Where O where has the Devil gone?

Nova

ty Magpie9

You have really brought out the best thinking and writing on this matter, it has inspired much. In zazan's defense, just being the "devil's advocate" When I do readings, there is a family who are very close friends of ours and all members are represented by V for no other reason than their guides or mine have decided that. And if one of them is "not comfortable" it's reversed etc. I think that sometimes tried and true structure is essential as I see the Hierophant as even representing the hospital as one of the institutions necessary, not necessarily religious, it depends on times and matter of reading. Sometimes it can just be a Taurian nature. And some of that get-it-done energy can fight with the creative process and certainly art-for-art- sake nature some have, "the-art-of-doing-nothing" would be totally opposed to the [5] Hierophants structure.

As for Baccus, in some ways he is spoken for through the King of Hearts, or I like to call him the Scorpian King. As far as "Pan"s history, we may think of him as more innocent in our day, but his historic origins ARE the comic book picture we envision of the Devil-goat this and hoof that. The originator of pandimonium and panic and way-prior to the bible's writings he wasn't cute, there are writings attaching him to raping etc.

There have been times when an affair was designated with [15] in the sense that there was no emotional investment going on, the released/unleashed aspect that was just about roller-coaster fun. But there are times that the most sadistic of individuals, such as those who want to unjustly sue you, or battle you for custody of your children, must be represented by something, believe me, the [15] card is right on the money there. The input about being accompanied by a court card is excellent and signifies not only who is being naughty or just plain evil, but also reminds us that the cards' representations MUST come and go just as matters and worries come and go.

In defense to nicing down, watering down the power of, or making the cards candy coated. Let it be. As a matter of fact that is what is at the core of what we find interesting, pleasure first. If someone finds peace by inspiration of lovely cards that will not frighten them and use that time to center themselves and gather joy, then that is a gift for an hour or day for that person, a respite. It's very posible that strength will come from that.

Doing readings can get you intimately close to truth and sometimes truth can be frightening. If one is starved for the stark Black "Boaz" honesty and its opposite, the White "Jachin" energy, the full frontal yin-yan, then that person is a student who is ready and should have which ever assignments or meanings he or she is ready to FACE. That also makes us a little masochistic doesn't it. Oh well.
 

KaiMoonshadow

magpie9 said:
Yes--I too am Pagan, and am curious to know how you, as a Pagan relate Cernunnos to the themes of the Devil card. I see Cernunnos as a benign protector, and other than reading the card reversed or ill-dignified, I don't see how it can be read as a "traditional" devil, and I do believe there is still a need for that archetype in the Tarot--if only sometimes!
In the Merlin Tarot the Devil is replaced by the Green Knight, and this is explained as being a "Guardian" to keep us from unwittingly crossing over into dangerous places for us to be. In the Greenwood, it is once again a Guardian, in the form of a erect cave-bear skeleton, complete with bloody bits left on the bones. I would certainly be very aware of crossing over any Threshold he guarded.
Is this something like how you relate to pagan-themed devils?

Yes, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there :) Cernunnos to me has always been a "benign protector" (as you note) and I was almost a little offended that he had replaced the "Big Bad" in the deck. I couldn't understand how it could be representing the same thing. It took me several weeks of looking at the card and I started to see that Cernunnos was perhaps not angry or wanting to do the sleeping couple harm but that he was simply trying to protect/warn them of the dangers of the world. They have been enjoying all the pleasurable and exciting things the world has to offer, but if they have forgotten that the world can be a scary and materialistic place, Cernunnos is there to warn them of this.

I see Cernunnos in the Druidcraft deck as standing guard over the couple, ensuring that they will not descend deeper into the wild greenwood and possibly encounter trouble.

