Okay !
-May be "What is the iconography source of the TMd ? "
* What do ya think ?
Re: La Rove De Fortvne
22Frankly I think the specific source of a particular version's particular image of any of these allegories, is secondary to the allegory itself.
The allegories we find in the tarot were common, cliche even. They appeared in all manner of popular culture. Take The Star for example. The Tarot de Marseille card clearly refers to some sort of story or legend or something, but the general meaning of 'Star" would have been generally known and standardize regardless of which source a specific image was drawn from. If we want to get some idea of the intended allegory of the trumps, we need to know what the general accepted conventional understanding of the allegories were, and then, and only then we can look at the specific ways the artists choose to illustrate the convention.
R
The allegories we find in the tarot were common, cliche even. They appeared in all manner of popular culture. Take The Star for example. The Tarot de Marseille card clearly refers to some sort of story or legend or something, but the general meaning of 'Star" would have been generally known and standardize regardless of which source a specific image was drawn from. If we want to get some idea of the intended allegory of the trumps, we need to know what the general accepted conventional understanding of the allegories were, and then, and only then we can look at the specific ways the artists choose to illustrate the convention.
RRe: La Rove De Fortvne
23Hi R.A.H, and Everyone!
What I am about to write applies perhaps not only here, but also to the discussion of when the images were born into cards.
R.A.H., you wrote: “The boys at Conver & Co. were nice enough to write an explanation right on the card so people wouldn't get confused. It says,
La Rove De FORTVNA
She has clearly been named, thus is present in name and intent. If they didn't want the card to be understood as the popular allegory of Fortuna's Wheel, they would have called the cards something else.”
I agree that at the time of Conver & Co. they did, indeed, intend this as Fortuna's Wheel because it would be seen in the context of that culture. But, I also know where EUGIM is coming from with regard to an earlier style of imagery than that of the Renaissance. Personally, I can see connections to an even earlier time than the Gothic art period, for I think they relate stylistically to Byzantine iconography, and I think that it was at this very early time that people started reinterpreting more ancient imagery in order to fit it into a Christian context. I think they did this in mosaics on floors and walls, in various carvings for boxes and books and eventually in the form of portable (but not yet card sized) icons.
The oldest extant Tarot cards do come from the time of the Renaissance, but, unlike Bob O'Neill who has done wonderful, wonderful research, I have not reached the conclusion that there were no simplified Tarot-type images before that time. They might have been small, fairly crude hand-drawn pictures used to teach converts so that they would associate formerly pagan ideas with the Christian story, and the number of images that a person had probably varied. I can imagine that when block printing became more common, there were many more of these crude little images made for the public and more themes were added (some pre-Christian for there were still many unconverted people); and as they became more affordable, people started to treat them more casually, playing games etc. I think the Marseilles style cards came from these.
I can imagine that when cards became a visible presence in the lives of the commoners, they were noticed by Royalty. Now, if you were of the privileged class and you wanted to amuse your peers, it simply wouldn't do to use the same crude cards used by the commoners. No, you had a skilled artist produce fancy hand-painted miniatures, and the images were “gentrified” for the ladies so as not to be so crude! And you had your craftsman devise more sophisticated games than the commoners played. These fancy cards endured because they were valued. Maybe even the wealthy commonly played with less valuable decks which didn't survive except when discarded in the wells of castles.
The Wheel is a very, very ancient symbol and it would not have mattered which culture you came from you would have understood it. To see how an older pagan concept could influence wheel imagery, note that in her Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects under Wheel Barbara Walker writes, “One of the Celtic names for the Goddess Arianrhod, designated her the Goddess of the Silver Wheel (the stars), whose hub was the Revolving Castle, Caer Sidi, hidden in the underground spirit-land of Annwn.” Now look at the hub of the wheel in the lovely Adam McLean jpg image EUGIM attached to his post. Sorry to run on, —Marcei
What I am about to write applies perhaps not only here, but also to the discussion of when the images were born into cards.
