Foundation of the Empress type

[DianeOD]

Known to Latin world as Cassiopeia. Arabic title usually rendered as "The Lady with a Chair" actually the term 'chair' is kursiyy which means the chair on which the legal expert sits and decides cases.

There was a woman jurist recorded in early Islam.

The 'coins in her lap' are nicely put into a bag, and the star 'shield' which exactly marks her lap translated into an heraldic shield quite early in western imagery on card. Interesting that the pronounced, high curve of her arm is sometimes kept tho'.

Properly she should probably be Empress, as counterpart for the Emperor, Cepheus. In western packs it seems clear that the relative closeness to North - i.e. superiority/closeness to heaven- had political overtones, so packs are clearly categorised into those which have the Bootes-Cassiopeia as Pope-and High priestess, with Cepheus-Andromeda as Emperor-Empress (pro papal) and those which use the reverse identifications (pro-Emperor).

In the cheap, mass-produced packs, too, and probably for reasons of reference to classical myth which speak of Juno as being a chained 'Queen of Heaven' this character as Empress or as High priestess is again - in particular lines of pack - supposed Andromeda, whose description is "the woman in chains".

In general, the western iconography on cards gets confused pretty early, on this issue of the woman on the kursiyy, and its title referring to the 'chair of judgement' leads to the inclusion of both an empress and a 'Justice' (as Libra), putting into the non-zodiacal series of Atouts, a figure from the 12-series of the monthly constellations. This has occurred by the time that our current rescension of the Charles VI cards was formed.

Don't know if this will be helpful for present topics under discussion - maybe.

 

[jmd]

Though this is a wonderful stellar representation of a similar form to the Empress in early decks, there are also distinct differences.

It may perhaps be more accurate to see in Cassiopeia (or this representation of the same) part of the same common image inheritance from which both tarot and astrology drew.

Some of the points you mention, for example the distinction between Justitia and the Empress, adds weight to the two, and Cassiopeia, being distinct, even though visually similar.

 

[DianeOD]

Subject matter and style of iconography distinct

It may perhaps be more accurate to see in Cassiopeia (or this representation of the same) part of the same common image inheritance from which both tarot and astrology drew.

Yes. exactly. Of the three, the astronomical corpus and characterisations are of course the oldest, and provides, as I say, the source of the later figures put onto western cards - I mean the earlier western atout imagery.

On astrology connected at this time to the so-called 'fixed stars' - Peter of Abano is critical, but also I think Manilius very much to the point, because the text had been rediscovered a couple of times in western scholarship, but would be particularly revived by the neo-Platonic crew, and finally published in printed form by regiomontanus etc.

Its text has informed the formation of the Charles VI cards. The Visconti-Sforza appear to me to rely most heavily on a more conventional source: Aratus.

But in the end, when a mathematician addresses our game rules, I think we'll find that the Toledo and Marseilles tables and related calculations are central to the whole business of mass producing cards like these.

PS I do think its fair enough to distinguish the study of particular strands of iconography from the matter of the original subject-matter, and its transmission and descent. I mean - if you get a bizarre version of an elephant, its still fair enough to see who uses that same kind of image, accurate or otherwise.

 

[DianeOD]

Character conferred by Empress - as Cassiopeia

from Manilius

straight from scan. Sorry, no time to correct ocr's errors:

ASTRONOMICA, 5. 504-5~8
504When, after the appearance of twenty degrees of the watery youth, Cassiopea rises on his right, she will produce goldsmiths who can turn their work into a thousand different shapes, endow the precious substance with yet greater value, and add thereto the vivid hue of jewels. From Cassiope come the gifts of Augustus which gleam in the temples he consecrated,b where the blaze of gold rivals the sun's brightness and the fires of gems flash forth light out of shadow. From Cassiope come the memorials of Pompey's triumph of old (note c) and the trophies which bear the features of Mithridates (note d): they remain ," to this very day, spoils undimmed by the passage of time, their sparkle as fresh as ever. From Cassiope come the enhancement of beauty and devices for' adorning the body: from gold has been sought the means to give grace to the appearance; precious stones have been spread over head, neck, and hands; and golden chains have shone on snow-white feet. What products would a grand lady like Cassiope prefer her sons to handle rather than those she could turn to her own employments? And that material for such employment should not be lacking, she bids men look for gold beneath the ground, uproot all which nature stealthily conceals, and turn earth upside down in search of gain; she bids them detect the treasure in lumps of ore and finally, for all its reluctance, expose it to a sky it has never seen. The son of Cassiope will also count greedily the yellow sands, and drench a dripping beach with a new ...

