Thu - June 3, 2004
June 3, 2004 12:14:07 AM
Simple draft
Sostratus, the son of Dexiphanes, the
Cnidian, dedicated this to the Saviour Gods, on behalf of those who sail the
seas.
Dedicatory
inscription of the Lighthouse
Of the Seven Wonders
of the Ancient World, only one had a practical use in addition to its
architectural elegance: The Lighthouse of Alexandria. For sailors, it ensured a
safe return to the Great Harbor. For architects, it meant even more: it was the
tallest building on Earth. And for scientists, it was the mysterious mirror that
fascinated them most... The mirror which reflection could be seen more than 50
km (35 miles) off-shore.
Location
On
the ancient island of Pharos, now a promontory within the city of
Alexandria
in
Egypt.
History
Shortly
after the death of
Alexander the
Great, his commander
Ptolemy
Soter assumed power in Egypt. He had
witnessed the
founding
of Alexandria, and established his capital there. Off of the city's coast lies a
small island: Pharos. Its name, legend says, is a variation of
Pharaoh's
Island, but it is more likely that
the name is Greek in origin. The island was connected to the mainland by means
of a dike - the Heptastadion - which gave the city a
double
harbor. And because of dangerous
sailing conditions and flat coastline in the region, the construction of a
lighthouse was necessary.
The project was conceived and initiated by Ptolemy Soter around 290 BC, but was
completed after his death, during the reign of his son Ptolemy Philadelphus.
Sostratus, a contemporary of
Euclid,
was the architect, but detailed calculations for the structure and its
accessories were carried out at the Alexandria Library/Mouseion. The monument
was dedicated to the Savior
Gods: Ptolemy Soter
(lit.
savior) and his wife Berenice. For centuries, the Lighthouse of Alexandria
(occasionally referred to as the Pharos Lighthouse) was used to mark the harbor,
using fire at night and reflecting sun rays during the day. It was even shown on
Roman coins, just as famous monuments are depicted on currency
today.
When the Arabs
conquered Egypt, they admired Alexandria and its wealth. The Lighthouse
continues to be mentioned in their writings and travelers accounts. But the new
rulers moved their capital to Cairo since they had no ties to the Mediterranean.
When the mirror was brought down mistakenly, they did not restore it back into
place. In AD 956, an earthquake shook Alexandria, and caused little damage to
the Lighthouse. It was later in 1303 and in 1323 that two stronger earthquakes
left a significant impression on the structure. When the famous Arab traveler
Ibn
Battuta visited Alexandria in 1349, he
could not enter the ruinous monument or even climb to its
doorway.
The final chapter
in the history of the Lighthouse came in AD 1480 when the Egyptian Mamelouk
Sultan, Qaitbay, decided to fortify Alexandria's defense. He built a
medieval
fort on the same spot where the
Lighthouse once stood, using the fallen stone and
marble.
Description
Of
the six vanished Wonders, the Lighthouse of Alexandria was the last to
disappear. Therefore we have adequately accurate knowledge of its location and
appearance. Ancient accounts such as those by Strabo and
Pliny the
Elder give us a brief description of
the "tower" and the magnificent white marble cover. They tell us how the
mysterious mirror could reflect the light tens of kilometers away. Legend says
the mirror was also used to detect and burn enemy ships before they could reach
the shore.
In 1166, an Arab
traveler, Abou-Haggag Al-Andaloussi visited the Lighthouse. He documented a
wealth of information and gave an accurate description of the structure which
helped modern archeologists
reconstruct
the monument. It was composed of three stages: The lowest square, 55.9 m (183.4
ft) high with a cylindrical core; the middle octagonal with a side length of
18.30 m (60.0 ft) and a height of 27.45 m (90.1 ft); and the third circular 7.30
m (24.0 ft) high. The total height of the building including the foundation base
was about 117 m (384 ft), equivalent to a 40-story modern building. The internal
core was used as a shaft to lift the fuel needed for the fire. At the top stage,
the mirror reflected sunlight during the day while fire was used during the
night. In ancient times, a statue of
Poseidon
adorned the summit of the
building.
Although the
Lighthouse of Alexandria did not survive to the present day, it left its
influence in various respects. From an architectural standpoint, the monument
has been used as a model for many prototypes along the Mediterranean, as far
away as Spain. And from a linguistic standpoint, it gave its name -- Pharos --
to all the
lighthouses
in the world... Just look up the dictionary for the French, Italian, or Spanish
word for
lighthouse.
News!
pyramid
gardens
zeus
artemis
mausoleum
colossus
Note: The
color painting at the top of the page is of artistic nature and does not
necessarily represent an accurate reconstruction of the Wonder. Painting by
Mario Larrinaga.
Back
to the Seven Wonders Home Page
Last modified
Wednesday, January 21,
2004
Copyright
© 1995, 1999, 2004 by
Alaa K.
Ashmawy. All rights
reserved.
From: The
Seven Wonders: The Lighthouse of
Alexandria
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/Wonders/pharos.html
Posted at 02:20 AM
Read More
Sun - April 25, 2004
The Ptolemaic Legacy
The Mouseion / Library
The Ptolemaic
Legacy
The Mouseion /
Library
When Ptolemy
Soter assumed power, he asked
Demitrius
Phalerus, a follower of
Aristotle,
to found a library system at Alexandria that would rival that of Athens. The
Alexandrian
Mouseion, however, far superseded its
Greek prototype to become an intellectual and scientific institution; a
university system rather than a bibliotheca. It was here, in the third century
BC, that
Archimedes
invented the pump still in use today and known as
Archimedes'
screw, and, in the second century
BC, that
Hypsicles
first divided the circle of the zodiac into 360 degrees. Ancient historians
claim that the library's 500,000 book collection was so comprehensive that no
manuscript was available in any library worldwide that was not available in
Alexandria.
Mathematics
Have
you ever heard of Euclidean Geometry? Did you know that
Euclid
lived, developed his theories, and wrote
Elements
at the Alexandria Mouseion during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus? In his
Elements,
Euclid provided a comprehensive analysis of geometry, proportions, and theory of
numbers. His other notable contribution,
Optics,
is a treatise of geometrical optics.
In the Mouseion, the
first
studies of conic sections (Ellipse,
Parabola, and Hyperbola) were carried out by
Conon of
Samos and
Appolonius of
Perga. Later,
Pappus
wrote his
Collection,
Menelaus
studied spherical triangles, and
Sporus,
Heron,
Diophantus,
Theon,
and his daughter
Hypatia,
taught
mathematics.
Geography and
Astronomy
Have you ever
heard of the Alexandrian astronomer
Eratosthenes?
Do you know that he measured the Earth diameter more than 15 centuries before
Copernicus
and
Galileo
were even born? Eratosthenes was born in Cyrene in 276 BC, and, upon the death
of Callimachus, was offered the post of "Chief Librarian of the Mouseion", a
most highly respected position. His measurement of the Earth diameter was the
most exciting of his achievements, although not the only one. He believed the
Earth is round, and knew that shadows cast by the sun in Alexandria and Aswan
(Syene) were unequal. He took measurements inside a deep well in Syene and
along an obelisk in Alexandria a year apart, on the same day of the year.
Knowing the distance between both cities, and using simple calculations, he
estimated the Earth diameter at 7,850 miles. Today, we know that Eratosthenes'
estimate was only about 0.5% off.
The great Alexandrian
geographer and astronomer
Claudius
Ptolemy was born in AD 100. The
work he developed was a product of the knowledge compiled in the Mouseion
during the Ptolemaic period. He wrote many books including
Geography,
Almagest,
Handy
Tables, and
Planisphaerium.
He proposed the "Ptolemaic" Theory which states that Universe revolves around
the Earth. The theory was adopted by scientists until the sixteenth century.
Aristarchus
of Samos, Eratosthenes' co-worker
in Alexandria, had suggested in the third century BC the heliocentric
hypothesis, which states that the Earth and the planets revolve around the Sun.
Ironically, fifteen centuries later, people were still arguing whether or not
the earth is flat. Unfortunately, very little is known of Aristarchus' work and
writings which perished along with the
Library.
The
Monuments
The
Lighthouse
The
construction of the
Lighthouse of
Alexandria was completed during the
reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. It ranked as one of the
Seven Wonders of the
Ancient World. In fact, it was the
only Wonder that had a practical secular use. This blend of beauty and
scientific practicality was exclusive to the Ptolemies and their culture. Its
architect, Sostratus, was a contemporary of Euclid. The full design of the
Pharos and its accessories was carried out at the Mouseion. It stood
approximately 150 meters high (a 50-storey modern building). Most impressive,
was the mysterious "mirror" that was installed at the building summit. It was
capable of detecting ships in the sea that were invisible to the naked eye and
was used to magnify the intensity of the light emitting from the "lantern" at
the top. A statue of
Poseidon
decorated the summit of the building.
The
Palace
The Ptolemaic
Palace system covered the promontory of Silsila, and stretched south and west.
Recent archeological evidence suggests that the buildings reached as far west as
today's Raml Station,that is, about
a mile along the
shores of the Eastern Harbour. The
palace system was connected to the Mouseion, and the
Caesarium
which was built later by
Cleopatra
in honor of Julius Caesar. An Island Palace, called Antirrhodus, was erected off
of Alexandria's mainland in the Eastern Harbour. In later periods, water levels
rose, and the Island subsided; remains of the Island Palace are submerged
underneath the water of the Harbour.
The Temple of
Serapis
Built in honor
of the Egyptian God, Osiris, the temple was home to worshippers of all sects.
Osiris, Zeus, Pluto, Apis, and others all lived in harmony there. It was the
last stronghold of Paganism against Christianity. Built along the lines of
Greek architecture, the temple is located in Kom-El-Dikka, site of the ancient
town of Rhakotis.
The Heptastadion
Dyke
Connecting the
Island of Pharos with Egypt's mainland was part of Alexander's plan. A dyke,
the Heptastadion (seven stades long) was completed during the Ptolemaic period,
and provided not only easy access to Pharos, but a double harbor to the city.
