Debra
"Tarot and the Cathar Imagination"
"Tarot and the Cathar Vision"
"The Cathar Vision of Tarot"
?
"Tarot and the Cathar Vision"
"The Cathar Vision of Tarot"
?
reconsidering a cathar connection
foolish
thanks for your help, but i think those titles tend to give the reader the impression that i am only writing about cathar beliefs or their vision and how it influenced the tarot. part of what i am claiming, however, is that some of the cards were meant to represent not only the cathar ideals, but also the historical personalities and events which took place during that time. so that's how i came up with the subtitle (how the story of the cathars was concealed in the tarot of marseilles). i think it pretty much says what i am trying to present. i'm really not worried about the fact that some people will not accept the idea. that's just life.
Bernice
Unfortunately your title infers that you will be revealing hitherto unknown historical evidence - proof - of some research that you have undertaken. And although you have researched areas of the Cathars, the book will contain no verifiable evidence of a historical link with the 78 card 'tarot'.
This is why I think the title is very misleading. If I bought this book and then discovered it had nothing to support your speculations, I would give it a negative review..... But it is your baby.
Bee
foolish
i understand your point, bernice, and it's well taken. the fact is that there is no "smoking gun" that can prove the cathar theory. it's the images of the tarot as seen through the context of the cathar ideals, along with the history of their demise, which suggest the connections.
let me say that, although a discussion of the cathar involvement in the tarot may not be the right subject matter for the historical section of AT, i felt that i needed to expose the idea to the most severe and rigorous scrutiny in order to test it against current thought. and it has been an valuable experience.
this brings up a couple of points, one of which is about evidence. a lot of the "evidence" i have seen being offered revolves around discovering some examples of images from traditional or orthodox sources similar to those used in the tarot and then declaring that they must therefore mean the same thing. however, if we can learn one thing from mokley, de gebelin and others, finding similar images in traditional art does not make a solid case for an all inclusive theory of the tarot. i think i demonstrated in the previous page that this type of evidence, as presented by authors like vitali, can be challenged by simply offering up the appearance of different images associated to the tarot, and even different uses/interpretations of the same image.
the next point which is introduced is usually, "why try to find more complex explanations of the cards when a simpler explanation will suffice? why not take the images in their most obvious sense?" this has a multifaceted answer. first off, we must understand that most of the art at the time was consigned by the church, and therefore had an orthodox style. what wasn't strictly orthodox at least followed its traditional themes. At the second
Council of Nicea, in 787, it was declared that “a picture is not to
be fashioned after the fancy of the painter, but according to the
inviolable traditions of the Holy Catholic Church.” this basically set the tone for the medieval artist. given this structure, it's not difficult to imagine that if you wanted to express something outside of this framework, you were not only commiting an artistic foux pas, but also exposing yourself to unwanted scrutiny.
"then why shouldn't the images in the tarot at least be taken for what they originally were meant to mean?", one might ask. "why should we put any new meaning on them?" if this were the case, then we would have to go back to the original use of some of the images, and many interpretaions would fall apart. for example, the emperor is portrayed very similarly to depictions of jupiter or juno. does this mean that this tarot image is now limited to this context, or can we assume that people would later take the same image and use it to descibe some aspect of their own culture? if we allow this to be the case, then we can understand how groups like the cathars may have done just that, and not expect them to have invented their own art form. wouldn't it make sense that, like everyone else, they borrowed from the existing wealth of traditional art?
the next question might be, "but why would they want to do that in the first place?" "there is no evidence of this." true, but there is a pretty strong motive. during the time the tarot was being developed in italy, the remaining cathar sypathizers would have had to find a way to preserve the information that was handed down to them if it was to continue to survive. not only would the religious messages be important to save, but the story of how the cathars were brutally persecuted would also need a vehicle. why? because, again, most historians of the time were church officials or monks. the eye-witness accounts of the albigensian crusade, for example, "The History of the
Albigensian Crusade, Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay", and "The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens", both translated by sibly and sibly, are biased reports by sympathizers of the crusaders. the only report we have that is not prejudiced to their side is the last part of the "song of the cathars wars", translated by janet shirley, which, based on its shift in bias toward count raymond VI, was probably written by an unknown cathar sympathizer.
