Renaissance Canon article mentions early Tarot

foolish

Ah, the smoking gun!
 

Debra

Ross G Caldwell said:
I don't know of any French invasion in 1571. Anybody?

The linked essay seems to have been written by a student whose report on Ahl's lecture may be confused.

I'm googling. What I see so far is that the literary critic John Berger, in his foreward to a collection of essays on literature about the World Bank (not essays about the World Bank itself, mind you, but essays about literature about the World Bank) by various authors, includes the following statement (totally irrelevant to the World Bank):

"Bosch's symbols probably came from the secret, proverbial, heretical language of certain fifteenth-century millennial sects, who heretically believed that, if evil could be overcome, it was possible to build heaven on earth! Many essays have been written about the allegories to be found in his work."

Berger includes this footnote:

"One of the most original, even if contested, is the Millennium of Hieronymus Bosch by Wilhelm Franger (London: Faber & Faber, 1952).

all this taken from here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...1jAwvgVZfLba4DfmilMYBRJtc#v=onepage&q&f=false

So looking for secret messages in Bosch is an old game. No surprise.

(eta: Before anyone gets too excited about this quote from Berger, note that he also says that a Breughel painting from 1560 prophesizes the Nazi destruction.)

What I think is correct for sure about Adam MacLean's comments, as well as the comments from an Amazon reviewer, is the tenuousness of arguments that we should accept an alternate view of history despite much evidence for the standard view because the alternate view is plausible if we accept certain assumptions that are not yet disproved.

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.

This parallels the main issue in discussion here of Robert Swiryn (foolish's) book, "The Secret of the Tarot: How the Story of the Cathars was Concealed in the Tarot of Marseilles." (I've almost finished it.)
 

gregory

Debra said:
I don't like to see ideas shut down.

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

This parallels the main issue in discussion here of Robert Swiryn (foolish's) book, "The Secret of the Tarot: How the Story of the Cathars was Concealed in the Tarot of Marseilles." (I've almost finished it.)
^this^

I agree - though I am - er - only half way through Swiryn. Exercises in flexibility are valuable. And I like to believe at least one impossible thing every day on principle. I am only half joking. Many of the greatest discoveries have been made through a leap of faith.
 

foolish

The Millennium, by Bosch, is a good example of how art can be interpreted differently, to come up with different ideas of what the artist was thinking.
The assumption being made by Berger is that it is a representation of the Christian view of the Garden of Eden on one side, the World in the middle and Hell on the other; and that the whole painting is a prediction of what is to come. However, even this assumption can be challenged by looking closely at the painting and asking ourselves some questions.

For one thing, the three panels appear to share a similar landscape, even though the details of Hell have been significantly changed. Looking at the horizon, for example, we see that each panel shares a common line. Even some of the details of Eden's landscape are brought over to that of the earth. This is a very different concept from the Chrisitian ideology, which professes that the three worlds, Eden, the earth and Hell, are distinct realities from each other. I

n addition, Bosch seems to be making statements in most of his paintings (this one included) about the inherent evil of this world by including images of naked people involved in liscentious activities surrounded by monsters and weird looking creatures. This is a central point in dualistic heresies - that this world, and everything in it, is evil. In fact, we can also see that Bosch has placed evil looking insects and bugs crawling around in Eden. This would suggest further that even the Garden of Eden was corrupted, which contradicts the position of the Church.

I also found it interesting in Bosch's Millenium to see the group of people in the center of the painting riding animals around in a circle - almost like the Wheel of Fortune. This is the third similarity I have found between his works and the tarot.

The big point here is about what we are really doing with these ideas - are we cooperating in an intellectual game of visualizing things in art, or can we begin to make assumptions about what an artist might have intended? The latter involves a leap of faith (hopefully based on some logical arguments), but may have more significance to tarot history.
 

Debra

foolish said:
The assumption being made by Berger is that it is a representation of the Christian view of the Garden of Eden on one side, the World in the middle and Hell on the other; and that the whole painting is a prediction of what is to come. However, even this assumption can be challenged by looking closely at the painting and asking ourselves some questions.

What are you talking about? This isn't an "assumption." It is simply what the tryptich shows: The World flanked by the pre-fall paradise and hell. These images have been interpreted by about a zillion people--art historians, art history students, ordinary folks. We could add to it but like I said, I think this is a game. I like this kind of game but let's not pretend like it is historically accurate just because you can make it "make sense."

foolish said:
The big point here is about what we are really doing with these ideas - are we cooperating in an intellectual game of visualizing things in art, or can we begin to make assumptions about what an artist might have intended? The latter involves a leap of faith (hopefully based on some logical arguments), but may have more significance to tarot history.
I agree. I think so far we're doing #1, playing an intellectual game of visualization and interpretation. Figuring out what the artist had in mind requires evidence, not just logical argument. And anyway, artists may well have more than one thing in mind, and may have things in their minds they don't recognize themselves, concepts or connections that emerge only when painted.

