Really Obtuse Newbie Questions

closrapexa said:

This is exactly my point. Occultist throughout history have been a rather talkative bunch, despite their reputation for reticence. Were the cards originally constructed to convey a certain spiritual code, as modern Golden Dawn decks do, some sort of documentation would have survived (probably, maybe). Like my spiral broccoli, patterns exist everywhere.



I recommend you look at the Historical forum, I'm far from the best person to argue this point in any case.

Click to expand...

I may or may not have made your point I dont know.
Consider:
1) There is documentation from the Compagnons in the form of song. There is one for example which explicitly states what each colour represents.

2) There is documentation in the cards themselves. The adoption of the colour code in the song.The woman in the Star for example has one eye on the viewer, one eye on the water jugs (the water pourer, an overt reference to aquarius even in its earlier and most "exoteric" game variety in the Visconti) and her navel has been turned into an eye. These were not there before the Noblet Deck, made by Compagnons. A community of artisans who viewed their livelihoods, growth from boyhood, to adulthood to master as not only sacred, but inseparable from their craft. No one outside such communities necessarily needed to understand the teachings in the cards, although they very well may have. By the time the Conver decks arrived, gung ho Masons decided to "enhance" what was already clear to them with masonic symbolism and allegory.

3) Alchemy and Sufism for example are profound, coherent systems, but nevertheless encoded, written about in cryptic images, language and poetry, which even to this day are hard to definitively decipher. For a member of a medeival Sufi order, not so hard, assuming he/she has developed insight through training and living. Zen is another example where the "meanings" of Koans have never been published to this day, yet books containing Koans abound. I would call these systems "super-profound" but not necessarily "occult" (if, again, by occult we mean cabala, grimoires, ceremonial magic etc). Finding profundity in these systems is not a matter of seeing spirals in broccoli.

I recommend reading Alejandro Jodorowsky's book called The Way of Tarot. Not because it is definitive, but because it will help people glimpse the vast profundity and sacred interconnectedness of the Marseille, a much neglected deck and aspect of Tarot practice and scholarship.

i have read through the history section of the forum as well as the writings on "scholarly" websites like Trionfi, and books, and lectures and so on etc. I held the same view and loat interest in Tarot from about 1991 onwards until fairly recently from rediscovering the Marseille (the first deck I ever bought was a Marseille in 1989, but there were no books on it in english), discovering the current Marseille "revival", the proliferation of facsimiles and reproductions of obscure decks and the wonderful restorations and research of people like JC Flornoy. It is understandable that the "game-only" scholarship has missed the utterly essential nature of certain marseille decks but no longer excusable.

Sometimes you are very literal minded, closrapexa. That's not a bad thing, but my weirdo brain functions more metaphorically. I have been trying to express my opinion that something (not necessarily somebody) seems to have been influential in the development of tarot which caused it to have a significance far beyond what is needed for game playing. I should simply have quoted Crowley.


ETA. The hardcore historians are certainly correct as far as their methodology allows, but there is no need to let that constrain my opinion regarding the significance of tarot.

I really can be literal, please rap me when I am too much so.

But I feel we are saying the same thing, and that there is no argument. Tarot conforms to a certain spiritual and mathematical order, which I spend most of my days studying. I think any student of Kabbalah should make a basic premise that the universe has laws prevalent in all things, and that they can be symbolically conveyed through the Tree of Life, even if it is only for the duration of the study (also I would be foolish to look at the 4/10/22 structure of the Marseilles and say there's nothing occult there). Gematria is another "symbol" of this supposed order of the universe, but so is a Gaussian curve, which isn't merely a graph but a representation of things that actually exist. It is a method of showing that seeming random objects ultimately do conform to a certain order in the way that they behave. I'm not saying that the Marseilles is free of esoteric influences, only that they were not intended. Like the curve, my opinion is that it "happened" according to the laws of the universe and Kabbalah. According to the "rules", it would have no "choice" but to be what it is.

In a way, although I don't use it, one could say I "sympathize" with the Marseilles more than with other decks, as I see it as a more "natural" form of esotericism, stemming directly from the human psyche who created an occult deck without knowing it. This contrasts sharply with the Thoth which, although I prefer it, is a far more synthetic Kabbalistic model.

