The Father of Iconography

Erwin Panofsky was born 120 years ago today, March 30, 1892. He is one of the fathers of iconography, the branch of art history which deals with the subject matter. Here is the introductory section of Panofsky’s seminal essay, from his 1939 Studies in Iconology. The way he fails to clearly explain the third level of analysis is indicative of the problems that have plagued analysts ever since. Nonetheless, his three levels have been the starting point for all subsequent discussions.

Iconography is that branch of the history of art which concerns itself with the subject matter or meaning of works of art, as opposed to their form. Let us, then, try to define the distinction between subject matter or meaning on the one hand, and form on the other. When an acquaintance greets me on the street by removing his hat, what I see from a formal point of view is nothing but the change of certain details within a configuration forming part of the general pattern of colour, lines and volumes which constitutes my world of vision. When I identify, as I automatically do, this configuration as an object (gentleman), and the change of detail as an event (hat-removing), I have already overstepped the limits of purely formal perception and entered a first sphere of subject matter or meaning. The meaning thus perceived is of an elementary and easily understandable nature, and we shall call it the factual meaning; it is apprehended by simply identifying certain visible forms with certain objects known to me from practical experience, and by identifying the change in their relations with certain actions or events.

Now the objects and events thus identified will naturally produce a certain reaction within myself. From the way my acquaintance performs his action I may be able to sense whether he is in a good or bad humour, and whether his feelings towards me are indifferent, friendly or hostile. These psychological nuances will invest the gestures of my acquaintance with a further meaning which we shall call expressional. It differs from the factual one in that it is apprehended, not by simple identification, but by ‘empathy. To understand it, I need a certain sensitivity, but this sensitivity is still part of my practical experience, that is, of my every-day familiarity with objects and events. Therefore both the factual and the expressional meaning may be classified together: they constitute the class of primary or natural meanings.

However, my realization that the lifting of the hat stands for a greeting belongs in an altogether different realm of interpretation. This form of salute is peculiar to the western world and is a residue of mediaeval chivalry: armed men used to remove their helmets to make clear their peaceful intentions and their confidence in the peaceful intentions of others. Neither an Australian bushman nor an ancient Greek could be expected to realize that the lifting of a hat is not only a practical event with certain expressional connotations, but also a sign of politeness. To understand this significance of the gentleman's action I must not only be familiar with the practical world of objects and events, but also with the more-than-practical world of customs and cultural traditions peculiar to a certain civilization. Conversely, my acquaintance could not feel impelled to greet me by removing his hat were he not conscious of the significance of this feat. As for the expressional connotations which accompany his action, he may or may not be conscious of them. Therefore, when I interpret the removal of a hat as a polite greeting, I recognize in it a meaning which may be called secondary or conventional; it differs from the primary or natural one in that it is intelligible instead of being sensible, and in that it has been consciously imparted to the practical action by which it is conveyed.

And finally: besides constituting a natural event in space and time, besides naturally indicating moods or feelings, besides conveying a conventional greeting, the action of my acquaintance can reveal to an experienced observer all that goes to makeup his ‘personality.’ This personality is conditioned by his being a man of the twentieth century, by his national, social and educational background, by the previous history of his life and by his present surroundings, but it is also distinguished by an individual manner of viewing things and reacting to the world which, if rationalized, would have to be called a philosophy. In the isolated action of a polite greeting all these factors do not manifest themselves comprehensively, but nevertheless symptomatically. We could not construct a mental portrait of the man on the basis of this single action, but only by co-ordinating a large number of similar observations and by interpreting them in connection with our general information as to the gentleman's period, nationality, class, intellectual traditions and so forth. Yet all the qualities which this mental portrait would show explicitly are implicitly inherent in every single action, so that, conversely, every single action can be interpreted in the light of those qualities.

The meaning thus discovered may be called the intrinsic meaning or content; it is essential where the two other kinds of meaning, the primary or natural and the secondary or conventional, are phenomenal. It may be defined as a unifying principle which underlies and explains both the visible event and its intelligible significance, and which determines even the form in which the visible event takes shape. This intrinsic meaning or content is, of course, as much above the sphere of conscious volitions as the expressional meaning is beneath this sphere.

