Fig. 32
The sarcophagus
Fig. 33
The XIII Arcanum
Here as well appears a multiplicity of meanings: on one side, physical death; on the other, thanks to the position of immobility of the Hanged Man, a symbolism of meditation. After all, what is this technique if not the access to a new state of consciousness, to a new dimension? The Tarot, in harmony with Egyptian Tradition, invites us to change our life, to follow ourselves rather than others, in order to realize a true identity and to enter into contact with our interior reality. Although these demonstrations are only the beginning of a long series of correspondences with Egypt, we consider them decisive enough to illuminate the secret structure of the Arcana in relation to the journey of the dead, which, through the reawakening of a superior awareness, leads to a second birth. This is the extraordinary teaching, perfectly summarized by the last two Icons, which alive, awaits those who travel the Path of Initiation: to reach a new consciousness (XX) in order to reawaken and achieve contact with the Soul (XXI).
Fig. 34
The Awakening
Fig. 35
The Soul
Footnotes - Chapter 8
97 This neologism was introduced in the last years of the 1900’s.
98 Rudolf Steiner (Donji Kraljevec 1861- Dornach 1925) was the founder of Anthroposophy.
99 It is interesting that in classic Buddhist literature, various systems of thought are cited. These systems are called yāna, or vehicles.
100 Etteilla, ou l’art de lire dans le cartes (Etteilla, or the art of reading the cards), Paris 1791.
101 Etteilla, ou manière de se récréer avec un jeu de cartes, (Etteilla, or how to amuse oneself with a deck of cards), Amsterdam and Paris 1770.
102 Of the first, let us remember the Tarot of Wirth at the end of the 1800’s, and that of Marteau at the beginning of the 1900’s. For the English school, the most important was that of Rider-Waite and of Crowley.
103 We mentioned the Mysteries of the Temple in Chapter 6, speaking of the relationship between Hierophant and High Priestess.
104 This term is used by the Freemasons to designate God.
105 A group of cards, for a long time attributed to the painter of this name, classifiable as didactic. There are 50 blades in groups of 10, and originated between 1470 and 1485.
106 In Masonic symbolism, the red wand is a prerogative of the two Deacons.
107 Istituzioni Cenobitiche, Preface, p 27, Qiqajon Editions, 2007.
108 The Freemasons also call themselves Widow’s Sons, a further analogy with the story of Hiram Abif.
109 “At the beginnings of the faith, few, but of excellent virtue, were considered worthy to be named among the number of the monks. They received directly from the Evangelist Mark, of blessed memory and first bishop of the city of Alexandria, their Rule of life. Having retreated to the most secret places at the outskirts of the city, they conducted a life so austere and of such abstinence, that even non-Christian men were amazed.” The Istituzioni Cenobitiche, Book 2 Chapter 5, Qiqajon Editions 2007.
110 For example, suffice it to reflect upon the presence of the Hierophant, of the High Priestess (as a nun), of the angels, the devil, universal judgement (Arcanum XX, Judgement) etc.
111 We know that the individuation of the symbol of the book is not immediate and may cause perplexity. In any case, many Codes exist (which, owing to their complexity, we cannot deal with in this context) which confirm this supposition with extreme precision. This theme as well will be an object of future in-depth analysis.
Chapter 9
Jesus replied to Mary, “Ask what you will: I will answer openly and manifest without parables; to all that you ask, I will answer with clarity and certainty.
I wish to render you perfect in all strengths and in all fullness, from the deepest on the inside to the most external on the outside, from the ineffable to the thickest obscurity, that you may be named complete and perfect in all knowledge.”
(Pistis Sophia)
9.1 Anachronisms?
Following the development of our reasoning, it should be clear that the proposed point of view is completely different from that held by the greater part of historians. We feel ourselves much more in line with those who, even without proof, recognized in these images the guardians of a very ancient wisdom, the depositaries of a primordial knowledge.