Closrapexa, I think we agree 100% on tarot, its origins, and its developments. Some day I may do a post about why I returned to the Marseille, which is less in tune with my Qabalistic orientation than the GD, Waite, BOTA, or Thoth. Originally, it was a matter of trying to eliminate certain idiosyncrasies of the more modern decks which bugged me, but, in a nutshell, it's simply because I (*blush*) prefer the æsthetics of the Marseille images.

Hi kingdubrock,

I'm one of those "historians", of course

Kingdubrock said:

1) There is documentation from the Compagnons in the form of song. There is one for example which explicitly states what each colour represents.

Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with Tarot, and everything to do with 19th century French Freemasonry.

I'm not sure which other songs you are referring to, but the list of colours comes from a "secret manuscript" published by Etienne Martin Saint-Léon in 1901, and is in the form of a catechism, not a song:

Les couleurs sont la marque distinctive des compagnons.
Leur nuance varie selon les sociétés. Nous avons déjà indi-
qué les couleurs de la plupart des sociétés en décrivant
l'organisation du compagnonnage. Nous emprunterons
quelques explications complémentaires au manuscrit secret
qui nous a été communiqué.

D. Combien y a-t-il de couleurs?
R. Cinq et une de cachée.
D. Nommez-les.
R. La blanche, la rouge, la bleue, la jaune et la verte.
D. Que signifie la blanche?
R. Les larmes que Maître Jacques a versées pour nous.
D. Que signifie la rouge?
R. Le sang qu'il a versé pour nous.
D. Que signifie la bleue ?
R. Les coups qu'il a reçus pour nous.
D. Que signifie la jaune?
R. La persévérance.
D. Que signifie la verte?
R. L'espérance.

Les couleurs sont la cocarde du compagnon. Elles sym-
bolisent à ses yeux l'association à laquelle il est fier
d'appartenir. « Arracher à un compagnon ses couleurs, dit
Perdiguier, c'est le plus grand outrage qu'on puisse lui
faire. »

(from Le Compagnonnage: son histoire, ses coutumes, ses règlements et ses rites; Paris: Armand Colin, 1901, p. 260)
https://archive.org/details/lecompagnonnages00martuoft

(D="demande" (question), R="réponse" (answer))

This was indeed made into a song by the group Malicorne in 1978, on the album L'Extraordinaire Tour De France D'Adélard Rousseau, which takes its title from the subject of book III, chapter 2 of Saint-Léon's book. You can listen to it here, and perhaps understand why some people think it is a song and that it is old, since it gives a false medieval air to the text -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5sSxxz1TlI

The songs of the compagnons on pages 276-281 of Saint-Léon's book also have nothing to do with Tarot, and are all from the 19th century.

2) There is documentation in the cards themselves. The adoption of the colour code in the song.

Click to expand...

Cards from the 17th and 18th century could not adopt a colour code attested only from the early 20th century.

If you are willing to believe in freemasonic forgeries and invented myths of the 19th century, then the Golden Dawn's cipher manuscript has a couple of decades on it and is just as authentic.

The woman in the Star for example has one eye on the viewer, one eye on the water jugs (the water pourer, an overt reference to aquarius even in its earlier and most "exoteric" game variety in the Visconti) and her navel has been turned into an eye. These were not there before the Noblet Deck, made by Compagnons.

Click to expand...

Jean Noblet is only known from notary acts as a cardmaker in Paris, in the years 1659-1664. Nothing else is known about him. Adopting him into the ranks of masons or compagnons is pure imagination.

i have read through the history section of the forum as well as the writings on "scholarly" websites like Trionfi, and books, and lectures and so on etc. I held the same view and loat interest in Tarot from about 1991 onwards until fairly recently from rediscovering the Marseille (the first deck I ever bought was a Marseille in 1989, but there were no books on it in english), discovering the current Marseille "revival", the proliferation of facsimiles and reproductions of obscure decks and the wonderful restorations and research of people like JC Flornoy. It is understandable that the "game-only" scholarship has missed the utterly essential nature of certain marseille decks but no longer excusable.

