Please note that I said 'few', not 'none', and that I was not actually referring to you or LePendu, as you both seem quite open to reason (even if not enthusiastic about my model). But of course since I said this in a response to your post, the misunderstanding is quite understandable.jmd said:I do not think that you are correct when you say, venicebard, that "few who frequent this forum have the courage to seriously consider a model that might challenge their favored beliefs".
I was simply referring to a general unwillingness to 'take me on', to engage me on it.
This I take exception to. How is a medieval tradition whose story matter (Arthur, Tristan, et al) invaded the Continent in the 12th century, whose essential details concerning the letter-numbers survived to our own time, anachronistic?Rather, in specific reference to your own favoured belief, the case you have presented for a 'bardic lore' within tarot still appears incongruent with, and anachronistic to, tarot.
As for my contention TdM was the original version, this requires only the notion that tarot's most common form was simply discarded and replaced, leaving us no examples as early as certain of its non-standard forms (such as Vieville et al), which may have been saved precisely because they were non-standard. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially considering the precise conformity of the standard version to its bardic heritage (and to much else besides).
When you say:
... you refer to what has survived, not to what was, and I contend the only way one can surmise what was is to combine what has survived with the internal evidence of the decks in question, that is, their structure.For example, of the numerous early decks, none show (as an example) a "mother's arm" on the Pope card.
And my view is strengthened by the simple fact that it was the standard version -- with mother's arm (in V) and eagle's embracing tail (in III) -- that had staying power, and that it was north of the Alps that the order of trumps was never in question, whereas south of them all sorts of different orderings and content sprang up (hardly a cohesive tradition).
If I understand what you said, it seems to me one would never get anywhere that way, as too few historical finds exist: a theory that 'matches' the historical finds would tell us nothing (nothing beyond the finds themselves)! But I think what you probably meant was that one's notions should be 'consistent with' the historical finds of the period, with which I heartily agree, and which, of course, mine is.... I would further suggest, however, that we would each duly consider such with evidence that matches historical finds of the period.