reconsidering a cathar connection

[foolish]

As for myself, I don't see anything "esoteric" in the trumps.... The problem of looking for 'secrets' is that many people miss the obvious - a charming allegory that shows us a forgotten, more poetic way of seeing the world, than the cold matter-of-factness of our empirical world view.

The problem with this is idea is that the success of incorporating these “secrets” in an art form can be measured by how well the secret has been disguised or camouflaged within a more superficially obvious system. Therefore, it always remains possible to see the art on its more “obvious” level. Otherwise, the whole purpose of secrecy would be ineffective. And during the 15th and 16th centuries in Italy, where the mention of heretical ideas could still warrant a death sentence, a certain degree of secrecy would be necessary if one was to attempt to portray heretical concepts without being sentenced for heresy.

Although one could say that a myriad of ideas or sources could be attributed to the tarot, the validity of any such claim remains based on its ability to incorporate the entirety of its images. Regarding the tarot, it is not just seeing the obvious that is important, but also being able to understand why certain images may appear at odds with such an explanation.

For example, in the TdM Moon, there are images which do not necessarily fit nicely into the theme of the charming allegory of a moral progression of cards. According to Kaplan, there appears to be “no precedent in art for the Tarot of Marseilles Moon [card]”. The dogs, houses/towers and crayfish are all novel images to the tarot. In an art form which appears to have come from a set of established images, this appears to be an anomaly. Vitale takes a stab at explaining how these images fit into his concept of a moral allegory. He proposes that the idea of the three phases of the triforme moon may be represented by the two towers and the central image of the moon. But the central moon is actually a partial moon drawn against the sun, and the two towers share a similar shape, not two distinct ones like the phases of the moon. In addition, Vitale suggests that the dogs represent the goddess Diana, because a 16th century essay stated that Diana and the moon were the same person, and Diana was sometimes shown with animals like a dog, deer or snakes. Is it just me, or does this sound like someone really reaching for anything to tie these images together?

The fact is that the discovery of a precedent of an image in art does not mean that the image must therefore have the same meaning. The use of allegorical art (during the time the tarot was first being produced) by definition implies the use of traditional images to express different ideas. So, the fact that certain images were “borrowed” from earlier sources doesn't mean that they were meant to be interpreted in the exact same manner as they were previously used. For example, dogs were often used to refer to heretics, and the images of dogs were sometimes also used to represent Dominican and Franciscan inquisitors. A painting by Andrea di Bonauito called “St. Dominic Sending Forth the Hounds of the Lord” is one example of this reference. So what does the appearance of a dog really mean? I guess it, like many of the other images in the tarot, can have multiple references.

This brings us to the point that, as these images have more than one particular use, there may have also been more than one use for the deck of cards. The conclusion that the cards were used for a game, or that they were used to express moral lessons, does not preclude the idea that they may have been used to express other ideas which can be found through their imagery.

I guess we can all be accused of trying to make the images in the cards fit into our preconceived concepts of what the tarot is all about. Being more “obvious” does not necessarily make it more valid – just perhaps easier to accept.

[Melanchollic]

Originally Posted by foolish

The problem with this is idea is that the success of incorporating these “secrets” in an art form can be measured by how well the secret has been disguised or camouflaged within a more superficially obvious system. Therefore, it always remains possible to see the art on its more “obvious” level. Otherwise, the whole purpose of secrecy would be ineffective....

Ah-ha! So the rumors of secret encoded messages between the east coast and west coast branches of the Vampiric Brotherhood, supposedly hidden in the dialog of episodes of the 1950s television series "I Love Lucy", could be TRUE!?

[Teheuti]

Originally Posted by Melanchollic

Ah-ha! So the rumors of secret encoded messages between the east coast and west coast branches of the Vampiric Brotherhood, supposedly hidden in the dialog of episodes of the 1950s television series "I Love Lucy", could be TRUE!?

Oh my gosh, did you 'get' this, too??? Shhhh, no one else is supposed to know! It's death to those who reveal the secrets.

But, seriously, what I notice is that what seems a completely coherent and connected story to one person (supposedly addressing all the elements), may make little sense to someone else, who sees it as a bunch of disconnected and meaningless pieces (whether fantasy or fact).

While, we may not have found earlier images of a dog, a wolf, towers, crayfish, pool and Moon, neither are all these symbols directly connected with the Dominican hounds.

[foolish]

I just gave you one example already which is clearly seen in art. Other examples can be found in literature as a reflection of the figure of speech commonly used at the time. In reference to a heretical theme, those who were unsympathetic to the Cathars of Languedoc were called "dogs and wolves." (Malcolm Lambert, The Cathars, p. 267) As a play on words, the Domincan friars were sometimes referred to as Donimi canes (the dogs of the Lord). St. Dominic's own mother was reported to have seen her son in a dream as a dog, "barking against God's enemies." (Zoe Oldenbourgh, Massacre at Montsegur, p. 237.

These are just a few references which should show a clear association between the Dominicans and the image of a dog or hound within this culture. How many more do you need?

If the dogs can be associated with the officers of the Inquisition, then the "houses" behind them could very easily represent the Dominican and Franciscan houses, established in the major cities like Toulouse and Carcasonne after the Albigensian crusade.

but I guess, if you're still convinced that the tarot has one and only one possible meaning, and that the jury is in on the subject, then I leave you to accept the thin associations (or non associations) presented by others to explain these images.

