Huck
Yatima said:Ross wrote:
"Why don't you go out and search then? You don't have to try to convince me - do some real research and get your ideas published!"
No fear, I would not try to convince you. This was never my intention, I just stated arguments...
But, honestly, I don't want to be narrowed by the aristocratic studies either. They can only exhibit the appearance of the tarot (at some stage), but not its invention. Black Death, Apocalypse, and German/Italian background/transfer (Karnöffel, Constance, Card makers..) give enough evidence for further studies of the background of the invention (for whome who wants to listen to its faint remaining voice).
And, yes, thank you, I will publish my conjectures...
Yatima
Yatima, ca. 20 posts ago you wrote:
"However, Huck, if you still accept articles to be published under the auspices of trionfi.com, I would have a contribution to the 14 to 22 theory, something, if I am not mistaken, nobody has written upon yet. Let me know by personal notice... "
Trionfi.com has the concept, that different opinions can exist in research - and probably are necessary to experience some progress.
And trionfi.com understands itself as a place and project, where the different opinions can be expressed. Naturally different opinions will find opposition, if anything looks as hair-drawn or unreliable. But that's the process ... Nobody is really interested to write something under his name, which is simply the wrong idea
and that he regrets 1/2 an year later .... , so the discussion has worth, it protects the writer against "flying too early" ... nobody minds, when a writer after a discussion still has the same idea as before, and nobody minds, when somebody writes something and signs it with his name.
But then its out in the world and multiplied and when it's only literary a bulls ... hit finally, then once will be reason to regret.
Yes, we're open to serious opinions about matters of Tarot development in 15th century, even when the opinions are really not our own.