Did Shakespeare play tarot?

Amleth

Specifics, a list

I'll get back to specifics. The following are specifics of why I think Shakespeare knew tarot. I'll give brief quotes from passages in Hamlet, or at least briefly describe the statements in the play, then relate the quotes to the tarot card pics.

First, in Act 1 scene 2, Hamlet speaks of his late father as Hercules. Later, in Act 1 scene 4, when the others try to restrain him from following the Ghost, Hamlet speaks of the Nemean lion.

The Fortitude card of the Visconti-Sforza deck shows Hercules battling the Nemean lion.

That's one, so far.
~~~~~

Second, in Act 1 scene 3, Laertes speaks to Ophelia:

The chariest maid is prodigal enough
If she unmask her beauty to the moon;


(A note is necessary as to the meaning of "chary." It currently means "careful," which is apparently how Laertes uses it, but it has an earlier meaning of "sorrowful.")

The Moon card of the Visconti-Sforza deck does show a maiden with the moon close to her face, in her hand, and her face is unmasked. Beauty is in the eye, etc, but I'd say she's good looking. She does look sorrowful (to me.) The tarot Moon maid is sad, unmasked, and is showing her beauty to the moon, which goes along with what Laertes says.

That's two, so far.
~~~~~~~

Third, in Act 2 scene 1, Ophelia speaks to Polonius about Hamlet:

Ophelia: My Lord, as I was sewing in my closet,
Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced,
No hat upon his head, his stockings fouled,
Ungartered, and down-gyved to his ankle,
Pale as his shirt, his knees knocking each other,
And with a look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosed out of Hell
To speak of horrors, he comes before me.


On the V-S Fool card, the Fool has his jacket open, which corresponds to having a doublet unbraced. He's wearing no hat. His stockings are down below his knees, although not to his ankles, and they do look "fouled." Whether he looks as if he's seen Hell, I couldn't say, but his expression is odd. One would not expect an exact description of a card in play dialogue, but there's similarity of some significant detail.

That's three, so far.
~~~~~~~

Four, in Act 2 scene 2, Hamlet converses about Fortune with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern:

Hamlet: Then you live about Her waist, or in the middle of Her favors.

The V-S Fortune card (and the Fortune card in other decks) does show two fellows who are "about the waist" level of Fortune, at the sides of the Wheel.

That's four, so far.
~~~~~

Five, also in Act 2 scene 2, Polonius speaks to Claudius about what he told Ophelia:

... thus I did bespeak:
Lord Hamlet is a Prince out of thy star;


The maid on the Star card in the V-S deck is the same as on the Moon card (apparently.) The maid is reaching for the Star, but doesn't quite have it in her grasp.

That's five, so far.
~~~~~

Six, further along in Act 2 scene 2, the following remarks occur between Hamlet and R & G:

Ros: ... there is an aerie of children, little eyases,

AND,

Hamlet: Do the boys carry it away?
Ros: Aye, that they do, my Lord; Hercules and his load, too.


The V-S World card shows two cherubs "carrying away" a castle by the sea, apparently on an island. The cherubs are "boys" with wings, and can be seen as "little eyases." Elsinore Castle, a castle by the sea is Hamlet's "world." The World card "boys" are carrying the castle the way Hercules carried the world when he substituted for Atlas.

That's six, so far.
~~~~~

Seven, still in Act 2 scene 2, the Player's recital includes:

... then senseless Ilium,
Seeming to feel this blow, with flaming top,
Stoops to his base;


("Ilium" in this case means the citadel of Troy. A citadel is a fortress with a commanding height, i.e. a tower. "Stoops" means descends, or falls.)

The original Tower card of V-S is lost, but other Tower cards of the era do show the Tower with a "flaming top" that has broken loose, and is falling to the base of the Tower.

