Renaissance Canon article mentions early Tarot

OnePotato

Debra said:
....I think it's legitimate and interesting to ask, "What might a heretic see in looking at Bosch?" This doesn't require establishing or even claiming that Bosch intended heretical ideas. It could be an exercise in the flexibility of symbols, an intellectual game....

Why have you singled out heretics, and why single out Bosch?
Once you stop to consider what heretics "might have seen" in other works of art, the "significance" quickly fades.

"Perhaps" The Garden of Eden is deliberately strange looking because it it not of an earthly location.
"Perhaps" Bosch is creating a vision of someplace that is by definition unfamiliar looking, and more-or-less unfathomable.
How would YOU paint Paradise?
Probably not as an ordinary pretty landscape.
EDIT, upon further reflection:
Bosch certainly didn't paint it as an ordinary place.

As I understand it, most churches did not hire heretics to paint for them, and they did not blindly accept works that didn't make perfect sense to them.

Moonbow

Moderator Note

Theories are just fine here foolish , and so is heated debate.

foolish

Bernice said:
MOD-NOTE:
This forum is fine for this particular discussion.
But if you want to post about flights of fancy that have no discernable corroboration with valid historical facts, then try the Experimental
Bee/Bernice

Now I'm confused, as I'm not sure if the "experimental" section assumes a total disregard for historical information, which I have been trying to associate with the tarot. Maybe we need another section which welcomes those theories which present historical information and suggest a connection to the tarot as food for thought.

Bernice

Moderator Note:

Theories & speculations concerning Tarot Origins belong in this forum. But it is a RESEARCH forum and therefore all notions & theories will be questioned, debated, and challanged.

Please desist from Meta discussion. This is a breach of the rules.
If you have queries about the content and running of any forum at AT, it must be via private messages to the moderators.

Bernice.
________________

Debra

OnePotato said:
Why have you singled out heretics, and why single out Bosch?

Hi One. Because of the way the discussion between mostly foolish and huck developed a couple of days ago, revolving around possible heretical meanings embedded in Bosch's work, is why.

What I'm getting at is this. What it takes to establish historical facts and link them in "most likely" causal chains is one thing. What it takes to view images with an informed and lively mind is another. The two may be linked but maybe not.

OnePotato said:
As I understand it, most churches did not hire heretics to paint for them, and they did not blindly accept works that didn't make perfect sense to them.

One would think.

Although some secrets are hidden in plain sight. At this moment I can't think of any, but I'll let you know.

OnePotato said:
How would YOU paint Paradise?
Probably not as an ordinary pretty landscape.

This is the best question yet.

foolish

Ross G Caldwell said:
"We should not assume that where there are no records of Cathars, no Cathars existed."
That seems to about sum up the quality of Harris' argument.

Just for clarification, Ross, the quote you picked out to discredit Harris comes from page 240 of her book. The sentence follows from a statement that two patrons at the time (Thon and Scandella) were later discovered to be heretics "whose Cathar views did come to light." She suggests that, like these two, "there must have been more than we are aware of. We should not assume that where there are no records of Cathars, no Cathars existed. The authorities' total ignorance of Thon's religion and anyone who practiced it shows that centuries of persecution had taught at least some of the heretics how to survive undetected."

Here, she is not saying that where there is no record of something, it should still be assumed to exist. Rather, she is saying that, given the evidence of the two heretics cited, we should NOT assume that others did not exist. This is a significant distinction which can easily be misinterpreted when taken out of context, as we so often do.

foolish

Moonbow* said:
Theories are just fine here foolish , and so is heated debate.

Thanks. I'm O.K. with that. And I don't mind a heated debate. It just seems that some are less productive than others.

OnePotato

Debra said:
....Although some secrets are hidden in plain sight. At this moment I can't think of any, but I'll let you know.

Ok, but to have any real relevance to the origins of the tarot, it can't be some little obscure detail hidden in a larger work.
It would have to be a secret that completely redefines the meaning of the work that it's hidden in, in opposition to the "obvious" meaning, and that work would have to be of a magnitude large enough to encompass a massive iconographic program distributed among a vast population by a sprawling series of workshops, and over a few centuries.
Let me know what you come up with.

Edit to add:
Oh, and all the while remaining undetected by the "Orthodox Establishment".

foolish

OnePotato said:
"Perhaps" The Garden of Eden is deliberately strange looking because it it not of an earthly location.
"Perhaps" Bosch is creating a vision of someplace that is by definition unfamiliar looking, and more-or-less unfathomable.
How would YOU paint Paradise?
Probably not as an ordinary pretty landscape.
EDIT, upon further reflection:
Bosch certainly didn't paint it as an ordinary place.

The whole point of considering what Bosch had in mind is precisely because most paintings of the Garden of Eden were depictions of Paradise, as described by the Catholic Church. So why would he include images like bugs, monsters and insects in Paradise? Just a simple but legitimate question. It is interesting that the dualist heresies have a simple answer, which is that the world, including Eden (a part of the Old Testament) is evil, and therefore, these images show signs of its corruption.

As I understand it, most churches did not hire heretics to paint for them, and they did not blindly accept works that didn't make perfect sense to them.

This point is exactly why any painter who had heretical views would have to be careful in his work. First of all, a heretic artist would not likely survive, as his work would never be supported by patrons. Scenes would have to appear to be conventional, as did Bosch's. The fact that any heretical associations were never made of Bosch during his lifetime testify to the success he had in concealing his heretical messages (if, of course, we are to conclude that he had heretical views in the first place).

foolish

OnePotato said:
Ok, but to have any real relevance to the origins of the tarot, it can't be some little obscure detail hidden in a larger work.
It would have to be a secret that completely redefines the meaning of the work that it's hidden in, in opposition to the "obvious" meaning, and that work would have to be of a magnitude large enough to encompass a massive iconographic program distributed among a vast population by a sprawling series of workshops, and over a few centuries.
Let me know what you come up with.

Edit to add:
Oh, and all the while remaining undetected by the "Orthodox Establishment".

Bingo! That's exactly what's being suggested. Heretical ideas survived throughout the centuries spanning the Cathars of the 13th to the Reformationists of the 16th. Although the names of their groups may have changed, many of their basic beliefs and objections to orthodox Christianity were consistently similar.

The question is, if you were involved in this evolving and often "underground" movement, how would YOU get your information out?