Re: Where *Is* This card?

11
debra wrote: I am reading the history of the French multi-generational family of executioners, the Sansons. In the mid-1600's, it seems, execution was often the penalty for cheating at cards.
It is interesting that you say this Debra. An example of what I mean is in the early casino's I think they were called Riddotti, or private rooms for gambling and card playing in Venice, frescoes were often the alleogories of Virtues.
One such one is the Sala degli arazzi where Jacopo Guarana painted the Triumph of the Virtue. a warning against cheating.
Of course I believe that game playing, especially cards, is a form of Death and Resurrection played out by us mere Mortals. In this sense Tarot imitates a Christian narrative. (*) (a Star is always a hopeful sign in cards, in life)

~Lorredan
The Universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
Eden Phillpotts

Re: Where *Is* This card?

12
My first reaction is that most of the images are indeed pretty typical, and without that "quality of being just off-balance, close but not there". So maybe we can spend a few posts discussing this? My thoughts:

Fool: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.
Magician: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.
Papess: Not typical. Can be explained by "faith" or "second pope", and probably other explanations, but strange to put in the deck.
Empress: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.... except that I really don't see any reason to include her in the "story" supposedly told by the trumps. I think one of the keys to understanding the tarot may lay in understanding why an Empress was included.
Emperor: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.
Pope: Typical representation, nothing exceptional. What's so strange about how the Pope is represented in Tarot? Blessing a couple of acolytes? Seems pretty normal to me.
Lovers: Well, seems like "Love" in the early decks. I'm not sure why the third human character was added to the couple in the Tarot de Marseille decks. So, Love is typical, but the Tarot de Marseille version a bit odd and not really well explained as far as I am concerned.
Chariot: Hmmm. Seems like a "triumphal chariot" to me. I don't see anything particularly exceptional.
Justice: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.
Hermit: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.
Wheel of Fortune: Well, the Visconti seems typical to me with the four characters. On the Tarot de Marseille, they've been reduced to three which does seem a bit odd to me, but not exceptional.
Strength: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.
Traitor: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.(for a 15th century drawing, no?)
Death: Typical representation, nothing exceptional.
Temperance: generally... Typical representation, nothing exceptional.
Devil: Well, depending on the deck. Vieville is fairly typical. Cary Sheet has the cool basket. Tarot de Marseille is pretty strange with the two minions.
Tower: Strange, I don't know what this is doing in the sequence. Unless it was a tower of Babel, I can think of a lot of better cards to add to the sequence.
Star: Hard to say because of so many different representations. Ultimately, a Star, and nothing too exceptional. The image on the Tarot de Marseille reminds me of Aquarius.
Moon: Same thing, odd... but not exceptional. The dogs and the crawfish in the Tarot de Marseille, I assume, as objects effected by the moon, or a representation of Cancer, but still, not "off" as I would see it.
Sun: I don't know that I would consider the Tarot de Marseille version typical, but it doesn't seem so odd to me.
Judgement: VERY Typical representation in every version I can think of, nothing exceptional.
World: As Christ in Glory.. not typical. Strange combination that occurs only in Tarot of Christ in Glory and Ecco Homo. Other versions seem more oriented towards Fame.

Overall, what's so " off-balance, close but not there" about the images?

Re: Where *Is* This card?

14
OnePotato wrote:Hullo Robert.

Can you tell us why all of this information you have listed was used "Only as a game"?

How literal do you imagine these people were, compared to yourself, for instance?
Hullo OnePotato. This is the thread that pulls you out of retirement? What is it that I've said to raise your interest so much to post again? Whatever it is, I'm glad to see you.

Did I use the phrase "only a game"? I certainly believe that tarot was used primarily as a game, and was invented for that purpose. I'm also inclined to believe that it was probably also used for divination right from the start. It's hard for me to imagine that cards with such allegorical figures would not have been used for divination considering that regular playing cards were used for such with far less inviting imagery. Bones, dice, animal entrails, lines in the sand... Tarot? Yup.

How literal do I imagine these people were? Why do you ask? Why not just come out and say what you mean?

Re: Where *Is* This card?

