Re: Tarot and The Church

#41
actually, the book is not yet available. it's in its last stages of prooging (for minor typo and style errors). i'm considering going back in and changing a couple of lines like "the church banned playing cards...", but that would still leave me with the possibility that there could be other similar mistakes from misguided sources. perhaps you would be willing to review it for such errors. if so , let me know and i would be happy to send you a pre-pulication copy in pdf. i will hold off on the final approval until i hear back from you if you are interested in doing this.

actually i have a website out where you can preview the book up through the introduction. please feel free to read it and send me your suggestions and comments. http://www.thesecretofthetarot.com please keep in mind that the whole theme of the website is to promote the book, so excuse the non-scholastic look. i hope it is not too self-serving of me to mention this. but this is my chance to get some real good response from a knowledgeable person in the field before publication. since i am self-publishing the book, it can not be made available to me as a promotional copy before availability, so reviews can only be made after the fact. (go figure).

and i do enjoy the discussion. one of the things this has shown me is that there could be a good response (both pro and against) to the book's subject matter. of course i would like to put out the most accurate facts as possible. i look forward to continue discussing the issue and everyone's response after the book is released.

Re: Tarot and The Church

#42
... :-) ... it's good for you, that you still have a last hand in the production process.

And it's good for you that you seem to accept advice. My first advice ... take Ross as your mentor, not me, in the case, that Ross agrees.
My position is rather radical, and it would give your position only a very, very, very small chance to be true. Ross' position, I would assume, gives your idea a very small chance. The difference lies in the condition, that I believe in an evolutionary development of the Trionfi cards, which at the begin hadn't been a composition with 22 trumps, but Ross believes in an initial composition with 22 trumps.

If Ross refuses the suggestion, ask me again. It's late here ... I've to sleep.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Tarot and The Church

#43
hope you had a good sleep. i am not expecting either of you to accept the concept of the hereditary nature of the cards (although i still don't understand your dismissal of the "evolution" of the cards when we can see very clearly that they were changed over time). i understand that there will be many others who will also refuse to agree with this idea. that doesn't bother me and i really don't want to argue the point - especially with someone who is so adamant about their position on the tarot. as i said, there will always be dissenting views. what i was looking for was someone who could possibly correct any historical facts which i may have inadvertently included. but i think i'm ok with it. i can live with a few "bad apples" as long as people can come away with a diffent sense of things from the whole of the book.

Re: Tarot and The Church

#44
Hi foolish! :)

Please, you can put here the bibliography of your book?

These are some authors essential who should be there: Dummett, Ortali, Berti, Vitali, Depaulis, Sinclair, the web Trionfi.com...

Berti, Giordano. Storia dei tarocchi. Verità e leggende sulle carte più misteriose del mondo. Mondadori. Milán, 2007.
Depaulis, Thierry. Tarot: jeu et magie. Bibliothèque Nationale. París, 1984.
Dummett, Michael. The Game of Tarot: from Ferrara to Salt Lake City. Duckworth. Londres, 1980. Or, best:
Dummett, Michael. Il Mondo e l’Angelo. I Tarocchi e la loro storia. Bibliopolis. Nápoles, 1993.
Vitali, Andrea (ed.), Il Castello dei tarochi. Lo Scarabeo. Torino, 2010.

On line: http://www.trionfi.com
When a man has a theory // Can’t keep his mind on nothing else (By Ross)

Re: Tarot and The Church

#45
foolish wrote:hope you had a good sleep. i am not expecting either of you to accept the concept of the hereditary nature of the cards (although i still don't understand your dismissal of the "evolution" of the cards when we can see very clearly that they were changed over time).
I argument for an evolution with differences in the deck form, that is mainly changes in the number of trumps, so I see decks with totally 60 cards including 16 trumps (Michelino-deck), decks with 5x16-structure (Cary-Yale) or possibly other combination with 16 trumps (Charles VI), decks with 5x14-structure (70 Bembo cards inside Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-deck), possibly decks with 20-trumps structures (only by analogy) and naturally also 4x14+22 decks. Also I see a strong indication of influence from Karnöffel/Imperatori cards and so decks with only 8 trumps at the beginning of the development. The whole evolution might have taken 40 years at least or even longer.

