The various levels of historical studies

[jmd]

Tarot research, as for other research, may be described from a fourfold aspect. Some who focus on only one of these may develop antagonism towards the others.

The first level is the find one makes of what may be referred to as the archaeological remnants. These, whether they may be from documentary text or cards, are like the stone markers upon which our eyes may rest.

The second is the guiding principle found by looking into the history of ideas, in which broad sweeps may be discerned having impact in various cultural settings.

The third are the reflections of carefully observing the internal coherence upon the cards.

The final is the spiritual, or hidden and secret (‘occult’, in its true sense) manifesting itself in human creative and artistic output through history.

Similar considerations have also been made in biblical studies and in the Kabalah, using the notariqon (acrostic) PaRDeS - Peshat, the obvious or literal meaning; Remez, the hint, allusion or suggested meaning; Derash the inferred, moral or narrated meaning; and Sod the secret or spiritual meaning.

They are like an ascent into the four Kabalistic worlds - none more important than the other, each having its proper place. The fourth described world or state needs to be ascended from the firm groundedness of the most solid.

The wonderful list of ‘facts’ from the historical fragments is that by which one needs to carefully construct the firmness for a useful ascent. This very much includes, of course, the cards themselves.

Having this solid kingdom firmly under one’s feet, a study of the allusions inherent in the history of ideas becomes the foundation to another important step. From here the first level needs to be seen as remnants of this second level at work, and striving to understand how the first is related and arises out of the latter also becomes important.

The third level is looking into the cards and going beyond, already, what can be known from the other two layers: an exegesis of the cards as single images and a sequence or complete set - a veritable internal holistic knowledge or gnosis or neosis. Here again, unless the first two former levels are firmly acquired, various wonderful but illusory reflections and false insights may be created. Both the breadth of works instructing humanity and discerning what is relevant assists in making the important inferences required.

Finally, the very flow and development of the spiritual impulses working itself into the deck as humanity develops and awakens further may begin to be entered. Here, however, the many dangers of false knowledge have to be crossed with humility.

To have any of these levels without the other three leads to excesses and falsehoods - some have trodden too far in various ways from one or another of these levels. The 'occult' history, when at fault, tended to be due to insufficient archaeological remnants... which we are slowly beginning to communally acquire. Some of these earlier authors seeking to enter the higher worlds of this historical Jacob's ladder without the firm foundation which was patchy seems both erroneous, as errors were promulgated, and warranted, for the spirit of their search was as is ours...

 

[Cerulean]

Thinking of Rachel Pollack

Rachel Pollack's Forest of Souls suggests to me in each personal journey:

...if one works with tarot
...if one works with kabbalah
...if one works with dreams

...the individual may become drawn into is swimming or roaming in their ocean or forest of personal imagery and their mind's imagination. If the individual has maturity and learning within their chosen structure, the dive or descent will better experienced.

She also addresses JMD's good point--humility and modesty is a very good thing. It's true working in any of these things gives a richer perspective--but however richer I might feel, I'm not any better in worth than the next person whose into other areas.

My suggestion to those who use tarot cards as explorations into their individual artistic journey or imaginations is to follow maps related to the disciplines they are using for creating.

My suggestion to those with historical fascination is to start with the observable deck they want to learn about and then work backwards or forwards...but don't forget facts such as wars, the invention of printing or plague outbursts also play a role. There are maps for research as well, some well-traveled and retold, some with dangling threads.

My suggestion to those who want to do it all: it takes time. Be patient with me and others, who want to just learn as best we can.

 

[Huck]

Tarot research, as for other research, may be described from a fourfold aspect. Some who focus on only one of these may develop antagonism towards the others.

The first level is the find one makes of what may be referred to as the archaeological remnants. These, whether they may be from documentary text or cards, are like the stone markers upon which our eyes may rest.

The second is the guiding principle found by looking into the history of ideas, in which broad sweeps may be discerned having impact in various cultural settings.

The third are the reflections of carefully observing the internal coherence upon the cards.

