Mark Filipas - The Pasteboard Masquerade

Rosanne

Either way/list Robert, what do you think the purpose was for?~Rosanne
 

le pendu

Rosanne said:
Either way/list Robert, what do you think the purpose was for?~Rosanne
I'm sorry, what are you asking?
 

Rosanne

Sorry I did not make myself clear. If the Tarocchi Milanese by Della Rocca was an Alphabetic lexicon- why do you think it was? To teach Hebrew? To act as a prompt for something else? Why would someone go to so much trouble? ~Rosanne
 

le pendu

Rosanne said:
Sorry I did not make myself clear. If the Tarocchi Milanese by Della Rocca was an Alphabetic lexicon- why do you think it was? To teach Hebrew? To act as a prompt for something else? Why would someone go to so much trouble? ~Rosanne
AH!

I have no idea!

One of the questions I ask in the opening post is what would it tell us about the creator and audience if it is an alphabetic lexicon?

Who would it be for? Children? Adults?

I wonder if there wouldn't have been better symbols to use if the purpose was for a lexicon??? Why choose a popess? A hanged man? There aren't better images that could be used and still relate to a letter? I find it very puzzling.

PS. For whatever reason, I find the lingua franca idea more tempting. I like the connections with sailors and ports etc. Still I suppose the same questions should be applied.

What do you think?
 

Rosanne

Well the Lingua Franca makes more sense to me also. Firstly if you have a game, and the people that played it would have to understand it neh? Sailors were diverse people with one common denominator- European Christianity- and maybe this secret language. That Christianity still had the strong pagan roots, and the common man's sense of humour. I think in many ways it was more profane than we give credit for- this thing called Tarot. When you look at the della rocca designs there is this sort of underground joking going on. Like on the Star card 'Le Stelle' The look the figure is giving you as the water is poured sort of looks like a comment about the sea been one sea no matter who thinks they own it. Reg Di Spade looks like she is saying "Moi ? Why do I get the Sword?" She is not even holding it properly. Why is La Papessa's Tiara all squiffy? I think we are missing the puns here. L'appeso looks like he is about to be keel hauled and Il diavolo looks like Neptune gone mad with his sea demons. Very strange indeed and not for children I think. ~Rosanne
 

kwaw

Rosanne said:
Either way/list Robert, what do you think the purpose was for?~Rosanne

I think this is [one of] the critical question. It simply doesn't make sense why anyone would want dozens of non-descript hebrew words for headgear, other items of clothing or vegetation [such as which provides the bulk of Marks word lists].

I think there are puns and word games, but nothing as straightforward as an abc; if there is such present then a lingua franca rather than a strictly Hebrew context makes more sense [to me at any rate].

Kwaw
 

venicebard

le pendu said:
Your lists make just as much sense to me personally. Each list has words in it that make a lot of sense, and others which fit with a bit of imagination.
With regard to LeMat, they seem roughly of equal strength, yet the question remains whether the 'A-list' is derived strictly from medieval sources, as the Th-list ostensibly is? But as for I LeBateleur, the two are not even close: M.F.'s list is much more complete as to specifics, the 'B-list' missing such absolutely essential details as the work-bench itself (whose missing 4th leg represents the 'missing' vowels of ogam consaine, I maintain)!

As for its purpose, I honestly think my bardic take on things offers a simple explanation for this. First, to the extent gnosis is a 'religion', the Christian and Jewish Gnostic (meaning by the former a follower of the original inspiration of Christianity, not the anti-Yahwist of later centuries) are co-religionists, having transcended the theology fed to the masses by the priests and rabbis.

