Thoth from ancient Egypt - the ideas from that culture have still had an influence on the Tarot via the likes of Plato.(Although perhaps actually calling it 'The Book of Thoth' is a little silly - go and stand in the naughty corner Mr Crowley :0) ). The Hermetica is still an interesting read, whenever it was written.

Also given that many early cultures had an oral tradition rather than a written one it is possible that many texts have been derived out of much earlier teachings anyway. Although that is something that we can never know for sure, I suppose.

winnie said:

The Hermetica is still an interesting read, whenever it was written.

Click to expand...

Yes, I completely agree with that. However, I think it's important to know, and to acknowledge, the historical facts according to the current evidence. Personally, I would question the judgement of anyone who makes a tarot deck today and claims that tarot was born in ancient Egypt or a secret Templar sect or somesuch (unless, of course, they have uncovered some stupendous new piece of evidence )

I don't think good decks need it in any case, they can stand on their own without the para-phernalia (pun entirely entended) of a lot of made-up "mystic" history.

le pendu said:

I think it might be interesting to bump this one up again.

For those who replied before, has your opinion changed?

It seems most (all?) of the historical facts point to 15th Century Italy. Many of us have alternate views which we are developing. What historical evidence is there that questions/outweighs the 15th Century Italy theory?

best,
robert

Click to expand...

Hi Robert,

I haven't yet read any responses to your re-opening of this thread, so I will answer your question directly.

I remain *extremely* confident that the trump series was invented in an Italian city, not many years before 1442.

I believe that all the physical and documentary evidence supports this idea, and that none of it contradicts it.

Certain pieces of evidence seem almost conclusive, especially Jacopo Antonio Marcello in 1449 writing that triumph cards are a "new Italian invention". Neither he nor his diplomatic friend Giovanni Cossa, who travelled all over Europe, appears to have seen such cards before 1449, in Milan.

Also, none of the lists of permitted or prohibited games lists triumphs before 1450. We do know that triumphs was always permitted in the 15th century, so it would be strange that permitted games from 1376-1450 didn't mention it. Either it had a different name before around 1442, or it didn't exist much before. I think the latter is more plausible.

We also know that different kinds of card decks were invented almost immediately after cards came to Europe, and that allegorization of the cards took place. We know that Marziano da Tortona designed an allegorical pack with a special suit of "trumps", well before anything is heard of about the standard tarot deck. So the environment is right for something like the tarot to be born, which is an allegorical series of trumps.

These are just a few of many ways of looking at it. But however much I study the history of this period in Italy, France, Germany, Eastern Europe, Aragon/Spain, etc. I find no positive evidence of any sort that even suggests the tarot deck was created in any of them but northern Italy.

Finally, some people argue that when they talk about tarot, they are talking about a philosophy rather than a deck of cards. That's fine, but I'm talking about the deck of cards as a historical object.

Digression deck 52 cards

e voudrais attirer l'attention, en digression, sur certaines similitudes entre ancien calendrier Julien et jeu de 52 cartes. Peut-être est-ce déjà connu et admis, ou totalement réfuté, je ne sais pas.

I would like to draw the attention, in digression, to certain similarities between old calendar Julien and pack of 52 cards. Perhaps this already known and is admitted, or completely refuted, I do not know.


Certes, l'idée d'une quadruple hiérarchie féodale aux quatre coins cardinaux reflète bien une vison médiévale du monde des hommes. Mais curieusement il n'y pas les prêtres, aucun représentant du clergé, pourtant bien dans cette hiérarchie, leur présence semble même être plus logique que celle des valets...

Admittedly, the idea of a quadruple feudal hierarchy to the four cardinal corners reflects well a mink medieval of the world of the men. But curiously it there not priests, none representative of the clergy, however well in this hierarchy, their presence even seems to be more logical than that of the servants…

Maintenant, le jeu de 52 cartes vu comme un calendrier julien:
- 4 couleurs, 4 saisons
- 3 figures par couleur, 3 mois par saison
- 13 cartes par couleur, 13 semaines par saison
soit 52 semaines de 7 jours: 364 jours
Alors un ou deux jokers pour faire 365 ou 366 jours, selon.

Now, pack of 52 cards seen like a Julien calendar:
- 4 colors, 4 seasons
- 3 figures per color, 3 months per season
- 13 charts per color, 13 weeks per season
that is to say 52 weeks from 7 days: 364 days
Then one or two jokers for to make 365 or 366 days, according to.

Evohé !
Daimonax

the morphogenetic tarot???

Ross G Caldwell said:

Finally, some people argue that when they talk about tarot, they are talking about a philosophy rather than a deck of cards. That's fine, but I'm talking about the deck of cards as a historical object.

Click to expand...

I concur with your observation re:"deck of cards as a historical object".
I am very interested in the possibility of you addressing "a philosophy rather than a deck of cards" aspect and possibly clarifying just what that might constitute.

A sort of Rupert Sheldrake-ian morphic resonance applied to a trans-temporal tarot, perhaps?

-John

Daimonax said:

Now, pack of 52 cards seen like a Julien calendar...

Click to expand...

Yes, already been covered by one of my more illustrious ancestors approximately 570 years ago:


From Collected Fragments of Tarot History:

c.1435 Alsace, France.

Meister Ingold wrote Das Guldin Spiel, (The Golden Game). About chess: “Johannes Ingold, a Dominican from what is now Germany (died 1465), in his work was especially concerned with the Seven Deadly Sins, illustrating each with a game. Besides chess, he refers to cards, music, shooting, dancing, and several games of chance. In his outline, the King is Reason, the Queen Will, the Bishop Memory, the Knight a warrior, and the Rook a judge. The pawns are the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Then he takes a second pass at the subject, equating the King with Christ, the Queen with Mary, the Bishop with patriarchs and prophets, the Knights with martyrs, the Rook the apostles, and pawns men on earth.” (JAF.) About cards: “From [The Golden Game] we learn that the 52 cards of the pack represent the 52 weeks of the year in which we fall into sin, the sins in question being symbolized by the four suits (roses, crowns, pennies, rings) and thirteen ranks depicted on the cards. We also learn that the ranks represent various medieval characters who ‘win’ one another in a given order of precedence, suggesting the mechanics of a trick-taking game—possibly Karnöffel.” (P 51; GT 15; B 29; Ortalli 199.)​

Click to expand...

KK