debra wrote:I'm reading it now.
Is there an Innkeeper in the Deck?
Piscina describes him as an innkeeper, which appears counterintuitive to us, since we know him as a table-top conjurer. It seems self-evident. The French cardmakers who put titles on the cards saw it this way too, calling him a "Bateleur", a magician, juggler, etc.
So Piscina's cards either looked different from anything we know, or he interepreted it that way because that's how it was so interpreted by his contemporaries in Lombardy and Piedmont.
I forgot to mention - standard Italian tarots didn't bear titles, as far as we know, in the 16th century. So the image stood alone to be interpreted. But Andrea Alciato, also in Lombardy (Milan) in 1543, also interpreted it as an innkeeper (in Latin, "caupo").
About a third of the way through Michael's long review of the book
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2010/06 ... alian.html
he presents two cards that kinda-sorta could be taken for an innkeeper serving drinks (innkeeper meaning a publican as well, not just a guy that gives you keys to a room - taverns and inns were synonymous in those days). These are the Este card and the Anonymous Parisian Tarot. It is hard to imagine the Tarot de Marseille Bateleur being mistaken for an innkeeper - especially since the name tells us what to think - but cards like these two could be understood as a bar counter with a guy serving customers (imagining that the Anonymous card didn't have a title).
The best way to understand how 16th century Italians (and probably 15th as well) viewed innkeepers, is probably the play Piscina alludes to, Gl'Ingannati
(this quote was too long to be included in the book)