Did Shakespeare play tarot?

[kwaw]

Hi Amleth

As a student of Shakespeare you have heard no doubt of Matteo Bandello, whose novellas were among Shakespeares sources. The 37th novella tells a story based upon the marriage of Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville, only gets it a bit wrong and applies it to Edward III.

The only Italian account prior to this is a versified account, which surprising is quite accurate when compared to later 16th century English chronicles, and closer in time to the actual events, by Ippolitta Sforza's humanist teacher Antonio Cornazzano, in an incomplete Estense manuscript on the lives of famous women, De Mulieribus Admirandis, dedicated to and with an introduction on Ippolitta's mother, Bianca Maria Visconti, wife of Francesco Sforza, written c.1466-68.

Conor Faht notes: "It is worth noting that the chapter on Elizabeth Woodville is one of only two chapters [out of the 29 completed] devoted to contemporary women, which seems to indicate that the romantic story of her marriage to Edward IV made some impression on the courtly circles in which Cornazzano moved." Those courtly circles being of course, those of Milan and Ferrara.

Kwaw

 

[Amleth]

... you have heard no doubt of Matteo Bandello, ...

Yes, in connection with Romeo and Juliet. I had not thought to look into that in relation to Hamlet. However, the Visconti Sforza background is certainly intriguing. It could raise the possibility the Bard might have come upon the V-S tarot cards when researching to write R & J. It's well established he did considerable research on things Italian. Most interesting, thank you.

 

[Amleth]

... if you are going to argue *specifically* for a V-S pack around 1600 in southern England - in an academic way - I would at least try to find a possible source, somewhere Shakespeare might have encountered it.

It would be ideal to identify a specific source who could have brought Shakespeare tarot cards at that time, in London. My hopes are not so high, although I always keep my fingers crossed.

I suppose the "plan of attack" should be, first, to point to the Italian influence on Shakespeare. That's easy, already established. Then, second, I'd discuss the cross-cultural activity between Italy and England. Florio and Bruno have been mentioned, here in the thread, but there were many Italians in England in those days, for religious, commercial and governmental reasons, and reasons in general, and likewise English in Italy. Then, individuals such as Florio and Bruno can be mentioned, who can at least be placed somewhere not far from Shakespeare.

Turning to tarot, itself, I suppose what I'd need to do first, is to establish the credibility of the subject, in the arena of Shakespeare studies. Probably the main thing to overcome is the bias that many people will bring to a mention of tarot, in a "serious" setting. Most of those who write about Shakespeare will have little knowledge of tarot, and when it's mentioned they'll think it's only like a reference to carnival sideshow fortune telling, or some such. They won't know the history of tarot as a European cultural element, and they'll be resistant to even the mention of tarot. That's a hurdle to cross, simply to put tarot seriously into the mix of possibilities about Shakespeare.

I don't know if I'll pursue the subject of Shakespeare & tarot in the formal academic way. It's a question of how much time and effort I can devote to it. I'm still collecting notes, to make a better presentation on my website. That will be an essay for popular reading. But I think there's potential for a more serious presentation. Whether I can do one, remains to be seen.

This is an extraordinary claim, and will interest historians of playing cards, so be extremely careful. If it is done carelessly, it will be ignored.

I'm certain you're absolutely right. A very sober, detailed, and factual approach would be necessary, to avoid tainting the whole subject, from the very beginning. Being ignored is not the worst that could happen.

These packs were copied; many were surely given as gifts. When and where, nobody knows for sure. This is for future research. But there are no such cards in England now, and I think none ever originated there (in an auction or something) - but I don't know.

The obstacle, of a lack of tangible evidence, is not quite so high in Shakespeare studies as it would be in some other areas. The reason being, that so frustratingly little is known of his biography, in a documented, factual way. For example, no records of his education have survived, but it's universally assumed he had some formal education. So, there are issues that can be raised in connection with Shakespeare, and get serious attention, even where documented evidence can't be found. Perhaps a good presentation could make tarot such an issue. (Said with fingers still crossed that something might turn up.)

Hercules with a club wearing the Nemean lion's skin was the *back* of an edition of Italian tarot cards around 1600.

Most interesting, although that particular image wouldn't do in relation to Hamlet, since Hamlet's remark where he mentions the Nemean lion, indicate the lion going into battle, still alive.

