4. Filelfo and the Oracles

I have been reading Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance, and want to try him out as an authority. Much of the book is not in Google Books, at least not that I can find. His general perspective is to minimize Plethon’s influence. However he is enough of a scholar (as opposed to a polemicist) to provide facts; and these facts lead me in the opposite direction. One line of thought, from Plethon to the Milan-based tarot, goes through Filelfo and would include Alberti, Malatesta, and others not versed in Neoplatonism. Another goes through Bessarion, Ficino and the revival of Proclus, Plotinus, and pseudo-Dionysus.

Here I will focus on the line of thought going through Filelfo etc, as that is where I think I might at least know where I am going.

FILELFO AND PHILOSOPHY

Filelfo’s philosophical sophistication has been derided by some, notably Woodhouse, but Hankins has a different view, as indicated in the following pages. Rather than spend time retyping long quotes from Hankins' main discussion of Filelfo, I will just post these pages—it is all relevant--, summarize, and add more quotes.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-APxZ-cdVAw...ins90and91.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tM_7GTGbyV...ins92and93.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jaVcLTm7Yr...ins94and95.jpg

Summary: Filelfo studied classical philosophy all his intellectual life. In outlook he could be described as an eclectic whose “sources were predominantly Stoic, Stoic, Middle Platonic, and Augustinian,” Hankins says. We can look at Hankins’ footnotes, pp. 93-94 for examples: Augustine, Diogenes Laertius, Boethius, Simplicius, Porphyry, Cicero, pseudo-Plutarch, Proclus. He translated Plato’s Euthyphro probably “around 1430,” Hankins argues (vol. 2, p. 407). He also translated three of Plato’s letters in “1439/1440”—just the time, of course, of Plethon’s visit to Italy. Hankins has nothing but praise for Filelfo’s translations:

Quote:

Filelfo’s merits as a philosopher emerge clearly when one examines his translations of Plato, which display accuracy, elegance, learning, and philosophical understanding. (Hankins p. 91)

Filelfo’s orientation toward Middle Platonism seems to me the most relevant to the images of the tarot. Of the Middle Platonists, the two most famous were Apuleius, in Latin, and Plutarch, in Greek. Since Filelfo was also a man of letters, in fact was court poet to two dukes and wrote “grossly obscene poetry” (Hankins p. 91), it seems reasonable to me that he would have been attracted to Plutarch’s essays, even if he didn’t quote from them in his De morali disciplina. Plutarch wrote Middle Platonic allegories with much Greco-Roman mythic imagery, of which the most relevant are On Isis and Osiris and On the Face in the Orb of the Moon.

I actually see lots of opportunity for Plutarch’s essays to have influenced the Milan-based tarot, from the Cary Sheet to the Marseille. To give details would take me too far afield. If you go to “Bianca’s Garden” at THF and do a search in that forum for “Plutarch,” 14 posts come up, mostly by me, relating Plutarch to particular cards. In the “Research” forum there, see the first 5 posts, which are also mostly by me. Cary Sheet examples are the Popess, the Star, and the Moon. (On Aeclectic, see my post on the Star at http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.p...6&postcount=37.) In Noblet and after, many cards fit something in Plutarch. Before reading Hankins, I had no suspicion that this orientation might have gone back to Filelfo.

FILELFO AND PLETHON

Then there is the question of Filelfo’s contact with Plethon. It is clear that Filelfo respected Plethon philosophically. Hankins even says that Filelfo even met Plethon:

Quote:

Filelfo, we know, met him in Bologna after the Council and was deeply impressed by his philosophical knowledge, but there is no suggestion in any of Filelfo’s writings that he was acquainted with the more esoteric side of Pletho’s beliefs, which Pletho was in any case careful to confine to initiates of his school. (p.437)

In a footnote, Hankins cites a 1441 letter that Filelfo wrote to Plethon, reproduced  in Legrand p. 48. Ross G. R. Caldwell posted the page in Legrand (http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2863917&postcount=32); it is also in Woodhouse p. 158. Among other things, Filelfo says, in Legrand's French and as Ross's translation::

Tu m'as dèja inspiré à Bologna, l'amour de ta vertu et de ton savoir. Tu m'inspires aujourd'hui la hardiesse de te prier de m'écrire:

(You already inspired me, in Bologna, with love of your virtue and your knowledge. Today you inspire me with the boldness of begging you to write me...)

That does not say in so many words that Filelfo met Plethon. But it is a reasonable inference. Ross objects that what inspired Filelfo could have been some writing of Plethon's, or report about Plethon, brought to Filelfo while the latter was in Bologna. But in that case, it seems to me, where Filelfo received such a thing would have been far less important than what he received: so it would have been more appropriate to mention the writing or report that inspired him rather than the place he happened to get it.  Moreover, there is another part of the letter which also suggests such a meeting. Filelfo writes, in Legrand's translation:

Tu m'accorderas donc une faveur des plus agréables, en m'écrivant promptement quelque chose qui soit digne de ton heureuse nature et de mon désir. Il me semblera te voir présent et m'entretenir avec toi, quand je lirai ta lettre fleurie.

(You will thus accord me a most agreeable favor, by writing me quickly something that serves your happy nature and my desire. It will seem to me that I am seeing you present and am conversing with you, when I shall read your flowery letter.)

If, in receiving a letter, it will seem to him that Plethon is present, then it is probably evoking a memory of an earlier time when he had seen Plethon in person. I copied out the full paragraph, with my own translation, at http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2872836&postcount=34). It ends by addressing Plethon as "Father."

Ross reconstructed Filelfo's whereabouts at the time Plethon was returning to Greece from Florence. He was in Piacenza on June 12, 1439, on his way to Bologna on horseback, a 2 or 3 day ride. The Greek delegation in Florence left June 14, on their way to Venice. The road passes through Bologna. It couldn't have taken them more than a week to get to Bologna. (All this from Ross at http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2863917&postcount=32). So the two men could easily have met.

There is also, in Legrand, a Greek verse that Filelfo wrote to Plethon. Ross transcribed and translated it.

 ΦΡ. Ο ΦΙΛΕΛΦΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΩ̨ ΤΩ̨ ΓΕΜΙΣΤΩ̨

Κοίρανε δι̃ε σοφω̃ν, ʹαρετη̃ς ʹέμψυχον ʹάγαλμα,
̀̀ὸς λάμπεις πινυτη̃ Δαναοι̃ς εν ̀άπασι μαθήσει,
ώς ή νυκτιπλανὴς ʹάστροις εν ʹελαττοσι μήνη,
̀ὸ Ψυχη̃ς πέρι Φρανκίσκος μετέγραψε Φιλέλφος,
Βιβλίδιον λάβε. Λιτότατον, νὴ τὸν Δία, δω̃ρον ·
Κούδὲν θαυ̃μα, πάτερ · τὰ τύχης γὰρ πτωχὸς ̀υπάρχω.

αύγούστου 16, ʹέτ. 1439

FRANCESCO FILELFO TO GEORGE GEMISTOS

O Master, wise divine, living honor of virtue,
Which you radiate from understanding in all learning to the Greeks,
Like the Moon in diminishing the stars coursing at night;
Take this little book On the Soul
which Francesco Filelfo has copied. A simple gift, by Zeus,
Not a wonder, father; for I begin these things a beggar of fate.

August 16, year 1439

This says nothing about a meeting.  But the date is quite close to when Plethon was returning from Florence to Greece. Ross suggests that

...there remains the possibility that Demetrios left Gemistos behind, maybe in Bologna, and that he waited for the Emperor's group to come up in late August or early September.

Or Plethon could have sent the gift with the Emperor's delegation to give to Plethon. In any case, the poem suggests an attitude of deep respect.

Besides these interactions, we know that Filelfo read Plethon’s De Differentiis closely. Hankins says,

Quote:

Filelfo too owned a copy of the De Differentiis which he annotated... (vol. 2 p. 438)

(Hankins’ reference is “Laur. LXXX, 24; see M. Bandini Cat. Codd. Graec. Bibl. Med. Laur. 3:213-215 and Mostro della biblioteca di Lorenzo nella iblioteca Medicea Laurenzianoa... (Florence, 1949), p. 61, no. 206.)

Plethon, by his own account, wrote De Differentiis in Florence. See e.g.John Monfasani, George of Trezibond p. 202, http://books.google.com/books?id=qiQ...entiis&f=false)
So he could easily have given (in person) or sent (soon after) a copy to Filelfo.

There is also the question of whether Filelfo knew Plethon personally when he was in Greece. The problem is that Filelfo was in Constantinople, in Asia Minor, and Plethon was in Mistra, in southern Greece, on the Peloponnesian peninsula. They were too far apart to have had contact. It is more likely that Filelfo knew Plethon's ideas through people who had known Plethon. Already in 1429 Filelfo was talking about Zoroaster according to Stausberg, at Note 281, citing an Oration of 1429. Strausberg says (http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=gBzyaezyN60C&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q&f=false. Faszination Zarathushtra: Zoroaster und die Europäische ..., Volume 1 p. 136 - 139:

Quote:

In einer Oratio aus dem Jahre 1429 (!), in der Zoroaster bereits als Fürst der Mager bei den Persen erwähnt wird, legt sich Filelfo noch nicht auf eine Reihenfolge fest,..

