I Le Bateleur

catboxer

Diana:

Thanks for posting. I've been hoping some other people would jump into this thread.

The Tower is possibly the most interesting and complex trump, and is the exception that proves the rule, "trump subject matter was standardized early on." In the earliest days it had numerous names and a wide variety of depictions. It was sometimes called "Lightning," sometimes "The Arrow," sometimes "The Thunderbolt," and sometimes "The Fire." "The House of the Devil," "The House of the Damned," and simply "The House" were also used in the early days. There are a couple of versions (I haven't seen them) which show sinners being dragged into hell's mouth by devils.

The Marseille card finally enshrined the standard iconography, and appropriately enough it adapted the pictorial elements of the earliest known version of the card, that in the Carey-Yale deck. Decker et. al. believe that the name "Maison Dieu" was used "through a misunderstanding" of the card's meaning, but considering how much pictorial and titling variation there was, I'm not sure that's a legitimate conclusion, since this was the last card to be "finalized," as it were. Those same authors also say the card might have originally been a reference to purgatory (p. 46).

You're absolutely right about The Magician (I guess this is where we kick off the card-by-card discussion). I've always thought of him as the sort of low-level trickster you'd run into at a county fair, rather than a magus.

Modern tarotists insist that the object on the juggler's table are symbols of the four suits; thus, when Luigi Scapini was commissioned to do the "replacement" Bagatto card for the Carey-Yale deck, he dutifully included the suit signs. Personally, I have never seen anything in the early versions of the card, up to and including the various Marseilles versions, that supports this occultic assumption. The various items on the tables of the assorted "magicians" in the early tarots look like nothing more than the tools of the trade to me.

Dave B
(Catboxer)
 

catboxer

I suppose all that three-legged stuff derives from Bonifacio Bembo's Magician in the Visconti-Sforza deck, which was probably the first Magician (at least I think it was).

The table in this picture is weird. It looks like some kind of folding, portable apparatus that this dude can carry around with him. On the end closest to the viewer there are one regular table leg and this forked, maybe foldable double leg. Another forked leg is at the end farthest from the viewer, holding up that end by itself.

On the table there's a knife and a cup or tumbler. There are also a couple of things that might be little white cubes of some kind, or little stacks of coins. The old Bagatto is holding a reedy-looking stick. Then there's this really strange white thing at the end of the table -- who knows what it is? It could be another hat (this guy is wearing an outrageous hat already, on top of a kerchief), or a wedding cake, or a whatever-it-is.

If the table is portable, the cube he's sitting on isn't. It's big and heavy, and ornately decorated.

Why three legs? Who knows? It might mean something. On the other hand, it might be apropos of nothing at all; just happened to be the way Bembo decided to compose the picture.

Dave B
(Catboxer)
 

jmd

thankyou Diana and catboxer!!!

On the last post of the previous page, Diana mentions that the Marseilles deck is, for her, the only 'true' deck.

What is it about this deck which leads so many of us to a similar conclusion? In my case, what I have previously said implies as much, for if I judge the accuracy of a deck by its verisimilitude to the Marseilles... thus I must, in some way, give this deck a particular status somehow above others (I know... in French it is spelt 'Marseille', and in Spanish 'Marsella'... but even French sites use the final 's' on their English versions...).

This does, however, pose a problem... which has been really effectively argued by Catboxer, and which I do not think any of us have effectively presented a suitable response. The essence of the problem, if I may try to re-iterate it, is that there are a number of early representations of decks which are unarguably Tarot, but which show differences in either iconography or numbering. Further, there are other decks of the period which, though not properly classified as Tarot (Montegna decks, as an example), have a definite apparent connection to the Tarot.

I'll have to pick this up again later! and I guess that my answer will in no way satisfy the historian in me... and thus even less the historian in another.
-----------------

With regards to the three legs of the table, and Diana's mention of the three pillars, it is interesting that there are three pillars in Freemasonry: the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian (two others, the Tuscan and the Composite, are mentioned, but not exhibited in a standard Lodge room).

I too have found it interesting that only three are usually depicted, and concur with Catboxer that it may just be the way the image was composed...

