I Le Bateleur

Erisanne

Right! They were able to be accurate, but often didn't choose to. Why not? There's the rub! Was there a reason? How random is all of this? That's what makes TdM fascinating.
 

PIRUCHO

Well just for me if there are at the end of the table the others two legs we can not see,I still yet not understand the purpose of this third leg without the fourth.
On a visual point of view is simply for me incongruous ...
 

PIRUCHO

-Another element of the card that catch my eye is the presence of three dices as we see on Noblet deck.
I ve also only found two dices in the case of the Dick Sheet (around 1500),three dices in the case of François Heri (1730),and I m not sure about the case of Catelin Geoffrey (1557) if those we see are three dices.
For example Dodal,Conver and of course Chosson have not them.
So having in mind that François Heri is not far than 30 years from Conver and 80 from Noblet,I think is somewhat odd...
May be was another deck example of coincidence between Noblet and Heri in the middle or after Heri but I don t know.
 

venicebard

PIRUCHO said:
2-If there is not two other legs at the end of the table :
Why can not one see the fourth leg on the card ?
...
Again: If not why can not one see the fourth leg on the card ?
To me, the answer is simple! For whether you go by Hebrew numbering or bardic numbering, A or alef is still numbered 1; and of the three mothers in Hebrew (alef, mem, shin), alef is the one that stands for the letters (that is, the trumps), being the first of them (not counting zero, out of which they arise). (Mem or M is 40 in Hebrew, the number of pips, while shin or S is 16 by bardic reckoning, the number of court cards.)

Therefore, the fourth or 'hidden' leg of the table is the fourth or 'hidden' sequence in the earlier form of ogham letters, the bronze age ogam consaine, which omitted the fourth sequence of five, namely the vowels.

The only problem I have is figuring out how the designers of the tarot knew that. But then, how did they know that 17 was the atomic number of something one pours in a pool (chlorine); or that 15 was that of an atom-type that would come eventually to bear the other name of Lucifer (the Morning Star), i.e. Phosphor[us]; or that 16 was that of one of the main ingredients in gunpowder (sulphur); or that 4 was that of the distinguishing atom-type in the beryl the Emperor wears on his breast; or that 5 was that of the distinguishing ingredient (boron) in something which cleanses and thus blesses (borax, the ore of boron); or that 18 was that of the false vacuum (argon) in lightbulbs, with which man imitates the moon (in streetlamps); or... well, you see my quandary.
 

venicebard

Moonbow* said:
bateleurmediumqn5.jpg
01lebateleurbo1.jpg

Camoin -----------------------> Noblet
...
I agree that its puzzling that the table was drawn and cut this way, my view is that the table leg at the far right (as we look at it) is the one closest to Le Bateleur. Its the front leg of the table which is out of our picture. Pespective is difficult though, their drawing wasn't particlarly accurate in places... but then, amazingly accurate in others!
To be precise, the visible leg is on a line with the front of the table, yet it implies a table shorter than the surface presented us (unless part of it sticks out to our right, like a workbench or something).
 

Moonbow

I disagree that its precise venicebard. No one knows the true aspect of this card, and its just not clear at all, which is why its good to discuss and try to see other people's points of view.
 

venicebard

Moonbow* said:
I disagree that its precise venicebard. No one knows the true aspect of this card, and its just not clear at all, which is why its good to discuss and try to see other people's points of view.
Certainly the one on the right is parallel with the near one on the left, not the far one, in both cases. (Just giving you mine.)
 

kwaw

I. The Ephesian Juggler

I. The Ephesian Juggler

"He's One", they say, the first,
this fallen Adam, lowest of the low,
this blond sweet talking
smooth shaved mare
who stands like a priest at the altar,
praying on the gullible.

He, with his holy relics:
three dice from beneath the cross
of Christ, made from the bones
of old Gods; his missal of marked
playing cards; his walnut shells
and windmills.

He, with his hocus pocus:
his highfalutin babble
quick witted and persuasive tongue
reigning in seduction; allaying fears
with humour; taming doubts
with deceit.

"He knows the arts of Toledo",
they say, and watch again,

as he turns a cock into a hen.​
 

kwaw

A wizard, this player:
he'll make a penny a pound
of nothing.
 

rachelcat

(Hope this isn't a bad place for this.) Here's a word of the day. I thought it was interesting that the origin of the word is Italian. But a little too late (16th and 17th centuries) to use as an Italian form of "Bateleur."

Merriam-Webster said:
mountebank\MOUN-tih-bank\

noun

1 : a person who sells quack medicines from a platform
2 : a boastful unscrupulous pretender : charlatan

In his newspaper column, Gavin criticized the talk-radio host as "a mountebank whose 'expert' opinions and advice are complete hooey."

"Bring your five-minute tales related to all things fraudulent and pseudo. Flimflammers, mountebanks, poseurs and snake oil salesmen especially welcome." — From a literary events listing by Gina Webb in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 25, 2011

"Mountebank" derives from the Italian "montimbanco," which was formed by combining the verb "montare" ("to mount"), the preposition "in" (converted to "im," meaning "in" or "on"), and the noun "banco" ("bench"). Put these components together and you can deduce the literal origins of "mountebank" as someone mounted on a bench — the "bench" being the platform on which charlatans from the 16th and 17th centuries would stand to sell their phony medicines. Mountebanks often included various forms of light entertainment on stage in order to attract customers. Later, extended uses of "mountebank" referred to someone who falsely claims to have knowledge about a particular subject or a person who simply pretends to be something he or she is not in order to gain attention.