Is it the Moon that is depicted on XVIII the Moon?
Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 25 Oct 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.
| jmd |
25 Oct 2004 |
|
In the thread A question about the Moon, Fulgour asks:'What really is it that is pictured there in the sky?' Indeed - what is it that is depicted?
Some have claimed that it is not the Moon at all, but rather an eclipse.
Some have of course claimed that it is the Moon.
Some have claimed that it is another body entirely.
So what is it that is depicted up there in the sky on that Atout?
|
| Fulgour |
25 Oct 2004 |
|
One thing to keep in mind is how the Moon and Earth
exist and function like a twin "binary" planet together.
Both are actually more attracted to the Sun's gravity
than to each other, as if moving along on a center-line.
Just like how if you hold a full bucket and spin around
the water stays in though it's pulling away from you,
the Moon is held to the Earth but drawn to the Sun.
And there is already a "Moon" in the Tarot, the most
important card in the entire deck: The High Priestess.
So what is it that is being shone on XVIII The Moon?
Not another Moon, of course. This is also true of card
XIX The Sun: the actual "planet" isn't being signified,
but something original to the Tarot, a Major mystery...
|
| Fulgour |
25 Oct 2004 |
|
My interpretations of XVIII The Moon rely very strongly upon
many attributions of our satellite neighbour and Her magic,
as well as the entire range of correspondences with Cancer
and in fact the significance of the Moon throughout all the
astrological considerations. The Zodiac may even be divided
along the lines of Moon and Sun influences ~ many shared.
But just as with any card in the Major Arcana, beyond the
divinatory meaning there exists a depth of sacred wisdom.
Looking at the Rider-Waite Smith Tarot, I can sometimes see
the face of The Hermit in the profiled continence of the face
there on The Moon ~ perhaps reborn into a bright New Age.
Yet there is also the bizarre and fantastic exploding illumination
on Le Tarot de Marseille... sometimes shown like a triple image,
but very significantly on many older decks as facing right at us.
Imagine the way such an illustration would have seemed to our
ancient friends, how they might not have hesitated to identify
this now so completely mysterious exploding celestial event...
what do you suppose the knew it to be, and so created it as?
|
| ihcoyc |
25 Oct 2004 |
|
In the 1650 Tarot de Paris, the area on the other side of the moon face is coloured red, which would be the right colour for an eclipse. The other side is still "shining" a fairly dark blue. The bottom of the card features a man serenading a woman on a balcony, rather than the dogs and lobster.
In the 1JJ Swiss tarot, which seems to have a faint echo of the Tarot de Paris traditions in some elements, the moon's face appears above and beyond the crescent.
In the Lo Scarabeo edition of the Conver TdM, the crescent of the moon is coloured green; the moon face and most of the rays are dark blue again.
What all of these cards seem to depict consistently is that the face of the moon is outside of the illuminated crescent, in the dark area. Astronomically, I suspect what is being depicted is earthshine: the disc of the moon is not invisible, but is faintly illuminated by light reflected from the earth, and that's where the man in the moon face appears.
|
| HOLMES |
25 Oct 2004 |
|
a big giant eye in the moon representing to me to be the eye of god shining even in the darkness. notice the eye lashes (speaking of the moon in the original thread over there. )
since the moon is shiny as it reflects the sun,, and the sun is shiny as a representive of the source.
|
| Diana |
26 Oct 2004 |
|
Originally posted by jmd
So what is it that is depicted up there in the sky on that Atout?
Would this not depend on the deck one is using?
|
| Fulgour |
26 Oct 2004 |
|
Originally posted by Diana
Would this not depend on the deck one is using? So true. Why quote Hamlet when there's Shakespeare? })
|
| HOLMES |
26 Oct 2004 |
|
because the quote i want to quote is only in hamlet.
|
| Lee |
26 Oct 2004 |
|
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. :)
-- Lee
|
| Diana |
26 Oct 2004 |
|
jmd: I am pretty convinced (only need a bit more confirmation) that the "Moon" in the Marseilles deck is an eclipse. And the face in the middle is what was known in the Middle Ages as the Eye of God.
|
| ihcoyc |
26 Oct 2004 |
|
This is a drawing of earthshine illuminating the dark area of the crescent moon that was originally made by Leonardo da Vinci. From Wikipedia.
There's another good picture of Earthshine from NASA here; this one was taken in the Pyrenees:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020419.html
|
| RedMaple |
27 Oct 2004 |
|
The image that looks like an eye, contains all the moon's phases in one -- the Full Moon, the Crescent, and the Dark of the Moon (illuminated by Earthshine.)
What seems to us to look like an eclipse, may be an attempt to show the ever-changing nature of the moon in one image. In any case, this changeability is important to my reading of this card.
|
| Lee |
27 Oct 2004 |
|
I'm curious about the possibility mentioned in jmd's original post, that the celestial body shown on the Moon card is not the moon at all. When we talk about eclipses and earthlight, we're still talking about the moon.
I'd be interested in hearing anyone's views as to what other celestial body it could be, besides the moon. To me, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that it's not the moon. After all, it's a defined circle (i.e. not a star), and we know it's not the sun since the Sun card is quite obviously the sun. And, incidentally, it happens to be labeled, conveniently, "The Moon."