R.A.H., you wrote: “The boys at Conver & Co. were nice enough to write an explanation right on the card so people wouldn't get confused. It says,
La Rove De FORTVNA
She has clearly been named, thus is present in name and intent. If they didn't want the card to be understood as the popular allegory of Fortuna's Wheel, they would have called the cards something else.”
I agree that at the time of Conver & Co. they did, indeed, intend this as Fortuna's Wheel because it would be seen in the context of that culture. But, I also know where EUGIM is coming from with regard to an earlier style of imagery than that of the Renaissance. Personally, I can see connections to an even earlier time than the Gothic art period, for I think they relate stylistically to Byzantine iconography, and I think that it was at this very early time that people started reinterpreting more ancient imagery in order to fit it into a Christian context. I think they did this in mosaics on floors and walls, in various carvings for boxes and books and eventually in the form of portable (but not yet card sized) icons.
The oldest extant Tarot cards do come from the time of the Renaissance, but, unlike Bob O'Neill who has done wonderful, wonderful research, I have not reached the conclusion that there were no simplified Tarot-type images before that time. They might have been small, fairly crude hand-drawn pictures used to teach converts so that they would associate formerly pagan ideas with the Christian story, and the number of images that a person had probably varied. I can imagine that when block printing became more common, there were many more of these crude little images made for the public and more themes were added (some pre-Christian for there were still many unconverted people); and as they became more affordable, people started to treat them more casually, playing games etc. I think the Marseilles style cards came from these.
I can imagine that when cards became a visible presence in the lives of the commoners, they were noticed by Royalty. Now, if you were of the privileged class and you wanted to amuse your peers, it simply wouldn't do to use the same crude cards used by the commoners. No, you had a skilled artist produce fancy hand-painted miniatures, and the images were “gentrified” for the ladies so as not to be so crude! And you had your craftsman devise more sophisticated games than the commoners played. These fancy cards endured because they were valued. Maybe even the wealthy commonly played with less valuable decks which didn't survive except when discarded in the wells of castles.
The Wheel is a very, very ancient symbol and it would not have mattered which culture you came from you would have understood it. To see how an older pagan concept could influence wheel imagery, note that in her Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects under Wheel Barbara Walker writes, “One of the Celtic names for the Goddess Arianrhod, designated her the Goddess of the Silver Wheel (the stars), whose hub was the Revolving Castle, Caer Sidi, hidden in the underground spirit-land of Annwn.” Now look at the hub of the wheel in the lovely Adam McLean jpg image EUGIM attached to his post. Sorry to run on, —Marcei
Last edited by Marcei on 08 May 2009, 00:33, edited 1 time in total.
Re: La Rove De Fortvne
24I like to imagine that the cards were like "baseball cards" that people collected along the pilgrimage trails and traded with each other, each image being oriented towards different healing or blessing powers. Some cards would have become very rare and sought after, others would have been more common. I imagine certain sites, remote and hard to reach, having some of the most sought after of them all... 3 popesses for 1 hanged man.
Sometimes I also like to imagine that the images go back beyond Byzantium and are actually Coptic. Some of my favourite tarot type images are from the Romanesque period. Sometimes I imagine that the deck comes out of Eastern Europe, sometimes I look to the North.
Yet...
I'm stuck with the fact that with all of the hundreds or thousands of people looking in these places for the origin of tarot, and all of the research on Cathers and Pagans and Bogiomiles and Jews and Egyptians and Mithra and Dionysus and Gilgamesh and Sumeria and Celts and Druids and whatever other non-15th-century-Italian source we can come up with... nothing comes even remotely close to offering the same amount of evidence. It's rather disappointing really as, I think it is very likely that most of the members here have entertained the hope for something far more exotic and thrilling than to believe that tarot was created then and there. I'd love to believe that the tarot was some sort of secret pagan teaching that was used to fly under the radar of the Roman Catholic Church; but sadly, no matter how many people have tried, and no matter how popular the idea still is in the tarot world, no one has been able to come up with a defensible thesis on this. I think most "tarot historians" reluctantly come to accept that they would rather know the "truth", even if it means discarding most of the "fun" explanations, than to make up theories without enough evidence to justify them.