That's seven, so far.
~~~~~

Eight, still in Act 2 scene 2, Hamlet tells Polonius:

Hamlet: It shall to the barber's with your beard.

And, further along in the play, in Act 3, scene 2, Hamlet speaks of a camel to Polonius. Camels are well known for their humps, of course. Hamlet also speaks of a whale, and there is a whale named the Humpback. Polonius is the "old man" in the play.

The Hermit/Old Man card in the V-S deck does show an old man with a hunched ("humped") back, and a very long beard that could use a trip to the barber.

That's eight, so far.
~~~~~~~

Nine, in Act 3 scene 2, Hamlet says to Ophelia:

Hamlet: I could interpret between you and your love
If I could see the puppets dallying.


("Dally" is a rather genral term for recreational activity, and the romantic kind is meant here, of course. "Dally" is difficult to pin down as it was used in those days, but it connoted fun, not work.)

The V-S Love card shows two "puppets dallying," as Cupid pulls the strings.

That's nine, so far.
~~~~~~~

Ten, in Act 4 scene 7, Laertes tells Claudius he bought poison from a Mountebank. Laertes has just returned from France.

According to what I've read, "Mountebank" was another name for the Magician card, particularly in France.

That's ten, so far.
~~~~~~~

Eleven, in the last scene of the play, Ostrick appears, and there is some business with his hat. Hamlet considers Ostrick a "knave." Ostrick is the "valet" for the swords at the fencing match. The Ostrick character is typically played with a large plume on his hat.

The Knave of Swords in the V-S deck has an amazing hat, that appears to consist entirely of one or more large Ostrich plumes.