Later on, the area around the Heptastadion silted and formed the isthmus known
today as Mansheya.
The
Founding
The Ptolemaic
City
The Roman
City
The Arab
City
The Modern
City
Back
to Alexandria Homepage
Last modified
Wednesday, January 21,
2004
Copyright
© 1995, 1999, 2004 by
Alaa K.
Ashmawy. All rights
reserved.
From:
History of Alexandria: The Ptolemaic
Legacy
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/Alexandria/History/legacy.html
Posted at 05:04 PM
Read More
The Mysterious Fate of the Great Library of Alexandria
The Mysterious Fate of the Great
Library of
Alexandria
Other
articles of
interest:
The
Decline and End of Witch Trials in
Europe
The
Myth of Conflict in the History of Science and
Religion
Medieval
Science and the
Church
Christianity
and the Rise of
Science
Copernicus
and his
Revolutions
Christianity
and the Loss of Pagan
Literature
Contents
Introduction
Julius
Caesar
Theophilus
Omar
A
much more detailed and heavily footnoted paper about the libraries of
Alexandria, their foundation and their fate is available
here.
Note:
When a reference is given in
Green
then holding your mouse over it will cause a note to appear that gives the text
of the reference. Longer references, given in
Red,
will appear in a new window as long as your brower supports Javascript. I
believe that giving ready access to the original sources should be one of the
primary aims of scholarship on the
Internet.
Introduction
What
happened to the Royal Library of Alexandria? We can be certain it was there
once, founded by Ptolomy II Soter, and we can be equally certain it is not there
now. It formed part of the Museum which was located in the Bruchion or palace
quarter of the city of Alexandria. This great ancient city, occupying a spit of
land on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, had been founded by Alexander the
Great in his flying visit to Egypt and became the capital of the last dynasty of
Pharaohs descended from Alexander's general Ptolemy. The Great or more properly
Royal Library formed a part of the Museum but whether or not it was a separate
building is unclear.
Stories about
its demise have been circulating for centuries and date back to at least the
first century AD. These stories continue to be told and embellished today by
those who wish to make a moral attack against the alleged vandals. We find that
three parties are blamed for the destruction and they correspond to the three
occupying powers that ruled Alexandria after it had been lost by the Greeks. Let
me first tell those stories as we hear them today - without references, largely
inaccurate and used as polemic. Then I will try and establish what, if anything
we can know before finally and rather indulgently making my own
suggestions.
The suspects
respectively are a Roman, a Christian and a Moslem - Julius Caesar, Patriarch
Theophilus of Alexandria and Caliph Omar of Damascus. It is clear that the Royal
Library could not have been burnt down or otherwise destroyed by all three of
these characters and so we find we have too many sources for the event of the
destruction rather than a paucity. As scholars of the Gospels will vouch, this
too can be an embarrassment. How we decide to reconcile the stories will depend
almost entirely on how we criticise the sources and which of them we choose to
consider most reliable.
Archaeology
can be a help with ancient history although it tends to be silent about the
things in which we are most interested leading the more foolish archaeologists
to claim they never happened. In the case of Alexandria a series of earthquakes
and floods in the middle ages mean that the entire palace quarter in the North
East of the city is now underwater and largely inaccessible. Recent work in
underwater archaeology has revealed more but we will probably never be able to
dig around in the foundations of the Museum. The Great Temple of Serapis, to
which we will later return, was in the south-western quarter and parts of its
foundations have been
excavated.
Julius
Caesar
First, let us
read the legendary account:
It
is often said that the Romans were civilised but their most famous general was
responsible for the greatest act of vandalism during antiquity. Julius Caesar
was attacking Alexandria in pursuit of his archrival Pompey when he found
himself about to be cut off by the Egyptian fleet. Realising that this would
leave him in a desperate predicament, he took decisive action and sent fire
ships into the harbour. His plan was a success and the enemy fleet was quickly
aflame. But the fire did not stop these and jumped onto the dockside which was
laden with flammable materials ready for export. Next it spread in land and
before anyone could stop it, the Great Library itself was blazing brightly as
400,000 priceless scrolls were reduced to ashes. As for Caesar himself, did not
think it important enough to mention in his
memoirs.
The accused was indeed in
Alexandria in 47 - 48 BC after arriving in pursuit of his rival Pompey. Caesar
was able to occupy the city without any trouble after destroying the Egyptian
fleet and was residing in the palace with Cleopatra when more trouble started.
Some henchmen of the Pharaoh attacked with a sizable force and Caesar suddenly
found himself stuck in a hostile city with very few forces. That he still won
out is a tribute to his luck and powers of leadership. This much is uncontested
but to unravel the fate of the Royal Library we must examine the ancient
sources.
Julius Caesar -
The Civil Wars
The earliest
account we have of this these events is in
The Civil
Wars penned by Caesar (died 44BC) himself.
In it he explains how he had to set the dockyards and Alexandrine fleet alight
for his own safety as he was in dire straits. As to whether the fire spread away
from the shore and also damaged the Royal Library, he is silent. The narrative
in The Civil Wars break off at the start of the campaign in Egypt and the story
is taken up by one of his lieutenant's called Hirtius (died 43BC) in
The Alexandrine
War. It does not include any mention of
setting fire to Alexandria but instead states that in fact the city would not
burn as it was made purely of
stone.
We can log this as a Not
Guilty plea by the accused but note that a reason he might have mentioned that
Alexandria does not burn would be to hide his own action of burning it. Future
history demonstrated many times that Alexandria burns just as well as any other
city. The fire is also not mentioned by Cicero in his philippics against
Caesar's ally Mark Anthony. This is a valuable witness for the defence, as
Cicero did not like Caesar at all. Unfortunately it is also an argument from
silence and it is very possible that Cicero either did not know about everything
that happened, saw no need to mention this particular event or mentioned it in
the quarter of his works no longer
extant.
Strabo -
Geography
The great scholar,
Strabo (died after 24AD) was in Alexandria in 20BC and in all his detailed
description of the palace and Museum does not mention the library at all. This
omission is often explained by scholars claiming that the library was inside the
Museum or annexed to it. But even so, not breathing a word about this famous
institution is very suspicious. Can we conclude that the library was no longer
there but that political constraints meant that its fate still could not be
mentioned?
Modern writer, Mostafa
El-Abbadi, comes up with a more subtle point. He shows how Strabo mentions the
body of research available to one of the earlier librarians was much greater
than Strabo himself had access to. He concludes that this shows that Strabo did
not have access to the wisdom of the Royal Library that his illustrious
predecessor had. The point is small but potentially
significant.
Livy and
Florus - Epitome of the History of
Rome
The first mention of the
fire at Alexandria would seem to come from Livy (died 17AD) in his History of
Rome. The book that it was included in is lost and the surviving Summaries are
too brief to include it. However, a second century
Epitome
written by Florus survives and it says that the fire was started by Caesar to
clear the area around his position so the enemy had no cover from which to fire
arrows. The library itself is not mentioned by Florus although it was in the
same area of the city as Caesar who was occupying the palace at the
time.
The Younger Seneca -
On Tranquillity of the Mind
In
fact we do know that the Royal Library is mentioned by Livy because he is later
quoted by Seneca (died 65AD) in his dialogue
On the Tranquillity of the
Mind where he also says that a great number
of books were destroyed. It has been asserted that Seneca must have got his
knowledge about the destruction of the books from Livy but a close reading of
the dialogue does not bear this out. Seneca actually only states that Livy
thought the library was "the most distinguished achievement of the good taste
and solicitude of kings" and then only so as he can
disagree.
The actual number of books
destroyed that Seneca gives is matter of some controversy that we will need to
briefly address. In ancient manuscripts it is common for large numbers to be
expressed as a dot placed above the numeral for each power of ten. Clearly in
copying it is easy to make a mistake with the number of dots and errors by a
factor of ten are frequent. That may have happened in the case of On the
Tranquillity of the Mind. The manuscript from Monte Cassino actually reads
40,000 books but this is usually corrected to 400,000 by editors as other
sources such as Orosius give this figure for the number of scrolls destroyed. I
have not seen the manuscript, of course, so do not know if this way the number
is expressed. However, even if it was given in words the difference between
40,000 and 400,000 is also pretty small. I propose therefore that the number
given by Seneca, and indeed all other ancient sources, should be ruled as
inadmissible as evidence because we cannot be sure of what it was
originally.
Plutarch and
Dio Cassius - Life of Caesar and Roman
History
After this, the
references become more explicit. Plutarch (died 120AD), in his
Life of
Caesar throws in a reference to the
destruction of the library almost casually. Now Plutarch does not seem to carry
a brief against Caesar, although he is happy to criticise him, so we should take
this reference seriously. Additionally, he had visited Alexandria and presumably
might have noticed if the library was still in existence. Dio Cassius (died
235AD) tells us that warehouses of books near the docks were accidentally burnt
by Caesar's men. His words are difficult to pin down and have led some scholars
to suggest that only books waiting for export were destroyed. This reads far
more into the text than it allows and I do not think that Dio saying that the
books 'happened' to be in the path of the flames means that usually they were
kept somewhere else.
Aulus
Gellius - Attic Nights
Gellius
(died 180 AD) included in his
Attic
Nights contain a brief passage about
libraries where the destruction of the Royal Library is mentioned as taking
place by accident during our first war against Alexandria when auxiliary
soldiers started a fire. This first war was Caesar's campaign and the second was
when Octavian took Egypt from Mark Anthony and Cleopatra. In The Vanished
Library, Luciano Canfora claims that this passage is an interpolation on the
strength that the introduction does not mention it but again the evidence for
this seems flimsy. Gellius claims 700,000 books went up in
smoke.