Could this, however, have deeper significance (I guess that catboxer and I would here possibly have to disagree, for, myself not being a Jungian in orientation, I am more likely to see the image arising from some spiritual domain and impulse working itself out through the artist, rather than merely the mind of the interpreter being open to numerous possibilities)?

The three pillars mentioned above then become of intrinsic importance to the card. The Magician (by this and all other names... and I personally do like its title as 'Bateleur')... stands behind the rectangular table, under which are the three pillars. Italian Masonry still uses a table and three pillars (the table has been replaced by the Mosaic floor in other Masonic constitutions). The tools of the worker are thereon displayed, of which, to my eye, the most significant is the ambiguous item which Catboxer has called possibly a 'hat'... but which to me, especially in the Noblet deck, clearly looks like a book... also referred to as the V.S.L.! (Cf the attachment)

I also find that, even if one does not accept the Kabbalistic input into the design of the deck (which I personally do not), I still find it esoterically significant that in this card (but not others), the depiction of the upper torso of the magician, together with his arms, hands and, most significantly, his meagre wand, replicate the form of the first Hebrew number-letter Alef (1).

With regards to the Visconti-Sforza deck, it is also very interesting that a book, made for the young Sforza count, includes a depiction of Mercury which includes a top section duplicating the Magician card of the Visconti-Sforza deck. I had mentioned this in another thread (p2 of that thread, in which I give bibliographic details), and, to my knowledge, has not before been noticed by historians.
--------
Here, then, are all the ingredients which make for all the fascinating aspects of the Magician, working with his tools, in order to become Master with them. As master, he may then undoubtedly dazzle and dupe those around him, but also, hopefully, his moral rectitude will also be such than his link with the ineffable (as can be 'imposed' as one of the meanings of his lemniscatory hat), that further progress will be possible.
 

Attachments

  • noblet.jpg
    noblet.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 415

catboxer

jmd:

As usual, you've given me more than enough to think about, as well as forcing me to hit the books. Taking part in this kind of conversation is hard work, but the best exercise there is for a perennial student.

First of all, I concur wholeheartedly with your observations about the Magician's Mercurial associations. If there's one thing that all Renaissance Europeans, regardless of class, knew about, it was Greek and Roman classical mythology. It was the one ingredient in the cultural "soup" of the period that approached Christianity in importance. The gods and heroes of the ancients were without a doubt incorporated as pictorial elements into the trumps. They might be the single most important element.

Being ignorant of the origins of formal, organized Masonry, I can't really evaluate your comments about the significance of the table's three legs. I did go looking on the net for the origins of Freemasonry and found -- a can of worms. That topic looks to be more contentious, complicated, and loaded with arcane nonsense than discussions of the tarot. But I was able to determine that as an established organization, Masonry seems to have emerged from the medieval European guilds. Since Bembo and the artists who followed in his footsteps were almost certainly guildsmen, your argument has merit. I'll keep digging.

I solved that "how many legs?" problem with my Bagatto by jamming the front edge of the table up against the picture frame, so the viewer looks down and across its surface and the legs are invisible. Damn, I wish I knew how to post my cards to this place. Can anyone out there help me (I'm on PC, not Mac)?

I don't see the infinity sign in the hat, but maybe it's there. If so, that pictorial device began with the early Marseille decks. But Noblet's Magician's hat just looks like a hat to me.

The "object" on the Visconti-Sforza card is -- well, it's definitely not a book. On the Noblet card you posted I see: three cups, possibly leather; three coins, or a string of coins; three dice, a knife, a large red pencil, a book or pamphlet, and behind the book, possibly a red ball. The association of these objects with the suit signs is extremely tenuous at best. The Magician is also holding something that looks like either an asparagus spear or a very small dildo. Interesting.

Hebrew letters? Certainly, there were gentile language scholars in Italy and France who had Hebrew as well as Latin and Greek. Your conclusions about the Kabbalah are sound; Dummett and the others have cited the publication dates of key works which show that there was no Christian awareness of Kabbalah until after the invention of the game of tarot. So I would have to say that I believe the number of trumps coinciding with the number of Hebrew letters is a happy accident. At least it's happy for occultists, not so happy for skeptics like me who feel like there's never enough evidence to say "for sure."