Transferring the results of this analysis from every-day life to a work of art, we can distinguish in its subject matter or meaning the same three strata:

1: PRIMARY OR NATURAL SUBJECT MATTER, subdivided into FACTUAL and EXPRESSIONAL. It is apprehended by identifying pure forms, that is: certain configurations of line and colour, or certain peculiarly shaped lumps of bronze or stone, as representations of natural objects such as human beings, animals, plants, houses, tools and so forth; by identifying their mutual relations as events; and by perceiving such expressional qualities as the mournful character of a pose or gesture, or the homelike and peaceful atmosphere of an interior. The world of pure forms thus recognized as carriers of primary or natural meanings may be called the world of artistic motifs. An enumeration of these motifs would be a pre-iconographical description of the work of art.

2: SECONDARY OR CONVENTIONAL SUBJECT MATTER. It is apprehended by realizing that a male figure with a knife represents St. Bartholomew, that a female figure with a peach in her hand is a personification of Veracity, that a group of figures seated at a dinner table in a certain arrangement and in certain poses represents the Last Supper, or that two figures fighting each other in a certain manner represent the Combat of Vice and Virtue. In doing this we connect. artistic motifs and combinations of artistic motifs (compositions) with themes or concepts. Motifs thus recognized as carriers of a secondary or conventional meaning may be called images, and combinations of images are what the ancient theorists of art called ‘invenzioni;’ we are wont to call them stories and allegories.1 The identification of such images, stories and allegories is the domain of iconography in the narrower sense of the word. In fact, when we loosely speak of ‘subject matter as opposed to form’ we chiefly mean the sphere of secondary or conventional subject matter, viz. the world of specific themes or concepts manifested in images, stories and allegories, as opposed to the sphere of primary or natural subject matter manifested in artistic motifs. ‘Formal analysis’ in Wölfflin's sense is largely an analysis of motifs and combinations of motifs (compositions); for a formal analysis in the strict sense of the word would even have to avoid such expressions as ‘man,’ ‘horse,’ or ‘column,’ let alone such evaluations as ‘the ugly triangle between the legs of Michelangelo's David’ or ‘the admirable clarification of the joints in a human body.’ It is obvious that a correct iconographical analysis in the narrower sense presupposes a correct identification of the motifs. If the knife that enables us to identify a St. Bartholomew is not a knife but a cork-screw, the figure is not a St. Bartholomew. Furthermore it is important to note that the statement ‘this figure is an image of St. Bartholomew’ implies the conscious intention of the artist to represent St. Bartholomew, while the expressional qualities of the figure may well be unintentional.

3: INTRINSIC MEANING OR CONTENT. It is apprehended by ascertaining those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion--unconsciously qualified by one personality and condensed into one work. Needless to say, these principles are manifested by, and therefore throw light on, both ‘compositional methods’ and ‘iconographical significance.’ In the 14th and 15th centuries for instance (the earliest example can be dated around 1310), the traditional type of the Nativity with the Virgin Mary reclining in bed or on a couch was frequently replaced by a new one which shows the Virgin kneeling before the Child in adoration. From a compositional point of view this change means, roughly speaking, the substitution of a triangular scheme for a rectangular one; from an iconographical point of view in the narrower sense of the term, it means the introduction of a new theme textually formulated by such writers as Pseudo-Bonaventura and St. Bridget. But at the same time it reveals a new emotional attitude peculiar to the later phases of the Middle Ages. A really exhaustive interpretation of the intrinsic meaning or content might even show that the technical procedures characteristic of a certain country, period, or artist, for instance Michelangelo's preference for sculpture in stone instead of in bronze, or the peculiar use of hatchings in his drawings, are symptomatic of the same basic attitude that is discernible in all the other specific qualities of his style. In thus conceiving of pure forms, motifs, images, stories and allegories as manifestations of underlying principles, we interpret all these elements as what Ernst Cassirer has called ‘symbolical’ values. As long as we limit ourselves to stating that Leonardo da Vinci's famous fresco shows a group of thirteen men around a dinner table, and that this group of men represents the Last Supper, we deal with the work of art as such, and we interpret its compositional and iconographical features as its own properties or qualifications. But when we try to understand it as a document of Leonardo's personality, or of the civilization of the Italian High Renaissance, or of a peculiar religious attitude, we deal with the work of art as a symptom of something else which expresses itself in a countless variety of other symptoms, and we interpret its compositional and iconographical features as more particularized evidence of this ‘something else.’ The discovery and interpretation of these ‘symbolical’ values (which are generally unknown to the artist himself and may even emphatically differ from what he consciously intended to express) is the object of what we may call iconography in a deeper sense: of a method of interpretation which arises as a synthesis rather than as an analysis. And as the correct identification of the motifs is the prerequisite of a correct iconographical analysis in the narrower sense, the correct analysis of images, stories and allegories is the prerequisite of a correct iconographical interpretation in a deeper sense,--unless we deal with such works of art in which the whole sphere of secondary or conventional subject matter is eliminated, and a direct transition from motifs to content is striven for, as is the case with European landscape painting, still-life and genre; that is, on the whole, with exceptional phenomena, which mark the later, over-sophisticated phases of a long development.

