Influence For Hermit?

venicebard

jmd said:
I do not think that you are correct when you say, venicebard, that "few who frequent this forum have the courage to seriously consider a model that might challenge their favored beliefs".

Please note that I said 'few', not 'none', and that I was not actually referring to you or LePendu, as you both seem quite open to reason (even if not enthusiastic about my model). But of course since I said this in a response to your post, the misunderstanding is quite understandable.

I was simply referring to a general unwillingness to 'take me on', to engage me on it.

Rather, in specific reference to your own favoured belief, the case you have presented for a 'bardic lore' within tarot still appears incongruent with, and anachronistic to, tarot.

This I take exception to. How is a medieval tradition whose story matter (Arthur, Tristan, et al) invaded the Continent in the 12th century, whose essential details concerning the letter-numbers survived to our own time, anachronistic?

As for my contention TdM was the original version, this requires only the notion that tarot's most common form was simply discarded and replaced, leaving us no examples as early as certain of its non-standard forms (such as Vieville et al), which may have been saved precisely because they were non-standard. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially considering the precise conformity of the standard version to its bardic heritage (and to much else besides).

When you say:

For example, of the numerous early decks, none show (as an example) a "mother's arm" on the Pope card.

... you refer to what has survived, not to what was, and I contend the only way one can surmise what was is to combine what has survived with the internal evidence of the decks in question, that is, their structure.

And my view is strengthened by the simple fact that it was the standard version -- with mother's arm (in V) and eagle's embracing tail (in III) -- that had staying power, and that it was north of the Alps that the order of trumps was never in question, whereas south of them all sorts of different orderings and content sprang up (hardly a cohesive tradition).

... I would further suggest, however, that we would each duly consider such with evidence that matches historical finds of the period.

If I understand what you said, it seems to me one would never get anywhere that way, as too few historical finds exist: a theory that 'matches' the historical finds would tell us nothing (nothing beyond the finds themselves)! But I think what you probably meant was that one's notions should be 'consistent with' the historical finds of the period, with which I heartily agree, and which, of course, mine is.

venicebard

le pendu said:
I think the only "favored belief" that I hold is that the TdM didn't originally have titles or numbers on it, and that the copies that we have are later adjustments to include that.

Indeed you have quite convinced me of this, and I now hold this view as well.

I'm highly desirous of a better explanation than that the Visconti court created it! What a horrible bummer that would be!

Amen. Do you mean because it would indicate complete lack of any deeper significance to the cards, for which you secretly long?

As I have said numerous times, I believe the challenge is in the presentation itself which causes, at least for me, a "shut down" to your prepositions. I have offered to help any way that I can to provide a clear, easy-to-grasp presentation that allows others to judge the validity of your theory on the merits of your evidence; that offer still stands.

Fair enough. I should have responded sooner, but my intention to acquire a new laptop and printer-scanner (in order to offer illustrative diagrams) ran into (financial) snags (just about overcome, I think), plus I have been preoccupied with categorizing the Semitic roots of Biblical Hebrew and Chaldean so that I can strengthen (and correct, where necessary) my take on Kabbalah and Hebrew letters: I apologize.

It will be somewhat difficult, however, to do entirely as you ask and offer a simple presentation "that takes the pieces of [my] theory step by step, starting from a 'big picture' overview and gradually adding in the detail as each larger idea is presented and accepted," as this will require a full-length tome, one which remains fourth-in-line after Qabbalah (complete but in need of condensing), Semitic roots (to back up the first one), and runes, since only the second of these requires further research (with which I am currently engaged) whereas any self-respecting book on tarot will require me to immerse myself in rereading long but highly informative threads on this site (and some of the links they provide) in order to deal properly with all the historical details (mostly, of course, to properly refute the Italianists).

But I can perhaps do something about your being "bombarded by miscellaneous references that are backed up only by [my] own perspectives," simply by reordering the argument and 'fleshing it out' a bit. I appreciate your offer, Robert, believe me.

le pendu

le pendu and venicebard said:
LP: I'm highly desirous of a better explanation than that the Visconti court created it! What a horrible bummer that would be!

