Astonishing character this Pendu immobilized at the end of his wire. He is an illustration of the torture victim suspended on the fourches patibulaires, the forks sinisters, to the gibet, the scaffold. Let’s quote the Petit Robert dictionnary. “Fourches patibulaires: scaffold composed in the beginning of two forks planted out of the ground, supporting a cross-piece to which one suspended the torture victims.”

We are in the VIII-XII axis, La justice-Le pendu, and the bond between the exercise of justice and torment could not be clearer. “(…) in the XIIth century (…) the aristocratic company rents violence and nourishes its honor of this violence. And if it limits the effects of them within its own group, doesn’t she especially exert it on the men whom it dominates? At the same time as the power of the castle continues, the military and legal institutions on which rests the power of the sovereign were erased. The lords of the land exert justice and they set up proudly the fourches patibulaires, symbols of the justice of blood.” “High justice, the justice of blood, most prestigious, is symbolized by the fourches patibulaires composed of two or more pillars. It is often less expensive for the lord (to carry out justice…) unless one does propose a pecuniary compensation more interesting for the lord.”

In the XIIth century, this form of torment was reserved to the castle, with the lord. The king and the Parliament did not use such forks. This habit specific to the cours seigneuriales will disappear as they are not as essential as the cours royales. But in the first half of the century, this kind of sacaffold is the standard in the provincial legal landscape.

La justice de sang

Between 1098 and 1109 - Library of Dijon

The justice of blood was also called Haute justice. On this illustration, of which we present only one detail, one distinguishes the torturer supporting himself next to the middle of the fork. The torture victim rests with his head at least two meters of the ground. On Arcana XII on the other hand, the body seems to be almost inserted in the ground. It does look any more to be a question of high justice. The Pendu unit suggests that we are in the presence of a low justice, that of the men. High justice, that of God (and/or of the King), is exerted besides. It borrows a mystical character. And it is well towards the spiritual side that our study of the so particular symbolism of the Pendu carries us.

Esoteric christianity, so impregnated of the Manicheism shunned by the representatives of the official Church, carries a very particular look at Jesus. It is seen here, in XII. “In the desire to put Christianity at the range of the great masses, the official dogma popularized it and simplified it to the extreme; it dissimulated the primarily tragic nature of it (…) A fight began consequently between the current esoteric and the current exoteric. (The current esoteric) Christ with the eyes of Michel-Angel does not see (…) but with the eyes of Mani: overcome and eternally suffering, as at the time of Gethsémani, (…) ; nature continues to groan, according to the word of Paul saint; the evil continues to dominate.”

And, indeed, this Arcana is initially the illustration of a passage of the Writings where it is said that as Christ was judged by Pontius Pilate then delivered to the Pharisees who crucified Him. In the text, the expression crucifixion is turned in Hebrew in the following way: hung to the tree or hung to wood.

Moreover, the allegorical symbolic system of Isaac carrying the wood of the sacrifice corresponded in the spirit of the monks and the Fathers of the Church to Christ carrying the Cross. It is what we have here. The knee folded in cross of and the suspended position the character are a recall of Christ’s martyrdom. It can be useful at this point to recall that the spanish Jews of the Middle Ages designated between themselves the central figure of Christianity, Jesus, by using the expression “Le pendu”, the hungman!

It was a serious insult, because in the Bible, hung/pendu is ¨ (…) a curse of God.

¨ The expression hung to wood was a great success. Initially it is Manicheism which made itself it’s promoter. Saint Augustin reports the word of the Faustus Manichean: “Jesus, the Life and the Safety of the men, is suspended with any wood.”

The manichean gnosis professes that the Light, the divine heart, is found in the plants, especially the trees which were used as cross for Jesus. It is one of the central figure of Manicheism, Jesus Patibilis, the Jesus liable, suffering. This image represented the suffering of the anima mundi, the heart of the world.

Arcana XII is built around this manichean framework. (…)

Translation (In progress…) by Rom with Babelfish

Read more.

Partager ce billet

Buono anniversario Zig! Riprendo qui il testo che tu m’ asso inviato su l’ inserimento del Tarot nella cultura italiana.

