Card Divination Poll

Thanks for that link. Interesting!

If you knew there was evidence for divinatory use of playing cards prior to the 18th century, why did you phrase the question with the word 'believe'?

frelkins said:

I have Place's book, but I don't find him very credible on this and several other points - I've always wondered if the source is mis-dated. If I could get a quotation, a scan of a page, anything - I'd have more belief. But I'm skeptical so far. The Huson book I don't have, so I can't speak to that.

If I can get better evidence I'll be happy to change my mind. Please feel free to offer it.

Click to expand...

If it helps at all, Place cites Stuart Kaplan's "Encyclopedia of Tarot, vol. 1" (pg. 345) as his source. Also, Mary Greer has some interesting info on the early use of cartomancy at the following link:

http://marygreer.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/origins-of-divination-with-playing-cards/

She gives a later date for the Mainz book (1505), perhaps a different edition. Also check the following link for more on pre-18th Century card divination:

http://www.tarothermit.com/more.htm

I just noticed that this link confirms (citing Rosenfeld and Dummett) that Robert Place and Mary Greer are referring to different editions of the Mainz book. The info at this link was compiled by Mary Greer once again and Robert O'Neill.

Alan

Le Sorti by Marcolini

Teheuti said:

Do you believe that either playing cards or tarot were used for divination before the 18th century?

Click to expand...

Yes, playing cards were used for divination in the XVI century.

The 1540 book Le sorti intitolate giardino d’i pensieri by Francesco Marcolini uses playing cards in order to find the answer to one of the 50 questions provided in the book. A few years after its publication, the book was banned by the inquisition, together with all other forms of divination.

In 2007, the book has been reprinted in a limited number of copies by the Viella publisher. I have bought a copy and I offered on ATF to apply this ancient form of divination. You can see the results in this thread.

Alan,

The page you site describes the Mainz book as a fortune book - you have pictures or something and then use dice etc. to choose a pre-determined fortune that's pre-printed.

1510 - "Losbuch from Mainz, Eyn loszbuch ausz der Karten gemacht (1505-1510). An example of fortune-telling by dial and pointer--go to page and get fortune."

This certainly isn't cartomancy. To describe this as cartomancy is I think misleading prima facie. Even if the pages contained pictures of cards along with the pre-printed fortunes, this still isn't cartomancy.

As for Mary's page, again that reinforces my point - these are fortune books with pre-printed answers and some fancy mechanics, not cartomancy - the Lenthall cards are closer, but again the fortunes are pre-printed, and the cards are neither "playing cards" nor are they "tarot" as in Mary's question in this poll.

Am I missing something? These references only seem to bolster my argument and undermine yours. I'm seeing that the issue here may be that we have a much different idea of what constitutes cartomancy or "reading tarot cards."

Fishing out printed answers from a book of tercets isn't reading by the lights of the general AT audience at all, and certainly not by mine! Obviously these lot-books existed in droves - is this all you are referring to? If so, then of course I will agree with you.

This rather feels to me like starting the history of personal computers with an abacus instead of Babbage! That is, it feels like a forced point.

Thanks for a great discussion,
F

Frelkins said:

Fishing out printed answers from a book of tercets isn't reading by the lights of the general AT audience at all, and certainly not by mine! Obviously these lot-books existed in droves - is this all you are referring to? If so, then of course I will agree with you.

Click to expand...

Frelkins, what's your definition of cartomancy?

A commonly accepted definition is "fortune telling or divination using a pack of cards."

Frankly, drawing cards and reading the meanings off of a key qualifies as cartomancy if the above definition is accepted -- even if you only think of this sort of activity as a parlor game. Tehuti didn't ask if professional cartomancers existed pre-18th c., only if the cards were used for divination.

BrightEye said:

If you knew there was evidence for divinatory use of playing cards prior to the 18th century, why did you phrase the question with the word 'believe'?

Click to expand...

Because I'm interested in people's beliefs. Even in the face of so-called evidence people believe different things. Also, someone's definition of divination may preclude what is going on here. For instance, Dummett doesn't accept personality characterization (taroccchi appropriati) as divination. He defines it pretty much as set meanings assigned to individual cards that are shuffled randomly and used for predicting the future. Anything else is discounted.

