reconsidering a cathar connection

Teheuti

Namadev said:
Well, I thionk that I should be changed of Forum : if researches ot hypothesis are to be dismissed by a simple wave of hands , then ...

There is a thing that I must tell you.
Studies on theologie of Christian heretics linked to the imaginary and the medieval mentality are not so numerous.
The lack of culture isn't a valid historical attitude.
The point was a doctribal refutation of a possible Last judment Cathari vision, remember ...
It's like coming to write that even if the Tarot trumps had a heretical impact at first, men of the Middle Ages would have spoken.
It's like saying that if they had been designed tarot according to an order Neo-Pythagoreanism, they would have written on it.
It 's like saying that Dante Alighieri would have to explain his symbolism to the people when he wrote the Divine Comedy.
The problem of this limited vison is that it is completely lacking in their the philosophical and doctrinal knowledge of middle age.
The dates and events will not reconstruct the history if you do not know the mentality of men lived in that world.
However….
Added: Huck did a much better job of explaining all this than I did. Thank you, Huck! But here's what I wrote anyway:

I'm not saying that the Cathar-tarot connection is absolutely wrong.

I wasn't very clear with my point, which is that statements like:
"could easily have been seen by Cathars"
are not proof of anything. I'm saying that to draw analogies to the cards is not history. How do you know that the deck is not actually Egyptian? Do we have a right to question that theory or not? Or must we accept it as a tarot history with an equally probable truth as its originating in Northern Italy?

Regarding the Cathar heresy, what was the mentality of men[!!] who lived 350 years (Noblet) to 500 years (Conver) after the Albigensian crusade? And which one of those periods are we talking about anyway? What would be needed to establish the "mentality of those men"? Some pro-Cathar materials from one of those periods, perhaps? That might tell us something important regarding the issue. I'm just saying that statements such as "could easily have been seen by the Cathars" doesn't do the trick.

I'm suggesting that we need to determine what kinds of things, and during what specific dates & places, might make this into a more realistic historical possibility. And then someone needs to go looking for this evidence.

By analogy, we might look at how we would want to slightly modify a tarot deck today so that it would remind us of a secret conspiracy concerning the Great Plague and Great Fire of London that happened 350 years ago. Which cards would talk about Samuel Pepys and Christopher Wren (was it all his plot to rebuilt the 'Tower')? How would we pass on this information, while making sure that there is no unequivocal indicator of our purpose in the cards themselves? What would be the purpose (motivation) of our passing on our word-of-mouth secret? Could it have something to do with 9/11?
 

Namadev

Le Syncrétisme spirituel de la fin du XIVe siècle

I'm saying that on this point you or Huck seem to believe that neo-cathari did not exist in the end of the XIVth century or even in the XVth century .

I have to give the refernce in French for hostorians :

Le Syncrétisme spirituel de la la fin du XIVe siècle
Un mélange des différents courants hérétiques dans un syncrétisme original eut lieu au XIVe siècle. Le catharisme originel absolutiste des dualistes ne s’amalgamera pas aux courants dissidents liés à Joachim de Flore.

En effet, les Parfaits sont iconoclastres et non iconolâtres : ils répugnent à l’usage des images dans un but spirituel.

Mais les croyants cathares, eux, n’eurent pas le même "purisme".

Ce sont ces mileux des croyants cathares qui purent influencer les rédacteurs des Trionfi.

En effet, il y eut un la fin du XIVe siècle et au commencement du XVe siècle de singulières miscellanées idéologiques issues des différentes convictions hérétiques.

« À la fin du XIVe siècle, à Chieri (...), Giacomo Bech déposait, devant l’Inquisition, avoir été successivement apostolique, cathare au point d’aller chercher un enseignement en Bosnie, puis vaudois. »
- - Anne Brenon, Le vrai visage du catharisme

« Le catharisme (du XIVe siècle) participa sans aucun doute au dernier brassage qui mêla vieilles et jeunes pulsions religieuses dissidentes de la fin du Moyen Âge, en un front commun de défense devant l’Inquisition, et en un syncrétisme populaire indéniable, particulièrement en Italie du Nord. »
- - Anne Brenon, Le vrai visage du catharisme


Huck, you mebntionned Bohemia.

here is what I wrote in my detective inquiry some long time ago ...

Les différents courants spirituels
Vaudès de Lyon ouvrit le courant vaudois, en 1173. Ce courant était moins opprimé de façon systématique que le catharisme. Il se répandit malgré l’Inquisition depuis la vallée du Rhône jusqu’en Bohême et en Pologne via l’Italie du Nord.