The final is the spiritual, or hidden and secret (‘occult’, in its true sense) manifesting itself in human creative and artistic output through history.

Hi jmd,

I'd contradict. Research shouldn't be sorted. Research consists of two different things: The object, which is researched, and the subject, that's the researcher. And a third thing, which is the relation between object and subject and on the researcher's side is always "I don't know, what this object is ..." otherwise it wouldn't better not called research. And of course there is a rather endless surrounding, a surrounding for the object and a surrounding for the researcher. The objects stands not alone and the researcher stands not alone. The rather endless surrounding of the object includes - in the case of old Trionfi cards - the complete 15th century, where the objects had a relevance. The rather endless surrounding of the researcher includes details like feelings like "today it's not my day" or "now I'll know it", desires like "I need a coffee", a lot of very personal things, which are often rather determining things of the process.
And then you, the researcher, will see the object. It interests you or not. Perhaps you needs 10 hints to take it serious or less, it depends on your momentary condition.

Research is a love affaire ... if not, will it be then ever research?

 

[Yatima]

ok, let's ask about the 15. century and how the cards came in here. My questions may have been answered somewhere; still, since I don't know, let me ask:

When, if the cards where used for gameing (and, although not related to the tarot, for diviation) did the deeper perspectives of having Trionfi with their differences in symboilism and strong archetypical spheres be reflected? by whome? who had interest in reflecting human (inner) conditions by and through a game? are there documents showing who and why one had (in making these cards, in spreading them, in being allowed to produce them, etc.) interest to do so? when did philosophical and esoteric aspects pop in? in which decks which of them (alchemistic, astrological, etc.)?

 

[Huck]

Originally posted by Yatima
"ok, let's ask about the 15. century and how the cards came in here. My questions may have been answered somewhere; still, since I don't know, let me ask:

When, if the cards where used for gameing (and, although not related to the tarot, for diviation) did the deeper perspectives of having Trionfi with their differences in symboilism and strong archetypical spheres be reflected? "

Hi Yatima, let me try to understand your questions.

"differences in symbolism"
What has a difference in symbolism to what? The one card to the other? The one picture to the other pictures? Hasn't any picture a difference in symbolism to any other picture, isn't that a totally normal condition, independently if these pictures are on a playing card or at a fresco at the wall? What do you've in mind? Anything concrete? Or generally 15th century? I can say to you, there are many, many pictures in 15th century, especially in Italy.

I spoke before about "love to research". What about taking a look, what they all painted in 15th century in Italy? There is this wonderful web gallery of art:

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/welcome.html

Go to the search button, click the time-line 1451-1500 and then on "Go" and you'll get around 2500 pictures of 1451 - 1450, spend a night there and then you've an impression, what was going on in art, when Tarocchi got some life, especially when you do realize, that one simple picture of Hieronymos Bosch might contain more symbolism than a complete Tarocchi deck.

If you want compare, here are links to playing card art:

http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/oldcards.html


"strong archetypical spheres"
You're quick with your analysis, you already feel sure, that these pictures on Trionfi cards are somehow "archetypical". My mental eye just imagines Filippo Maria Visconti watching a Coca-Cola-bottle from 20th century, remarking, "oh, a phallus-symbol from 20th century, must be archetypical". What's not archetypical then?

"Love to research" means not to know already before research. It means to examine, just looking innocently at the object.

"by whome?"

We know a few names, which are clearly involved. We look, what these people did, how they did spend their life, which books they gathered, have a view at places, where they did build something, inform us by reading opinions of contemporaries, observe their actions and interactions to get a picture, what kind of guys and girls this really had been.
These people often were very important, so there is lot of stuff to study. Filippo Maria Visconti, Bianca Maria Visconti, Francesco Sforza, Galeazzo Maria Sforza., Ascanio Sforza, Parisina Malatesta, Niccolo III. d'Este, Leonello d'Este, Matteo Maria Boiardo, Lorenzo de Medici, San Bernardino, St. John Capistran, just to name a few, all did a little bit to write playing card history.

"who had interest in reflecting human (inner) conditions by and through a game?"

