reconsidering a cathar connection

[Huck]

Actually I have - and I cheat...

But Huck - that is really interesting - thanks.

Well, that's only a rough - argumentative - overview. Well, and it follows the wisdom, that the origin of things is naturally simple, trivial, not hidden, open to all eyes ... just overlooked, cause the researched object is too much mystified, so that everybody is confused about it.

We've a sort of "original Tarot" in the writings of Cessolis, the most successful chess-book in 14th century. His idea was just, that ... additional to the already known specification of the chess officers ... also the pawn should have "personal character".
So they got professions, that the game knew 16 different figures (let's call it "natural Tarot content" or perhaps better "natural catalog") just to fulfill Cessolis' vision, that two imitated kingdoms had a meeting at the chess-board.

... .-) ... Likely this had been an imported Mongolian idea. Cessolis had to do with inquisition and Marco Polo was a prisoner ... so possibly on this way. But it doesn't matter, possibly Cessoilis had an own idea, why not, or he knew an already existent European tradition. The idea is not very complicated and natural.
What we have, is, that in Mongolian chess-rules the pawn specification also appears and in these it has game-rule-function, which isn't the case for Cessolis, to whom this is only moralization.
If a specified pawn reached the promotion line, he became his master officer, so, as if a Knight-pawn would become a knight in the European version (not a Queen as nowadays usual).

That's for instance such a specified pawn, the messenger or player, a sort of catalog-card. He had his position at the Queen-side before the rook.

Perhaps the dice are there, cause the variant to play chess with dice was stronger than expected in research.

 

[Huck]

http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezi02.html

Here you've a complete version and also the note to Cessolis not well known biography .....

Jacopo da Cessole (Jacobus de Cessolis) was an Italian monk from the Dominican brotherhood. He lived between the XIII and the XIV century. He was born in Cessole d'Asti around 1250 and died in Genoa around 1322.
We don't know much about his personal life. He lived in Lombardy and after in Genoa in San Domenico's convent as the Inquisition's Vicar.

In 1298 Marco served as a gentleman-commander of a galley in the Venetian navy. In September 1298 he was captured and imprisoned in Genoa . His fame as an adventurer had preceded him, and he was treated with courtesy and leniency. He was released within a year. Little is known of Marco Polo's life after his return to Venice. He apparently returned to private life and business until his death about 1324.

http://timelines.com/1298/marco-polo-serves-as-a-gentleman-commander-and-is-imprisoned-in-genoa

It should be clear, that a prisoner like Marco Polo, who told a lot of fantastic things, had rather good chances to meet somebody, who worked for the Inquisition.

 

[foolish]

Where is this picture from? Is this supposed to be Cessolis? Am I the only one who sees the connection between this figure, who appears not unlike the tarot Fool - bag and all - and happens to be juggling (ala the jonguleur)?

 

[Huck]

Where is this picture from? Is this supposed to be Cessolis? Am I the only one who sees the connection between this figure, who appears not unlike the tarot Fool - bag and all - and happens to be juggling (ala the jonguleur)?

That's one of many representations in Cessolis-books, I don't remember, which one. Yes indeed, this one looks in this version like the Fool (especially Pierpont-Morgan-Berhamo, but mostly this "pawn" (pawn before Tower at the Queen-side) ... this is a chess figure, don't overlook this ... looks more dressed like the magician.

... this is another at the same position. You see the dice?

This is the doorkeeper, that's the pawn before the knight at the Queen-side, the same Cessolis edition. He's the doorkeeper and he has the keys. He's before the knight, cause the knights protect the castle. The other knight at the king's side has a smith, cause they need swords etc. .

 

[foolish]

Earier, Michael chose to post a review of his understanding of tarot history. Although I don't wish to revive any of the negativity from his earlier posts by bringing this up, he does present a point in his review of Picina's essay which I believe is central to this discussion - that is, the function of allegory as used in the tarot.
Michael said:

Tarot designers placed the Bagatto next to the Matto because, with a sleight of the hand, he makes one thing look like another (the definition of allegory, by the way) just as the mundane world decieves people with false appearances

This brings us to the essence of one of the questions asked here several times, which revolves around the premise of why we should look for any other meaning in the images of the tarot cards when there appears to be a simpler explanation in their resemblence to other sources of art. If we understand that art in the middle ages was very much an exercise in allegory, then it shouldn't be difficult to imagine that people with different philosophical viewpoints would "see" these images differently. In the case of Picina's essay, we can assume that since he is a devout Catholic, these images would have an orthodox interepretation or moral value in terms of the Catholic church. However, we should ask the question whether other groups - even Christian "heretics" would see things the same way. Another way of asking this question is, "If people like myself and others have seen some associations between these ideas and the cards, how much more so would those heretics of the middle ages interpret these images?" In Picina's essay, we have a fabulous example of how the tarot was seen. This doesn't dismiss the possibility that others saw it differently, through their own interpretation. After all, this is the function of allegory. We use the same images to represent our own, different interpretations of the world.