-- Lee
|
| jmd |
27 Oct 2004 |
|
For what it's worth, I personally consider that it is the Moon that is depicted, but I would also add that this does not mean that it is to be understood as simply the astronomical body... rather, the spiritual aspect - and its symbolic and metaphorical reflections - are to also be considered.
It is interesting that ihcoyc posted those images of the Moon, and it reminds me that I take so much for granted the relatively incredible astronomical views that we tend to have in southern Australia given the combination of relatively little air pollution, little moisture content in the air, and relatively little light pollution (even in the outskirts of Melbourne).
The first crescent of the Moon is often seen as photographed - at times of course with greater clarity than at other times - with the dark circle cradled in the arcs of light.
Apart from the appelation of the card being 'the Moon' (in whatever language used), there is also the clarity of imagery associated with the Moon: the crustacean, the reflective pool of water, and the dog-like creature(s) - as mentioned in my first post in the thread previously linked on XVIII - La Lune, the creatures may be hare and hound.
When Diana writes that she is pretty much convinced that it is an eclipse, the next question is whether it is to be considered a Lunar or a Solar eclipse (if an eclipse at all, of course). Certain versions of the card certainly give the impression of two superimposed bodies, and hence a Solar eclipse (a little like Fulgour's avatar). This latter form certainly does also give the impression of an 'eye in the sky'...
...but for myself, I tend to opt and prefer the wholesomeness of the Moon in its ambiguously depicted form.
|
| Lee |
27 Oct 2004 |
|
Originally posted by jmd
For what it's worth, I personally consider that it is the Moon that is depicted, but I would also add that this does not mean that it is to be understood as simply the astronomical body... rather, the spiritual aspect - and its symbolic and metaphorical reflections - are to also be considered. Yes, I certainly agree. But I think this kind of goes without saying, for all the cards. Otherwise, a tarot reading would be a rather uninteresting procedure.
Edited to add: When I said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, I wasn't intending to suggest that the Moon card, or any other tarot card, should be considered without symbolic or metaphorical considerations. That would be absurd. Rather, I was responding specifically to jmd's suggestion in his first post that there are some people who claim that the celestial body shown is not the moon. :)
-- Lee
|
| kwaw |
27 Oct 2004 |
|
Originally posted by jmd
When Diana writes that she is pretty much convinced that it is an eclipse,
In terms of it being an eclipse among the titles of the moon's nodes are the 'hounds of heaven', referenced by the two dogs?
Kwaw
|
| ihcoyc |
27 Oct 2004 |
|
I'd hasten to remind everyone of the total eclipse of the Moon tonight. Weather permitting, you can see that a lunar eclipse (unlike, say, a solar eclipse) looks little like the old Tarot Moons.
|
| RedMaple |
28 Oct 2004 |
|
I always felt the two creatures were a dog and a wolf -- and a reminder of how closely they are related. In European tradition, this would be the tame and the wild, I suppose, with the wolf being the scary evil counterpart to man's best friend.
But wolves have their own highly structured social lives, their own communication systems. Dogs have lost this in their connections with humans. So I see these two as a very interesting daiad of possibilities on the card.
And they both howl at the moon.
|
| smleite |
28 Oct 2004 |
|
The position of the Moon (taken in relation to specific stars, or zodiacal signs, etc.) could be used to determine changes in weather, and very specifically to predict the rain seasons. But if we take into account those two animals, and admit they could be interpreted as a wolf and a dog, we can dig further on. It is a legendary dog that gives name to Sirius, main star of the constellation of Canis Major (the « large dog »), whose helical rising indicates Summer solstice, and the beginning of the “dog days”, of heat and dryness, announcing all kinds of bad influences - after all, the moon is “of all the Planets /the one that/ has the greatest similitude and correspondence with inferior things...to pass by her daily effects which she causes in all things here, and the frequent revolutions about the Elements and Elementary Bodies by reason of the nearness of her Orb to the Earth, and smaller circle than any other Planet; so she seems a Mediatrix between Superior and Inferior Bodies”, said the Italian astrologer Guido Bonatti (http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/mansionsmoon.html). As to the wolf, German (and Celtic) mythology associates this animal with winter, to the point that in Southern Germany an ancient name of the month of December meant “month of the wolf”. By the way, the expression "Wolf Moon” was used, in medieval English, to name the full moon of January. If the dog, due to its relation to Sirius and Canis Major, is a symbol of the summer solstice, the wolf is a symbol of the winter equinox. He stands also as a personification of nigh time, but connected to the idea of “light in darkness”, because he sees at night (and the moon was also called, at a certain time during winter, “the wolf’s lantern”).
In relation to the wolf, we could also point those myths of Hecate and Leto, the first personifying the New Moon, who could change into a wolf (and the decreasing moon was sometimes seen as being devoured, day after day, by a wolf), and the second transformed into one of this animals before delivering Diana and Apollo, the moon and the sun…
|
| Fulgour |
31 Oct 2004 |
|
Originally posted by kwaw
In terms of it being an eclipse among the titles of the moon's nodes are the 'hounds of heaven', referenced by the two dogs? "Hounds of Heaven" is an entirely unfamilliar expression to me in reference
to the Lunar Nodes. Would it be possible for you to kindly supply a source
where I might find more information of this usage, the specific terminology?
|
The Is it the Moon that is depicted on XVIII the Moon? thread was originally posted on 25 Oct 2004 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.
|
