New book - "Explaining the Tarot"

Moonbow

Thanks Huck, that was quick!
 

DoctorArcanus

Here you can see images of all the cards.

These trumps are nice, but to me they do not look like "facsimile" of early woodcuts. The design is too neat and the colours too bright. The deck follows the style of those that are currently called "restorations", which seems to me a slightly more appropriate term than "facsimile".

Anyway, Place's initiative is a worthy one, and it is likely that this graphical style is commercially very wise. Thanks to Sherryl for mentioning this deck. I was not aware of its existence.
 

Moonbow

Marco thanks for finding the complete deck. I agree with you that they are a restoration and not facsimile (how could they be!?) but nevertheless its wonderful to see that Robert Place took this project on and gave us these cards to admire.

As for Anon... he intrigues me, particularly after Ross' post, and your searches into what area he came from. I have more scribbled notes on Anon than I do of Piscina, and I find myself still referring back to the booklet.
 

prudence

DoctorArcanus said:
Here you can see images of all the cards.

These trumps are nice, but to me they do not look like "facsimile" of early woodcuts. The design is too neat and the colours too bright. The deck follows the style of those that are currently called "restorations", which seems to me a slightly more appropriate term than "facsimile".

Anyway, Place's initiative is a worthy one, and it is likely that this graphical style is commercially very wise. Thanks to Sherryl for mentioning this deck. I was not aware of its existence.
Does anyone know when this deck will be available? I checked the link...and it's not in stock yet... I too would have preferred it to look at least somewhat old and maybe splotchy...but this is still pretty cool.

Moonbow* I am also very drawn to Anon's essay/discourse, I especially like his use of "present day" (well, present to his day) comparisons like the ones he uses to describe the Chariot... there is so much to take in and to consider, it really opens up certain ideas and images for me, that I did not consider before.
 

Sherryl

Got the book yesterday (only 6 days from Oxford to California) and dropped everything to read it and the reviews by Enriquez and Hurst. What a treasure! I'm so grateful for the hard work and dedication of the three authors. I'm also a bit in love with "Anonymous" whose identity, alas, will probably always remain just beyond my reach. Here are some random thoughts:

The Tower as the first card in the celestial/heavenly series:
This reminds me of Paul Huson's association of this card with the Harrowing of Hell. He says the Tower depicts release from the evils and limitations of the previous mundane series of cards ruled over by the Devil. I see the Tower as a transition card, a hole in the veil between the mundane and heavenly worlds, giving a glimpse of the Star of hope beyond.

In Robert Place's Ferrarese deck, parallels between the Tower and Devil are highlighted. Both are red figures flanked by two trees. This pair of trees also appears in the Star, Moon and Judgment cards. But it may be a stretch to read anything meaningful into it.

The Bagatto as Innkeeper:
I've been puzzled by the Soprafino deck's image of the Bagatto as a cobbler hoisting a wine glass with a pitcher of wine on his work table. I recall reading somewhere that Bagatto means "cobbler" in the Milanese dialect, but why the wine glass and pitcher? My personal, somewhat whimsical interpretation was that this depicts the lowest of the working class - an artisan who drinks on the job, doing shoddy work and missing his deadlines. It's interesting that Alciato, who makes the Bagatto-Innkeeper association, is from Milan. Perhaps Della Rocca, the designer of the Soprafino deck, was conflating two Milanese traditions, the cobbler at this work table and the innkeeper offering his guests a drink.

Court Cards:
Both authors discuss the number four as the perfect number and describe various four-fold divisions of the world. Yet neither of them mentions the significance of four court cards in each suit. I wonder if they would see this as a complete set of nobles or aristocrats, or if they would read some other meaning into it if we asked them?

The Fool:
I spread out the cards from Robert Place's Ferrarese deck to get a feel for the sequence. The first thing that struck me is the Fool differing from most other decks because he's not glancing backward while being distracted by a dog biting his butt. In the Ferrarese deck he's striding forward rather purposely carrying two clubs with bells attached which seem to be parodying symbols of worldly power. Rather than bringing up the rear, he seems to be leading the parade of worldly fools.

I experimented with putting the Fool further up in the sequence of trumps and settled on putting him between the Hermit and the Hanged Man. The Fool seems to be the anti-Hermit. Instead of the light of wisdom, he's holding up a symbol of the foolishness of pursuing worldly status and power. Once you allow Folly to triumph over everything, even the wisdom the Hermit offers, there's nowhere to go but down into the realm of death (Hanged Man, Death and Devil) until your release, by God's grace and a well-placed blast of fire, enabling your ascent to Heaven.

Something that stood out when I looked at Place's Ferrarese deck is the series of six cards with trees, from the Devil through Judgment. Most have a pair of trees flanking the main figure. The Fool and Hermit have single trees, and if you put the two together, they're flanked by a pair of trees. Like I said, it may not mean anything, but it's very striking when you lay the cards out in a row, especially with Place's bright colors.

Thank you Ross, Thierry and Marco for deepening our understanding of these allegories.

Sherryl
 

frelkins

I bought this book, but didn't get any email with the comparison chart! Pls. could someone forward to my PM? Can't wait until it's here! Sooo grateful to you, Mark & Russ. For those of us who love historical decks, it's a priceless addition to our knowledge.
 

foolish

i have also placed an order for this book. i am looking forward to reading it, as it should be interesting to hear what someone has said about the tarot that far back.

my initial concerns are that any interpretation of the cards in a philosophical or psychological sense is always open to a form of subjective "free association" - which is ok for general card reading or divination, but leaves the question as to how accurate these references are to the actual intentions of the original artists. in any event, it should be an interesting read.
 

foolish

got the book and had to re-read it to get a better idea of where the authors were coming from and what they had to say. first off, we have to admit that this is a fascinating and important piece of the historical puzzle in tarot reasearch. however, we should be careful not to jump to the conclusion that just because the essays were written in a time more current to the original use of the tarot, they necessarily tell us, without a doubt, how the tarot was meant to be interpreted. we can get a glimpse of this from piscina's own words. for example, he writes that "the opinion of the foolish and unreasonable masses has been, and still is today, that the fool has been placed as the first in the order of Tarot because the author and inventor wanted to represent a fable or (improperly said) a comedy..." This should tell us that there was no real single explanation of the tarot that was universally accepted, even at that time, as picini's interpretation of the role of the fool, in opposition to that of the "masses," indicates that there were at least two ways of looking at it.

in other instances, picini's use of the terms, "or we can truly say (maybe with greater certainty) that the inventor...", "i believe that the author meant...", and, "or maybe the author..." - all indicating that his interpretation is simply that, an opinion of one man who had no priveledged inside information to the actual intentions of the authors of the tarot than anyone else at the time.

i also have a problem with picini's logic of sequence similar to the question posed by bernice: if, as picini explains, death is placed in the thirteenth position because "there follows nothing on which it has any power," it takes a convolution of reasoning to support the appearance of the hermit and the hanged man after death, while at the same time allowing for the virtues of strength and justice beforehand.

picini at least maintains a realistic degree of perspective of his place as a tarot authority, as he writes toward the end of his essay, "why should i not be reproached for a thing in which i know i have not reached even the point of a mediocre perfection?"

and the reference of the fool to an inn? this sounds like it's more of a clue to where picini might have been hanging out.

all in all, the book is of great historic value. it represents how at least one person, or most likley many people thought about the tarot at the time. we should not lose sight of the fact, however, that the "rules of the game" apparently didn't come with an explantion of the meaning of the cards.