Ammianus
Marcellinus and Orosius - Roman History and History against the
Pagans
One of the final pagan
Roman historians, Ammianus Marcellinus (died 395AD), tells us about the fate of
the library during an aside about the city of Alexandria in his
Roman
History. He relates the story of the fire
started by Julius Caesar is 'the unanimous belief of the ancient authors' but
confuses the library building with the Serapeum and increases the number of
scrolls destroyed to 700,000 (perhaps Gellius is his source). The story is
repeated with the figure of 400,000 scrolls destroyed by Orosius (died after
415AD), an early Christian historian, in his
History against the
Pagans. Both these writers are far too late
to be accurate sources on their own but they do tell us that by the fourth
century the Royal Library was widely believed to have been destroyed by Julius
Caesar. We will be discussing them further below with regard to the destruction
of the Serapeum which occurred in their own
time.
The verdict on
Caesar
Taken together we can
conclude a number of things from these
sources:
• The earliest
descriptions of the Alexandrine War, written by Caesar or his crony,
deliberately cover up anything that reflects badly on the great man. Their
silence about burning down the world's greatest library, even by accident, is
not surprising.
• The library as a
separate building did not exist by the time of Strabo's visit in
20BC.
• The belief that Caesar had
destroyed the library was widespread by the time his family no longer occupied
the throne of the emperors in the late first century AD. Plutarch, Gellius and
Seneca are all evidence for this. We must therefore assume that the library did
not exist at this time. Plutarch, a Greek, would certainly have known if it
did.
Although we cannot prove his
guilt with first hand evidence, it seems justified to claim that the book stacks
of the Royal Library were burnt down by Julius Caesar. Perhaps the reading
rooms, which in any case were part of the Museum, survived but, as Seneca and
all the other sources tell us, the books themselves perished. That scholarship
continued in Alexandria after this time cannot be doubted but I can find no
explicit mention of the Royal Library after Caesar's ill-fated visit. Indeed as
Athenaeus of Naucratis (died after 200AD) mournfully wrote in the
Deipnosophistai "And concerning the number of books and the establishment of
libraries and the collection in the Museum, why need I even speak when they are
all the the memory of
men."
Theophilus
Again,
the legendary story
first:
Theophilus, Patriarch of
Alexandria, is also the patron saint of arsonists. As Christianity slowly
strangled the life out of classical culture in the forth century it became more
and more difficult to be a pagan. There stood in Alexandria the great temple of
Serapis called the Serapeum and attached to it was the Great Library of
Alexandria where all the wisdom of the ancients was preserved. Now Theophilus
knew that as long as this knowledge existed people would be less inclined to
believe the bible so he set about destroying the pagan temples. But the
Serapeum was a huge structure, high on a mound and beyond the abilities of the
raging Christian fanatics to assault. Faced with this edifice, the Patriarch
sent word to Rome. There the Emperor Theodosius the Great, who had ordered that
paganism be annihilated, gave his permission for the destruction of the
Serapeum. Realising they had no chance, the priests and priestesses fled their
temple and the mob moved in. The vast structure was razed to it foundations and
the scrolls from the library were burnt in huge pyres in the streets of
Alexandria.
Theophilus was indeed the
Patriarch of Alexandria at the time that the Serapeum was converted in a
Christian church although he has never been made a saint! The date for the
events recorded is usually given as 391AD when Theodosius was emperor and
energetically converting all his subjects to Christianity. The contention made
is that there was another library in the Serapeum temple that a Christian mob
destroyed during their sacking of the temple. We need to establish if there
really was a library there and also if Theophilus destroyed
it.
The intervening
years
About the library the
sources are reasonably silent but this is not a surprise because we know already
that we cannot be talking about the Royal Library itself. However, Alexandria
remained a centre of scholarship and other libraries existed. The Emperor
Claudius set up the eponymous named Claudian to be a centre for the study of
history and Hadrian founded a library at the Caesarean temple during his visit.
Less reliably, Plutarch informs us that Mark Anthony gave Cleopatra the entire
contents - some 200,000 rolls - of the Pergamon library as a
gift.
The 12th century Byzantine
scholar, John Tzetzes, in his Prolegomena to Aristophanes preserves some details
about the catalogue of the poet Callimachus (died after 250BC) who said there
were nearly 500,000 scrolls in the Royal Library and another 42,000 odd in the
outer or public library. Note that Callimachus is not known to have referred to
the Serapeum Library although he is often assumed to be doing so. The fourth
century Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus (died 402AD) in his
Weights and
Measures (actually a biblical commentary!)
says that there were over 50,000 volumes in the 'daughter' library that he
places in the Serapeum. Our previous observations about numbers fully apply here
even if it seems fair to say that there were many fewer scrolls in the daughter
than in the Royal Library. Epiphanius also tells us that by his day the entire
Bruchion quarter of Alexandria was laid waste, no doubt doe the the actions of
Aurelian or Diocletian. There is a detailed report of the acropolis of
Alexandria in a
Progymnasmata
by Aphthonius of Ephesus (died after 400AD) which he presents as an example of
how to give a description. He speaks of book repositories open to the public and
we can assume this refers to the Serapeum. Unfortunately the date of the
description is impossible to determine and nor can we tell if it is an
eyewitness account. However, we do have enough evidence in total to assert that
there was once a library at the Serapeum even if it is not the same as the
'outer library' attached to the Royal
Library.
Despite the continuation of
academic activity, Alexandria suffered much in the years up to 391AD. Augustus
reduced it, Caracalla massacred many of its citizens over a perceived insult and
Aurelian also sacked the city and the palace quarter in which the Museum was
situated. Finally, the city was taken with great destruction by Diocletian at
the start of the fourth
century.
Ammianus
Marcellinus - Roman History
In
the Roman
History, Ammianus waxes lyrical about the
Serapeum but he then gets a bit confused and says that the libraries it held
were those burnt by Caesar in the Alexandrine War. The point is perhaps vital
though because he had visited Alexandria and yet says of the Serapeum "in it
have been valuable libraries" in the perfect tense. This was before 391AD when
Theophilus and his gang set to work and very strongly suggests there were no
books present in the temple at the time of its
destruction.
Rufinus
Tyrannius - Ecclesiastical
History
The earliest description
of the sack of the Serapeum was almost certainly one by Sophronius, a Christian
scholar, called On the Overthrow of Serapis and now lost. Rufinus (died 410AD)
was an orthodox Latin Christian who spent many years of his life in Alexandria.
He arrived in 372AD and whether or not he was actually present when the Serapeum
was demolished, he was certainly there at around the same time. He rather freely
translated Eusebius's History of the Church into Latin and then added his own
books X and XI taking the narrative up to his own time. It is in book XI that we
find the best source for the events at the Serapeum which he describes in
detail. His account largely agrees with the one given above except that he makes
no mention of any library or books at all. He seems to regret the passing of the
Serapeum but puts the blame squarely on the local pagans for inciting the
Christian mob. The only English translation of his work is still very much in
copyright so until I have produced another myself the reader will just have to
take my word for
it.
Eunapius - Lives of
the Philosophers
The pagan writer
Eunapius of Antioch (died after 400AD) included an account of the sack of the
Serapeum in his Life of
Antonius who, before he died in 390AD, had
prophesied that all the pagan temples in Alexandria would be destroyed (not a
desperately surprising contingency at the time). Eunapius wants to show how
right he was. As well as being a pagan, Eunapius is vehemently anti-Christian
and spares no effort in making Theophilus and his followers look as foolish as
possible. His narrative is laced with venom and sarcasm as he describes the sack
of the temple as a battle without an enemy. If a great library had been
destroyed then Eunapius, the pagan scholar, would surely have mentioned it. He
does not.
Socrates
Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen and
Theodoret
Socrates (died after
450AD) also wrote a History of
the Church that continued on from that of
Eusebius. His was more detailed and in Greek rather than Latin. It contains a
chapter about the destruction of the Serapeum which acknowledges that the deed
was ordered by the Emperor, that the building was demolished and that it was
later converted to a church. Again, no mention is made of any books that might
have been in the Serapeum or what could have happened to them. His passage about
the cross-shaped hieroglyphics found in the temple gives us some idea of how
Christianity turned various pagan symbols to its
advantage.
The histories of
Sozomen
(died 443AD) and
Theodoret
(died after 457AD) cover a similar period. Despite being pleased to report in
detail the Serapeum's destruction they also make mention no books at all
although Theodoret says that the wooden idols of Serapis were burnt. Both of
these histories are heavily dependent on Socrates but do include details from
other sources.
Paulus
Orosius - History against the
Pagans
Orosius (died after 415AD)
was a friend of Saint Augustine who wrote a
History against the
Pagans that was fully intended to paint all
non-Christians in a bad light. So as a historian he is useless but when he says
something that suggests that his fellow Christians were not whiter than white,
that is to say, against the grain of his usual bias, we have to take it
seriously. In his aside on the Great Library, he says something of significance
which is both an eyewitness detail and suggests that his fellow Christians are
in the wrong. He says "...there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves
have seen and when these temples were plundered these, we are told, were emptied
by our own men in our own time." His statement that there was no other major
library in Alexandria at the time of Caesar's expedition is interesting and
would seem to count against there being a Serapeum library at that time.
However, Orosius is too late a source to carry much weight in this
matter.
From Orosius we can deduce
that Christians did empty some temples of books but we cannot go much further.
We cannot say the books were destroyed as this is not stated nor can we say
which temples he is talking about or who was responsible. However, we can be
sure he was not talking about the Serapeum as all sources agree it was razed to
the ground and the temples Orosius visited are not only still standing but even
have their internal furninshings. The most likely explanation is that the books
were removed to Christian libraries or
sold.
The verdict on
Theophilus
It is hard enough to
establish beyond doubt that there was a library in the Serapeum at all but if
there was, Ammianus makes clear that it was no longer there by the mid fourth
century. This is confirmed by the silence of all the sources, including one that
would be keen to report Christian atrocities, for the destruction of the temple
in 391AD. Note that this is not an 'argument from silence' because there is no
reason at all to expect a mention of books in the Serapeum when it was
demolished. An invalid 'argument from silence' is when we claim something that
is not mentioned did not happen, even though other evidence suggests it did.
