Tarot in the Middle Ages History

[firemaiden]

Quite frankly, I would have thought that written rules are not as important to show its gaming aspect as the artifact itself.

[...] a game does not have to be without an internal rich backdrop. After all, even the Mamluk decks contained quotes, did they not?

What I fail to understand in this thread is what is actually being disagreed on.

Well Jean Michel, we are having a very interesting time going back and forth contradicting each other very intelligently but extremely persistently. This is how the conversation reads from my perspective:

"It was invented as a game"
"No it wasn't, it has magical symbols right on the cards, that proves it was invented as magic"
"No it doesn't"
"Yes it does"
"No it doesn't it, and they aren't magic, they are commonplace cultural themes, already so worn out by the 15th century they had no meaning.
"No they aren't"
"Yes they are, and the game (whoops, I mean, the pile of magical sheets) was invented for divination"
"You have no proof it was invented for divination"
"you have no proof it was invented for a game"
"yes we do, the proof is that it is a game, just like the mamluk cards, with a bunch of pips"
"Just because it is a game doesn't mean it began as a game"
"Yes it does."
"No it doesn't"
"Can you suppose a typewriter was invented for divination, even though, it just happens to type?"
"That's different"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is. The game of tarot was invented for divination. It says so right on the box, and by the way, the word game also means divination"
"Who said"
"we did a research of the dictionary, and that proves it."
"no it doesn't"
"yes it does, and by the way, proof is an over-rated concept, because it smells like science, and science is bunk, (because it flattens the emotions, closes the heart chackra, and snuffs out God)"
(no it doesn't)
(yes it does)
(If there is no God, nothing can snuff out something that never existed, and if in fact, he exists, than he has nothing to worry about from science)
(Whoah whoah whoah, I wasn't really going to go there, about God and stuff)
(Why not? Isn't that what this is all about? You think if we prove the tarot was invented as a simple game, it kills God?)

Before I start lining up warriors to fight the war of superstition versus rationality, I think I'll take my snowballs and cream pies, and exit before I cause another waive of contradictions.

 

[Sophie]

Before I start lining up warriors to fight the war of superstition versus rationality, I think I'll take my snowballs and cream pies, and exit before I cause another waive of contradictions.

Maybe you can go and "entarter" the Belgian government . That would be a victory for rationality!

 

[The crowned one]

it is far more likely that a game designed at the time incorporates a wealth of allegorical imagery, without intent that it be used for 'fortune-telling' - but rather used for gaming and, as the times would suggest, also allow, at leisure, reflective instruction. This does not mean that the deck as game is designed for other than deck-as-game, but rather that 14th and 15th century France and Italy had a far more integrated and rich sense for imagery than we appear to currently have.

This is pretty much what I think and have tried to post throughout the thread when I am managing to stay on topic.. but I lean towards the game being second to the learning but just by a bit for tarocchi.. (they already had cards for games) Or it started as a "learning game" like flash cards but more complex. No extra divination beyond what level was woven into the thoughts and beliefs of the society of the time. Divination was not their makers design in my opinion. Learning may have been and gaming was their use. Gaming we can prove through historical text of the age in question.

 

[Sophie]

I might be missing something here, but who on this thread said they were created for divination?

 

[le pendu]

...
"Yes it does"
"No it doesn't"
...

LOL!!!
You've made my day flamefrau.

 

[EnriqueEnriquez]

Fudugazi,

The funny thing is that I agree with you.

I tend to believe that things like Boiardo’s poem show how the trumps may have had several different uses, some of them of introspective nature. But if I am asked to provide evidence of this, in all honesty, I would have to admit that all my evidence is circumstantial. The only solid evidence suggest that the carte de triunfi were created and used for gaming. All the other usages came later.

Same thing goes to your next point:

I think you don't like the evidence of a magico-religious system that is - as yet - unexplained.

This "magic-religious" system has been explained. The strongest hypothesis suggested by historical and cultural evidence points to the idea of the trumps being a Summa of Salvation included in a game of cards for didactic purposes, since at that point all these symbols, even if they came from somewhere else, had been absorbed by Christianity. I mentioned this in my first post. That only makes the idea of the cards being created for a game, more solid. The trumps may have been added to a pre-existent deck of playing cards, for didactic purposes.

Then again, we can say: “well, but the Tarot may have been created for another purpose. People was into a lots of weird stuff at that time”, as it has been said over and over along the 20th Century. We need to say this because anchoring the Tarot to Christianity is too religious and not magical enough. To patriarchal. To boring, and overall, bad business. We don't like that option. So, we speculate. But our speculations can only take us as far as were the historical and cultural context makes them feasible. That is my whole point from the beginning.

Otherwise you get things like Robert M. Place (again, my favorite author in English) stating that “if you look at the life of the Buddha, you can recognize a myth of redemption in the Tarot.” This is on his “Buddha Tarot” book. Not only this is offensive for nonsensical, but it negates Place’s own research and understanding of the Tarot’s history by suggesting Christian Europe didn’t have a redemption myth on its own. One can only assume that Mr. Place was short of cash that month.

My point is not to argue against divination, nor the spiritual uses for the Tarot, but against the tendency of replacing any evidence we don’t find exciting with conjectures and wishful thinking. That has been the way the Tarot has “evolved” in the 20th Century. As a result, instead of having the Tarot transforming us, we end up transforming the Tarot to mirror our ego. Wishful thinking and exciting conjectures would make possible that, at any point in the near future, we will read a review saying: "The Ron Jeremy Tarot was created under the idea that sex was very popular in the Renaissance. Proof of this is that the Tarot shows a group of naked figures. The meaning of these images remained obscure, until we watch some of the first Ron Jeremy movies. At that point, Tarot’s iconography became evident. After all, 'Tareau' means “drilling without screwing”, and Mr. Jeremy is a natural!"


I want to end this note by thanking you for your points of view, because they have made possible for me to express mine.

Happy holidays to you and all!


EE

 

[Alta]

Not posting as a mod, just curious. Does no one actually listen to anyone else? And does anyone (even rarely) change their minds based on the ideas presented by another? Ever?

As for the discussion, what jmd said.... and firemaiden.

Marion
(God is an iron.) - Spider Robinson

 

[firemaiden]

I might be missing something here, but who on this thread said they were created for divination?

Er... I thought you did?

 

[The crowned one]

I might be missing something here, but who on this thread said they were created for divination?

I not sure that anyone did, I am just saying I think they were not.. I am introducing a thought of mine, not a argument or counter point to anything.

 

[The crowned one]

Not posting as a mod, just curious. Does no one actually listen to anyone else? And does anyone (even rarely) change their minds based on the ideas presented by another? Ever?

As for the discussion, what jmd said.... and firemaiden.

Marion
(God is an iron.) - Spider Robinson

For me personally I am just enjoying myself, my personal thoughts and opinions have not been changes at all, but I have learned a couple things and been lead to a couple neat links on this topic.

As I said earlier in the post: What we are doing here is a form of pseudohistory with circular reasoning, ad ignorantiam and our opinions. No science here at all just a fun discussion. I still think this is BASICLY the case.