Who said, that they did? That's premature. "Love to research" means, just look, if they did. They made art. They made art elsewhere, not only at playing card decks. Do you think, they always reflected inner human conditions? Do you reflect always inner human conditions, when hanging some posters at the wall?

"are there documents showing who and why one had (in making these cards, in spreading them, in being allowed to produce them, etc.) interest to do so?"

There are documents. But of course these documents don't care about your special research questions, they just do exist in the way they do and you've to learn by them, cause there are no others. Michael Hurst's list, although still not really complete, gives an overview:

http://geocities.com/cartedatrionfi/Fragments.html


"when did philosophical and esoteric aspects pop in?"

Did they? You seem so sure ...

"in which decks which of them (alchemistic, astrological, etc.)"

It was you, who seemed so sure. Please tell me ...

Please excuse, that I did throw your questions back occasionally. Probably you've read many Tarot books, in which it was clear in the opinions of the authors, that these cards are "archetypical", include "philosophical and esoteric aspects" and somehow are "alchemistic and astrological" globally.

I've to tell you ... global opinions don't count in research. In research perhaps counts, just as an example: "This type of magician was used at this place and deck, and also at that place under these special conditions, and from this observation it might concluded, that ..."
"Love to research" has simply "love to the detail" and to the very careful conclusion, which only goes so far, as it really can without hurting the object, using often the word "perhaps", showing the possibility without fixing the situation in a shape, which must be thrown away later.

 

[Yatima]

History/Interpretaton

Hi Huck!

Thank you for your extended response to my questions and I "excuse" because I aggree; and no, I am not sure...but let me explain a little further:

First, my interest in Tarot primordially was philosophical--and it still is. I am a researcher myself (but in Tarot only for fun) and so I am aware of the problem of "interpretation" in historical and philosophical perspetive (it is my major instrument as philosopher).

Hence, the leading interest of my questions that--as you have sensed and stated rightly--grounds in philosophy, especially postmodern philosophy's problem of "difference," has no aim in history. Nevertheless, I know that to be interested in a post-esoteric Tarot (as it has formed from the late 1700s on and was heavily reflected in since then created decks) will necessarely need history on its side to gain (back) inital conditions of the practice of playing games, using symbols, and inheriting the potential of that what it has become later (the "Tarot" as more than a game) and, further, of a possible theory of symbolism as paradigm of modern philosophy and psychoanalysis (cf. Kristeva).

So I am actually seeking history because of philosophy. And I know, of course, that this means to take your preconditions with you into research--but not to find them in history but to let history speak even against your leading interests.

Now, since nobody is without preconditions, research is the critique of preconditions. Here, you are right and I am with you. On the other hand, this does not mean to loose all preconditions, but to examine them.

So, when I state "when did the philosophical perspective come in" und you answer "who says whether they did" this, obviously, cannot mean that there has not been a history in which such connection was gained; it can only mean to ask whether it was gained by historically certified or just assotiative connectivity of later times or even the times we consider as initial to the Tarot, hence, the 15th century (let alone possible earlier connections...).

If not, I would ask you, how your "love in research" might have led you to state this in the remarkable 5x14 theory forum:

"The question, when the Tarot got its 22 special cards is thrown in time some decades ahead, now much nearer to the date, when Kabbala might have influenced the iconographical decision."

Obviousley (out of historical knowledge of later times and because this connection has be manifested in later interpretations), you presopose the possibility of a connection to the Kabbalah; and when I would ask you "whether there is any" you, rightly, would answer with necessary preconditions of any research; so do I.

Now, since I think I am really interested in history regarding the connections of philosophy and iconography of the (later) Tarot set, let me ask again: When did they come in?

What I am interested in is a connection that is not based on similarity out of association (which is a very widely used method to think of and use the "spiritual dimension" of the Tarot---if there is any...) but out of historical knowledge: especially regarding the alchemistic, astrological, and, foremost, philosophical (Hermetic?) (and later kabbalistic?) background.