My translation:

Quote:

In an Oration from the year 1429 (!), in which Zoroaster is already mentioned as a prince of the Persian Magi, Filelfo does not commit himself yet to a sequence...

This only says that in 1429 Filelfo considered Zoroaster part of the Magi in Persia. It does not make him part of a sequence of philosophers/theologians that ends in Plato; in fact Strausburg explicitly denies that he said such a thing then.

But Strausberg says, of a Greek scholar who came to Florence and was Ficino's teacher (http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2905039&postcount=104):

Auch bei Johannes Argyropoulos gerät Zoroaster als erster der "Alten Philosophen" in den Blick, als deren Charakteristikum Argyropoulos (wie Ficino) herausstreicht, daß sie ihre Philosophie in Gesängen vortrugen.

(Also with John Argyropoulos, Zoroaster is put as the first of the "old philosophers " in the view when of their characteristics Argyropoulos stresses (like Ficino) that they reported their philosophy in hymns.)

So there seems to have been a general orientation to make Zoroaster the first of the philosophers, a lineage that passes through Plato.

From 1429 until 1434, Filelfo was in Florence. But after the return of Cosimo de 'Medici in 1433 things were difficult for him, and some fellow scholars, notably Pogio Bracciolini, turned against him, too, and he had to leave. (A good source here is a biography of Filelfo on the Web in Italian, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/francesco-filelfo_(Dizionario-Biografico)/). He spent four years in Siena, until the end of 1438. During the last parto f the Council of Florence, i.e. the first part of 1439, he lectured at the University of Bologna When the academic schedule there allowed, he workedout a more permanent position in Milan. Ross reports:

His last letter from Bologna was written to Giovanni Toscanelli, on the Ides of April (13 April), 1439 (Bk. IV, letter V (p. 128)).

His next letter (letter VI (p. 129ff.) is from Milan, written to Alberto Zancario on May 2 (VI Nonas Majas MCCCCXXXIX).

His letters from then through June 8 are from Milan, then he write to Guarnerio Castellioni on June 12 from Piacenza (IV, XI (p. 133), saying he was on his way back to Bologna. He doesn't say why (he is addressing linguistic questions), but of course he was still under contractual obligation with the university.

His next Latin letter is to Friderico (Frederico) Cornelio, dated 15 October 1439, from Pavia (letter XIII (pp. 135-143)). It is a long encomium on his friend's new marriage. He doesn't mention what he was doing during the summer.

In letter XXIX (10 February 1440; to Aloysio Crotto (p. 157)), he says his whole family is now present in Milan. The letters in this volume end on 31 March 1441.

Unfortunately there is a gap in the letters from June until early October of 1439. For his letters in Greek, the gap is even longer. Ross reports (http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2878913&postcount=38) "There is one from Bologna on 29 March 1439 (no. 12 (pp. 31-34)), and the next is from Milan, 23 September 1440 (no. 13 (pp. 34-35)."

FILELFO, PLETHON, AND THE PRISCA THEOLOGIA

Hankins in one place describes Filelfo’s views in terms that I think probably--but not necessarily, as "Kwaw" demonstrated on the Plethon thread--shows the influence of Plethon. It is on p. 93, one of the pages I posted earlier, but it is worth seeing by itself. For Filelfo, Hankins says:

Quote:

...Plato, the greatest of philosophers, owed his greatness in part to having brought together the physics of Heraclitus, the metaphysics of Pythagoras and the moral thought of Socrates. Even Plato’s doctrine of the Ideas had been borrowed from Pythagoras who was himself following Zoroaster and the Chaldean mages. This suggestion of an esoteric diadoche reminds us of Ficino’s ancient theology, although Filelfo first enunciated it in 1464, too early to have been influenced by Ficino or Bessarion.

It was Plethon who, we learn later in Hankins' sections on George of Trebizond and Ficino, had promoted Zoroaster as the original philosophical influence on Plato (Hankins p. 201, in Google Books). Thus Ficino saw Zoroaster as one of the six greatest philosophers of antiquity (Latin on p. 283-4, in Google Books): the others, in succession, were Trismegistus, Pythagoras, Orpheus,  Aglaothemis (Orpheus's teacher), and Plato. Moreover, Ficino, following Plethon, credited the Chaldean Oracles to Zoroaster. Here is Hankins, on Ficino:

Quote:

He also knew Pletho’s edition of the Chaldean Oracles and derived form it his notion of a “Zoroastrian trinity”...(p. 438)

It was also Plethon who first promoted the idea of the prisca theologia—articulated in embryo by Filelfo in 1464--in the Latin West. Compare Hankins on Filelfo, quoted above, with Hankins on Pletho:

Quote:

We do not hear of Pletho and his followers sacrificing milk-white bullocks within the citadel of Mistra. His polytheism is the polytheism of late ancient Neoplatonism, and especially of Proclus, wherein the gods, arranged hierarchically from the high god Zeus, stand for transcendental principles or causes of substances and changes in the phenomenal world. Zeus is thus a sign for the principle of being, Poseidon (identified also with Neoplatonic Nous) is the principle of activity, Pluto of the human soul and so forth. The pagan myths and biblical stories, insofar as they have not been corrupted by poets and “sophists”, are not historical events, but shadowy representations in linguistic form of metaphysical (or divine) truths, which may only be grasped truly in contemplative noesis. The myths of Orpheus, the rape of Persephone, and Adam and Eve are thus at root the same story; both of them contain hidden truths about the fixity of human destiny, truths which, though visible to hidden powers of intuition within the soul, are strictly beyond the ability of language to communicate.(p. 200, Google Books)

The next page or so in Hankins is also well worth reading. He describes how for Plethon, all religions, pagan and Christian, have become corrupted.

Quote:

But above these corrupted religions, there soared a more ancient and sublime form of religion which had been known to “antique legislators and philosophers” and might yet be known to choice spirits in the modern world through a diligent study of the greatest of ancient philosophers. (p. 201, in Google books)

It is this type of religion which Bessarion defended, first in Greek in 1459 and in more detail in Latin ten years later, in his defense of Plethon against George of Trezibond.

FILELFO, PLETHON, AND THE TAROT AS HIEROGLYPHS

The influence or lack thereof of the Neoplatonists--especially Plotinus, Proclus, and pseudo-Dionysus--on tarot has been discussed on Aeclectic (on the last-named, there is http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.p...&postcount=210), but I don’t want to go there. I want to focus on just the theme of the “prisca philosophia,” which as far as I can tell was introduced to the post-ancient Latin West by Plethon.

What does the “ancient philosophy” uniting Christianity with paganism—for which Ficino after 1467 found a formulation acceptable to the orthodoxy of the time--have to do with the tarot? I hypothesize that Plethon’s high valuation of a primal philosophy, and a primal religion--one not fully realized until Christ, in Ficino’s revision--connects with what the Italians were also reading in ancient authors about hieroglyphs. Hieroglyphs were thought to have been the preferred means by which the Egyptians and after them the Romans communicated their most noble ideas, ideas that in that form could be understood and read by wise men anywhere, anytime.

Filelfo was well aware of hieroglyphs and the thinking about them. His friend Filarete, the architect whom Cosimo had sent to Francesco Sforza from Florence, wrote of hieroglyphs

Quote:

They are all picture letters; some have one animal, some another, some have a bird, some a snake, some an owl, some are like a saw and some like an eye, and some with some kinds of figures, some with one thing and then another, so that there are few that can translate them. It is true that the poet Francisco Filelfo told me that some of these animals meant one thing and some another. Each one had its own meaning. The eel means envy. Thus each one has its own meaning...(Curran, The Egyptian Renaissance p. 85)

Here is that last part in Italian:

Quote:

Vero e che ‘l poeta Francesco Filelfo mi diesse che quegli animali significavano chi una cosa e chi un’altra, ciascheduno ognuno per se, l’anguilla significa la ‘nvidia, e cosi ognuna ha sua significazione, se gia loro ancora on avessino fatto ch’elle fussino pure come sono l’altre e potessinsi compitare. (Curran p. 320).

None of this is very philosophical, to be sure. We’re getting there.

Filarete’s reference to Filelfo is confirmed in one of Filelfo’s letters. Charles Dempsey writes:

Quote:

Filarete’s memory, at least on this one point, did not fail him, for a letter written by Filelfo in 1444 to Scalamonti, the biographer of Syriacus of Ancona, refers to Horapollo and specifically cites the eel as meaning envy (“Renaissance Hieroglyphic Studies and Bellini’s St. Mark,” in Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe p. 354).

Alberti, who as a member of the curia was certainly in Florence for the conclave and probably attended Plethon’s lectures, later wrote, in a work thought to have been largely composed in the 1440s:

Quote:

The Egyptians employed the following sign language: a god was represented by an eye, nature by a vulture, a king by a bee, time by a circle, peace by an ox, and so on. They maintained that each nation knew only its own alphabet, and that eventually all knowledge of it would be lost—as has happened with our own Etruscan: we have sepulchers uncovered in city ruins and cemeteries throughout Etruria inscribed with an alphabet universally acknowledged to be Etruscan, their letters look not unlike Greek, or even Latin, yet no one understands what they mean. The same, the Egyptians claimed, should happen to all other alphabets, whereas the method of writing they used could be understood easily by expert men all over the world, to whom alone noble matters should be communicated (On the art of building in ten books, trans. Rykwert, Leach, and Tavernor, p. 256.)