[Teheuti]

Originally Posted by foolish

These are just a few references which should show a clear association between the Dominicans and the image of a dog or hound within this culture. How many more do you need?

I apologize. I wasn't clear. I was trying to say that I haven't seen any images of the Dominican hounds that include ALL of the following: dog, wolf, crayfish, pool, towers, moon.

I know you have pointed out images of Dominican hounds as actual dogs, and I know you have pointed out textual references to them as wolves, and that Toulouse and Carcasonne have towers (actually, almost all Italian towns have towers and many, I believe, in Southern France) and that fraternal orders had "houses" (although why towers should automatically signify specifically the Dominican and Franciscan houses of Carcasonne and Toulouse, I don't know). But, there is really no justification for throwing these together, ignoring the missing pieces, and declaring this to be the intention of the individual who changed the Moon card.

And, I don't believe that the tarot has only one possible meaning. That kind of statement is really uncalled for!

I'm just not convinced that you have uncovered the most probable (not even to assume, one and only) historically-correct intention for the changes that occurred in the Marseille deck. I do think you have told an interesting story—but it doesn't rest on verifiable historical links to tarot.

I leave you to accept the thin associations (or non associations) presented by others to explain these images.

The associations that have been presented by Michael J. Hurst and by Caldwell/Depaulis/Ponzi and others here are not "thin" or "non-associations".

[itrocksmyworld]

Thank you, Foolish, for your thoughts on the potential undercurrents of the cards; your words speak to my own sense of these things, but i have not the scholarship at my fingertips to put studied words to my thoughts.... so thank you for your assistance!

peace

Nolan ;-)

[Melanchollic]

Originally Posted by foolish

...but I guess, if you're still convinced that the tarot has one and only one possible meaning, and that the jury is in on the subject, then I leave you to accept the thin associations (or non associations) presented by others to explain these images.

I'm willing to except ANY evidence of ANY theory explaining possible 'alternative' meanings to the Trump sequence, including one about Cathars, if the evidence is there. Unfortunately, I don't think the argument that there must be a secret "message" or "system" in the trumps, just because some of the images are unique and/or obscure. That's sort of like the twisted logic of claiming that because I can not prove that the tarot is a product of ancient Egyptian magi, then it must be a product of ancient Egyptian magi.

These sorts of theories always make me ask "Why?"

Why would someone need to hide 'secret' knowledge in a card game? Alchemy was not 'illegal', and I doubt the alchemists would have wanted to advertise their precious secrets outside of their own group. Astrology wasn't illegal. Geomancy wasn't illegal. Various types of divination could be procured in any marketplace, Marsilio Ficino was openly teaching Plato and humanism, and was still a Catholic of high regard. If there were still some Cathars around, what would the trumps communicate that they didn't already know? That the Church had persecuted doctrines they thought were incorrect? Everybody already knew that. You could say that anywhere,

"Hey, Luigi, did you know the Church persecuted heretical teachings?"

"Yeah. I know."

One might even say to the Bishop. "Hey, Bishop! I heard some heretical groups use to think God was female!! What's up with that?"

"Yeah, they sure did. Of course they were wrong. We sorted out those heretics."

"Ah, that's good!!"


What could have been so important that a group of 'heretics' would risk exposure by making it openly visible to the whole world, by including it in a mass produced card game, manufactured by dozens of different competing companies, when they could just tell each other face to face at their next meeting. These 'secret societies' were active all over Europe by the 15th century. There simply wasn't any need to hide a message in a card game.

[Bernice]

The surmise in this thread is that the Cathars fiddled with the (then) standard pattern of the cards, which prompts the following questions.

Is there any evidence that the Cathars indulged in gaming?

Were they known to actually play at cards?

From Wiki:

"As matter was seen as a manifestation of power, it was believed to be incompatible with love.......They held that the physical world was evil."

"According to some Cathars, the purpose of man's life on Earth was to transcend matter, perpetually renouncing anything connected with the principle of power and thereby attaining union with the principle of love. According to others, man's purpose was to reclaim or redeem matter, spiritualising and transforming it."

Given the above information, are there any documents that describe what religous restrictions they were subject to? Or alternatively, any documentation which clearly inform that the Cathars did game with cards?


Bee.

[foolish]

I know you have pointed out images of Dominican hounds as actual dogs, and I know you have pointed out textual references to them as wolves, and that Toulouse and Carcasonne have towers (actually, almost all Italian towns have towers and many, I believe, in Southern France) and that fraternal orders had "houses" (although why towers should automatically signify specifically the Dominican and Franciscan houses of Carcasonne and Toulouse, I don't know). But, there is really no justification for throwing these together, ignoring the missing pieces, and declaring this to be the intention of the individual who changed the Moon card.

The assumption I am making is that the "pieces" within a picture such as a tarot card are connected by the fact that they share a common media. Therefore, it would make sense that the houses, found right behind the two dogs, would have an association to those dogs. This is consistent with other allegorical art which places certain images next to others in order to make an association.

[foolish]

The associations that have been presented by Michael J. Hurst and by Caldwell/Depaulis/Ponzi and others here are not "thin" or "non-associations".

I am not aware of what specific explanations these people have presented for the images found in the TdM Moon card. Could you please let us know what these are?