Notes to this section:
c His third triumph, over Mithridates, whose collection of jewels is mentioned by Pliny, N.H. 37.11 if.
a Images of Mithridates are mentioned by Appian, Bell.
Mithr. 116 f. " In the temple of Capitoline Jupiter.
p.343
---- next page ---

ASTRONOMICA, 5. 529-555
flood; he will make small weights to measure the tiny grains, or else will collect the wealth of gold-foaming Pactolus; or he will smelt lumps of silver, separating the hidden metal and causing the mineral to flow forth in a running stream; otherwise he will become a trader of the metals produced by these two craftsmen, ever ready to change coinage of the one metal into wares of the other. Such are the inclinations which Cassiope will fashion in those born under her.

538There follows the constellation of Andromeda, whose golden light appears in the rightward sky when the Fishes have risen to twelve degrees. ..

I'm guessing that the 'golden grains' from the earth, were identified also in the west with those of wheat...

 

[jmd]

Perhaps, in my brevity, I was a little unclear.

I would rather suggest the inverse to what is being suggested: the concept and understanding of an Empress is presupposed in being able to organise asterisms in the form of an Empress.

If not Empress, then the concept a seated figure is required to see into the asterism a seated figure.

To jump from seated figure of Cassiopeia as seen in a stellar pattern to a representation of Empress on card image, given that this latter would reflect a common social understanding, is more likely, if at all, to be a later imposition.

Just to preclude a misunderstanding, I am aware that astrological imagery occurs far earlier than does tarot. Similarly, Ancient Mesopotamian, and Ancient Egyptian, as well as Classical Greek, late antiquity, and Roman representations all arise before tarot. This does not make any of them tarot 'foundations', but rather feed into the European cultural soil out of which later imagery, including cathedral carvings and tarot, arise - without making these latter ones actually causally derived from astrological imagery that themselve derive from fluctuating common stock.

 

[Rosanne]

If not Empress, then the concept a seated figure is required to see into the asterism a seated figure.

Asterism (astronomy), a pattern of stars
Asterism (gemmology), an optical phenomenon
Asterism (typography), a rarely used symbol
I guess you are meaning a pattern of stars.

Just to preclude a misunderstanding, I am aware that astrological imagery occurs far earlier than does tarot. Similarly, Ancient Mesopotamian, and Ancient Egyptian, as well as Classical Greek, late antiquity, and Roman representations all arise before tarot. This does not make any of them tarot 'foundations', but rather feed into the European cultural soil out of which later imagery, including cathedral carvings and tarot, arise - without making these latter ones actually causally derived from astrological imagery that themselve derive from fluctuating common stock.

I understand what you are saying jmd- but what I find hard to work out is what/when is a 'Foundation' for any card? Where do you think one should start? For example the Empress is often seen as the 'Queen of Heaven'. At what point did this become a model and stop being something from the cultural soil of the time? ~Rosanne

 

[OnePotato]

I understand what you are saying jmd- but what I find hard to work out is what/when is a 'Foundation' for any card? Where do you think one should start? For example the Empress is often seen as the 'Queen of Heaven'. At what point did this become a model and stop being something from the cultural soil of the time? ~Rosanne

Ya, I think I agree with Rosanne and DianeOD here.

Once you see the archaic sky laid out in the deck, it's hard to go back.
I put it all in my deck.

 

[DianeOD]

Empress and Venus

And Cassiopeia is the only 'Queen' of the heavens.
....
In relation to the 'other' woman, though

I do wish I could show you some of the wonderful 'Venus' figures in medieval monastic art. They show the woman of the South as the hard-pressed female, mother of all, at the far south of the sky/sea.

She has an elongated neck, long tendrils of hair - sometimes which also bind her to her 'sea-bed' as great shell. Irish influence puns on the words for tendrils (of hair) idhe, thus making her [one of ?] the sidhe.