This model is naturally rather complicated and demands a lot of argumentation, one cannot easily adopt this in a few days ... .-) ... even a few months are a little short.
i understand that there will be many others who will also refuse to agree with this idea. that doesn't bother me and i really don't want to argue the point - especially with someone who is so adamant about their position on the tarot. as i said, there will always be dissenting views. what i was looking for was someone who could possibly correct any historical facts which i may have inadvertently included. but i think i'm ok with it. i can live with a few "bad apples" as long as people can come away with a diffent sense of things from the whole of the book.
Let's see, what Ross says to the suggestion.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Tarot and The Church

#46
Huck wrote:... :-) ... it's good for you, that you still have a last hand in the production process.

And it's good for you that you seem to accept advice. My first advice ... take Ross as your mentor, not me, in the case, that Ross agrees.
My position is rather radical, and it would give your position only a very, very, very small chance to be true. Ross' position, I would assume, gives your idea a very small chance. The difference lies in the condition, that I believe in an evolutionary development of the Trionfi cards, which at the begin hadn't been a composition with 22 trumps, but Ross believes in an initial composition with 22 trumps.

If Ross refuses the suggestion, ask me again. It's late here ... I've to sleep.
I'm not sure if I should thank you for recommending me for this task, Huck. But, with that in mind, here is my stance on Robert's (foolish) book.

It is a work of fiction. There's nothing wrong with that. Robert clearly states he is not trying to prove anything, just wants people to take it as "good read", maybe make them think about Cathars and the "diaspora" of Catharism, and fnally to tell the story of the trumps as if it were a Cathar manifesto.

Nevertheless, he must take a polemical stand against real tarot history in order to justify his approach - which I think is a shame. Since the aim of the book is really to interpret the symbolism of the Tarot de Marseille in the light of a certain understanding of Cathar doctrine, it would be preferable not to contextualize the story within a pseudo-historical framework, beginning with an apologia, which the Introduction is. That apologia actually does try to "prove" something, namely, that the lack of consensus among experts as to what the trump sequence "means", allows room for any sort of wild conjecture.

The main problem with seeing this particular lack of consensus as an opening for a complete revision, is that there is absolute and utter consensus among experts on the dating of the origin of Tarot, to the first half of the 15th century, in northern Italy or Tuscany. For the "interpretation of the sequence" part, in fact very few allegorical interpretations have been offered for the sequence of 22 trumps. None has found universal acceptance, no doubt, because of the difficulty of arguing interpretation in any case, and especially when you have to, as preliminary, make an historical case for which sequence and imagery you are interpreting. Not to mention knowing about the art of the period; until very recently, with the rise of the world wide web, finding the best analogues was a very expensive and time consuming occupation. Gertrude Moakley was a pioneer and very fortunate to be in the position she was (cataloger in the New York Public Library, with one of the best collections in the world, and in that position able to correspond with anyone she wanted and to order books from any other library she wanted).

So while trying to be honest and admit he is no expert in either Tarot history, Italian history, or Catharism, Robert feels the need nevertheless to present his work as historically valid, or "plausible" - i.e. he is trying to prove that it is plausible. To use a metaphor, he has to get his foot in the door (argue for historical plausibility), in order to get a chance to make the sale (the Cathar interpretation of the Tarot de Marseille). He has to prove that historians have overlooked something, some possibility.

I have no problem with fiction, admitted as such, without apology. It could be very good, and if written with a good historical background, it may even seem plausible. In other words, the proof of its plausibility should be in how well the story is told, not in the special pleading at the beginning disguised as historical introduction.

I'm willing to look at it this way, and of course I can correct mistakes. There is a typo in the Preface BTW - "Louis VIII" should be "Louis XIII".