15
Hi Robert,
robert wrote: Tower: Strange, I don't know what this is doing in the sequence. Unless it was a tower of Babel, I can think of a lot of better cards to add to the sequence.
I'm surprised you don't have any ideas about the Tower in the sequence (and why "unless it was a tower of Babel"? How do you interpret the Tower of Babel in the sequence?). The closest analogues are a Botticelli illustration of the Tower of Babel for Dante (Purgatory XII), late 15th century;

Image


Image



the Telesforo prophecies from Ferrara, around 1450 (and I should add the innumerable other depictions of the Apocalypse which include cities being destroyed by fire from heaven) -
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=322 (the Tower is burning, but it is not crumbling, it is true)
Image


- and Fanti's use in his divinatory rhymes, 1540.
Image


The Telesforo image is the closest in time to the Tarot image (Charles VI), and also has a Devil associated with it. Fanti's is isolated and not part of a hierarchical sequence, so although attractive as an iconographic cognate it doesn't help much in interpreting the image as part of a narrative sequence (presuming that it should be interpreted as such, of course); Botticelli's has a Devil associated with it too, as one of three exempla of the punishment for pride (Nimrod/Tower of Babel; Satan expelled from heaven; Titans defeated by the Olympic gods).

So if we are looking for narrative cognates, it seems like we have Dante or the Apocalypse to compare with. Dante seems far-fetched, since there is nothing else in the sequence to suggest it is related to the Commedia. Since it is closer in time and place to Tarot's origins, I go with the Apocalypse interpretation, and interpret the final part of the trump sequence as apocalyptic. Therefore, it seems this image can be plausibly read as the destruction of Satan's forces in Revelation 20:7-10, as the text accompanying the Telesforo image quotes.

How the Devil and Tower pair is related to the following five cards is a question I haven't resolved to my satisfaction yet. But I think that the Devil and Tower have to be seen as a pair, and in this case the tradition is unanimous in their sequence.
Image

Re: Where *Is* This card?

16
Ok, I have been trying to find something to illstrate my thoughts on the cards showing something other than a Christian narrative. Perhaps the preachings of Bernadino of Siena might put it clearer than I can obviously.

The second great evil which called for this ener-
getic voice was gambling, or the passion for games of
chance, and very probably this was one of the causes
of the very prevalent usury of the day. It can easily
be understood that the one engenders the other, as
an unlawful mode of spending money will suggest all
kinds of ways of making it. Bernardine compares
gambling to a kind of rival Catholic Church of the
powers of darkness. He supposes the devil to be
calling together his satellites at the sound of the
trumpet, and he puts these words into his mouth :
' I have learnt by your account that Christ our Adver-
sary has established one Holy Church on earth for the
salvation of souls. Now I have been thinking of
establishing a rival Church for the wicked in order to
lose souls, and whatever He instituted in His Church
unto good, I will disorganize it in mine unto evil.
The gambling-houses, to be set up as near as possible
to the true temples of God, are to be the rival
attraction to the services of the Church, and they are
to promote sensuality by providing savoury food,
greediness being so often the first incentive to a life
of vice.' The devil's wish, for in the first point the
Saint speaks quaintly enough in his words, is to
succeed in getting a greater attendance in his ' profane
churches ' than our Lord gains in His. The gambling
tables represent ecclesiastical fittings and ornaments,
and the dice stand for the missal. Obscene pictures
form this breviary of impiety, and open the minds of
the gamblers to knowledge of the most horrible vice.

* The more wicked they are, the dearer they will be to
me.' The third comparison of the ceremonies of the
Mass to those of the gambling-tables, though some-
what fanciful, gives us an insight to the sort of
impiety which was carried on under the cloak of a
passion apparently distinct from it. Fifteen grievous
sins, according to St. Bernardine, arise from indulgence
in gambling, and one of the not least deadly of its
results is idleness, and idleness was one of the crimes
which ruined Sodom.
23 Dc alcarum ludo (Sermo xlii.)

Now I made bold the the sentence that has me puzzled.

Obscene pictures form this breviary of impiety, and open the minds of
the gamblers to knowledge of the most horrible vice.

Do the pictures teach them how to gamble? What cards of obscenity is he talking about? He also mentions putting IHS in the centre of the Sun...... which might indicate a Sun card in the first place.
If it is a Christian narrative on the cards in general......... :-?
~Lorredan
The Universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
Eden Phillpotts

Re: Where *Is* This card?

17
robert wrote:Hullo OnePotato. This is the thread that pulls you out of retirement? What is it that I've said to raise your interest so much to post again? Whatever it is, I'm glad to see you.

Did I use the phrase "only a game"? I certainly believe that tarot was used primarily as a game, and was invented for that purpose. I'm also inclined to believe that it was probably also used for divination right from the start. It's hard for me to imagine that cards with such allegorical figures would not have been used for divination considering that regular playing cards were used for such with far less inviting imagery. Bones, dice, animal entrails, lines in the sand... Tarot? Yup....
Yes, I have been quiet.