There is no positive evidence for the existence of the library and instead near
conclusive eye witness evidence
against.
The story that Theophilus
destroyed a library is clearly a fiction that we can very precisely lay at the
door of Edward Gibbon. It is in his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire that we first find the allegation made. Gibbon seems mainly concerned to
clear the Arabs of the responsibility of destroying the library and allows his
marked anti-Christian prejudice to cloud his better judgement. His excellent
footnotes show he had exactly the same sources as we do but drew the wrong
conclusions. The story has recently been popularised by Carl Sagan who
includes it in
Cosmos.
He spices the story up with a role for the murdered philosopher Hypatia, even
though there is no evidence connecting her to the library at
all.
Caliph
Omar
First the legendary
account:
The Moslems invaded
Egypt during the seventh century as their fanaticism carried them on conquests
that would take form an empire stretching from Spain to India. There was not
much of a struggle in Egypt and the locals found the rule of the Caliph to be
more tolerant than that of the Byzantines before them. However, when a
Christian called John informed the local Arab general that there existed in
Alexandria a great Library preserving all the knowledge in the world he was
perturbed. Eventually he sent word to Damascus where Caliph Omar ordered that
all the books in the library should be destroyed because, as he said "they will
either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree
with it, so they are superfluous." Therefore, the books and scrolls were taken
out of the library and distributed as fuel to the many bathhouses of the city.
So enormous was the volume of literature that it took six months for it all to
be burnt to ashes heating the saunas of the
conquerors.
The leader of the Moslem
forces that took Egypt in 640AD was called 'Amr and it was he who was supposed
to have asked Omar what to do about the fabled library that he found himself in
control of.
There are only a few
sources that we need to examine. They are very late The first of the two late
sources dates from the 12th century and is written by Abd al Latif (died 1231)
who, in his Account of
Egypt while describing Alexandria, mentions
of the ruins of the Serapeum. The problems with this as historical evidence are
enormous and insurmountable. He admits that the source of his information was
rumour and the fantasy about Aristotle does not bode well for the veracity of
the rest of the piece.
In the
thirteenth century the great Jacobite Christian Bishop Gregory Bar Hebræus
(died 1286), called Abû 'l Faraj in Arabic, fleshes the story out and
includes the famous epigram about the Koran. Again there is no clue as to where
he found the story but it seems to have been one doing the rounds among
Christians living under the dominion of the Moslems. Gregory is happy to record
plenty of far fetched tales about omens and monstrosities so we must treat this
story with the greatest suspicion. As it is not even included in the original
version of his history but only in the Arabic version that he translated and
abridged himself very late in life, he may not have known the story when he
first put pen to parchment. In The Vanished Library, Canfora mentions a Syriac
manuscript published in Paris at the end of the nineteenth century by
François Nau. It was written by a Christian monk in the ninth century and
details the conversation between John and Caliph Omar. After help from email
correspondents, I have finally been able to find this elusive document in its
French translation and ascertained that it makes no mention of any library and
appears to be an example of a theological dialogue between two representative
individuals. In other words it is not historical and has no pretensions to
be.
The verdict on
Omar
The errors in the sources
are obvious and the story itself is almost wholly incredible. In the first
place, Gregory Bar Hebræus represents the Christian in his story as being
one John of Byzantium and that John was certainly dead by the time of the Moslem
invasion of Egypt. Also, the prospect of the library taking six months to burn
is simply fantastic and just the sort of exaggeration one might expect to find
in Arab legends such as the Arabian Nights. However Alfred Butler's famous
observation that the books of the library were made of vellum which does not
burn is not true. The very late dates of the source material are also suspect as
there is no hint of this atrocity in any early literature - even in the Coptic
Christian chronicle of John of
Nikiou (died after 640AD) who detailed the Arab
invasion. Finally, the story comes from the hand of a Christian intellectual who
would have been more than happy to show the religion of his rulers in a bad
light. Agreeing with Gibbon this time, we can dismiss it as a
legend.
All quotations from or
references to this essay should be accompanied by a link back to this page and
the name of the author. This essay may be reproduced only with permission
of the author although such permission will not normally be
declined.
Back
to
contents
Contact
me
Home
©
James Hannam 2003.
Last
revised: 15 January, 2004
.
From: The Mysterious
Fate of the Great Library of
Alexandria
http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm
Posted at 03:14 PM
Read More
Lighthouse of Alexandria
Seven Wonders of the Ancient
World
Sostratus, the son of Dexiphanes, the
Cnidian, dedicated this to the Saviour Gods, on behalf of those who sail the
seas.
Dedicatory
inscription of the Lighthouse
Of the Seven Wonders
of the Ancient World, only one had a practical use in addition to its
architectural elegance: The Lighthouse of Alexandria. For sailors, it ensured a
safe return to the Great Harbor. For architects, it meant even more: it was the
tallest building on Earth. And for scientists, it was the mysterious mirror that
fascinated them most... The mirror which reflection could be seen more than 50
km (35 miles) off-shore.
Location
On
the ancient island of Pharos, now a promontory within the city of
Alexandria
in
Egypt.
History
Shortly
after the death of
Alexander the
Great, his commander
Ptolemy
Soter assumed power in Egypt. He had
witnessed the
founding
of Alexandria, and established his capital there. Off of the city's coast lies a
small island: Pharos. Its name, legend says, is a variation of
Pharaoh's
Island, but it is more likely that
the name is Greek in origin. The island was connected to the mainland by means
of a dike - the Heptastadion - which gave the city a
double
harbor. And because of dangerous
sailing conditions and flat coastline in the region, the construction of a
lighthouse was necessary.
The project was conceived and initiated by Ptolemy Soter around 290 BC, but was
completed after his death, during the reign of his son Ptolemy Philadelphus.
Sostratus, a contemporary of
Euclid,
was the architect, but detailed calculations for the structure and its
accessories were carried out at the Alexandria Library/Mouseion. The monument
was dedicated to the Savior
Gods: Ptolemy Soter
(lit.
savior) and his wife Berenice. For centuries, the Lighthouse of Alexandria
(occasionally referred to as the Pharos Lighthouse) was used to mark the harbor,
using fire at night and reflecting sun rays during the day. It was even shown on
Roman coins, just as famous monuments are depicted on currency
today.
When the Arabs
conquered Egypt, they admired Alexandria and its wealth. The Lighthouse
continues to be mentioned in their writings and travelers accounts. But the new
rulers moved their capital to Cairo since they had no ties to the Mediterranean.
When the mirror was brought down mistakenly, they did not restore it back into
place. In AD 956, an earthquake shook Alexandria, and caused little damage to
the Lighthouse. It was later in 1303 and in 1323 that two stronger earthquakes
left a significant impression on the structure. When the famous Arab traveler
Ibn
Battuta visited Alexandria in 1349, he
could not enter the ruinous monument or even climb to its
doorway.
The final chapter
in the history of the Lighthouse came in AD 1480 when the Egyptian Mamelouk
Sultan, Qaitbay, decided to fortify Alexandria's defense. He built a
medieval
fort on the same spot where the
Lighthouse once stood, using the fallen stone and
marble.
Description
Of
the six vanished Wonders, the Lighthouse of Alexandria was the last to
disappear. Therefore we have adequately accurate knowledge of its location and
appearance. Ancient accounts such as those by Strabo and
Pliny the
Elder give us a brief description of
the "tower" and the magnificent white marble cover. They tell us how the
mysterious mirror could reflect the light tens of kilometers away. Legend says
the mirror was also used to detect and burn enemy ships before they could reach
the shore.
In 1166, an Arab
traveler, Abou-Haggag Al-Andaloussi visited the Lighthouse. He documented a
wealth of information and gave an accurate description of the structure which
helped modern archeologists
reconstruct
the monument. It was composed of three stages: The lowest square, 55.9 m (183.4
ft) high with a cylindrical core; the middle octagonal with a side length of
18.30 m (60.0 ft) and a height of 27.45 m (90.1 ft); and the third circular 7.30
m (24.0 ft) high. The total height of the building including the foundation base
was about 117 m (384 ft), equivalent to a 40-story modern building. The internal
core was used as a shaft to lift the fuel needed for the fire. At the top stage,
the mirror reflected sunlight during the day while fire was used during the
night. In ancient times, a statue of
Poseidon
adorned the summit of the
building.
Although the
Lighthouse of Alexandria did not survive to the present day, it left its
influence in various respects. From an architectural standpoint, the monument
has been used as a model for many prototypes along the Mediterranean, as far
away as Spain. And from a linguistic standpoint, it gave its name -- Pharos --
to all the
lighthouses
in the world... Just look up the dictionary for the French, Italian, or Spanish
word for
lighthouse.
News!
pyramid
gardens
zeus
artemis
mausoleum
colossus
Note: The
color painting at the top of the page is of artistic nature and does not
necessarily represent an accurate reconstruction of the Wonder. Painting by
Mario Larrinaga.
Back
to the Seven Wonders Home Page
Last modified
Wednesday, January 21,
2004
Copyright
© 1995, 1999, 2004 by
Alaa K.
Ashmawy. All rights
reserved.
From: The
Seven Wonders: The Lighthouse of
Alexandria
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/Wonders/pharos.html
Posted at 03:11 PM
Read More
The TarotL Tarot History Information Sheet
Tarot History Information Sheet
The TarotL Tarot History Information
Sheet
by members of the
TarotL discussion group
(http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/TarotL)
(Mary K. Greer, Tom
Tadfor Little, Nina Lee Braden, Linda Dunn, Mark
Filipas,
Robert V. O'Neill,
Christine Payne-Towler, Robert Place, James Revak, and
others)
Compiled
and edited by Tom Tadfor
Little
Introduction
Many
things (true, false, and speculative) have been written about the history of the
tarot. This sheet addresses some oft-repeated statements about the tarot that
may seem like historical fact, but are actually without basis in the evidence
presently available. This is not to say that there is no room for speculative or
non-factual stories about the tarot. Myths and lore express the human soul and
creativity. These myths tell us much about the significance tarot has on an
inspirational growth level. They speak an inner truth that is, at times, more
personally true than external facts. However, both history and myth may suffer
when the two become
confused.
