reconsidering a cathar connection

i have to admit that i have not had the time to review the book of revelations theory or look at the pictures it may have in common with the tarot. i am going mainly on dr. o'neill's impression that since it does not offer a complete expanation of all the cards, it falls into the same category as some of the others which offer partial explanations.

we have already established the fact that medieval art at the time the tarot was being developed was, in the most part, borowed from earlier sources. we have seen images of greek gods, astrological bodies, depictions of the virtues, etc. so it would not surprise me to learn that some images were taken from biblical sources as well. however, if the source in question does not explain the entire set of tarot images, then we can not say that it "solves the riddle". o'neill has shown, for example, that there are no images of the magician in the book of revelations. this in itself should dismiss the theory as the source of the tarot.

one question that comes up for me revolves around the fact that some people say that the whole theory of tarot revolves around its use as a moral instruction tool. others present the case that it was simply a card playing game. which one is it? or is it possible that the tarot had more than one use? if this is the case, then it could be possible that while many people sat around playing card games, others were looking into their moral values while still others may have used the cards for more secretive information. is it possible that the estblishment of one case as a historical fact does not negate the other?

in my mind, there was a definite motive for some to establish a secret system of preserving cathar messages, both historical and spiritual. the use of the tarot cards, with their universal images, seems quite the convenient tool. it is left to us to interpret these images within this context. if that can be done in a manner in which all of the cards, and not just some, are accounted for, then i believe we have to look at this.

another thing which shoud be taken into account is the fact that tarot decks went beyond using just the traditional symbology of the time. many cards in the visconti decks, for example, incorporate real personalities (maria visconti and francesco sforza in the loves) and symbols (some already metioned). this should impress us with the idea that the cards took on a very personal sense, and served not only to reveal moral truths, but also to impart real stories about their patrons.

in any event, i don't believe we should get stuck on just seeing the images at face value (although this goes back to your question as to why we should look any further than that). i will use the words of o'neill to address this:

"in the tarot and in the age when they were designed, one can expect that many orthodox symbols will be deliberately inserted into the system just to decieve the casual observer".

to approach this topic from another angle, what would be the moral message in the moon, as depicted in the tdm? and how would you account for all the images in the tdm moon card which were not characteristic of any of the earlier decks? did the designers just have a moment of artistic inspiration? (i'm being facetious of course).

There is a french phrase that speaks of twilight as being "between dog and wolf".

and so this shows that the meaning of the cards is...?

I have tried without success it seems, over the years to explain why Jesus or God would not have be shown in Tarot cards. Regardless of Tarot been a teaching sequence that was sequestered for a game; or an explanation of a morality sequence or any other sequence for that matter. I know that people think that in the TdM the World card can appear to be Christ resurrected. It seems logical- when you look at some images of the World card.

You need to look to Ecumenical Councils and the term 'Anathemas'
For example- the 2nd Council of Nicuea in the 8th Century. (It happened on a regular basis I might add)
To depict Christ or secularize his image was anathema- and you would be hounded out of the Church. This was one on going way of dealing with Heresy.
You could depict our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Cross, Our Lady without blemish- the Holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men.
- in the holy churches of God,
- on sacred instruments and vestments,
- on walls and panels,
- in houses and by public ways,
- in approved Holy books with imprimatur.
In the times of Tarot origin, printing houses could be investigated by the Church and regularly were- all printed matter exported into France for example had to be inspected. You could not put a secular image in a church without permission and it was rarely given. Wealthy families got around this by putting images of Patrons with Saints and Mary in private chapels and Churches.(Procession of the Magi- Medici) Burial crypts and memorials were an exception, especially in retrospection.
I find the idea of Jesus shown in a deck of cards- let alone God as in the Judgement card, as totally surprising and honestly -not believable. This did not apply to Virtues- so Faith could be depicted as could be Justice etc. So you could paint Aunty Joan and dress her up as the Virgin and put her in the Church- and they frequently did. They could secularize Saint Anthony Abbot as a hermit- but they could not write his name on the card. You could get a picture of Saint James as a type of postcard if you were a pilgrim- but no names, just a scallop shell would indicate who it was.
So Foolish- your puzzlement as to why no Jesus is perfectly understandable to me.
As to the Moon card- a dog moon(or Moon Dog) was thought to portend great things....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_dog
This, then, as today brings storms or is known as the clashing cymbals of Mother Moon -a sign of periodic regeneration. At the beginning of the Renaissance or Late Medieval times there were many recorded Dog Moons- they had had a mini Ice age, and the Plague. They also wanted Peace.
Signs and Portents were believed.

~Rosanne

I have tried without success it seems, over the years to explain why Jesus or God would not have be shown in Tarot cards.

Click to expand...

You suceeded with me . There was no way Mother Church would allow the depiction of God & Jesus on gaming devices!


Bee

Ah.
This raises the question of why the Church would allow images that would "read" as obvious and clear references symbolically as long as they didn't have a label in writing--when most people were illiterate anyway. (Does this take the thread too far afield?)

Debra said:

Ah.
This raises the question of why the Church would allow images that would "read" as obvious and clear references symbolically as long as they didn't have a label in writing--when most people were illiterate anyway. (Does this take the thread too far afield?)

Click to expand...

But if, as foolish speculates, the Cathars not the Church had some influence on the images? However they wouldn't have any image that represented Jesus.... (according to the Wiki article I read).


Bee x

that's a reasonable answer, rosanne. thank you for that. i was not aware that the church banned depictions of jesus on non-church art since there were so many paintings and sculptures of him around (including the "in majesty" pose which resembles the world card). but now that i think of it, they also banned depictions of the pope on playing cards. but it appears that didn't stop the card makers from including his image in their decks.

also, i was unable to find the reference of the dog moon to "portend great things", but it makes sense. however, this sounds like it would fit in nicely to a system of divination cards, but not for the tarot as it appeared before the 1800's, when the occultist first started using it in that capacity. so it still leaves the question of what the figure of the dogs/wolves meant in a sytem of moral instruction - and why they were added to that system when the image of the astrological body (as previously depicited in the tarot) would have worked just fine.

Debra said:

Ah.
This raises the question of why the Church would allow images that would "read" as obvious and clear references symbolically as long as they didn't have a label in writing--when most people were illiterate anyway. (Does this take the thread too far afield?

Click to expand...

As aside to the topic- do you think the Church wanted the populace to read?
It was realised back then that information was Power. After all 'illiterate' comes from not been able to read Latin. Literacy as far as the Church went meant there was a connection between Literacy and Heresy- yet the church needed literate preachers and writers- but they did not need the population as a whole to read. For example the Cathars were considered very learned- but as far as the Church was concerned they were outside the Latin educated world of Catholicism and therefore illiterate.Anyone that was a heretic and learned to read Latin was taught by Devil (and usually overnight ). It was the clergy that needed to be literate.
As far as Statistics are concerned- it gets very murky about literacy in the 500 years from the 1st Millenium. The Church considered as an argument that if you were Catholic and could sign your Mark to a Priest written document- you were literate, but if you were heretical you were illiterate. You did not understand. Then there was the added problem that heretical preachers believed the tongue more important, because they were like the Apostles- who according to them were illiterate (did not write in Latin). So Literacy was about control- but the printing press would change all that- be it slowly. The first thing printed on the press was hundreds and hundreds of Indulgences- not read but signed by the recipient with his Catholic literate mark. The gain of local languages been learned was the sign of the Catholic Church's disarray.
~Rosanne