Bob Wills is Still the King

My last post to the Aeclectic Historical Research forum was a playful rejoinder to a post by Melanchollic. (See Enrique Enriquez’ conversation with R.A. Hendley, aka RAH, aka Melanchollic.) It gave offense and has been removed, and an assortment of others have disappeared down the memory hole as well. And why not? After all, falsifying history is what Tarot “historians” do best.

The brief exchange is reproduced here (with illustrations and a couple Voltaire quotes added) just because it was fun and offered opportunity to link to some AATW stuff. Melanchollic wrote:

Most of us know and love (or hate) Mike. Love or hate, the man sticks to his guns. He's the John Wayne of tarot.

To which I replied:

Life is tough... but it’s tougher if you’re stupid. (Sergeant Stryker, Sands of Iwo Jima)

Melanchollic wrote:

I hold similar views to Mike, and read his blog, though I agree with you that he might catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

To which I replied:

Leonard: I'm just saying, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Sheldon: You catch even more with manure; what's your point?

Melanchollic wrote:

(However, I do get some amount of evil pleasure when he lays in to some poor cowpoke. Being from South Texas and all.)

To which I replied:

Bob Wills is still the king. (Waylon Jennings, Bob Wills is Still the King) But Ray Benson rules!

Dozens of other recents posts on that forum have directly or indirectly attacked me, and more than a few contain lies about me and things I've written or am accused of having written. However, my post was singled out by the moderator—within minutes it generated a warning about off-topic posts. I can only take comfort from the spiritual wisdom of Voltaire.

I made but one prayer to God, a very short one. “O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!” God granted it.

Brother John's Tractatus de Moribus

It seems useful to post some observations about Brother John’s Tractatus, along with what translated passages are readily available. Like the two 16th-century Italian essays describing the Tarot trump cards as moral allegory, such contemporaneous interpretations may be of little value to Tarot cultists. The “countercultural-religionists” and “esoteric universalists” who impose their personal spiritual beliefs onto playing-cards, as well as those who use Tarot as projective inkblots for free association, will find such substantive foundations to be of small interest. Nonetheless, factual findings represent historical reality, regardless whether it appeals to modern cultists. For example, if one were interested in the historical significance of the Queens in European playing cards, this topic was specifically addressed by Brother John.

The Tractatus, as we now have it, goes on to express, and give grounds for, a preference for the 60-card form, and, later, to include a whole short section on the excellence of the number 60, as well as another on the Queen (the treatise as a whole being an essay in moralizing based on the playing-card pack).
(Michael Dummett, The Game of Tarot, p.12.)

Playing cards were probably introduced into Europe around the year 1375, and a variety of records exist documenting them from 1377 and after. One of the earliest of these records of playing cards in Europe, “the celebrated treatise Tractatus de moribus et disciplina humanae conversationis, written in Basle in 1377 by a Dominican friar by the name of John (usually known, probably wrongly, as John of Rheinfelden), gives an actual description of the pack as known to its author, though not of any of the games played with it.”