I would expect that this quote, or at least sentiment, would have been known not long after Alberti deposited his manuscript with Nicholas V in 1452; it would probably have been noticed by Filarete, Alberti’s fellow architect, who was writing his own book and who would have discussed it with Filelfo. In fact, it probably was a common idea among Platonistically oriented humanists, which could be found also in Apuleius’s Golden Ass and Plutarch’s Of Isis and Osiris (I gave some quotes at http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.p...postcount=43); and the 1440s was a time when enigmatic medallions started to be in fashion in the northern Italian courts (Curran p. 76), of which Alberti’s “winged eye” was probably the first. In any case, by the late 15th century such sentiments were commonplace; the illustrations of the Hypnerotomachia trade upon it.

The examples these Italian scholars cited, following Horapollo, Plutarch, and Amiannus, were moral teachings, not incompatible with Christianity. But with Plethon’s perspective there could also be seen the probability of religious teachings, from a perspective wider than Christianity. Again, there is Alberti’s “winged eye”—the eye of God, but with pagan-looking wings (for the image, see my post at http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.p...7&postcount=45). The very word “hieroglyph” meant “sacred carving”—so how could religious matters as well as moral ones not also have been communicated? And could one even separate morality from religion, since the latter was the foundation for the former?

Tarot cards, of course, are also pictures, and the trumps, even in the Cary Yale, mostly depict “noble matters,” in Alberti’s phrase. As such they are capable of being understood by people of various languages; and no doubt some would have thought even by people in the distant future, if the truths communicated were in fact eternal truths and not ephemera. And likewise they mixed pagan with Christian imagery, just as Plethon and those influenced by him did. (By the time of the Cary Sheet, I believe, Egyptianate imagery was added as well (see my post at http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewto...ptianate#p8116). The result might then be something inexpressible in language, known only by intuition.

So my thought is that one way Plethon could have influenced tarot is not in the images of particular cards, nor through Neoplatonism as such, but merely in the significance of the tarot trump images generally, as communicating profound matters of the prisca theologia, transcending language, nationality, and particular religious beliefs and practices. At this time of religious warfare and factionalism, the hope of developing a religion that transcended particular places and their history would have been attractive. There were even Chinese in Florence then, with their picture-language, whose philosophical writings must have been imagined as similar expressions of the prisca theologia on an even broader scale.

Later, Pico’s and others’ research into Kabbalah would tend to confirm the idea of the prisca philosoophia and prisca theologia (the ancient philosophy and theology at the root of all subsequent ones). God’s spoke in geometrical figures, Jewish-derived examples of which can be seen in Agrippa’s Three Books of Occult Philosophy and also the Sefer Raziel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Raziel_HaMalakh). God communicated the truth to Adam before the fall, and Adam passed down what he could remember to his posterity. God’s language may also be that spoken by angels, whom Ficino described as speaking in a different language that he could understand (Hankins vol. 1 p. 278, in Google Books).

At some point, I think pretty early, alchemy was added to the mix, as part of the prisca theologia et philosophia. So we see enigmatic pictures of Greek myths offered allegoricaly. It, too, was imagined to be descended from divinity. Although this is late, here is Etteilla in the 18th century, holding that the secret of the elixir was first held by Adam (2nd Cahier, pp. 68-69).

Quote:

La Médecine universelle tire son origine de l'arbre de vie qui étoit en Eden; le texte y est formel. Avant de déluge, on no se servoit que de la Médecine [p. 69] universelle [1: Sans Médecine universelle, on a de la peine à expliquer comment le grand âge des premiers Hommes...]; la science en étoit commune à tous les Hommes, & tous vivoient plusieurs siecles; mais mésusant d'une vie longue jusqu'à s'adonner à des vices sans contredit impardonnables, les Hommes furent submergés. Par Chanaan, petit-fils de Noé, ceette Science passa seulement aux premiers nés des Chananéens, des Amorrhéens, des Guergésiens, des Hétiens, des Héviens, des Périsiens & des Jébusiens, ainsi par Sem & par Japhet à leurs premiers nés.

My translation:

Quote:

The universal Medicine draws its origin from the tree of life that was in Eden; the text there is definite. Before the deluge, one was served only by the universal Medicine [Footnote 1: Without universal Medicine, it is difficult to explain the great age of the first Men...]; knowledge of it was common to all Men, and all lived several centuries; but misusing a long life so as to give themselves to unarguably unforgivable vices, Men were submerged. By Chanaan, grandson of Noah, this Knowledge passed only to the first born sons of the Chananians, the Amorrhians, the Guergesians, the Hetians, the Hevians, the Perisians and the Jebusians, so by Sem and by Japhet to their first-born.

I have talked elsewhere about the close relationship of alchemy and tarot (http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=647).

I don’t know of anyone clearly articulating the belief in the prisca philosophia before Plethon. In fact, Plethon usually isn’t even mentioned, as opposed to Ficino and Pico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy). Nor is he mentioned in relationship to the prisca theologia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeti...Theologia.22)’ but he clearly had that as well. The tarot, in that spirit, could be conceived as a modern version of the hieroglyphs that, it was believed, were used by the ancients, and even God himself, to preserve a universal philosophy and religion which humanity could gradually understand on deeper levels as it progressed.

This is in addition to the Middle Platonic Plutarchian orientation that I see in the individual images of the Cary Sheet, the added cards of the PMB, and Marseille-style cards, which I attribute more to Filelfo’s influence than Plethon’s.

So by investigating Plethon and Filelfo, we might add a piece or two to this jigsaw puzzle of tarot, or at least learn more of the cards’ historical context

 FILELFO'S 1464 LETTER MENTIONING ZOROASTER

IN 1464 Filelfo wrote a letter articulating the prisca theologia in a wa similar to Plethon's and also, to a degree, to Ficioo's slightly later. Ross G.R. Caldwell translated it on my request. I reproduce here Ross's introduction to the text and tanslation, and then the text itself (Aeclectic Tarot Forum 6 Oct. 2011, http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2900130&postcount=77):

I'm not completely satisfied I've understood everything correctly in this passage, but the sense is clear. Filelfo does believe that the philosophy of "Idea" comes from Zoroaster, but he doesn't cite any writings, just Pythagoras' basis in Magian teachings.

He clearly believes in some kind of "prisca philosophia", but not as Ficino would codify it. There is no mention of Orpheus or the Aglaophemus who was held to be Pythagoras' Orphic teacher. 

Et huius quidem ideae inventor omnium primus, quotquot aut in Ionica aut in Italica claruissent philosophia, Pythagoras fuisse perhibetur. Secutus is quidem Zoroastren, qui bellum Troianum, ut Plutarchus refert, annis quinque millibus antecessit. Pythagoras enim ut caeteros omnis suae tempestatis, homines, formae venustate, atque praestantia mirifice adeo antecelluit, ut pro Appolline haberetur, ita divina quadam ingenii bonitate atque sciendi studio, cunctis mortalibus superior fuit. Quapropter ubi universam peragrasset Europam, quo undique, quicquid scitu dignum animadvertebat, acciperet, ductus tandem illustri fama sacerdotum, atque prophetarum, Aegyptiorum, profectus in Aegyptum, ubi simul cum lingua omnem illorum sapientiam didicisset, illud etiam intelligere visus est, Aegyptios eximiam omnem disciplinam a Magis, qui a Zoroastre fluxerunt, hausisse. Quare ad Chaldaeos se contulit, quo et Chaldaeos audiret qui astrologiae gloria habebantur insignes, et Magis quos apud illos versari acceperat, congrederetur. Magorum igitur diuturna usus consuetudine non obscure intelligere visus est unum Zoroastren Persen, ut antiquissimum philosophorum omnium, ita etiam acutissimum, sapientissimumque fuisse. Quare ex illa hora, Zoroastris philosophiam amplexus est. Quam postea Plato quoque Pythagoreis usus et auctoribus et doctoribus est secutus. Manarunt in quam ab ipso usque Zoroastre philosopho, quae sapienter et peracute de Idea, scripta a Platone referuntur.

Indeed Pythagoras is held to have been the first discoverer of this idea, of anyone, however many others might have illuminated either Ionia or Italy with philosophy. Of course, he followed Zoroaster, who lived five thousand years before the Trojan War, as Plutarch says. But Pythagoras made himself so preeminent, to all the other men of his time, with beautiful form and outstanding excellence, that he could be taken for Apollo, superior to all mortals, with a kind of innate divinity and spirit of knowledge. He traveled over the whole of Europe, investigating everything that was worthy of attention in its entirety, so that he was admitted, finally, among the illustrious Egyptian priests and prophets, progressing in Egypt, where at the same time he acquired all wisdom in their language, so that he understood that all the excellent Egyptian disciplines which flowed from Zoroaster had been absorbed by the Magi. Therefore he went to the Chaldeans, and heard the astrologers that were held famous among them, and engaging with the Magi among whom he was permitted to dwell. Having enjoyed long experience in the customs of the Magi therefore, he seemed to understand, not obscurely, that Zoroaster the Persian was one of them, as the most ancient of all the philosophers, and thus also the most profound and wisest. Therefore from that time the philosophy of Zoroaster was embraced. Thus afterwards Plato in his turn made use of Pythagoras and was followed by various authors and doctors. They spread, according to what came wisely and acutely from Zoroaster the philosopher himself concerning Idea, writings which are referred to by Plato.