Robert, note that I have been down this road, years before. I live in Béziers, in case you haven't noticed.

Ross
Image

Re: Tarot and The Church

#47
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
Huck wrote:... :-) ... it's good for you, that you still have a last hand in the production process.

And it's good for you that you seem to accept advice. My first advice ... take Ross as your mentor, not me, in the case, that Ross agrees.
My position is rather radical, and it would give your position only a very, very, very small chance to be true. Ross' position, I would assume, gives your idea a very small chance. The difference lies in the condition, that I believe in an evolutionary development of the Trionfi cards, which at the begin hadn't been a composition with 22 trumps, but Ross believes in an initial composition with 22 trumps.

If Ross refuses the suggestion, ask me again. It's late here ... I've to sleep.
I'm not sure if I should thank you for recommending me for this task, Huck.
... .-) ... but it refers to a region, which is much nearer to you than to me.

But, with that in mind, here is my stance on Robert's (foolish) book.

It is a work of fiction. There's nothing wrong with that. Robert clearly states he is not trying to prove anything, just wants people to take it as "good read", maybe make them think about Cathars and the "diaspora" of Catharism, and fnally to tell the story of the trumps as if it were a Cathar manifesto.
I think, he has an interest to be correct in his historical placement, even when he takes more the entertainment aspect. And it's also our interest, that new authors write according results of new researches.
Nevertheless, he must take a polemical stand against real tarot history in order to justify his approach - which I think is a shame. Since the aim of the book is really to interpret the symbolism of the Tarot de Marseille in the light of a certain understanding of Cathar doctrine, it would be preferable not to contextualize the story within a pseudo-historical framework, beginning with an apologia, which the Introduction is. That apologia actually does try to "prove" something, namely, that the lack of consensus among experts as to what the trump sequence "means", allows room for any sort of wild conjecture.
Well, in his recent statement ...
sorry, Robert, I quote you here from http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t= ... ge=5&pp=10

"the visconti decks probably predate the french decks by at least fifty years or so. i don't think that the Tarot de Marseille just started up in the 1600's, although i imagine that is when the main card making houses were developed and popularized the cards. i believe that the tarot was introduced to france when the french troops under charles VIII were retreating from their invasion of italy in 1495, after being invited to enter the war by ludovico sforza, who was looking to increase his power in milan and other territories. as the cards were taken to their new home, they took on the symbology of the local culture."

... then he's in a time, which allows speculation, even about some surviving local Cathars traditions taking influence on French card production around 1500 ... .-) ...
He's naturally in danger, if he extends his speculation too much before these dates.
So while trying to be honest and admit he is no expert in either Tarot history, Italian history, or Catharism, Robert feels the need nevertheless to present his work as historically valid, or "plausible" - i.e. he is trying to prove that it is plausible. To use a metaphor, he has to get his foot in the door (argue for historical plausibility), in order to get a chance to make the sale (the Cathar interpretation of the Tarot de Marseille). He has to prove that historians have overlooked something, some possibility.

I have no problem with fiction, admitted as such, without apology. It could be very good, and if written with a good historical background, it may even seem plausible. In other words, the proof of its plausibility should be in how well the story is told, not in the special pleading at the beginning disguised as historical introduction.

I'm willing to look at it this way, and of course I can correct mistakes. There is a typo in the Preface BTW - "Louis VIII" should be "Louis XIII".

Robert, note that I have been down this road, years before. I live in Béziers, in case you haven't noticed.