In è eternamente ringraziato.

Rom

¨Tarocchi is neither florentine nor milanese, it’s just plain standard Italian pronounced by every Italian “taròkki”! A double “c” is always pronounced, as in French “accent”. If it’s followed by an “h”, it simply means that it has to be pronounced as a “k” and not as the “ch” of “chess”.

I repeat, this is the standard Italian rule for every Italian word.

By the way, the singular of tarocchi is tarocco (pronounce taròkko), if that may be of any use. It’s true that in Tuscany people aspire the “h”s but not when an “h” (which in Italian is mute) serves to harden a “c” or a “g”. For example, the Italian word for house, casa, is pronounced by Florentines as hasa (with an aspirated “h”), the word cosa (what) is said hosa, and so on. They substitute the initial hard “c” with an aspirated “h”, this is their dialect, and no other italian ever pronounces words like that, nor did they in the past.

So let’s forget Florentine dialect (in Florence they didn’t use tarocchi, but minchiate, pronounce minkiàte). The problem now is: did the French word come first, or did the Italian one?

I suppose the French one was first, tarot (or tarots) and when arriving in Italy it followed the destiny of many foreign words. Italians heard it but didn’t see it written, and when they wrote it down they did it accordingly to their language rules.

Why add a suffix “cco”? Simply because Italians don’t like words with the accent on the last syllabe, as with every French word so they almost always add a suffix to keep the original accented syllabe but to avoid the final accent. Maroc becomes Marocco, for example. This doesn’t apply, though, with words coming from latin: each one of the sister languages, French and Italian, transforms these words according to their taste.

Having added a suffix “cco” (that sounds good in Italian) the logical plural form is “cchi”, for the male gender is always “o” in singular and “i” in plural (the female has “a” and “e” respectively).

There’s no mystery at all, in my opinion, no fancy pronouncing in tschi or in German-like ich (I speak also German, ich is like ish in Muenchen but it’s like ik in Hamburg, so what?).

I may add, just for fun, that in current Italian tarocco means also: a special flavor of oranges of Sicily (arance tarocco, very good), and a fake, something not original (this stereo is a tarocco, i.e. it plays poor sound, it has been made in Naples and not in Japan…). Don’t ask me the reason of these two additional meanings. I don’t know! (but I know how to pronounce tarocco/cchi).

Bye, buon 1 maggio,

Zig¨

Partager ce billet

Je travaille beaucoup sur Le mat. Je vous signale  donc une autre mise à jour de cette page. Je reviens sur le thème de la louche. L’étymologie de ce mot passe par losce et lois. Lois comme Louis, un des rois Louis… Il y a plusieurs indices croisés qui suggèrent que Le mat dissimule une représentation du roi Louis VII. Pour les accrocs…

Bonne lecture !

Partager ce billet

Étonnant personnage que ce Pendu immobilisé au bout de son fil. C’est une illustration du supplicié suspendu aux fourches patibulaires, au gibet. Citons le Petit Robert. «Fourches patibulaires : gibet composé à l’origine de deux fourches plantées en terre, supportant une traverse à laquelle on suspendait les suppliciés.» Nous sommes dans l’axe Justice-Le pendu, le lien entre exercice de la justice et supplice est clair. «(…) au XIIe siècle (…) la société aristocratique loue la violence et nourrit son honneur de cette violence. Et si elle en limite les effets au sein de son propre groupe, ne l’exerce-t-elle pas surtout sur les hommes qu’elle domine ? En même temps que s’affirme la puissance du château, les institutions militaires et judiciaires sur lesquelles repose la puissance du souverain se sont effacées. Le châtelain exerce la justice à son profit et il érige fièrement des fourches patibulaires, symboles de la justice de sang.» 

«La haute justice, la justice de sang, la plus prestigieuse, est symbolisée par des fourches patibulaires à deux ou plusieurs piliers. Elle est souvent très chère pour le seigneur (…) à moins que l’on ne propose une compensation pécuniaire plus intéressante pour le seigneur.» 

