History of the High Priestess

[HANDMAIDEN MI]

Definately Helvetica!

If the High Priestess represents the inner self, and she has the book, and is the gate, then the self... as we are confronted with something that is tricking us (Trickster) something that is throwing us off a platform (Tower) something that is a sure and real element in our lives, then she/our self having this intuition can recognize the archetypes in play and PLAY back. The goal of the psychic is to view the past/command the present/see the future so we can.... have the big benefits. But I do wonder if the Book of Life is the same exact thing as the Akashik Records? As in a rose by any other name is still a rose?

Ms. Ae

[roppo]

Another "triple crowned pope-like female figure" from the fabulous world of Rosary Confraternity of late 15th century. Scanned and uploaded as before.

http://www7.ocn.ne.jp/~elfindog/rospic.htm

(but this time I am not sure of the gender of the figure...I believe it is female...anyway, picture-rosary might be quite interesting!)

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by roppo

Another "triple crowned pope-like female figure" from the fabulous world of Rosary Confraternity of late 15th century. Scanned and uploaded as before.

http://www7.ocn.ne.jp/~elfindog/rospic.htm

(but this time I am not sure of the gender of the figure...I believe it is female...anyway, picture-rosary might be quite interesting!)

Thanks roppo!

It *is* difficult to tell the gender in these engravings sometimes... most of the 15th century Popes were unbearded, and every one since then, I think.

The Imperial figure behind, also holding a rosary, is unbearded (Imperial is clear from the crown), and then the Royal behind (from the "regular" kind of crown) it is also unbearded. I would say that all three of them are allegories - for Church, Empire and Kingdom(s) respectively - and all are portrayed as female, typical for these allegories.

Did you see the 15th century Pope Joans (no babies) I posted earlier?

[roppo]

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

The Imperial figure behind, also holding a rosary, is unbearded (Imperial is clear from the crown), and then the Royal behind (from the "regular" kind of crown) it is also unbearded. I would say that all three of them are allegories - for Church, Empire and Kingdom(s) respectively - and all are portrayed as female, typical for these allegories.

Did you see the 15th century Pope Joans (no babies) I posted earlier?

Hi Ross!
I'm glad you liked the figure. Your words that those are allegories are very convincing -- all powers under the grace of the Virgin and rosary.

Of course I appreciated your Pope Joans. I realized the Joan-legend had much more influences than I had thought. Thank you very much!

[wandking]

I've learned a great deal from the many well-informed researchers that posted on this board. Is there any interest in doing the same type of board for other cards? History of The Fool would certainly spark some debate. The Magician is another image that has changed radically over the years.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by wandking

I've learned a great deal from the many well-informed researchers that posted on this board. Is there any interest in doing the same type of board for other cards? History of The Fool would certainly spark some debate. The Magician is another image that has changed radically over the years.

Of course - I'd be interested in any iconographical study. I haven't delved too deeply into many myself, however, and I am painfully aware of what we can't see - an exhaustive, or even relatively full, presentation of mid-15th century iconography from the cities where the earliest cards were made. So I just present what I come across, and study what I can.

My richest source to date has been the printers' marks I have been finding - although they are later than the earliest tarot images, they are contemporary to the early Marseille tarots and I am persuaded that they show how this kind of imagery was used in the tarot. With this information, it is easier to search for near-contemporary - and pre-printing-press - images which might help shed light on how people circa 1450 saw and used them.

The only card I've studied in any depth besides the Papessa is the Bagatella. I am convinced he represents a Praestigiator, Italian Prestigiatore, French Bateleur (duh), an illusionist or table top conjurer. The French term was broader, and could mean a performer on a larger scale, doing acrobatics for example. I think the imagery in all of the tarots reflects the same kind of figure presented in the "Children of the Planets" paintings and engravings from the 15th and early 16th centuries. I have compared the earliest tarot Bagatelle and these pictures at
http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot/bagatella.html

Of course the name "bagatella" DOESN'T mean "bateleur" - this is another question, and I think the answer explains the image perfectly. A "bagatella" is what the figure is *doing*, not the name for the performer. This meaning for bagatella died out in the 15th century. A "bagatella" is also, and foremost, a term meaning "the least valuable thing" or "a trifle", "a pittance". So this explains why the lowest card - a pittance - also shows a bagatella being performed - it is a visual play on words. How should one show the lowest trump, called the "bagatella" in the game? By using the other primary meaning for the word - a magic trick (foremost, the cup and balls routine, gioco di bussolotti, jeu de gobelets).