So I'm stuck with 15th Century Italy until someone comes up with something more convincing, and when they do, I'll be so delighted you'll hear me singing with glee. Now, I think there are still plenty of mysteries to be solved, and I don't accept many of the current theories surrounding tarot today, so I'm still rather a rebel and outsider on that front. I do hold out hope that the tarot was not something created by the courts, but rather something that emerged from the common people.
I think no one would argue that many of the allegories presented in tarot go back further than 15th Century Italy, sure enough some of it can be traced much further back. Yet, while I can certainly see there being other "wheels" in the history and mythology of the world, I think the Wheel of Fortune is not some sort of updated image of anything else, but is exactly as it has consistently appeared throughout the tarot... the warning of inconstancy, of trusting in fate instead of God, in wrongly trusting in the rewards of this world instead of the next.
Yet, I do agree that the 22 cards we have are an odd collection. Sometimes I wonder if we have a reduced set, I'd sure like to see Prudence in there. And while I think we have plenty of good explanations for the Popess, I still think she is an odd card. The Hanged Man too is one that I have to wonder if the creator couldn't think of something better. But then, most of the other cards are generally recognisable for their time and place... and wouldn't be out of place in a prayerbook at sunday mass.
So while I'm still looking, and do consider myself fairly open-minded (if not eagerly willing to find alternatives), I just don't think I can agree that there are some sort of hidden meanings or pagan teachings disguised in the images. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're implying?
Sometimes I also like to imagine that the images go back beyond Byzantium and are actually Coptic. Some of my favourite tarot type images are from the Romanesque period. Sometimes I imagine that the deck comes out of Eastern Europe, sometimes I look to the North.
Yet...
I'm stuck with the fact that with all of the hundreds or thousands of people looking in these places for the origin of tarot, and all of the research on Cathers and Pagans and Bogiomiles and Jews and Egyptians and Mithra and Dionysus and Gilgamesh and Sumeria and Celts and Druids and whatever other non-15th-century-Italian source we can come up with... nothing comes even remotely close to offering the same amount of evidence. It's rather disappointing really as, I think it is very likely that most of the members here have entertained the hope for something far more exotic and thrilling than to believe that tarot was created then and there. I'd love to believe that the tarot was some sort of secret pagan teaching that was used to fly under the radar of the Roman Catholic Church; but sadly, no matter how many people have tried, and no matter how popular the idea still is in the tarot world, no one has been able to come up with a defensible thesis on this. I think most "tarot historians" reluctantly come to accept that they would rather know the "truth", even if it means discarding most of the "fun" explanations, than to make up theories without enough evidence to justify them.
So I'm stuck with 15th Century Italy until someone comes up with something more convincing, and when they do, I'll be so delighted you'll hear me singing with glee. Now, I think there are still plenty of mysteries to be solved, and I don't accept many of the current theories surrounding tarot today, so I'm still rather a rebel and outsider on that front. I do hold out hope that the tarot was not something created by the courts, but rather something that emerged from the common people.
I think no one would argue that many of the allegories presented in tarot go back further than 15th Century Italy, sure enough some of it can be traced much further back. Yet, while I can certainly see there being other "wheels" in the history and mythology of the world, I think the Wheel of Fortune is not some sort of updated image of anything else, but is exactly as it has consistently appeared throughout the tarot... the warning of inconstancy, of trusting in fate instead of God, in wrongly trusting in the rewards of this world instead of the next.
Yet, I do agree that the 22 cards we have are an odd collection. Sometimes I wonder if we have a reduced set, I'd sure like to see Prudence in there. And while I think we have plenty of good explanations for the Popess, I still think she is an odd card. The Hanged Man too is one that I have to wonder if the creator couldn't think of something better. But then, most of the other cards are generally recognisable for their time and place... and wouldn't be out of place in a prayerbook at sunday mass.
So while I'm still looking, and do consider myself fairly open-minded (if not eagerly willing to find alternatives), I just don't think I can agree that there are some sort of hidden meanings or pagan teachings disguised in the images. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're implying?
