Questions about the "Bardic origin of Tarot" theory

[DianeOD]

Kabbalah - are we talking the same...

"Are we talking about the same stuff"

That's an interesting question.

More I think about it, the less I feel I can say certainly 'yes' or 'no'.

Funny thing about the Kabbala: if you rely on Waite's very scholarly knowledge of the Kabbalistic corpus, then you are taking into your account of Kabbala's influence on the form or use of cards, the content of 'late' works of Kabbala i.e. later than cards are known in Europe.

If, on the other hand, you only consider works written prior to the composition of the Zohar...

then in one sense you are a purist, because keeping within the chronology.

But - here's the paradox - the influx which created the unique style of North African Jewish mysticism after the expulsions from Europe.. is actually a late "eruption" into western Jewish thought of a style of Gnostic mysticism that in origin is older than the Zohar.

so in a sense: earlier is later, and later is earlier...

I define 'early Kabbala' in the same way as the editor of the book called "The Early Kabbala" in the Classics of Western Spirituality Series.

The source of that "eruption" can be seen by considering some of the texts found in central Asia. In places they show an identical heritage. e.g. the inconceivable large being who holds down the evil creature/s as the world.
There are many more instances. Anyone really interested might like to get hold of:
Klimkeit, Hans Joachim, Gnosis on the Silk Road: gnostic parables, hymns and prayers from central asia, San Francisco: Harper Press 1993/1996.

I think this connection is most informative, because it takes us to Turkey, China and the area colonised by those Nestorian Christians who made divinations/elections by means of slips of paper inscribed with "names", laid on the altar. And as noted in another thread, Nestorians were sent to Europe, and travelled there, at just the right period.

Another generally useful link for the history of Jews in late classical and medieval world is at
http://www.hebrewhistory.com

 

[venicebard]

That said, when questioned by Le Pendu, you did not quote Plato.

In the first two pages of posts, I find four other posters who question the Bardic Origins, and none of them are addressed. You did not answer the questions. Their pleas were ignored. You did not quote Plato.

And to me – you quote Plato.

Thanks.

First of all, the only two I did not reply to were 'tmgrl2', who did not appear to make any substantive points to reply to, and 'Rosanne', with whom I have oft discussed the subject in the past but whose post on this thread I did not fully understand (Rosanne, if you are listening, you might reword it to make slightly clearer what you were trying to say).

But the reason I quoted Plato to you in particular is that it was you who kept repeating the word proof as if you did not understand its meaning (that it is confined to such things as geometry, that is, things time cannot affect) and as if you were using the word as some sort of refuge from having to seriously consider my theory.

A confluence is not the same as causality.

It was never supposed to be. It was the confluence of Judaic and Keltic streams of esoteric tradition, as I see it, that caused the birth of TdM: the confluence was between the two streams, the causality (by which I think you mean causation) was an effect of that confluence.

The term ‘Bardic Origins’ imply that A led to B which resulted in C.

This has yet to be ‘presented’ in any manner other than pedantic posts about the history of the alphabet.

Does it really help the discussion to accuse me of pedantry, the very thing I believe I am fighting against? How quaint.

I don’t think it’s a crime to question. To ask “where’s the proof” is tolerable, and justly, deserves a plain answer.

I gave the plainest answer there is, and you choose not to accept it. So be it.

One is lead to believe the syllogism is fallacious – if ‘proof’ of the causality is avoided through occlusion.

I do not even grasp what you are trying to say here, sorry.

Tarot de Marseille came into being 250 years after the first documentations describing Tarot.

Can you prove this? I doubt it heartily.

What about the Milanese Tarot?

It was most likely the first offshoot from TdM, or at least the first one still extant; but I do not subscribe to an Italian origin, as there was no stable, coherent form of tarot south of the Alps, whereas there was north of them.

Where’s the proof that any understanding of an alphabet was the impetus for the creation of Tarot?

There is none, sorry.

Now if you were arguing that the Bardic understanding of Mathematics, and the differences between ordinal and cardinal sequences and the illustration as such – and the use of gaming as a teaching tool for both the perfection and beauty of mathematics and philosophy…maybe we’d get someplace.