She becomes the 'Queen of Babylon' on her hard sone bed by the time of Norwich, and our dear Fortitude - sometimes with the broken southern Pole, in later imagery. In a set of cards called the Guildhall she is - naturally enough - Persephone, shown with her mother..

Look, j: I realise that you have some real, deep-down objection to this identification of the Atout figures on card as ones based on long-established astronomical figures. What I don't understand is - why.

It fits, historically. It fits texts that were of contemporary interest and use. It fits what we know of scientific needs re knowledge of Arabic stars. Both Muslim and Chrsitian 'characters' for the stars fit these forms - at least the best are the clearest. Posited uses - whether as calculation tools or as mnemonic 'speaking cards' - fit the times, habits and what we know of the western European culture at that time.... so I don't understand what the historical objection is, tho' you seem to feel so passionately it *cannot* be so.

At the very least, do admit - its not less likely than the several most often used esoteric association-series used to interpret the old imagery on cards, is it?

 

[jmd]

Instead of talking of 'objection' as though the suggestion brought was established, let's have a look at what is being claimed, and the support for the claims.

Personally, I have absolutely no problems with anyone finding and presenting imagery that matches similar ones on tarot. At the very least, my posts and presentations on Cathedral petroglyphs should bear this out. Also, for the sake of pointing other interests out, these past Newsletters should suffice: from 2003 'Iraqi Archeological Remnants and possible influences on the Tarot'; and from earlier this year (2007) 'When the Devil is not the Devil'.

Through many posts within these very threads (many much older ones), I also point to other early depictions or writings that are of interest because of various similarities, including some of of Romanised Isis and the Empress, Hapi and the Star, the pseudo-infancy gospels, Plato's three parts of the Soul, and various others that do not come to mind instantly.

There is quite a difference between saying something like: here is an image that bears some similarity to - let's say in this case given the thread - the Empress, and, alternatively, here is the foundation for the card.

What has not as yet been shown beyond reasonable doubt is that there are intrinsic connections between maps of the period that of course will use imagery that bears striking similarity (how can it not if of the period!?) or whether the cards themselves are related to stellar or terrestrial maps.

It is this latter that has been claimed, but not supported by evidence other than something akin to: "look, here is another partial similarity... therefore it must be the case" (excuse the crassness of the sentence, but in substance, this is how much of what I have seen presented looks).

These similarities are interesting, and personally enjoy finding, investigating, and exegeting (as far as I can) such imagery. It is precisely those and other finds that makes myriad avenues open for further investigation and reflection. What they do not do, however, is bring closure to sources for the deck, especially when investigation of the maps and its imagery reveals more dissimilarity for the whole (individual card design perhaps excepted) than cohesion and similarity.

'Long established' astronomical figures have of course themselves changed with time (even by the period we are specifically looking at if looking into the sources), but even if that was not so, the various allegories of planets and asterisms form but one of the cultural strata out of which tarot emerges. To claim, out of the social-political spectrum in existence of the times that the foundation for the empress type is the stellar form of the legend of Cassiopeia when depictions of the office of the Empress was there for all to see and be affected by, seems to not seeing what is 'obvious' - coinage and myriad images of the office bear this out.

The same question, then, can be asked back, literally (altering only the composition of the question):

Look, D: I realise that you have some real, deep-down objection to this identification of the trump figures on card as ones based on everyday images. What I don't understand is - why.​

 

[mac22]

'Long established' astronomical figures have of course themselves changed with time (even by the period we are specifically looking at if looking into the sources), but even if that was not so, the various allegories of planets and asterisms form but one of the cultural strata out of which tarot emerges. To claim, out of the social-political spectrum in existence of the times that the foundation for the empress type is the stellar form of the legend of Cassiopeia when depictions of the office of the Empress was there for all to see and be affected by, seems to not seeing what is 'obvious' - coinage and myriad images of the office bear this out.

The same question, then, can be asked back, literally (altering only the composition of the question):

Look, D: I realise that you have some real, deep-down objection to this identification of the trump figures on card as ones based on everyday images. What I don't understand is - why.​

I'd kinda like to know the answer to that question myself.

Mac22