The Tarot symbols origin

Dain said:

but one could, for example, trace the "origins" of television to the early 19th century with the advent of photography.

Click to expand...

I quite agree with this premise and i believe that you pose a great example for this discussion. However why stop with the 19th century? The Magic Lantern appeared in the West in the middle of the 17th century. Again the very simple method of projecting a single static image, or a series of them ...

But even that "method" had the precursor of shadow puppets, either of the hand variety we all learned in our childhoods or of something more elaborate associated with performers or marionettes.

Mr. Plato describes this in his meditation on the Cave 2500 years ago -- i wonder if anyone reads Plato anymore. It would be safe to say that Television could trace its origins before the creation of those images at Lascaux if Television cared to make the effort.

This is what i find daunting and amusing and invigorating when people pose what seems such an innocent query, "Where did Tarot come from?" Absolutely everything really interesting can trace its beginning to a cave somewhere sheltering a clutch of people telling stories in the dark.

Pax et Bonum

CED

conversus said:

I quite agree with this premise and i believe that you pose a great example for this discussion. However why stop with the 19th century? The Magic Lantern appeared in the West in the middle of the 17th century. Again the very simple method of projecting a single static image, or a series of them ...

But even that "method" had the precursor of shadow puppets, either of the hand variety we all learned in our childhoods or of something more elaborate associated with performers or marionettes.

Mr. Plato describes this in his meditation on the Cave 2500 years ago -- i wonder if anyone reads Plato anymore. It would be safe to say that Television could trace its origins before the creation of those images at Lascaux if Television cared to make the effort.

This is what i find daunting and amusing and invigorating when people pose what seems such an innocent query, "Where did Tarot come from?" Absolutely everything really interesting can trace its beginning to a cave somewhere sheltering a clutch of people telling stories in the dark.

Pax et Bonum

CED

Click to expand...

Hello Conversus
That's quite true. And all manner of interesting conversations and insights can arise and be gained by this type of speculation.
I am familiar with Plato's Cave but I think it would be far fetched if someone assumed, for example, that Plato was predicting television with his allegory, wouldn't it? That's basically the reason I stopped at photography because of the obvious connections of one invention to another. Both are technological inventions, and the invention of photography, and cinematography, is connected to the invention of television. In tarot, the analogy would be the addition of the triumphs to playing cards.
Speculation about the origins of the symbols of the tarot, or the spirituality attached to them is amazing, of course, and can take us down roads which, I believe, connects us to... well... "something" (that may be different for everyone).
It's just that there comes a point when I need to recognize that cave paintings, for example, are *not* "television" and not part of television's history (they are part of the historical, or pre-historical, *continuum* of human expression, though, technological or otherwise).

Whoop, Jug, I love thee!

The premise may be absurd, but if these Triumphs' icons were familiar to the people in whose time they were painted, wouldn't it be wise to learn how they were generally regarded by those people? Much emphasis is placed upon the documentary evidence – accounts in accord with the sanctioned interpretations by church and state regarding these symbols' meaning: history's victorious renditions. But what of the irreverent mockeries of the fool who heralded the inversion of rule, rank and orthodoxy? Did his station among the early decks perform a similar role? That, however solemnly one was expected to regard the Virtues, an Emperor, the Church, Death, or Judgement, the presence of The Fool signified the need for a different sort of reading. One more in tune with the revelries of holy feast days, the folk traditions from which they were born, and the sense of humor they enjoyed.

O, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven!

Yygdrasilian said:

The premise may be absurd, but if these Triumphs' icons were familiar to the people in whose time they were painted, wouldn't it be wise to learn how they were generally regarded by those people? Much emphasis is placed upon the documentary evidence – accounts in accord with the sanctioned interpretations by church and state regarding these symbols' meaning: history's victorious renditions. But what of the irreverent mockeries of the fool who heralded the inversion of rule, rank and orthodoxy? Did his station among the early decks perform a similar role? That, however solemnly one was expected to regard the Virtues, an Emperor, the Church, Death, or Judgement, the presence of The Fool signified the need for a different sort of reading. One more in tune with the revelries of holy feast days, the folk traditions from which they were born, and the sense of humor they enjoyed.

O, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven!
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=3237913&postcount=12

Click to expand...

Hello, Yygdrasilian
First, let me say I've enjoyed many, many of your posts in the AT forum.
Symbols are strange things. Some of them are recognized by virtually any human being on the planet because they are part of our common heritage, what makes us human, while others are culture specific. Culture specific symbols can be recognized (read: experienced and understood) by the people of said culture or by culture connected to one another.
That said, regardless of the historicity, or the historical context in which a symbol has been represented in art, I don't believe there is a sort of "symbol police" that can dictate how one will experience a symbol or what it will mean to her/him.