Les Lollards, adeptes de l’anglais Jean Wycliff (1384) ou les Hussites, adeptes de Jean Hus, recteur de l’université de Prague, brûlé vif en 1415 à Constance, se placeront dans la mouvance réformiste radicale.

La mort de Hus provoquera une rébellion populaire meurtrière violente, face aux autorités catholiques et à l’occupation allemande de la Bohême. La croisade papale de 1420 se conclura en 1424 par la mort de Zirka, chef hussite.

En 1532, irrémédiablement, les mouvements vaudois et hussite incorporeront la réforme protestante au synode de Chanforan.



Rappel :

Violence and persecution destroyed the infrastructure of the Cathari, but not the spirit of rebellion. The resistance to a corrupt church, the drive for individual spirituality, the sense of apocalyptic destiny, the idealism of asceticism and Apostolic poverty remained. The Spiritual Franciscans with their institution of the Tertiaries and their adoption of Joachimism stepped in to fulfill these needs. The common believers, never knowledgeable about or attached to the obscure Gnostic doctrine, were won over and the heresy was transformed. The movement remained rebellious and heretical, but was no longer Gnostic in doctrine.

Beyond this point, the decision on heretical elements in the iconology of the Tarot symbols becomes ambiguous. Heresy continued into the 15th century in Italy where the power of the city-states thwarted direct intervention by the Church. The Spiritual Franciscans certainly stepped over into heresy, but their idealism was greatly admired by the people. Through the confraternities, they provided an orthodox outlet for personal devotion. Elements of the iconology that appear to come from the Apocalyptic tradition or Joachimism might have come from the heretics, but might also have come from sources that shared these concepts and considered them orthodox.

The source of the ambiguity is the liberal attitude toward ideas in Renaissance Italy. When the pope ordered Florence to turn over temporal control to him, they said no. They did not consider themselves heretics because they disobeyed the pope. They considered the pope to be the Joachimist evil pope--he was the heretic. So orthodoxy had no simple definition--it certainly could not be defined as submission to the will of the prophesied harlot of Babylon. An insightful interpretation is provided by Robb (1907): �the more intelligent among the faithful majority who retained their loyalty to the traditional system could not but be affected in some degree by the liberal and independent ideas which were in the air.�

So the simplest, perhaps also the most conservative, conclusion is that there is no heretical influence on the Tarot symbols. But while there is no unequivocal evidence to support heretical influence, there is also no unequivocal evidence to disprove it. Critical elements of the iconology were shared by heretical, heterodox, and orthodox ideologies. Any of those ideologies could have produced the symbols.

We must also keep in mind that in 15th century Italy, the distorted zeal and venom of the Inquisition remained. Although their authority was negligible within the powerful city-states, they remained insidious elsewhere. Recall that in 1412, they dug up fifteen dead heretics and burned their bodies (Lambert, 1998)! In such an environment, we should not lightly dismiss the possibility that an heretical enclave used shared orthodox symbols to express themselves. So the door cannot be securely bolted against the possibility of heretical input.

Our explorations also brought to light two new possibilities that are new to the Tarot community. The first is the possibility that some of the Tarot imagery comes from the artistic tradition associated with the book of Revelation, particularly Death, Tower, Judgment, and World. The relevance of this to our current investigation is ambiguous. The imagery is perfectly orthodox, but its familiarity in 15th century Italy was stimulated by the Spiritual Franciscan commentaries on Joachim. The broader relevance of this potential source of symbolism to our understanding of the early Tarot is beyond the scope of the present studies. That subject deserves a study of its own.

The second new idea was the suggestion that the confraternities were a reasonable candidate for the originators of the Tarot. The relevance of this to the present study was that the confraternities were a special project of the Franciscans and were strongly influenced by Spiritualist ideas. Once again, the broader relevance of this suggestion to our understanding of the early Tarot is beyond the scope of the present studies. That subject deserves a study of its own.
 

Teheuti

Namadev said:
I'm saying that on this point you or Huck seem to believe that neo-cathari did not exist in the end of the XIVth century or even in the XVth century .
Where did I ever say that??? To argue by having me say something I never said is not right. Furthermore, the simple existence or not of neo-Cathars has nothing to do with whether or not there was a Cathar-tarot.

Personally, I don't think we will ever know the exact mind-set and religious leanings of the tarot deck creators. As you point out via your quotes, what was heretical to one pope was not to another, so who's to determine the specifics of such a claim—unless we hear from the creator him or herself.

That the tarot leads up to an "end of times" conclusion seems to have been a common mind set in a world regularly ravaged by the Black Death, the Hundred Years War, the Guelph/Ghibelline struggles and city-state politics and violence.

