Frege's Puzzle

Teheuti said:

Paul Christian's description of an initiation into the Mysteries which he claims to be taken from Iamblichus

Click to expand...

Christian's Initation ritual was taken from the Krata Repoa,

Click to expand...

My point was his claim, not what we suspect was his inspiration. In a book called "The History of Magic", he names Iamblichus as his source, and provides what appears to be an extensive portion of that work. Christian does not inform the reader that he has invented the whole initiation scenario.

Crata Repoa itself, of course, consists of seven steps of initiation, not 22, and it makes no mention of the alphabet or images corresponding to it.

Christian clearly seems to have been inspired by this work, but he does not inform the reader of this, and it provides in any case merely the kernel of his own invention, which he rather ascribes entirely to Iamblichus.

Christian's invention is the forerunner of Michael Poe's "Temple of Serapis in Naples" a century later. Both are scholarly frauds.

which, in turn, was derived from "The Ritual of Initiations" by Humberto Malhandrini (Venice, 1657).

Click to expand...

This book does not exist, that I can find. Every source which cites it derives directly or indirectly from H.P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, footnote 751.

I searched in the general catalogues of 6 major libraries, and not a single one knows the strange name "Malhandrini". Presuming a typo, the forms "malandrini", "malhandrino", and "malandrino" also produced no authors with dates earlier than the 20th century and nothing resembling the title. This has taken me a couple of hours.

The libraries were:
Bibliothèque Nationale de France
British Library
Oxford University (OLIS catalogue)
OPAC SBN (Italian national catalogue)
Library of Congress (the largest library in the world, in number of items)
Harvard University (HOLLIS)

Anyone doubting my research competence or the negative result is welcome to look for themselves.

It appears that Blavatsky invented this author "Humberto Malhandrini" and the book "Ritual of Initiations". I would guess that it was in order to give greater antiquity and thererfore authority to the then relatively recent Crata Repoa (only a century old when she wrote; it would be as if an author writing today appealed to a book published for the first time in 1912 as the evidence of an ancient tradition).

So it seems that Blavatsky is guilty of a little fraud herself.

Teheuti said:

In Chopra's worldview he suggests that we "explain something by what it achieves, instead of what it can be broken down into." (See "War of the Worldviews" above.)

So, what does the Egyptian origin of Tarot achieve?

- great antiquity (4,000 years or more and a connection to Tep Zepi (Egypt's 'First Time'))
- hieroglyphic status (the sacredness of pictorial glyphs; pictures speak louder than words; Divine creation via Thoth)
- exotic and 'special' qualities (it rescues us from the mundane or everyday)

It gives those who work with the cards 'special' access to:
- wisdom (continuity with a Golden Age with a more direct (intuitive) connection to the Cosmos)
- magic and power (Egypt as the source of Western magic and alchemy, where Magicians performed miracles)
- mystery and secrets (we can't really know all that the Tarot means and can do; it's a clue/key to the universe)
- freedom (it frees us from normal social and physical constraints)

In essence, it guarantees supremacy of the imaginal (in the highest sense) over the mundane, and, ultimately, suggests that spirit transcends matter.

I think this explains why we are so attracted to this story. Please add more things that it achieves.

These attractions explain a lot about the human psyche (or at least the psyche of many tarotists). But, they don't explain where the notion of Egypt+Tarot came from. Once the notion was here it filled a perennial longing or need among certain groups of people.

We need one section that can explore the idea's development historically and theories about why, how and for what reason it emerged. We need another section that can focus on when and where the story first emerged (France in the 2nd half of the 18th century) and whether there is any evidence supporting its supposed historical origins (not so far & not likely).

Click to expand...

But, again, although I concede that this is Tarot forum, hence in many ways what we call "faith" is sometimes just as important as factual history (if not more) isn't what you are proposing a little like, again, finding historical facts in Genesis? If someone believes something divorced from historical fact, that is the seed of religion (and I say this even though I read my fortune in colorful cards). Religion gives people a sense of purpose, explains natural phenomena and is a social framework. I try to be neither cold nor cynical, but I am not drawn to the Egyptian Tarot creation myth, especially since it isn't true, and I don't need Tarot to have that pedigree in order for it to have meaning. The fact that "certain groups of people" find comfort or perhaps solace in the myth doesn't mean it should be given standing, any more than scientists should allot a few hours each day to study Genesis, even though many people believe in it.

