How old is the Devil?

[baba-prague]

I think that judging by the position of the Devil, it may be more that the two figures are trying to "hit" fortune with their boules, and the Devil is there to make sure that they don't turn fortune the way they expect. I think the glitt'ring toys may be the boules - but I honestly don't know enough about the iconography of these emblem books to do more than guess.

There is, by the way, also one in which the Devil tries to make off with the whole world in the back of his chariot - drawn by a goat and a sheep.

[baba-prague]

Ah ha - if in doubt read the book. The whole piece that goes with the picture is rather long, but here is an enlightening fragment of it:

The world's the jack; the gamesters that contend,
Are Cupid, Mammon: that judicious fiend,
That gives the ground, is Satan: and the bowls
Are sinful thoughts; the prize, a crown for fools.

[Huck]

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

Huck, how do you know that any of the surviving decks was made for a marriage?

The 1442 decks were to play with - no marriage in sight.
The 1449 deck was a gift to Marcello - no marriage.
The 1450 Francesco decks were requested to play with before Christmas.
The 1450 Florence reference says simply that "Triumph" is a permitted game.
The 1452 for Malatesta - no wedding it seems.
The 1454 (and others) decks for Borso - he never married.
The 1459 deck in Bologna doesn't imply a marriage.
Do any trionfi documents actually mention marriages?
Etc.

It seems definite for a German deck made in 1496 (children of Isabella + Ferdinand of Spain marry the children of Emperor Maxilimian), the suspected deck is shown at
http://wopc.co.uk/germany/sge.html
... well, we don't know the original document (and it are not Trionfi decks in Tarot style)

Also it's definite for the marriage of Emperor Maximilian with Bianca Maria Sforza in 1494 ... also we don't know the original documents, but the bride brought the cards from Milan, so somehow they MUST be Sforza cards, very likely in a Tarot style.

We've the marriage book from 1475 Camilla d'Aragon and Costanzo Sforza, as it seems there are 36 figures in Trionfi-style, but perhaps with more nearness to Minchiate than to later Tarot.

We've the marriage of Eleanor d'Aragon with Ercole d'Este in 1473and it is likely, that a Trionfi deck was made. It's not identified. Perhaps the Boiardo production has something to do with it, perhaps one of the Ferrarese deck that we know.

We think, that we've identified the marriage deck of 1468, Galeazzo Maria and Bona of Savoy. At this occasion we hear "that the room where the women eat" were decorated with a Trionfi playing scene and we hear, that Trionfi -playing was rare for Galeazzo Maria, but that he prefered juists, hunting, chess and tennis and his music capella (the male sense went into the big great and of course very expensive things, the female was a little more moderate and had its playing cards).
We guess, that this marriage deck was a mix of French cards and motifs and of well known Sforza cards (Bona lived before at the French court with her sister, the French queen).
We've a very intensiveTrionfi card production in 1454 in Ferrara (not in Milan) and we know of a marriage at the end of the year between an Este princess, Beatrice, and Tristano Sforza ... when we assume, that there was a Trionfi deck at the marriage (or some more), then it was the bride, which imported it.

We know of a marriage between Francesco Sforza and Bianca Maria in October 1441 and it is assumed, that the Cary-Yale was produced.

We know of the note of 1.1.1441 and the most logical explanation for it is, that the 14 figure were podced to form a marriage deck for a following marriage between Bianca Maria and Leonello (which never took place finally).

We know of a marriage between Filippo Maria Visconti and a Savoyan princess (1427/28) and it is assumed, that there were playing cards. In this context we know of a Savoyan law of 1430, that male persons were only allowed to play cards, when "they played with women" (which indirectly declares, that "playing cards were for women", mal persons of the courts had to play cess as "real men" do). We've to remember, that a German moral contemporary work counts chess playing between the 7 virtues of the knights; with the intention to teach the knights "strategy"; similar was Go in Japan game for the Samurai and forbidden to common people).

We know of the Michelino deck and we have the suspicion, that it was produced in 1425 to the Trionfo of Filippo Maria, which followed in context the birth of Bianca Maria which followed Filippo Maria's love affair with Bianca's mother. Not a real marriage deck, but somehow one in this (love) direction.

Furthermore we've a lot of additional highstanding female noted in playing card context:

1379 - 1383 Johanna of Brabant
1392 - 1397 and 1408 Isabella of Bavaria and Valentia Visconti (French court)
1422 - 1425 Parisina in Ferrara
1428 - 1432 wife of Alfonso of Aragon
1454 French queen, wife of CharlesVII
1467 next French queen, wife of Louis XI
in the 70's Caterina Sforza's husband
some German princesses

Do any trionfi documents actually mention marriages? Then why associate existing decks with them?

And if the Devil has no place, then why Death? Death was not invited to marriages either.

Well, I don't know, why it was necessary to do it with death. The 14 Bembo cards know a death in combination with the traitor and the stupidity, balanced by judgment (or "eternity") "outside of the other 10 cards".