So obviously, I think the imagery on the trumps presupposes the rules of the game (i.e. a card named "the trifle" or "the pittance"), and either they were invented together, or the rules came first and somebody had the bright idea to make *pictures* of a trump series.

I have also found two pictures of the Empress as a personification of "Empire" in some of the books I've catalogued, but I haven't been able to scan them yet. They are perfect matches for her, although they come from a few centuries later than the tarot images.

Then "The World" figure, which I think represents a Fortuna-Opportunity figure, figures prominently in printers' marks.

For the series as a whole, I have found some compelling printer's marks which show complex allegories that in short form tell the same "story" as the tarot series. It's about Fortune and Virtue, more or less.

Not much different than the "esoteric" understanding - minus the legendary historical origin -; it shows how some of our life is determined by chance, and some of it by the choices we make. How we choose to live our lives and seize opportunity when it arises, never losing sight of the fact that in the big scheme of things, there are some things we can't change.

[wandking]

"some of our life is determined by chance, and some of it by the choices we make. How we choose to live our lives and seize opportunity when it arises, never losing sight of the fact that in the big scheme of things, there are some things we can't change." I'd say a bit of The Magician is alive in you!

[wandking]

how do I start a thread? I've tried it once and did it wrong, since it ended up in the wrong thread group. Let's go with The Magician, if that's ok, with all you people... Like the High Priestess, the juggler has undergone some pretty dramatic changes since the Renaissance.

[wandking]

Okay gang I started a thread called "Who historically put magic in The Magician" I think it was Levi who first portrays him as the master of a mystical craft, instead of just a simple illusionist. Does anyone know of an earlier written or graphic representation that suggests the figure on this card works in high magic?

[Scion]

Originally Posted by wandking

In the RWS High Priestess, "TORA" is written on the scroll, some say it's short for Torah, others state it comes from Levi playing with the letters to make TORA(H) and ROTA (Wheel) out of TARO(T). Neither notion appeals to me... does anyone have other ideas about the book or scroll in her lap?

This may seem insanely dense, but the literacy rates in the 15th century were.. um... low. In fact, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but (the patriarchy being what it was) literacy rates for women were even lower. Formalized education doesn't start to get a toehold until the Renaissance, and certainly not for commoners. One of the reasons for the beautiful sculptural and decorative features in Medieval churches was the low literacy rate. The Church needed an easy way to convey complicated information to an illiterate population. It was an oral culture that had much more in common with classical antiquity than the modern world. Memory was an altogether different beast for the Medieval mind. (c.f. anything by the incomparable Frances Yates)

That BOOK! In those pre-Gutenberg days, the Church itself was one of the only repositories of recorded knowledge and used that fact to control the flow of information. In fact, much of what we know as the great works of classical antiquity, and were being rediscovered in Europe after they were rediscovered in the Middle East by merchants and mercenaries. Also worth remembering that one of Luther's big boo-boos was arguing that people didn't need priests to read and interpret scripture. The image of a woman holding a book would mean something VERY different than it does to a literate 21st century tarotphile.

More than wondering WHAT book it is, I think it's highly significant that it IS a book. Out of all of the allegorical possibilities, the Papess is given a book! For those looking for pagan resonance, it does recall several powerful females of letters and education in any number of pantheons. For some reason I have an urge to mention the Black Madonnas scattered around Europe and the related traditions, but I think that this is just the human desire for a simple answer at work in me at 4 am. So that leaves me with the argument that the card is a symbolic representation of an abstract idea or organization: the Church as repository of knowledge. But then, why name it Papesse? Then why place it so early in the series with such a low value in the game of Triumphs?!?

When looking at the past, it's a good idea to remember that the relative freedom of information and liquidity of thought and word is a recent development (or redevelopment, depending on how you feel about the ancients ). One thing to remember is that language and history are a corrosive combo. In a medieval Catholic culture, religion had a very limited vocabulary associated with it. If you needed to describe, say, Buddhism, to a medieval peasant, you'd have to wrestle mightily with their religious language (and the embedded ideology) before you could express "ahimsa" or even the notion of "anatta" clearly. "Pope" meant very specific things to those folks, and a gender switch would have been deeply shocking. What if the term "Papesse" was simply the only way to describe some religious figure/idea at the time in one word because no other language existed to describe it? What things or people would you name "Papesse" for a 15th century audience because it would make the most sense to them?

I know that doesn't answer the question, but it might provide grist for future research... And I still wonder about that Book.

Scion