Again, this is the Tarot version of Creationism, an "easy way out" just like the original creationist faiths. By stopping to analyze and perhaps give credence to that, why not go ahead and say the Ace of Swords is in fact Eden`s Flaming Sword and Tarot was invented by Adam and Eve?

closrapexa said:

Again, this is the Tarot version of Creationism, an "easy way out" just like the original creationist faiths.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Tarot's mystery is an article of faith for many, and some people hold their faith dearer than life itself. Not Tarotists, I imagine, but other kinds of people with other kinds of imaginal worlds are all too ready to give up this flawed and complex one for that more clear and absolute one.

By stopping to analyze and perhaps give credence to that, why not go ahead and say the Ace of Swords is in fact Eden`s Flaming Sword and Tarot was invented by Adam and Eve?

Click to expand...

Because Adam and Eve are just a myth, of course, and Tarotists are too smart to believe in myths, especially Judaeo-Christian ones.

foolish said:

Obviouslly, people like Huck, who may already have extensive knowledge about the Cathars, may not be impressed. But it wasn't written for that kind of audience. In fact, you may be surprised at how many people have never even heard of the Albigensian Crusade (outside of this forum, of course).

Click to expand...

No, I didn't know very much about Cathars. I just took the opportunity of your suggestions to improve my general knowledge about history.
I was astonished to find some details about an unknown flying object of West-European history called Bulgarian Empire, rather obviously an important background for the Cathar story ... and more or less rather obviously overlooked by most of these Cathar experts.
I wasn't really surprised, that you and nobody else here did follow these details. That's a rather common behavior, when things become a little bit complicated.

Also it makes not much sense to observe the Cathar movement and the connected war (starting 1209) without the detail, that Venice took Constantinople in 1204.

Anyway, it's 13th century, it doesn't really connect to the playing card movement details and it is far off the major topics here in the Forum, which very seldom are connected to 14th century, and much more seldom than this to 13th century.
And a link between Marseille Tarot and Cathar movement, which bridges 400-500 years without much attention of the time between is just "pissing in our garden". We fought here for differences between decades and even years in the development of Tarot similar objects, with much research work, careful observation and discussion, with documents in foreign languages and an expanded web of internal exchange between different research activities. And we do this since long years.

So take a deeper look in the abyss of your created nonsense-idea and come to your senses. Take a humble begin and start learning, if you're interested in Tarot history. Stop whining that you got a critique, that you deserved.
Or ... if you prefer, turn your head, leave these idiots behind you, and attempt to get your applause elsewhere, an applause, which actually might be poison to you.

moderator note

This thread was removed for review and after reading through it all I'm finding it very difficult to split the discussion even though it's strayed very far from Yygdrasilian's original post.

Could I please ask you all to refrain from personal attacks and also from discussing alleged attacks here? There is a general forum rule titled 'Respect our members' HERE (click).
If you feel that anyone's posts are in breech of that rule please use the post report feature or contact the moderating team.

As far as new forums or sub-forums go; that really is up to Solandia and so this thread has been brought to her attention.

No posts have been edited or removed from this thread.

Sulis - moderator

Re Humberto Malandrini's "Ritual of Initiation" as a source for the Krata Repoa.

Ross G Caldwell said:

This book does not exist, that I can find. Every source which cites it derives directly or indirectly from H.P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, footnote 751.

I searched in the general catalogues of 6 major libraries, and not a single one knows the strange name "Malhandrini". Presuming a typo, the forms "malandrini", "malhandrino", and "malandrino" also produced no authors with dates earlier than the 20th century and nothing resembling the title. This has taken me a couple of hours.
. . . .
It appears that Blavatsky invented this author "Humberto Malhandrini" and the book "Ritual of Initiations". I would guess that it was in order to give greater antiquity and thererfore authority to the then relatively recent Crata Repoa (only a century old when she wrote; it would be as if an author writing today appealed to a book published for the first time in 1912 as the evidence of an ancient tradition).

So it seems that Blavatsky is guilty of a little fraud herself.

Click to expand...

Ross - thank you so much for looking into this. Another "fact" bites the dust. But that's exactly what we need in order to get a clearer picture of what actually did happen. Although it only creates more questions about where the Krata Repoa came from.

Regarding Michael Poe's Temple of Serapis - both Bob O'Neill and I tried to track that down. There is a Temple of Serapis in Naples and part of it (or another Serapis Temple - don't remember the details) was submerged with all the artifacts moved to a museum. Neither O'Neill nor I were able to get hold of the archeological report although we both corresponded with archeologists who were involved so we don't know for sure if the artifacts are accurately described. However, it is pretty clear to me (from my own visits to other temples), that Poe refers to a few statues and wall carvings that obviously match the most archetypal characteristics - king, queen, priest, priestess, charioteer, and then he took huge liberties in describing some other artifacts and drawings scattered around this temple (or perhaps others) and presented them as if they were a coherent set. An examination of any "Egyptian" style deck shows just how this can be done.