From this we learn that the structure of the pack was essentially what it is now. There were four suits, each with its own suit-sign; each suit consisted of 13 cards, divided into ten numeral cards and three court cards. The numeral cards were distinguished, just as now, by the number of repetitions of the suit-sign. The court cards consisted of a seated King and a higher and lower Marshal, each holding his suit-sign in his hand. (This last detail tallies with the practice in many of the earliest surviving packs, and in some of the later ones). The two Marshals were distinguished by the fact that the higher one held his suit-sign aloft, while the lower one held it hanging down from his hand: these were, evidently, then, the Swiss or German Ober and Unter. Brother John unfortunately does not indicate what suit-signs were used.… The evidence thus strongly suggests that there was no long period of evolution at the end of which the playing-card pack as we know it emerged. (The Game of Tarot, p.11.)

The information about the nature of the decks used, recorded so soon after the introduction of playing cards into Europe, is extremely valuable. Brother John (Johannes Teutonicus) states explicitly that cards were introduced to his area in that same year. Other accounts from other areas, dating from 1377 in Florence to 1384 in Valencia, also note that cards were a newly introduced game. There are, however, unsettled questions about the dating of Brother John’s account. The earliest surviving copy of the Tractatus dates from 1429, and in addition to describing the 52-card deck described above, it also describes a number of variant decks: “one in which all the Kings are replaced by Queens; one in which two of the suits have Kings and the other two Queens; one with five suits [65 cards]; another with six [78 cards]; and finally one with four suits, but with five court cards in each suit (King, Queen, the two Marshals and a Maid), making 60 cards in all.” Although similar diversity is documented from the fifteenth century, Dummett concludes that it is not believable “that such a range of variations on the original form should have developed within a year or two of the introduction or invention of the playing-card pack.” Dummett discusses some researchers who contend that this suggests that playing cards had actually been introduced to Europe substantially earlier, while others maintain that the variant decks were a later interpolation into the original 1377 text.

According to trionfi.com, Arne Jönssen, (Latinist, author of St. Bridget’s Revelations To The Pope), is preparing a critical edition of the Tractatus. Jönssen affirms the date of 1377, noting three elements of the text support the early dating. First, obviously, the text gives the date as 1377. Second, “Ludevicus” is mentioned as the King of Hungary, indicating Ludvig the Great, who reigned until 1382. Third, Brother John writes of another event (something to do with the 100 Year War) which happened around that date. His opinion regarding which sections might be later interpolations is not mentioned. Jönssen reports that the pip cards were associated with various occupations, including baker, miller, butcher, physician, farmer, and others, totalling nearly 40 occupations. This aspect of Brother John’s Tractatus is not reported in the other sources I have read. It is strongly reminiscent of the fifteenth-century Hofämterspiel deck. Other details are reported, including a discussion of suit-signs and some aspects of game play and scoring. This seems to contradict other accounts, so Jönssen’s study promises to be informative, but there is no indication of when it might be published.

The following description is from the Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the Years 1876-1881.

Eg. 2,419. "TRACTATUS de moribus et disciplina humane conuersacionis": moralizations on the Game of Cards, in three parts, by "Frater Johannes [of Reinfelden, near Basel?] in ordine predicatorum minimus, nacione Theutonicus." In his preface he says: "Hinc est quod quidam ludus, qui ludus cartarum appellatur, hoc anno ad nos peruenit, scilicet anno domini m.ccc.lxxvii. In quo ludo status mundi nunc modernis temporibus optime describitur et figuratur. Quo tempore autem factus sit, per quern et vbi penitus ignoro"; and he continues "In quo quidem tractatu intendo facere tria: primo, ludum cartularum in se describere, quo ad materiam et modum ludendi; secundo, ipsum ludum ad mores trahere seu nobilibus dare nomina viuendi; et tercio, ipsos populares instruere seu eos informare de modo virtuose operandi." The number and figures of the cards are noticed only in part i., chap, i., but nothing is said of the ways of playing; the remainder of the work being given to moralizing. The date 1377 again occurs on f. 10 b, col. ii. (For an account of the volume by Mr. E. A. Bond see the Athenaeum, 19 Jan. 1878.) Paper; ff. 96. In double columns, with blank spaces left at the end of the chapters for drawings of the cards. A colophon gives the date of this transcript, "Anno domini incarnacionis lxxij. [1472] tunc temporis regnauit pestilencia, etc.'' Small Folio.