The information
given here consists mostly of conclusions that recent tarot historians have
drawn from studying the evidence of written documents and cards that have come
down to us. Other interpretations might be drawn from the same body of evidence.
Readers interested in examining the evidence for themselves and drawing their
own conclusions are directed to the references listed at the end of this sheet
for useful starting places. Readers should also be aware of the limitations of
relying on documentary evidence alone. Although written records are our most
reliable contact with centuries past, they do not preserve everything that
people thought or did, especially pertaining to an aspect of popular culture,
such as the tarot.
The
information on this sheet may be freely used, although direct quotations must be
credited and an acknowledgement would be appreciated if you found this sheet
especially useful. Permission is granted to photocopy for educational, nonprofit
uses.
Topic:
The time and place of the origin of the
tarot
Inaccurate:
The tarot comes from Egypt; India; China; Fez, Morocco; the Sufis; the Cathars;
Jewish Kabbalists or Moses; or the origin of the tarot is
unknown.
Current
Historical Understanding: The tarot
originated in northern Italy early in the 15th century (1420-1440). There is no
evidence for it originating in any other time or place. The earliest extant
cards are lavish hand-painted decks from the courts of the
nobility.
Topic:
The origin of the word
"tarot"
Inaccurate:
The word is Egyptian, Hebrew, or Latin; it is an anagram; it holds the key to
the mystery of the
cards.
Current Historical
Understanding: The earliest names
for the tarot are all Italian. Originally the cards were called
carte da
trionfi (cards of the triumphs).
Around 1530 (about 100 years after the origin of the cards), the word
tarocchi
(singular
tarocco) begins to be used to
distinguish them from a new game of triumphs or trumps then being played with
ordinary playing cards. The etymology of this new word is not known. The German
form is
tarock,
the French form is
tarot.
Even if the etymology were known, it would probably not tell us much about the
idea behind the cards, since it only came into use 100 years after they first
appeared.
Topic:
The cultural source of the tarot
symbols
Inaccurate:
The symbolism of the trumps comes from Egypt (or India, or other exotic
locale).
Current
Historical Understanding: The
symbolism of the trumps is drawn from the culture of Medieval and Renaissance
Europe. Most tarot subjects are distinctive to European Christendom.
Illustrations virtually identical to each of the tarot subjects can be found in
European art, and such precise analogs are not found in other
cultures.
Topic:
The gypsies and
tarot
Inaccurate:
The gypsies brought the tarot to Europe and spread its
use.
Current Historical
Understanding: This idea was
popularized in the 19th century by several writers, notably Vaillant and Papus,
without any basis in historical fact. There is no evidence that the Rom
(gypsies) used tarot cards until the 20th century. Most of their fortune-telling
was through palmistry and later through the use of ordinary playing
cards.
Topic:
Relationship between tarot and ordinary playing
cards
Inaccurate:
The 52-card deck evolved from the tarot, leaving the Joker as the only remnant
of the major
arcana.
Current Historical
Understanding: Playing cards came
to Europe from Islam, probably via Muslim Spain, about 50 years before the
development of tarot. They appeared quite suddenly in many different European
cities between 1375 and 1378. European playing cards were an adaptation of the
Islamic Mamluk cards. These early cards had suits of cups, swords, coins, and
polo sticks (seen by Europeans as staves), and courts consisting of a king and
two male underlings. The tarot adds the Fool, the trumps, and a set of queens to
this system. Some time before 1480, the French introduced cards with the
now-familiar suits of hearts, clubs, spades, and diamonds. The earlier suits are
still preserved in the tarot and in Italian and Spanish playing
cards.
The Joker originated
in the United States around 1857, used as a wild card in poker and as the
highest trump in Euchre. It appears to have no direct relationship to the Fool
of the
tarot.
Topic:
The "Charles VI" or "Gringonneur" tarot
cards
Inaccurate:
The tarot was invented to amuse Charles VI of France in 1392, as evidenced by a
deck by Gringonneur in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in
Paris.
Current Historical
Understanding: It is recorded that
in 1392, Jacquemin Gringonneur was paid to paint three decks of cards for
Charles VI. These were probably playing cards, not tarot. The deck in the
Bibliothèque Nationale de France is a late-15th century hand-painted deck
of the Northern Italian type (probably from Venice or
Ferrara).
Topic:
Tarot and the Hebrew
Alphabet
Inaccurate:
Eliphas Lévi (c. 1850) was the first to ascribe Hebrew letters to the
tarot.
Current Historical
Understanding: The Comte de Mellet,
whose short article on the tarot was published in Court de Gébelin's
Le Monde
Primitif (1781), was the first to
write of a connection between the Hebrew letters and the cards. Court de
Gébelin also mentioned the idea in passing in his own
essay.
Topic:
Tarot censored by the
church
Inaccurate:
The Catholic and Protestant churches outlawed tarot and all who used it in an
effort to stamp out either heretical teachings or a work of the
Devil.
Current Historical
Understanding: The Inquisition
documented in considerable detail what the church regarded as evidence of heresy
and the tarot is never
mentioned.
Many printers
made their living printing both religious cards and playing cards. Playing cards
were sometimes restricted or outlawed because of their use in gambling. Tarot
cards were, in fact, sometimes explicitly exempted from bans on playing cards,
perhaps because of their association with the upper classes. In 1423, playing
cards (tarot cards were not mentioned) were among many things thrown on the
fires in Bologna by followers of Bernadino of Sienna during an attack against
all studies and pastimes not focused on
religion.
After the
Reformation, the church did object to the cards depicting the Pope and Papess,
and cardmakers substituted less controversial
images.
Topic:
Original use of tarot
cards
Inaccurate:
The tarot was originally used for divination/magic/teaching secret
doctrines/etc.
Current
Historical Understanding: Written
records tell that the tarot was regularly used to play a card game similar to
Bridge. The game was popular throughout much of Europe for centuries and is
still played today, particularly in France. Early poets also used the titles of
the trump cards to create flattering verses, called
tarocchi
appropriati, describing ladies of
the court or famous personages. Although it is possible that tarot cards might
also have been sometimes used for other purposes, there is no clear evidence of
such use until long after the cards were invented. Records from a trial in
Venice in 1589 suggest that tarot may have been associated with witchcraft (at
least in the minds of the accusers) at this date, about 150 years after the
appearance of the tarot. After this, there are no references connecting tarot
with magic or divination until the 18th century. (See also next three
questions.)
Topic:
Tarot and
divination
Inaccurate:
Tarot was not used for divination before Etteilla and Court de Gébelin
around 1781.
Current
Historical Understanding: There is
evidence of such use, but it is fragmentary and suggestive rather than
conclusive. Tarot was used as early as the 16th century to compose poems
describing personality characteristics
(tarocchi
appropriati). In one case (1527),
the verses are presented as relating to the person's fate. There are records of
divinatory meanings assigned to tarot cards in Bologna early in the 1700s. This
is the first unambiguous evidence of tarot divination as it is commonly
understood. However, it is known that ordinary playing cards were connected with
divination as early as 1487, so it is reasonable to conjecture that tarot was
also. From the 1790s with Etteilla's deck we find tarot design being modified
specifically to reflect divinatory and esoteric
meanings.
Topic:
Occult philosophy and the original design of the
tarot
Inaccurate:
There are no hermetic, heretical, or kabbalistic characteristics in the original
tarot.
Current Historical
Understanding: This topic is still
open. The early Italian Renaissance, which gave birth to the tarot, was a time
of great intellectual diversity and activity. Hermeticism, astrology,
Neoplatonism, Pythagorean philosophy with roots in Alexandrian Egypt, and
heterodox Christian thought all thrived. Any or all of these may have left their
mark on the design of the tarot. Although it should be remembered that all of
the symbolism of the tarot has close analogs in the conventional Christian
culture of the time, many scholars today believe that these philosophies, which
are foundations of occultism, were important in the design of the
tarot.
Topic:
Tarot and the western esoteric
tradition
Inaccurate:
The tarot has always been a pillar of the western esoteric
tradition.
Current
Historical Understanding: The first
occult writers to discuss the tarot were Court de Gébelin and the Comte
de Mellet in 1781. For the first 350 years of its history, the tarot was not
mentioned in any of the many books on occult or magical philosophy. Following
1781, occult interest in tarot blossomed and the tarot then became an integral
part of occult
philosophy.
Topic:
Astrological, elemental, and kabbalistic
correspondences
Inaccurate:
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (or Eliphas Lévi, Papus, Zain,
Case, etc.) knew the true astrological, elemental, and Kabbalistic
correspondences to the Tarot and corrected previous
errors.
Current Historical
Understanding: There are many, many
systems of correspondences for the tarot. None can be shown to go back to the
tarot's origins, although the French tradition exemplified in the works of
Eliphas Lévi predates the English tradition now familiar through the
works of Waite and Crowley. Most sets of correspondences have a rationale and
system that make them meaningful and useful when studied within their own
tradition. Correspondences are a matter of individual choice and of intention or
adherence to a school of thought rather than right or
wrong.
Topic:
The Waite-Smith
Tarot
Inaccurate:
The Waite-Smith (or "Rider Waite") Tarot is the original, standard, or most
authentic tarot.
Current
Historical Understanding: The
Waite-Smith deck was created in 1909, making it a relative newcomer in the
almost-600-year history of the tarot. A. E. Waite was a prominent member of the
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The deck owes much of its symbolism to that
group and represents a departure from the earlier French tradition. The artist,
Pamela Colman Smith, contributed her own vision, especially in the innovative
creation of fully illustrated scenes for the minor arcana. For many years, the
Waite-Smith deck was the only one readily available in the US, so it became
familiar to whole generations of tarot readers. There is actually no
"definitive" version of the
tarot.
