Tarot in the Middle Ages History

[Sophie]

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.

I can go along with that. Someone (sorry, I forget who - could have been you, Enrique! - and JMD wrote it too) suggested that our view of games is too narrow - they were not all frivolous and empty; and I suggested our view of divination is too narrow - this seems corroborated by Rosanne and Kwaw's and other's explorations of gaming, chance and divination in the fascinating thread I linked above (Divination with cards in the 1540s), and reiterated explicitely by Scion.



I have no problem with Tarot's Christian origin. I am with Place on its Christian neo-platonic origin, not least because every single Italian courtly text of the time that I've managed to read seems angled in that direction. That's one reason why I think the Bible and the Platonic dialogues are probably the best tarot books we'll ever read (As for its Buddhist angle, which he explored in the Buddhist Tarot book - I would be more charitable than you and say Place meant it by analogy, and maybe was being over-enthusiastic in his syncretism).

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.

And that is an admirable aim! But there is a point at which the fight against conjecture and wishful thinking becomes a fight against imagination and new discoveries. Because of the relative paucity of Medieval and Renaissance sources, and in particular of certain types of sources (none from the working classes! and many texts and illustrations judged to be heretical or anti-Christian in some way were burnt in great auto-da-fés and lost), circumstantial evidence becomes all the more important for that period. The connections one makes with circumstantial evidence are necessarily more tenuous and tentative, but they are necessary if we are not to keep history - including the history of tarot cards - stuck in a box marked "official", devoid of all life and discovery, and certainly not reflective of the complexity of the times.

But I do take your point, and I agree that we have to tread carefully where there is no direct evidence. So it is for the whole history of that period. I have always leant on the side of making imaginative leaps: my professors were divided between those who loved my work, and those who thought it lacked the rigour of absolute proof. I'm ok with that . I love these discussions too, because they expand my mind, my knowledge and my perspective. Many good voices come together to make that soup known as "the truth".

 

[kwaw]

The Renaissance Myth

An interesting essay by James Franklin:

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html

 

[The crowned one]

Yes those are interesting views. I did not really think there are wide spread beliefs in two of his three examples .

I feel a good way to study history is through material culture, what was made for who, when and how much was paid. We have very accurate letters and ledgers on all sorts of deals and purchases and it really gives insight into the thoughts and values of the period being studied. It is how I learned Durer played cards. He was listing finances as he set off for Nuremberg in July 1521 :... Item: I lost 12 stuiver at card play. Drank 2 stuivers. .....

 

[Starling]

I read just part of the essay from the link above and suddenly realized just how odd my own background is. I never thought of the Renaissance as an intellectual period. My own viewpoint for that period of history is basically as an art historian (non-degreed). It is not one of "my" periods, but I can recognize a painting from that period on site. I'm also aware of poetry, but I'm certainly no expert on that subject either.

What little I do know about intellectual history is that the big pushes, and the big changes, came in the 11th and 12th Centuries, which is the High Middle Ages. The big engineering breakthroughs were earlier and underlie the Cathedral building of the High Middle Ages. It is also the period that made it possible for people who weren't clergy to become literate, and even educated, although most of the people who did become educated took at least minor orders.

 

[Rosanne]

Well I am not a romantic but methinks it was was money that made the Renaissance firstly, for it all it took money - smelly bourgeois money and the unpaid labour of the masses; The Church raked it in, the State warred it away and explored for more- it paid for the Art and Education- not for the unpaid masses of course.
Enjoyed the linked Essay Kwaw! I like to work in years not era or ages, history is more than a 'spirit' of the time.

 

[Starling]

It wasn't just money. It was BANKING!

 

[The crowned one]

I agree Rosanne. Shrewd lending based on ones solvency, status, and current values of commodities along with accurate information for long distance bills of exchange and money was the bases of making money and the machinery that drove the late middle ages and early Renaissance. Credit was the mainstay of 15th century consumption. Status was heavily based on what you "had" and could "give". Your ability to acquire went a long way then

 

[stella01904]

I have no problem with Tarot's Christian origin. I am with Place on its Christian neo-platonic origin, not least because every single Italian courtly text of the time that I've managed to read seems angled in that direction. That's one reason why I think the Bible and the Platonic dialogues are probably the best tarot books we'll ever read (As for its Buddhist angle, which he explored in the Buddhist Tarot book - I would be more charitable than you and say Place meant it by analogy, and maybe was being over-enthusiastic in his syncretism).

I don't have Place's book, but I've got some familiararity with the deck and the Buddhist motif seems to fit like a glove.

Why?

Because Tarot uses the JudeoChristian symbology that was available at the time and place to express something universal. It isn't the sole property of any
one sect, it isn't a by-product of Qabala, it's a thing in itself. If different religions are pearls, maybe Tarot is the string that runs through them all.

Or not.
Maybe I'm just ecstatic to the point of delusion that the retail feeding frenzy nightmare is ending.

But I don't see the Buddha Tarot as over-synchretised. It seems very natural amd much less forced than, say, most of the contemporary theme decks like the Robin Wood. (Horns on the Pope? Rex Nemorensis, anyone?)