And Ross makes an additional comment:

(Filelfo’s Platonic reference to Zoroaster may be referring to First Alcibiades 122a1 :

“And at fourteen years of age he is handed over to the royal schoolmasters, as they are termed: these are four chosen men, reputed to be the best among the Persians of a certain age; and one of them is the wisest, another the justest, a third the most temperate, and a fourth the most valiant. The first instructs him in the magianism of Zoroaster, the son of Oromasus, which is the worship of the Gods, and teaches him also the duties of his royal office; the second, who is the justest, teaches him always to speak the truth; the third, or most temperate, forbids him to allow any pleasure to be lord over him, that he may be accustomed to be a freeman and king indeed,—lord of himself first, and not a slave; the most valiant trains him to be bold and fearless, telling him that if he fears he is to deem himself a slave” (trans. Benjanmin Jowett).

But he doesn't refer to "writings" here, so that's not entirely acceptable. There is another possible intersection of Plato and Zoroaster, when a philosopher named Colotes wrote that Plato had changed the name of Zoroaster to Er in Book X of the Republic. But again, no books are mentoned. Maybe Filelfo's reference is to some apocrypha we don't know about.)

And now for my comments: That Filelfo does not mention Orpheus or Aglaeophemus is not surprising, if his source is Plethon. Plethon doesn't mention them either. The list was Ficino's already in 1463, when he hadn't added Zoroaster to his list. As for "writings", the crucial sentences are the last two, especially the last:

Quote:

Thus afterwards Plato in his turn made use of Pythagoras and was followed by various authors and doctors. They spread, according to what came wisely and acutely from Zoroaster the philosopher himself concerning Idea, writings which are referred to by Plato.

It seems like Filelfo means that Plato referred to Zoroaster's writings. Ross first speculates that it is the First Alcibiades. But it doesn't refer to writings.  Another objection to the the Alcibiades as Filelfo's source is that it doesn't refer to the doctrine of the Ideas. It seems to me that in capitalizing the word "Idea" in the last sentence, Filelfo is meaning to attribute Plato's theory of the Ideas, his in particular as it is he who is associated with it, originally to Zoroaster. No one else makes such a radical attribution, that I have found, except Plethon, and Plethon only in the "Brief Description" and the "Commentary" that went with his version of the Chaldean Oracles. Here are the relevant passages. First, in the "Brief Description": 

Quote:

They call ‘spells’ (l. 55) the intellects linked to him and the separated Forms, which they also call the ‘inflexible upholders of the world’ (l. 57) (Woodhouse p. 53).

(The word Woodhouse translates by "spell" is the Greek "iynx.") And in the "Commentary," Woodhouse has the following in his mixture of quotes and paraphrase (p. 58):

Quote:

The Father 'perfected everything' (l. 53), that is, he created the intelligible Forms, which he entrusted to the second god to rule over. ...The 'mental spells' (l. 55) are the intelligible Forms, 'conceived b the Father and themselves conceiving and moved towards conceptions by unspoken and voiceless wills'. The latter phrase means 'unmoved wills', for by movement is meant 'simply an intellectual relationship', and 'to speak' is taken to be a kind of motion. So what is meant is 'unmoved Forms'. The supreme intelligible Forms are called the 'upholders of the universe' (l. 57), and chief among them is the second god. In calling them 'inflexible', the Oracle has in mind the immortality of the Universe.

For the full context, here are my scans of the pages where Woodhouse gives his translation of the "Brief Description." The relevant part is where, on p. 53, Plethon, in Woodhouse's English, talks about "Forms." "Forms" is just the standard English way of translating Plato's "Ideas" in the technical Platonic sense.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HZ9UJFrGgB...odhouse53a.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6E-fPHW8JW...oodhouse54.jpg

The Oracles themselves, that the line numbers refer to, I gave at the beginning of

http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.p...0&postcount=56

So it seems to me that, given Filelfo's respect for and interest in Plethon's writings, that a likely source for Filelfo's last sentence in the letter is Plethon's edition of the Oracles, including either the "Brief Description" or the "Commentary" or both.

A difficulty is that these writings by Plethon are not among those listed by Calderini in the philosophical contents of Filelfo's library. If they were, Hankins would have said so. One possibility is that Filelfo gave them to someone else, when he did not have time to make another copy. It strikes me that Lorenzo's visit to Milan in 1465 might have been such an occasion, a very worthy act of good will toward the Medici, Cosimo's memory, and his protege Ficino, such as might go a long way to repair earlier damage.

It is also possible that Filelfo deduced the connection between Plato and Zoroaster from another source. Ross goes on to say:

Quote:

There is another possible intersection of Plato and Zoroaster, when a philosopher named Colotes wrote that Plato had changed the name of Zoroaster to Er in Book X of the Republic. But again, no books are mentoned. Maybe Filelfo's reference is to some apocrypha we don't know about.)

Kwaw later in the thread (http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2900507&postcount=80) gives a source for Ross's speculation about this Colotes. Proclus, in his commentary on Plato's Republic referred to an Epicurean philosopher Colotes who said that Plato's myth of Er derived from a work called Four Books On Nature by Zoroaster. Onr problem here is that Proclus, writing about this, says that it is unclear whether the author was Zoroaster the Persian Magus or another later one. Kwaw gives Stausberg's essay "A name for all and no one" for more details, at http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=6p9ZVm-poRoC&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false. Another problem is that Proclus does not mention this book as a source for the doctrine of the Ideas. On the other hand, Filelfo in fact did have Proclus's commentary in his library; it is listed in an inventory cited by Hankins in a footnote on p. 94.

OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR FILELFO'S COMMENTS

Filelfo refers in his letter to both Plutarch and Pythagoras. In a note at the end of the letter, p. 523, Hankins identifies two sources, p. 523

Quote:

250-271: Plutarchus, De Iside et Osiride 369E; Diogenes Laertius I, prol.

Then for lines 272-276 Hankins also mentions Diogenes Laertius, at III.8.  369E is section 46, where Plutarch describes the teachings of Zoroaster (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_...lutarch/C.html), starting with:

The great majority and the wisest of men hold this opinion: they believe that there are two gods, rivals as it were, the one the Artificer of good and the other of evil. There are also those who call the better one a god and the other a daemon, as, for example, Zoroaster the sage, who, they record, lived five thousand years before the time of the Trojan War.

 I notice also that in section 48 Plutarch mentions the Chaldeans, in an astrological context; the Chaldeans were the Babylonians, thought to be the originators of astrology.

In section III, Hankins' second reference, about Pythagoras's time in Egypt, Diogenes says that Pythagoras "associated with the Chaldeans and the Magi." (http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diog...pythagoras.htm). III also talks about his time on Samos; I see "Samium" on line 275 of Filelfo's letter. Neither of these talks about the Ideas; so there must be another source..

HERE DOES FILELFO GET THE IDEA THAT ZOROASTER ORIGINATED THE THEORY OF IDEAS? (http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2898337&postcount=66)

Woodhouse has a whole chapter on the "Reply to Scholarios," which he says (p. 308) was probably completed in 1449. Scholarios himself first got it from others, so apparently it circulated among the Greek community. Woodhouse's presentation, like that of the "Commentary," is a mixture of quotes and paraphrases. Among the quotes we have (p. 284f)

Quote:

the surviving oracles of Zoroaster are clearly consistent with the doctrines of Plato, totally and in every respect.

But this is not the same as saying that Zoroaster held the doctrine of Ideas. In fact, nowhere in the "Reply" is the doctrine of Ideas attributed to Zoroaster. Nor is it in the "De Differentiis", which Woodhouse translates in full, and which we know that Filelfo had. Plethon does attribute the doctrine of Ideas to Timaeus of Locris, a Pythagorean, in both places (based on a text that was actually written after Plato, according to modern scholars). But that is as far back as Plethon goes. Nor does Woodhouse mention Plethon talking about Zoroaster or Zoroastrians or Magi as holding the doctrine of Ideas anywhere else; I checked every reference to Zoroaster in Woodhouse's index. So if Filelfo's source was Plethon, he at least saw Plethon's Brief Explanation or Commentary, enough so that this point made an impression, even if he didn't have a copy personally. If he saw one of those, he probably also saw Plethon's Oracles themselves, which back up Plethon's attribution; that would probably have satisfied Filelfo that Plethon was on firm ground.