The following excerpts were translated by Timothy Betts (Tarot and the Millennium, 1998, pp.87-89.) Note that Brother John’s stated purpose is the same as that of the anonymous Discorso of Explaining the Tarot, teaching morals via playing cards, and both use the parallel with Chess.

♠ Hence it is that a certain game, called the game of cards, has come to us in this year, viz the year of our Lord 1377. In which game the state of the world as it is, is excellently described and figured. But at what time it was invented, where, and by whom, I am entirely ignorant. But this I say, that it is of advantage to noblemen and other persons of leisure; they may do no worse[sic], especially if they practice it courteously and without money...
♠ Wherefore I, brother John, the least in the Order of Preachers [Dominicans], a German by birth, sitting as it happened, abstractedly at table, revolving in my mind one way and another the present state of the world, there suddenly occurred to me the game of cards; and I began to think how it might be likened to this state of the world. And it seemed to me very possible that it a likeness to the world.
♠ Therefore, trusting in the Lord, I determined to compile a treatise on the subject, and began it on the following day, hoping by God's aid to complete it. And should persons find some passage in it not easy to understand, but obscure and difficult, let them get out of their boat at Burgheim and enter it again at Rinveld [i.e., skip it], and proceed reading the treatise as before, until they come to the end of it...
♠ The subject of this treatise may be compared with the game of chess, for in both there are kings, queens, and chief nobles, and common people, so that both games may be treated in a moral sense.
♠ And in this treatise I propose to do three things: first to describe the game of cards itself, as to the matter and mode of playing it; second, to moralize the game, or teach noblemen the rule of life; and third, to instruct the people themselves, or inform them of the way of laboring virtuously. Wherefore it seemed to me the present treatise ought to be entitled Of Morals and Everyday Ethical Instruction (De Moribus et Disciplina Humane Conversationis).
♠ The first part will have six chapters. In the first will be the stated subject of the game and styles of play. In the second, it will be shown that in this game there is a moral action of virtues and vices. In the third it will be suggested that it is of service for mental relief and rest to the tired. In the fourth it will be shown that it is useful for idle persons, and may be a comfort to them. In the fifth will be treated the state of the world, as respect to morals. In the sixth will be demonstrated the divisors of the number sixty, and the properties of numbers.

♠ In the game which men call the game of cards, they paint the cards in different manners, and they play with them in one way and another. The common form, as it first came to us, is thus: Four kings are depicted on four cards, each of whom sits on a royal throne. And each one holds a certain sign in his hand, of which signs some are reputed good and others signify evil. Under the kings are two marschalli, the first of whom holds the sign upwards in his hand, in the same manner as the king; but the other holds the same sign downward in his hand.
♠ After this are another ten cards, outwardly of the same size and shape; on the first of which, the aforesaid king's sign is placed once [Ace]; on the second, twice [Deuce]; and so on for the others, up to and including the tenth card. So each king becomes the thirteenth, and there are altogether fifty-two cards.
♠ There are others who play in the same manner with queens, and with as many cards as has been already said for kings. There are also others who arrange the cards, so that there are two kings with their marschalli and other cards, and two queens with theirs in the same manner. Again, some take five, other six kings, each with his marschalli and other cards, according to as it pleases them, and thus the game is varied in form by many.
♠ Also there are some who make the game with four kings, eight marschalli and the other common cards, and add besides four queens with four attendants; so that... the number of cards will then be sixty. This manner of distributing the cards and this number pleases me most, for three reasons: first, because of its greater authority; second, because of its royal fitness; and third, because of its more becoming courteousness.

The following excerpts were translated by Edward Augustus Bond in his 1878 notice of the acquisition of the manuscript by the British Museum. They largely overlap the previous translation, which may have been based on Bond’s. The entire article by Bond is reproduced at the end of Tarot and the Dance of Death.