The well-known Celtic
Cross spread, publicized by Waite as "an ancient Celtic method of divination" is
also relatively recent, although it was not invented by
Waite.
Some
things to be careful of when writing about tarot
history
The terms "major
arcana", "minor arcana", "High Priestess", and "Hierophant" are anachronistic
when referring to the older tarot decks. The historically appropriate terms are
"the trumps and the Fool" (the Fool was not usually regarded as a trump), "the
suit cards", "Papess" or "Popess", and "Pope". Likewise "pentacles" and "wands"
are relatively recent substitutions for the traditional suit names of "coins"
and "staves" or
"batons".
The original
Italian titles of the cards were in some cases different from the later French
titles (and their English translations) that have become familiar to us through
the Tarot de Marseille and its descendants. Also, the ordering of the trumps
varied considerably in Italy where the cards originated; it is not known which
ordering is the earliest one. Even the number of cards in the deck varied a
great deal! So care should be used in making statements about the original
meaning of the cards based on the familiar titles and
ordering.
The intention of
the original designer(s) of the tarot in selecting the symbols for the trump
cards is unknown, although there are many conjectures, some more plausible than
others. Writers should avoid giving the impression that the intention is known
or
obvious.
Sources
and suggested
reading:
Decker, Ronald,
Michael Dummett, and Thierry Depaulis,
A Wicked Pack of
Cards
Dummett, Michael,
The Game of
Tarot
Giles, Cythnia,
The Tarot: History, Mystery, and
Lore
Kaplan, Stuart,
The Encyclopedia of
Tarot, Vol. I &
II
Moakley, Gertrude,
The Tarot Cards Painted by
Bonifacio Bembo
O'Neill,
Robert V., Tarot
Symbolism
Williams,
Brian, A Renaissance
Tarot
Williams, Brian,
The Minchiate
Tarot
Web
sites:
The Hermitage,
http://www.tarothermit.com/
Andy's
Playing Cards,
http://www.geocities.com/a_pollett/
Villa
Revak,
http://jwrevak.tripod.com/
Sources
of the Waite-Smith Symbols,
http://www.geocities.com/~ninalee//oneill/
Tarot
Magick in the 16th Century,
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarmag116.html
This
information sheet is available in several formats: printed hardcopy, formatted
electronic (Microsoft Word for Windows), and unformatted electronic (email
text), print-friendly web page
(http://www.tarothermit.com/infosheet.htm),
and illustrated and hyperlinked web page
(http://jwrevak.tripod.com/misc/tarotl_1.html).
Direct inquiries to the editor, Tom Tadfor Little, at
tom@telp.com.
Copyright 2000-2001 members of
TarotL
From: The
TarotL Tarot History Information
Sheet
http://www.tarothermit.com/infosheet.htm
Posted at 02:59 PM
Read More
The Gringonneur Case
First recorded painter of Tarot cards
The Gringonneur
Case
Ross Gregory
Caldwell has researched in detail the Gringonneur entry from Paris 1392 and its
long being taken as the oldest reference to Tarot
cards:
Jacquemin
Gringonneur is an extremely obscure man. If a historian were to rely only on
what the few scholars who know about him consider trustworthy sources, the only
two things one could say about him would be that he was a painter who lived in
Paris at the turn of the 14th century, and he is recorded to have been paid for
painting three packs of cards for King Charles VI during his mental
breakdown.
However, there
is legend around him too, both concerning the apparently erroneous
identification of some large tarot cards once belonging to Roger de
Gaignières with the three packs of cards painted for Charles VI, as well
as his association with Nicolas Flamel in the artisan's quarter of early 15th
century Paris.
Below is an
annotated bibliography of the sources I have found that have contributed to, or
that shed light on, both the history and legend of Jacqemin Gringonneur.
If, with poetic license, I
were to try to conjure a vision of him for the reader, it would be of a painter,
illuminator or cartonnier from Flanders or somewhere else in the north of
France. He comes down as part of the movement of artists to the wealthy courts
of Charles V and VI, and the dukes of Burgundy and Berry. At the sumptously
decorated palace in Abbeville, which the King's uncle the Duke of Burgundy had
decorated and provided with every convenience for King Charles' recovery,
Gringonneur is asked to paint some packs of cards for him. These cards are
playing cards with allegorical scenes which reflect those on the tapestries
covering every wall – perhaps mythology, hunting, or the Passion of
Christ. Perhaps the cards were the cartons used to outline the designs on the
tapestries. Cards were not unusual in the court, and the King's brother Louis,
Duke of Orléans, was known to have a few packs of
them.
Gringonneur continued
his profession in the city of Paris for the first decade or so of the 15th
century, perhaps suffering after the loss of patronage in the wake of the noble
French losses at
Agincourt. As a
painter, he is associated the manuscript illuminator Nicolas Flamel and his
brother, as well as Christine de Pizan.
The information below is
divided into Primary and Secondary sources, Internet links and some suggestions
on the meaning of the name "gringonneur." It's annotated, so be sure to read the
comments!
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
If one
accepts the identification of Jean Gingonneur with Jaquemin Gringonneur, the
only contemporary primary source attesting to his life appears to be Guillebert
de Metz (or a contemporary), writing in « Description de la ville de Paris
sous Charles VI ». Charles Poupart's entry in the Chambre des Comptes for
1392, reported by Pére Menestrier in 1704, has not been found (Despite a
valiant search by Thierry
Depaulis).
Nevertheless,
judging by the entry itself and Menestrier's character in general, we may regard
his account of the Poupart entry as trustworthy, and therefore a primary source.
The five primary
sources below
appear to witness independent traditions about Gringonneur, even where not
contemporary with him.
PRIMARY SOURCES
–
1392
(?)
Charles Poupart, recording in
the register of the Chambre des Comptes "A Jaquemin Gringonneur, peintre, pour
trois jeux de cartes à or et à diverses couleurs, ornés de
plusieurs devises pour porter
devers ledit seigneur roi pour son ebattement : LVI sols parisis." -
(To Jaquemin Gringonneur,
painter, for three packs of cards in gold and in diverse colours, ornamented in
many divisions to be brought to the said lord King for his entertainment : 56
parisian sols).
- published
by Menestrier in 1704 (note that Depaulis (1995) thinks that "couleurs" refers
to pigmentation, colouring, while "devises" refers to modern French "couleurs",
English "suits." For "device" meaning a heraldic motto, he finds evidence only
from the 16th century forward).
1434 (?)
Guillebert de Metz _ Description
de la Ville de Paris sous Charles VI_ - first edited and published by Le Roux de
Lincy in 1855, this book names Jean Gingonneur in the quarter of "Writers,
Illuminators, Designers, Jongleurs, Booksellers, Minstrels, Paper-makers,
Painters, Binders".
1704
Menestrier,
P.Claude-François "Des Principes des sciences et des arts disposés
en forme de jeux" in _Bibliothèque Curieuse et instructive de divers
ouvrages, anciens et modernes, de littérature et des arts_ (Trevoux,
1704, vol. II, pp. 174-175) - this is the original and only source for the
famous quotation from the Chambre des Comptes of 1392
above.
1832
Béraud, A. et P.
Dufey _Dictionnaire historique de Paris_ (Paris : 1832) cited by Depaulis
in his 1995 article, this work presents a tradition that Gringonneur lived on
the "Rue de la Verrerie" with
other artisans. Depaulis believes it is this tradition that is taken up by
Jacques Hillairet in various works, cited
below.
1855
Lincy, Le Roux de _
Description de la Ville de Paris sous Charles VI_- first edition of this text,
see next entry.
1867
Lincy, Le Roux de and L.M.
Tisserand _Paris et ses historiens aux XIVe et XVe siècles_ (rpt. in "Le
Paris de Charles V et de Charles VI, vu par des écrivains contemporains"
p. 217)
- this book gives
Guillebert de Metz "Description de la Ville de Paris sous Charles VI", where, in
a list of the inhabitants of
various quarters listed by their profession, we find *Gingonneur (Jean) *,
listed in the same column with Nicolas Flamel and (Flamel) the Young (Jean,
Jacques and Jaquemin seem to have been more or less interchangable at this time,
I discovered) (I think the list is due to Lincy and Tisserand, extracting all
the names from G. de Metz and other contemporary
accounts).
1985
Hillairet, Jacques
_Dictionnaire historique des rues de Paris_ (7th ed., Paris : 1985 ; s.v.
`Verrerie, rue de la') – cited by Depaulis, art. cit. below.- asserts that
Gringonneur was a painter living at No.28, Rue de la Verrerie, where a
confraternity of glass painters and enamelers was installed.
---------------------------
SECONDARY SOURCES (direct or indirect mention of
Gringonneur)–
1754
Longuerue, Abbé Louis
du Four de _Longueruana, ou Recueil de pensées, de discours et de
conversations de feu M. Louis du Four de Longuerue_ (Berlin 1754) - in these
memoires, published posthumously (Longuerue died in 1733), he indirectly
connects the cards he saw during a visit to the home of Roger de
Gaignières, with the passage in Menestrier that he had read. Depaulis
thinks this may be the origin of the legend connecting the cards with
Gringonneur.
1842
Leber, M.C. "Etudes
historiques sur les cartes à jouer", in _Mémoires de la
Société des Antiquaires de France_ n.s. vol. 6 (1842) pp.
256-348
- Leber was the first to
explicitly suggest that Menestrier's
Gringonneur painted the 17
cards.
1845
- Biographie Universel s.v.
`Gringonneur', cites a M. Lenoir who attributed a painting of Juvenal des Ursins
to Gringonneur. This is the only attribution of any other work to Gringonneur,
on what basis I don't know, that I have found. The Biographie gives the source
as Lenoir's _Musée des monuments français_. I haven't been able to
trace it further, and it is never mentioned again. I have seen two portraits of
Juvenal des Ursins, who was a councilor to Charles VI and VII and wrote a
history of the former.