although a motive does not in itself support hard evidence, it offers an interesting perspective. if we look at the cards in the tdm from that point of view, all the images within the cards make sense. we can answer questions as to why certain images might have been changed from earlier decks, or why certain images appear the way they do. the image of the devil, for example, seems to indicate a dualistic theme, with its male and female parts and its dual "heads". the landscape in death is strewn with the hands and feet of the dead - often the exact result of the brutality seen during the crusade. some of the changes have been dismissed by dummett as the mistakes of the artist. but i don't believe that the artists were really that incompetent. i believe that each and every change was done for a purpose - so that the story could be better told.
but it all comes back to "evidence." some basic historical facts have been accepted ragarding the origin of the tarot, but i don't believe there if any real "proof" for the many interpretations of its meaning out there.
in order to not be misleading, may be i can change the subtle to "A NEW PERSPECTIVE to how the story of the cathars was concealed in the tarot." does that work?
let me say that, although a discussion of the cathar involvement in the tarot may not be the right subject matter for the historical section of AT, i felt that i needed to expose the idea to the most severe and rigorous scrutiny in order to test it against current thought. and it has been an valuable experience.
this brings up a couple of points, one of which is about evidence. a lot of the "evidence" i have seen being offered revolves around discovering some examples of images from traditional or orthodox sources similar to those used in the tarot and then declaring that they must therefore mean the same thing. however, if we can learn one thing from mokley, de gebelin and others, finding similar images in traditional art does not make a solid case for an all inclusive theory of the tarot. i think i demonstrated in the previous page that this type of evidence, as presented by authors like vitali, can be challenged by simply offering up the appearance of different images associated to the tarot, and even different uses/interpretations of the same image.
the next point which is introduced is usually, "why try to find more complex explanations of the cards when a simpler explanation will suffice? why not take the images in their most obvious sense?" this has a multifaceted answer. first off, we must understand that most of the art at the time was consigned by the church, and therefore had an orthodox style. what wasn't strictly orthodox at least followed its traditional themes. At the second
Council of Nicea, in 787, it was declared that “a picture is not to
be fashioned after the fancy of the painter, but according to the
inviolable traditions of the Holy Catholic Church.” this basically set the tone for the medieval artist. given this structure, it's not difficult to imagine that if you wanted to express something outside of this framework, you were not only commiting an artistic foux pas, but also exposing yourself to unwanted scrutiny.
"then why shouldn't the images in the tarot at least be taken for what they originally were meant to mean?", one might ask. "why should we put any new meaning on them?" if this were the case, then we would have to go back to the original use of some of the images, and many interpretaions would fall apart. for example, the emperor is portrayed very similarly to depictions of jupiter or juno. does this mean that this tarot image is now limited to this context, or can we assume that people would later take the same image and use it to descibe some aspect of their own culture? if we allow this to be the case, then we can understand how groups like the cathars may have done just that, and not expect them to have invented their own art form. wouldn't it make sense that, like everyone else, they borrowed from the existing wealth of traditional art?
the next question might be, "but why would they want to do that in the first place?" "there is no evidence of this." true, but there is a pretty strong motive. during the time the tarot was being developed in italy, the remaining cathar sypathizers would have had to find a way to preserve the information that was handed down to them if it was to continue to survive. not only would the religious messages be important to save, but the story of how the cathars were brutally persecuted would also need a vehicle. why? because, again, most historians of the time were church officials or monks. the eye-witness accounts of the albigensian crusade, for example, "The History of the
Albigensian Crusade, Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay", and "The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens", both translated by sibly and sibly, are biased reports by sympathizers of the crusaders. the only report we have that is not prejudiced to their side is the last part of the "song of the cathars wars", translated by janet shirley, which, based on its shift in bias toward count raymond VI, was probably written by an unknown cathar sympathizer.
although a motive does not in itself support hard evidence, it offers an interesting perspective. if we look at the cards in the tdm from that point of view, all the images within the cards make sense. we can answer questions as to why certain images might have been changed from earlier decks, or why certain images appear the way they do. the image of the devil, for example, seems to indicate a dualistic theme, with its male and female parts and its dual "heads". the landscape in death is strewn with the hands and feet of the dead - often the exact result of the brutality seen during the crusade. some of the changes have been dismissed by dummett as the mistakes of the artist. but i don't believe that the artists were really that incompetent. i believe that each and every change was done for a purpose - so that the story could be better told.