The significant basic difference with respect to those of scholars of the past is tied to the awareness of the presence of a system of internal reference. This Structure of Codes and Laws acts as a compass to orient us objectively in our investigative exploration of the true significance of the Arcana. Analyzing them further, developing in a more articulate manner the entirety of the Codes, the researcher verifies the incredible concordance of symbology on different levels, derived from a vast multiplicity of religious myths. These are not of exclusively Egyptian or Christian derivation, but derive as well from other sources, from Hindu tradition, Buddhist, Taoist, Greek, Judaic, etc. This enormous, immensely rich plurality, may however lead us into the error of thinking that the Tarot is a syncretism posterior to all these influences, which would be a great mistake. Not only is it improbable, if not impossible, to create such a compact and perfect synthesis of that which today appears an almost unreachable vastness and abundance of mystic and religious traditions so different from each other, but above all, because it is that same Coded Structure which indicates another truth.
The Tarot is the most ancient and unified of all myths, found also in Christian doctrine and only later declining into diverse forms with variable restrictions, from East to West. However incredible it may seem, the Codes reveal with certainty that these images are the compendium of a unique ancestral event as ancient as man. This event which, as such, has the nature of History, having become religion, travelled on miscellaneous paths and in different cultures, losing itself in a thousand streams and remaining more cohesive and recognizable, only in that most ancient cult known to us today, the ancient Egyptian. These are also the reasons for which esoteric Christianity (fundamental reference for every sincere researcher having at heart the deepest sense of occidental spirituality), deeply interwoven with Egyptian teaching, finds its most perfect expression in the Icons of the Tarot.
As ancient and primordial history, enchanted garden of a newborn humanity, fragmented and dispersed in all parts of the planet, the images of the Tarot, graphically revisited in the I century AD because of still more remote origin, were “eclipsed” in a thousand cards of an equal number of ancient decks. The essential task of Nicholas Conver, the 1700’s card master of this Tradition, was that of transmitting to posterity a deck in which the symbols, features, and illustrations, were newly reunited in their original version, precisely as might be the parts of a sacred mosaic waiting only to be replaced again into their proper spaces.
Therefore, his work is not to be attributed to an individual and personal knowledge which would remain, however genial, still purely subjective. His Tarot derive from that which he inherited and transmitted from the guild to which he belonged, becoming himself the vehicle of that Science, which came from the Egyptian lands, regions which hosted the anchorite Saints of whom we have amply spoken. Comprehending that the Arcana are the sum of an extraordinary knowledge transmitted through the ages, you may understand our perplexity hearing the affirmations of certain authors who have worked with these images, later claiming their paternity. How might a single individual, after having dedicated himself to such a monumental and solemn work, claim the right to consider the source from which all things flow, a creation of his own monopolistic property? Certainly, it is predictable that one who carries out a task, whatever it is, transmits to that which he accomplishes, his own energy. However, to claim that such a patrimony, immeasurable resource for all human beings, to whom it naturally belongs, be attributed solely to his own genius for
having restored (and only partially reconstructed) it, is pure falsehood. Furthermore, apart from the evident vainglory of such a declaration, might all of this agree with the nature of one who proclaims himself guide of others’ Path, and with the profound essence of these sacred Icons? We prefer to bypass these small human disputes and to ask a new, important question: is it possible to offer historical examples in support of the theory according to which the Tarot is the custodian of a primitive and archaic symbolism? Regarding this, we must remember that the most complete and exhaustive manner to obtain certain replies with respect to this inference is the Coded Structure, which, for complexity and extension of its contents, guarantees a logic, a clarity and a coherence that quite literally amazes its scholars. Nevertheless, evaluations rooted in historiographical aspects, and documented by the Arcana, may be advanced, however different from that which is generally admitted by experts.
