The Fools' Journey

[wandking]

does Blavatsky actually do a Fools Journey? I've only read excerpts by her.

[Greywoolfe]

Originally Posted by wandking

does Blavatsky actually do a Fools Journey? I've only read excerpts by her.

Not as such, no- but much of her research centred around the Book of Dzyan, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Kabbalah and much of the Indian scriptures, and she was able to draw parallels between them- in most cases, tracing the roots of each scripture back to common origins. It was just the description (From these various scriptures, as quoted in her books) of the human race as being initially 'mindless' that made me see the link.

[wandking]

I just followed up on your post! the poet you mention was certainly hanging out with the right crowd to do a poem on the fools journey... I was able to find a partial translation online that STRONGLY implied not only that there were 22 trumps in the deck at that time but also that The Fool was numbered ZERO!!! do you know where i can find a complete translation?

[wandking]

the "however" doesn't imply all that but I don't feel Tarot was a new medium when the 1442 document was written. It uses the term trionfi off-handedly, as if anyone would understand what the term meant.

[Huck]

Originally Posted by wandking

the "however" doesn't imply all that but I don't feel Tarot was a new medium when the 1442 document was written. It uses the term trionfi off-handedly, as if anyone would understand what the term meant.

Hm ... :-)

If Tarot (the name waited another 60 years to start its existence) was a known medium in 1441, then there is no reason to part the situation of Ferrara and Milano with a "however", cause then it naturally would have been known at both places.
Sure .. the term Trionfi or Trionfo was known from a time, when playing cards didn't exist. It meant "triumphal procession" or "triumph", that is "victory". The combination "Trionfi cards" seems to be new (at least it is to out eyes) and there is no evidence, that this words combination was known long before.
Indeed in Ferrara we've documents enough which mention the production of playing cards befoe this time, but the name Trionfi is missing. Also we've a lot of documents, which report the use (and prohibition) of playing cards in Florence, but the name Trionfi is used first ans as late as 1450.
What let's you think, that it is an older invention? What let's you think, that it is an off-hand remark .... the first document of February 1442 has the speciality, that it informs us about the used suits, something, which is never done in later documents. This seems to indicate, that in 1442 this type of deck needed a description, something, which was not necessary later, when the deck really was known.

[wandking]

Im slowly gathering evidence that the Major Arcana is older but it's meager indeed at this point mostly symbolism from the middle ages in early Tarot. I also have some questions about a link you posted: What makes you think the document that was uncovered refers to anything resembling the trumps? It could certainly refer to a 5th suit? 14 would be the right number of cards to beat the suit of Swords into ploughshares or Spades, which isn't the Holy Grail of Tarot but still quite important. At some point Swords did become Spades and Coins became Diamonds, right? I'm not up to speed on this, however, I have a modern Italian deck for playing a specific game that still has Wands, Cups, Pentacles and Swords for suits.

[wandking]

as i wrote earlier "however" doesn't mean all of that... I think it is Kaplan vol 2 that makes the relationship between the royal courts of Milan and Ferrara clear. I'm well aware Tarot was known in both courts. Why do you continue to insist the word "however" takes on all these implications and what has any of this got to do with the roots of the Fools' Journey? Let me help you with "however" so we can get past this: Marriam Webster defines it as - Function: conjunction
1 : in whatever manner or way that <will help however I can> as you see it's just a simple conjunction. There is no point in reading a great deal into it.

[Huck]

Originally Posted by wandking

as i wrote earlier "however" doesn't mean all of that... I think it is Kaplan vol 2 that makes the relationship between the royal courts of Milan and Ferrara clear. I'm well aware Tarot was known in both courts. Why do you continue to insist the word "however" takes on all these implications and what has any of this got to do with the roots of the Fools' Journey? Let me help you with "however" so we can get past this: Marriam Webster defines it as - Function: conjunction
1 : in whatever manner or way that <will help however I can> as you see it's just a simple conjunction. There is no point in reading a great deal into it.

Probably my bad English is the problem. You (or Webster ... or all the English world) sees "however" as a word like "and" ? My school English taught me as meaning the German "jedoch" for it (which is a relative to the English "but" ... but really not a German "und"). "Jedoch" would open in our German thinking a contradiction between two parts of a sentence: I loved to take a walk, "jedoch" (= however?) it started to rain (would imply in its meaning indirectly: so I didn't walk). So I understood your mixing of a Ferrarese statement with a Milanese statement by a connecting "however" as implication of a contradiction between the two parts of the sentence.
Your sentence was: "As we all know, A record from Ferrara, Italy in 1442 CE, requests acquisition of “trionfi” or triumph cards for use in the d’Estes royal court, however, existing examples of actual cards bear emblems and imagery that links them to the Visconti and Sforza families of Milan."
In my understanding the second part of the sentence tends to nullify the worth of the information given in the first part. Am I wrong with it?

[wandking]

in fact "however" is often used to contrast as is "but" although <<(considered archaic) not necessarily. I'd use something like "in spite of" or "instead" and change the sentence structure to show that Tarot would not "have been known at both places" if that was my intent. sorry for the confusion. Frankly, your English is so good I thought you were from the US and being obstinate. Sometimes it seems there just isn't enough conjunctions. ;-)

[f. silvestris]

Wandking, I think your 'however' is a specifically American usage (ie: I know what you meant but wouldn't use it in that sense myself), hence Huck's getting the emphasis wrong.