RLG
Dwtw
I'm always amazed at how tenacious people can be about their pet tarot theory - and this goes for the occultists as well as the historians. But primarily the occultists, who just can't seem to bear the thought that perhaps the tarot was just a game at first, using an extra suit of pictorial cards.
On the other hand, some historians are equally unable to bear the thought that there may have been at least some esoteric intent in the original tarot iconography, despite the fact that much of it is quite obvious and in line with allegorical imagery of the time period.
It seems to me that part of the problem (for either side) is in not recognizing the distinction between what I would call a 'resonance', and a 'solution' (or perhaps 'explanation').
Consider the analogy of a blank crossword puzzle grid. It is certainly the case that one could fill this grid with dozens of actual words that fit together like a crossword should. In fact, this is what the puzzle makers do every time they create one. But if the clues for each word do not match the words you put in the squares, it doesn't matter how well the words fit together - you haven't solved the puzzle. At least you haven't solved the one that the puzzle maker created.
Putting in a lot of words that fit together is a 'resonance' - it fits well within the grid parameters. Putting in a lot of words that fit together AND relate to the given clues is a 'solution' - it fits well because it was what the creator intended.
In the case of the tarot, the reason that occultist theories will never die is because there are plenty of 'resonances' to be found in the numbers and pictures. But that doesn't make them a 'solution' to the meaning of the tarot images and sequence. And frankly, I don't see why it matters so much to people. Just because the tarot was not originally cabalistic, Catharist, bardic, Mithraic or whatever, doesn't prevent it from being that now. Which it is, because it's been transformed by all sorts of creative people into wonderful new forms.
Aside from all that, historical research has its parameters, and those who prefer fanciful theories should not kid themselves that they are presenting 'history' in the academic sense of the term. You need to have facts and evidence. One may be better off just admitting that they see resonances, and enjoying them for what they are.
Litlluw
RLG
I'm always amazed at how tenacious people can be about their pet tarot theory - and this goes for the occultists as well as the historians. But primarily the occultists, who just can't seem to bear the thought that perhaps the tarot was just a game at first, using an extra suit of pictorial cards.
On the other hand, some historians are equally unable to bear the thought that there may have been at least some esoteric intent in the original tarot iconography, despite the fact that much of it is quite obvious and in line with allegorical imagery of the time period.
It seems to me that part of the problem (for either side) is in not recognizing the distinction between what I would call a 'resonance', and a 'solution' (or perhaps 'explanation').
Consider the analogy of a blank crossword puzzle grid. It is certainly the case that one could fill this grid with dozens of actual words that fit together like a crossword should. In fact, this is what the puzzle makers do every time they create one. But if the clues for each word do not match the words you put in the squares, it doesn't matter how well the words fit together - you haven't solved the puzzle. At least you haven't solved the one that the puzzle maker created.
Putting in a lot of words that fit together is a 'resonance' - it fits well within the grid parameters. Putting in a lot of words that fit together AND relate to the given clues is a 'solution' - it fits well because it was what the creator intended.
In the case of the tarot, the reason that occultist theories will never die is because there are plenty of 'resonances' to be found in the numbers and pictures. But that doesn't make them a 'solution' to the meaning of the tarot images and sequence. And frankly, I don't see why it matters so much to people. Just because the tarot was not originally cabalistic, Catharist, bardic, Mithraic or whatever, doesn't prevent it from being that now. Which it is, because it's been transformed by all sorts of creative people into wonderful new forms.
Aside from all that, historical research has its parameters, and those who prefer fanciful theories should not kid themselves that they are presenting 'history' in the academic sense of the term. You need to have facts and evidence. One may be better off just admitting that they see resonances, and enjoying them for what they are.
Litlluw
RLG