Added: I just saw that Frelkins makes some of these points.

frelkins said:

The page you site describes the Mainz book as a fortune book - you have pictures or something and then use dice etc. to choose a pre-determined fortune that's pre-printed.

1510 - "Losbuch from Mainz, Eyn loszbuch ausz der Karten gemacht (1505-1510). An example of fortune-telling by dial and pointer--go to page and get fortune."

This certainly isn't cartomancy. To describe this as cartomancy is I think misleading prima facie. Even if the pages contained pictures of cards along with the pre-printed fortunes, this still isn't cartomancy.

Click to expand...

From what I've read, it seems to me that the book was designed to be used along with a deck of cards. My impression is that this book is an example of the genre of "fortune-telling by dial and pointer," but uses cards as the pointers. Here is a quote from Huson from his previously mentioned book:

"Our case in point, however, is a German oracle book entitled Eing Loscbuch ausz der Karten gemacht, (A Lot-Book Made from Playing Cards), which was written in the 1480s to accompany a deck of cards using the German suit signs Hawkbells, Hearts, Leaves, and Acorns."

Here is another quote from the site of Yale's Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library:

"The first playing cards used for fortune telling were simply standard ones read in conjunction with the c. 1505 Mainz Kartenlosbuch (literally, card-fortune book). This work is the earliest surviving printed evidence linking playing cards with cartomancy."

http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/carycards/CaryEssaysWeb.htm


However, even if you are right and the book is used with "dial and pointer" and merely has pictures from a deck of cards to illustrate the interpretations, wouldn't it be bizarre to use such illustrations if playing cards weren't used for divination?

Alan

I just wanted to add here that I'm enjoying this discussion immensely. This is truly a fascinating topic .

Greg,

Yup, here we go. This is a fairly rehearsed argument, right?

Cartomancy as we know it, let's be factual, is largely the invention of that crazy wigmaker, barber, or wheat salesman, or what have you, the guy we know as Etteilla, who was apparently at one time some kind of freemason too.

The use of cards has changed over time, like many cultural objects have changed. I have never understood, and will never understand, the drive to connect cartomancy to an older origin - by force if necessary.

The truth about cartomancy is fascinating enough without the ambiguous word-play. It's really a subject for ludology - why are cardboard and ink so enchanting to us monkeys? What is the purpose of play?

Again, we clearly just have different definitions. If you think pre-printed look-ups are cartomancy and not spreads, etc. -- all the procedures introduced by the wigster, then we have to stop the discussion. We have to agree to disagree, with all the contempt that sadly implies.

However, I'd then be on firm ground to argue that those "readers" of such a school are "cold readers," who base their "art" on using a script, with pre-made answers for all, won't I? A forced connection removes any hope of separating from cold readers. This is probably not what the folks here are really after.

Many people would be happy to connect tarot cartomancy to Waite, but for some reason rebel when you mention Etteilla. Why? What's wrong with admitting that this unusual guy is in fact the father of most of what goes down here on AT?

I think we're done here now, honestly.

Fun talk as always,

F

frelkins said:

Again, we clearly just have different definitions. If you think pre-printed look-ups are cartomancy and not spreads, etc. -- all the procedures introduced by the wigster, then we have to stop the discussion.

Click to expand...

Along these lines, the following quote from Huson's book is interesting:

"In the book that appeared under Etteilla's imprint in 1791, Etteilla, au L'art de lire dans les cartes (Etteilla, or The Art of Reading Cards), he disparaged these card readers' rudimentary art of 'card drawing,' as he termed it, which he describes, not inaccurately, as being little better than the old practice of sortilege, of 'drawing lots from Homer, Virgil or the Bible.' He felt that there was a potential in the art that was being neglected."

It seems that Etteilla would agree with you.

Alan

We do have a description of cartomancy from 1730. It's early 18th century and called a "new invention" compared to the other divination techniques being used.
http://marygreer.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/in-1730-reason-triumphs-over-folly/