Click to expand...

It is quite excusable - de rigueur in fact - to demand historical evidence of historical claims.

I have given you what I can find about some of yours. Is there any other proof you can offer?

(btw, thank you for giving me a reason to check this "compagnonnage" stuff out. I should have done it earlier, given its popularity among French tarotists)

Ross G Caldwell said:

Hi kingdubrock,

I'm one of those "historians", of course



Which has nothing to do with Tarot, and everything to do with 19th century French Freemasonry.



D. Combien y a-t-il de couleurs?
R. Cinq et une de cachée.
D. Nommez-les.
R. La blanche, la rouge, la bleue, la jaune et la verte.
D. Que signifie la blanche?
R. Les larmes que Maître Jacques a versées pour nous.
D. Que signifie la rouge?
R. Le sang qu'il a versé pour nous.
D. Que signifie la bleue ?
R. Les coups qu'il a reçus pour nous.
D. Que signifie la jaune?
R. La persévérance.
D. Que signifie la verte?
R. L'espérance.


(btw, thank you for giving me a reason to check this "compagnonnage" stuff out. I should have done it earlier, given its popularity among French tarotists)

Click to expand...

Actually, while I am far from fluent in French, that does sound a lot like what was quoted by JC Flornoy (i think in his LWB for either the Noblet or Dodal decks). Much of his writing is in French, and i dont know how well preserved or documented his close research is, but my sense from his writing is that he states when he is speculating (such as a possible Medieval Sufi influence) and that at least a little bit more than nothing came to be known (or at least reasonably inferred) about Noblet during the process of researching and restoring his deck. As to the colour scheme, being a restoration with no admission of innovation on his part that i am aware of, you can examine Flornoys cards against Noblet's here:
http://tarot-history.com/Jean-Noblet/index.html

It might also helpful to examine his claims about Dodal (and his son) to see if he goes beyond what scholarly research is willing to accept.

If Flornoy was ignorant, deceptive or passing off masonic forgeries as genuine truth I am more than willing to adjust my views, as would, Im sure, other lovers of Flornoys decks. But I do get the sense that he (and a fairly high number of other marseille enthusiasts) viewed the freemasonic (and other influences on type 2 decks which he described as "fantasy decks") and GD innovations with the tarot with some contempt.

I have no personal intellectual or spiritual investment (or belief) in the veracity of attributions or claims made by the GD or those influenced by them.

As for the rigour of historical/scholarly researchers, my personal feeling, is the tone, stance or intent, a priori, to discount, mock and deflect (to say nothing of having any interest in) any form of deeper, spiritual or philosophical significance to the trumps has a tone of being far from objective, willing to admit anything more than a passing acknowledgement of alchemy, hermetism or astrology and its presence in a great deal of Christian imagery and art of the time and how it may have contributed to such "mundane" and "common" themes as the triumphal parades, and how this imagery was transformed, and why, and into what, where such decks as the Noblet and Dodal are concerned.

Kingdubrock said:

As for the rigour of historical/scholarly researchers, my personal feeling, is the tone, stance or intent, a priori, to discount, mock and deflect (to say nothing of having any interest in) any form of deeper, spiritual or philosophical significance to the trumps has a tone of being far from objective, willing to admit anything more than a passing acknowledgement of alchemy, hermetism or astrology and its presence in a great deal of Christian imagery and art of the time and how it may have contributed to such "mundane" and "common" themes as the triumphal parades, and how this imagery was transformed, and why, and into what, where such decks as the Noblet and Dodal are concerned.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is any mocking going on. Exploration of the occult, hermetic, alchemical and astrological influences, to say nothing of Christian influences, is what the occult is all about. That's basically what most people are here for in the first place. But the thing with spirituality and scientific method is that they shouldn't mix. Correlation does not imply causality, and the fact that Tarot cards, of any kind, conform to a certain structure means that there is plenty of meat for the occultist to explore, but does not automatically suggest historical truth. The occultist has the luxury of saying "it feels right, hence it is right." The historian has no such luxury and operates according to a far more binary view; either something is or isn't. This doesn't mean that the occult is all "woo-woo" and New Age "feel-good." On the contrary, the standards involved in magickal study can be just as strict, but it is a very different type of rigor than historical study. There are some historians who operate according to scientific standards yet also belong(ed) to occult orders, they obviously manage to separate or at least resolve discrepancies.