VB: Amen. Do you mean because it would indicate complete lack of any deeper significance to the cards, for which you secretly long?

I love the Visconti Tarots. The artwork is astonishingly beautiful, I especially love the Cary-Yale. It's entirely likely that the Courts of Italy developed the tarot, a look at Michael's site clearly shows the overwhelming amount of evidence to support the theory. The Courts certainly had their many artists and philosophers.

Yet; what I am looking for is some underlying structure that makes more sense to me than the current typical explanation of "estates of man through heavenly glory", etc.

To me.. there could have been much better choices to convey that message than the cards that were chosen. We can force the tarot into that structure if we want to, but to me, it does seem forced. Why bother having a hanged man, or a popess, or even a magician? Surely there were more common and appropriate images that could have been used. So my "gut" tells me that these images have a reference to something else, that there is a reason to have a hanged man and a popess because they were, well, if not required at least seemed the best representation.

That source could be a mystery play, a town/pagan festival, a manuscript, a folk tale, an alphabet (like the Lingua Franca, or Latin, or even yes, Bardic), a pilgrimage route, a religious mystery, etc. I don't know, but look everywhere for it.

I started a thread for the Bardic origin theory to ask you questions. I hope we can use it to establish a base of understanding at the simplest level and build from there.
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=86193

le pendu

John Meador said:
Speaking of whom, I just stumbled upon these remarkable exchanges:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=7140

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/7009

-John

John, Thanks for the links.

I read the reply from Dummett in full, but the article from Yates requires a subscription and nominal $3 fee to read in full. I don't mind the $3, but I don't at all like to give they info the require just to download it.

What I did find interesting from Dummett is the following:

The Tarot de Marseille is descended from a particular type of design for popular Tarot cards used in Milan from the late fifteenth century, but acquired some of its features in France. The crayfish on the Moon card is found in the Milanese prototype, but the dogs are not; to my mind, the idea of dogs baying the moon is so commonplace that no resort to arcane pseudo-Egyptian symbolism, such as Dame Frances suggests, is needed to explain their presence.

That's interesting. I have to assume he's referring to the Cary Sheet.

So Dummett considers the Cary Sheet as a Prototype for the TdM? Not that I disagree.. but I didn't realize that it was "standard" to think so.

Melanchollic

-----

DianeOD

Yates, and Dummett's Apologia

Thanks for these links. Not sure if others picked up on it, but Yates' review (couched in academic diplomatic language) is a scathing review, even in that part of it that can be seen. What she is saying essentially is that Dummett's Game of Tarot is a personal argument, but not one that should be considered a work of *history*.

It has to be remembered though, that Dummett wrote it 27 years ago, and has continued his interest since then.

He is also an eminent and deeply and deservedly respected professor of logic and the philosophy of logic.

Alas, that was neither sufficient qualification, nor appropriate training to perform historical research of the breadth and depth he attempted.

The fluency and apparent cohesiveness of his argument at once set the study of cards on the academic map and, at the same time, led to a stifling atmosphere among others, to the point where one risks being cast into the 'cartomancy' camp, simply for daring to put other historical arguments - and sometimes even information - forward.

The larger part of this post - which I have decided to delete - concerned specific errors and omissions of Dummett's original book. On thinking it over, I feel that while I believe those comments might have been helpful to other members, it is not quite fair to post them in a place where the person concerned is unlikely to see them - or, therefore, have a right of reply.

*******

I think all more highly of Frances Yates now, for having had the intellectual courage to give a faithful evaluation of Dummett's larger book. Scholarly integrity of that degree is - sadly - less common than the discretion proverbially said to be "the better part of valour".

kwaw

le pendu said:
I don't mind the $3, but I don't at all like to give they info the require just to download it.

I agree. I gave up after the umpteenth page for more information totally unnecessary for online access.

Kwaw

le pendu

Melanchollic said:
Hi Le Pendu,

I'm with you.