Re: La Rove De Fortvne
25Hi Robert,
Ok, so maybe I'm way off base when it comes to thinking there was something tangible that inspired gifted artists of the Renaissance to create the many varied images of the Tarot. But for me, it seems more farfetched that an artist was was commissioned to create a card game and he came up with a fairly complicated series of specifically Christian images that just coincidentally have been meaningful in almost every culture known to man.
You say, “I just don't think I can agree that there are some sort of hidden meanings or pagan teachings disguised in the images. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're implying?”
As I understand it, the word Pagan does not, in itself, have a sinister meaning, it simply refers to the Pagani—the people of the pagan (meaning the countryside). Remember that the Christianization of Europe did not happen overnight—large pockets of people continued living their lives close to the land, observing their cherished old traditions, and in some cases, people strongly resisted conversion. (Many European traditions today are remnants of pre-Christian traditions that simply had to be allowed or reinterpreted by the Church because the masses simply would not abandon them.) Why would we, then, find it odd that the cards might also be used to recall those earlier ideas. And why, given the cruelty that the established Church visited not only upon those who resisted conversion, but also upon those who practiced a variant branch even of that same religion, would we be surprised that they would keep those variant interpretations hidden?
Ok, so maybe I'm way off base when it comes to thinking there was something tangible that inspired gifted artists of the Renaissance to create the many varied images of the Tarot. But for me, it seems more farfetched that an artist was was commissioned to create a card game and he came up with a fairly complicated series of specifically Christian images that just coincidentally have been meaningful in almost every culture known to man.
You say, “I just don't think I can agree that there are some sort of hidden meanings or pagan teachings disguised in the images. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're implying?”
As I understand it, the word Pagan does not, in itself, have a sinister meaning, it simply refers to the Pagani—the people of the pagan (meaning the countryside). Remember that the Christianization of Europe did not happen overnight—large pockets of people continued living their lives close to the land, observing their cherished old traditions, and in some cases, people strongly resisted conversion. (Many European traditions today are remnants of pre-Christian traditions that simply had to be allowed or reinterpreted by the Church because the masses simply would not abandon them.) Why would we, then, find it odd that the cards might also be used to recall those earlier ideas. And why, given the cruelty that the established Church visited not only upon those who resisted conversion, but also upon those who practiced a variant branch even of that same religion, would we be surprised that they would keep those variant interpretations hidden?
Re: La Rove De Fortvne
26Well, we don't know if an artist was commissioned, or whether the artist was also the creator of the first deck, although we do have history that shows us that indeed, an artist could be commissioned to create a deck, the early "gods" deck created by Michelino. Whether tarot has meaningful images (especially taken as a group) to every culture known to man.. well, I'm not so sure, most, I would suggest.. are meaningful specifically to 15th century Italy. You'd need to show that the group of images existed together somewhere else under a different guise to be able to have a good counter-argument. I think it is easy to show relationships with a card here and a card there... but showing them as a group is, at least I have found, impossible in any other time and place; but I'd love to see some examples.Marcei wrote:Hi Robert,
Ok, so maybe I'm way off base when it comes to thinking there was something tangible that inspired gifted artists of the Renaissance to create the many varied images of the Tarot. But for me, it seems more farfetched that an artist was was commissioned to create a card game and he came up with a fairly complicated series of specifically Christian images that just coincidentally have been meaningful in almost every culture known to man.
I certainly never intended to imply that "pagan" should have a negative meaning, I would never dream of using the word pejoratively. I've always been fascinated with the origins and development of Christianity, with Paganism and Heresies, and am not unfamiliar with how they developed. I just don't see the paganism or heresies on the cards, and surely, I've looked (along with hundreds or thousands of others trying to find an explanation for tarot besides Italy, 1400s).Marcei wrote:You say, “I just don't think I can agree that there are some sort of hidden meanings or pagan teachings disguised in the images. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're implying?”