Let us remember that playing cards, according to general opinion, were invented before the Tarot which, according to scholars, was created in the Renaissance period as an evolved and more learned form of these same cards, although still of a recreational nature. Thus, beginning with this premise, historians committed various errors. On the one hand, they dismissed a priori all elements derived from the card decks precisely because, treating them as the original model of the Tarot, they did not take them into consideration as simple later traces (and this is the correct perspective from which they offer prompts of authentic reflection). On the other, the clues referring to the same symbolism present in the blades, found also in paintings, churches, cathedrals, palaces, monuments etc., were viewed as signs of confirmation of their theories and not possible proof of disavowal of their theses proposing a completely different course of events. For example, until today, when an explicit reference to the Tarot was discovered dating from an epoch earlier than that of its presumed genesis, the dating of the testimony itself was called into question. All this, in order to indicate it as later in time, thus to render the date in this way inoffensive with respect to the dominant theory.
On the contrary, in the case of symbolic recall of an unmistakable antecedent, it has been hypothesized that this last was an object of interest and used as creative inspiration by those who in later generations reproduced the Arcana, including the original prototype of the Visconti Tarot. We do not, in this manner, implicitly admit to the possibility that any historical reference, as those which we will soon analyze, might have been created thanks to the precedent model of the Tarot. However, perhaps the correct attitude to assume, is precisely this last.
Let us try following another logic: hypothesizing that the Icons were contemporary with the birth of the Christian epoch, it would be perfectly plausible to find their symbolism disseminated in churches, works of art, paintings and religious objects in general. These vestiges, obviously, might date back to epochs even precedent to the Renaissance and there would be nothing odd or contradictory if there should exist documentation relative to all the 1500 years which separate the advent of Christianity from the Renaissance. In fact, instead of believing that some object found in a church may have inspired the symbolism of the Tarot, we could imagine the opposite to be true. Everything would seem suddenly so simple and elementary, as to appear absurd...Furthermore, as the Tarot uses a coding technique for its own secrets, it would be just as likely that whoever in the past was initiated into this sort of knowledge, might have used these mechanisms in order to hide and transmit his own message, avoiding the danger of being accused of heresy. After all, John Cassian himself hid his deepest thoughts by the use of similar stratagems.
Therefore, on the trail of these hypotheses, we will attempt to analyze, from a very different point of view, a few “suspicious” historical cases.
9.2 Prince Castracani Fibbia
Until a few years ago, in the Fibbia Palace in Bologna, a famous painting was conserved. Its location today unknown, it portrayed Prince Antelminelli Castracani Fibbia, descendent of the celebrated ruler of Lucca Castruccio Castracani. In the portrait, painted in the XVII century by an anonymous artist, the personage is depicted standing near a table holding in his right hand some illustrated cards of the Bolognese Tarocchino, in the process of falling, some to the floor.
Fig. 1
Prince Francesco Antelminelli Castracani Fibbia
The caption of the painting reads:
“Francesco Antelminelli Castracani Fibbia, prince of Pisa, Montegiori and Pietra Santa, and Lord of Fucecchio, son of Giovanni, born of Castruccio duke of Lucca, Pistoia and Pisa. Having fled to Bologna to join Bentivogli, he was made high commander of the Bolognese army and the first of this family to be called in Bologna, “dalle Fibbie”, took Francesca, daughter of Giovanni Bentivogli, to be his wife. Creator of the card deck, the Tarocchino of Bologna. From the XVI Reformers of the City he received the privilege of placing the Fibbia arms in the card of the Queen of Wands and that of his wife, in the Queen of Pentacles. Born in the year 1360, he died in the year 1419.”