Alain - while you seem to think the Cathar-tarot connection goes back to the 14th or 15th centuries, Swiryn seems convinced by deck changes that appear first in the Conver deck (1760)—the sandaled foot of the Strength maiden, for instance, so I would think there would soon be wars in the Cather-tarot camp, anyway.
 

foolish

Teheuti said:
If a Cathar deck was indistinguishable from a Christian deck such that the Cathar story could only be told by a person who had memorized the specifics—because no particularly Cathar visual connection existed—then the connection could only exist in a person's head and could only be passed on by words. And, there is no knowing for sure what existed in that original person's head (unless we discover a letter or document from the time). QUOTE]

The point is that this was not all in someone's head. We have evidence of Cathar writings which let us know about their belief systems and visual imagery - case in point: the Last Judgment, as described by Namadev. The meaning of the imagery was in the eye of the beholder.

As far as Huck's question of the time frame, let's not forget that there is a reasonable theory that The Popess in the decks made for the Visconti represents sister Manfreda, who lived 150 years before Maria Visconti would have attempted to "remember" her by including her image in a tarot card. On the other side of the equation, the Marseilles cards resemble much of the Cary-Yale sheet, c. 1500. It is more likely that the Marseilles cards evolved over time, and didn't just appear as an entirely new creation in 1650 or 1760, although some modifications could have been made to enhance the story.

When it comes to significant - especially spiritual - events, this time element doesn't seem uncommon for its survival. Let's remember that stories about Jesus were being written down hundreds of years after his death. In the case of the Buddha, his life story wasn't written down until 500 years after his death! Why would one think that the devastation of an geographical area like Languedoc, where tens of thousands of people were brutally murdered over a period of over a hundred years would have been more easily forgotten?
 

Huck

Namadev said:
....
Huck, you mebntionned Bohemia.

here is what I wrote in my detective inquiry some long time ago ...

Les différents courants spirituels
Vaudès de Lyon ouvrit le courant vaudois, en 1173. Ce courant était moins opprimé de façon systématique que le catharisme. Il se répandit malgré l’Inquisition depuis la vallée du Rhône jusqu’en Bohême et en Pologne via l’Italie du Nord.

Les Lollards, adeptes de l’anglais Jean Wycliff (1384) ou les Hussites, adeptes de Jean Hus, recteur de l’université de Prague, brûlé vif en 1415 à Constance, se placeront dans la mouvance réformiste radicale.

La mort de Hus provoquera une rébellion populaire meurtrière violente, face aux autorités catholiques et à l’occupation allemande de la Bohême. La croisade papale de 1420 se conclura en 1424 par la mort de Zirka, chef hussite.

En 1532, irrémédiablement, les mouvements vaudois et hussite incorporeront la réforme protestante au synode de Chanforan.

Well, mankind mutates with every year and in 200-300 years a lot.

It's rather difficult - even in our very improved information situation of 2010 - to know and understand what moved the people in let's say 1810, just 200 years ago. It's even difficult to understand your father or your mother ... just one generation before, and that even, if you yourself has reached personally a relative high age and has still chances to communicate with them by talking etc..

The generations were shorter in 14th/15th century, so naturally "200 years" were subjectively even longer in this older times.

In your above collection of dates you mix moments from 1173 till 1532, totally about 360 years and somehow you argument a similarity between the situations.

From the current moment 2010 that would made 2010 - 360 = the year 1650 and we would be just in the year, when the Tarot de Marseille would have been made by Jacques Vievil ... could you claim to understand him and his motifs? I would say not, but with the help of some literature (available in 2010, but not very well in 1532), you could make attempt to come a little closer to his situation. But that's all.

Somehow this Catharic theory seems to demand a continuity, that reality of life simply doesn't deliver.

Of course there's a real genetic connection between you and the people in 1650. A calculation might tell you that you have something like 4.000 - 20.000 ancestors living then. With whom of them you would feel a higher solidarity as used in religious preferences?

That's a question difficult to answer. Even if you would know all their names, you would have difficulties to decide if these persons would earn your sympathy or not.
 

foolish

I think we're mixing up the general consciousness of common occurances such as communicating with ones parents or knowing the specifics of what people did a couple of hundred years ago with something much more significant. Historical "memory" is much more relative than this. Although we may not know what she was actually thinking at the time, most of us can remember who Joan of Arc was, or why she was "immortalized" in cultural mythology. Although you may not remember who was the Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, how many years do you think would have to go by until the Jewish people forget the story of the holocaust?

In fact, Jewish people still celebrate historical events which supposidly occured 2,000 years ago, while some Christians venerate saints who lived over a thousand years earlier. Some (significant) pieces of history simply do not fade away that easily, but are passed on from generation to generation. It is misleading to lump these events into the same memory base as we would the average occurances of family history.
 