Perhaps they didn't like that marriage joy jumped too high, always "thinking of the end".

Or there was just a not-icnographical element ... just a rule.

We've the fact, that playing card slang (at least in Germany) knows the expression "Schneider Schwarz" (translated "Cutter Black" ... actually just "Death"). It just means, that somebody didn't get a trick at all during the game, a common feature in actual play.
It might have been, that names, which found to existence as game features, finally found illustration on the cards.

Well, we know, that Karnöffel knew a "devil" ... (but we've no answer to the "since when?") .. so naturally we may suggest, that devil was also there ... but the simple fact and difference is, that we've early examples of the death cards and that we 've no examples of early devils.

[kwaw]

Originally Posted by firemaiden

Sorry for this Kwaw... but in French, L'amoureux means "the man who is in love", (equivalent of Italian "amoroso" or "innamorato"), but the French "L'amour" (as well as Italian "Amore) designates not only "Love" in general, but also Cupid. Many early cards are not titled "L'amoureux" but "Amore", so it works. (Sermones de ludo com aliis" -has "L'amore" in postion 7. Kaplan V I page xvi)

No need to be sorry... don't pretend to anything more than a vague recall of elementary school french and am happy to be corrected, don't understand how 'the man who is in love' differs that much from what I gave as I said 'the lover' specifying that as a masculine singular noun as such it must refer to the person in the middle [that is, the man].

From my vague recollection I recall [perhaps wrongly] that the article can also go before a word to indicate a concept in general [as in your example L'amour = Love]; the online dictionary here:

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/amoureux

gives for amoureux both 'lover' [refering to a man, the ending eux being masculine, ] but also 'love', thus perhaps the source of my error in thinking l'amoureux as well as 'the lover [male]' could also mean 'love' [given my poor understanding of the article rule, can it not do so here because of the masculine suffix?].

Cheers and thanks for the correction.
Kwaw

[Fulgour]

Originally Posted by firemaiden

How old is the Devil?

He appears to be getting older and older...

[kaspian]

Originally Posted by firemaiden

Well the whole thing is called the toys of Folly? Folly is demonstrated as gambling on love with the devil?

I rather take Folly to be the name of the figure on the wheel, holding the fool's cap -- the one that, as baba-prague notes, merely "reminds" us of Fortune.

"Follys glitt'ring Toys" (which we see around her in the image) are identified in the accompanying text: "...the bowls / Are sinful thoughts; the prize, a crown for fools."

[firemaiden]

[quote]

Originally Posted by kwaw

No need to be sorry... don't pretend to anything more than a vague recall of elementary school french and am happy to be corrected, don't understand how 'the man who is in love' differs that much from what I gave as I said 'the lover' specifying that as a masculine singular noun as such it must refer to the person in the middle [that is, the man].

That was not the correction - the correction is that l'amoureux does not mean "love". (Love is L'amour)

(From my vague recollection I recall [perhaps wrongly] that the article can also go before a word to indicate a concept in general [as in your example L'amour = Love]; the online dictionary here:

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/amoureux

gives for amoureux both 'lover' [refering to a man, the ending eux being masculine, ] but also 'love'.

- Oh I see! Kwaw, the dictionary definition here is victim of a typo! - the translation for "amoureux" reads "love" but it was intended to read "in love" - (see the usage definitions underneath). Amoureux meaning "in love" is an adjective. The definite article going before an adjective turns it into an adjectival noun - so amoureux - 'in love' becomes l'amoureux meaning "the one who is in love", and by extension, "lover", "sweetheart", etc.) - just as "heureux - 'happy' can be made into l'heureux, - "the one who is happy", "the jolly fellow" etc, (but it cannot mean "happiness"); similarly, barbu - "bearded" becomes le barbu - "the bearded one" but it cannot mean "beard".

Yet this is immaterial, you are right in substance, because it seems to me, the title of the card is more often "L'amour" (Love/Cupid) than "L'amoureux" (the in-love one).

[firemaiden]

Originally Posted by jmd

Perhaps the limp is a consequence of the single hoof, or the single hoof a consequence of needing to make sense of a limp (or mis-shapen foot).

What this again calls to mind is (Cf XV Le Diable) Hephaestus.

Oh yes!! Merci jmd! That is a wonderful connection! Hephaestus was supposed to be deformed and lame! yet he was also the god of fire - and as such associated with light! Haephestus as deformed man on a stick, could easily have fed iconography of both the devil and the old man.

(See this article which says "Homer describes Hephaestus as lame and walking with the aid of a stick.")

[Huck]

I guess, that the devil with the single hoof is a picture from northern of the Alps ... at least that's the form in common German devil stories, likely developed from an early Pan=devil identification in earlier times ?????

The common Tarot devil has feet like a bird, as it seems, and might be a prefered Italian picture ... I just guess, I don't have an background of art history in this question.