firemaiden
magic and disenchantment
Kwaw, it is a pleasure to read your post, and I learned many things. Thank you for your translations of Latin and Italian, and for presenting those quotes, they are fascinating with regard particularly to the question (long lost on this thread) of who historically put magic in the magician.
I don't know if the original question-asker, Wand King, is around on AT today, but if he were I would love to suggest that the question could be turned on it's head. Not ... who put magic in the magician, but who took it out ? Or was it absent in the beginning ?
Inasmuch as the tarot is not only an artefact of the 15th century, but also born of medieval Europe, I offer these reflexions. Since I've been gone from AT, I've done a year of medieval studies in Poitiers (particularly interested in the 12th century, which was a first "renaissance" of sorts). I was rather stunned to learn how rationalist thinkers of this period were, and how rationalist, relatively speaking, was the Church. On the one hand you have a population ready to believe in all sorts of miracles emanating from things like the supposed foot-print of Jesus, or a supposed nail from the cross, gullibility which the Church hypocritically takes advantage of by rigging up all sorts of tricks and illusions - statues that cry, boy-chorus angel voices that sing hidden behind sculptures of angels, etc.; while on the other hand, the church regards with suspicion anything miraculous, -- new reports of miracles performed by saints tombs and other relics must be investigated thoroughly and sanctioned by church authorities.
The novels/romances of Chrétien de Troyes (12th century), a cleric, and inventor of the Grail literature, tow a thin line between real magic and illusion : for a famous example in the Grail romance (le Conte du Graal), Perceval coming upon the castle of Gornemant, perceives the castle towers to be rising from nothing, as though being born from the earth. At the same time, we understand this is an illusion caused by the topography of the landscape. In Chrétien's Lancelot romance (Chevalier de la charette), Lancelot has a magic ring, whose power is to disarm enchantments - if there is anything magic in the vicinity, his ring will un-magic it. So how is it used in the story ? He turns to the ring when he is suddenly trapped in a prison (the prison has maybe magical, maybe mechanical sliding doors), to undo the enchantment and NOTHING HAPPENS. Which proves there was no magic in the first place -- Lancelot has to escape from the prison the old-fashioned way, with an ax... Think about it, a magic ring - to prove there is no magic. This is actually a "rationalist" ring, which Lancelot uses to throw the light of reason into places where his companions' irrational fears make them feel helpless.
In the case of the bateleur card - remember somewhere on some other AT thread, we explored the history of the cup and balls trick, as being one of the most ancient going back into deep antiquity-- I think it is a beautiful emblem of the fine line between illusion and real magic. It is an illustration of something that might or might not be magic, an appeal to our discernement.
Might or might not be magic ? This instability captures the paradox of human experience, since we live in two worlds at once : both in the natural world, and in its reflexion in our head, our projections, imaginings, wishes, etc. The cup and balls trick takes advantage of our minds' ability to deceive our senses. So who historically put the magic in the magician ?
It's always been there. Sort of.
Kwaw, it is a pleasure to read your post, and I learned many things. Thank you for your translations of Latin and Italian, and for presenting those quotes, they are fascinating with regard particularly to the question (long lost on this thread) of who historically put magic in the magician.
I don't know if the original question-asker, Wand King, is around on AT today, but if he were I would love to suggest that the question could be turned on it's head. Not ... who put magic in the magician, but who took it out ? Or was it absent in the beginning ?
Inasmuch as the tarot is not only an artefact of the 15th century, but also born of medieval Europe, I offer these reflexions. Since I've been gone from AT, I've done a year of medieval studies in Poitiers (particularly interested in the 12th century, which was a first "renaissance" of sorts). I was rather stunned to learn how rationalist thinkers of this period were, and how rationalist, relatively speaking, was the Church. On the one hand you have a population ready to believe in all sorts of miracles emanating from things like the supposed foot-print of Jesus, or a supposed nail from the cross, gullibility which the Church hypocritically takes advantage of by rigging up all sorts of tricks and illusions - statues that cry, boy-chorus angel voices that sing hidden behind sculptures of angels, etc.; while on the other hand, the church regards with suspicion anything miraculous, -- new reports of miracles performed by saints tombs and other relics must be investigated thoroughly and sanctioned by church authorities.
The novels/romances of Chrétien de Troyes (12th century), a cleric, and inventor of the Grail literature, tow a thin line between real magic and illusion : for a famous example in the Grail romance (le Conte du Graal), Perceval coming upon the castle of Gornemant, perceives the castle towers to be rising from nothing, as though being born from the earth. At the same time, we understand this is an illusion caused by the topography of the landscape. In Chrétien's Lancelot romance (Chevalier de la charette), Lancelot has a magic ring, whose power is to disarm enchantments - if there is anything magic in the vicinity, his ring will un-magic it. So how is it used in the story ? He turns to the ring when he is suddenly trapped in a prison (the prison has maybe magical, maybe mechanical sliding doors), to undo the enchantment and NOTHING HAPPENS. Which proves there was no magic in the first place -- Lancelot has to escape from the prison the old-fashioned way, with an ax... Think about it, a magic ring - to prove there is no magic. This is actually a "rationalist" ring, which Lancelot uses to throw the light of reason into places where his companions' irrational fears make them feel helpless.
In the case of the bateleur card - remember somewhere on some other AT thread, we explored the history of the cup and balls trick, as being one of the most ancient going back into deep antiquity-- I think it is a beautiful emblem of the fine line between illusion and real magic. It is an illustration of something that might or might not be magic, an appeal to our discernement.
Might or might not be magic ? This instability captures the paradox of human experience, since we live in two worlds at once : both in the natural world, and in its reflexion in our head, our projections, imaginings, wishes, etc. The cup and balls trick takes advantage of our minds' ability to deceive our senses. So who historically put the magic in the magician ?
It's always been there. Sort of.