 Au XIIe siècle, cette forme de supplice était réservée au château, au seigneur. Le roi et le Parlement n’utilisaient pas de telles fourches. Cette coutume propre aux cours seigneuriales va disparaître à mesure que s’imposent les cours royales. Mais dans la première moitié du siècle, ce genre de gibet est la norme dans le paysage judiciaire provincial.

La justice de sang - Entre 1098 et 1109

Bibliothèque de Dijon

La justice de sang était également appelée haute justice. Sur cette illustration dont nous ne présentons qu’un détail, on distingue le bourreau prenant appui au milieu de la fourche. Le supplicié repose à au moins deux mètres du sol. Sur l’Arcane XII par contre, le corps semble s’enfoncer sous le sol. Il ne semble plus être question de haute justice. L’ensemble Le pendu suggère que nous sommes en présence d’une basse justice, celle des hommes. La haute justice, celle de Dieu (et/ou du Roi ?), s’exerce d’ailleurs. Elle emprunte un caractère mystique.

Et c’est bien vers le spirituel que nous mène notre étude du symbolisme si particulier de l’Arcane Le pendu. Le christianisme ésotérique, tout empreint qu’il est de ce manichéisme honni par les représentants de l’Église officielle, porte un regard très particulier sur Jésus. On le voit bien ici, en XII. «Dans le désir de mettre le christianisme à la portée des grandes masses, le dogme officiel le vulgarisa et le simplifia à l’extrême ; il en dissimula la nature essentiellement tragique (…) Une lutte s’engagea dès lors entre le courant ésotérique et le courant exotérique. (Le courant ésotérique) ne voit pas le Christ avec les yeux de Michel-Ange (…) mais avec les yeux de Mani : vaincu et éternellement souffrant, comme au moment de Gethsémani,  (…) ; la nature continue à gémir, selon la parole de saint Paul ; le mal continue à dominer.»

Et, en effet, cet Arcane est d’abord l’illustration d’un passage des Écritures où il est dit que le Christ fut jugé par Ponce Pilate puis livré aux Pharisiens qui le firent crucifier. Dans le texte, l’expression crucifixion est rendue en hébreu de la façon suivante: pendu à l’arbre ou pendu au bois. De plus, l’allégorie symbolique d’Isaac portant le bois du sacrifice correspondait dans l’esprit des moines et des Pères de l’Église au Christ portant sa croix. C’est tout ce que nous avons ici. Le genou plié en forme de croix du personnage et sa position suspendue sont un rappel du Calvaire du Christ. Et il peut être utile de signaler que certains Juifs espagnols du Moyen Âge désignaient entre eux le personnage central du christianisme en utilisant l’expression «le pendu». C’était un grave insulte, car dans la Bible, le pendu est ¨(…) une malédiction de Dieu.¨

L’expression pendu au bois a connu un grand succès. C’est le manichéisme qui s’en fait d’abord le promoteur. Saint Augustin rapporte le mot du manichéen Faustus : «Jésus, la Vie et le Salut des hommes, est suspendu à tout bois.»  La gnose manichéenne professe que la Lumière, l’âme divine, se retrouve dans les espèces végétales, surtout les arbres qui servent de gibet à Jésus. Il s’agit d’une des idées centrales du manichéisme, le Jesus Patibilis, le Jésus passible, souffrant. Cette image représentait la souffrance de l’anima mundi, l’âme du monde.

L’Arcane XII est construit autour de ce thème manichéen. (…)

 La suite …

Partager ce billet

ORB Online Encyclopedia
Philosophy

Pseudo-Dionysius in the Twelfth Century Latin West

Dale Coulter

During the twelfth-century search for authorities the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius were increasingly used as part of a new theological outlook. No doubt the choice of pseudonyms by the author of the corpus aided in its popularity, yet the original synthesis of Christian teaching and the Neoplatonism of the fifth century found in the writings spoke powerfully to the twelfth-century context. Writers sought to mine the Dionysian corpus for insights into the nature of reality and the contemplative ascent ending in union with God. (…)