Huck

foolish said:
The point is that this was not all in someone's head. We have evidence of Cathar writings which let us know about their belief systems and visual imagery - case in point: the Last Judgment, as described by Namadev. The meaning of the imagery was in the eye of the beholder.

Well, how much persons had opportunity to read about it?

As far as Huck's question of the time frame, let's not forget that there is a reasonable theory that The Popess in the decks made for the Visconti represents sister Manfreda, who lived 150 years before Maria Visconti would have attempted to "remember" her by including her image in a tarot card.

As far I remember, this story about Manfreda reappeared, after somebody (a Matteo Valerio in early 17th century) found some old documents and published them or gave them to a library.

http://books.google.es/books?id=EZN...CEIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Matteo Valerio&f=false

The Guglielma figure was indeed of interest in 15th century, especially in Ferrara and also for Bianca Maria Visconti. There was some interest to make her a saint, probably leaving aside disturbing details, which might have hindered this interest.



On the other side of the equation, the Marseilles cards resemble much of the Cary-Yale sheet, c. 1500. It is more likely that the Marseilles cards evolved over time, and didn't just appear as an entirely new creation in 1650 or 1760, although some modifications could have been made to enhance the story.
There's some natural continuity between Tarot cards ... continuity, which also knows jumps and changes. That's a natural iconographic process, influenced by many and as a feature also known for other themes of art, not only for Tarot cards. No need to involve Cathars or Catharic ideas.

When it comes to significant - especially spiritual - events, this time element doesn't seem uncommon for its survival. Let's remember that stories about Jesus were being written down hundreds of years after his death. In the case of the Buddha, his life story wasn't written down until 500 years after his death! Why would one think that the devastation of an geographical area like Languedoc, where tens of thousands of people were brutally murdered over a period of over a hundred years would have been more easily forgotten?

The stories about Jesus are said to have been so confused, that c. 140 AD about something like 40-50 different versions existed. It was ruled then, that only 4 versions were declared authoritative.
About the development of Buddha's story I don't know, but about Pythagoras I've heard, that his surviving biography was written 800 years after his death.
Well, reason enough, to understand a few details not as totally true.

The massacres ... we had this already. History knows a lot of bloody details ... there were also a lot of people murdered, when Francesco Sforza took Piacenza, just a few years before the production of the Bembo cards. Do you remember them with the same religious intensity as the Cathars?
Well, the difference is, that the victims of Piacenza hadn't this interested press. Neither English nor Italian wikipedia remembers the case, not a single sentence.

History was interested to make Sforza look as a "good man".
 

foolish

Huck said:
Well, how much persons had opportunity to read about it?
so, how many people would have to be involved in order to make it a possibility?


There's some natural continuity between Tarot cards ... continuity, which also knows jumps and changes. That's a natural iconographic process, influenced by many and as a feature also known for other themes of art, not only for Tarot cards.
so, according to this idea, the cards just indiscriminantly changed, with no particular intention. - OR, they changed because of the natural creative originality of the artists (something which was not the custom of the time. Artists would usually just use the existing traditional images).

The stories about Jesus are said to have been so confused, that c. 140 AD about something like 40-50 different versions existed. It was ruled then, that only 4 versions were declared authoritative.
the acceptance of the cannonical gospels apparently didn't keep people from writing "history" according to how they perceived it to be true - even hundreds of years later.

Let's go back to one of the main points in this argument: I am not saying (and I don't believe anyone else is) that there is ablsolute proof of Cathar involvement in the creation of the tarot. But I believe that there is enough circumstantial "evidence" out there to consider it as an interesting possibility. And I think there are many more people than just myself who are willing to discuss this as a possibility.
 

Huck

foolish said:
Let's go back to one of the main points in this argument: I am not saying (and I don't believe anyone else is) that there is ablsolute proof of Cathar involvement in the creation of the tarot. But I believe that there is enough circumstantial "evidence" out there to consider it as an interesting possibility. And I think there are many more people than just myself who are willing to discuss this as a possibility.

... :) ... alright, I don't belong to those, who are interested to discuss this possibility, though its probability to be true might be a little better than "Caesar played cards with Cleopatra". I leave the field to those, who will discuss.

Just a hint: if you want that your [Quote ...] (... without points, please) should work, you should end the quoted passage with a [/quote ...] (without points, please, but with slash) and not with a [quote ...]

If you do this in the correct manner, it looks like this:

Huck said:
And another information: The word Tarocchi was, as far it is known, invented 1505, and not 1442.
 

Namadev

"Where did I ever say that??? To argue by having me say something I never said is not right. "

I agree with you and got you wrong on this point ...