Tarot de Paris (17th Century)

kwaw

The Paris Pope is looking down at the sphinx sitting down at his side:

papalSphinx.jpg


In his lecture on psalm 119:144 (The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live.) 1513/14 Martin Luther interpreted the Sphinx as "murderous ignorance" that kills those who do not understand the testimonies of God, i.e., divine scripture. The Sphinx is also taken as an emblem of ignorance by Alciato: quote:

What monster is that?

sphinx.gif


It is the Sphinx. Why does it have the bright face of a virgin, the feathers of a bird, and the limbs of a lion? Ignorance of things has taken on this appearance: which is to say that the root cause of so much evil is threefold. Some men are made ignorant by levity of mind, some by seductive pleasure, and some by arrogance of spirit. But they who know the power of the Delphic message slit the relentless monster's terrible throat. For man himself is also a two-footed, three-footed, four-footed thing, and the first victory of the prudent man is to know what man is. end quote The Sphinx is also compared with Satan: “Satan is the true Sphinx, who hath the face of a woman to entice and deceive, the claws of a Lion to tear us, and the wings of a bird to show how nimble he is to assault us; he lives upon the spoil of souls, as sphinx did upon the bodies; he did for many ages abuse and delude the Gentiles by his Priests and Wizards, with riddles and ambiguous oracles: there is no way to overcome him, but by hearkening to the counsel of Minerva, as Oedipus did; that is, by following the counsel of Christ, who is the wisdom of the Father; by this he shall be destroyed, and we undeceived.”
Alexander Ross Mystagogus Poeticus or the Muses Interpreter (London, 1648), p.393.

Is that also a pyramid beside the sphinx?

papalSphinx.jpg


Is the image catholic or anti-catholic do you thinK? If anti-catholic, then an identification of catholicism with idolatry and paganism perhaps. If catholic, then the triumph of christianity over paganism? In relation to the 'stigmata' (circle pattern on the Pope's glove) remember too that St. Peter was also crucified, and at the end of the sixteenth century Pope Sixtus had the obelisk from the circus where St. Peter was crucified dug up, repaired and christianised (an iron cross put on top of of the pyramidon , the words "Behold the Cross of the Lord! Depart ye hostile powers! The Lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed! Christ conquers, Christ is King, Christ is Emperor! May Christ protect His people from all evil!" inscribed at its base.

Obelisks were dug up, christianised and used as pilgrims markers to the lead them to the churches at whose facades they stood. The one in St. Peters square, one which had overlooked the crucifixion of St. Peter, is now 'topped' by the cross and used in tribute to the first Bishop of Rome as a marker of the triumph of Christianity. Just as they were initially brought to Rome as trophies of Roman conquest, so later they were resurrected by the Popes of the late 16th and 17th century as emblems of the Christian triumph over paganism.

quote:
"This obelisk was brought to Rome by Caligula in the year 40 of our era, so marking the date when S. Peter is related to have baptized the centurion Cornelius, and in him, and his kinsmen and friends of the same cohort of Italian volunteers, to have opened the Gospel to the Gentiles, and more particularly to the Italians and to Rome. It was set up by Claudius a little later, (about the time that S. Peter is said to have come to Rome, and to have been delivered firom prison A.D. 42, reaching Rome Jan. 18, a.d. 43), on the spina of his Circus on the Vatican ; and it was standing there in a.d. 65, a silent witness of the first persecution of the Christians by Nero, and of the crucifixion of the Apostle, as it has since been a witness of the con- course of the Christian world to the triumphant festivals celebrated at his tomb." THE TWELVE EGYPTIAN OBELISKS IN ROME; THEIR HISTORY EXPLAINED BY TRANSLATIONS OF THE INSCRIPTIONS UPON THEM. EDITED BY JOHN HENRY PARKER.

Under the patronage of three consecutive popes during the 17th century Kircher produced inernationally popular works on Egypt and the Egyptian language, producing what later turned out to be somewhat fanciful interpretations of the hieroglyphics on some of Rome's obelisks; the Egyptian revival and references such as pyrmids and sphinxs of the 17th century are rooted at this time in the works of Kircher; just as later revivals and the popular motif of the sphinx as furniture motif was based on the conquest of Egypt by Napolean.

