reconsidering a cathar connection

gregory

Isn't that Simon de Montfort ? Just for when you publish - good to be accurate !
 

foolish

yes, thanks for that (spelled just like that in the book of course). sometimes it seems like i'm rushing through these threads...
 

Debra

foolish said:
could this refer then, to simon montfort, the leader of the french crusaders during the albigensain crusade? he was acknowledged by the pope at the fourth lateran council of 1215 and given the title of "ruler of all languedoc and lord of toulouse," officially replacing the authority of count raymond VI of touloue - which made him, aka, Viscompte de Toulouse (VT). is this too much of a stretch of the imagination, or could it be a hint as to the true identity of the charioteer within its historical context? i'll reserve final judgment until someone can offer a better answer.

If its normally the engraver's initials, why should this one be an exception? We're talking about no earlier than 1760-ish, right? Quite a long time from when the Cathars were suppressed.
 

foolish

if we can identify who the engraver was, it would put an end to any speculation. that's why i asked if anyone knew who he was. without that information, we can assume it was the unknown engraver, or, it may have been used to indicate something that the artist wanted to "hide" something in the card where there would normally be a traditional use.

the fact that the cathars of languedoc lived much earlier (1100's to early 1300's) than the conver deck was published (1760) at first seems to be a problem. however, when you consider the fact that, one the one hand, many cathars were known to have fled to lombardy and other areas after the albigensian crusade where they continued their "heretical" practices under the guise of other sects like the spiritual franciscans, the humiliati and others, and on the other hand, the fact that much of the "official" tarot of marseilles was really a copy (albeit with some changes) of some of the earlier tarot decks from the 15th century (i.e. visconti-sforza), we have a much shortened period of time to be concerned with - not much more than a few generations before the playing card was introduced to the area.

my contention is not that the surviving cathars had to create the tarot of marseilles themselves, but that other sympathizers, interested in preserving their spiritual and historical messages, created the changes necessary to continue the story. as i mentioned earlier in this thread, i know this can not be proven, but neither can any other theory of the tarot - even the ones which seem so much easier to imagine to be true. in the end, it makes for a fascinating story, especially when you consider all of the images which "coincidentally" seem to match the context of the story and the fact that other theories do not explain many of the specific images we see. (some of the concerns with this theory are addressed earlier in this thead. others can be found in the book). i know that most traditional tarot enthusiasts will probably be sceptical since this is not something that has been widely accepted in your circles. that's expected.
 

Teheuti

foolish said:
i know this can not be proven, but neither can any other theory of the tarot - even the ones which seem so much easier to imagine to be true.
This statement makes it seems as if all theories are equally unknowable, and that simply is not so. To say that a theory that the V.T. on a 1760 Marseilles deck refers to Simon de Montfort is equally as likely or unlikely as theories that the tarot originated in Northern Italy between 1420-1440 seems disingenuous. Some theories have a body of evidence that makes them highly probable, while others seem to be pretty far-fetched.
 

mjhurst

Where's Waldo?

Hi, Mary,

Happy Halloween! It's that time of year, so we shouldn't be surprised that lame old Tarot theories amble around like uncomprehending zombies. They may seem slow and stupid and pretty disgusting, but they do have the ability to come back from the dead and eat your brain.

Teheuti said:
Some theories have a body of evidence that makes them highly probable, while others seem to be pretty far-fetched.
Evidence... ah, yes, evidence. Let me elaborate a bit on things related to evidence.

From what Swiryn has presented, it doesn't seem that he is concerned with evidence. He clearly knows nothing about playing-card history in general or Tarot history in particular. (His claims include playing-cards in 1313 France, Tarot in 1392 France, TdM having 72 cards in a deck, and so on.) He clearly knows nothing about iconography, insisting that we ignore the actual meaning of symbols and works of art. Instead, he prefers to fantasize about secret codes, for which there is no evidence nor even a plausible hunch to research.

