Bateleur Enquiry (Universal Tarot of Marseille)

[spoonbender]

I'm glad to see so many replies. I can only reply to the first few people right now (have to get back to studying, exams coming up next week), but will come back later!

Umbrae: I’m not sure that the Bateleur being itinerant would unambiguously imply that his trade is looked down upon, at least not in the way that Lee claims (you know, more than a homeless beggar, that kind of thing). Wouldn’t travelling have carried positive connotations as well? As you say yourself, he carried news with him! That’s why it bugged me that Lee didn’t acknowledge his positive traits, but instead was rather negative in his characterisation.

I’m afraid though that I don’t see how the story about your relative is connected to the position of bateleurs in the Early Modern Period in Western Europe…?

Fulgour: You kind of lost me with your first two posts. Your third, well, the card is titled Le Bateleur, so certainly a lot can be gained by finding out as much as possible about Bateleurs? Or am I missing your point?

Venicebard: I think your post is great, especially your last sentence: "Indeed part of its message is that skill can overcome such mundane considerations and raise up even the lowly to at least a temporarily exalted status." So you definitely didn’t step on my toes – however, again, I think a lot can be gained by examining the bateleur’s position in society all the same.

Spoon

 

[Rosanne]

Interestingly, I do not see much of Le Batleur in the Bursten explanation. For a start he does not seem tramplike as le Mat. He seems quite well dressed in fact. He has tools and therefore the obvious means to carry them. He would have made money plying his trade otherwise he would be Le Mat. He has something to teach whether it be sleight of hand or the quality of his wares.
He has confidence and can show another life apart from the ordinary; he has the romance of the different. Rather than us judging him scary- he would judge us foolish, for he has seen us gullible in so many towns. He has probably been up to the Castle and performed there. He knows human nature, and the young girls in town would be pleading for their parents to invite him home (or worse). I see him as the peasant's teacher, something like the barnstormer that would fly into your town with his marvelous machine, take you for a ride and your money and fly away. ~Rosanne

 

[firemaiden]

I think you have to consider what kind of trick the cups and balls represent. Are you going to win money playing for this with the Bateleur? I have seen men playing this cup and ball thing on cardboard boxes in sidewalks in New York, San Francisco and Paris. I have always assumed I would be swindled.

 

[spoonbender]

OK, I’m back.

Jmd: Personally, I think your viewpoint is probably the most balanced, and as such closest to the historical truth. So thank you. I wanted to start this thread, by the way, precisely because the very negative appreciation of the Bateleur was presented as absolute fact.

Robert and FM: IMHO you’re getting a bit carried away with the comparison with those present-day scams on the streets and buses. The Bateleur did more than play that game to try to get people to pay up – according to dictionary entries, he told jokes, he performed magic tricks and feats of strength, and so on. Wouldn't this mean that he WAS an entertainer? As Rosanne points out, he seems to be well-dressed in the Tarot of Marseilles, he has tools and made money plying his trade.

Spoon

 

[Lee]

I wanted to start this thread, by the way, precisely because the very negative appreciation of the Bateleur was presented as absolute fact.

Hi Spoon,

When you quoted the paragraph from my book, you left out the last sentence. Here is the entire paragraph (the omitted sentence is in bold):

"The Magician is an ambiguous, subversive figure. As an itinerant entertainer, he would have been looked down upon even more than the Fool, since the Fool could not help himself, while the Magician was quite aware of what he was doing. Besides being considered immoral, he had the reputation of a con artist, someone who would as soon trick you out of your money as say hello. On the other hand, he might have been envied for his physical and mental dexterity when performing sleight-of-hand."

Also the divinatory meanings given further down on that page:

"Divinatory meanings:
Tricking or taking advantage of others, or you are the one being tricked. Thriving outside society’s norms; “beating the system.” Physical or mental dexterity. Travel."

The bolded meanings are more positive than negative, I think.

Also I don't think I present my interpretations as absolute fact, in fact I say in the book:

"When we seek to learn the correct set of meanings for the cards, we are essentially searching for the end of the rainbow. In other words, we’ll never find it. Ever since tarot decks began to be used for divination (presumably in the 16th century), tarot readers have used different methods to assign meanings to the cards. This fact alone should alert us that there is no one “true” way to interpret the cards. It’s important to understand that when we speak of using the tarot for divination, we are entering an ambiguous and arbitrary world where there are no easy answers."

And:

"This is certainly not the only way to interpret the trumps."

-- Lee

 

[spoonbender]

Lee: I didn't include that sentence because it wasn't as negative as the rest (and thus didn't really add to my point), but didn't exactly outweigh the negative either, now does it? It says he's envied - not admired or something like that - for his dexterity, a word which I interpreted to have more "negative" connotations in the light of the other sentences.

"Absolute fact" was an unfortunate use of words on my account. With it, I meant that you try to be as historically accurate as possible in your book - you concentrate on what people in the Early Modern Period in Europe would have thought when they saw the cards, right? That's why I got the impression that you weren't so much presenting your own, personal opion, as you were taking an objective stance.

Anyway, in general, I'm very much enjoying your book, even if I disagree with some of your findings.

Spoon

 

[Lee]

Thank you!

-- Lee

 

[tmgrl2]

The "tricking" is also in the eyes of the beholder....there are many who look upon a figure such as this and see through the pitch...yet others, can be drawn in by the "show" and may need to experience some lessons, some "being tricked" in order to move ahead. So, some might pass Le Bateleur's table, and chuckle at the fraud, at the trick...while others are clearly drawn in, clueless as to what they must learn as a result of being pulled in.

So, the read would depend upon the ability of the viewer to see what is behind the show.

Either way, the journey begins here...(ohnoplease don't scold me if you are a Fool's Journey person!!)...some race past the early steps. Others need to learn a few lessons before progressing.

terri

 

[spoonbender]

Terri: Are you actually saying that those who don't necessarily believe that the Bateleur would trick you (such as myself), have a few more lessons to learn, aren't as far ahead as others?

 

[Moonbow]

I don't read Terri's post in that way, I see it more as though we all learn life's lessons at a different rate. It doesn't mean that those that catch on quickly are more advanced in life, but perhaps that they have already been through that lesson and so have moved on to something else. Some people may learn too quickly and will need to go through the process again further down the line. Being 'tricked' may be difficult to accept at the time, or even difficult to believe but it's not such a bad thing because it gives us knowledge and experience.

The Bateleur can be a trickster etc, but also, to me personally, can be an inspiration.... call me gullible! But how do we learn if we don't experience, even though it is sometimes learning the hard way.