1846
Bache, Paul Eugène
_Jacquemin Gringonneur, ou l'invention des cartes à jouer_ (Blidah,
Tissot et Roche, 1846; Bibliothèque Nationale notice no. FRBNF32910723) -
I haven't seen this one, the BN has several
copies.
1855
Teste d'Ouet _Jacquemin
Gringonneur et Nicolas Flamel_ (Paris, V. Didron, 1855 ; BN notice no.
FRBNF36417369, inter alia) - haven't seen this one either, BN has several
copies.
1888
Mathers, S.L. Macgregor _The
Tarot, Its Occult Significance, Use in Fortune-Telling, and Method of Play,
Etc._ (London (?), George Redway, 1888). - While noting the error of the
attribution of the cards to Gringonneur, Mathers writes of him as "Jacques
Gringonneur, an Astrologer and Qabalist". I wonder if he had read Teste
d'Ouet?
1911
Waite, A.E. _The Pictorial
Key to the Tarot_ (London :1910) - mentions the account of Charles (!)
Gringonneur painting three packs of cards for Charles VI, but acknowledges that
no one any
longer attributes the
17 cards to Gringonneur.
1951
Hillairet, Jacques
_Evocation du vieux Paris _(tome 1, Paris: 1951) - writes that the Rue de la
Verrerie was home to a "communauté", or corporation on page 199. In his
1985 edition of the Dictionnaire (cited above) he places Gringonneur here
(according to Depaulis).
1995
Depaulis, Thierry "Jacquemin
Gringonneur et les cartes à jouer", in _L'As de Trefle_ no. 54 (March
1995) pp. 7-8. - describes his futile search for the original Poupart account in
the Chambre des Comptes for the years 1391-1394, as well as giving all the
primary documentation he could find about Gringonneur, including the Vieux Paris
references.
------------------------------
THE CARDS
The cards are
currently housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, in the
Département des Estampes et de la Photographie, Kh 24 rés. I don't
know if they are on
display.
Undated manuscript
B.N. Mss. Fr. 14888 (perhaps 1690s) - Roger de Gaignières; published in
facsimile and transcription by Thierry Depaulis in _Le Vieux Papier_ 301 (July
1986), pp. 117-124; a manuscript of four columns, listing the Trumps as they
appear in 1) a 16th century Italian poem, 2) de Gaignières' own "golden
cards" (the Charles VI or Gringonneur cards), 3) another Tarot pack
belonging to him (the Anonymous Parisian Tarot, illustrated for example in
Olsen, pp. 106-125), and 4) some trumps "in the book" (Depaulis suggests this
may be a book with rules for Tarot from
1654). The list of "golden
cards" corresponds exactly to the 17 "Gringonneur"
cards.
1698
Lister, Martin _A Journey to
Paris in the Year 1698 _ (pub. Information unknown). - Lister recounts a visit
to de Gaignières "One Toy I took notice of, which was a Collection of
Playing Cards for 300 Years. The oldest were three times bigger than what are
now used, extreamly
well limned
and illuminated with gilt Borders, and the Pastboard thick and firm; but there
was not a compleat Set of them" (quoted by Depaulis op. cit. p.
117)
1711
Clairambault, B.N. Mss.
Clairambault 1032 - Published again by Depaulis in Le Vieux Papier, this
manuscript by one of the executors of de Gaignières' estate simply
itemizes de Gaignières' effects, noting some "anciennes cartes
tarotées".
Jacquemin Gringonneur in tarot
history.
1754
Longuerue (see Secondary
Sources above)
1842
Leber (see Secondary Sources
above)
1848
W. A. Chatto _Facts and
Speculations on the Origins and History of Playing Cards._ (London, 1848). -
debunks the idea that Gringonneur painted the cards, and suggests a Venetian
origin (cited by Waite (?) and
Dummett).
1869
Merlin, R., _L'Origine des
cartes à jouer : Recherches nouvelles sur les Naibis, les tarots et sur
les autres espèces de cartes_ (Paris: 1869) - also debunks the connection
of Gringonneur with the cards (cited by
Dummett).
1906
D'Allemagne, Henry
René _Les Cartes à jouer du XIVe au XXe siècle_
(Paris: 1906) - first publication of the cards themselves (I think) ; attributes
the cards to Venice (cited by all later
authorities)
1937
Schrieber, W.L. _Die
ältesten Spielkarten_ (Strasbourg, 1937) - first to suggest Ferrara for the
origin of the cards.
1967
Klein, Robert "Les Tarots
enluminés du XVe siècle" in _L'Oeil_ 145 (January, 1967) -
considers the Charles VI cards as coming from Italy mainly because of the
clothing and xylographic
method.
1978
Kaplan, Stuart _The
Encyclopedia of Tarot_ (New York, 1978 pp. 111- 116) - gives the cards in b/w
with a good brief
discussion
1980
Dummett, Michael _The Game
of Tarot_ (London : Duckworth 1980 pp.65-66, 69, 395) -recapitulates the
consensus to 1980, provides good
bibliography.
1984
Depaulis, Thierry ed. _Tarot
; Jeu et Magie_ (Paris : Bibliothèque Nationale, 1984 pp.
40-41)
- excellent discussion,
followed by the results of an examination of the cards by the Laboratoire de
Recherche des Musées de France, by J.P.
Rioux
1986
Depaulis, Thierry "Roger de
Gaignières et ses tarots" in _Le Vieux Papier_ 301 (July 1986 pp.
117-124, with an addendum 160 describing his discovery of the reference in
Longuerue's memoires)
- this
article presents Depaulis' discovery of de Gaignières' own manuscript,
the sole place so far known where he mentions the
cards.
1987
Algeri, Giuliana, "Tarocchi
di Carlo VI" in Berti, Giordano and Andrea Vitali, eds. _Le Carte di Corte : I
Tarocchi : Gioco e Magia alla Corte degli Estensi_ (Ferrara : Nuova Alfa
Editoriale, 1987
pp.34-35 and
passim) - perhaps the best discussion to date on the cards and their symbolism.
It is not clear who wrote the article on the cards, or the other catalogue
descriptions, but since it is appended to her essay I assume it is her. She
attributes them to 1470-1480, based on the preceding authorities.
1995
Olsen, Christina _The Art of
Tarot_ (New York :Abbeville, 1995 pp.19-20, 70-85) - Olsen gives good colour
reproductions of all of the surviving cards except for the Fante (the Page or
Jack of
Swords).
The
Gringonneur Case
Ross
Gregory Caldwell has researched in detail the Gringonneur entry from Paris 1392
and its long being taken as the oldest reference to
Tarotcards:
Jacquemin
Gringonneur is an extremely obscure man. If a historian were to rely only on
what the few scholars who know about him consider trustworthy sources, the only
two things one could say about him would be that he was a painter who lived in
Paris at the turn of the 14th century, and he is recorded to have been paid for
painting three packs of cards for King Charles VI during his mental
breakdown.
However, there
is legend around him too, both concerning the apparently erroneous
identification of some large tarot cards once belonging to Roger de
Gaignières with the three packs of cards painted for Charles VI, as well
as his association with Nicolas Flamel in the artisan's quarter of early 15th
century Paris.
Below is an
annotated bibliography of the sources I have found that have contributed to, or
that shed light on, both the history and legend of Jacqemin Gringonneur.
If, with poetic license, I
were to try to conjure a vision of him for the reader, it would be of a painter,
illuminator or cartonnier from Flanders or somewhere else in the north of
France. He comes down as part of the movement of artists to the wealthy courts
of Charles V and VI, and the dukes of Burgundy and Berry. At the sumptously
decorated palace in Abbeville, which the King's uncle the Duke of Burgundy had
decorated and provided with every convenience for King Charles' recovery,
Gringonneur is asked to paint some packs of cards for him. These cards are
playing cards with allegorical scenes which reflect those on the tapestries
covering every wall – perhaps mythology, hunting, or the Passion of
Christ. Perhaps the cards were the cartons used to outline the designs on the
tapestries. Cards were not unusual in the court, and the King's brother Louis,
Duke of Orléans, was known to have a few packs of
them.
Gringonneur continued
his profession in the city of Paris for the first decade or so of the 15th
century, perhaps suffering after the loss of patronage in the wake of the noble
French losses at
Agincourt. As a
painter, he is associated the manuscript illuminator Nicolas Flamel and his
brother, as well as Christine de Pizan.
The information below is
divided into Primary and Secondary sources, Internet links and some suggestions
on the meaning of the name "gringonneur." It's annotated, so be sure to read the
comments!
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
If one
accepts the identification of Jean Gingonneur with Jaquemin Gringonneur, the
only contemporary primary source attesting to his life appears to be Guillebert
de Metz (or a contemporary), writing in « Description de la ville de Paris
sous Charles VI ». Charles Poupart's entry in the Chambre des Comptes for
1392, reported by Pére Menestrier in 1704, has not been found (Despite a
valiant search by Thierry
Depaulis).
Nevertheless,
judging by the entry itself and Menestrier's character in general, we may regard
his account of the Poupart entry as trustworthy, and therefore a primary source.
The five primary
sources below
appear to witness independent traditions about Gringonneur, even where not
contemporary with him.
PRIMARY SOURCES
–
1392
(?)
Charles Poupart, recording in
the register of the Chambre des Comptes "A Jaquemin Gringonneur, peintre, pour
trois jeux de cartes à or et à diverses couleurs, ornés de
plusieurs devises pour porter
devers ledit seigneur roi pour son ebattement : LVI sols parisis." -
(To Jaquemin Gringonneur,
painter, for three packs of cards in gold and in diverse colours, ornamented in
many divisions to be brought to the said lord King for his entertainment : 56
parisian sols).
- published
by Menestrier in 1704 (note that Depaulis (1995) thinks that "couleurs" refers
to pigmentation, colouring, while "devises" refers to modern French "couleurs",
English "suits." For "device" meaning a heraldic motto, he finds evidence only
from the 16th century forward).
1434 (?)