Finally, I would like to call your attention once more to pages 286-287 of Kaplan, v. II, and the remarkable uncut sheet of tarots shown and described there, for I think this (from about 1550) may be the parent of all the Marseille decks. Besides being much better drawn and executed than other woodblock decks of the same period, its six whole trumps and 12 partials are enough to show the emergence of the Marseille iconography. French military adventurism in northern Italy was probably responsible for the export of this Lombard pattern to France.

The Magician in this deck stands before a small, four-legged desk and wears one of those Italian caps that looks like an inverted leather cup. Holding two indecipherable objects, and having another object on his back, the position of his arms and hands, along with the protuberance behind him, make his uppor torso appear as the letter "A." He is oriented to our right, his left.

What are the dates of the French military incursions into Lombardy?

As always, it's a pleasure...

Dave B
(Catboxer)

P.S. Check out the painting "The Conjurer," by Hieronymous Bosch.
 

jmd

Ah yes... not only to be a perennial student, but a student of the perennial... that is hard work indeed. But isn't such labour rewarding?!!

My comments regarding Freemasonry were not meant to be taken as historically significant for the depiction of the Magician... though there may be some connection here of which I am certainly unaware (for example, either this or any other card may have aspects which reflect peculiar aspects of either ritualistic or allegorical peculiarities of a small closed social group).

The pillars and Masonic exegesis was meant to be just that, a modern-day reflection which certainly adds another dimension when one also realises that Italian Masonry uses a table, around which are three pillars, and on which may be displayed the working tools and sacred Book...

Of course, the lemniscatory-type hat was certainly not present in many early decks. The fragmented sheet which you mention (from p286 of Kaplan's Encyclopedia of Tarot: vol.2) certainly does not display such a hat... but even there, one observes a head-dress with rich initiatory symbolism, for it certainly is reminiscent of the Mithraic cap!

I realise the claim for this woodcut page is mid-16th century... I wonder, however, how accurately some of these dates are. Personally, I have found some of the pages which follow this one even more fascinating, especially p291 and the Pluto-Fool partial figure!

I'll have to add to this later...
 

Kaz

magician

kaz
 

Attachments

  • bagattel.jpg
    bagattel.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 294

jmd

Thanks for posting the images Kaz. One can see easily why such decks are not truly Marseilles, despite their beauty and some similiarities. Please continue to do these attachments, as they are very useful for comparisons.

It is of course really interesting to note that, whether one calls the person magician or something else, he is, in all early decks, depicted with the basics of the tools of his 'trade'... and these outlayed on a table of some sort.

Also, and again, glad that you have joined the otherwise lone voices of catboxer, Diana and myself in this so evocative discussion.
 

Jewel

Fascinating! Thank you guys so much for starting this group. Although I am one of those who loves combining the Tarot and Qabalah I agree fullheartedly that the Tarot is not based on the Qabalah and that occultists were the ones that "created" (for lack of a better word) the association.

You guys have really made me interested in the Marseilles deck, so since you are responsible for that I would like to enlist your assistance in getting the best Marseilles deck I can that is affordable *LOL*. Please help me out. That way, although I cannot contribute much I can at least follow better. I want to see that 3 legged table before I say something totally stupid, because as you discussed that and the letter Aleph I started wondering. And no do not worry I am not going to try and fit the Qabalah into the Marseilles, I am simply curious if perhaps some of the imagery is what might have potentially sparked the idea in the first place. I think we can safely thank the Golden Dawn for that one *LOL*.
 

jmd

With regards to thanking the Golden Dawn, yes... and it can thank one of its founders, McKenzie, for bringing this correlation back from his visit to Eliphas Levi in 1861 in Paris (over 20 years prior to the GD's formation)... of course, the GD then made some changes, so that the continental 'tradition' and the English-speaking tradition are at variance (Alef begins the series, but does the series begin at the Fool or the Magician?)

There is also a claim that the first Kabbalistic correlation was made prior to Levi, but I do not have my books handy, and cannot remember who made that claim nor who made the supposed connection.

With regards to a recommended deck, I would definitely get either the Conver or Dodal whilst these reproductions are still in print. My favourite, however, remains, at this stage, the 1998 Camoin.