Perhaps once you understand my argument, you can handle this aspect of it yourself, as I am weary of philosophy (as were the early Kabbalists) and am a Platonist, not an Aristotelian, at heart.

And what about the pre-TdM Tarot?

Your interpretation of the evidence is that there was such a thing, my interpretation is that there was not; the evidence is simply that no strictly TdM-type deck has survived that is as old as, say, the Cary Sheet (which looks to me like an imperfect offshoot of TdM).

The reason for my interpretation is that it is not believable to me that early decks could have been -- just by chance? -- close enough to a coherent expression of the 'bardo-Kabbalistic' world-view that with just a little alteration said coherent expression could emerge from it: the coherent structure would have to have been the original structure, methinks. (Even the Cary Sheet appears to lack important details.)

Further, perhaps clarification is in order. The alphabets described have twenty some letters. The Tarot Trumps have twenty some cards. Perhaps you should state, “Bardic Origins of the Tarot TRUMPS. Or do we simply ignore the other 56 cards? (not at all dissimilar from honking the horn of a car to determine if it will run).

I was asked to limit discussion to the insular Keltic bardic current. Unfortunately, there are only hints of its including knowledge, for example, of the Sefirot, and the 4-letter Name (yod-heh-vav-heh) is specifically Hebrew (though bardic knowledge of the Bible would surely have included this datum).

Yet it is only by parsing the Hebrew alphabet using bardic calendar-order that the true significance of the Name can be discerned. Said parsing explains, for instance, why there are 3 male and 1 female figures in each court (as opposed to the modern distortion into 2 of each). And careful consideration of the lore that has survived concerning the 10 Sefirot even explains the suit symbols: Batons are the Sefirot originating as the first 10 spokes of the original wheel (the Atzilut world), Swords split the air (giving rise to duality) when swung through arcs to illustrate the manifestation of these spokes in time (the Beriyah world, or 'creation'), Cups impose form on water to represent the spokes' manifestation in the world of form (Yetzirah, 'formation'), and Coins are the physical rounds or cycles that constitute their manifestation in the material world (Asiyah).

Based upon sentence structure - the above is speculation. How much more content is speculation presented as fact?

About that which is not in the historical record, one can either speculate or remain silent.

That said - I love your history of the alphabets.

Stay tuned, then, for that is my greatest passion.

 

[le pendu]

Another generally useful link for the history of Jews in late classical and medieval world is at
http://www.hebrewhistory.com

Isn't this a very biased description from a Christian perspective?

 

[venicebard]

re: 'obvious bardic origins' - Why obvious? I don't think we can beg fundamental questions to our theses like that. What makes you think they are 'obviously' bardic?

Sorry, I merely meant obvious to me. But I have the whole picture, something I have had a hard time interesting anyone in here (though in person in my cab I've interested quite a few in it).

However - suppose there is an Irish dimension - how to fill in the gap between the end of Ogham usage and the appearance/dispersion of hte pack through mainland Europe, without evidence of its appearing in that form in Ireland, just then?

This is hardly a problem, as the tree-letters are a medieval phenomenon, and the Book of Ballymote, which discusses ogham at length, is (someone said) 13th-century.

On the other hand, if you suppose a continuum between the pagan Celtic, the early Christian celtic, the monastic Irish, and ...., it is actually possible to pose a link between the near eastern stellar moralia and the Irish.

Very definitely a strong connexion betwixt the British Kelts and the eastern Mediterranean (though I do not know what "eastern stellar moralia" means, forgive my ignorance), and people seem to forget that the one place the Dark Ages were not dark was in Ireland (and those parts of Britain most influenced by it), since they maintained learning and contact with the Mediterranean long after the rest of Europe had been swallowed up in the pit. (It was the Kelts' links by trade with the remnants of the Roman Empire that caused them to be depopulated by the 6th-century plague that largely spared the more barbaric Saxons, thus leading to England being more German than Keltic.)