Dionysian Thought at the Abbey of St.-Denis It is undisputed that Suger, abbot of St. Denis (1122- 1151) drew on Dionysian light mysticism for the justification of the stained glass windows and symbolism throughout the abbey church (Panofsky 19- 26). In his works, the De Administratione, the De Consecratione and the Ordinatio there is a polemical description of the project which acts as a guide to the construction of the building and its symbolism. Suger used Dionysian thought for the inspiration of the symbolism as well as the justification for the elaborate nature of the project. The poem in De Administratione 26 lies at the heart of his Dionysian framework for the symbolism of the tympanum. Suger recorded the verses which were inscribed on the door. He states,
Whoever thou art, if thou seekest to extol the glory of these doors, Marvel not at the gold and the expense but at the craftsmanship of the work. Bright is the noble work; but, being nobly bright, the work Should brighten the minds, so that they may travel, through the true lights, To the True Light where Christ is the true door. In what manner it be inherent in this world the golden door defines: The dull mind rises to truth through that which is material And, in seeing this light, is resurrected from is former submersion (Panofsky 47-9).

In the final two verses there is a clear Dionysian theme of the person rising through the various hierarchies encoded in symbols from material to immaterial until union with the divine is achieved.

The extent to which Pseudo-Dionysius thought was incorporated into the construction of the abbey and Suger’s own source for that thought have caused debate. Panofsky suggested that Suger mined the Celestial Hierarchy and Eriugena’s commentary for insight (Panofsky 18-19), recently however scholars have looked to a more contemporary source for Suger’s inspiration. Hugh of St. Victor has been pointed to as the one who brought Dionysian thought to the attention of Suger. Zinn and Rudolph have both argued that one can detect certain features of Hugh’s own thought interwoven into the design of the abbey (Zinn, “Suger” 33-40; Rudolph 32-47). One such feature is the prominence of Christ in the symbolism. Christ has virtually no role to play in the Dionysian writings, however, Hugh placed Christ at the center in his writings. The extent of the influence of Hugh on Suger has not been fully explored, yet it points to the central role which St. Victor played in the dissemination of Dionysian thought. Regardless, Suger’s use of Dionysian thought introduced new justifications for the art program at St.-Denis and its symbolism.

(…)Copyright (C) 1997, Dale Coulter. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents,including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

THE INTACT TEXT CAN BE SEEN, here.

Partager ce billet

If it is the Tarot which is in the bag of Le mat, as we suppose sometimes, the spoon which is used as support for this bag would indicate that it’s content is food. And the length of the spoon’s handle suggests that Le mat does not eat this food himself and that he probably keeps a respectful distance vis-a-vis those which he feeds. In the same way, those who are nourished must be a little wary of this spoon.

Because it is a ladle… (In India, the ladle was a sacred instrument. The sacred ladle was made of wood of acacia.) And in French, the word ladle is louche, like in shady character. Loucher, to slant, suggests to show ambivalence. We know that to keep the course between the poles of ambivalence was at the base of the daily steps of the monks who embraced this aspect of the neoplatonician philosophy. Nicolas de Cues, a philosopher at the beginning of the Renaissance, does not fear to propose in his writings that it is necessary to deny what one has just affirmed. It is a question of creating totalities, to join together the opposites. De Cues thus professed the radical neoplatonism of Jean Scott Érigène, a philosopher of IXth century called The Commentator (of the writings of Denis Aréopagite). The philosophers of the centuries which follow, the benedictine school of Auxerre in particular, are indebted to the translations of Érigène, of the school of Denis. Erigene professes that it is in conformity with the truth and exactitude to deny God rather than to affirm It at all. It is negative neoplatonician theology.

I believe personnally that certain templars ritual as spitting on the cross before going to communion, for example, were inspired by this philosophy. They are easily perceived like pure and simple heresy. Erigene’s works were put on the Index in XIIIth century. Some of his books were even burned.

But in the XIIth century, many monks, like Bernard de Clairvaux, do not hesitate to embrace the negative definition of God given by the Aréopagite. For this thinker, God is ¨pur néant¨, pure nothingness. This assertion is the base of his Negative theology known also as Apophatic. ¨(…) it is not truer to affirm that God is Life and Kindness than to affirm that it is air or stone.¨ (Mircea Eliade, Histoire des croyances et des idées religieuses, tome I, p. 67)

He also speaks of the luminosity of darkness. Extrapolating a little, while making plays on words like a true XIIth century scholar, one can say that the term emptiness applies as much to God as the term fullness. The word emptiness, vide in French, is an anagram of Diev, God.

