Robert M Place

[room]

Both fascinating and necessary books.

Yes, I was glad I finally got them both, although I think it's apparent that I am leaning toward Huson as being more rational. ;-)

It was Huson's book, and the Golden Tarot of the Renaissance with its depictions of the Hall of the Months in Ferrara, that increased my interest in Triumph processions.

 

[dadsnook2000]

For room

You noted, "We are projecting those standardized beliefs and ideals in a yearning for a set theory of mysticism. There is no evidence that they were standardized."

A little clarity here. I think that "standarization" was somewhat "local" in its nature, at least until well after the printing press was introduced. In that vein, each area influenced by one intellectual or school probably had an accepted view that pervailed for a time. Across Europe there would have been many schools of thought. And, yes, every author probably has personal views that they promulgate on any topic. Yet, on balance, I found Place's book interesting and informative. Dave.

PS, I'll have to go find the other resources mentioned so as to take in those views as well.

 

[room]

Here's an example from page 128 of the book. He writes many absolutist convictions like this:

"The allegory in the trumps is clearly mystical. As we look at this allegory, we can see that it is in three parts or three acts." etc etc.

The **individual** characters on the trumps can be allegorical, some obviously are.

Was there an intended allegory of **collective** trumps historically with a set number of cards that are divided up into parts?

Is it mystical? Do 22 trumps designate esoteric beliefs and practices? Is there a deeper reality beyond our comprehension?

Obviously for Robert Place and others this is true, but that doesn't mean it "clearly" was in the Renaissance or clearly is now.

Rather than being a secret, mysterious allegory passed down to us through centuries, this is more accurately termed a religious conviction by a fervent devotee. In this case, far from being a detached view of tarot history, his book is a personal treatise of personal theories about spirituality and history.

And yes, it's interesting as are his decks.


There is a blurb on the back cover by Ronald Decker:

"Place has found the RIGHT paths and their EXACT connections. At last, with his guidance, we can take the whole journey." (emphasis mine)


I am still shocked that the book is promoted as a rational and accurate text on history. Granted, it remains more accurate than some others, but tarot was not a religion, there is no evidence of that, and Robert Place flogs the reader with his fervency for this mystical theory.

Speculation and extrapolation are interesting and intellectually stimulating, but these are not certainties as Robert Place and others state they are.

 

[dadsnook2000]

The minor arcana

One of the subjects that I felt was not covered adequately was the cards of the minor arcana. How were these cards, perhaps like a playing card deck, married to the major arcana cards? I can see that the "majors" might have been used for entertainment and conversational tools among the upper class to facilitate an evenings discussion in smaller groups, that making up stories could support socialization and courtship as well as making fun of authorities, etc. I can imagine that some forms of divination might have sprung forth from such a story-telling process. But, how did the two seemingly diverse portions of the Tarot Deck, as we know it today, come together?

Have you found this covered in any other sources? Dave

 

[Tristram Shandy]

I do have one reaction to Place's fondness for the mystical tarot allegory angle. He mentions Triumph parades as a basis for the order and story of the allegory of the Majors. Apart from early decks being unnumbered, I have another concern.

Triumph processions were not always done to a formulaic order. They also didn't include the same carts in every parade. I get this information from my interest in art history and the pictures of such processions that I have seen, as well as other writings.

My feeling on this is that it was a straight financial consideration--larger towns and cities could put on a good show with lots of carts, and smaller places couldn't afford that so they chose a few triumph carts of great impact and popularity--Death being a perennial favourite guaranteed to arouse the crowd and scare the kiddies--and their little processions were recieved with much enjoyment by the populace.

I am not at all comfortable with Robert Place's assumption that this is the formula of the great hierarchical allegory of tarot. He's got a point in that certain figures tend to repeat, and figures are paired together, but he's sticking to a formula that simply did not exist everywhere, so how can it be THE Mystical Allegory and THE mystical order of things and THE story to follow?