Guillebert de Metz _ Description
de la Ville de Paris sous Charles VI_ - first edited and published by Le Roux de
Lincy in 1855, this book names Jean Gingonneur in the quarter of "Writers,
Illuminators, Designers, Jongleurs, Booksellers, Minstrels, Paper-makers,
Painters, Binders".
1704
Menestrier,
P.Claude-François "Des Principes des sciences et des arts disposés
en forme de jeux" in _Bibliothèque Curieuse et instructive de divers
ouvrages, anciens et modernes, de littérature et des arts_ (Trevoux,
1704, vol. II, pp. 174-175) - this is the original and only source for the
famous quotation from the Chambre des Comptes of 1392
above.
1832
Béraud, A. et P.
Dufey _Dictionnaire historique de Paris_ (Paris : 1832) cited by Depaulis
in his 1995 article, this work presents a tradition that Gringonneur lived on
the "Rue de la Verrerie" with
other artisans. Depaulis believes it is this tradition that is taken up by
Jacques Hillairet in various works, cited
below.
1855
Lincy, Le Roux de _
Description de la Ville de Paris sous Charles VI_- first edition of this text,
see next entry.
1867
Lincy, Le Roux de and L.M.
Tisserand _Paris et ses historiens aux XIVe et XVe siècles_ (rpt. in "Le
Paris de Charles V et de Charles VI, vu par des écrivains contemporains"
p. 217)
- this book gives
Guillebert de Metz "Description de la Ville de Paris sous Charles VI", where, in
a list of the inhabitants of
various quarters listed by their profession, we find *Gingonneur (Jean) *,
listed in the same column with Nicolas Flamel and (Flamel) the Young (Jean,
Jacques and Jaquemin seem to have been more or less interchangable at this time,
I discovered) (I think the list is due to Lincy and Tisserand, extracting all
the names from G. de Metz and other contemporary
accounts).
1985
Hillairet, Jacques
_Dictionnaire historique des rues de Paris_ (7th ed., Paris : 1985 ; s.v.
`Verrerie, rue de la') – cited by Depaulis, art. cit. below.- asserts that
Gringonneur was a painter living at No.28, Rue de la Verrerie, where a
confraternity of glass painters and enamelers was installed.
---------------------------
SECONDARY SOURCES (direct or indirect mention of
Gringonneur)–
1754
Longuerue, Abbé Louis
du Four de _Longueruana, ou Recueil de pensées, de discours et de
conversations de feu M. Louis du Four de Longuerue_ (Berlin 1754) - in these
memoires, published posthumously (Longuerue died in 1733), he indirectly
connects the cards he saw during a visit to the home of Roger de
Gaignières, with the passage in Menestrier that he had read. Depaulis
thinks this may be the origin of the legend connecting the cards with
Gringonneur.
1842
Leber, M.C. "Etudes
historiques sur les cartes à jouer", in _Mémoires de la
Société des Antiquaires de France_ n.s. vol. 6 (1842) pp.
256-348
- Leber was the first to
explicitly suggest that Menestrier's
Gringonneur painted the 17
cards.
1845
- Biographie Universel s.v.
`Gringonneur', cites a M. Lenoir who attributed a painting of Juvenal des Ursins
to Gringonneur. This is the only attribution of any other work to Gringonneur,
on what basis I don't know, that I have found. The Biographie gives the source
as Lenoir's _Musée des monuments français_. I haven't been able to
trace it further, and it is never mentioned again. I have seen two portraits of
Juvenal des Ursins, who was a councilor to Charles VI and VII and wrote a
history of the former.
1846
Bache, Paul Eugène
_Jacquemin Gringonneur, ou l'invention des cartes à jouer_ (Blidah,
Tissot et Roche, 1846; Bibliothèque Nationale notice no. FRBNF32910723) -
I haven't seen this one, the BN has several
copies.
1855
Teste d'Ouet _Jacquemin
Gringonneur et Nicolas Flamel_ (Paris, V. Didron, 1855 ; BN notice no.
FRBNF36417369, inter alia) - haven't seen this one either, BN has several
copies.
1888
Mathers, S.L. Macgregor _The
Tarot, Its Occult Significance, Use in Fortune-Telling, and Method of Play,
Etc._ (London (?), George Redway, 1888). - While noting the error of the
attribution of the cards to Gringonneur, Mathers writes of him as "Jacques
Gringonneur, an Astrologer and Qabalist". I wonder if he had read Teste
d'Ouet?
1911
Waite, A.E. _The Pictorial
Key to the Tarot_ (London :1910) - mentions the account of Charles (!)
Gringonneur painting three packs of cards for Charles VI, but acknowledges that
no one any
longer attributes the
17 cards to Gringonneur.
1951
Hillairet, Jacques
_Evocation du vieux Paris _(tome 1, Paris: 1951) - writes that the Rue de la
Verrerie was home to a "communauté", or corporation on page 199. In his
1985 edition of the Dictionnaire (cited above) he places Gringonneur here
(according to Depaulis).
1995
Depaulis, Thierry "Jacquemin
Gringonneur et les cartes à jouer", in _L'As de Trefle_ no. 54 (March
1995) pp. 7-8. - describes his futile search for the original Poupart account in
the Chambre des Comptes for the years 1391-1394, as well as giving all the
primary documentation he could find about Gringonneur, including the Vieux Paris
references.
------------------------------
THE CARDS
The cards are
currently housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, in the
Département des Estampes et de la Photographie, Kh 24 rés. I don't
know if they are on
display.
Undated manuscript
B.N. Mss. Fr. 14888 (perhaps 1690s) - Roger de Gaignières; published in
facsimile and transcription by Thierry Depaulis in _Le Vieux Papier_ 301 (July
1986), pp. 117-124; a manuscript of four columns, listing the Trumps as they
appear in 1) a 16th century Italian poem, 2) de Gaignières' own "golden
cards" (the Charles VI or Gringonneur cards), 3) another Tarot pack
belonging to him (the Anonymous Parisian Tarot, illustrated for example in
Olsen, pp. 106-125), and 4) some trumps "in the book" (Depaulis suggests this
may be a book with rules for Tarot from
1654). The list of "golden
cards" corresponds exactly to the 17 "Gringonneur"
cards.
1698
Lister, Martin _A Journey to
Paris in the Year 1698 _ (pub. Information unknown). - Lister recounts a visit
to de Gaignières "One Toy I took notice of, which was a Collection of
Playing Cards for 300 Years. The oldest were three times bigger than what are
now used, extreamly
well limned
and illuminated with gilt Borders, and the Pastboard thick and firm; but there
was not a compleat Set of them" (quoted by Depaulis op. cit. p.
117)
1711
Clairambault, B.N. Mss.
Clairambault 1032 - Published again by Depaulis in Le Vieux Papier, this
manuscript by one of the executors of de Gaignières' estate simply
itemizes de Gaignières' effects, noting some "anciennes cartes
tarotées".
Jacquemin Gringonneur in tarot
history.
1754
Longuerue (see Secondary
Sources above)
1842
Leber (see Secondary Sources
above)
1848
W. A. Chatto _Facts and
Speculations on the Origins and History of Playing Cards._ (London, 1848). -
debunks the idea that Gringonneur painted the cards, and suggests a Venetian
origin (cited by Waite (?) and
Dummett).
1869
Merlin, R., _L'Origine des
cartes à jouer : Recherches nouvelles sur les Naibis, les tarots et sur
les autres espèces de cartes_ (Paris: 1869) - also debunks the connection
of Gringonneur with the cards (cited by
Dummett).
1906
D'Allemagne, Henry
René _Les Cartes à jouer du XIVe au XXe siècle_
(Paris: 1906) - first publication of the cards themselves (I think) ; attributes
the cards to Venice (cited by all later
authorities)
1937
Schrieber, W.L. _Die
ältesten Spielkarten_ (Strasbourg, 1937) - first to suggest Ferrara for the
origin of the cards.
1967
Klein, Robert "Les Tarots
enluminés du XVe siècle" in _L'Oeil_ 145 (January, 1967) -
considers the Charles VI cards as coming from Italy mainly because of the
clothing and xylographic
method.
1978
Kaplan, Stuart _The
Encyclopedia of Tarot_ (New York, 1978 pp. 111- 116) - gives the cards in b/w
with a good brief
discussion
1980
Dummett, Michael _The Game
of Tarot_ (London : Duckworth 1980 pp.65-66, 69, 395) -recapitulates the
consensus to 1980, provides good
bibliography.
1984
Depaulis, Thierry ed. _Tarot
; Jeu et Magie_ (Paris : Bibliothèque Nationale, 1984 pp.
40-41)
- excellent discussion,
followed by the results of an examination of the cards by the Laboratoire de
Recherche des Musées de France, by J.P.
Rioux
1986
Depaulis, Thierry "Roger de
Gaignières et ses tarots" in _Le Vieux Papier_ 301 (July 1986 pp.
117-124, with an addendum 160 describing his discovery of the reference in
Longuerue's memoires)
- this
article presents Depaulis' discovery of de Gaignières' own manuscript,
the sole place so far known where he mentions the
cards.
1987
Algeri, Giuliana, "Tarocchi
di Carlo VI" in Berti, Giordano and Andrea Vitali, eds. _Le Carte di Corte : I
Tarocchi : Gioco e Magia alla Corte degli Estensi_ (Ferrara : Nuova Alfa
Editoriale, 1987
pp.34-35 and
passim) - perhaps the best discussion to date on the cards and their symbolism.
It is not clear who wrote the article on the cards, or the other catalogue
descriptions, but since it is appended to her essay I assume it is her. She
attributes them to 1470-1480, based on the preceding authorities.
1995
Olsen, Christina _The Art of
Tarot_ (New York :Abbeville, 1995 pp.19-20, 70-85) - Olsen gives good colour
reproductions of all of the surviving cards except for the Fante (the Page or
Jack of Swords).
From:
Origin of Tarot
http://www.trionfi.com/01/e/r70/15.html
Posted at 02:54 PM
Read More
|
Calendar
| | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat
|
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Published On: Sep 19, 2004 12:36 AM
|