firecatpickles
I think the significance of the mitten shows that the little girl is the one selling the cups and giving them to the little boy:spoonbender said:That may be true, but I don't think that's what's going on with the Six of Cups. If you examine the whole card, something's just not right: (a quick sum up for those who haven't read the thread Jmd referred to)Thirteen said:In the Western world we go OVERBOARD putting sinister spins on things, because we live in a climate of fear.
- A guard is walking away from the scene. Things are obviously happening here outside of the 'protected', official area.
- Why does the smaller figure show no sign of taking the cup offered? She's holding one of her arms under her scarf, as if she's really refusing to take the cup. And she has a white mitten on her other hand. Someone said that "the wearing of white gloves by Freemasons is a symbol of purity, preventing unwitting and direct contact with anything unclean." And that little girl couldn't carry that cup, it's way bigger than she is!
- And what about that second face in the hair of the girl? A face that's looking toward the ground, facing away from the taller person.
- Also notice that noone on the card is smiling--happy and joyful, I think not!
- The guard is not walking away from the scene as much as he is patrolling the scene -he is on guard duty. He has a walking stick, or weapon, not only to protect the entrance (who is going to guard an exit??) but to beat time for all within earshot to hear.
- The smaller figure had just given the cup to the larger:
- She is releasing the chalice, having had been holding it from the cup (above the node) and the receiver had just accepted it by grasping the stem (below the node).
- The fact the little girl has the gloves on supports this in that she doesn't want to get fingerprints all over the merchandise she is hocking
- She is not carrying the cup, just lifting it for the purchaser.
- I'm sorry I do not see "the second face."
- I see both characters "smiling," well, as much as one could while working (whistling, perhaps, since one of them is a drawf? <hehehe>)
Are we reading too much into the mitts? Maybe, maybe not.
But the fact that most of us "automatically" assume that the little girl is the receiver of the goods, based on our "modern" concept of a passive-aggressive/dominant-submissive paradigm, is a mistake. I do not believe in proof-texting.
It makes more sense to me that: 1) The seller of the goods is protecting herself from scratching or smudging her merchandise with gloves; 2) the littel girl is there to sell, lifting the heavy objects for her customer, she being in control; 3) the guard is protecting the entrance, not the exit, to the bazaar (in which the peasant girl is working); and 4) she is the one who obviously needs the money, dressed in mismatched clothing, selling the wares to the more affluent, older child who is wearing the fancy red velvet hood of the scholar.
I think our tendency to assume that the bigger of the two is controlling the action not only puts a modern spin on this card (i.e. proof-texting it), but also it, as Thirteen points out, puts a sinister spin that necessarily neede not be there at all...
KK