Hence it is that a certain game, called the game of cards [ludus cartarum], has come to us in this year, viz. the year of our Lord M.CCC.LXXVIJ. In which game the state of the world, as it now is, is excellently described and figured. But at what time it was invented, where, and by whom, I am entirely ignorant. But this I say, that it is of advantage to noblemen and other persons of leisure that they may do no worse, especially if they practise it courteously and without money.

Wherefore I, brother John, the least in the order of Preachers, a German by birth, sitting, as it happened, abstractedly at table, revolving in my mind one way and another the present state of the world, suddenly occurred to me the game of card?, and I began to think how it might be closely likened to the state of the world. And it seemed to me very possible, and that it had a likeness to the world. Therefore, trusting in the Lord, I determined to compile a treatise on the subject, and began it on the following day, hoping by God's aid to complete it. And should persons find some passage in it not easy to understand, but obscure and difficult, let them get out of their boat at Burgheim and enter it again at Rinveld, and proceed, reading this treatise, as before, until they come to the end of it. For the said passage is dangerous to boat passengers, so that many get out and, at the other end, return into the boat and proceed onwards as before. But the subject of this treatise may be compared with the game of chess, for in both there are kings, queens, and chief nobles, and common people, so that both games may be treated in a moral sense.

And in this treatise I propose to do three things: first, to describe the game of cards in itself, as to the matter and mode of playing it; second, to moralize the game, or teach noblemen the rule of life; and third, to instruct the people themselves, or inform them of the way of labouring virtuously. Wherefore it seemed to me that the present treatise ought to be entitled 'De Moribus et Disciplina Humane Conversationis.' For the first part will have six chapters. In the first will be stated the subject of the game and the diversity of instruments. In the second will be set forth that in this game there is a moral action of virtues and vices. In the third it will be suggested that it is of service for mental relief and rest to the tired. In the fourth it will be shown that it is useful for idle persons, and may be a comfort to them. In the fifth will be treated the state of the world, as it is, in respect to morals. In the sixth will be demonstrated the aliquot parts of the number sixty, and the properties of numbers.

In the game which men call the game of cards they paint the cards in different manners, and they play with them in one way and another. For the common form and as it first came to us is thus, viz. four kings are depicted on four cards, each of whom sits on a royal throne. And each one holds a certain sign in his hand, of which signs some are reputed good, but others signify evil. Under which kings are two ' marschalli,' the first of whom holds the sign upwards in his hand, in the same manner as the king ; but the other holds the same sign downwards in his hand. After this are other ten cards, outwardly of the same size and shape, on the first of which the aforesaid king's sign is placed once; on the second twice; and so on with the others up to the tenth card inclusive. And so each king becomes the thirteenth, and there will be altogether fifty-two cards. Then there are others who in the same manner play, or make the game, of queens, and with as many cards as has been already said of the kings. There are also others who so dispose the cards or the game that there are two kings, with their ' marschalli' and other cards, and two queens with theirs in the same manner. Again, some take five, others six kings, each with his 'marschalli' and his other cards, according as it pleases them, and thus the game is varied in form by many. Also, there are some who make the game with four kings and eight ' marschalli' and the other common cards, and add besides four queens with four attendants, so that each of those four kings, with all the family of the whole kingdom, speaking of the chief persons, is there, and the number of the cards will then be sixty. And this manner of making the cards and in this number the most pleases me, and for three reasons: first, because of its greater authority; second, because of its royal fitness; third, because of its more becoming courteousness. First, I say, because of its greater authority, for we have its express figure in Holy Scripture, Daniel iii.; and again in that statue which King Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, saw in his dream, and which Daniel interpreted to him, the which statue had a golden head, a silver breast, a brazen belly, and legs of iron.

A Less Porcine Figure

A few days ago, a particularly eccentric occultist took issue with my previous post, Lost in the Myths of Swine, and reasserted some of the more flagrantly stupid folklore from Tarot’s vast corpus of whimsy. Ross Caldwell, ever the helpful soul, gently explained why his charming but fictional story is unreasonable. Ross closed with a line from John 8:32, cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos. I agreed with him that truth is better than error, and also with his dismal prognosis for the offending occultist: “There is no point in arguing with unreasonable people, because they will perversely persist in believing whatever they want, against all evidence and sound argumentation to the contrary.” I rephrased this lament in terms of another biblical passage, the poetic injunction of Matthew 7:6, neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, (neither cast ye your pearls before swine).