Kwaw, however  (7 Oct 2011, http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2901032&postcount=83), found a long quote from Proclus's commentary, showing how Proclus describes how not only the Orphics--"Orpheus"-- but also the "Oracles" contained the doctrine of Ideas:

For the ideas, or four monads of ideas, prior to the fabrication of things subsist intelligibly ; but the order of forms proceeds into the Demiurgus; and the whole number of ideas is one of the monads which he contains. Orpheus also indicating these things says, that the intelligible God [Phanes] was absorbed by the Demiurgus of wholes. And Plato asserts that the Demiurgus looks to the paradigm, indicating through sight intellectual perception. According to the theologist, however, the Demiurgus leaps as it were to the intelligible God, and as the fable says, absorbs him. For if it be requisite clearly to unfold the doctrine of our preceptor, the God who is called Protogonus by Orpheus, and who is established at the end of intelligibles, is animal itself with Plato. Hence it is eternal, and the most beautiful of intelligibles, and is in intelligibles that which Jupiter is in intellectuals. Each however is the boundary of these orders. And the former indeed, is the first of paradigmatic causes; but the latter is the most monadic of demiurgic causes. Hence Jupiter is united to the paradigm through Night as the medium, and being filled from thence, becomes an intelligible world, as in intellectuals.
..
Plato, therefore, admitting a Demiurgus of this kind, suffers him to be ineffable and without a name, as having an arrangement prior to wholes in the portion of the good. For in every order of the Gods, there is that which is analogous to the one. Such therefore is the monad in each world. But Orpheus gives a name to the Demiurgus, in consequence of being moved [i. e. inspired] from thence ; whom Plato himself likewise elsewhere follows. For the Jupiter with him, who is prior to the three sons of Saturn, is the Demiurgus of wholes. After the absorption therefore of Phanes, the ideas of all things shone forth in him, as the theologist (Orpheus) says :

Hence with the universe great Jove contains,
Extended aether, heav'n's exalted plains;
The barren restless deep, and earth renown'd,
Ocean immense, and Tartarus profound;
Fountains and rivers, and the boundless main,
With all that nature's ample realms contain
And Gods and Goddesses of each degree;
All that is past, and all that e'er shall be,
Occultly, and in fair connection lies,
In Jove's wide belly, ruler of the skies.

Jupiter however, being full of ideas, through these comprehends in himself wholes - which the theologist (Orpheus) also indicating adds:

Jove is the first, and last, high-thundering king,
Middle and head, from Jove all beings spring.
Jove the foundation of the earth contains,
And the deep splendor of the starry plains.
Jove is a king by no restraint confin'd,
And all things flow from Jove's prolific mind.
One mighty principle which never fails,
One power, one daemon, over all prevails.
For in Jove's royal body all things lie,
Fire, night and day, earth, water, and the sky....

The Oracles likewise assert the same things of him as (the Pythagorean) Timaeus. For they say, "The father of Gods and men placed our intellect in soul, but soul in sluggish body." But this is the admirable thing celebrated by the Greeks, concerning him who is according to them the Demiurgus. If however these things are asserted conformably both to Timaeus and the Oracles, those who are incited by the divinely delivered theology [of the Chaldeans] will say that this Demiurgus is fontal; that he fabricates the whole world conformably to ideas, considered as one, and as many, and as divided both into wholes and parts, and that he is celebrated as the maker and father of the universe, and as the father of Gods and men by Plato, Orpheus, and the Oracles; generating indeed, the multitude of-Gods, but sending souls to the generations of men, as Timaeus himself also says.
...
Phanes, therefore, thus unfolding himself into light from the occult Gods, antecedently comprehends in himself the causes of the secondary orders, viz. of the effective, connective, perfective, and immutable orders; and also contains in himself according to one cause, all intelligible animals. For he excites himself to the most total ideas of all things. Hence also, he is said [by Orpheus] to be the first of the Gods, and to have a form. But he produces all things, and unfolds the intelligible and united causes of things, to the intellectual Gods . (http://ia600501.us.archive.org/12/it...five-books.pdf)

As for Timaeus himself:

..After this manner therefore, we must say, that Timaeus being a Pythagorean, follows the Pythagorean principles. But these are the Orphic traditions. For what Orpheus delivered mystically through arcane narrations, this Pythagoras learned, being initiated by Aglaophemus in the mystic wisdom which Orpheus derived from his mother Calliope. For these things Pythagoras says in The Sacred Discourse."..

So we have the chain 'Plato - Pythagoras - Aglaophemus - Orpheus' from Proclus, with a comparison to the Oracles. In addition, Kwaw says, the chain 'Plato - Pythagoras - Zoroaster' is in Apuleius: his Florida, Apologia & Plato and his Doctrines. Apuleius in turn refers to 'Greek authorities' as his source. Apuleius was abundanently available in the 15th century. Kwaw says that Petrarch for example owned a volume of his complete works (literary and philosophical) prepared between 1340-1343. The medici library has the complete works in manuscripts completed for them by 1425.

Agaisnt my objection that the word "Chaldean" is interpolated by the tanslator and not in the original, Kwaw, post 106,  finds in Proclus's commentary on the Republic (In Remp II 220-11-18)  the actual phrase Χαλδαίος Θεουργων. "Chaldean:Theurgists" in Fragment 58 of the Oracles embedded there, (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ow0VAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA70&dq=%22II,+220,%20+11-18%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22II%2C%20220%2C%20%2011-18%22&f=false, relating how the sun "was established at the site of the heart".

The upshot is that Filelfo didn't need Plethon to derive Plato's theory of ideas from Zoroaster. He could have found it for himself reading Proclus's commentaries on the Timaeus and the Republic

5. The Six Cards by the PMB 2nd artist

THIS IS A CONTINUATION FROM THE PRECEDING SECTION

THE PMB STAR, MOON, AND SUN

Now let us look again at some of the cards of the tarot: specifically, the six added cards of the PMB (Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo) tarot, done sometime after 1460 to supplement 14 pre-existing cards in Milan. I will start with the Star, Moon, and Sun, in relation to a quotation I have alredy cited in connection with the Lover card, about the Chaldean triad Truth, Faith, and Love.Then I will discuss the World, Temperance, and Fortezza, which are the other three cards of the PMB by the second artist

The Oracles associate Truth, Faith, and Love with the three cosmic "teletarchs," one for each of the three realms in the Chaldean cosmos. Majercik comments, pp. 11-12 (and here I do my best to transliterate the Greek words, as I don't know how to make the keyboard type Greek):

Quote:

Beneath the Iynges and Connectors are located the Teletarchs (teletarchai, lit. "masters of initiation"; see fr. 85 and 86), divine entities which are assimilated to the cosmagoi as rulers of the three worlds of Chaldean cosmology... The Teletarchs are also associated with the Chaldean virtues of Faith (pistis), Truth (aletheia), and Love (eros; see fr. 46), which function as faculties of the three rulers; Faith is connected with the Material Teletarch; Truth with the Ethereal Teletarch; Love with the Empyrean Teletarch. (A fourth virtue, "fire-bearing Hope"--Elpis purnoxos--is also mentioned; see fr. 47.) As such, these virtues are not to be understood as spiritual qualities (as is the case with the Pauline triad of Faith, Hope, Charity), but as cosmic entities involved in the very creation and maintenance of the Universe: "For all things," says the oracle, "are governed and exist in these three (virtues)" (fr. 48)... In addition, Faith, Truth, and Love are also understood in a theurgic sense, as it is through these three virtues that the theurgist is said to unite with God (see fr. 48 and notes).... This last emphasis again connects these three virtues with the Teletarchs, as these three rulers are responsible for both purifying the ascending soul of material influences as well as guiding its journey upward. (As noted supra, it was through the medium of the Teletarchs that the rays of the sun--or "Material Connectors"--were conducted downward. It was on these rays, then, that the soul ascended, guided by the Teletarchs.) Further, all three Teletarchs have additional solar connections: the Empyrean Teletarch is associated with Aion (the transmundane sun) as the intelliglble source of light, the Ethereal Teletarch is associated with Helios (the mundane sun) as the direct source of the earth's light; the Material Teletarch is associated with the moon and, as such, rules the sublunar zone traversed by the rays of the visible sun.

But the Ethereal realm includes more than the mundane sun; Majercik says (p. 16f). It includes all the planets and in addition the fixed stars.

Quote:

The Chaldean concept of the cosmos envisions a triad of concentric circles which encompasses both the intelligible and sensible orders: the Empyrean World is properly that of the intelligible; the Ethereal, that of the fixed stars and planets; the material comprises the sublunar realm including Earth. However, such a distinction is not explicitly made in the extant fragments (but cf. fr. 76 and see frr. 39, 61, 62, 67) but is based on information from the later Neoplatonists.

But it would seem that the Ethereal realm does not include all the planets, as Majercik also says, in the previous quote, "the material Teletarch is associated with the moon." And later (p. 17):

Quote:

...each of the three worlds can be viewed as a 'fiery' circle dominated, respectively, by the transmundane sun, mundane sun, and moon, each of which, in turn, is equated with one of the three Teletarchs.

It seems to me that these three worlds might be reflected in the PMB 2nd artist's Star, Moon, and Sun cards. Stars are part of the the Ethereal world, and as such represent Truth--in Christian terms, Truth as embodied in Christ, the "bright and morning star" of the 2nd coming, heralded by the Star of Bethlehem. Thus the card shows a star in its upper corner, to which a woman prays. It is similar to the Cary-Yale Hope card. The woman embodies Hope, while the star is Truth.