I truly appreciate your contributions to this thread, DianeOD, and intend to follow some of your leads when I can make the time online (and I will look for that story in Arabian Nights, believe you me!).

 

[venicebard]

Funny thing about the Kabbala: if you rely on Waite's very scholarly knowledge of the Kabbalistic corpus, . . .

I bypassed Waite early on, based on his claims of a knowledge and understanding of tarot that I found spurious in the extreme (as with most 'occultists', though they seem to have preserved two genuine traditions along with the jibberish, namely the distribution of letters to 'paths' and the distribution of planets to Sefirot). If I was wrong to do so, then perhaps before I get too old I can compensate for this by giving him another read.

If, on the other hand, you only consider works written prior to the composition of the Zohar...

(and so on): having carefully reconstructed much that remained secret in early Kabbalah -- confirmed purely by its explanatory power -- it became apparent to me that what others see as 'development' of Kabbalah was actually a gradual trickling-out of the tattered remnants of what had been kept secret after much of it had already been lost. For instance, Lurianic Kabbalah shows indications of still remembering the origin of the Sefirot as the first 10 spokes of the round (leading from up, the exalted [aries], to in, the self [capricorn]), it is clear from its emphasis on gematria that that greater understanding of the alphabet that arose from contact with Keltic tradition (this being its only possible historically plausible source) had slipped away.

As for the rest of what you post here, I shall look into it in the days to come. Thanks again for posting it!

 

[venicebard]

Vowel epithets

Graves's closest Greek equivalents to the Boibel Loth names for the vowels (TWG, p. 138) are (the letter, followed by Boibel-Loth name, followed by Greek term):

A-ACAB-ACHAIVA (The Spinner)
O-OSE-OSSA (Fame)
U-URA-URANIA (The Queen of Heaven)
E-ESU-(H)ESUCHIA (Repose)
I-JAICHIM-IACHEMA (Shrieking or Hissing)

This hints at an even closer match for I LeBateleur, the spinner of spells for his audience, and for XVII L'Etoille, as mentioned earlier, and for II LaPapesse, since the purpose of the cloister is essentially for repose later in life. Fame probably refers to what one learns about during the spring of life -- famous people of the past (its runic name is *othila, 'inheritance') -- and the last term is our reaction to death, the Boibel-Loth name Jaichim being obviously also related to the Hebrew term Jachin, the right-hand pillar (of the entrance to Solomon's Temple).

These terms are speculative on Graves's part, but I include them because they seem intuitively sound and help flesh out the context.

 

[Umbrae]

The technique of taking a post sentence-by-sentence, and arguing line-by-line is a form of bullying, and would be eschewed by a serious scholar.

As you (Venicebard) and I are both members and subscribers, we are both welcome in this forum. It does not belong to any one ruling class or member.

If one were to post that Aliens brought the Tarot to the human race in 5,000 BC – you’d reasonably and necessarily request proof.

That’s all I’ve done.

But the reason I quoted Plato to you in particular is that it was you who kept repeating the word proof as if you did not understand its meaning (that it is confined to such things as geometry, that is, things time cannot affect) and as if you were using the word as some sort of refuge from having to seriously consider my theory.

So now it’s a theory. And thank you very much for pointing out that I have no idea what 'proof' is (that's called sarcasm).

Cool – So then let’s stop treating as a proven fact.

And let’s stop with the cyber-bullying, you're better than that.

Where’s the proof that any understanding of an alphabet was the impetus for the creation of Tarot?

There is none, sorry.

That’s what I’ve been asking. And your answer states that there is no Bardic Origin.

What we’ve got here is proof that folks were thinking along the same lines.

But that’s like saying the Conestoga wagon was the origin of the Automobile.

Perhaps if one were to do away with the terms ‘Bardic Origins’ and replace it with, “apparent Bardic connections” we’d be in better agreement.

Thank you.

Best wishes.

 

[le pendu]

I started this thread in an attempt to help VB present his ideas in a way that made some sense... even if only to me, but hopefully to others as well.

I've read numerous posts over the past years about the bardic theory and it has never made sense to me. I'm very skeptical, but I'm skeptical about most other theories I've run across of tarot origin as well.