 

[kwaw]

Turning to tarot, itself, I suppose what I'd need to do first, is to establish the credibility of the subject, in the arena of Shakespeare studies. Probably the main thing to overcome is the bias that many people will bring to a mention of tarot, in a "serious" setting. Most of those who write about Shakespeare will have little knowledge of tarot, and when it's mentioned they'll think it's only like a reference to carnival sideshow fortune telling, or some such. They won't know the history of tarot as a European cultural element, and they'll be resistant to even the mention of tarot. That's a hurdle to cross, simply to put tarot seriously into the mix of possibilities about Shakespeare.

Well, one way of approach would be in comparison with the motif of cards used as tropes or figures in plays of the 16th and 17h century.

For example In 'The longer thou livest the more fool thou art' [Wager, 1559], the polemics of language and mockery of rote learning, between latinity and vernacular, in the process of education of the fool Moros is developed [and shown ultimately to be wasted], "both the comedy and moral teaching of the play are structured on the familiar polarity of carnival between official and unofficial, Latin and vernacular, earnest and game... he can learn by rote, but cannot learn understanding."

"In between these two arguments, Wager finds a striking way of staging the depth of Moros' ignorance: he changes the central prop of the book to a pack of cards. This is a clear indication of depravity in itself, but the comedy, and the moral lesson, consist in deluding Moros into believing that there is no real difference between a book and a pack of cards. Following their discovery that Moros is in fact unable to read a word of his book, the vices offer him a new 'book':

IDLENESS: "Look what a book I have for thee here". {have a pack of cards ready}. "Cast away that book; it is worse than nought."

The Fool Moros throws away his book and says [re;his new book of a pack of cards}

"God's days, it is a goodly book indeed. Santa Amen! Here are saints a great sort. Teach me this book I pray you, perfectly to know." {Dillon}

The use of cards in morality plays of period, or comical interludes, was common enough I imagine to be taken as a serious motif.

Kwaw

ref:
Wager, William. 'The longer thou livest and Enough Is As Good As a Feast', ed. Bembow, Mark.
Dillon, Janette, 'Mankind and the Politics of "Enlysh Laten", Medievala et Humanistica, NS 20.
Dillon, Janette, 'Language and Stage in medieval and Renaissance England'.

 

[Amleth]

If you can point me to Shakespeare talking about a man being hung from one foot I'd be seriously interested...

Perhaps I could, in a way. It's highly interpretive, unfortunately, and depends on an intimate knowledge of the Hamlet dialogue. And it would take an essay to explain it. It's more than I can offer here and now, in adequate detail, and it's complicated. I'll mention a couple things, tho.

Part of it is Guildenstern asking Hamlet to put his discourse into some "frame." At that time in the play, if Hamlet did tell Guildenstern what was on his mind (killing King Claudius,) the "frame" Hamlet would put himself in, would be a frame of treason. It's treason to plan to kill the King.

Achilles was "hung by one foot" when his mother dipped him in the river Styx. Hamlet is subtly associated with Achilles in the play.

Put "Achilles" (in association with his mother,) in a "frame" of treason and what's his posture, as he hangs?

But it would take an essay to explain it.

As for "Flying castles"? Oh come on, motifs involving small castles being carried or even worn...

"Worn" doesn't qualify, they must be carried, and they must be carried by "boys," to match the Hamlet dialogue. Further, the "boys" must be, in some sense, "little eyases." Cherubs, with wings, do qualify for that. Preferably, the number of "boys" will be two, since Hamlet is talking to R & G at the time.

Agreed, the quote doesn't say "castles," it says "world," but the "world" of Hamlet is Elsinore Castle. "Castle" and "world" are equated at the time the dialogue is spoken.

And why on earth would I lie about emblem books?

I offer you my apology, then. I've participated in other forums which did not offer much genuine expertise, and I've been exposed to people who were inclined to bluff such things. I have probably developed bad habits from previous online discussions.

The point is that the references you quote from Shakespeare are not specific - and so most of them could equally well be argued to have been influenced by other imagery common at the time.

Well, if the "little eyases" passage can be related to any particular image, the image must have the details mentioned above.

If the "chary maid" couplet can be related to any particular image, the image must, in some sense, show a maid with her beauty "unmasked" to the moon.

If any image matches Ophelia's description of Hamlet, when he rushed speechless into her room, the image must show something resembling a "doublet unbraced," stockings fallen and fouled, no hat, etc.

And so on. Many of the details of the Hamlet dialogue are quite specific. Whether a hat is worn. Whether a face is masked. Whether the Nemean lion is alive or dead. Whether Hercules is holding a club, or not. Etc.

I know it would be very nice to imagine Shakespeare being influenced by tarot, but while we can speculate - and it's fun to do so - there does not appear to be any real evidence. ...

There does if you know Hamlet well enough. Few do.

Hardly anybody knows Hamlet very well. A notable example is the new Arden Shakespeare Hamlet, third series, published last year, which can't even explain the Act 4 scene change. I can, however. That's the way it goes.

 

[Fulgour]

So, it's like this...

Hardly anybody knows Hamlet very well.

Do you mean like how the famous "to be or not to be"
soliloquy was added for the confused groundlings?
That's like trying to remind folks about Gypsy Tarot~
which might help you with Hamlet. A Gypsy violinist,
one worth his salt~ could play hanging from a beam.

But around here, that tune is strictly~ "out of joint!"

 

[Amleth]

It's a great list of parallels, Amleth. However, these images were common for the period. ...

Not in Elizabethan London, (let alone Stratford on Avon,) and not in the exact detail of the Hamlet dialogue.

All the Visconti images can readily be seen among 15th century Northern Italian art, ...

As far as is known, Shakespeare never went to Italy, and never had a chance to view Italian art on display in a gallery. He couldn't have seen it the way you did.

Agreed, that the motifs are frequent, but the details in the Hamlet dialogue are not. This is the essential point - what images (if any) match up with the Hamlet dialogue details, in cases where an image might be suggested? So far, the only images I've found which match up with the relevant dialogue are those of the Visconti Sforza tarot deck, and they do so surprisingly well, time after time. It's too much to be accidental.

 

[Amleth]

I believe "Mercutio" in Romeo & Juliet, is actually, Marlowe.
A loving personal imaginative tribute, to a departed friend.
There's no proof so my belief is foolish.

Unproven, but not so foolish. It's an idea that's been proposed quite seriously, including among theater professionals. If you're foolish, you're no more so than the professionals are. A SHAKSPER link.....

http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/0900.html

 

[Amleth]

Well, one way of approach would be in comparison with the motif of cards used as tropes or figures in plays of the 16th and 17h century.

...

The use of cards in morality plays of period, or comical interludes, was common enough I imagine to be taken as a serious motif.

That's excellent! You've given me several more useful notes, (and things to look up, and read!) and I'm in your debt. There's no doubt Shakespeare was familiar with the morality plays.

 

[Amleth]

Do you mean like how the famous "to be or not to be" soliloquy was added for the confused groundlings? ...

Sure, I could talk your ear off about 2b-2b. All you'd need would be hours of patience. It isn't only something for the groundlings, tho. Claudius summoned Hamlet there for a private chat, (so Claudius claimed,) which is what "closely" meant when Claudius said it, a little earlier in the scene.

The nature of Claudius's summons gives Hamlet the idea Claudius will arrive alone (with no guards or witnesses.) When Hamlet enters the room, he looks around, and doesn't see Claudius there yet. He thinks Claudius is just late. Hamlet starts pondering killing Claudius, when he arrives alone (which is what Hamlet expects.) Hamlet starts thinking about taking the opportunity to kill Claudius.

So Hamlet's first thought, as he recites 2b-2b, is whether Claudius is going "to be," or not, when Claudius shows up unprotected. Then Hamlet starts worrying about whether he'd get caught, and executed for regicide. If that happened, he might as well just kill himself now. That's where the idea of suicide comes in, as the soliloquy continues. But Hamlet isn't talking about suicide when he begins 2b-2b. Right at the beginning, he's talking about Claudius's "being," or not, at the mercy of Hamlet's sword, when Claudius shows up alone.

If Claudius had been telling the truth, in his summons to Hamlet, about it being a "close" (private) meeting between them, Claudius would have been setting himself up to die. But, as we know, Claudius didn't tell the truth in his summons to Hamlet. It isn't really for a "close" chat, between Claudius and Hamlet, it's a summons so that Hamlet can "accidentally" meet Ophelia.

The way it's correctly done on stage, is that Hamlet recites 2b-2b at some distance from Ophelia, watching her to see if she'll leave. He isn't going to kill Claudius with Ophelia as a witness against him. That simply wouldn't do. (We know Ophelia isn't leaving, but Hamlet doesn't know it yet.) As Hamlet watches and waits, while he speaks the soliloquy, he decides Ophelia isn't leaving. He then drops any idea of killing Claudius when he arrives, and Hamlet approaches Ophelia. And so on. You'll hardly ever see it correctly done on stage, tho.