Symbols can also have their meaning changed by cultural shifts to the point of being unrecognizable today compared to their original meaning (the swastika comes to mind), while others can be traced beyond specific cultural milieus, to the most distant past.

Sometimes a symbol, or an allegory, can create very different reactions for different people. An example to illustrate this point: A couple of years ago I watched a documentary about the Navajo and the education of Navajo children by non-Navajo teachers. The teacher - a nice young woman - was trying to explain the word "moody" to the class. She said that "moody" meant feeling sad like you feel "when it rains and you can't go out to play". The teacher meant well, of course, but Navajo children - according to the documentary - do not feel sad when it rains and do not feel they have to stay home because it rains. Rain to the Navajo is not an annoyance, it's a blessing and cause for celebration.

The point is, I suppose, that the intended use of symbols and how people experience them, even within a certain culture milieu and time period, are two different things.
History's role, following historical methodology, is to describe facts and based on those facts to come up with a plausible "picture" of the time, culture, etc. it focuses upon.
Cultural anthropology is more suited to explore connections of symbols, or symbolic accounts like folktales/fairy-tales, than history is (although there is some overlapping, of course).
When a book purports to be a *history* book it has to follow the parameters set, and methods upon which the particular science of history is founded. It's the same with any science, really. History is not art. History is not psychology. History is not even cultural anthropology. When Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers wrote "The Power of Myth" they did not write a history book. They went beyond the narrow, academic focus of history to see a "greater picture" that transcended a particular time and space.
In a sense, the saw the "forest", instead of a "tree". In this analogy, tarot history -a very valid, difficult field that ought to enjoy our respect - is to see the characteristics of a particular "tree" or "flower" and the mini-ecosystem around it, keeping in mind the greater picture of the "forest". The Power of Myth and mythical symbology focuses more on the commonality of a variety of trees, of which entire forests are composed, that also contain animals, insects, flowers, etc. without necessarily focusing on one particular tree.

In a sense, there is no discrepancy or antagonism between experiential tarot and historical tarot studies. It's a difference in focuses. Sometimes, it's also a matter of semantics or personal preferences, conscious or subconscious biases, etc.

My personal "peeve" so to speak, is seeing people bash one or the other "side" (experiential vs. historical) or trying to conflate the two when no conflation is possible. In other words, if one writes a history book about tarot, on has to follow the historical methology. If one creates a new tarot deck and writes a book about his/her tarot deck they only have to follow their own personal experience and consciousness, in the hope others will benefit from the insights the writer provides them with.
Using historical facts to negate other people's experiences, psyches, insights, etc *today* is wrong.
Using personal experiences, insights, etc. in the form of pseudo-history to negate the validity of historical facts is deceitful, therefore also wrong.

(This has nothing to do with the book that has been discussed in this thread. I haven't read it, so I can't speak on its historical merit).

Edited to add: I don't mean to open any cans of worms here. I know this is a touchy subject for many, but as I enjoy both the factual history of tarot (from the 15th century to today) and its experiential, spiritual side, I read everything and anything about all sides and, in the process, learning and understanding more and more and more about tarot.

Dain said:

if one writes a history book about tarot, one has to follow the historical methology. If one creates a new tarot deck and writes a book about his/her tarot deck they only have to follow their own personal experience and consciousness, in the hope others will benefit from the insights the writer provides them with.
Using historical facts to negate other people's experiences, psyches, insights, etc *today* is wrong.
Using personal experiences, insights, etc. in the form of pseudo-history to negate the validity of historical facts is deceitful, therefore also wrong.

Click to expand...

Dain - Good explanation. Unfortunately, some here feel that Tarot History should be whatever anything thinks it might be, without any regard for facts, and that questioning those ideas or asking for evidence that stands up to historical standards is "not nice."

However, the biggest problem is not so much being "deceitful" as a lack of knowledge and understanding about what constitutes Historical Method and Standards. For instance, analogy (based on similarities) is taken as irrefutable reason and logic. Essentially, it is a naive lack of knowledge about the field of history and its methods and a refusal to consider it important to historical research that is the problem.

Personally, I welcome those who want to learn, but I don't understand those who insist that we should accept uneducated (in the field) naivete as the basis for our own standards here. Why should we not be as rigorous about our historical standards as any other area of historical inquiry?

Teheuti said:

Dain - Good explanation. Unfortunately, some here feel that Tarot History should be whatever anything thinks it might be, without any regard for facts, and that questioning those ideas or asking for evidence that stands up to historical standards is "not nice."