As I understand it, the word Pagan does not, in itself, have a sinister meaning, it simply refers to the Pagani—the people of the pagan (meaning the countryside). Remember that the Christianization of Europe did not happen overnight—large pockets of people continued living their lives close to the land, observing their cherished old traditions, and in some cases, people strongly resisted conversion. (Many European traditions today are remnants of pre-Christian traditions that simply had to be allowed or reinterpreted by the Church because the masses simply would not abandon them.) Why would we, then, find it odd that the cards might also be used to recall those earlier ideas. And why, given the cruelty that the established Church visited not only upon those who resisted conversion, but also upon those who practiced a variant branch even of that same religion, would we be surprised that they would keep those variant interpretations hidden?
Do you have something specific in mind?
Re: La Rove De Fortvne
27Hi Robert,
You wrote, “Whether tarot has meaningful images (especially taken as a group) to every culture known to man.. well, I'm not so sure, most, I would suggest.. are meaningful specifically to 15th century Italy. You'd need to show that the group of images existed together somewhere else under a different guise to be able to have a good counter-argument.”
I just don't think they came about as neatly as that, meaning as a set number of co-related images in a specific sequence. It seems more likely to me that in the early days when images were scarce, common people would have saved whatever hand drawn or simply stamped images they had. Some might have been from the new religion and some from the past. Then, since human nature is human nature, people probably started devising games—different games with different numbers of images. (We know that there were only 14 cards in some early Trionfi decks, and some Minchiati decks had a large unwieldy number) In time, it would make sense that some images would become favorites so that finally people were making decks of a set number of simple stamped or block printed cards.
We always wonder what was the proper order of the images, but different groups of people might have favored different sequences just like now, and the mind being what it is, each would have rationalized a meaning in relation to what ever order they chose.
It's just another theory of origin—one that is a little more organic and believable to me right now. Maybe some day we'll get really lucky and find the rare journal of some articulate person who knew and wanted to write about the history of a pack of images that stirred the imagination then just as they do now. Until then ???
You wrote, “Whether tarot has meaningful images (especially taken as a group) to every culture known to man.. well, I'm not so sure, most, I would suggest.. are meaningful specifically to 15th century Italy. You'd need to show that the group of images existed together somewhere else under a different guise to be able to have a good counter-argument.”
I just don't think they came about as neatly as that, meaning as a set number of co-related images in a specific sequence. It seems more likely to me that in the early days when images were scarce, common people would have saved whatever hand drawn or simply stamped images they had. Some might have been from the new religion and some from the past. Then, since human nature is human nature, people probably started devising games—different games with different numbers of images. (We know that there were only 14 cards in some early Trionfi decks, and some Minchiati decks had a large unwieldy number) In time, it would make sense that some images would become favorites so that finally people were making decks of a set number of simple stamped or block printed cards.
We always wonder what was the proper order of the images, but different groups of people might have favored different sequences just like now, and the mind being what it is, each would have rationalized a meaning in relation to what ever order they chose.
It's just another theory of origin—one that is a little more organic and believable to me right now. Maybe some day we'll get really lucky and find the rare journal of some articulate person who knew and wanted to write about the history of a pack of images that stirred the imagination then just as they do now. Until then ???
Re: La Rove De Fortvne
28Hello Marcei,
Best,
EE
If you have done so, please read Dummett.Marcei wrote:We always wonder what was the proper order of the images, but different groups of people might have favored different sequences just like now, and the mind being what it is, each would have rationalized a meaning in relation to what ever order they chose.
Best,
EE
Re: La Rove De Fortvne
29Hi Enrique,
Yes, I have both books, A Wicked Pack of Cards and A History of the Occult Tarot though it has been a few years since I read them. (I understand that Dummett has also written books on philosophy, but I have not read those.) Maybe you could put me on track as to the particular message/s you would apply to my statements?
No doubt I seem a bit irrational having come to the conclusion that the oldest extant cards were based on something that already existed, but if you can just sand off the Christian gloss, the basic ideas are the same ones that have always been a part of the human experience. Conveying those ideas in symbols or images is what has made the practice of divination so fascinating and prevalent everywhere. Incidentally, I loved your post a while back on your take on the psychology of reading the cards.
Yes, I have both books, A Wicked Pack of Cards and A History of the Occult Tarot though it has been a few years since I read them. (I understand that Dummett has also written books on philosophy, but I have not read those.) Maybe you could put me on track as to the particular message/s you would apply to my statements?