It can't, it's just HIS story of what the arrangement and connections Might Have Been.

room, I think that you have misunderstood what Robert Place meant. Here is a direct quote from the book, from chapter "The Search for Meaning" and its part "I Trionfi". Emphasis mine.

In 1956, Tarot author Gertrude Moakley wrote an article making the case that the Tarot's trumps are based on Petrarch's "I Trionfi". Later, in 1966, she wrote a book, The Tarot Cards Painted by Bonicafio Bembo, in which she argued that the Tarot's trumps are based on the actual triumph, the parade. When she wrote these theories, her idea presented a tremendous breakthrough for scholarly research into the understanding of the origin of the images in the Tarot. Yet neither theory is exactly correct. As we saw, there is a relationship between some of the trumps and the illustrations for "I Trionfi", but not all of them, and the images are not in the same order. The actual triumphs performed in the Renaissance were continually changing and it cannot be said that they present a consistent model for the particular triumph in the Tarot. It is more correct to say that the Tarot is part of the same tradition that informed the illustrations of "I Trionfi". --- They [the images] were part of the popular culture of the time.

It has been a while since I read the book. I have forgotten things and can't comment the rest of your analysis of the book.

 

[room]

My objection was to Place's comments about the mystery of the 22 trumps and a specific order of the cards, along with other notations, as if they were well-founded truths and documented when they are only. . .well his pet theory.

The quote you give is not one I can answer with direct quotes of when he absolutely states that something is true as I don't have the book, I traded it.

I did not mistake his meaning, it was another case of someone imposing a personal theory which cannot be proven, on history. As I said, I was surprised that someone touting themselves as an avid researcher and historian would even suggest such a thing.

He went too far in pushing what is personal assumption and theory in this book.

I prefer the Huson book and Kaplan's approach in the Encyclopedias which is to talk about different parts and documentation of tarot history but say that no one really knows for sure, instead of inventing a fantasy.

That seems responsible to me.

I don't argue with people, you and others are free to believe that Robert Place is the Messiah of tarot history, and I am equally free to believe he is an irresponsible theorist throwing out endless presumptions and fantasies that have no documentation and would horrify a real historian.

Sorry, but I don't feel like being browbeaten because I don't go along with the gang on this one. I simply don't. End of story.

 

[Debra]

Everyone's right, especially me.

I think that Place's book is both fascinating and flawed, and I believe the flaws are quite complex. I can't comment on the historical accuracy of his accounts but I do believe the book contains contradictions and I suspect this is because it was shaped by conflicting impulses.

As others have noted, there's a tension between the tarot history section and the section on reading using the RWS. But there's also a more fundamental ambivalence that runs throughout the book, I think. I think Place states clearly that he does recognize the ambiguity of historical facts, and he does say in many places that we can't know for sure, tarot developed differently in different places, etc. (On this I disagree with room, and disagreeing is not the same as browbeating). BUT he also seems to nonetheless try to lead us to a "one true ah-ha!" interpretation of tarot trumps. (On this I agree with room.)

I see this ambivalence as a fairly widespread problem of modern life. On the one hand, we're all pretty sophisticated about psychology and society. We know that different cultures have dramatically different world views, individuals within a culture may still vary widely, etc. etc. Only a rube thinks there's "one true way," right? On the other hand, c'mon--really, the way *I* see it really IS the best way! After all, why would I *choose* a factually, morally, or spiritually INFERIOR way of thinking or living?

It's hard to live in a world of complete relativism or subjectivism. And with tarot, if we say "well, the cards mean just whatever you want them to, darlin'" then maybe you're reading the cards, and maybe you're just making up stories, and maybe you're delusional. The book slips almost imperceptibly between different perspectives, sometimes treating the cards as historically embedded--as the pieces for a game, as the representations of the triumphs in parade, etc.--and other times treating them as a "true secret we hope to have revealed." I think Place's editor was just a bit too easy on him, and didn't push him to reconcile these two conflicting impulses. So the "story" of tarot remains complex and fragmented.....through a glass darkly.