The Moon is associated with the Material world, and the corresponding virtue is Faith. So we have the vicissitudes of material life, against which Faith is the light in the darkness. The Moon's Goddess in the Oracles is Hecate, who holds the bridle of chastity as the means for purifying our material being. She corresponds to Faith in the Cary-Yale.

The Sun is in this case the transmundane sun, from which all light, spiritual and material, derives. The child suggests Cupid, i.e. Eros, as in the case of the Love card. corresponding more closely, it is the child of fr. who appears in visions riding on rays of fire. It corresponds to the virtue of Charity in the Cary-Yale.

It seems to me that this same interpretation extends to the Marseille cards. The Star is still the star of Truth; the lady's nakedness suggests the nakedness of truth, uncovered and unadorned; her jugs, one or both, offer hope.The Moon card has Hecate's hounds instead of chastity's bridle; the fear these demons inspire in the sublunar world is another test for the sake of purification. The children or male-female couple on the Sun card embody love, in the case of the children that of the Gemini, the twins, for each other; generalizing, the love is for all humanity. The drops that we see in the air on the cards are the rays sent down from the transmundane sun by the "Material Connectors" to guide the soul upwards.

Huck wrote

Quote:

Interestingly Gian Maria goes, after the scandal for a year or something like that, to "Guglielmo Paleologo marchese di Monferrato"... Guglielmo (then 44 years old) needed urgently a heir and married January 1465 (wife 15 years old), so "recently", before Gian Mario Filelfo arrived there. The wife died 1467, and Guglielmo married Elisabetta Sforza (13 years old) in July 1469. MikeH, you showed interest in that earlier. Elisabetta died 1473. Guglielmo, still without male heir, married again 1474 and died 1484, his wife died one year later. Still without heir, a brother took Montferrat. The later Montferrat house descended from the Byzantine emperors with Theodore I of Montferrat. The earlier Montferrat house was active in crusades and had titles like Queen of Jerusalem, King of Jerusalem etc. Sofia of Montferrat... Sofia, Emps of Constantinople, *Casale 1396/99, +Turin 10.12.1437; 1m: 1406 (anulled 1411) Filippo Maria Visconti, Ct of Pavia (*Milan 23.9.1392, +Milan 13.8.1447); 2m: 19.1.1421 (div 1426) Ióannés VIII Palaiologos, Emperor of Byzantium (*16.12.1392, +31.10.1448) ..., once an Empress of Constantinople (wife of John VIII, the emperor at the council) and then divorced, was an aunt to Guglielmo.

It has been my contention for a while (see http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewto...a+sforza#p4821) that Elisabetta Sforza is the lady depicted on the PMB 2nd artist's Temperance, Star, and Moon cards, as shown by comparison with a c. 1480 Lombard portrayal in an altarpiece of a similar-looking lady in company with ladies looking like Bona of Savoy and Ippolita Sforza; the three had been together once, at Bona's 1468 marriage. As related to distinguished Greeks, her husband Guglielmo might have appreciated references to the Oracles in a tarot deck modified in her honor. That the postulated programmer's son had visited him a little before the time the marriage was contracted is another fact in support of my idea/

THE PMB FORTEZZA CARD

Reading more of the complete Oracles, I see another 2nd artist card in the PMB that might have been chosen with the Oracles in mind: the "Strength" or "Fortitude" card.

The Cary-Yale had shown a woman holding the jaws of a lion, a typical representation of the cardinal virtue of Fortitude, i.e. Courage. Indeed, the early accounts invariably called the card "fortezza." (http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards26.htm), which meant both "fortitude" and "strength" .But the lady on the card has moral strength rather than physical strength.

In the PMB, however, we see a man, probably Hercules, bashing a lion with a club. Hercules was known for his great strength; he had courage, too, but most heroes had that. The same applies to the lady on other early cards. e.g. the Charles VI; she pushes over some columns, like Samson. Samson was distinguished by his strength; and like Hercules, he won a bout with a lion. A lion is sometimes next to the columns, e.g. in the "Mantegna." The name was still "fortezza", now clearly in a sense that includes physical as well as moral "strength".

The later Marseille style tarot, and the Cary Sheet before that, returned to the imagery of the Cary-Yale; yet on the Marseile we see the name "La Force," meaning strength or force. That name seems to reflect the distinguishing characteristic of Samson and Hercules rather than the Forezza of the lady lion-tamer.

One explanation for the PMB's emphasis on strength rather than merely courage might be that it is honoring Francesco Sforza and the Sforza family, for whom the cards were made. "Sforza" apparently means "strength" or "force." But another, less self-promoting reason might be that in the Chaldean Oracles, fortitude is not mentioned, but "strength" has a key role. Proclus says in In Platonis Alcibiadem Priorem Commentarii 82

Quote:

And the more vigorous natures behold the truth by themselves and are more inventive, "saved through their own strength..." as the oracle says, while the weaker ones need both instruction and reminders from others who possess perfection in those areas where they lack it. (Majercik p. 93)

I cite this quotation, out of three on the same theme, because it is the one Filelfo in Milan is most likely to have read.

The point is that for the theurgist inner strength is required to apprehend the signs from above, enabling his soul to ascend, after which he can help others of a weaker nature. Another quotation from a different source makes this point more clearly. Hierocles, in Commentarius in Aureum Carmen 112, says

Quote:

Therefore...for the purification of our luminous body there is need to get rid of material defilements, a need to undergo sacred purifications, and a need for the "strength that binds us to God" exciting us toward the flight up there. (Majarcik p. 95)

Moreover, this "strength" is an attribute not only of the theurgist but of the divine world as well. Lewy (Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy p. 9f) cites a prayer that Porphyry repeated in a work now lost, but which was preserved in a Christian compilation done at the end of the 5th century, now known as the Theosophy of Tuebingen, from the place where the most important of its manuscripts was found (Lewy p. 16). It was rediscovered by the Italian humanist Augustine Steuchus (1497-1548), author of the Philosophia Perennis of 1540 (Lewy p. 9):

Quote:

Ineffable Father of the immortals, Eternal, Myses, O Lord, Thou who ridest on the ethereal back of the revolving worlds where the Vigour of Thy Strength is fixed; to Thee, Who seest, and with Thy beauteous ears hearest everything (we pray). Hear Thy children whom Thou hast begotten in the times. For Thy golden, abundant, eternal Strength abides above the world and the starry heaven. Above Her (Strength) Thou art exalted, moving thyself through Light, and suckling, through eternally flowing channels, the equipoised Intellect: Who brings forth this all by shaping the imperishable matter, of which the creation was resolved upon when Thou boundest it by forms....

According to Lewy (p. 13), three Chaldean entities are indicated here: a primordial Father, a feminine power called "first intellect," who produces the eternal forms, and a "second intellect" who creates the rest in accord with the forms.

It is the feminine power who seems to be identical with, or at least on the same level, as "Strength" and "Vigour of Strength."

In the Oracles proper, there is another feminine power, perhaps a lower manifestation of the same hypostasis, this one midway between the intellectual and sensible worlds, facing in both directions, the Cosmic Soul from Plato's Timaeus. In the Oracles she is also called Hecate, associated with magic and the moon; and once she is called Rhea, who conventionally had the title "mother of the gods."

With her, the lion also seems to make an appearance. In one verse, Hecate announces to the theurgist

Quote:

If you speak to me often, you will perceive everything in lion-form...

according a verse quoted by Psellus (Majercik p. 105), a text known to Plethon (Lewy p. 475) and Ficino (as I have read somewhere). Psellus explains that what is meant is the constellation of Leo in the sky: it will be seen as the phantasm of a lion, and nothing else will be seen in the sky at all (Majercik p. 196, Johnston, Hekate Soteira p. 112).

This verse and explanation has puzzled modern commentators. Most (but not Majercik) have a different explanation: the word leonta, translated as "lion-form" (literally, lion), is a misprint for another Greek word meaning "dark," which Psellus failed to correct and struggled to make sense of as written (see prevous references).

But from the 15th century until the end of the 19th, the word would have been read as "lion." That association with Hecate is not as surprising as it might seem. On Greek and Roman coins, for instance (of which the Renaissance collected at least the Roman), the goddess Hekate is often associated with lions. In some, she is on one side and a lion's head on the other (see examples at http://numismatics.org/search/result...ate%22&start=0). In one Roman coin on the web (http://numismatics.org/search/result...te%22&start=20), she is shown riding a lion.

In this way she is much like the lady on the Marseille "strength" card, shown with a lion obedient to her will.

I have two explanations, one short and one longer; I think both would have occurred to humanists of the Renaissance. The short one is that the lion was a symbol of strength, and in the Oracles Hecate is being identified with Strength. The longer one is that Hekate was identified in the ancient world with Rhea, who in turn was identified with the Great Mother-goddess Cybele; Cybele was typically shown riding a cart drawn by lions. The lion was her symbol. And so it becomes a symbol of Hecate as well.Or as Kroll put it (cited by Majercik, p. 196), "Leones autem matris magnae currum vehunt." I am not entirely sure what that means, but I think it is to the effect that lions were a symbol of the great mother.