I do agree with you that the things the Devil represents should be present in a deck but I do much prefer it when they are expressed in a more Pagan-friendly manner e.g. the Green Knight, the Underworld - although I do like the chocolate cake in the Housewives Tarot! ;)
 

Sophie

magpie9 said:
I know that you did not mention the Marseille as the "oldest" deck, but it's odd how often the Marsaille-type tarots comes up as the earliest (and therefore definitive) deck, on these boards. According to Kaplan's Encyclopedia of Tarot Vol. IV, the earliest Tarots were the Visconti and Estensi types, around 1450, with the Marseille not coming in until 1650, at the earliest. and yes, their Devils had horns and where very scary looking, especially when you consider that the belief in the devil in those days was Literal. Shudder....
I didn't mention the Visconti tarot because either the Devil was lost from it, or it never existed. The Marseille Devil is the archetypal "old deck" devil, from a time when people actually believed that the devil existed, but also, when many folk magic and worship customs were still thriving in France and the rest of Europe. The point about the Marseille is that the image very clearly harks back to pre-Christian Gaulish imagery, and that it was a popular, people's deck, unlike the aristocratic Visconti, and therefore more likely to reflect folk imagery and beliefs. Also: Tarot images on the Marseille as well as on other old decks predate the tarot decks themselves by some centuries - or in some cases, some millienia. For example, have a look at this image of the Burney Relief. It is Babylonian and depicts either Ishtar or Lilith. If you place it next to the Marseille Devil, the ressemblance is extraordinary. This would also explain what has not yet been mentioned in this thread - the feminine attributes of the Devil - not Pan or the Green Knight, but a creature with female and male sexual attributes - making it all-powerful sexually, and to a puritanical view, most dangerous of all.

I agree with you that one religion's god is another's demon, and not only for the Christians. The Shaitan of the Bible was morphed into the Horned God of the Gauls and other Celts in the first centuries of Christian Europe.
 

kwaw

Helvetica said:
The point about the Marseille is that the image very clearly harks back to pre-Christian Gaulish imagery, and that it was a popular, people's deck, unlike the aristocratic Visconti, and therefore more likely to reflect folk imagery and beliefs. Also: Tarot images on the Marseille as well as on other old decks predate the tarot decks themselves by some centuries - or in some cases, some millienia. For example, have a look at this image of the Burney Relief. It is Babylonian and depicts either Ishtar or Lilith. If you place it next to the Marseille Devil, the ressemblance is extraordinary. This would also explain what has not yet been mentioned in this thread - the feminine attributes of the Devil - not Pan or the Green Knight, but a creature with female and male sexual attributes - making it all-powerful sexually, and to a puritanical view, most dangerous of all.

I agree with you that one religion's god is another's demon, and not only for the Christians. The Shaitan of the Bible was morphed into the Horned God of the Gauls and other Celts in the first centuries of Christian Europe.

This whole 'devil imagery is related to ancient pagan christian demonisation of such' argument just doesn't fit the historical facts. Such an interpretation is a 20th century neo-pagan viewpoint the roots of which go no further back than 19th century romanticism. The 15th, 16th and 17th century Christian western world didn't need to demonise paganism, that battle was won, so much so that classical paganism was safe enough to re-evaluate, and allegorise in Christian terms [in which such figures as Pan and fellow hierachy of pagan deities were, far from being demonised, allegorically interpreted in terms of christian values and occassionaly as representatives of Christian personae (Christ, God the Father, Mary, the Holy Spirit].

Demonisation occurs from contempory battles and concerns, and if one cares to look at contempory imagery and texts of the period in which tarot arose and develops then it is apparent that the devil imagery compares not with ancient paganism, but with the contemporary anti-semitic demonisation of Judaism. Compare contemporary images of devils and witchcraft with images of Jews and Judaism, and the relationship is clear. The iconography of the late medieval and renaissance 'devil' is a perversion of symbols and attributions traditionally associated in Christianity and astrology with Judaism.

Kwaw
 

Eco74

A rose by any other name...

I think that regardless of where the devil-imagery began or evolved or came from or whatnot it has all the different meanings already debated in this thread, and it will remain so no matter whether we name the card Evil, Temptation, Disregard, Pleasure, Darkness or whatever else we can think of..