OedipvsAegyptiacvs.png

Frontpiece to Kircher's Oedipus Egyptiacus

The sphinx took on new meaning in the 17th century through the work of Kircher, whose work on egyptology made him a sort of international superstar of his period, and much of which was achieved through papal patronage. Thorugh him the sphinx also became a symbol of the hieroglyphic 'riddle'.

The image does not appear to be related to the Pope's actual Chair.

Quote:
Bernini's altar also inspired the style for a later work in the basilica, the Chair of St. Peter, an imposing piece that decorates the apse of the basilica. Above the marble base, there are four figures of the Greek and Latin Church: Anastasius, John Chrysostom, Ambrose and Augustine.* Above those saints are two angels and a throne symbolizing the authority of Peter. Three bas-reliefs tell the story of three key encounters Peter had with Our Lord: the handing over of the keys of authority in the Church, the washing of the feet, and Jesus, after the Resurrection, asking Peter three times, "Do you love me?" *The bronze columns of the baldachino that is said to here to have inspired the style for the chair rest on marble pedestals, and each of these is decorated with the coat of arms of Pope Urban VIII. Bernini, it is said, having heard that one of the Pope's nieces was pregnant, sculpted the face of a woman in various stages of pregnancy and childbirth on the sides of the four pedestals.

quotes from: http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/BERBALD.TXT Pope Urban VIII was also one of Kircher's patrons;) The wooden chair Bernini's reliquary houses was viewed in 1867 according to the catholic encyclopedia: "In 1867, however, on the occasion of the eighteenth centenary of the martyrdom of the two great Apostles, it was exposed for the veneration of the faithful. At that time the Alessandri brothers photographed the chair, and that photograph is reproduced here. The seat is about one foot ten inches above the ground, and two feet eleven and seven-eighths inches wide; the sides are two feet one and one-half inches deep; the height of the back up to the tympanum is three feet five and one-third inches; the entire height of the chair is four feet seven and one-eighth inches. According to the examination then made by Padre Garucci and Giovanni Battista de Rossi, the oldest portion (see illustration) is a perfectly plain oaken arm-chair with four legs connected by cross-bars. The wood is much worm-eaten, and pieces have been cut from various spots at different times, evidently for relics. To the right and left of the seat four strong iron rings, intended for carrying-poles, are set into the legs. At a later date, perhaps in the ninth century, this famous chair was strengthened by the addition of pieces of acacia wood. The latter wood has inlaid in it a rich ornamentation of ivory. For the adornment of the front of the seat eighteen small panels of ivory have been used, on which the labours of Hercules, also fabulous animals, have been engraved; in like manner it was common at this period to ornament the covers of books and reliquaries with ivory panels or carved stones representing mythological scenes. The back is divided by small columns and arches into four fields and finishes at the top in a tympanum which has for ornamentation a large round opening between two smaller ones. The tympanum is surrounded on all sides by strips of ivory engraved in arabesques. At the centre of the horizontal strip a picture of an emperor (not seen in the illustration) is carved in the ivory; it is held to be a portrait of Charles the Bald. The arabesque of acanthus leaves filled with fantastic representations of animals, and the rough execution of the work, would make the period of this emperor (884) a probable date. What still remains of the old cathedra scarcely permits an opinion as to the original form. In any case it was a heavy chair made of plain, straight pieces of wood, so that it cannot be considered a sella curulis of Pudens, as earlier tradition held it to be. If the four rings on the two sides belong to the original chair (Ennodius of Pavia about the sixth century used the term sedes gestatoria as an expression universally understood in reference to this chair), then it was probably an ordinary carrying-chair, such as was commonly used in ancient Rome.

end quote from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm

Maybe our artist was a collector of old gems, or had otherwise seen some, on which he may have seen a sphinx throne:

SphinxThrone1.jpg
SphinxThrone2.jpg

Here are some more:
http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/Gems/Scarabs/Images/Robs Images X2/17.x13m.jpg http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/Gems/Scarabs/Images/Robs Images 19/17.02m.jpg http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/Gems/Scarabs/Images/Robs Images 19/17.08m.jpg http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/Gems/Scarabs/Images/Images Extra 4/17.22m.jpg http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/Gems/Scarabs/Images/Images Extra 5/17.X07m.jpg http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/Gems/Scarabs/Images/Robs Images X2/17.x15m.jpg http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/Gems/Scarabs/Images/Robs Images X2/17.x17m.jpg

Here is a Statue of Madonna and Child in Sant. Antonio, Padua:
MadonnaChildSphinx.jpg

Quote: “Of the seven large free-standing statues, that of the Madonna and Child worthily occupies the central position. Nobody was more modern than Donatello, nobody less afraid of innovation. But in this Madonna he went back to archaic ideas, and we have a conception analogous to the versions of the two previous centuries: indeed, his idea is still older, for there is something Byzantine in this liturgical Madonna, who gazes straight in front of her, and far down the nave of the Santo—a church with mosque-like domes, like those of the early Eastern architects. The Child is seated in her lap, as in the earliest representation of the subject: here, however, the Christ is a child, with an element of helplessness almost indicated, whereas the primitive idea had been to show the vigour and often the features of a biggish boy. Donatello's version is much more pathetic, as the little Christ raises a tiny hand in benediction. The Virgin herself is of unequalled solemnity, while her young and gracious face, exquisite in expression and contour, is full of queenly beauty. But there is still this atmosphere of mystery, an enigmatic aloofness in spite of the warm human sentiment. The Sphinx's faces, with all their traditions of secrecy, contribute their share to the cryptic environment. Donatello uses them as the supports of the throne on which the Madonna is seated; behind it are Adam and Eve in relief: in front she herself shows the New Adam to the multitude, on whom he confers his blessing.” Donatello by David Lindsay, Earl of Crawford LONDON: DUCKWORTH AND CO. NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1903

In this instance they are generally interpreted by scholars as allegories of knowledge; but in connection with its associations with ignorance and folly could also be taken in their relationship with Adam and Eve as related to the Fall (or otherwise in relation to the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the 'eating' of which led to the fall).

quote: "...Oedipus appears in the play’s opening as the good man and the good citizen. He is shocked beyond horror—terrorized—to discover that all these virtues are mere appearances, that at the center of his existence is a violation of the order of the universe. He is not in control of what he does, even as he thinks of himself as virtuous. He is not in control because that which he thinks he knows, he does not know. The problem is one of knowledge, but the problem is incurable. Thus his wife, Jocasta, tells him:

“Why should man fear since chance is all in all / for him, and he can clearly foreknow nothing? / Best to live lightly, as one can, unthinkingly.”

He is not himself a riddle to be solved like the problem of the sphinx. Again Jocasta:

“God keep you from the knowledge of who you are!”

"...Oedipus would move from a polluted figure to an evil actor were he to take up what he has done as his own actions, were he to assert a power to overcome death, were he to assert that he is the cause of his own existence and deny the principles of order within which he finds himself. In short, were Oedipus to affirm the person that he is, we would confront evil.32 To make any of these affirmations, however, Oedipus would have to understand himself as fundamentally free. He would have to understand his identity as the product of his own free will. He would have to define himself through his relationship to his will rather than to the gods. That person he would become is at the heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, we are that person.

"...Sophocles leaves us no dream of a perfect world, a world in which the problem of Oedipus is solved. Pollution is a fact about the world, not a problem of human agency to be solved through knowledge or cleverness. Oedipus is doomed to wander from place to place, always reminding men of the terrifying truth of their own condition before the gods. The Oedipus myth has a shape much like that of Cain. We cannot know why Cain is disfavored or why Abel is favored. Like Cain, Oedipus is marked by his pollution, which arises from killing a family member. Each wanders the earth. For both, the divine sanction also has a sacred power: the power to found and protect a city. Oedipus and Cain always draw the attention of the gods—for good and bad.