I'm not convinced that this was a conscious "fraud" on the part of Michael Poe - but more of a case of wishful thinking or, perhaps an experience of the Mundus Imaginalis. The problem is that we can't know what his intent or experience was - only that his premise and description have no basis in mundane reality.

ADDED: my thanks seem inadequate to the amount of time you spent researching Malhandrini - but you've clarified the story a great deal.

Re: the Egyptian Myth of Origin

closrapexa said:

The fact that "certain groups of people" find comfort or perhaps solace in the myth doesn't mean it should be given standing
. . . .
Again, this is the Tarot version of Creationism, an "easy way out" just like the original creationist faiths. By stopping to analyze and perhaps give credence to that, why not go ahead and say the Ace of Swords is in fact Eden`s Flaming Sword and Tarot was invented by Adam and Eve?

Click to expand...

I come from a discipline - Literature - where the creations of the human mind are taken very seriously. They assume a 'reality' in their own right - in that so-and-so wrote a work at a certain time and place and it affected people, ideas and events that came after it. Performances were made, new works were inspired and, in some cases, people made decisions that affected world events based on those fictions.

When a fiction is the cause or instigator of or participant in events it is a part of history. Read anything about the causes of the American Civil War and you have to get into how people reacted to the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin." That book has 'standing' in the history of the Civil War and historians posit theories about why the book had such an impact.

Likewise, the myth of Tarot Origin in Ancient Egypt (I added 'ancient' to be a little more specific) has 'standing' in the tarot world. Historical Research focuses on appearances and developments of the myth in tarot texts and decks. Historians do, to some extent, come up with theories about why things make an impact—like the influence of philosophies on history. Simply labeling it as an "absurd lie" is like trying to eliminate the 'whys.' Humans then become simply depositors of artifacts. Any book on history will go further than just listing the events—they tell it as a story. I protest the implication that we don't need to know anything more once we have labeled something as "absurd" or "a lie." That doesn't remove it from history.

I think that a discussion like I presented into what the Myth "achieves" (humanly-speaking) is more speculative than what is apporpriate to Historical Research. It needs a place where it can be discussed. All the points I made can be supported through the writings of people who perpetuated and added to this myth. It's an idea that spawned an historically traceable growth and development in which authors gave reasons for why it was important. Those authors and their reasons influenced further development.

That's why I like the idea of a section involving Speculation about History, Ideas and Philosophy (and which can, on occasion, touch on human motivations - psychology).

Solandia and Moderators - thanks for looking into this!

Teheuti said:

Solandia and Moderators - thanks for looking into this!

Click to expand...

What she said.

Anyway, it's 13th century, it doesn't really connect to the playing card movement details and it is far off the major topics here in the Forum, which very seldom are connected to 14th century, and much more seldom than this to 13th century.
And a link between Marseille Tarot and Cathar movement, which bridges 400-500 years without much attention of the time between is just "pissing in our garden".

Click to expand...

Huck,
I'm surprised at your comments - not the ones taking more pot shots at me, but especially regarding the time frame between the Cathars of the 13th century and the development of the cards. I think I've spent quite a bit of time offering an explanation of that bridge - but as a quick summary, there is plenty of evidence that Cathar communities (and similar sects) existed into the 1500's in Northern Italy - well into the time when cards were being manufactured. In addition, the consistency of the oral tradition over time, when most people were still illiterate, would support the fact that such events as the attempted annihilation of the Cathars of Languedoc - something never seen on that scale by another "Christian" force outside of the Cruasades to the Middle East - would have survived in the stories passed on to future generations.

It seems that even individuals who profess to call themselves historians are subject to selective research and personal bias - pointing out things that fit your postition and avoiding those which don't. The bias here was quite obvious, as your initial remarks in the "reconsidering the Cathar connection" thread revolved around the "We've looked into this already, and we're convinced that it's just a bunch of hogwash" theme. It's not surprising that subsequent comments would be attempts to support your position.

As far as the other historical facts you bring up (i.e. the war between Venice and Constantinople, flying objects, etc.), these are not important topics to include in a book about the Cathars and the tarot. The book was not meant to be a comprehensive history book about the Cathars, and therefore was not trying to fit in every bit of historitcal information possible.

If you want me to leave your forum, then please refrain from making ad hominem remarks and false statements about my work, as I feel obligated to have to defend myself from such misleading comments.