R.A. Hendley wrote:
So, did the creator of these 22 versatile images also
partake of this interpretive process, or was his intention to merely present a random series of images for the purpose of facilitating other peoples' interpretive processes down through the ages, and if this is the case, shouldn't we just go ahead and shut down the ol' Tarot History Forum, and all go out for wine and cheese?
There is nothing as yet as far as I am aware to go against what MJH calls Dummetts 'null hypothesis', a series of relatively random images in a somewhat rough order by which people may recognsise rank, which was understood variously according to the gaming conventions of different regions. Such recognition does not depend upon an easily recognised narrative, but rather is estabished by convention, as with any other gaming conventions (nothing mysterious about it).
The Bolognese pattern existed for a long period with no numbers or names, their order was perfectly understood by players by convention, with out resort to any underlying narrative, at least, none that has been recorded (if there is, I suspect such that may exist would fall in the established category of allegorical exegesis of various readers, and not evidential of any original intent).
Why if this is the case should tarot history be shut down? Would not such be a part of tarot history? History is not just about origins and the original intent of the author(s), but developments, cultural influences and interpretations including those of a 15th century preacher or an 18th century gebelin , an anonymous 16th century platonist and/or everything in between. Or is it that all we should be interested in is an allusive historical affirmation of our own interpretation? Some authority for ones vain ego? Not sure of your point, but yes please, I'll gladly partake of some wine and cheese ( a velvety red and creamy port, a strong, ripe and smelly stilton or blue or at a pinch a very
mature cheddar, I like em 'real').
R.A. Hendley wrote:
I see your point, though I've never been one to equate the popularity of something with its actual value.
Not sure what you mean by this, it is you after all that claims the tarots origins is 'of the people'. Of the people, but not popular (ist). Or of the people, popular, but of no value? (I suppose relatively speaking, it is of little value in general / popular terms, but we are conversing as individuals with a specific interest, albeit one that may be considerd of little value in the greater scheme of things).