It sounds like Michael J. Hurst is making this assumption based on the Cary Sheet as well:

"The inclusion of seventeenth-century Tarot de Marseille decks along with fifteenth and sixteenth-century Italian decks is based on historical necessity. Milan was one of the important early centers of the game, but unfortunately no standard pattern decks from Milan have survived. The French adopted Tarot from Milan in the late fifteenth century, and we have no evidence that they changed the Milanese trumps substantially, beyond adding names to the cards. Thus the earliest surviving French decks are the closest extant examples of what the Milanese decks might have looked like, and the sequence in which the trumps were ordered."

(from Michael's Tarot Notebook)

Off topic, but I must say Le Pendu that your new avatar of the Grim Reaper placed over the title Gentleman Gardener has a certain humour to it!
(Also, good to see another DCD fan around here!)

Cheers,

RaH

Hi Melanchollic,

I know that Michael is a strong supporter of the TdM being of Milanese descent. In fact, I foolishly have dropped a conversation with him concerning the Ace of Swords in the TdM, and its apparent direct connection to the Visconti emblem with it's Palm and Laurel motif. I'd better write back and encourage him to participate in a discussion on it.

I assume you've looked through the long and wandering Cary Sheet Thread? I'm still not at all sure I believe that it is from Milan, nor am I convinced of the dating... but just as easily it could indeed be Milan, end of the 1400s. I've looked at it for years and still find it fascinating. It certainly IS related to the TdM... but I feel that relationship still needs to be defined. Interesting though that Dummett would be bold enough to use the word "prototype".

Regarding my seasonal icon.. that is VERY funny, I wish it had occurred to me, but sometimes it's those happy accidents that add an extra dimension! As for DCD.. I've loved them since their early 4AD days, and the affection only grew over the years. I think I'd probably have to say they're my favorite band. I saw them live and it was, truly, a religious experience for me. Hearing Lisa's heavenly voice sing "Sanvean" literally brought tears streaming down my face.

le pendu

DianeOD said:
Thanks for these links. Not sure if others picked up on it, but Yates' review (couched in academic diplomatic language) is a scathing review, even in that part of it that can be seen. What she is saying essentially is that Dummett's Game of Tarot is a personal argument, but not one that should be considered a work of *history*.

It has to be remembered though, that Dummett wrote it 27 years ago, and has continued his interest since then.

He is also an eminent and deeply and deservedly respected professor of logic and the philosophy of logic.

Alas, that was neither sufficient qualification, nor appropriate training to perform historical research of the breadth and depth he attempted.

The fluency and apparent cohesiveness of his argument at once set the study of cards on the academic map and, at the same time, led to a stifling atmosphere among others, to the point where one risks being cast into the 'cartomancy' camp, simply for daring to put other historical arguments - and sometimes even information - forward.

The larger part of this post - which I have decided to delete - concerned specific errors and omissions of Dummett's original book. On thinking it over, I feel that while I believe those comments might have been helpful to other members, it is not quite fair to post them in a place where the person concerned is unlikely to see them - or, therefore, have a right of reply.

*******

I think all more highly of Frances Yates now, for having had the intellectual courage to give a faithful evaluation of Dummett's larger book. Scholarly integrity of that degree is - sadly - less common than the discretion proverbially said to be "the better part of valour".

Hi Diane,

Welcome to Aeclectic. I see many members know your work already, but it's new to me, so I have some catching up to do. I do remember a conversation a few years ago with jmd when we were discussing possible ethnic features in the courts of the Jacques Vieville tarot, and he mentioned your work with the 4 suits and directions, but just briefly.

My initial reaction to this and other of your posts is a mixture of surprise, interest, and suspicion. I'm hoping that you will consider starting a new thread to present your theory in a manner that helps those of us unfamiliar with your work, and it seems many of your sources, understand it more easily. I'm seeing pieces of it scattered among several threads but am having difficulty piecing it together.

I very much look forward to exploring your ideas and learning from you.

le pendu

Double Post, please remove.

Influence For Hermit?

venicebard

venicebard

le pendu

le pendu

Melanchollic

DianeOD

kwaw

le pendu

le pendu

le pendu