Fun and games all around, and a cute call-back to the earlier essay, for those who got it. However, my use of this biblical metaphor, hallowed (and hackneyed) by 2,000 years of repetition, was deemed offensive. I guess it was the swine reference, the porcine figure of speech. It was declared an example of intolerant thinking and a manifestation of Judeo-Christian, male-dominated, Western scientific indoctrination. (Shades of Jess Karlin’s ancient demons, the Motherpeace-lovin’ coven of the Cartofeminist Conspiracy.) Personal attacks included calling me incredibly ill-tempered, bordering on hysterical, obsessed, and an intellectually inadequate wannabe academic. When I stopped weeping, I determined that a new metaphor was called for, a less porcine figure of speech.

Therefore, a bit of allegorical art du jour, in the modern emblem tradition of a black-framed image with white-lettered motto and epigram, derived from motivational posters. The source image we will use is taken from the September 29, 1866 edition of Harper’s Weekly. It shows a garbage scow in New York, and was titled, “Dumping Ground at the Foot of Beach Street”. Here is the brief article that accompanied it.

Let’s see... pathetic losers pawing and grubbing through 19th-century garbage, trying to make something valuable out of what is clearly trash, finally dying and becoming that which they explored so deeply, fetid corruption itself... with what might that be reasonably compared? Eureka!

A new emblem of Tarot folklore, with 100% less porcine content.

March 23, 2012 postscript:

Some people discount the need for sardonic rebuke. As noted in the preface to the previous post, to be singled out for derision one must sink exceptionally low. Robert Swiryn, the 2011 award winner as the top Tenacious, Arrogant, Ignorant, Nitwit in Tarot, has returned with new insights and suggestions. Most are profitably ignored, but one section plumbs a new nadir of nitwittery, illustrating a level of “intellectual deliquescence” that deserves notice.

Maybe the 99% of the members who offer posts which fall outside of the strict requirements of the few history buffs should rise up and protest the abusive tactics from the 1% of those interested in defending a limited range of historical knowledge.

Swiryn’s attempt to identify with the OWS movement, and to make the historians the bad guys, is topical and almost clever... except that on Wall Street the 1% are the powerful controlling interests and the 99% are the downtrodden. In Tarot fora, even on a forum ostensibly dedicated to historical research, historians are the oppressed ones and Jung gets more love than Dummett. If Swiryn uses an analogy it is almost certain to be a false analogy. Then he gets to his main point:

These history buffs can then either start their own forum, demanding a certain level of evidence in order to be included, or they can back off and refrain from taking personal or confrontive pot-shots at other members and just do what they do best - which is to offer information, when appropriate (and in a professional way), from their vast weath of knowledge and research.

That last bit is surpassingly arrogant and condescending, even for Swiryn—historians should politely serve their esoteric overlords, providing information, when requested and in a servile fashion. As someone who has provided such service for well over a decade, allow me to reply: Fuck you very much. Swiryn also suggests an alternative: historians should be forced to leave the forum devoted to "historical research" and create a new forum, one devoted to historical research.

Historians should either leave a forum dedicated to historical research and create a forum dedicated to historical research, where the cycle can be repeated, or else politely serve as research assistants for superstitious know-nothings. In his 2011 thread, (which reached nearly 400 posts despite the fact that he had no historical evidence or argument to present), Swiryn was repeatedly reminded of the fact that HE had chosen to spam promote his book on the "Historical Research" forum. Countless other venues are available which do not ask about things like facts and logic, but he insisted on pretending to be an historian while simultaneously ignoring the basics of historical argumentation. Now, a year later, he still insists that the historians should leave the historical research forum to fiction writers like him. Robert Swiryn appears to epitomize the fucking dolts who dominate Tarot fora.