However, the biggest problem is not so much being "deceitful" as a lack of knowledge and understanding about what constitutes Historical Method and Standards. For instance, analogy (based on similarities) is taken as irrefutable reason and logic. Essentially, it is a naive lack of knowledge about the field of history and its methods and a refusal to consider it important to historical research that is the problem.

Personally, I welcome those who want to learn, but I don't understand those who insist that we should accept uneducated (in the field) naivete as the basis for our own standards here. Why should we not be as rigorous about our historical standards as any other area of historical inquiry?

Click to expand...

Thank you! And I absolutely agree with you! I used the word "deceitful"- perhaps I should have said 'deceptive' - to describe the inaccurate and, potentially, mistaken knowledge a reader might receive from such a book, not the writer's motives which may very well be quite honest. There is something to be said for "authenticity" and, of course, rigorousness and correct methodology, which are not relative but absolute terms in any type of scientific research. (Actually, they can also be applied even to spiritual matters but that's another story).

My personal position is that the history of tarot encompasses the entire period from early 15th century to today, and I consider it a valid subject for historical research. I realize, of course, that some people focus on certain parts of the past 5,5 centuries and they are quite entitled to it.

Finally, although I may sound like a fanboy, let me say that your books have been my greatest teachers in tarot, Ms. Greer, and that it's an honor to speak with you here in AT.

Thank you, Dain. I'm thrilled you found my books helpful. BTW, just Mary will do.

Mary

Teheuti said:

Thank you, Dain. I'm thrilled you found my books helpful. BRA, just Mary will do.

Mary

Click to expand...

OK, Mary. Thank you! (It's just that i never know how to address people properly).


@Mods: Please excuse this offtopic post. I promise not to be offtopic again in this topic.

TarotCard - are you in fact the author of the book mentioned here ?

Magnum Tripudum

The question is not whether the Triumphs were adapted to a game of numbered letters.
Rather, the well kept secret is how early these card games were used for this purpose.
And by whom.

The elephant in the room?

Though it would be unwise to refute the methodology of serious historians, the fact that Comte de Mellet was the first to explicitly write of Tarot correspondence with an ancient alphabet is not proof he was the first to utilize the cards in this way. In fact, it is likely that he was not, as they are a natural tool for the art of memory. And a set of 22, being ideal for the learning of Hebrew letters was, at some point prior to de Gebelin's Le Monde du Primitif, applied as such by more than one crafty & clever alchemist, Freemason, or clergy trying to learn his aleph-beth-gimels. It was even made explicit in the founding statutes of the oldest Masonic Lodge (0) to "tak tryall of ye airt of memorie and science yrof, of everie fellowe of craft and everie prenteiss according to ayr of yr vocations" (1599). An initiate of the Nine Sisters Lodge (named after the daughters Mnemosyne, the Greek goddess of memory), de Gebelin was familiar with such mnemonic techniques.

Committed to memory, the very nature of these methods confound contemporary historians' reliance upon documentary evidence. Thus, the earliest authors of Tarot's use with respect to a 22 letter alphabet as an index of symbols, must necessarily be argued as the founders of this practice. To admit otherwise allows for a lineage of esoteric transmission hidden from the scholar's literal gaze, and thereby undermines the “science” of historiography as applied to the origins of Tarot.

Tracing the iconography of the Triumphs back to documented sources in medieval religious art, the assumption is often made that their inspiration drew primarily from an orthodox conception of Christian symbolism, to the exclusion of alchemical, cabalistic or occult influences. The Fool suggests otherwise. Utilized as a cipher for penetrating the allegorical use of Hebrew letters, the deck offers a perspective on the origins of Christianity's most familiar and enduring symbols - a perspective rich with enigmas that Tarot historians wedded to the dominant paradigm in Historical Research are loathe to discuss, or ever acknowledge. Having worked so arduously to dispel the stigma of the Occult, these serious historians would rather abandon hope of finding a meaningfully coherent design behind the selection of the cards' iconography, going so far as to claim the attempt unnecessary for an understanding of their origin. Yet, through examination of the play of Letters assembled within the QaBaLaH tree, a meaningfully coherent design underpinning both the development of Christian iconography and the origin of Tarot symbols becomes apparent - one which brings many orthodox assumptions into question. Perhaps uncomfortably so.

Call it a philosophical puzzle regarding the cognitive value of proper names.

Michael Dummett, who devoted considerable time to the problem of whether any logically valid metaphysical statements are ever possible, may have found some of these occult enigmas too challenging to his faith in Catholicism, analytic philosophy and historiographic methodology to recognize this wicked pack of cards as anything more than just a form of gambling. But at least even he could recognize that Hesperus is, in fact, also Phosphorus.

Totus mundus agit historionem