Is Tarot explained in Revelations?

Huck

This is indeed very interesting news about Don Messore.

The marriage of the Monferrat princess (11 years old in 1440) seems to have had a bad end quickly ...

http://genealogy.euweb.cz/byzant/byzant12.html
Aimee/Amadea, Queen of Cyprus, titular Queen of Jerusalem and Armenia, *3.8.1429, +Nicosia 13.9.1440; m.V.1435/1440 Jean III de Lusignan (*16.5.1418 +28.7.1458), King of Cyprus

It would be nice to know the precise dates of the 9-months-journey to see how it relates to the visit of Bianca Maria Visconti in Ferrara.

Also it's interesting, that Don Messore could work as miniatore and that Meliaduse was close friend to Alberti ... if one assumes, that Don Messore worked for Meliaduse till 1452 (in this year Meliaduse died), the commission of 1454 is a natural proceeding for Messore's occupations. Between 1455-1460 Borso organizes the production of the Borso bible. Perhaps this is an indication, that the Trionfi card production of 1454 had more religious orientation than the usual Sagramoro productions.
 

Freddie

I tend to view the 22 Visconti keys as a concise pictorial story of the whole Bible. The last cards do in my humble opinion reflect the book of Revelations. They seem to be casual type of icon(s). I don't think everyone was allowed to or could read the bible at that time, thus the pictorial cards.




Freddie
 

foolish

it seems that the last few cards of the tarot have an obvious visual connection to the bible and revelations. it has been well established that the artists of the Middle Ages used traditional symbols and allegory to represent their ideas. so the tarot would not be expected to be any different. however, how do you explain some of the other cards, such as the Fool, The Chariot, or the Hanged Man? We must be suspect of any theory which does not clearly explain ALL of the images of the cards, and not just some.
 

Moonbow

Your post has got me thinking foolish. Couldn't it be plausible that if one individual first drew up a set of cards, maybe even for personal use at first, that he used, as images, subjects which were of interest to him and people that were important to him both in his every day life and from his beliefs, and included them all in one deck? Although its best to be cautious of anything which isn't proven, likewise without any evidence to the contrary then we also cannot say that its not so. Particularly in the light of what Ross has said in this thread, it sounds very feasible that at least some of the cards could have derived from the Bible.
 

Abrac

I think the tarot was an attempt to illustrate Biblical themes (including Revelation) and non-Biblical ones. But does Revelation provide an explanation for tarot in and of itself? No, in my opinion.
 

Bernice

My two-pennoth. I think the posts by both Moonbow & Abrac have summed up my impression/thoughts about the 22 trumps. The sequence doesn't actually fit any specific meaningful pattern, much as I would like it to have done.


Bee :)
 

foolish

it seems clear that there are biblical references, or at least images, in the tarot. what is not that clear is whether those images were meant to have the same meanings they may have been associated with in the Bible.

the question that you posed, moonbow: "Couldn't it be plausible that if one individual first drew up a set of cards, maybe even for personal use at first, that he used, as images, subjects which were of interest to him and people that were important to him both in his every day life and from his beliefs"? is valid. but then we need to ask ourselves if these images had any special meaning, or if they were just the personal expression of the individual artist. if it's the latter, then our entire discussion about any significant meaning to the tarot is moot. however, it seems that the art of the middle ages was used to express the intrinsic qualities of the subject matter and not that of the artist's personal expression (huizinga does a great job explaining this in his book "the waning of the middle ages.")

so, we're back to discussing whether a source like the bible or revelation presents a complete explanation of the tarot - which i think it does only if one tries really hard to force the issue.
 

OnePotato

foolish said:
it seems clear that there are biblical references, or at least images, in the tarot. what is not that clear is whether those images were meant to have the same meanings they may have been associated with in the Bible.
Can you tell us why it is "not that clear" as to whether those images were meant to have the same meanings as they may have been associated with in the Bible?
Given the popularity of tarocchi cards, do you have some reason to imagine that all those Bible images in the tarot were NOT seen as Bible images by the people who made and used them?
And again given the popularity of tarocchi cards, can you imagine some reason why, if the images were NOT intended to be read as Bible images, that some proposed new, alternative interpretation did not become known as a popular standard interpretation among users? Or how, if the "true alternate" meaning was intended for only a certain sympathetic portion of the audience, it would have been kept under wraps from the rest of the masses?

foolish said:
so, we're back to discussing whether a source like the bible or revelation presents a complete explanation of the tarot - which i think it does only if one tries really hard to force the issue.
Why should we expect either The Bible or Revelations to provide a complete "explanation"?
Is it really so hard to accept that the tarot was a work of art in itself, that by its very nature was a comment upon the popular religious views of the people who made and used it?
Does it really have to be reduced to a set of illustrations that faithfully represent a written book??
Is the only alternative to presume that unless we have a book that completely covers it, it MUST be a mysterious hidden secret intention???