In a way, the Trumps portray ideas that are almost universal to the human experience. One can find the Isis/Empress idea even on cave paintings at Lascaux, but that still doesn't mean Tarot originated then. One can explore the evolution and revolution of the Isian figure throughout history, according to the same historical disciplines, but that study wouldn't have anything to do directly with Tarot. The symbols do have independent presence beyond their Tarot connection, and there are many threads in the Historical forum dealing with just that.

I recommend you look at this thread as well as this one and this one and also this one. Rosanne's thread especially seems to sum up nicely many questions that for occultists are almost immaterial, as they have occult answers and have had them for a long time. Historically, however, there are still no verifiable answers for those questions. Ultimately, though, if you have a theory, propose and then test it, and see where it takes you. It might be true, but it has to be true for everybody always for it to be a settled answer. This isn't necessary in the Kabbalistic forum, of course, as long as personal belief isn't presented as verifiable fact.

I share the feelings expressed in the final paragraph of Kingdubrock's post (#46). Perhaps the quest by card historians for scholarly acceptance has caused the methodology pendulum to swing to an extreme position, as far distant as possible from the extreme new age mentality which exercises minimal discernment as to what is plausible and what isn't. It is understandable that serious researchers would want to distance themselves from the taint of new age wishy-washiness. It does seem, however, that the tarot researchers, while they do indulge in speculation now and then, strenuously avoid speculation regarding any spiritual or philosophical content unless it is staring them in the face. It seems like that. I'm not saying it is like that. It seems to be an over-engineered bias, designed to assure the academic respectability of their discipline and its acceptance by fellow scholars.

Perhaps it has to be this way, but something seems (that word again) very wrong when it is perfectly okay to speculate about the philosophical significance of a trump, but if one dares to express that speculation in the wrong environment, you get the patronizing treatment: 'That's a charming idea, sweetie, but with all due respect, I'm afraid that's completely wrong. That card really refers to the periodic overflowing of the Paris sewers in the __th century.'

LRichard said:

Perhaps it has to be this way, but something seems (that word again) very wrong when it is perfectly okay to speculate about the philosophical significance of a trump, but if one dares to express that speculation in the wrong environment, you get the patronizing treatment: 'That's a charming idea, sweetie, but with all due respect, I'm afraid that's completely wrong. That card really refers to the periodic overflowing of the Paris sewers in the XXth century.)

Click to expand...

Maybe, but there's a context to that seeming derision. While the Historical forum is not the busiest part of the forum, it is still (by its own standards) inundated by threads that would be better suited to other parts of the forum. One cannot expect every single theory to be entertained without the one who proposes the theory engaging in the process. By engaging I mean doing the work of bringing actual, verifiable reasons why one favors one theory over another and then acquiescing to the "truth" so far as it is known from extant sources. This isn't mandatory in most parts of the forum, nor is it so in most topics of discussion. Look at the Thoth, RWS and Talking Tarot forums. Any and all theories and discussions are explored there (even ones that if I had my way wouldn't be, but that's a different story).

When people fail to engage, then it is always "you're all snobs putting me down, intellectual elitists, ivory towers, etc." I'm also playing Devil's advocate here, as I rarely post in the Historical forum, and that is because I myself don't engage. I prefer crackpot, drug-induced occult theories about snakes, doves, penii and hawk-headed men. Gimme that any day. But I will never tell you I'm right because I don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the veracity of those topics, and I know it.

But this topic has been discussed to death in all the threads I linked to... one also cannot constantly engage in meta-debate every time a historical theory pops up.

closrapexa said:

.....But this topic has been discussed to death in all the threads I linked to... one also cannot constantly engage in meta-debate every time a historical theory pops up.

Click to expand...

I'll put it on hold, at least for now. But something about this whole scenario stinks. There's some bullshit somewhere, and I don't choose to play the game about the historians being right, but I'm just hallucinating.