However, the possibility must again be considered that "Robert Swiryn" is an ironic persona created by a surrealist, avant-garde performance artist. Could anyone actually be as stupid as this "Robert Swiryn" character, (who calls himself "foolish"), pretends to be? This suspicion was first raised a year ago, when "Robert Swiryn" claimed that playing-cards were being manufactured in early-14th-century France. In addition to repeating antiquated errors like the supposed 1392 French Tarot deck, "Robert Swiryn" announced a spectacular new find: The famous “last Cathar” of Languedoc, Guillaume Bélibaste, was manufacturing playing cards in 1313! This fact would revolutionize both playing-card history and the history of the heretics.

"Robert Swiryn" didn’t even know enough about the real history of either Cathars or playing-cards to be surprised by this, and he has so little actual interest in the history of the subjects that he didn’t bother to follow up on it. Not even a little. He didn’t bother to inquire whether someone else had mentioned it, perhaps in the history of Cathars, the history of playing-cards, the history of Tarot, and he didn’t care enough to think about it, much less do any research. "Robert Swiryn" claimed to have documentary proof of Cathars and playing cards, closing not only the gap in chronology, pushing the existence of playing-cards in Europe back by over a half century, but also putting the manufacture of those cards directly into the hands of the Cathars, and he didn’t bother to read any further... not even the footnote on the same page! (H/T to Ross.) The part he read is highlighted in yellow; the part he missed is highlighted in red.

It might seem that nobody is that stupid. And yet, yesterday someone who appears to be the same "Robert Swiryn" argued that historians should only post on forums dedicated to historical research, which is precisely the forum he is attempting to chase them out of. Maybe he really is that stupid.

March 26, 2012 postscript:

The Frege’s Puzzle thread on the Aeclectic Historical Research forum, begun by a particularly eccentric occultist calling himself Yygdrasilian, (Yygdiot), has been shut down. Apparently this was in response to a lovely and insightful post by Huck Meyer. Huck referred to the persistent and pernicious rants of Swiryn & Co. in the Historical Research forum as “pissing in our garden”. Some of the comments, directed to Robert Swiryn, were too good to just disappear. After noting that Swiryn ignores centuries-long gaps in his timeline, Huck says:

We fought here for differences between decades and even years in the development of Tarot similar objects, with much research work, careful observation and discussion, with documents in foreign languages and an expanded web of internal exchange between different research activities. And we do this since long years. So take a deeper look in the abyss of your created nonsense-idea and come to your senses. Take a humble begin and start learning, if you're interested in Tarot history. Stop whining that you got a critique, that you deserved.

Really Fucking Stupid™ people(1), like Debra who thinks Mamluk cards (the 14th-century precursors to European playing cards) are evidence that Tarot originated in ancient Egypt, and that the Russell’s Teapot argument (“you can’t prove it isn’t true”) is sound, are shitting in the historians’ yard. Then they whine like babies when mean-spirited adults ask them, tell them, and finally yell at them to “STOP IT!” Those who proclaim that “Santa Claus IS real” because they have seen him in a department store, as if this were profound wisdom rather than disingenuous equivocation, are pissing in their neighbor’s garden. Returning to the earlier horticulture metaphor, presenting them facts is like giving roses to swine.

Theirs is a game of make-believe. They pretend to be interested in history while perpetuating the pseudo-history and absurdist interpretations that have overshadowed Tarot since the late 19th century. There are countless places where such fantasies are gleefully indulged online, but the true believers insist on dominating all Tarot discussions, without exception. So Aeclectic’s Historical Research forum must be made safe for their juvenile drivel. If the Historical Research forum is to be given over to make-believe, perhaps the name should be changed to The Land of Counterpane.

______________________

Notes:
 ✎ 1. Everyday experience and the bell curve or Normal distribution of intelligence both suggest that approximately 1/6th of the population (17%) is noticibly slow, 1σ or more below the mean. Roughly 2% of the population falls 2σ or more below the mean, which is damned dumb. Ulmann’s Corollary to Ockham’s Razor states that when stupidity alone is a sufficient explanation, there is no need for recourse to any other. George Carlin sharpened this catchall explanation to, “some people are really fucking stupid” (RFS™), hence the trademark symbol. The related term, “Yet Another Moron” (YAM), was poularized in the online Tarot community by Jess Karlin (jk). It seems fair to say that many YAMs are RFS™.