As for the historical aspect of it - none of us were there so none of us can really say for certain that anyone is wrong, no matter how little we agree on the various theories that are put forward here or elsewhere.
Could we please try not to get into a debate on where the devil and particular imagery came from and try to keep on track of what the devil symbolises and how the cards way of portraying the meaning effects our way of viewing and reading it.
There's plenty of room for debate on history in the historical forums after all..
 

kwaw

False or misplaced values

"Had'st thou no other way to provoke thy Lord to Anger", saith the Devil, "than through me, making me an object of worship?"

In the TdM the devil is set upon a pedestal, being set upon a high place being a symbol of idolatry, the worship or idolisation of false or unworthy objects, which leads one astray. Thus it may be seen as symbolising misplaced devotion to ideals or persons, or of being bound to and led astray by erroneous values. This could include being bound or trapped in a situation by a concept of duty, which though may be construed as the 'honourable' and right thing to do, actually makes things worse rather than better.

Kwaw
http://www.thelogos.co.uk/kwawayin.htm
 

magpie9

Helvetica said:
.......snip..... For example, have a look at this image of the Burney Relief. It is Babylonian and depicts either Ishtar or Lilith. If you place it next to the Marseille Devil, the ressemblance is extraordinary. This would also explain what has not yet been mentioned in this thread - the feminine attributes of the Devil - not Pan or the Green Knight, but a creature with female and male sexual attributes - making it all-powerful sexually, and to a puritanical view, most dangerous of all...snip... I agree with you that one religion's god is another's demon, and not only for the Christians. The Shaitan of the Bible was morphed into the Horned God of the Gauls and other Celts in the first centuries of Christian Europe.
I really don't want to get into a debate about early decks and such--particularly with someone as knowledgeable as you, Helvetica, LOL. But I can't resist mentioning that the marvelous Lilith you posted is, according to Merlin Stone in "When God Was A Woman" the product of the demonization of the Goddess by the Hebrews, who where at the time, the new kids on the block, trying to stamp out all this old-fashioned Goddess worship. Which is, supposedly, the reason the Lillith story was not included in the official scriptures--only Eve, the second wife of Adam, a non-threatening and (comparatively) tractable woman. :bugeyed:
 

magpie9

Eco74 said:
A rose by any other name...

I think that regardless of where the devil-imagery began or evolved or came from or whatnot it has all the different meanings already debated in this thread, and it will remain so no matter whether we name the card Evil, Temptation, Disregard, Pleasure, Darkness or whatever else we can think of..

As for the historical aspect of it - none of us were there so none of us can really say for certain that anyone is wrong, no matter how little we agree on the various theories that are put forward here or elsewhere.
Could we please try not to get into a debate on where the devil and particular imagery came from and try to keep on track of what the devil symbolises and how the cards way of portraying the meaning effects our way of viewing and reading it.
There's plenty of room for debate on history in the historical forums after all..
Thank you Eco74--a very good idea. My post was composed off-line several hours before posted it. unfortunately, I did not check to see where the thread was up to (now) before actually posting.
Hope I didn't offend anyone, or throw faggots on the fire.
 

Aoife

Eco74 said:
Could we please try not to get into a debate on where the devil and particular imagery came from and try to keep on track of what the devil symbolises and how the cards way of portraying the meaning effects our way of viewing and reading it.


Whyever not?

Surely the ideas of the past have an influence on our current thinking?
 

Eco74

Aoife said:
Whyever not?

Surely the ideas of the past have an influence on our current thinking?
Yes. They do.
But not in the form of "no you're wrong, that's not the way it was" or "this is the Right historical perspective".

I love debating the various historical aspects of it all, seing it from different aspects, different religions, different historical viewpoints etc. but would love to refrain from saying what's right and what's wrong - especially when it comes to what is "The historically correct original that led to the devilcard in The historically correct deck". Something that really has little to no value when the debate is about the Meaning and the Ways to Portray the particular card.
The question was not "where did the devil come from" after all, but rather "where did he go" - which puts focus on where we can find him today rather than where into the past we need to go to find the "original blueprint" so to speak..

Mention of the past is more than welcome.
Viewpoints and theories about the history of the Devil-card aswell.
My reason for writing that particular request was rather that I started seing some less than civil debate on who was right and wrong instead of posts like "here's another way of seing it" or "here's how I see it".