A lot of Bible pictures are not limited to precise renderings of what the Bible describes. Why should the tarot be so limited?
 

foolish

QUOTE: "Why should we expect either The Bible or Revelations to provide a complete "explanation"?"

I think the question is, if the Bible or Revelation is assumed to be the source of the tarot, then why would other images be included which do not seem to be relevant or explained within that context? If we do not assume that there is one 'all-encompassing' explanation of the tarot, then we open the door to many other partial theories that leave some images uncovered.

It's like putting a puzzle together. If we start building a puzzle, and then notice that some of the pieces are missing, we might still get a pretty good idea of what the whole picture is supposed to look like. However, if we're working on a puzzle and notice that we have some pieces that don't seem to fit, then we either have to discard them or force them into place somewhere. In this case, we might ask ourselves why the puzzle-maker put them in the box in the first place.

QUOTE: "Can you tell us why it is "not that clear" as to whether those images were meant to have the same meanings as they may have been associated with in the Bible?"

In the Middle Ages, artists were limited to using traditional material (which was mostly religious/biblical), and were not yet in the mode of creating for personal expression. Therefore, any attempt to create a new form of expression like the tarot cards would also be bound to using those same traditional images. However, if we are to assume that all of the images must have kept their original meanings, then we shoud also conclude that the biblical references of some of the cards like The Emperor, The Empress and The Chariot, for example, would have to yield to their sources in Greek Mythology. As history progressed, and culture changed, artists used the same images to represent new and current meaning. So, like the Emperor, whose image was sometimes used to refer to Jupiter, we might infer that it could also refer to a more current emperor of the time, like Frederick II.

QUOTE: "And again given the popularity of tarocchi cards, can you imagine some reason why, if the images were NOT intended to be read as Bible images, that some proposed new, alternative interpretation did not become known as a popular standard interpretation among users? Or how, if the "true alternate" meaning was intended for only a certain sympathetic portion of the audience, it would have been kept under wraps from the rest of the masses?"

It is very possible that the tarot was used for more than one purpose. It seem to be clear that many people used it simply as a game of cards. In fact, this was probably the 'main' use of the tarot. If, however, some smaller group of people figured out an alternative use for the cards, this may have been subjugated through history simply by the sheer numbers of poeple involved. In other words, the greatest use for the cards is the most likely one which survived and became the standard. The reason for an alternative use not becoming widely known may have to do with its intention. For example, if the cards were used to conceal messages not approved by the Catholic Church, then there would not be a rush to get that out to the general public for fear of reprisals.

At this point, we might ask, why would we even consider an alternative theory of the tarot? To me, the answer lies in some of the questions that can also be asked:

1) Why do some of the cards, like the Popess, seem to have heretical themes?
2) Why were some of the images on the cards changed from the Italian decks when the tarot was brought to France? Why was The Fool's image, for example so drastically altered?
3) How can we explain some of the images used, like the dogs and the crustacian on The Moon? It would seem suspect to asign these to the randoom or arbitrary expressions of the artist's imagination.

So, I believe that we should be looking for an explanation that handles all of the above questions and wholes, and not just some. In this way, we can possibly arrive at a better impression of what the puzzle should look like.

Of course, is it possible that the imgages used in the cards don't necessarily have any real cohesiveness represented by a single theme? Sure. But then I would ask myself why someone would bother to put those cards together in that way.
 

Teheuti

foolish said:
If we do not assume that there is one 'all-encompassing' explanation of the tarot, then we open the door to many other partial theories that leave some images uncovered.

Of course, is it possible that the images used in the cards don't necessarily have any real cohesiveness represented by a single theme? Sure. But then I would ask myself why someone would bother to put those cards together in that way.
What about a "single theme" consisting of a numerically-limited 'triumphal' procession of "society, the ups-and-downs of life plus the qualities we have to meet these, and the death and afterlife of humans" as viewed by the nobles of Milan around 1440 and mirrored in the art and cultural themes that surrounded them?

The Marseilles deck might have then been a compilation of variations from different experiments that someone happened to have liked or, in their ignorance, thought were standard.