Finally, taking a glance into future, I would hope to interprete several aspects of the Tarot within a postmodern theory of "difference" as in Deleuze: but, therefore, I need historical knowledge as correction, but not as restriction, to be sure...

In the meantime, I have found many informations I am looking for and I think that what some of the historical reseachers do here is great to get a grip on the phenomenon of Tarot in its beginnings...respect!

 

[Yatima]

Archetypes

Huck, sou said:

"strong archetypical spheres"
You're quick with your analysis, you already feel sure, that these pictures on Trionfi cards are somehow "archetypical". My mental eye just imagines Filippo Maria Visconti watching a Coca-Cola-bottle from 20th century, remarking, "oh, a phallus-symbol from 20th century, must be archetypical". What's not archetypical then?
"Love to research" means not to know already before research. It means to examine, just looking innocently at the object.

This is a very deep question (or set of questions) you are raising here: It is about recognizing something in this world (as a human being) at all. And it might be just because of the different aeras of training and the understanding of the concepts...

But to pin it down: Of course, I do not know whether the people involved in creating playing cards and the one playing them have recognized archetypical symbolism in the cards they created or useed, but we can relate their symbols to specific elements that, even for simple standards, show that what was depicted was not about Coca Cola:

For instance, the pictures show some of the Cardinal Virtues--typically archetypic motifs since they are not talking about an eye-fluttering illess of my neighbor who happens to be called Lilli, but they talk about human conditions at its best; or take the inclusion of archetypical social stations of human life as the beggar and the "popes" ect. Let alone the archetypical importance of the moon, the sun or the angle...

A look at the Tarocchi of Mantegna shows what I mean. Yes it is about archetypes but we do, of course, not know in which consciousness they have been used...

Basically, the first you learn in research is that there is no innocent look at all: this would be the basis for ideology but not for research. So tell me how innocent a look can be that recognizes nothing because all differences have been omitted? And if there are such differences as to be able to do research at all, that is, to recognize anything at all (as any look in book of epistemology will show you), innocence has gone and constant self-critique has begun...

 

[Huck]

Re: History/Interpretaton

Hi Huck!

Thank you for your extended response to my questions and I "excuse" because I aggree; and no, I am not sure...but let me explain a little further:

Hi Yatima, nice to meet you. From Austria? It's Germany here.

Hi First, my interest in Tarot primordially was philosophical--and it still is. I am a researcher myself (but in Tarot only for fun) and so I am aware of the problem of "interpretation" in historical and philosophical perspetive (it is my major instrument as philosopher).

Hence, the leading interest of my questions that--as you have sensed and stated rightly--grounds in philosophy, especially postmodern philosophy's problem of "difference," has no aim in history. Nevertheless, I know that to be interested in a post-esoteric Tarot (as it has formed from the late 1700s on and was heavily reflected in since then created decks) will necessarely need history on its side to gain (back) inital conditions of the practice of playing games, using symbols, and inheriting the potential of that what it has become later (the "Tarot" as more than a game) and, further, of a possible theory of symbolism as paradigm of modern philosophy and psychoanalysis (cf. Kristeva).

"as a possible theory of symbolism as paradigm of modern philosophy and psychoanalysis" - that sounds big and let me think.
Let's say, "possible is anything" and reality tries to prove it, but the other side says , "not anything, that is possible, must be done". The question is about quality: "Is the structure of Tarot really that elegant as some people believe it? Is it worth to be led to another field or do you simply transport an error or vanity from one system or field to another?" And it's the same question, as if you ask "is the Tarot archetypical or not" and finally ending in the problem, that "archetypes must be defined".

So I am actually seeking history because of philosophy. And I know, of course, that this means to take your preconditions with you into research--but not to find them in history but to let history speak even against your leading interests.

This is a fair approach.

Now, since nobody is without preconditions, research is the critique of preconditions. Here, you are right and I am with you. On the other hand, this does not mean to loose all preconditions, but to examine them.

So, when I state "when did the philosophical perspective come in" und you answer "who says whether they did" this, obviously, cannot mean that there has not been a history in which such connection was gained; it can only mean to ask whether it was gained by historically certified or just assotiative connectivity of later times or even the times we consider as initial to the Tarot, hence, the 15th century (let alone possible earlier connections...).