I'll stop here at eleven.
~~~~~~~

I could list more, which can't be presented so quickly and easily. But another concerns a remark Claudius makes about horsemanship, in relation to the V-S Justice card. The V-S Judgment card is also interesting in relation to a certain point in the Graveyard Scene in Hamlet. There is an extremely interesting spot in the Closet Scene (the scene where Hamlet lectures Gertrude in her closet) in relation to the V-S Sun card. Another tarot card is interesting in relation to the Dumb Show before the 'Mousetrap Play.'

As I gradually encountered all that, there was a point at which I began paying more serious attention. I deny that it's all only personal interpretation. For the most obvious, the "flaming top of Ilium, stooping to its base," is spot on for the Tower card in historical decks (although unfortunately the V-S Tower card is missing. Well, and so on. I said in the first thread post that I might be able to point to a dozen instances in Hamlet, that appear to have some relation to tarot pics, but I find my first estimate was low.

That's why I think Shakespeare knew tarot, and especially the V-S deck. There's too much to ignore.
 

baba-prague

Amleth said:
First, in Act 1 scene 2, Hamlet speaks of his late father as Hercules. Later, in Act 1 scene 4, when the others try to restrain him from following the Ghost, Hamlet speaks of the Nemean lion.

The Fortitude card of the Visconti-Sforza deck shows Hercules battling the Nemean lion.

That's one, so far.

I could literally walk out of my door in Prague and within a twenty minute walk of here see about six depictions of Hercules battling the Nemean lion. It's a very common Renaissance motif. I just wish people would walk around a reasonably intact Renaissance city or town before making the assumption that every image that is mirrored in the tarot must have come from the tarot (sorry to sound exasperated, but we get it again and again from visitors here who see one depiction of Hercules or Judgement and think half of Prague was modelled on the tarot!). Many of these images are very common indeed and you can find them in the streets, on house facades and so on, never mind in churches etc.

It's not just the Hercules image of course, several of the images used in the tarot trumps were common motifs and can be seen all over many old cities (not to mention in emblem books and the like - you really need to leaf through an emblem book, it might surprise you).

Logically, this does not, of course, prove that Shakespeare did not know the tarot - there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that could be used to argue that he might well have done. But it does demonstrate that there is no logical reason to suppose that Shakespearian imagery is drawn from the tarot. It is at least as likely - and honestly probably much more so - that it could have come from many other common sources of the time.

Sometimes I wonder if the History forum would benefit from a "sticky" about medieval/Renaissance imagery (I'm happy to provide some photos if that helps - plus some emblem book scans - I'm sure others here have rich material also) as we do seem to go over this one rather frequently?
 

Fulgour

Jacobean Theatre of the Absurd

It might help if trying to imagine Shakespeare with a Tarot
especially in the play Hamlet to remember that there was a
genre termed as revenge plays and Hamlet is an intellectual
flip-flop of the audience's expectations of what will happen.

Imagine "Rambo" doing the exact opposite of what Rambo
makes you think will happen in one of those crazy movies.

Hamlet writes revenge in his book but cannot take action.
Complaining "I can nothing say" which means here "essay"
as one might essay a castle by attacking it with an army.

Hamlet must undergo a sea change to bring him to action,
but even then~ he goes about it in his usual Hamlet way.
 

Fulgour

Ross G Caldwell said:
The most important thing is that the tarot trumps' imagery *was* conventional and basic. And that, as in Cardano, it was a card game. It does not seem to have appeared enigmatic or esoteric to anyone before Antoine Court de Gébelin thought so. Even when used for divination.
This argument has become the sort of "rebuttal"
that might well be confined to a forum STICKY...
the misguided supposition the Tarot was a game.

The proof is in the cards, that Tarot is older than
playing cards, or similar games. Why repeat this?
 

Ross G Caldwell

Fulgour said:
This argument has become the sort of "rebuttal"
that might well be confined to a forum STICKY...
the misguided supposition the Tarot was a game.

It isn't a supposition, it's a fact.

The proof is in the cards, that Tarot is older than
playing cards, or similar games. Why repeat this?

Is this the von Däniken forum?
 

Fulgour

von Däniken this

Ross G Caldwell said:
It isn't a supposition, it's a fact.
As any serious scholar of Shakespeare's work disovers,
there are those with no real grasp of the body of work
who attempt to compensate for their apathy with fact
after fact proving someone else wrote the plays, etc...

The same is true of Tarot. People writing books who do
not have the ability to admit that they don't know it all
dig up a few references to 'something else' and apply it
to the Tarot...and then say they found proof. Of what?
 

Ross G Caldwell

Fulgour said:
As any serious scholar of Shakespeare's work disovers,
there are those with no real grasp of the body of work
who attempt to compensate for their apathy with fact
after fact proving someone else wrote the plays, etc...

That may well be true. I don't claim to be a Shakespeare scholar. But do *most* scholars of Shakespeare, especially the most knowledgeable, do this?

Most playing card scholars agree on the major points of tarot history.

The same is true of Tarot. People writing books who do
not have the ability to admit that they don't know it all
dig up a few references to 'something else' and apply it
to the Tarot...and then say they found proof. Of what?

This is not true. Historians have plenty of ability to admit they don't know it all. They admit it upfront in fact, and then present all the evidence there is. If there are obscurities and uncertainties, they admit it. If there is something obscure that needs making sense of, they argue for how to make sense of it.