"...There is, however, a closely related reading that is more compelling. This reading aligns the play with Plato’s inquiry into political psychology in the Republic. The narrative line of the play begins with the prophesy to Laius, the ruler of Thebes and Oedipus’s father. He is warned of the future behavior of his son. He tries to prevent this behavior, but he fails. He cannot prevent the appearance of a son who will slay him, claim political authority, and take possession of his family. That such a son will arise is not a product of chance—secular or sacred—but a necessary consequence of the structural conditions of power in the city. The possibility of parricide haunts every royal family. It is unavoidable as long as authority exists in city and family. Now, the play is not about Oedipus but about the structural conditions of politics, and how the structure of political authority shapes the psychology of those who are ruled. Oedipus as a unique person, characterized by his disfavor with the gods, disappears from view in the political-psychological account. The subject of this account is not the failure of reason but the workings of intergenerational ambition and jealousy: the son will assert himself in order to seize authority."

end quote from http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8301.html

Perhaps if nothing else it provides us with an example of how Christian and pagan imagery became mixed. From at least the 12th century poets began to apply to pagan fable the methods of allegorie and simile by which old testament figures and incidents had been turned into prefigurements of Christianity.This is revived in the 15th century in conjunction with the humanist interest in antiquity. Ovid is moralised and roman triumphs appropriated to the worldview of Christianity; and it is in terms of this Christian appropriation that figures such as those of the sphinx need to be understood, what relationship is there between Adam, Eve, Mary & Christ (New Adam, New Eve) and the sphinx?

One (but not exclusive) way of reading the figure of the Sphinx in terms of Christian typology was as a type of Satan:
“Satan is the true Sphinx, who hath the face of a woman to entice and deceive, the claws of a Lion to tear us, and the wings of a bird to show how nimble he is to assault us; he lives upon the spoil of souls, as sphinx did upon the bodies; he did for many ages abuse and delude the Gentiles by his Priests and Wizards, with riddles and ambiguous oracles: there is no way to overcome him, but by hearkening to the counsel of Minerva, as Oedipus did; that is, by following the counsel of Christ, who is the wisdom of the Father; by this he shall be destroyed, and we undeceived.”

Alexander Ross Mystagogus Poeticus or the Muses Interpreter (London, 1648), p.393.

The Sphinx is related to knowledge and the fall, the fall of Man in association with the first Adam, the fall of the Fiend Satan in association with the second Adam:


572 And as that Theban Monster that propos'd
573 Her riddle, and him, who solv'd it not, devour'd;
574 That once found out and solv'd, for grief and spight
575 Cast her self headlong from th' Ismenian steep,
576 So strook with dread and anguish fell the Fiend,

John Milton Paradise Regain'd: Book IV (1671)

The concept of the Sphinx as Satan sometimes led to the portrayal of the Sphinx with a serpent body rather than lion, through association with images of Satan as a serpent tempting Adam and Eve.

SphinxRiddle.jpg


The Riddle of the Sphinx: with Man as baby on all fours, as adult and with stick in background. The fall of Man and the Fall of Satan: Fall and Salvation from first Adam to second Adam over 77 generations traditionally split 21/56 related to 'tarocch' as meaning a 'geneological tree'...
 

Bernice

That's fascinating Kwaw, and such a lot to take in all at once.

I too noticed the stimata instead of the (usual) crosses on the back of the Popes hands. And that inclines me to consider the card as probably pro-catholic. Taken in conjunction with the Lightening/Tower card, which seems like a very christian concept of demonic forces/agents having an upper hand; when 'bad' things occurred maybe it was thought that the presence of God was absent. (?)

In fact all the the other cards (along with these two) seem to convey a 'black & white' world view. Things were Good, or things were Bad, very little peception of anything being grey.

So with the Pope looking down at satan/knowledge, a Pope who was 'holy' (stigmata); could this be a depiction of "unimpeachable authority" in the realms of religion. Bearing in mind that social and civil conduct was tied closely to religious creeds? (presumably it was so at the time & place of the card maker.....?).

Is he - the Pope - shown as being fully aware that evil is always close by, or is he instructing ignorance? Or perhaps both........?

At that time I imagine the import of this card was blatently obvious :).

Bee :)
 

SolSionnach

Wouldn't it be great if Flornoy would restore THIS deck! Better this one than the Dodal or Vieville!
 

conversus

Oh, no, I vote for the Vieville, then the Paris!

CED
 

SolSionnach

Well, it's going to be the Dodal, then the Vieville - and as far as I know, the TdP isn't even on the horizon. :(
 

Le Fanu

Just my thoughts...

In terms of the "point" of restoring, I would honestly say that I think the Tarot de Paris is the deck which would benefit the most, as these cards are wonderfully crammed and with all kinds of indistinguishable details which are very hard to make out. Much more so IMO than either the Vieville or the Dodal. And - O dear, blasphemy time - I think the Tarot de Paris is infinitely more fascinating visually, more curious, a much more "unlike-anything-else" deck than the Dodal. But it would take some serious research as there is so much in it which is quite visually imperceptible. And I shall be brazen and say I feel - from the Vieveille and the T de Paris - that Paris decks are more...

No, scratch that. Someone's bound to get irate :D

I love the Vievile, but I honestly don't feel a need for a restored version. Do we restore them because we cannot make out details? (Im not quite sure of the answer to this). In which case, Im not sure there is very much I am at a loss to make out in the Vieville. I guess I'm being extreme, but what I love about the Tarot de Paris (and it's a very recent acquisition) is that it seems to exist in a vacuum. There is no other deck before or afterwards quite like it. The Vieville is also like this, but - and Im no expert - the Dodal seems to come so late. It slots in perfectly to its context, the T de Paris not at all. This is what fascinates me...

What on earth are the card references for this deck? It just seems to drop out of the sky...
 

Bernice

Le Fanu: Just my thoughts...

In terms of the "point" of restoring, I would honestly say that I think the Tarot de Paris is the deck which would benefit the most, as these cards are wonderfully crammed and with all kinds of indistinguishable details which are very hard to make out. Much more so IMO than either the Vieville or the Dodal. And - O dear, blasphemy time - I think the Tarot de Paris is infinitely more fascinating visually, more curious, a much more "unlike-anything-else" deck than the Dodal. But it would take some serious research as there is so much in it which is quite visually imperceptible. And I shall be brazen and say I feel - from the Vieveille and the T de Paris - that Paris decks are more...
....all-together more intriguing :)

A fascinating deck, probably because it's a strange one-off, and as Le Fanu says, "wonderfully crammed with all kinds of indistinguishable details...". Kawa asked if there was also a pyramid beside the sphinx?. I can make out a couple of three-sided areas, but not sure which one Kwaw is looking at.

Bee :)
 

SolSionnach

Of course, it's understandable for Le Fanu and I to desire a restoration of the TdP, because we both *have* copies of the Heron Vieville. If I didn't have that, I'd be hot for it's restoration, too!

As far as the Dodal (le Fanu, do you have one?), I think it's wonderful in the Dussere edition. I like it's cardstock better than the Heron Vieville, fwiw. That being said, I don't use it very much for some reason.

Now the TdP - I have a file somewhere with scans, and when I get my printer up and running I'm going to have to simply make myself a copy. At the rate that Flornoy is going, I'll be 70 before he'd get to a TdP. :(
 

Le Fanu

SolSionnach said:
Now the TdP - I have a file somewhere with scans, and when I get my printer up and running I'm going to have to simply make myself a copy

I don't think you have to worry about author's rights. I guess the creater of the TdParis has been dead for longer than 70 years. He isn't going to come and sue you...

What I was going to say, was that I look at the Vieville and the Tarot de Paris and see a very sophisticated deck, crammed with allegory, exoticism, playfulness, hidden references and erudition, very much for an informed "sophisticated", urban public, educated and well versed in the Arts, metaphor and iconography. Perhaps international and familiar with international engravings, literature, emblem books etc

This is just my impression. It's as if the Paris cardmakers like Vieville and the author of the T de Paris, were working for a much more informed public than the Marseilles ones. But that's just my hunch...

And, no SSionnach I don't have the Dodal in answer to your question. I just know if from online
 

Bernice

Something else in Kwaws' post drew my attention about the Pope card, "It's not the Popes' chair".

Could this mean that the artist/cardmaker had never actually seen the Pope (in his chair)? The pope being in Italy, the card-maker presumably in France..... were (are) his images second-hand knowledge of the then current conditions in Italy?

P.S. I'm quite taken with temperance - putting out a fire!

Bee :)