To be honest, I think there's a tendency around here toward oversimplified characterizations of Christianity. The Church can "say" something, but despite the big papa-like Pope at the top, the church is not one creature with one mind and voice. Dad can say "we believe X" and that don't mean that mom and the kids go along. The assumption that any smidge of deviation from the "official" view of the religion indicates a heretical intent is a poor assumption, in other words. In my opinion.

Getting back to the original post--is this brief and poorly-written summary of Ahl's talk at the college really enough for us to go on, tarot-wise? I wonder why she included mention of tarot in her talk--perhaps it's important, or perhaps she thought it would interest the students more than altarpieces :laugh:
 

foolish

Debra said:
What are you talking about? This isn't an "assumption." It is simply what the tryptich shows: The World flanked by the pre-fall paradise and hell. These images have been interpreted by about a zillion people--art historians, art history students, ordinary folks.one mind and voice.
\
The assumption I am referring to is that this is a typically "Christian" viewpoint of the tryptich. Seen from another point of view, its meaning changes. Just because most people (even zillions) think a certain way, doesn't make it right. Remember Galileo? If we are going to place the final say-so with the majority, then we will be mistaken in many situations where most people are wrong, and discourage those who may consider the lesser accepted view. Often, the richness of our thoughts - and our experience - can be enhanced by remaining open to ideas which may not at first seem acceptable to our current belief system. Sometimes I find myself willing to entertain an argument simply for the sake of remaining open to possibilities. It seems boring, in contrast, to pretend to know all the answers. But, that's just me.
 

Debra

Ok, quickly, on Berger, the point is simple--he's mentioning Bosch but he doesn't need to. His interest is in introducing a book about how the World Bank is presented in literature and perhaps films etc. It's a very English Department / Literary approach to the World Bank (which annoys me). Berger simply uses Bosch for poetic effect. He could just as easily use Easy Rider or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory--that's the kind of mind he has. And anyway, Berger cites with evident approval someone who is (apparently) the first to suggest a hidden heretical meaning and intent in Bosch's work, so you'd be fighting the wrong guy in this case, foolish, even if he was saying something interesting about Bosch, which he's not.

As to using imagination:

There's a new forum here at AT, the Experimental Techniques forum. A couple of weeks ago I asked specifically if we could have threads there on what I would call "speculative iconography"--and the mods said yes, bring it on! Actually I was just wondering if there's some way to move discussions of alternate interpretations of cards (like the Cathar-istic interpretation ;) over to that forum. I think the usual standards of historical evidence etc. need not apply there; it can be perhaps a freer place to play with controversial ideas about tarot.

I say, let's go. Here: http://www.tarotforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=154
 

Bernice

Debra:As to using imagination:

There's a new forum here at AT, the Experimental Techniques forum. A couple of weeks ago I asked specifically if we could have threads there on what I would call "speculative iconography"--and the mods said yes, bring it on! Actually I was just wondering if there's some way to move discussions of alternate interpretations of cards (like the Cathar-istic interpretation over to that forum. I think the usual standards of historical evidence etc. need not apply there; it can be perhaps a freer place to play with controversial ideas about tarot.

I say, let's go. Here: http://www.tarotforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=154
MOD-NOTE:

Hi people,

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
 

Debra

Ah jeez, Bee, I can't tell if you're encouraging us to go to the fun house or the nut house.
 

foolish

Debra said:
There's a new forum here at AT, the Experimental Techniques forum. A couple of weeks ago I asked specifically if we could have threads there on what I would call "speculative iconography"--and the mods said yes, bring it on! Actually I was just wondering if there's some way to move discussions of alternate interpretations of cards (like the Cathar-istic interpretation ;) over to that forum. I think the usual standards of historical evidence etc. need not apply there; it can be perhaps a freer place to play with controversial ideas about tarot.
I think that's a great idea, Debra. I wish I would have started my thread in an area like this, as it would have probably avoided the heated dpbate as to whether the topic was worthy of discussion in the history section. (However, as a newcomer to the forum, I may have been misled by the description of the history section, which includes "THEORIES on the origins of the tarot.")