And it is here that we come back to Tarot.

Let’s return to the bag carried by Le mat. We saw that it is anchored on the shoulder of the character by means of a spoon or a ladle. We deduced from this fact that its content was food.

Let us examine this bag. We note the presence of many folds which indicate that its fabric is not streched. The bag is empty (vide …). We will now indulge in a small etymological investigation. The image of the fool, Le mat, is extremely popular in the Middle Ages. This character leads the cast in the so called Sotties, popular plays enjoyed by the nobility and common folks alike that will eventuallly appear in print centuries later. He is called the fol, the fou or better, le sot.

The origin of the sot word is unknown. As for fol and fou they come from the Latin word follis. This word means bag. It is thus logical to give a bag as an accessory to the character. But follis also means balloon full of air…

The bag is empty indeed !

It is a neoplatonician way of saying that it is also full. As Diev (vide, empty) is pure nothingness according to the neoplatonician school of thought of the times, one can conclude that the Deity is in the bag of Le mat. That it is possible to reach It directly through the symbolic use of the ladle.

The bag would initially be opened. One unties the lace which encircles the opening. And how do we name this opening? An ear! Latin word, auricula… And precisely, at the other end of the stick, the auricular, the small finger of the character, is missing.

It will be noted that the eyes of Le mat are turned towards the sky, his head is tilted downwards and by doing this, the right ear (also missing…) is against this opening, the ear of the bag. And yes, this ear is also a mouth (bouche) which is appropriate because in French the word rhymes with ladle (louche). (The word mouth, in French as in English, is given to all openings.)

Mouth and/or ear, we are talking of an opening which makes it possible to hear the Verb. We are speaking about communion with a spiritual food. The content of the bag is then much more than the Tarot, this oracle we supposed the presence at the beginning of this article. This content, it is the presence of God himself, His voice, the Verb, which is seeked by the neoplatonician adept to express Itself, His will, His plans.

What surrounds It, the fabric of the bag, the sacred laddle, the character, the card deck even, that is the oracle. Le mat bears a burden that is light and heavy at the same time.

( See also: The word tarot is a coded form of the word oracle.)

Translation by Rom, with the help of Babelfish.

Partager ce billet

Si c’est le Tarot qui se trouve dans le sac du mat, comme nous le supposons parfois, la cuillère qui sert de support à ce sac indiquerait que ses avis sont une nourriture. Et la longueur de son manche suggère que le mat ne s’administre pas cet aliment à lui-même et qu’il doit garder une distance respectueuse face à ceux qu’il nourrit. De même ceux qui s’y nourrissent doivent se méfier un peu de cette cuillère. Car c’est une louche… En Inde, la louche était un instrument sacré. La louche sacrificielle était en bois d’acacia.

Loucher, c’est faire preuve d’ambivalence. Nous savons que naviguer, garder le cap entre les pôles de l’ambivalence était à la base de la démarche quotidienne de ceux qui souscrivaient à cet aspect de la philosophie néoplatonicienne. Nicolas de Cues, un philosophe du début de la Renaissance, ne craint pas de le proposer dans ses écrits, il faut nier ce que l’on vient d’affirmer. Il s’agit de créer des totalités, de réunir les opposés.

De Cues rejoignait ainsi le néoplatonisme radical de Jean Scott Érigène, un philosophe du IXe siècle qu’on a appelé le Commentator (des écrits de Denis L’Aréopagite). Les philosophes des siècles qui suivent, l’école bénédictine d’Auxerre notamment, sont redevables des traductions par Érigène de la pensée de Denis. Érigène professe qu’il est plus conforme à la vérité et à l’exactitude de nier Dieu en tout que de l’affirmer en tout. C’est de la théologie négative néoplatonicienne.

