Temperance

Richard

“Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods."

Meh. Hardly worth the attention of a Tarot card, IMHO.

An illustration of balance? I suppose in AA sobriety would equal abstinence, but more generally to me it would be not intoxicated, or out of control.

So Temperance can mean not getting drunk. Splendid bit of wisdom. Even I generally observe the rule of moderation, although I don't think that occasional excess is necessarily condemnatory (the resultant hangover being the appropriate punishement). I generally hate moralism, but I do try to adhere to the Golden Rule, which applies to others as well as to myself.
 

Yelell

Meh. Hardly worth the attention of a Tarot card, IMHO.



So Temperance can mean not getting drunk. Splendid bit of wisdom. Even I generally observe the rule of moderation, although I don't think that occasional excess is necessarily condemnatory (the resultant hangover being the appropriate punishement). I generally hate moralism, but I do try to adhere to the Golden Rule, which applies to others as well as to myself.

I mentioned it because it does speak of balance and might better fit the picture than the definition of abstinence; not as a lifestyle recommendation.

Perhaps the picture suggests the balancing of the humors, which was regarded as essential to good health.

If temperance is taken to mean abstinence or sobriety, it doesn't seem to fit the picture in any obvious way, allegorically or otherwise.
--------------------

I thought the website I posted before had another interesting way of looking at the card.


The Temperance card is typically of a woman pouring from one vessel into another (images of the card are a few paragraphs below). From a Dionysian perspective, it shows water diluting wine. Cartari cites Athenaeus, who in turn cites Diodorus. This citation combines two passages in Diodorus. One is in IV.3 of his History
'For the drinking of unmixed wine results in a state of madness, but when it is mixed with the rain from Zeus the delight and pleasure continue, but the ill effect of madness and stupor is avoided'​
 

Richard

I mentioned it because it does speak of balance and might better fit the picture than the definition of abstinence; not as a lifestyle recommendation.

Granted.

This citation combines two passages in Diodorus. One is in IV.3 of his History: 'For the drinking of unmixed wine results in a state of madness, but when it is mixed with the rain from Zeus the delight and pleasure continue, but the ill effect of madness and stupor is avoided'

This indeed seems to be a plausible interpretation of what the Temperance angel is doing. Good point! However........ })
 

Zephyros

Besides which, the idea of balance and moderation is already taken care of in another card, and so well that adding that to Temperance would essentially duplicate them.
 

Yelell

Looking at the old Budapest sheet that was brought up in another thread got me thinking. I get caught up with trying to figure out what the person who carved the block of wood hundreds of years ago may have had in mind. Since then, though, cards have been adapted, reimagined - even rearranged and redrawn to suit a specific idea or purpose. It's not like Wirth, Waite, Crowley etc really have more of a right than anyone else to make revisions that suit them. If today it means sound waves or magnetism or fire or the transmission of souls, it doesn't have to be bound by every line drawn back in the day. I'm starting to like the idea that people should create their own decks!
 

kwaw

:D Love it.

(The temperance with cymbals sort of brings up the temperance movement - which often marched along with the clash of drums and cymbals - but theirs I think equates temperance with abstinence, rather than moderation.)
 

Yelell

Thanks. I was more thinking of what Teheuti said about sound waves with the cymbals, or maybe even as magnets(if they were a different color.)
 

kwaw

Thanks. I was more thinking of what Teheuti said about sound waves with the cymbals, or maybe even as magnets(if they were a different color.)

Reader response v. authors intent

Meaning:

An old conundrum. Is it (meaning) controlled by authors intent? If so, then is not control of communication, and clarity of purpose an essential? Avoidance of symbolism and ambiguous signs a priority?

If an author/artist chooses to communicate through ambiguous and multivalent signs and symbols, does not then whatever the authorial intent or thought become irrelevant? Does not communication based upon ambiguous and multivalent symbolism invite a reader's response that not only the author never thought or intended, but maybe radically opposed to it!? If an author chooses to communicate in ambiguous and multivalent symbolism, then can we take it as an intentional choice to widen readers response? And if that is the case, does the author then have the right to say in regards to any response: that is not what is meant or intended? (Of course, they may say, that is not what I meant or intended.)

Authorial intent or thinking is not communicated through Cymbals ;)
 

Teheuti

Reader response v. authors intent

Meaning:

An old conundrum. Is it (meaning) controlled by authors intent?

Actually, there is no conundrum.

Meaning is not controlled by intent alone—there is no control over meaning except what is ascribed by law (and laws can be changed). This is amply demonstrated in the field of literature and criticism, but also in law. If someone writes a contract and phrases it so that it actually (according to English grammar and spelling, for instance) says something different than the author intended, and the signer demonstrates they understood the contract as written, then the courts (according to what I've been told by my graduate school professor who used to testify in court regarding the grammatical wording of contracts) go along with the grammar rather than the supposed intent.

Pictorial symbolism, except in things like traffic signs, etc., has far less "control." And once the intender is dead, it's all open to interpretation.

Nevertheless, an attempt to learn what was intended or understood at the time of creation is almost always worthwhile and enlightening and can expand our understanding of the creator, the period, the development of human ideas, etc.

In some forms of art and communication, intent and purpose is never conceived of as a static thing, but rather as a continuing dialog or dance between the work itself and those who experience it. It's part of what makes art into "art."

Re: ambiguous symbolism:
does the author then have the right to say in regards to any response: that is not what is meant or intended? (Of course, they may say, that is not what I meant or intended.)

Authorial intent or thinking is not communicated through Cymbals ;)
As you note, an author can and will say whatever they want to say. In art, once a work is made public it no longer belongs (in terms of meaning and what it expresses) to the creator. Rather all meaning exists in the observer/experiencer.

Added: Humanity is made all the richer for the many and great variety of interpretations of Shakespeare.
 

Teheuti

I came across this interesting discussion of the etymology of Good and God - http://blog.oup.com/2009/11/good-god-and-etymology/

The part relevant to Temperance is
god can be compared with two Sanskrit words: one meaning “to invoke,” the other “to pour.” Today most etymologists prefer the second hypothesis and interpret “pour” as “libation” (in the process of sacrifice), but the idea of invocation also has learned supporters.

From this we can derive the idea that the two vases could represent the idea of involution and evolution (rather than anything as mundane as water or wine).

Also, since it is an angel pouring, why should we even expect the contents to be anything that operates according to physical, material matter or that is influenced by gravity (rather than gravitas)?