Ross
Well, there's also a dangerous misunderstanding about Gringonneur.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Tarot and The Church

#48
thanks for the typo heads up ross. i will make the change asap. obviously, that's the kind of editing i can use, as most "editors" don't have the background to catch those errors. however, we will probably never get to an agrement as to the "real" meaning of the cards. the cathar influence theory seems a possibility not only because the general historical context seems to fit, but also because the specific characters and events apprear to translate into the images of the revised cards so well (described in part II of the book). obviously, any explanation of the images is open to interpretation, but upon reviewing the historical information, it seems almost too coincidental that such a connection should exist. although you could still dismiss the entire interpretation as fanatasy, i think the combination of all the parts into a consistent expalnation of the images makes for an very interesting story in the least.

one of the other factors involved in this peice of detective work is the very real possibility that the tarot had more than one use. there is no reason why the deck of cards was not enjoyed as a simple game, an tool for moral instruction, and also (in certain circles) as a system to preserve the historical and spiritual messages of the cathars. the bottom line is that, although i can't prove it to be true, you can not prove it to be a non-possibility. and i guess, to my advantage as an author, the general public often appreciates this type of interpretaion (or in your mind, speculation).

the bottom lines is that i have always expected this kind of response from the scholarly crowd. as with every other theory out there, you can always find a way to shoot holes into it. what i did not do is to create a book of "facts". thsi would seem too boring and could easily be looked up on the internet and discussed in forums such as this. i was willing to take a leap in the arena of interpreation, knowing well that i would be taking hits from your collegues. that's just part of the risk of expressing soemthing different. in the end, i hope i have created something that people will not so easily dismiss as unfounded in the realm of possibility.

i recognized your home of beziers. i would be very interested in talking to you about how you ended up there and what your experiences have been regarding the local sentiment of its historical background. i have a nephew who recently moved to agen (picked up by the local rugby team) and may be visiting next year. let me know if you are interested in having a private email conversation about this as i'm not sure a new thread on this site would be appropriate.

Re: Tarot and The Church

#49
foolish wrote: i recognized your home of beziers. i would be very interested in talking to you about how you ended up there and what your experiences have been regarding the local sentiment of its historical background. i have a nephew who recently moved to agen (picked up by the local rugby team) and may be visiting next year. let me know if you are interested in having a private email conversation about this as i'm not sure a new thread on this site would be appropriate.
That must be Kevin Swiryn! He scored a nice try against Clermont last week. You must have a brother named Scott then :) How funny to find a rugby connection on a Tarot forum... my wife is a rugby fanatic, I'm just a casual fan, but it's the only sport I watch regularly and also attend a few games during the year.

Well, you know my stance on the theory. It is a priori so unlikely, that it is effectively impossible. Absolute proof against it? Of course, I can't give you that. In addition to the original inventor of Tarot's signed affadavit, we'd need the designer of the Tarot de Marseille trumps' one as well, in order to have absolute proof.

The images are conventional and medieval, with some particular to the 15th century (at least I haven't found any images of a Conjurer or Popess (like the Tarot's) in the 14th century or earlier). The date for their origin cannot be safely pushed back earlier than the 1430s. So the presumption for interpretation should be that they tell a conventional, medieval story, perhaps with aspects particular to Italy in the early 15th century. I can't see any heretical doctrine in it; anything touching on Christianity (like the Resurrection) is completely orthodox.

Of course arguing that the trumps tell a story at all is a hurdle. Instead of arguing for a priori reasons why any particular order and imagery may or may not tell a story, most experts in Tarot history are waiting for someone to come up with a story that just seems so self-evident, or at least sufficiently explanatory, that it must be right.
Image

Re: Tarot and The Church

#50
yes, it is kevin. we are very proud of him over here. he was the captain and MVP of the U.S. national sevens team before being picked up by agen.

i guess if you assume that all the images on the tarot cards can only be used for their apparrent face value meanings which are borowed from common religiuos themes of the time, then you negate all other theories. however, i'm not so sure that we should make the assumption that the tarot only had one purpose. it would seem feasable, if not advantageous, for a group looking to conceal information in the cards to be able to use the traditional religious images in order to avoid detection from being too overtly heretical. of course, we can not prove this. but it remains interesting to consider the motive these people may have had to preserve their legacy. for now, it remains a speculative topic for someone like myself to explore. what i hope to have accomplished is to add to the discussion. not only in the historical sense, but also in the way the cards can be interpreted.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron