The Devil In The Deck

Rosanne

I have been reading A Cultural History of Tarot by Helen Farley.
In the section on the Devil after explaining that the Devil is the only card not represented in the 15th Century hand-painted cards; and various reasons by different scholars why not, she writes…

Unless a hand-painted example of the Devil comes to light, the only way to determine whether a such a card possibly existed is to examine Renaissance attitudes to the Devil and to examine more modern interpretations of the symbolism on the card.

The problem remains, according to the author, “was evil personified in this way in Renaissance Art and if not, what did the ‘devilish’ figure represent?”
Then there is this statement…

From the ninth to the sixteenth century, depictions of the Devil in art were rare.

And..

Rather than portray the Devil, medieval artists preferred to depict the contest for a person’s soul as a battle between the Virtues and Vices and those that did exist usually expressed neither personality nor feeling.
Until the middle of the 15th Century, the Devil was usually portrayed as a microbe; hardly a worthy adversary of God, there was no literary tradition that portrayed the Devil and there was no pictorial tradition at all.

The author gives an extensive notes and cites various authors with each opinion.
I have read everything I can on this subject and I wonder if I have ground to dispute these statements.
Any ideas?

~Rosanne
 

Bernice

Until the middle of the 15th Century, the Devil was usually portrayed as a microbe; hardly a worthy adversary of God, there was no literary tradition that portrayed the Devil and there was no pictorial tradition at all.
Very odd, and very revealing if that's true. What pre-15th century pics of microbes exist? (I'm assuming that the author has used this word in a descriptive sense as I'm not sure 15th-cen used it.)

Unless of course..... the general population were still pagan at heart (no Devil).


Bee :)
 

Rosanne

I have linked a image painted in the Carlisle Cathedral in the early 14th Century.
also this one

http://www.paintedchurch.org/wenhast.htm

this says 1480 but lately it is thought it was earlier as it may have been in an Augustine Monastery.

I do not think this was supposed to be comic.

In this guise, the devil appeared as an essentially harmless and even comic creature.......As such the Devil appeared to be an ally of good, dealing with that which was too distasteful for God to consider.
(mouth of Hell)

~Rosanne
 

Attachments

  • Visconti 008.jpg
    Visconti 008.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 304

Melanchollic

I guess Helen Farley doesn't have a copy of Christian Iconography or The History of Christian Art in the Middle Ages Part 2 which has a whole chapter on Devils, one on Angels, and one on Death.

Great book. That's where I learned that Death was considered to be the bride of the Devil. Also that Death, the Devil, and the Fool were generally non-speaking roles in medieval theater and were used as comic relief. There seems to have been a common association between the three. They often share a similar design in tarot, like in the Vieville deck.

The Fool through Sin (XV) comes to permanent Death (of his soul), losing a place in the New Jerusalem (XXI).
 

Rosanne

Thanks Melanchollic!
I have quite a few books but not prepared to let them suffer in their spine :eek:
to put them in my scanner.
I am curious about the statement about no literary tradition........

~Rosanne
 

Rosanne

In conclusion, I believe that the Devil card was absent from early hand-painted Tarot decks as the idea of the Devil as a physical manifestation of Evil had not yet formed in the Renaissance psyche. Instead, God was assumed to have dominion over all his creation including the Devil. The Devil did not assume a physical form in the Renaissance consciousness until the middle of the sixteenth century.

There is much I like in this book and can verify- but this part about the Devil has me puzzled. I thought that Christianity recognised the source of Evil was Satan and personified him as that very early on.
~Rosanne
 

Melanchollic

Rosanne said:
Thanks Melanchollic!
I have quite a few books but not prepared to let them suffer in their spine :eek:
to put them in my scanner.
I am curious about the statement about no literary tradition........

~Rosanne

Then as now, the 'mass media' would have been far more influential than the literary elite. Then of course the 'mass media' was not TV or films, but live theater, and the Church had a good deal of control of the content. People of every class would know 'the Devil' when the saw him. Farley's premise is wrong I reckon.
 

Kenshin Gordon

Well, a very insightful and vivid interpretation of the Devil is the one presented in the book "The Great Inquisitor" by the great giant of the Russian author, Dostoyevsky.
 

Rosanne

Melanchollic said:
People of every class would know 'the Devil' when the saw him. Farley's premise is wrong I reckon.

I thought I was missing some intellectual debate about Demons versus Devils, something I did not understand about the Devil in the Renaissance. I kept thinking maybe I was wrong- hence the puzzlement.
Thank you.

~Rosanne