Nous croyons que certains rituels secrets templiers comme cracher sur la croix avant d’aller communier étaient inspirés de cette philosophie. Ils sont facilement perçus comme de l’hérésie pure et simple. Érigène a d’ailleurs été mis à l’index au XIIIe siècle. Certains de ses livres ont même été brûlés.

Mais au XIIe siècle, les moines n’hésitent pas à embrasser la définition négative de Dieu donnée par L’Aréopagite. Pour ce penseur, Dieu est ¨pur néant¨. Cette affirmation est le fondement de sa théologie négative dite aussi apophatique. ¨(…) il n’est pas plus vrai d’affirmer que Dieu est Vie et Bonté que d’affirmer qu’il est air ou pierre.¨ (Mircea Eliade, Histoire des croyances et des idées religieuses, tome III, p. 67)

Il parle également, par exemple, de luminosité des ténèbres. En extrapolant un peu, en jouant comme lui avec le sens des mots, on pourrait dire que le terme vide s’applique autant à Dieu que le mot plein. Le mot vide est d’ailleurs un anagramme de Diev. Et c’est ici que nous rejoignons le Tarot.

Il nous faut revenir au sac du mat.

Nous avons vu que ce sac est ancré sur l’épaule du personnage au moyen d’une cuillère ou d’une louche. Nous en avons déduit que son contenu était une nourriture. Examinons ce sac. Nous constatons la présence de nombreux plis qui indiquent que sa toile n’est pas tendue, il est vide.

Nous allons maintenant nous livrer à une petite enquête étymologique. L’image du mat est fort populaire au Moyen-Âge. C’est lui le chef de file des personnages qui peuplent les sotties, ces pièces populaires appréciées tant par la noblesse que le bas peuple. On l’appelle le fol, le fou ou le sot. L’origine du mot sot est inconnue. Quant à eux, fol et fou viennent du mot latin follis. Ce mot signifie sac. Il est donc logique de donner un sac comme accessoire au fou. Mais follis signifie également ballon plein d’air… Le sac est vide !

C’est une façon néoplatonicienne de dire qu’il est également plein. Comme Diev (vide) est pur néant selon cette école de pensée, on peut conclure que la déité se trouve dans le sac du mat. Qu’on peut y accéder en se servant de la cuillère ou de la louche. Il faut d’abord ouvrir le sac. On défait le lacet qui encercle l’ouverture. Et comment se nomme cette ouverture ? Une oreille ! Du mot latin, auricula… Justement, à l’autre bout du bâton, l’auriculaire, son petit doigt, est absent.

On notera que les yeux du mat sont tournés vers le ciel, sa tête est penchée vers le bas et ce faisant son oreille droite à lui (absente également…) est tout contre cette ouverture, l’oreille du sac. Et oui, c’est aussi une bouche qui convient si bien avec louche. Le mot bouche se donne à toutes ouvertures. Bouche et/ou oreille, il s’agit ici d’une ouverture qui permet d’entendre le Verbe, un autre nom de Dieu.

On parle ici de communion avec une nourriture spirituelle. Le contenu du sac est bien plus que le Tarot, l’oracle dont nous supposions la présence au départ. Ce contenu, c’est la voix de Dieu lui-même, le Verbe, qui se fait entendre pour exprimer sa volonté, ses dessins. Ce qui l’entoure, le sac, la cuillère, le personnage, le jeu de cartes, voilà l’oracle. (Le mot tarot est une forme codée du mot oracle.)

Partager ce billet

Partager ce billet

On est passé directement à l’été. Il y a deux semaines, ça ressemblait à ça. On a eu droit à des accumulations de plus de 400cm dans certaines régions du Québec. Aujourd’hui, il doit bien faire 25 degrés. Tout a fondu. Et bien sûr, les rivières débordent, comme l’enthousiasme des partisans du Tricolore.

Sur les photos, le petit Rom et sa demi-soeur profitent des dernières belles journées dans la neige.

Partager ce billet

Le Canadien a éliminé les Bruins de Boston par le compte de 5-0. Les partisans ont endommagé ou brûlé 16 voitures de police. Dans mon temps, on se contentait de les retourner…

Partager ce billet