Therefore, what better cover, for true Christian Gnostics that have been branded heretical by an oppressive Rome, than to masquerade as Jewish: Jews were oppressed sporadically, whenever the mood struck (as for instance on the march up the Rhine on one of the Crusades to the Holy Land, I forget which), whereas heretics (subsequent to the Albigensian Crusade) were relentlessly sought out and massacred incessantly by the original Inquisition. So all that would even be needed here would be the appearance of being Jewish, albeit a genuine enough appearance to attract Jews as well, both to solidify the cover and to maintain those links which allowed the reconstruction of the esoteric tradition in the first place (links between Gnostic bards and Gnostic Jews, in the Languedoc, or Provence perhaps).

But I also think Rosanne may have something in the idea that even the few roots present on the cards may each have scriptual or symbolic significance, though I would look for the truly esoteric, 'mystical' meanings via the bardic numbering instead: Jewish alef-bet order would simply have been the skin, the outer shell.

And JMD, your take on it, that it might have solidified that particular order of the several variants and made it the standard, is indeed interesting. But it depends, I think, on the Jewish lexicon thing being virtually the only such content, whereas once the bardic connexions are grasped the idea that such solid yet intricate structure could have arisen without design falters utterly -- I guess you might say mine is the 'intelligent design' theory of tarot, versus the evolutionary theory put forth by the Italianists, swayed as they are by the endless variants by which (as I see it) the Renaissance managed to obscure the age-old tradition embodied in the original Marseilles order, early variants of LeMonde and perhaps another trump or two notwithstanding.
 

kwaw

venicebard said:
But as for I LeBateleur, the two are not even close: M.F.'s list is much more complete as to specifics,


You accept all 20 then? References to head, foot, clothes gear that have so many synonyms that they completely lack any evidential value [he finds a synonym for headgear and vegetation with appropriate letters for most of the cards, even where the headgear and / or vegetation is virtually the same in each card]. Words that apply to several cards [several of his words for bateleur apply to fool for example]; abrastactions and or interpretations [will, virility]? How are they pictured? Cobbler or magician? What exactly in that image suggests cobbler? How is it a pictorial representation of such?

Six out of the twenty I find, how about you? His hypothesis is that it is a pictorial lexicon, which of those words exclusively match the image [as opposed to headgear or vegetation he finds synonyms for across many cards, despite the fact there is little to differentiate any such items] or is acutally in the image portrayed [as opposed to what you know of other decks, your opinion or interpretation of such, for example on his aleph - magician page, what is their pictorially to suggest an artisan or cobbler? We know it is a cobbler in other decks, but what in the one he illustrates shows that? Not then a pictorial lexicon, but one of associations and selective knowledge of several decks? What exactly in the image is the pictorial dictonary entry for will or virility?].

Kwaw
 

venicebard

kwaw said:
You accept all 20 then? References to head, foot, clothes gear that have so many synonyms that they completely lack any evidential value [he find a synionym with appropriate letters for most of the cards, even where the headgear and / or vegetation is virtually the same in each]. Words that apply to several cards [several of his words for bateleur apply to fool for example]; abrastactions and or interpretations [will, virility]? How are they pictured? Cobbler or magician? What exactly in that image suggests cobbler? How is it a pictorial representation of such?
Valid points all, which concern me also. Of course further study is required before one can call it solid, but I would need his sources. I gather, though, that he found that 'young shoots' occurred in medieval lexicons only for those letters whose cards had them, and as for some of the others, I can actually see, I think, how the shades of meaning are actually illustrated in the trumps. As for cobbler vs. magician, perhaps Mark was 'covering his bases' by showing that even if the cobbler-variant was early it still fits, or perhaps he thinks the variants were 'part of the game', I don't know. Individual sticking points do not a fatal flaw make till enough appear to bring down the structure.
Six out of the twenty I find, how about you? Kwaw
I will try to answer you in good faith on the morrow: I'll go through them all a second time and give you my honest take.
 

kwaw

venicebard said:
With regard to LeMat, they seem roughly of equal strength, yet the question remains whether the 'A-list' is derived strictly from medieval sources, as the Th-list ostensibly is?

They are from either Jastrow or Brown-driver, two of the same sources Mark uses.

Kwaw