You have listed a series of imagery interpretations and evaluations for 22 trumps.
That interests me.

No, you did not use the phrase "only a game" here. I apologize for the misleading quotation marks.
Earlier, in response to Lorredan, you said:
"...They are what they are. They were used for playing a game, and they had Christian images on them. I don't see any way around that.... ....(several lines snipped).... ...I think the obvious allegories are the more appealing, without the need to have a secondary layer to them."

So, with your latest clarification to "primarily", I can rephrase my question as:

Can you suggest a reason why all of this information you have listed would have been "used primarily as a game"?
Or
Can you suggest a reason why this particular information would be employed in an invention with the primary purpose of playing a game?
robert wrote:"How literal do I imagine these people were? Why do you ask? Why not just come out and say what you mean?
I ask you because as I read it, the thread appears to be about straightforward Christian imagery being interpreted (by Lorredan) as not actually being straight Christian imagery, but game-related Christian imagery, that only looks like straight Christian imagery. While you, and I presume others here, often appear to practically insist, (or at the very least strongly imply,) that an allegory is just an allegory, and that's it. Period. And, as you say above, you don't see the "need to have a secondary layer."

So, the way I see it, perhaps the question here is not a matter of "need" for a secondary layer, but rather, how literal does one think these people were, as opposed to our current culture, that one should presume there are no secondary layers of intention in these designs that they produced?
Sorry if you thought I had a more complex secret agenda.
I am not a cannibal.

Re: Where *Is* This card?

18
OnePotato wrote: Can you suggest a reason why all of this information you have listed would have been "used primarily as a game"?
Or
Can you suggest a reason why this particular information would be employed in an invention with the primary purpose of playing a game?
snippy scissors...........
So, the way I see it, perhaps the question here is not a matter of "need" for a secondary layer, but rather, how literal does one think these people were, as opposed to our current culture, that one should presume there are no secondary layers of intention in these designs?
Thank you OnePotato- please bottle your commmand of English and ability to cut to the chase, and send by airmail to me. :ymhug:
You see here...
Tower: Strange, I don't know what this is doing in the sequence. Unless it was a tower of Babel, I can think of a lot of better cards to add to the sequence.
That statement presupposes that there is an agreement or sure knowledge what these cards are all about. That is not speculation- that is confident analysis.
I am not nearly so sure. I can look at all the fine art of the time, the architecture, the symbols etc etc and I still do not see these 22 anywhere except in Tarot as a sequence. Sometimes it is nearly so- but something pivotal is always missing. The nearest I have seen to Tarot 22 in one place is the Allegory and Effects of Good and Bad Government by Ambrogio Lorrenzetti in Siena. Maybe the understory of Tarot is the Allegory and Effects of Good and Bad Gambling in Taverns.

~Lorredan
http://evergreen.loyola.edu/brnygren/ww ... mpagni.htm
The Universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
Eden Phillpotts

Re: Where *Is* This card?

19
robert wrote:The Visconti-Sforza deck shows God in the 15th century. And we have Judgement Day depicted which alone is a rather "religious" topic, no? Why not have Christ?
Image
I completely agree that Bembo's Judgement card represents God. He is holding the sphere that represents the World: he is the creator and ruler of the World (of which the Emperor is but the earthly reflection).
I could only find a BW reproduction of the Coronation of Jesus and the Virgin, also by Bembo, in the Cremona Museum:
http://www.icpal.beniculturali.it/sched ... 2818F7842D
Just to compare another representation of God by the same artist.

Marco
Attachments

Re: Where *Is* This card?

20
robert wrote:That said, I do think that the Tarot de Marseille World portrays Christ resurrected, and I think that combined with the Judgement card they tell the Christian story as seen in hundreds of pieces of art from the period.
I think the only deck which clearly shows a christ figure on the world card is the Vieville; and I am more inclined to believe that something unfamiliar to the artist has been transformed into something familiar (the Christ like figure) than the other way round. The oldest reference we have to a cognate image to the Tarot de Marseille world is the card described by Piscina, which he describes as showing the four evangelists and in the midst of them not 'Christ' but 'the world' (unfortunately without describing how the 'world' is portrayed ~ perhaps something cognate with the 'Mantegna' S card in final position showing the cosmograph with the four evangelists in the corners).