These arguments will be challenged by others with enough knowledge to judge them. If they stand or fall, depends on the body of knowledge, the known facts, and the body of scholars and their discussions over time. What emerges is a consensus, and in every field there are questions where there is full consensus, some consensus, and little consensus.

Among scholars of tarot history, there is full consensus that tarot was a game, and is still a game. There is no question, and no room for dispute that it was invented and used from the beginning as a game. There is full consensus that tarot was first given an esoteric interpretation in the late 1700s. There is some consensus that tarot divination began in Bologna in the early 1700s. But like still today in Bologna, tarot divination is not part of the body of occult lore - it is pure cartomancy (no correspondences with astrology, kabbalah, etc.).

This is what is known, not what is unknown. Historians don't dig up a "few references to something else" - they dig up all there is. And the staggering weight of all there is before 1781, are tarot games. The few stray references are to the something else, not the other way around. But among even those few stray references (or rather, *sources*), there is no reference, not a single one, to an esoteric doctrine of the tarot cards, or an origin other than Italian.

It is silly to pretend otherwise.

Anyway, your comments are insulting to the scholars who have spent their lives researching playing cards and discovering new evidence for tarot cards in the earliest periods. They are also off-topic for this thread.
 

Fulgour

needy nerds

Ross G Caldwell said:
Most playing card scholars agree on the major points of tarot history.
Playing card scholars says it all. Who are they?
Why do they need for Tarot to be a game too?
Playing card scholars: sounds like bicycle buffs.

Shakespeare's Hamlet would've diced their deal.
 

Amleth

baba-prague said:
I could literally walk out of my door in Prague and within a twenty minute walk of here see about six depictions of Hercules battling the Nemean lion. It's a very common Renaissance motif.

Of course it is. But that misses the point. The point is the quantity and the detail.

... several of the images used in the tarot trumps were common motifs and can be seen all over many old cities (not to mention in emblem books and the like - you really need to leaf through an emblem book, it might surprise you).

In fact, many tarot card images are NOT common. You are mistaken about that.

E.g. the notion of "Sun" is universal, but the picture on the V-S Sun card is hardly universal. And etc.

The actual tarot pics are NOT common. Many of the tarot card pics are not even common in tarot.

I've leafed through a number of emblem books of the Elizabethan and Jacobean era. Have you truly done so, or are you only talking? Here's one place on the web to start, if you actually want to take a look at some emblem books of that era. You might be in for a surprise at their actual contents.

http://emblem.libraries.psu.edu/home.htm

The Whitney book, in particular, is interesting, because for one thing, it has a nice depiction of a crocodile, and the crocodile is mentioned in Hamlet. It's also written in rather nice verse, although not of Shakespearean quality.

Show me an emblem books illustration which depicts "boys" carrying a castle by the sea, like Elsinore Castle in Hamlet. I'd be very interested to see that, if you can find one. I haven't found any such image in any emblem book yet, or in any other source of that era, either, only the V-S World card, and that's all.

And again, the suggestion of tarot images being common is in error. Many tarot pics are NOT common.

The IDEAS are common - king, queen, sun, star, etc. - but the actual tarot pictures are not.

But it does demonstrate that there is no logical reason to suppose that Shakespearian imagery is drawn from the tarot.

You haven't demonstrated that. Proper logic, or one should say reasoning, is based on relevant facts, and you haven't shown any.

The relevant facts, in relation to Hamlet, are exactly as I've stated them. There are more than a dozen instances in Hamlet dialogue which suggest tarot images, in particular - in significant detail.

It perhaps needs to be emphasized, that the DETAIL is why the dialogue is suggestive of the tarot image. This is not just about whether Shakespeare had ever heard of the moon.

It is at least as likely - and honestly probably much more so - that it could have come from many other common sources of the time.

In fact, it is extremely less likely, that the images suggested in the play dialogue - in detail - would have been at hand, during the course of writing ONE play, if they were from scattered sources. You have the probability backwards.

A single source, for the imagery mentioned, is far more probable, when it's a single play being discussed - just as a single source is more probable for the basic plot, which is why people take it for granted Hamlet is based on the old "Amleth" story, instead of trying to argue the plot might have, despite Amleth, come from numerous other stories that could have suggested similar ideas.
 

Ross G Caldwell

Fulgour said:
Playing card scholars says it all. Who are they?
Why do they need for Tarot to be a game too?
Playing card scholars: sounds like bicycle buffs.

They don't need for tarot to be a game - it just is. It can be anything you want it to be as well, but historically it was mostly a game.

Playing card scholars are specialists who have devoted a lot of time to playing card history. There are art historians, historians of printing technology, social historians, and academics in other fields besides history who have decided to focus on playing cards.

I'm sorry you have such little respect for such an important and intriguing cultural artifact, and those interested in finding out as much as possible about it.

Shakespeare's Hamlet would've diced their deal.

There was a time when the study of "playes" would have been considered beneath the dignity of a man of letters.

Maybe you would be more comfortable in the 16th century?