Le Diable - Contrasting the Dodal and Conver

Thanks for this prudence.

prudence said:

This also seems to diminish any menacing quality that the image should have, if it is meant to show a menacing Devil image....what could be more menacing on a Devil than an angry erection?

Click to expand...

Cetainly I agree that in the TdM imagery the Devil's penis is flaccid and that it would certainly make the image more menacing if it were otherwise. In my imagination however, when I see the figure come alive as it were, I suspect that penis could be used...

prudence said:

Also, Major Tom, did you depict the tongue sticking out or is that a very full lower lip? (my eyes are not what they used to be, and I cannot quite make it out from the scan) It must give quite a lot of insight into a card's imagery when you have made one of your own.

Click to expand...

Definitely the tongue is sticking out. I would recommend to anyone studying tarot try their hand at producing their own version of the cards.

prudence said:

Are we meant to see the Devil (from the Marseilles decks) as a scary character or as a silly one?

Click to expand...

I think we each have to figure this out for ourselves - there isn't a universal answer. For me, a bit of both silly and scary.

On the Rochias card (which I find VERY interesting, and indeed, the 'hat' could be a mask) the 'tongue' looks like very big, horselike teeth.

le pendu said:

The Muller really is fun. In a way it's like looking at the scene from the point of view of one of the minions!

I love the way the Devil holds out his hand, reminds me of a hypnotist. It's graphically just a wonderful image.

Click to expand...

It also reminds me quite a lot of a marionette and a puppeteer...he is holding the (invisible) strings and looks pretty delighted to be doing so.

Four more Devils

Two from Switzerland:


Claude Burdel, Fribourg, 1751
Lots of interesting comparisons to Conver.
Is that a flower?
Is that a tongue or an odd mouth?
What are those two crescents on the breasts about?



Gassmann, Geneva, ca 1870.
50 years later, but note the similarities to the Benois and Proche TdB, both of which mirror-image each other. Interesting how an image can migrate around through time, and stay quite intact, simply by serving as a reference to a later artist.

...And two from Italy:


Lattanzio Lamperti, Milano, ca 1850.
Beautifully engraved.
A bearded gentleman of a devil.
Interesting spots on the wings. Looks almost like a butterfly.
One eye in the navel.
He's clearly holding a torch, and appears to be pointing with the other hand.
Grotesque minions, who appear to be holding ropes, which may be supporting the platform that the devil stands on(?).
This card has a wrap around back that obscures a little of the image at the edges.



F. Strambo, Varallo, ca 1875(?)
Generally, a reasonably human looking devil.
I imagine the rags wrapped around them are a reflection of Victorian modesty?
Devil's bellyface sticks out his tongue.
What is the horizontal bar on his chest?
Both the poses, and the cropped feet of the minions relate pretty directly to the earlier images. It's pretty clear to me that the artist was probably directly familiar with the earlier images.

Wow. No kidding. Now I'm looking at how some of the minions are securely fastened to their evil master, while others (the Varallo) could easily slip their nooses.

Fascinating development of the thread - and really glad to have picked up those compare threads again - they make the overall study all the more meticulous and important!

With regards to that 1810 deck I mentioned earlier, and which le pendu displays in post 9 (thanks for having scanned it!), I must admit that though there are four marks on the Devil's left-hand breast (on the right of the card), it looks to me more like each breast has intended three points at the vertices of an equilateral triangle, and that the fourth is a mark of some kind, rather than a depicted lozange (perhaps another butterfly moment on my part!).

The 1751 Burdel is fascinating indeed! Personally, I see the mouth shape as stemming from a modified earlier card that showed a tongue. And the flower in the place of the genitals? A rose by any other name, I suppose, and certainly in line with its symbolic meaning without overt depiction, save that in this instance, its feminine rather than masculine form is presented.

The noose around the various minion depictions is also fascinating, especially in light of recent views that repeat the early 20th century view that these are loose and could be removed by the creatures were they to decide to. It seems that at least some early decks had these more as a leash - and hence not something intended to be able to be removed by the one thus tethered... an important observation!

Great thread to read, everyone!

Looking east...

Well, in the interest of wandering further afield....

I find the basic structure, proportions, composition, and geometry of some Indian bronzes very interesting.
Here are two images of Vishnu, Pala period, ca 11-12th century. (Left about 4 1/4" tall)

Lots of interesting features...

Thankyou OnePotato - only last Thursday, I mentioned to le Pendu that I had come across a bronze statue about 40 cm high that has significant relevance here - especially if going 'further afield'. As I did not have my camera handy at the time, I went back today to take a few quick shots.

It claims that this stems from the Incas, but find this rather incongruous with the design, and to me looks more from northern Indian influence. When I talked to the owner of the store today, she mentioned that the wholesaler predominantly imports from Tibet, so this may also be a clue as to its more likely provenance. As to date of the design, I am art this stage totally at a loss, but will be (slowly) following it up.

What is interesting (though the images do not adequately show the details) is that the 'wings' here have eyes as they are also Cobras, and the faces on the breasts, abdomen and knees all recall aspects of this card - perhaps I should have posted these in the 'main' XV - the Devil thread, but am simply being carried along by this fascinating discussion.

Anyhow - here are three images:

I read somewhere recently - but I can't for the life of me recall exactly where - that the Devil Tarot images with faces and eyes derived from India. The statue seems to add credence to that theory. The Church, so the story went, regarded images such as these and other forms of hybrid creatures from the mythology and lore of "pagan" lands to be terrifying and evil.

Now that's gonna drive me crazy till I remember where I read that.

Thanks OnePotato for posting the images from the four decks! They're fantastic, and I personally really appreciate when others contribute images to the discussion.

The Burdel is interesting, I would assume the flower is there for modesty reasons.. but the cresents on the breasts really are interesting aren't they?

The Gassman looks very similar to the Besancon images. I agree it's interesting how the images contain the same basic iconography, with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) changes.

I LOVE the Lamperti!!! What an incredible image. With it we're starting to see some of that mixing going on. It looks a bit like several of the other images all mixed together. I love the outreached hand, and the incredible quality of the human face. I love that the wings have circles/eyes. It's very odd to see how the minions seem to be holding up the platform. What an great, great card.

The Strambo is intersting too. Here the face has returned to the belly, and the Devil has a trident! The bar on his cheest is VERY strange, I wonder what it could possibly mean, if anything.

Great contributions, thank you!!