He apparently has not even bothered to read some of the more prominent books in the long history of Cathars-and-Tarot pseudo history. He views his late entry into this crowded arena as "ground-breaking", when in fact it started with Waite's invention (and denigration) of the idea exactly a century ago. It was then picked up in the 1970s by New Age writers and has been a perennial favorite ever since. Before writing a book on the subject, a would-be author might want to read some books on the subject. As you might expect, my shelf is not particularly well stocked with New Age blather, but even I have within arm's reach such titles as The Second Messiah and The Chalice of Magdalene, authors such as Christine Payne-Towler and Margaret Starbird. Several of these books treat the subject in some detail, and many others discuss it to one degree or another. Even O'Neill's detailed (albeit inconclusive) treatment of the subject, which Swiryn mentions, seems to have been simply mined for quotes that justify taking things out of context and interpreting them in a counter-intuitive sense.

Because each of these authors largely ignores that whole "evidence" thing, they come up with very different stories about the Cathars-and-Tarot theme. Lack of evidence is telling in that regard.

Swiryn refuses to even consider alternatives. Perhaps the most influential text of pre-modern times, Revelation, is in his view not worth his time to read and compare with the trumps. This is despite the fact that the highest trumps include the Devil, a falling Tower ("Babylon has fallen" in both Old and New Testament prophecies, usually depicted with broken towers), celestial subjects that figured prominently in Apocalyptic art, including the Star, Moon, and Sun, resurrection of the dead (a BIG clue if there ever was one) as in Revelation Chapter 20 and then, as the highest trump in most decks, a World as we find in Chapter 21. But for Swiryn, Revelation is not worth even reading. He probably would never consider reading a work like Betts' Tarot and the Millennium which interprets the entire trump cycle in terms of Apocalyptic legends. (Betts did some excellent research on the historical subject matter depicted in the trumps, and some of his findings are still being further researched -- by people with an actual interest in Tarot history.)

Historical context, the pervasive sensibilities and their expression in art and literature, constitutes evidence. These legends were widely popular for centuries before and after Tarot's invention, making them a vastly more plausible subject matter for the trumps than this New Age business about Gnostics and unintelligible coded messages. When and where Tarot was invented, the world was filled with art based on Apocalyptic themes, and the highest trumps clearly include such subject matter. Conversely, the heretics were a very limited phenomenon, essentially gone before Tarot was invented, and they did NOT accept things like the primacy of the Pope or the resurrection of the dead. Yet Swiryn claims that the "Riddle of Tarot" is now solved, without even having considered the much more plausible alternatives that have been presented, from writers of the 16th century, the 19th century, through Moakley (1956, 1966) and up to Ross' presentation last year.

His dismissal of alternative interpretations of the trump cycle as a moral allegory, interpretations as presented in detail by me over the last decade and by Ross, (to focus on what I consider the two most interesting and well thought out examples), was typical of his dismissal of the entire subject of Tarot history and iconography. He refused to trouble himself with actually reading anything, and instead just made things up. Not surprisingly, his fantasy (Jungian generalities lacking historical context) had no relationship to reality. Anyone who has read either my arguments or Ross' would never accuse us of those sins. Even writers like Chas S. Clifton (1991, 2004) and Paul Huson (2004) who only vaguely describe the trumps as a moral allegory related to the Dance of Death and Four Last Things traditions are making arguments solidly grounded in historical context. Moral allegories, in both art and literature, were a daily commonplace, and the Tarot trump subjects are the subjects of such art. It is Swiryn's fictional history of the Cathars that lacks substance, seemingly based on modern Romantic imaginings -- New Age pseudo-history -- rather than factual reconstruction.