 

[Teheuti]

Earlier, Mary had brought up the point that these images should be seen in their most simplest interpretation, without placing other levels of interpretation on top of each other.

I never said this—you do keep twisting around the things that I say and I'm beginning to resent this as I've had to speak up about it several times!

I do believe there are multiple levels of interpretation - that's what tarot reading is all about. Even simply on an historical level we can see that commentators in the first century or so alluded to the cards in many different ways. In my blog article on the card (& on Maifreda and the Guglielmites) I point up several possibilities (and I know that you read that article). Must I repeat again what I actually said???? I corrected you once already on this very point.

 

[foolish]

Mary - I'm sorry if you feel that I have misrepresented what you've said. Sometimes we "hear" something quite different from what the speaker or writer may have intended. I should know. I believe that I've been the brunt of repeated misrepresentations in this forum, and have had to spend a great dealt of time responding to some of these comments.

However, that doesn't excuse any misinterpretations. I originally got this impression from your statement way back on post #9:

Why create a very convoluted explanation (with nothing to historically substantiate it) when much simpler explanations abound with plenty of historical evidence?

I'm not sure if this was repeated elsewhere. If you meant something other than what I have said, then I will stand corrected. I'm not trying to pick on you. In fact, I have appreciated and admired your comments throughout this long discussion. Even though it's clear you don't agree with me, you have been very civil and professional in your presentations. For the most part, I have taken your points as an opportunity to review elements of this theory. In any event, I used this quote simply to make a point.

 

[Teheuti]

If you meant something other than what I have said, then I will stand corrected.

I've never said that there was only one, simple interpretation (as you claimed) but rather that simple, well-substantiated explanations [plural] are more likely than convoluted, unsubstantiated ones.

For instance, I did not claim a single explanation for the Popess but proposed a couple of possibilities that could have existed simultaneously and showed representations from around the period in question.

The Popess could just as easily have represented Faith or Holy Mother Church or the Papacy (statue at St. Peter's, Rome], of which the images below are just four of many examples

You have demonstrated that someone could see a Cathar-related event or personality being associated with each tarot card—because, in fact, you did see such things and you are a person.

To say that, broadly, a heretic or someone with pro-heretic sympathies might have made different associations to the trumps than an orthodox Christian in the 17th century is entirely possible and even likely—but, to claim that from your 21st century perspective you know what perspectives these were requires evidence (not theory) to substantiate your claim.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of analogies have been drawn among the tarot trumps and myths, legends, stories, religion, history, psychology, and philosophies, just as you have done. Most do not claim that this is what some unidentified historical person thought. Something more is needed if you want to claim that an individual card maker, during a particular historical time and place, also drew the same analogies that you have, such that this person changed the cards very slightly to reflect these analogies.

"Could have" just doesn't do it. Huck and others have given several examples where such changes to cards were made in a way that others could also make the connection.

 

[foolish]

Well, I think we can agree that there were most likely more than one way that these images were interpreted. I believe I have already agreed to the fact that there were "simpler" explanations such as the orthodox Catholic view which admittedly many people had. I have never attempted to present the Cathar or heretical theme as the only possibility.

As far as making an assumption to how one may have "seen" these images during the middle ages, I think we can get a pretty good idea of how people thought from the descriptions of their philosophies and how they lived their lives, which have been handed down to us through written documents.

 

[Teheuti]

As far as making an assumption to how one may have "seen" these images during the middle ages, I think we can get a pretty good idea of how people thought from the descriptions of their philosophies and how they lived their lives, which have been handed down to us through written documents.

To some extent, and we can see that different people in the first hundred years of the tarot (Renaissance - not medieval period) saw the cards quite differently. Your theory is that someone in the 17th century (or slightly earlier) deliberately changed tarot iconography to better reflect heretical beliefs. We've seen from Huck examples of people doing this with playing cards. Personally, I'd like to see you back up your theory with some descriptions by individuals in France during the period with which you are concerned, which demonstrate heretic philosophies relating to the Tarot images. At this point you have a mishmash of different historical periods and nothing stronger than the analogies that you've made. The only 'proof' seems to be that if you could make such analogies then people in the 17th century would have, too.