In the context of the Oracles, then, the tarot's lady with the lion is none other than the great feminine power of the Chaldean system, Hecate, whose Strength becomes the strength of the theurgist leading his or her soul's ascent to heaven.

THE PMB TEMPERANCE CARD

The only one of the six added cards in the PMB I have not addressed specifically is Temperance. The image is the typical medieval one of a lady pouring the contents of one jug into another; so the Oracles cannot account for anything in the image itself. However a Chaldean perspective can give a new interpretation for why it is after Death and before the Devil, something other interpretations have a hard time doing.

If the act of pouring serves either to dilute the contents of the lower jug, or decrease the contents of the upper jug, either way inducing moderation in the consumption of wine, how does that, or any such practice of Moderation, conduct one from Death to the Devil? Another interpretation of the card has it that it depicts the act of mixing water with wine in the Eucharist. But how does the Eucharist lead to the Devil? Some commentators simply say that there is no transition to be made: the Devil card starts a new sequence of images, one of supra-human entities. That is possible; but in fact the image on the Temperance card does make a meaningful transition to the Devil.

In the Oracles, the soul flows down channels from the Intelligible World to our world; the same channels lead one upward. Plethon's edition starts out:

Quote:

Inquire after the channel of the soul wherefrom, in what order, Having served the body, to that order from which you flowed You shall rise again, combining the act with the sacred word. (lines 1-3, Woodhouse p. 51)

But if Death precedes the Temperance card, and the Devil follows it, it is not the channel from above that the Temperance card concerns. The soul also descends below this world, if it is too attached to matter, to a realm below the earth. Plethon's verses continue:

Quote:

Incline not downwards: below the earth lies a precipice That drags down beneath the sevenfold steps, below which Is the throne of dread Necessity. Your vessel shall be occupied by the beasts of the earth. Do not enlarge your Fate. (lines 4-8)

By the "sevenfold steps" is meant the planets, which the soul passed on the way to its incarnation on earth. But souls can descend even further, to the "throne of dread Necessity," i.e. Persephone and Hades, where one becomes even more of a slave than one is on earth, dragged there by infernal forces

Quote:

Then from the depths of the earth leap forth the dogs of the underworld Showing no true sign to mortal man. (lines 32-33)

The dogs (seen on the "Marseille" Moon card) are agents of Hecate on her sublunar side. "Necessity" is symbolized by the ropes to which the small devils are attached on the Marseille Devil card. Addiction to alcohol or other material attachments, i.e. Intemperance, is a precursor to that enslavement after death. Even the body can be saved, at least to the extent to which it is the "liquescent body":

Quote:

Do not leave behind the dung of matter for the precipice. Do not draw it forth, that it may not suffer in going out. By extending the fiery intellect To the act of piety, you shall also save the liquescent body. (lines 28-31)

From this perspective, the card shows the consequence of lack of Temperance, in which the soul flows downward from Death to the Devil, under the influence of Hecate's sublunar aspect.

We don't know whether the Milanese tarot had a Devil card or not. None of the many extant PMB decks has one, or a Tower card, strongly suggesting that these hand-painted luxury decks did not include that figure. That exclusion may have been a personal preference of the Sforza family to remove a figure already present in the popular deck of that time (the 1460s or 1470s); it does exist in the Cary Sheet, a woodblock deck thought to be from pre-1500 Milan. Also, the Temperance card may well not have been between Death and the Devil: all 15th century accounts of Temperance have it much earlier in the sequence. Yet none of these accounts is from Milan; and it does seem on other grounds that the "Marseille" cards developed out of the Milanese decks (Dummet's "type C" order). Also, there is a very pronounced precipice on the card (as indeed the Star, Moon, and Sun as well), as though to illustrate the hazards of Intemperance.

Appendix: Additional translations of Oracles etc

A. Additional oracles, and modern translations of a few Oracles that I used in Plethon's version, from The Chalden Oracles: Text, Translation, Commentary, by Ruth Majercik 1986. .The words in brackets are those of the ancient writer in whose works these sayings are imbedded.

1.For there exists a certain Intelligible which you must perceive by the flower of mind. For if you should incline your mind toward it and perceive it as perceiving a specific thing, you would not perceive it. For it is the power of strength, visible all around, flashing with intellectual divisions. Therefore, you must not perceive that Intelligible violently but with the flame of mind completely extended which measures all things, except that Intelligible. You must not perceive it intently, but keeping the pure eye of your soul turned away, you should extend an empty mind toward the Intelligible in order to comprehend it, since it exists outside of (your ) mind. (Damascius, Dubitationes et Solutiones de Primis Principiis in Platonis Parmenidem I, 154, 14-26).

4. For power is with him, but intellect is from him. (Source, Proclus In Alc. 37)

8. Beside this one sits a Dyad. ... For it has a double function: it both possesses the intelligibles in its mind and brings sense-perception to the worlds..(Proclus, In Crat. 51).

32. [Now the third intelligible triad is self-generated, about which even the oracles say that] it is a worker, (that) it is the dispenser of life-giving fire, (that) it fills up the life-giving womb of Hecate, (and) pours on the Connectors a force of fruitful and very powerful fire. (Proclus, In Tim..I, 420)

33. [Thus the skill which exists in the Demiurge both remains within him and is himself, according to which he is called] skilled worker  [by the Oracles and] Craftsman of the fiery cosmos. (Proclus, In Tim.I, 12)

37...Those which are borne around the frightful wombs like a swarm of bees—flashing here and there in various directions—are the intelligible Thoughts from the Paternal source, which pluck in abundance the flower of fire from the acme of sleepless Time...(Proclus, In Parm. 800)

38. For after he thought his works, the self-generated Paternal Intellect sowed the bond of love, heavy with fire, into all things.(Proclus, In Parm, 895)

39. ...With this Love, the elements of the world remain on course. (Proclus, In Tim.. II, 54)

40. By the bond of wondrous Love, which leapt first from Intellect, clothing his bonded fire with the fire (of Intellect) in order to mingle the Source Craters while offering the flower of his fire. (Damascius, II, 200).

44. The Father mixed the spark of soul with two harmonious qualities, Intellect and divine Will, to which he added a third, pure Love, as the guide and holy bond of all things. (Lydus, De Mens. I, 11; 3, 12-16 W  + Schol. Paris. gr. 1853, f. 312r0)

46. “Faith, Truth, and Love,” [that praiseworthy triad]. (Proclus, In Tim. I, 212)

48. For all things are governed in these three (virtues). (Proclus, In Alc. 23)

51. Around the hollow of her right flank, a great stream of the primordially-generated Soul gushes forth in abundance, totally ensouling light, fire, ether, worlds. (Proclus, In rem. p., II, 201)

61.  And the Oracles everywhere place the moon after the sun and the air after the moon. (Proclus, In Tim. III, 61 + 234)

64. ...The lunar course and the starry procession...(Proclus, In Tim. III)

85. [The first (teletarch) guides the] wing of fire, [the middle, the ether; and the third, matter.] (Proclus, Th. Pl. IV, 39)

86. [And the] ruler of souls [who stands on the Ethereal worlds is a Teletarch. (Proclus, In Tim. II, 58.)

102. Do not gaze at Nature; her name is Destiny. (Proclus, Th. Pl. 317.)

106. O man, cunning creation of an impudent nature. (Psellus)

108. For the Paternal Intellect has sown symbols throughout the cosmos... (Proclus, In Crat. 20)

109. But the Paernal Intellect does not receive the will of (the soul) until (the soul) emerges from forgetfulness and speaks a word, remembering the pure, paternal token.

116. For the divine is not accessible to mortals who think corporeally, but to all those who, naked, hasten upward toward the heights. (Proclus, In Crat. 88)

120. [(We must...) take care of the purification of our luminous body, which the Oracles also call] delicate vehicle of the soul. (Hierocles, In aurem. carm., 112)

124. Those who, inhaling, drive out the soul, are free. (Psellus)

 130. [Therefore (the souls), by perceiving the works of the Father,] flee the shameful wing of alotted fate, [as the oracle says] and rest in God, drawing in the flowering flames which come down from the Father. From these flames, as they are descending, the soul plucks the soul-nourished flower of fiery fruits. (Proclus, In Tim. III, 266)

135. For you must not gaze upon them until your body has been initiated. Being terrestrial, these ill-tempered dogs are shameless. (Proclus, In Alc. 17-18.)