If not, I would ask you, how your "love in research" might have led you to state this in the remarkable 5x14 theory forum:

"The question, when the Tarot got its 22 special cards is thrown in time some decades ahead, now much nearer to the date, when Kabbala might have influenced the iconographical decision."

This is result of a research. There are strong reasons to assume, that the Trionfi deck had at least till 1457 only 14 trumps. In other discussions the theory, that cabbala influenced Tarot was rejected cause Tarot with 22 trumps was considered as being too early for cabbalistic influence.
Now the road is open again. Tarot with 22 trumps is "from later", we don't know exactly, when, especially as we consider, that tarot research as a whole will meet a shock when realising this statement (intern discussions are going on, but will proceed in next time - we're very interested, what Dummett will say and also Depaulis).
Probably a lot of earlier suggested datings for specific decks will be suspected again, as before anybody believed them to be save behind the origin of the original fixed 22-deck with "save" motives - we don't know, how this turns out.
With our result one cannot be sure, that the number 22 was not chosen because somebody with love for Hebrew letters thought this number appropriate.
One possible inventer (of the number) is Count Matteo Maria Boiardo, who wrote a Tarocchi poem (unluckily the date is unclear: it is ranged from ca. 1460 - late 80ies (he died 1494)). He has some relations to Jewish influence. Especially he was the uncle of Pico de Mirandola, called the "first Christian cabbalist" His Tarot-concept was quite uncommon to that what was known from other sources.
We've already gathered some material to become clear about his person. A rather positive figure.

http://geocities.com/autorbis/boiardo-bio.html

Obviousley (out of historical knowledge of later times and because this connection has be manifested in later interpretations), you presopose the possibility of a connection to the Kabbalah; and when I would ask you "whether there is any" you, rightly, would answer with necessary preconditions of any research; so do I.

Let's assume, they perhaps only took the number. Perhaps Boiardo took the number for his unusual deck and the general Trionfi-production (which already existed) found this idea good and imitated it (just the number). If this happened that way, there is not much cabbalistic influence.

Now, since I think I am really interested in history regarding the connections of philosophy and iconography of the (later) Tarot set, let me ask again: When did they come in?

:--) You cannot talk in generalisms. But you can ask, which card was when (probably) invented and occasionally there is an answer. Mostly a long answer with specific problems and unsecurities. But all together give a picture, slowly becoming clearer.

What I am interested in is a connection that is not based on similarity out of association (which is a very widely used method to think of and use the "spiritual dimension" of the Tarot---if there is any...) but out of historical knowledge: especially regarding the alchemistic, astrological, and, foremost, philosophical (Hermetic?) (and later kabbalistic?) background.

The problem is to understand what "philosophical, astrological, alchemistical and cabbalistical" means in the heads of some 15th century intellectuals. This might be different to that, what you do understand of it.
I guess, Filippo Visconti had as much books as you in your home.
Filippo Visconti had the second greatest library from Europe. And you're just a private person with some interests in reading. That's a difference. And your books are better informed than his. Not so much "repeating the same stuff". Your books are easier readable, he had to fight with Latin. He had worthful miniatures. You've photos. You've electric light, he had to use a candle. You've a lot of other intellectual friends. He had not.

 

[Cerulean]

I was waiting for this...

...if anyone can come up with a translated commentary on Matteo Maria Boiardo's tarocchi poem in book form, how grateful many of us would be!

The closest that I was able to come Boiardo's views on any ongoing ideas of Egyptians or the more extreme-when-first-written humanist ideas or historical interactions with Jewish settlements was from biography and commentary on his ongoing epic work, Orlando In Love or Orlando Innormorato.

1. Boiardo made NO references to his tarocchi poem in Orlando in Love. However it is referenced by scholars at least twice in two different books: Charles Ross' abridged translation of Orlando in Love id one book. The other is Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America. Charles Ross noted the use of colors in the tarocchi suits and the handling of colors in Orlando in Love.
Fortune and Romance has one footnote, the tarocchi reference is noted for its worth down to how Boiardo handles Cupid and Amor allegories--not archetypes.