Fig. 2
Particular of the caption
Although historians do not doubt that Francesco Antelminelli really existed, and are convinced that the portrait is not a fancy of the painter; still their attention has been drawn to several aspects which appear unclear. In the legend, in fact, there are certain errors, such as the attribution of paternity of Francesco to Giovanni (instead of to Orlando, son of Errico, brother to Giovanni, firstborn of Castruccio Castracani112) and the identity of his wife, who was not Francesca the daughter of Giovanni Bentivogli. Despite these inaccuracies, however, no doubt exists regarding the whole of the caption in general, including the dating; and for this reason the portrait has taken on the value of a clue, however debatable, relevant to the history of the Tarot. Regarding this, we offer a citation that sums up a certain position:
“This attribution (the invention of the Tarrochino of Bologna to Francesco Antelminelli) has no foundation, as Prince Fibbia died when neither the Tarot nor, even more so, the Tarocchino, a reduction of the original deck, existed. On the other hand, the writer of the caption committed other errors (The references to Fibbia’s paternity and to his wife, of which we have already spoken, A/N). (...) It is logical to ask oneself why the descendents of the prince wished to attribute to their ancestor the invention of the BolognaTarot (...) In our opinion, a painting of the 1600’s, full of errors, cannot resist against a confrontation with all preceding documents which confirm the Visconti origin of the Triumphs113 (the Tarot, A/N ).”
The author, then, in line with the general tendency, maintains that attribution to the prince is not possible, as dating the birth of the Tarot to a slightly later epoch (1440) to that in which he lived, having died in 1419, a temporal contradiction would exist. Furthermore, the oldest document (dating to 1459) regarding the Bologna Tarot, which became popular a few years after the production of that of Ferrara and were considered a 1500’s variant of the Visconti Tarot, would generate another evident incompatibility.
How have the various inconsistencies that persist because of the objective presence of the painting, been resolved? Simply by maintaining that a part of the caption was added later with the sole intention of enhancing the prestige of the lineage, as the invention of the Bolognese Tarot would have given distinction to the whole family. Therefore, not only was the paternity of the deck not attributed to Fibbia, but much doubt was cast also upon the historical reliability of the painting termed “full of errors”; with the motivation that the cards would date back to a later period, their presence itself with all relative implications has been totally disdained. These, as we may see from the enlarged illustration, are perfectly traceable to the Tarot deck...
Then we must ask, is the idea of the birth of the Arcana during the Renaissance not only a hypothesis? How is it possible to construct a certainty declaring: “this attribution has no foundation” upon an uncertain supposition such as “when the prince died, neither the
Tarot nor the Tarocchini existed”? A different, more linear reasoning must be imaginable.
The dates of birth and death of the personage are correct, and independently from the fact that prince Antelminelli was or was not the true creator of the Tarocchino, in any case, in the painting are present elements similar in all details to the Tarot. This being said, rather than discrediting this work with forced and uncertain conjecture, would it not be preferable and reasonable to take note that there is proof that attests to the presence of a card deck (called the Bolognese Tarocchino) before 1440? Would it not be much more reasonable?
We believe that, perhaps for these same considerations, there are historians who have proposed, fortunately, a different vision. Here is what has been written:
“(...) Those who commissioned it did not know the precise epoch in which the Tarot had been created, as did not the men responsible for it in the 1500’s or in the following centuries. In the painting is written that Francesco Fibbia was the inventor of the Tarocchini, when we know that these are a 1500’s variation of the deck of the Tarot, already known by the name of Triumphs, in Bologna from the XV century on. This means that the author of the caption, referring to a personage who lived between the 1300’s and 1400’s as inventor of the Tarocchini, did not know the actual date of their ideation but considered them the original form and not a later variation. Despite this, the dates indicated in the painting prove to be quite near those hypothesized for the birth of the Triumph deck, and this cannot but surprise us. If the author of the writings had mentioned a later date with respect to that which we know as the hypothetical birth date of the deck of the Triumphs - the beginnings of the 1400’s - we would have understood that it was an operation conceived as strong evidence for the role of this family. Seeing that the Tarot cards were so loved and so much used in Bologna on all social levels. It was by pure coincidence that the author of the caption indicated dates so near to the real ones, wishing to promote the image of his own family. Perhaps it is more likely that he came into possession of an ancient document and copied it, knowing this would bring prestige to the family. Personally, I consider this second hypothesis much more realistic114”
The Tarot Code Page 23