Another Way Of Seeing the Cards.

I really do not know how to start this thread, so please bear with me as I meander.

When looking at the 22 cards of Tarot, historians seem to direct their thoughts to the Christian allegory aspect or the triumphs of say 'Fame', to explain their inclusion in the game of Tarot. I can understand this. These images were indeed Christian/Roman/Greek in origin. Of course they were- that was what was around in Italy- along with their ancient artifacts of Greek and Roman images. No good looking for an image of the Rainbow Serpent from Australia within those early cards. Only images that were known could possibly be included.

When you look at possible allegories or Triumphs there appears to be always something not included, or conversely included, that is an anomaly. A card that should be there but is not. For example some of the Virtues but not all. A triumph of Fame but a Hanged Man also. Some astrological signs- like on the Moon card, but not all astrological signs. A something not quite complete, one way or the other. That is of course what has made the whole subject interesting. As a group they are enigmatic.

What I am interested in (as are all enquirers) is how these individual designs were gathered together for inclusion. What was the reason they were chosen?

One area of conjecture that does not seem to have much discussion is....
Are these images related to game playing alone- nothing more, nothing less.
No allegorical journey, no alchemical considerations, no holy journey of resurrection or to the Underworld, German mysticism or Neoplatonic Philosophy for example. Just what you might expect to see in a Game. That alone.

If perhaps we can clear our minds and consider each card and how it might be included to explain something of the Game- remembering that we can use only images of the time. Christian Renaissance Europe.

How for example, might it be explained that this is not an education but a game? Like dice and Tumblers/peas and can be played for money? It can have three players at the table and it is a trick/Trump taking game? It also is a skillful game, that takes wit and humour.

Now what does the Bateleur show?
Dice, Tumblers, a pencil type instrument, a knife?, three legs on the table, purse, a wand in his hand that could well be a pointer cane. And he is looking to his right- some strange formation of three rings. What could he possibly visually trying to depict?

To me it looks like he is depicting the game. What it is, what you need. I might add you deal and the player on your right starts first. Pretty clear once you start thinking this way.

~Rosanne

Before I go any further I need to state some personal beliefs.
They are best in the words of Robert O'Neill.

Simply because the Tarot was always used as a card game does not preclude the possibility that it is also a symbolic system

Click to expand...

Also, although there are ordinances against cards and gambling and seem to exempt Tarot, in my belief that does not necessarily imply that Tarot was not considered a card game or something you gambled with, or that it was considered as something different.
1. Tarot seems to have originally been played by the wealthy and influential, and that in itself could have protected it.
2. Tarot could have been seen as a card game but not mentioned specifically by name in the ordinances. None of the ordinances say "thou shalt not play
Occentro, Brelan, gimlet or even Trionfi for example, when condemning card games. So card games could have been the umbrella for Tarroco.Tarrochi etc.
3. In lots of ways those beautiful hand painted cards seem in many ways antiseptic and appear plainer than the woodcut versions. They do seem more Christian(hand painted)- but that could be my perception looking backwards at all the Christian art of the time. They seem a copy of some earlier game- a luxurious copy. Of course I don't know that for a fact. Nor does anyone else as far as I can tell.

So on with my conjecture, and of course I will offer the easiest cards that fit into this idea first. Which of course is very sensible of me and gives me time to build barricades to hide behind when it all falls over.
~Rosanne

Rosanne said:

Now what does the Bateleur show?
Dice, Tumblers, a pencil type instrument, a knife?, three legs on the table, purse, a wand in his hand that could well be a pointer cane. And he is looking to his right- some strange formation of three rings. What could he possibly visually trying to depict?

To me it looks like he is depicting the game. What it is, what you need. I might add you deal and the player on your right starts first. Pretty clear once you start thinking this way.

~Rosanne

Click to expand...

So now we have the implements for the Game.

If we're following the marseille number sequence, the Popess is next.
She has a book - is this a 'score-card' or must we first familiarise ourselves with a book of rules? She is'nt writing in it....


Bee

We better keep this as Historical as we can Bee ..........

The cards are not numbered or named in the early versions, but you are right they would have to have some grouping apparent-even if for memory.
There is roughly 200 years between the Noblet 1650 and the Visconti 1450- but some things have stayed constant (apart from the obvious)
Visconti has what we call 1-5 seated
Noblet has 2/3/4 possibly 5 seated

Although these cards are lower scoring- they have a pairing sort of feel to them. Considering they appear sort of Mr and Mrs Church and Mr and Mrs State does it not seem as if they are depicting an organised approach? Something like grouping the four suits? Or that you must follow suit in the game. Put all your Cups together one would say.

I do call the Papesse Mrs Rule book! The Church was the Rule book and it was common to have this figure as Mother Church or Faith. Rules and regulations governed daily life as do rules govern a game.

~Rosanne

I study the cards often and they do seem Christian to me, but that likely has more to do with the era than anything else, who knows. Bateleur is either demonstrating or giving a performance and his act, whatever it is, must surely have been a familiar scene at the time, and familiar tenought o have gained depiction on a pack of playing cards. I mainly look at Marseilles decks and there is a sense that there is more to them than is obvious. How many times I have wished I could look at them with a new eye once again.

Grouping the four Suites.....

I see what you mean. However, if the 'game rules' are inherent in the images, and these four are the suites - we have a book-reader (popess), a person who proclaims or calls the shots? (Pope), and Mr & Mrs State. Must get the Noblet out and try to match them up with the suites.

Have I got them in the right 'value' order (for the game)

Cups........Popess
Coins.......Pope (but how would Coins be represented by a Pope? Collection box?)
Batons.....Empress
Swords.....Emperor

ETA: However, they are the lowest scoring. Must go find the rules for this game.

Bee

Then Empress and Emperor because these are the kinds of people who play the game...maybe.

Rosanne said:

Although these cards are lower scoring- they have a pairing sort of feel to them. Considering they appear sort of Mr and Mrs Church and Mr and Mrs State does it not seem as if they are depicting an organised approach?

Click to expand...

They are in pairs because the people playing the game pair off in teams.

I thought that this game was played by 3 people - not pairs. Like I said, must go check all the rules of how the Game of Tarot was played.


Bee