Frankly, considering how harsh some of these posts have been, I'm impressed with how calmly VB has maintained himself.

On the other hand, I also understand the frustration of trying to understand someone else's ideas when they have not presented them in a comprehensive manner. I hate not understanding something, and I dislike when unproven concepts are presented as facts. We probably all do.

With this theory, everything seems convoluted to me. There's a long way to go before I will be singing the praises for the bards.

However, I'm hoping that we can at least get to the point where he has some presentation of his ideas. I'd rather help him get there than shout him down to the point of never knowing if I could learn something from this. Even if it isn't proof of a bardic origin, there may be much we can learn here.

We're making some progress; we're building a table which should start to give us something as a basis to work.

My impression is that I'm going to be looking for patterns, and that it is this recognizable pattern that will allow me to grasp the connections that VB sees.

Or maybe not.




-----

VB, I've updated the table again. Please give me some feed back on it. As I've asked before, I'd like to add the hebrew letters next. Will you let me know where you think each should be placed, or is there a standard system that you use that I can copy from?

Are there hebrew letters enough? I would think we should add additional ones as well if they help illustrate the pictographic meaning.
http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Bardic_origin_-_table_of_correspondences

 

[Umbrae]

...On the other hand, I also understand the frustration of trying to understand someone else's ideas when they have not presented them in a comprehensive manner. I hate not understanding something, and I dislike when unproven concepts are presented as facts. We probably all do.

With this theory, everything seems convoluted to me. There's a long way to go before I will be singing the praises for the bards.

However, I'm hoping that we can at least get to the point where he has some presentation of his ideas. I'd rather help him get there than shout him down to the point of never knowing if I could learn something from this. Even if it isn't proof of a bardic origin, there may be much we can learn here.

I completely agree. And though I do not mean to sound harsh, it seems that only by doing so, do plain answers appear.

 

[Rosanne]

First of all, the only two I did not reply to were 'tmgrl2', who did not appear to make any substantive points to reply to, and 'Rosanne', with whom I have oft discussed the subject in the past but whose post on this thread I did not fully understand (Rosanne, if you are listening, you might reword it to make slightly clearer what you were trying to say).

Here is what I said

I guess I am one who has followed along with VB's research, as I am interested in Alphabets and Abjads. I can see a general thrust in explaining philosophical stances throughout the years- why Tarot looked like it was Egyptian for example, or astrological almanacs for Phoenicians, or Ezekiels Wheels. It just reminds me that Monopoly before it was made into a boardgame(the possibility of Monopoly always existed), was not the reason that London's landmarks where named what they were.
There is a natural way things are- like elements in our world, or the planets, or signs we call letters- like www for water and sometimes the way we describe life converges in different schools of explanation. That does not make everything of the same school. Tarot -like maybe, but not a long line of descent that can be followed.

I have followed along with VB since he started posting. It appears that VB feels that the TdM is descriptive in a pictorial way of Bardic thought in the most accurate way that has survived. It is connected in a descriptive way to the lore of trees seen through Bardic eyes, and also to how Man came to be as described by the Stars in the way of Bards with their language shorthand- runic type markings. Although I accept some of his research as possible- the way he describes his 'connections' is way beyond my understanding. I find the clear line of descent from Bardic to TdM a zig-zag of connections that has big gaps- that I have to leap over. What I was trying to say was that if the Game of Monopoly was found as an artifact in 6oo years time- it would not tell me that the names of the streets and stations in London were called so, because of Monopoly. It is the same with Tarot- as much as I want it different; The fact that in some TdM cards showing a Mothers arm around the shoulders of the initiates in the Le Pape card does not prove the Bardic Blessing -it shows the possibility. So yes it is a theory as Umbrae spoke of - an an interesting one at that. My question to VB is this (and it will only take one sentence my friend ) Where is there any actual Bardic images- not shorthand markings - Images/Pictures that are around? One rock carving will do, on an elephant tusk even, one recognisable picture from the Bards aside from Tarot cards? Don't be cheeky now, and give me a letter like Water. ~Rosanne