2. A speculation essay by one scholar in "Fortune and Romance: Boiardo in America" believed Boiardo was poking fun at his nephew's delightful take ''Oh what a wonderous thing is man" sort of humanism. A crocodile and Nile-like river is mentioned in one misadventure by an evil magician, which seems more a jibe than an admiring reference to Egyptian stories.

3. The Jewish settlements grew throughout the 1450s through the 1490s, when Boiardo was active as a courtier and writer--but the sole or small interactions that was recorded were when Boiardo was acting as a governor or emissary. Legal or other judgments, such as fining an Italian who had carnal relations with a woman of Jewish descent or warning a bishop not to preach against those of Jewish descent during Lent. The latter message was done in Duke Ercole's name.
Boiardo was a poet as a secondary interest, as he was following his grandfather's footsteps of being a reliable governor and administrator to the House of Este in various areas. He was more Ercole's contemporary, which is the father of Isabella, Beatrice and Alfonso.
Orlando in Love was a wandering tale originally for the recovering Ercole D'Este, which was some decades later than the original 1441 tarocchi dates.

If you have better or other information, that would be great. I need English translations though, to check it out. Authorbis has many references which I've already seen...

Mari H.

 

[catboxer]

I've read this entire thread (with some difficulty), and need to ask a couple of questions that might make me sound like a heretic, considering that this is the history board. How much study is necessary? How much detail is appropriate to a fundamental understanding of the subject? How much does a student need to know to be able to draw a conclusion?

A few years ago I read a very long, very detailed account of Cortez's invasion of Mexico, by Hugh Thomas. Afterward, I realized that even though I'd learned a lot, none of what I learned had increased my fundamental understanding of the meaning and significance of the events under study. In other words, I had spent time looking at details that were entirely irrelevant to answering the questions, "What is this?" and "What does it mean?"

When it comes to the history of cards, there's always more to learn, and new angles that deserve consideration, such as the five-by-fourteen theory. But at some point, I'm going to ask myself how much is enough, i.e., do I now know enough to understand this subject as well as I need to.

For my purposes, it's enough for me to understand that the period of early development of tarot in Italy was a time of wild experimentation and no rules, other than the rule of artistic license. This is evidenced by the varying number of trumps in the decks, the differences in trump sequences over time and from place to place, and the wide latitude artists gave themselves in pictorial presentation. Thus we see not only standard tarots, but the Florentine Minchiate, the Sola-Busca cards, the Goldschmidt cards, the so-called Tarot of Mantegna, the odd virtues of the Cary-Yale deck, and other variations too numerous to mention. The common philosophical element -- if there was one -- in all these productions seems to have been the presentation of a hierarchy of values, which was the chief concern of that vague, sprawling, and highly disorganized tendency called Neoplatonism. The absence of any standard or template that artists were obliged to follow impeaches all the theories that these cards encrypted some sort of secret doctrine, ritual, or code of behavior.

Only later, with the development of the Marseille tradition, do the pictures on the cards become icons, and the trump sequence itself so firmly set as to suggest that there is an intended intrinsic meaning in the order of the cards. This is the area of tarot history with the most uncomfortable gaps, mainly because there are so few surviving cards from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

A third phase of tarot history begins, of course, with the appearance of occult theory and occult decks shortly before 1800. Arguments generated by occultism about the "correct" presentation of the images, the "true" sequence, and the "accurate" correlation of trumps and suited cards with the elements of astrology, kabbalah, and so forth, have been superseded by another, second period of wild experimentation, unlimited artistic license, and "no rules." It seems we've gone full circle.

I would agree that it's a bad practice to approach research with the aim of proving a conclusion that the researcher has already reached. All who do so really need to rephrase the conclusion in the form of a question, and then be willing to go where the evidence takes them.

Having done that, it would make sense for researchers to stop when their questions have been answered, as most of mine have been.