but it all comes back to "evidence." some basic historical facts have been accepted ragarding the origin of the tarot, but i don't believe there if any real "proof" for the many interpretations of its meaning out there.
in order to not be misleading, may be i can change the subtle to "A NEW PERSPECTIVE to how the story of the cathars was concealed in the tarot." does that work?
foolish
or: how the story of the cathars is revealed in the tdm. does that change the impression of what's being proposed? i'd hate to mislead or disappoint.
foolish
having addressed the flaws of presenting proof or evidence of the meaning of the tarot through the discovery of similar images found in traditional art, i think it's fair to say that when one picks up a new (non-fiction) book, they expect to find some new, if not simply interesting, information. therefore, let me point out a few things that my book does bring up:
1) there is evidence of the existence of cathar books and writings. this contradicts o'neill's assessment that the cathars wouldn't have approved of a game of cards like the tarot based on their religious beliefs.
2) unlilke some who believe that cathars were all gone by the mid 1300's, there is evidence that many had fled to northern italy and had been shown tollerance and protection from some of the nobility there.
3) in the records of the inquisition, the cathars have been found to used secret methods of communication.
4) there is evidence that the some of the images found in the tarot cards were used in different contexts, disproving the idea that the images could have only one meaning.
1) there is evidence of the existence of cathar books and writings. this contradicts o'neill's assessment that the cathars wouldn't have approved of a game of cards like the tarot based on their religious beliefs.
2) unlilke some who believe that cathars were all gone by the mid 1300's, there is evidence that many had fled to northern italy and had been shown tollerance and protection from some of the nobility there.
3) in the records of the inquisition, the cathars have been found to used secret methods of communication.
4) there is evidence that the some of the images found in the tarot cards were used in different contexts, disproving the idea that the images could have only one meaning.
foolish
but if we accept the similarity of the images in the tarot to traditional sources as evidence, then i can say that much of the interpretation of the tarot trumps i offer is based on the presention of the associations of the tarot's images in medieval art and literature. because of the different context, they are seen in a novel way.
Ross G Caldwell
foolish said:
I have found a plausible answer to this question, posted on this thread -
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=2514807#post2514807
"Veuve Toulon" (the Widow Toulon, who ran her deceased husband's business, and is attested from 1750-1755).
Teheuti
Did they approve of images? Is there any Cathar artwork anywhere?foolish said:
I think this has been well established.
I don't know of anyone who has ever suggested that the images only have one meaning. Medieval and Renaissance symbolism is usually seen as multi-valenced in distinction to the later 'emblem' tradition.
foolish
thanks for that information on V.T., ross. another example of good detective work. of course, that could be a reasonable explanation, if conver actually used the plates of veuve t. the explanation i offered was more by default of not finding a conver carver with those initials, and the fact that it fit into the story.
mary, in response to your point about cathar art, the use of images by the cathars was probably discouraged philosophically, based on the dualist tradition of seeing them as impressions of the material world. as far as looking for cathar artwork as a distinct form, we should keep in mind that:
a) artwork of the time was an expensive undertaking, as everything was hand-painted and mostly commissioned by the church or rich patrons who were interested in reproducing standard orthodox religious themes or images of self-aggrandizement, and b) the cathars always considered themselves as "true christians" - their perfects carrying the new testament with them and quoting from the gospels when debating with church authorities - so there would be no reason or incentive to create an alternative art form for us to discover. in other words, we are not looking for the same evidence one would expect to find in discussing a satanic cult or even a masonic group who had their own distinct set of imagery.
mary, in response to your point about cathar art, the use of images by the cathars was probably discouraged philosophically, based on the dualist tradition of seeing them as impressions of the material world. as far as looking for cathar artwork as a distinct form, we should keep in mind that:
a) artwork of the time was an expensive undertaking, as everything was hand-painted and mostly commissioned by the church or rich patrons who were interested in reproducing standard orthodox religious themes or images of self-aggrandizement, and b) the cathars always considered themselves as "true christians" - their perfects carrying the new testament with them and quoting from the gospels when debating with church authorities - so there would be no reason or incentive to create an alternative art form for us to discover. in other words, we are not looking for the same evidence one would expect to find in discussing a satanic cult or even a masonic group who had their own distinct set of imagery.