Ross and I cite lots of examples from art, literature, and history to support our interpretations. We also talk about Tarot history a lot, and we actually know something about it. That's evidence. Swiryn appears to have no such examples to cite, which is to be expected. The actual history of the Cathars is extremely sketchy. Instead of evidence regarding the Cathars, Swiryn distorts the evidence of Tarot's trump subjects. His complete failure, for example, to understand anything about the Popess, (a recurrent allegorical figure in Roman Catholic art), the therianthropic figures on the TdM Wheel (which can be traced directly to Boethius), or the well-documented Traitor is appalling. [Removed by moderator]

So this is what Swiryn offers: Someone who knows nothing about the history of playing-cards in general or Tarot in particular; who knows nothing about art history and iconography; who refuses to do even the most basic background reading on what others have written about his specific topic; who refuses to consider alternative historical sources even including the most obviously relevant and influential texts of the time; who refuses to even look at, much less review and critique, the most historically grounded alternative interpretations. He promotes his late entry in the already overcrowded Cathars-and-Tarot sweepstakes as "ground-breaking", "thoroughly researched and brilliantly written" despite being riddled with basic mistakes which he expects his intended audience to help him correct! Evidence is clearly not important to him.

For the most part, he ignores evidence and just guesses, very badly. The only apparent evidence he had -- the claim that two Perfects had a playing-card business in 1313 France -- was an enormous blunder rather than a smoking-gun breakthrough. Ross' illustrated takedown was hysterically funny: Swiryn didn't bother to read the footnote that explained exactly, in detail, what Weis was actually saying. This again demonstrates that we may be dealing with the laziest author since Starbird: simply reading a footnote is too much work for him. He can't be bothered, even when that footnote is directly connected to his single piece of evidence, his missing-link connection between Cathars and playing cards. Swiryn has repeatedly demonstrated that whenever his guesswork can be fact-checked, (which is embarrassingly often, because he guesses when he could have done basic research), he proves to be wildly wrong.

I look forward to reviewing the book. It seems likely that it will provide a great many illustrations of how fact-free fantasy can lead to amazing insights, such as how the Fool, rather than being an allegory of Folly, represents a wandering Waldensian or Cathar Perfect, recognizable perhaps as Peter Waldo.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Teheuti

Hi, Michael -

Someone does need to bring out those old theories every once in a while as new connections could be made as new evidence is discovered. For instance, it doesn't seem totally far-fetched that the Cathar ex-pats in Concorezzo could have influenced the Umilitate order of Maifreda Visconti that was only 5 miles away or even had influence with Guglielma herself. But that doesn't mean they influenced the design of the deck, either in the 15th c nor especially much later in Marseille.

You rightly point out important historical works that have examined the Cathar question and the issues they bring up should be addressed. And I agree with you about that.

At the American Culture Association conference a few months ago, a scholar of the Langue d'Oc (spelling?) mentioned that 30 to 40 years ago when she lived there that elderly locals all believed that the tarot originated with the Cathars of the region. It was part of their folk beliefs. Sorry - I can't look up her name - am writing from a friend's flat in London.

Mary
 

Huck

.... :) ....

Robert Swyrin has the respected right to present his ideas and have them discussed and I would guess, that's a good choice for and from him to get some critique before he invests his money in a book production, which possibly has some weaknesses.
Robert had shown his interest to learn something ... well, I think, that's good, and I would appreciate, if some more authors would seek this way.

I think, these forums are the natural meeting place for young authors to test the value of their work.
Nobody came perfect in the world, and likely most will not have reached this goal, when they'll leave it.

Sure, Robert's representation has mistakes and perhaps there's a lot of missing experience, but ... me for instance, I've to learn every day, and I've no problem to be occasionally a little bit stupid.
Especially worthwhile for some personal progress I perceive the occasional stupid question, often it doesn't matter, if it's mine or somebodies else.
 

Huck

For the SM or VT question ...


A deck presented by Kaplan I, p. 151, carries the notation GM with some heraldic and Vas or Nas Conver 1760 at the two of cups (attention: the page shows 3 different decks).

A reproduction of the Conver deck from 1963 has SM at the Chariot card (the 2 of Coins has "Grimaud 1748 - 1930").
http://trionfi.com/m/d00110

A "recent reprint of A.Camoin" (Kaplan 1, p. 149) has a V.T. at the Chariot card.

Possibly a view at the thread
"Dating the François Chosson Tarot?"
in the other Tarot Forum helps in this question, at least for the understanding of the general problems.