141. It is the loosing of the god when the sluggish mortal inclines toward their place. (Proclus, In Parm. 1094.)

142. Bodies have been attached to our self-revealed apparitions for your sakes.(Proclus, In rem. p., II, 242)

146: after this invocation, (it says) you will either see a fire, similar to a child, extended by bounds over the billows of air, or you will see a formless fire, from which a voice is sent forth, or you will see a sumptuous light, rushing like a spiral around the field.  But you may even see a horse, more dazzling than light, or even a child mounted on the nimble back of a horse, (a child) of fire or covered with gold or, again, a naked (child), or even (a child) shooting a bow and standing on the back (of the horse). (Proclus, In rem. p. I, 111)

147. If you speak to me often, you will perceive everything in lion-form. For neither does the curved mass of heaven appear then, nor do the stars shine. The light of the moon is hidden, and the earth is not firmly secured, but everything is seen by flashes of lightning. (Psellus)

149. When you perceive a demon approaching, offer the mnizouris stone while making an invocation.(Psellus)

153. For the theurgists do not fall into the herd which is subject to Destiny. (Lydus, De mens., II, 16)

171. [The father guides us, opening paths of fire] so that we do not flow into a wretched stream from forgetfulness. ( e Proclo,  Exc. chald. I, p. 193)

185. [The truer sun measures the All together with Time, truly being] Time of time. (Proclus, In Tim. III, 36)

186. [The river of forgetfulness (signifies) all the flowing of material things and] our rushing vessel. (Proclus In rem p. II, 95).

194. [But if I should touch upon the ineffable, mystical doctrine by which the Chaldean spoke in a divine frenzy concerning the] seven-rayed [god--that god through which he causes souls to ascend--I would be saying unknowable things.Yes, certainly unknowable to the herd, but well-known to the blessed theurigists.] (Proclus)

195. [But (the theurgists) have praised Time itself as a god, and one (Time god) (they praise) as] Linked to the Zones [...the other as Independent of the Zones.]  (Proclus, In Tim. III, 45)

199. [The theurgists...praise this god (sc., Chronos) as older, younger,] unrolled, in a circle [and eternal.] (Proclus, In Tim. III, 20)

201. [Particular souls become mundane through their] vehicles. (Proclus, In Tim. I, 5).

206. Operate with the magic wheel of Hecate. (Psellus)


From the ORPHIC HYMNS (http://www.theoi.com/Text/OrphicHymns1.html):

To HEKATE (end of I. TO THE MUSAE)
And to my holy sacrifice invite, the pow'r who reigns in deepest hell and night;
I call Einodian Hecate, lovely dame, of earthly, wat'ry, and celestial frame,
Sepulchral, in a saffron veil array'd, leas'd with dark ghosts that wander thro' the shade;
Persian, unconquerable huntress hail! The world's key-bearer never doom'd to fail
On the rough rock to wander thee delights, leader and nurse be present to our rites
Propitious grant our just desires success, accept our homage, and the incense bless

[5] V. TO PROTOGONUS (FIRST-BORN)
The Fumigation from Myrrh.
O Mighty first-begotten [Protogonos], hear my pray'r, two-fold, egg-born, and wand'ring thro' the air,
Bull-roarer, glorying in thy golden wings, from whom the race of Gods and mortals springs.
Ericapæus [Erikapaios], celebrated pow'r, ineffable, occult, all shining flow'r.
From eyes obscure thou wip'st the gloom of night, all-spreading splendour, pure and holy light
Hence Phanes call'd, the glory of the sky, on waving pinions thro' the world you fly.
Priapus, dark-ey'd splendour, thee I sing, genial, all-prudent, ever-blessed king,
With joyful aspect on our rights divine and holy sacrifice propitious shine.

[76] LXXVI. To MNEMOSYNE, or the GODDESS of MEMORY
The Fumigation from Frankincense.
The consort I invoke of Jove [Zeus] divine, source of the holy, sweetly-speaking Nine;
Free from th' oblivion of the fallen mind, by whom the soul with intellect is join'd:
Reason's increase, and thought to thee belong, all-powerful, pleasant, vigilant, and strong:
'Tis thine, to waken from lethargic rest all thoughts deposited within the breast;
And nought neglecting, vigorous to excite the mental eye from dark oblivion's night.
Come, blessed power, thy mystic's mem'ry wake to holy rites, and Lethe's fetters break.


From Pseudo-Dionysius, "Celestial Hierarchy" (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/areopagite_13_heavenly_hierarchy.htm)

Ch. 2, Sect. 5: We shall find the Mystic Theologians enfolding these things not only around the illustrations of the Heavenly Orders, but also, sometimes, around the supremely Divine Revelations Themselves. At one time, indeed, they extol It under exalted imagery as Sun of Righteousness, as Morning Star rising divinely in the mind, and as Light illuming without veil and for contemplation; and at other times, through things in our midst, as Fire shedding its innocuous light; as Water, furnishing a fulness of life, and, to speak symbolically, flowing into a belly, and bubbling forth rivers flowing irresistibly; and at other times, from things most remote, as sweet-smelling ointment, as Head Corner-stone. But they also clothe It in forms of wild beasts, and attach to It identity with a Lion, and Panther, and say that it shall be a Leopard, and a rushing Bear. But, I will also add, that which seems to be more dishonourable than all, and the most incongruous, viz. that distinguished theologians have shewn it to us as representing Itself under the form of a worm. Thus do all the godly-wise, and interpreters of the secret inspiration, separate the holy of holies from the uninitiated and the unholy, to keep them undefined, and prefer the dissimilar description of holy things, so that Divine things should neither be easily reached by the profane, nor those who diligently contemplate the Divine imagery rest in the types as though they were true; and so Divine things should be honoured by the true negations, and by comparisons with the lowest things, which are diverse from their proper resemblance.

 Ch. 15, sect. 2: But we must keep our discourse within bounds, and must search, in our first explanation of the types, for what reason the Word of God prefers the sacred description of fire, in preference to almost every other. You will find it, then, representing not only wheels of fire, but also living creatures of fire, and men, flashing, as it were, like lightning, and placing around the Heavenly Beings themselves heaps of coals of fire, and rivers of flame flowing with irresistible force;

sect. 4:  the sacerdotal robe denotes their conducting to Divine and mystical visions, and the consecration of their whole life.

sect 5: The rods signify the kingly and directing faculty, making all things straight. The spears and the battle-axes denote the dividing of things unlike, and the sharp and energetic and drastic operation of the discriminating powers.

sect 7: We must consider that the shape of a Lion signifies the leading, and robust, and indomitable, and the assimilation, as far as possible, to the unutterable Godhead, by the concealment of the intellectual footprints, and by the mystically modest covering of the path, leading to It, during Divine illumination.

sect. 8: The representation of the Eagle denotes the kingly, and soaring, and swift in flight, and quickness in search of the nourishment which makes strong, and wanness, and agility, and cleverness; and the unimpeded, straight, and unflinching gaze towards the bounteous and brilliant splendour of the Divine rays of the sun, with the robust extension of the visual powers.

That of Horses represents obedience and docility, and of those who are white, brilliancy, and as especially congenial to the Divine Light; but of those who are dark blue, the Hidden; and of those red, the fiery and vigorous; and of the piebald, the uniting of the extremes by the power passing through them, and joining the first to the second, and the second to the first, reciprocally and considerately.
...
But we must examine the fact that rivers are spoken of, and Wheels and Chariots attached to the Heavenly Beings. The rivers of fire signify the supremely Divine streams furnishing to them an ungrudging and incessant flow, and nourishing the productive powers of life; the chariots, the conjoined communion of those of the same rank; the wheels being winged, and advancing without turning and without deviation, the power of their advancing energy within a straight and direct path, towards the same unflinching and straight swoop of their every intellectual track, supermundanely straight and direct way. Also it is possible to explain, after another mystical meaning, the sacred description of the intellectual wheels; for the name Gel, Gel, is given to them, as the theologian says. This shews, according to the Hebrew tongue, revolutions and revelations. For the Empyrean and Godlike wheels have revolutions, indeed, by their perpetual movement around the Good Itself; but revelations, by the manifestation of things hidden, and by the elevation of things at our feet, and by the descending procession of the sublime illuminations to things below.

From "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy"

 Caput II, 2, sect. II-V:

He, who has felt a religious longing to participate in these truly supermundane gifts, comes to some one of the initiated, and persuades him to act as his conductor to the Hierarch. He then professes wholly to follow the teaching that shall be given to him, and prays him to undertake the superintendence of his introduction, and of all his after life. Now he, though religiously longing for his salvation, when he measures human infirmity against the loftiness of the undertaking, is suddenly seized with a shivering and sense of incapacity, nevertheless, at last, he agrees, with a good grace, to do what is requested, and takes and leads him to the chief Hierarch.

Section III.

He, then, when with joy he has received, as the sheep upon his shoulders, the two men, and has first worshipped, glorifies with a mental thanksgiving and bodily prostration the One beneficent Source, from Which, those who are being called, are called, and those who are being saved, are saved.

Section IV.

Then collecting a full religious assembly into the sacred place, for co-operation, and common rejoicing over the man's salvation, and for thanksgiving for the Divine Goodness, he first chants a certain hymn, found in the Oracles, accompanied by the whole body of the Church; and after this, when he has kissed the holy table, he advances to the man before him, and demands of him, what has brought him here?

Section V.

When the man, out of love to God, has confessed, according to the instruction of his sponsor, his ungodliness, his ignorance of the really beautiful, his insufficiency for the life in God, and prays, through his holy mediation, to attain to God and Divine things, he (the Hierarch) testifies to him, that his approach ought to be entire, as to God Who is All Perfect, and without blemish; and when he has expounded to him fully the godly course of life, and has demanded of him, if he would thus live,----after his promise he places his right hand upon his head, and when he has sealed him, commands the priests to register the man and his sponsor.