No doubt I seem a bit irrational having come to the conclusion that the oldest extant cards were based on something that already existed, but if you can just sand off the Christian gloss, the basic ideas are the same ones that have always been a part of the human experience. Conveying those ideas in symbols or images is what has made the practice of divination so fascinating and prevalent everywhere. Incidentally, I loved your post a while back on your take on the psychology of reading the cards.
Re: La Rove De Fortvne
30What you are suggesting sounds similar to what I was saying earlier about people collecting and exchanging images, the problem is that once we go there, we're just making it up until we can show some support for the belief. One of my biggest stumbling points is that I feel the series is either incomplete or mismashed, or well.. kind of weird. One way to explain that is that the set was randomly chosen, or at least, gathered together from various sources. We just don't know. Other people see a clear sequence that makes sense throughout the series. You mentioned the Minchiate, and what is really interesting about that is that whoever added those additional cards added in Prudence... so a sign that, at least to their mind, the card was missing and should have belonged there. The method which the cards were added in is important too, as they were inserted as a group indicating that the creator didn't want to mess with the pre-existing sequence established for tarot in his/her area. I still keep my eyes open for some "master source" that would explain the choice of these images, and the number of them. I used to think it might be a mystery play, or an illuminated manuscript, or a poem, or perhaps a record of a parade in a town. My gut is that there needs to be a better explanation for the choices than has yet been offered, but then again, I have nothing better, so must work with what we do have while keeping an eye open.Marcei wrote:Hi Robert,
You wrote, “Whether tarot has meaningful images (especially taken as a group) to every culture known to man.. well, I'm not so sure, most, I would suggest.. are meaningful specifically to 15th century Italy. You'd need to show that the group of images existed together somewhere else under a different guise to be able to have a good counter-argument.”
I just don't think they came about as neatly as that, meaning as a set number of co-related images in a specific sequence. It seems more likely to me that in the early days when images were scarce, common people would have saved whatever hand drawn or simply stamped images they had. Some might have been from the new religion and some from the past. Then, since human nature is human nature, people probably started devising games—different games with different numbers of images. (We know that there were only 14 cards in some early Trionfi decks, and some Minchiati decks had a large unwieldy number) In time, it would make sense that some images would become favorites so that finally people were making decks of a set number of simple stamped or block printed cards.
Right from the beginning there were different orders, and those orders tended to explain different views of what the tarot order "meant". Have you seen these excellent pages on tarot order?Marcei wrote:We always wonder what was the proper order of the images, but different groups of people might have favored different sequences just like now, and the mind being what it is, each would have rationalized a meaning in relation to what ever order they chose.
http://it.geocities.com/a_pollett/cards26.htm
http://www.tarothermit.com/ordering.htm
Well.. "Until then ???" is exactly the question! What do we do? Do we work with the evidence we have, try to find new evidence, and come to the best conclusions that we can based on what we actually know? Or do we make things up and ignore what evidence we have? Probably most of us fall somewhere inbetween, and I think that that is one of the issues we deal with whenever people get together to discuss this.Marcei wrote:It's just another theory of origin—one that is a little more organic and believable to me right now. Maybe some day we'll get really lucky and find the rare journal of some articulate person who knew and wanted to write about the history of a pack of images that stirred the imagination then just as they do now. Until then ???
Added to that is that in some ways this reminds me of "religious" discussions. Some people (like me) love to research the origin of the gospels and the development of the Bible, although I'm not a believer. Other people have their faith and love the Bible as holy word of god, and don't like people dissecting it and profaning the sacred. So not only do we have people on different places along the scale for how much they are interested in the "facts" rather than the "possibilities", there is, I think, often a religious aspect to this as well as there are some people who view the tarot as more than a pack of cards, but rather, a spiritual system.
I'd put myself pretty far to the historical fact area, as I think there are plenty of mysteries and exciting things to explore without bringing a lot of things into tarot that have no support in evidence. On the other hand, I'd say I keep an eye open for other things, I don't think we have it all figured out, and I expect more surprises and revelations as the years, and research, progresses.